Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 31 October 2022

Ordinary Meeting

Meeting Date: Monday, 31 October, 2022

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

Time: 5.30pm

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

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

Shoalhaven City Council live streams its Ordinary Council Meetings and Extra Ordinary Meetings. These can be viewed at the following link

https://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Council/Meetings/Stream-a-Council-Meeting.

Statement of Ethical Obligations

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

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

Agenda

1. Acknowledgement of Country

2. Moment of Silence and Reflection

3. Australian National Anthem

4. Apologies / Leave of Absence

5. Confirmation of Minutes

· Ordinary Meeting - 10 October 2022

6. Declarations of Interest

7. Presentation of Petitions

8. Mayoral Minute

Mayoral Minute

MM22.27..... Mayoral Minute - Congratulations - 2022 IMB Bank Illawarra Business Awards Winners........................................................................................................... 1

MM22.28..... Mayoral Minute - Safe Shelter Shoalhaven................................................... 2

9. Deputations and Presentations

10. Call Over of the Business Paper

11. A Committee of the Whole (if necessary)

12. Committee Reports

Nil

13. Reports

City Performance

CL22.541..... Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns - September 2022............. 3

CL22.542..... Investment Report - September 2022............................................................ 5

City Futures

CL22.543..... Policy - Events.............................................................................................. 15

CL22.544..... Proposed Update Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Subdivision Chapter (DCP2014.24)............................................................. 17

CL22.545..... Proponent Planning Proposal Request - 48 to 54 Paradise Beach Road, Sanctuary Point (includes former Anglican Church site)............................................... 23

CL22.546..... Exhibition Outcomes/Proposed Finalisation - Planning Proposal (PP064) - Willinga Park Equestrian Centre, Bawley Point - Functions...................................... 41

CL22.547..... Tree Management in Shoalhaven - Proposed Trial Amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - 45 Degree Rule and Asset Protection Zone Clearing........................................................................................................ 66

CL22.548..... Update and Proposed Next Steps - Land Use Planning Changes for Agritourism...................................................................................................................... 74

City Services

CL22.549..... Natural Disaster Recovery - Change to CEO Delegation of Authority........ 82

CL22.550..... Policy - Tree Management Policy - Public Land.......................................... 85

CL22.551..... Policy - Rural Fire Services Stations - Community Use.............................. 86

CL22.552..... Policy - Management of Mobile Food Vending Vehicles on Council Owned or Managed Land.............................................................................................. 91

CL22.553..... Proposed Acquisition - Lot B DP 367157 - 49 Meroo Street Bomaderry.... 94

CL22.554..... Tenders - Bitumen Spray Sealing of Pavements - July 2022 to June 2024 97

City Development

CL22.555..... Variations to Development Standards - September Quarter 2022.............. 99

CL22.556..... Development Application Fee Reimbursement Request - Southern Cross Community Housing Ltd - RA22/1002........................................................................... 107

City Lifestyles

CL22.557..... Feasibility Study - Community Infrastructure at Wowly Creek Reserve, Callala Bay.................................................................................................................... 110

CL22.558..... Policy - Shoalhaven City Council Art Collection - Acquisition and Management 129

CL22.559..... Policy - Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre Sponsorship........................... 139

CL22.560..... Policy - Shoalhaven Arts Board Terms of Reference................................ 141

CL22.561..... Tenders - Park Road Netball Court Resurfacing....................................... 148

Shoalhaven Water

CL22.562..... Acquisition for Easement of Water Supply - Lot 129 DP 3060 and Lot 110 DP 131219 - Moss Vale Rd Bomaderry........................................................................ 150

CL22.563..... Connection to Conjola Sewerage System - Lot 320 DP 788391 - 24 Coolibah Ave, Conjola Park............................................................................................... 154

14. Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL22.564..... Notice of Motion - Burton St Mall - Vincentia - Toilet Amenities................ 157

CL22.565..... Notice of Motion - Provision of Waste Vouchers for Men’s Sheds............ 159

CL22.566..... Notice of Motion - Call in of Development Application DA22/1614 - 5 Flora St, Sanctuary Point.......................................................................................... 161

CL22.567..... Notice of Motion - Comerong Island Road Closure................................... 162

CL22.568..... Notice of Motion - Lake Tabourie Community Connectivity – Proposed Lake Tabourie Pathway Network........................................................................................ 164

CL22.569..... Notice of Motion - DA22/1542 - 1 Buchan Street Mollymook - Lot 14 DP 20321 166

CL22.570..... Notice of Motion - Review of Policy 22/18 - Waiving of Development Application Fees and Other Fees for Charitable Organisations & Community Groups........ 167

CL22.571..... Notice of Motion - Development Application Fee Reimbursement Request - Anglican Church Property Trust Diocese of Sydney - DA22/1550........................... 171

CL22.572..... Notice of Motion - Affordable Housing....................................................... 172

CL22.573..... Question on Notice - Gross Pollutant Traps / Drain Buddies in the Shoalhaven 173

CL22.574..... Question on Notice - Youth Week 2022..................................................... 175

CL22.575..... Question on Notice - Conjola Community Recovery Association (CCRA) Transfer of Funds.......................................................................................................... 178

CL22.576..... Question on Notice - Huskisson Church.................................................... 180

15. Confidential Reports

Reports

CCL22.29.... Proposed Acquisition - Lot B DP 367157 - 49 Meroo Street Bomaderry

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

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

CCL22.30.... Tenders – Bitumen Spray Sealing of Pavements - July 2022 to June 2024

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

CCL22.31.... Tender - Park Road Netball Court Resurfacing

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

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.542 Investment Report - September 2022

HPERM Ref: D22/432178

Department: Finance

Approver: Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. Shoalhaven Monthly Report - September 2022 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

In accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, a written report is provided to Council setting out the details of all funds it has invested.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive the Record of Investments for the period to 30 September 2022.

2. Note that Council’s total Investment Portfolio (excluding the Long-Term Growth Fund) returned 1.90% per annum for the month of September 2022, outperforming the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (1.79% pa) by 11 basis points (0.11%).

3. Note the performance of the Long-Term Growth Fund as presented in the report.

Options

1. The report on the Record of Investments for the period to 30 September 2022 be received for information.

Implications: Nil

2. Further information regarding the Record of Investments for the period to 30 September 2022 be requested.

Implications: Nil

3. The report of the Record of Investments for the period to 30 September 2022 be received for information, with any changes requested for the Record of Investments to be reflected in the report for the period to 31 October 2022.

Implications: Nil

Background

Please refer to the attached monthly report provided by Council’s independent Investment Advisor, Imperium Markets Pty Ltd.

Portfolio Return

The overall portfolio (excluding cash) returned a negative -2.5% p.a. for the month of September 2022, due to the negative movement of the growth fund.

The investment returns excluding growth fund were a stable 1.90% p.a., outperforming the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (1.79% p.a.) by 11bp p.a (0.11%).

Investments (Excluding Long-Term Growth Fund)

The following graph shows the performance of Council’s Investment Portfolio (excluding Long-Term Growth Fund) against the benchmark on a rolling twelve (12) month basis. As can be seen, performance has consistently exceeded the benchmark due to the mix of Council’s Investment Portfolio.

It should be noted that the Bank Bill Index will respond to increasing interest rates more quickly than Council’s average returns. This is due to Council’s limitations to reinvest when term deposits with lower interest rates reach their maturity, resulting in average returns lower than the benchmark. As Council reinvests its maturing term deposits, its returns will improve back above the benchmark as indicated with the positive return in September after the dip below the benchmark in August.

Investment Interest Earned – September 2022

The following table shows the interest earned for the month of September 2022.

Fund	Monthly Budget $	Actual Earned $	Difference $
General	124,027	129,207	5,180
Water	62,137	92,853	30,716
Sewer	29,534	57,169	27,635
Total excluding Long-Term Growth Fund	215,698	279,229	63,531

The interest earned for the month of September, excluding changes in the fair value of the TCorp Long-Term Growth Fund was $279,229 compared to the monthly budget of $215,698.

Investment Interest Earned - Year to Date

The following table demonstrates how the actual amount of interest earned year to date has performed against the total budget.

Fund	Original Total Annual Budget $	Actual YTD $	% Achieved
General	1,509,000	323,222	21.42%
Water	756,000	238,155	31.50%
Sewer	359,333	150,659	41.93%
Total excluding Long-Term Growth Fund	2,624,333	712,036	27.13%

The cumulative interest earned for the year (July to September), excluding the change in fair value of TCorp Long-Term Growth Fund was $712,036 which is 27.13% of the current full year budget.

It should be noted that a portion of the General Fund $1,509,000 budget will be attributed to the Long-Term Growth Fund, in the September Quarterly Budget Review. This adjustment will reduce the General Fund Budget and increase the Long-Term Growth Fund by $250,000.

Following this change, the monthly budget for General Fund will be $103,479 and the annual budget will reduce to $1,259,000. The actual YTD of $323,222 represents an achievement of 25.67% of budget compared to 25.20% of the year passed.

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

Chart, scatter chart

Description automatically generated

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Long-Term Growth Fund

Council’s investment in TCorp’s Long-Term Growth Fund returned a negative $604,589 or -32.41% (annualised) for the month of September 2022, offsetting previous significant market gains, bringing the financial year-to-date return to a negative -0.46% and rolling twelve (12) months return to a negative -9.45%.

It is important to note that TCorp has a target of 3.5% above inflation of 2.5%, therefore the long-term target is expected to return an average of 6.0% per annum (benchmark) over a seven-year cycle with positive months outweighing the negative months over the long-term.

The following graph shows the performance of Council’s Long-Term Growth Fund against the benchmark on a rolling twelve (12) months basis.

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Cash and Restricted Assets

Record Of Investments
Cash and Investment Balances
	$	$
	September 2022	August 2022
Cash and Investments Held
Cash at Bank - Transactional Account	4,530,024	20,060,028
Cash on Hand	20,191	20,191
Other Cash and Investments	186,893,140	185,474,791
	191,443,355	205,555,010
Fair Value Adjustment	(204,441)	(288,089)
Bank Reconciliation	186,567	338,837
	(17,874)	50,748
Book Value of Cash and Investments	191,425,481	205,605,758
Less Cash & Investments Held in Relation to Restricted Assets
Employee Leave Entitlements	7,049,913	7,049,913
Critical Asset Compliance	464,738	464,877
Other Internal Reserves	3,397,642	2,889,282
Section 7.11 Matching Funds	278,906	300,522
Strategic Land Development Reserve	6,357,661	6,619,575
Plant Replacement	1,106,981	1,165,661
S7.11 Recoupment	535,511	277,604
Water Communication Towers	4,784,422	4,669,993
Commitment To Capital Works	2,012,742	2,036,905
Total Internally Restricted	25,988,516	25,474,332

Loans - General Fund	5,150,831	8,934,953
Self-Insurance Liability	3,250,591	3,241,593
Grant reserve	25,427,494	28,160,683
Section 7.11	19,105,589	21,066,382
Special Rate Variation	5,062,408	5,384,440
Storm Water Levy	374,535	319,592
Trust - Mayors Relief Fund	107,899	107,732
Trust - General Trust	4,780,380	4,756,452
Waste Disposal	3,642,347	6,345,341
Sewer Fund	31,943,738	33,293,116
Sewer Plant Fund	4,990,627	4,873,875
Section 64 Water	20,944,056	20,797,476
Water Fund	29,982,686	29,428,944
Water Plant Fund	7,226,528	7,093,640
Total Externally Restricted	161,989,709	173,804,219

Total Restricted	187,978,225	199,278,551
Unrestricted Cash Balance - General Fund	3,447,256	6,327,207

NOTE: The Water Communication Towers reserve is no longer an external restriction, changed to internal on 30 June 2022.

Restricted Asset Movements

The table below lists the major movements in cash reserves increase/(decrease):

Total Cash	(14,180,275)	September is not a rate instalment month. Expenditure on major capital projects.
Other Internal Reserves	508,361	Insurance expense recovery.
Loans - General Fund	(3,784,122)	Delivery of major capital projects funded by loans including Boongaree, Materials Recovery Facility and Lake Conjola Entrance Road.
Section 7.11	(1,960,793)	Delivery of capital projects.
Waste Disposal	(2,702,994)	September not a rates instalment month and Materials Recovery Facility project.
Sewer Fund	(1,349,378)	Various capital projects.
Water Fund	553,742	Receipts from ratepayers.
Unrestricted cash	(2,879,948)	September is not a rates instalment month.

Liquidity Indicators

In accordance with the Liquidity Contingency Plan as endorsed by Council, the following liquidity indicators are included in the Monthly Investment Report to enhance the transparency of Council’s financial reporting.

All liquidity ratios remain above their respective benchmarks and Council remains in a sound financial position.

Please note the historic trends for some key financial indicators such as Unrestricted Current Ratio, Cash Expense Cover Ratio and Unrestricted Cash were added below as requested by Council at a previous meeting.

Unrestricted Current Ratio

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

The Unrestricted Current Ratio is an indicator used to assess the adequacy of working capital and its ability to satisfy obligations in the short term for the unrestricted activities of Council.

Unrestricted Current Ratio = (Current Assets less all external restrictions) / (Current Liabilities less specific purpose liabilities)

The ratio remains above the benchmark for all funds.

The first graph displays the September 2022 Unrestricted Current Ratio and, the second graph displays the previous rolling 12-months Unrestricted Current Ratio by fund.

Unrestricted Current Ratio Excluding Internal Reserves

Chart, bar chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Unrestricted Current Ratio Excluding Internal Reserves is an indicator used to assess the adequacy of working capital and its ability to satisfy obligations in the short term for the unrestricted activities of Council.

Unrestricted Current Ratio Excluding Internal Reserves = (Current Assets less all external and internal restrictions) / (Current Liabilities less specific purpose liabilities)

The ratio remains above the benchmark for all funds.

Cash Expense Cover Ratio Excluding External Restrictions

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Cash Expense Cover
Ratio Excluding External Restrictions takes the OLG calculation for the Cash Expense Cover Ratio and removes external restrictions to represent the amount of months Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without resorting to external restrictions.

The ratio remains above the benchmark of 3 months as at the end of September for all funds.

Cash Expense Cover Ratio

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Cash Expense Cover Ratio indicates the number of months a Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without additional cash inflow.

Cash expense cover ratio = (Cash equivalents, TDs and FRNs x 12) / (Payments from cash flow of operating and financing activities)

The ratio remains above the benchmark of 3 months as at the end of September 2022 for all funds.

The first graph displays the September 2022 Cash Expenses Cover Ratio and, the second graph displays the previous rolling 9-months Cash Expenses Cover Ratio by fund.

Unrestricted Cash

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Unrestricted Cash is calculated as a total Cash and Investments, less external and Internal restrictions.

The unrestricted cash balance remains above the benchmark as at the end of September for Sewer and Water funds and close to benchmark for the General fund.

The unrestricted cash is relatively low in September due to timing of receipts from rates and significant payments for capital projects in September.

The benchmark is set up at 5% of budgeted cash outflows (excluding investment purchases and expenditures funded by reserves).

The first graph displays the September 2022 Unrestricted Cash Ratio and, the second graph displays the previous rolling 9-months Unrestricted Cash Ratio by fund.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2021 and Council’s Investments Policy POL 22/78.

Don Johnston Date: 20^th October 2022

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.544 Proposed Update Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Subdivision Chapter (DCP2014.24)

HPERM Ref: D22/395762

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Draft Chapter G11 and Supporting Document 1 (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Draft Introduction (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Draft Dictionary (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to seek a resolution of Council to commence the formal exhibition of the draft update amendment to the Subdivision (G11) and ancillary chapters of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Support the exhibition of the draft Subdivision Amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014, consisting of the following chapters, for a period of 28 days as per legislative requirements:

a. Draft Chapter 1: Introduction.

b. Draft Chapter G11: Subdivision.

c. Draft Dictionary.

2. Facilitate an Industry workshop/information session during the public exhibition period.

3. Receive a further report on the draft Subdivision Amendment following the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

4. Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives, of this decision and exhibition arrangements.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable the resolution of a range of operational issues and matters that require clarification to improve the function of the subdivision and ancillary chapters in the DCP.

The current chapter is outdated, confusing and in parts, not consistent with industry best practice. The Amendment will result in contemporary provisions that consider urban design, amenity, subdivision and opportunities for resulting development in a balanced and sustainable way.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes and could delay the implementation of updated and more appropriate subdivision related development provisions.

3. Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This could stop the implementation of more appropriate and better structured subdivision provisions in the DCP. This option is not preferred as the current approach is outdated, confusing and in parts, not consistent with industry best practice.

Background

Amendment Context

In June 2015 Council resolved to undertake large-scale systematic reviews/amendments of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 to address several existing Council resolutions and other matters identified since the commencement of the original plan on 22 October 2014.

This process has been ongoing alongside other strategic planning work. Comprehensive reviews of Council’s development controls relating to low and medium density residential development has been undertaken/completed, resulting in the following contemporary chapters:

· Chapter G12: Dwelling Houses, Rural Worker’s Dwellings, Additions and Ancillary Structures.

· Chapter G13: Medium Density and Other Residential Development.

Current DCP Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land provides more detailed provisions (controls and guidelines) to facilitate a range of subdivision opportunities consistent with the Local Environmental Plan across Shoalhaven. As such the DCP chapter does not create the legal opportunity for subdivision of land, but it does outline more detailed controls and guidelines for the subdivision of land and strata subdivisions e.g., neighbourhood design, street network, stormwater, servicing etc. Updating Chapter G11 is identified as a priority project in Council’s adopted Strategic Planning Works Program.

The Draft Amendment

The proposed draft Amendment includes the following:

· The repeal of existing Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land.

· Proposed new Chapter G11: Subdivision and supporting Technical Design Specifications (Attachment 1).

· Minor housekeeping type changes to Chapter 1: Introduction (Attachment 2).

· Proposed consequential amendment to the DCP Dictionary resulting from the above changes (Attachment 3).

The proposed new Chapter G11 applies to the subdivision of land and buildings, across the three main types of subdivision possible in NSW: Torrens subdivision, community title subdivision and strata subdivision.

Essentially, the draft Amendment proposes to improve the function of the subdivision controls that apply across the City, address gaps in policy and address operational issues or matters that need clarification that have been identified since the original DCP became effective on 22 October 2014.

The proposed amendment is a result of a number of years of engagement with technical specialists across Council, including 4 rounds of targeted internal consultation and a number of workshops.

The most notable/key components of the proposed new Chapter G11 are outlined in the following Table:

Change Theme	Key Change
General Chapter structure and layout	· Relocated technical content into Supporting Document 1 to enhance readability. · Rationalised figures/images as required. · Deletion of content that is duplicated in the LEP or elsewhere in the DCP. · Consolidated and reordered provisions into a more logical framework. · Refinement of road network terminology and characteristics. · Refinement of policies, guidelines and legislation in the ‘Other legislation you may need to check’ section. · Changes to ensure consistency with other related and recently amended DCP chapters, e.g., Chapter G2: Sustainable Stormwater Management and Erosion/Sediment Control.
Generic changes throughout	· Introduction of objectives regarding retention of existing mature trees (where practicable) to provide shade and reduce the heat island effect in accordance with Council’s resolution of 6 December 2016 (MIN16.949). · The relocation of the ‘Residential Neighbourhood Design’ performance criteria to relevant sections as required. The wording: ‘No recommended acceptable solution. Each situation requires an individual approach’ has been deleted where there was a conflict between other relevant sections which provided an acceptable solution.
Subdivision Layout and Design	· Rationalisation and consolidation of lot size and dimension requirements, as well as building envelope standards. · Removal of frontage width and depth/width ratios for industrial development. · Amendment of the dual occupancy subdivision provisions to reflect the recent changes to the LEP (Amendment No. 35). The provisions now relate to other forms of medium density development and redundant or duplicated content has been removed. · Refinement and clarification of controls and intent relating to Torrens subdivision of certain medium density development. · Inclusion of controls to enable the provision and protection of rooftop solar systems in accordance with Council’s resolution of 6 October 2020 (MIN20.711). · The single use access corridor width for residential battle-axe lots has been decreased from 6m to 4m to be consistent with multiple use access corridor widths. · Number of lots/dwellings gaining access from a right of way has been reduced from 6 to 4. · Inclusions of provisions relating to Asset Protection Zones.
Transport and road network design and construction	· Introduction of street tree planting as a way to restrain traffic speeds and volumes. · Widening of footpath widths as follows: - Pedestrian footpath: 1.5m wide (existing 1.2m) - In the vicinity of meeting points, schools, shops and other activity centres: 2m (existing 1.4m). - Cycle paths and shared paths: 2.5m width with a 16% maximum longitudinal gradient. · Introduction of provisions requiring footpaths on one side of streets with traffic volumes over 500 vehicles per day (existing 2000 vpd). · Cul-de-sacs are to provide a sufficient area for a single movement for waste collection vehicles to avoid reversing where possible. · Technical reference updates - Removed reference to “RTAD96/6” and “Construction Specification C271” and replace with “RMS Supplement to AS1742.10 and TDT 2011/01a”. · Increase walkable distance to bus route from 500m to 800m consistent with Austroads requirements.
Streetscape design	· Reduction in footpath trees in residential subdivisions from 2 trees per lot to 1 large tree per lot and deletion of spacing requirements. It is often impractical to provide two street trees when considering driveways and services. One large, well-considered street tree will better assist in reducing the heat island effect (MIN16.949) into the future than two impractical trees that may ultimately fail or need to be removed. Maintenance period has been extended from 6 months to 12 months to reflect other maintenance/bond requirements in the Chapter.
Stormwater and flooding	· Revision of stormwater provisions to include reference to the latest version of ‘Australian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estimation’ and increase the AEP flow to 10% (existing 5%) for commercial subdivision. · Clarification that building envelopes on small infill lots that are flood prone are to comply with Chapter G9: Development on Flood Prone Land to remove inconsistency between the two chapters. · New objective added regarding water sensitive urban design.
Environmental Considerations	· Removed provisions relating to the conservation of ecological diversity and promotion of ecologically sustainable development in relation to rural subdivision. Whilst important, the content of the existing acceptable solutions duplicates content elsewhere within the DCP which is not considered necessary. · Refinement of geotechnical requirements. · Inclusion of a mandatory control regarding bushfire consideration.
Public Open Space	· Clarification that fruit or nut bearing trees are not acceptable for street trees or for planting in Council managed parks, reserves and public open spaces. · Needs analysis requirement to determine and provide adequate open space and community infrastructure for a development. This will need to be provided in areas where there is not adequate local or citywide provision to meet the infrastructure demands of the development.
Advisory Information	· Removal of all content regarding the naming of roads and address numbering. The two related Council policies are instead referred to in the advisory section of the Chapter. · ‘Bonding of Works in Subdivision’ commentary has been revised to clearly identify Council’s position, including the Deed of Agreement requirement. Under no circumstances will Council accept bonding of outstanding works within existing or future private lots. · Clarification that vegetation management plans, water sensitive urban design and major landscaping embellishments should be maintained in accordance with the approved management plans and be subject to a longer defects liability and maintenance period prior to handover to Council. · ‘Assessment of Bond Amount’ commentary has been revised to identify Council’s current standard practice – 30% bond with 5% contingency. The minimum maintenance period has been extended to 12 months with the requirement for the road/s to be open to the public for this period. · ‘Defects Liability (Maintenance) of Works’ commentary has been revised to: - Update the terminology of the defects and liability (maintenance) period including the minimum 12-month maintenance period. - Reflect Council’s current structure with appropriate responsible officer/position. - Identify Council’s position in relation to subdivision civil works and bond within the defect liability period.

The proposed new Technical Design Specifications is a new supporting document to Chapter G11 that seeks to consolidate all the detailed and technical requirements relating to subdivision in one central location. The technical provisions in current Chapter G11 are located in the Advisory Information section, or throughout the control section. There is no consistency to this information and as a result, the current chapter is difficult to navigate and use.

The key changes to the technical design specification detail includes:

· Revision of the road carriageway width to be invert-to-invert, which is an industry standard (Austroads, Australian Standards, Transport for NSW/RMS, neighbouring Councils).

· Revised road typologies and dimensions/construction specifications (including plans/sections) for all road typologies.

· Refinement of classification of streets to resolve previously experienced road width issues.

· Deletion of duplication between Council’s Engineering Design Specifications and the DCP provisions.

· Update location of intersections to include all road typologies, and application of approach site distance (as per Austroads AGTRD4A).

· Refinement of geometric road design and minimum stopping distance requirements.

· ‘Rural right of way construction standards’ (existing Table 12 in Chapter G11) has been amended to consolidate the number of lots serviced by a right of way to 4 and to simplify the table.

The associated Amendments to DCP Chapter 1: Introduction and the Dictionary includes:

· Chapter 1: Introduction:

- Revision of terminology relating to DCP variations to provide more appropriate commentary regarding reasonable alternative solutions.

- Making references to State Environmental Planning Policies generic to acknowledge that a range of SEPPs enable exempt development.

- Replaced reference to Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 (and link) with Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 which is Council’s contemporary contributions plan.

· Dictionary:

- Change in term name from ‘Variation Statement’ to ‘Performance Based Solution Statement’ to reflect the proposed changes to Chapter 1: Introduction above. No changes to the definition are proposed.

- Introduction of new terms and definitions: Access place and Industrial road.

- Refinement of existing terms and definitions: Access street, Collector road, Laneway, Local distributor road and Local road/street.

Community Engagement

If accepted, the draft Amendment will be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days in accordance with legislative requirements.

Development Industry representatives will be directly notified of the exhibition arrangements and a workshop/information session will be held during the exhibition period for the Development Industry.

Policy Implications

The Development Control Plan

The draft Amendment seeks to introduce further user-friendly DCP provisions in a logical structure that addresses gaps in policy and respond to operational matters that have arisen through time.

Should the Amendment not proceed, these fundamental concerns will not be addressed.

It is proposed that draft Chapter G11: Subdivision will ultimately replace the existing Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land due to the substantial review of the content and structure that has been undertaken as part of the review process.

Engineering Design Specifications

The current and draft Chapter G11 makes reference to specifications within Council’s Engineering Design Specifications (EDS) document. This document provides detail to guide the design and construction of infrastructure within Shoalhaven, The EDS is currently applied/managed in two different ways within Shoalhaven:

1. The City Development and City Services Directorates have recently updated the EDS to align with industry best standards, and this revised version is currently being applied to Council infrastructure. This version is not publicly available as it has not been endorsed by Council for use by the broader industry.

2. The older (Council endorsed) EDS remains in use for private development - the EDS in the link above.

There is merit in working towards the public exhibition and endorsement of the revised EDS so that it can also be used for private development. This will ensure that a consistent approach is applied across the City in this regard. It is noted that the references to the EDS in the draft Chapter G11 are generic, and as such, the Chapter will not need to be amended in the future to update EDS references.

Financial Implications

This project will continue to be resourced within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

Risk Implications

Should the draft Amendment not proceed, there is a risk that Council will not be able to respond to subdivision proposals in a way that holistically considers matters such as urban design, amenity and development in a balanced and sustainable way. This could result in poor built form, road network, drainage, recreation, environmental and liveability outcomes for both residents and the broader community. There are also matters that need to be revised to ensure the planning controls continue to operate as expected/intended and resolve inconsistencies and duplications.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.545 Proponent Planning Proposal Request - 48 to 54 Paradise Beach Road, Sanctuary Point (includes former Anglican Church site)

HPERM Ref: D22/334804

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Summary of Preliminary Community Submissions - Paradise Beach Road PP Request ⇩

Reason for Report

The reason for this report is to present a proponent-initiated Planning Proposal (rezoning) request for initial consideration by the Council, related to Lot 80 DP 817353 and Lot 921 DP 27856 (48-54 Paradise Beach Road) Sanctuary Point. The applicant is PDC Lawyers & Town Planners Pty Ltd on behalf of the landowner (Container Group Investments Pty Ltd/A.Papagelou).

Recommendation

That Council

1. Support the proponent’s request, in part only, by progressing a Planning Proposal that seeks to:

a. rezone the subject land to R3 Medium Density Residential

b. apply a building height limit of 8.5 m over the subject land, as opposed to the requested 13m

2. Confirm, in relation to Council’s fees for progressing proponent-initiated planning proposals, that any Planning Proposal over the subject land that seeks to rezone the land to residential will be treated as ‘major’.

3. Request the proponents to also provide one-bedroom units to provide affordable housing opportunities should they proceed with the proposal and the resultant development.

Options

1. Support the Planning Proposal request in full as submitted: this would involve progressing a Planning Proposal that seeks to rezone the land to R3 Medium Density Residential and increase the proposed Height of Buildings (HOB) to 13 m.

Implications: This option would potentially allow a four (4) storey development to be considered on the subject land. Surrounding development is one to two storeys high.

This option would potentially maximise the potential provision of housing on the site. However, notwithstanding the conclusions of the proponent’s Urban Design Assessment, the proposed height increase on balance would potentially create an undesirable precedent for the broader locality. It would also potentially impact significantly on the amenity of several adjoining residential properties and be at odds with the local character. Various concerns have been raised by neighbouring landowners in this regard. Option Not supported.

2. Support the Planning Proposal request in part: progress a Planning Proposal to rezone the land to R3 and apply an 8.5m building height limit rather than the proponent’s requested height limit of 13m.

The mapped building height limit on the immediately adjacent and surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zoned land is 8.5m. An 8.5m height limit is also more consistent with the built form in the broader locality, including within the adjacent R3 Medium Density-zoned land. Option Recommended.

Alternatively, an 11m building height limit could be applied across the site. This would be consistent with the height limit in the adjacent R3 land and the nearby Sanctuary Point commercial area.

Implications: The site attributes that favour a R3 zoning include:

· Land on the northern side of Paradise Beach Road is zoned R3

· Access and proximity to the services and facilities associated with the Sanctuary Point commercial area.

· Relatively large site area provides an opportunity to design a development that is sympathetic to adjoining residential development, particularly to the north-east.

However, consideration needs to be given to the full range of uses that could eventuate in the R3 zone under a range of building height limits, such as shop-top housing, and the desirability of these in isolation in this location.

For example, an 11m building height limit would potentially allow a three (3) storey residential flat building. The NSW Government’s Apartment Design Guide could be applied under the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65). The proponent’s Urban Design Assessment is structured around the nine Design Principles contained in SEPP 65.

An 8.5m building height limit would effectively limit any development to a maximum of two (2) storeys, consistent with surrounding development. There is also a hybrid option that could see a lesser building height limit applied to part of the subject land to help reduce impacts on the adjoining residential properties off Gibson Crescent.

Advice can be provided should Council consider other variations under this option.

3. Not support the Planning Proposal or support in another form.

Implications: Given that the SP2 zoned land has been sold and is no longer used as a ‘place of public worship’, it is not appropriate to retain this zoning which effectively sterilises/limits the land. Should Council decide not to support rezoning the land to R3, it may be appropriate to consider rezoning it to R2 Low Density Residential and applying an 8.5 m building height limit (consistent with R2 land more broadly).

If the SP2 land is ultimately rezoned to R2, dual occupancies and secondary dwellings would be permissible and potentially result in a similar density of development to Option 2. The disadvantage of this option however is that it would result in a more ad hoc development outcome that is potentially less sympathetic to the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

For example, if the land is subdivided, the individual lots could be separately purchased and developed (and possibly redeveloped) over time. Thus, there is less ability to achieve a good overall development outcome that makes best use of the site while also respecting the amenity of the adjacent residents.

Background

Subject Land

The subject land is made up of Lot 80 DP 817353 (former Anglican Church site) and Lot 921 DP 27856 (54 Paradise Beach Road), Sanctuary Point. The subject land and aerial photograph are provided in Figure 1.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Subject land and aerial photo

Existing development on the subject land

The subject land is rectangular in shape, has a total area of approximately 2,400 m2 and currently contains the following:

· Single storey church building, which was erected by the Anglican Church on the western side of Lot 80 DP 817353 in 1986 (BA86/1179). A car park for the church is located on the eastern side of the Lot. Lot 80 ceased to be used as a church several years ago and was sold to the current owner in 2021. The church building is currently used by Noah’s Inclusion Services, a registered NDIS provider.

· Single storey dwelling, which was approved on Lot 921 (54 Paradise Beach Road) in 1991 (BA91/0498). The property was purchased by the current owner in early 2022.

The subject land slopes gently toward Paradise Beach Road and has minimal vegetation apart from a mature tree on the western side of the carpark and shrubs on the north-eastern side of the carpark and landscaping around the dwelling at 54 Paradise Beach Road.

A photo of the subject land is provided in Figure 2.

A picture containing sky, road, outdoor, tree

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 – Site viewed from Paradise Beach Road: former church building second on the right and the single storey dwelling at 54 Paradise Beach Road second on the left.

Surrounding development

The Sanctuary Point Library is currently next to the church, at 46 Paradise Beach Road (the building on the right in Figure 2) which is owned by the Department of Education. A new library is proposed on Council’s land adjacent to Kerry Street and the Department’s intentions for the current library site are currently unclear.

The Sanctuary Point Public School site currently extends from 38-44 Paradise Beach Road to Lot 8 DP 805351 (41 Idlewild Avenue).

The Sanctuary Point commercial centre is less than 150m to the west, along Paradise Beach Road.

The subject land immediately adjoins low density residential land to the north-east and south-east which is characterised by one and two storey detached dwellings.

Opposite the site between Paradise Beach Road and the St Georges Basin Golf Course, there is a mix of one and two storey residential development including detached dwellings, duplexes, and multi dwelling housing. A photo of a single storey multi dwelling housing development directly opposite the subject land is provided as Figure 3.

A picture containing road, tree, outdoor, sky

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 – Single storey medium density development opposite the subject land.

A one and two storey motel approved in 1988, known as the Golf View Motel, is located diagonally opposite the subject land to the northwest.

A photo of an adjacent, more recent, one and two storey medium density development that was completed in 2018 is provided in Figure 4.

A picture containing text, road, sky, outdoor

Description automatically generated

Figure 4 – one and two storey medium density development on the opposite side of Paradise Beach Road (No. 41), midway between the subject land and the Sanctuary Point shops.

Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014)

The subject land is currently zoned a mix of R2 Low Density Residential and SP2 Special Uses (Place of Public Worship). The maximum height of buildings (HOB) is currently 11m on the SP2 zoned land and mapped at 8.5 m on the R2 land - see Figure 5.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 – Current LEP zoning and building height controls

History of the SP2 zoning

The subject land was previously zoned Special Use 5(a)(Church) under the earlier Shoalhaven LEP 1985 (LEP 1985).

Under Clause 48 of LEP 1985 uses that were permissible in the adjoining residential land could also be considered/approved within the 5(a) zoned land if it was not being used as a church.

The Standard LEP Instrument (on which LEP 2014 is based) mandates that ‘places of public worship’ are permissible in certain zones, including the R2 and R3 residential zones. One of the State Government’s principles in regard to the use of SP zones is that they should not be used where the surrounding zone (e.g., in this case residential) permits the proposed use. This avoids the need for a ‘spot’ rezoning should a use cease or change in the future.

Notwithstanding the broader principles, given that Council generally applied a ‘like for like’ approach to the new LEP, a number of existing ‘places of public worship’, including the subject land, were zoned ‘SP2 - Place of Public Worship’ consistent with their previous 5(a) Church zoning. Had Council not followed this approach in the delivery of LEP 2014, it is highly likely that the subject land would have been zoned R2 at that point.

History of building height controls

Prior to the preparation of the LEP 2014, building height controls largely sat outside the LEP and were generally controlled via Development Control Plans (DCP’s) and a provision in the previous Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan (REP) that enabled Council to consider development up to 11m. Any development above 11m required the concurrence of the NSW Planning Minister (or a delegate).

With the move to the new Standard LEP Instrument, Council was required to include ‘height of building’ controls in its new LEP. This occurred in LEP 2014 in two ways:

• Zones, areas or sites were mapped at a specific height based on existing controls that may have been in place in existing DCP’s.

The current mapped maximum height of buildings generally for residential zones in the towns and villages around St Georges Basin are 8.5m, except for part of the St Georges Basin commercial area, where the mapped height is 8m (which was carried over from the former DCP No. 17).

• Under Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the LEP in those areas that are not mapped on the Height of Buildings (HOB) map overlay, buildings up to 11m can be considered.

Proponent’s Planning Proposal Request

Proponent’s Documentation

The proponent’s Planning Proposal request was formally received on 1 August 2022 and includes the following documentation (which can be viewed via the hyperlinks):

• Draft planning proposal

• Urban design assessment report

• Traffic impact assessment report

• Survey plan

• Concept plans

• Preliminary water & sewer comments

• Electrical report

• Massing views

• Shadow diagrams sheet 1

• Shadow diagrams sheet 2

The proponent also submitted a ‘commercial in-confidence’ feasibility assessment on 12 September (in response to staff feedback provided during the pre-lodgement process that a feasibility assessment should be done). The feasibility assessment is addressed briefly below but has not been made publicly available in accordance with the proponents’ request.

Proponents’ Economic Feasibility Assessment

The proponent submitted a feasibility assessment but advised that it is ‘commercial in-confidence’ because it contains “… indicative sale price information, but also price of acquisition of land and other matters (e.g., projected construction costs etc)” and requested that it not be made publicly available as a result.

The assessment, dated 7 September 2022, examined the feasibility of two scenarios:

· Three (3) storey apartment building with one level of basement parking

· Four (4) storey apartment building with two levels of basement parking

The feasibility assessment was based on plans and cost estimates provided by the proponent. It includes a monthly cashflow over a 21-month period and showed profitability of approx. 10% for the three level scenario and 12 % for the four level scenario.

Proponents’ explanation of provisions

The Planning Proposal request seeks to amend the LEP to:

• Rezone the subject land to R3 Medium Density Residential

• Increase the maximum Height of Buildings (HOB) for the subject land to 13 m.

Proponent’s objectives and intended outcomes

The proponent’s PP report states that the objectives are:

• To enable the subject site to be developed by way of multi-storey medium density residential development (an apartment building).

• To enable development to occur on part of the subject land up to 13m above natural ground level.

The Planning Proposal report also states that the intended outcomes are:

• The provision of housing in a well serviced location that is within walking distance to local shops, community facilities, and public transport.

• The provision of additional diverse housing and housing choice

• The responsible utilisation of well-located land

• A positive contribution to the character of Sanctuary Point

• A positive economic and social contribution to the local shopping centre

It is noted however that the proponents’ Urban Design Assessment states that the “…ground floor height should be high enough to allow for alternative commercial uses at the ground level, in order to provide for building flexibility and adaptability to respond to the needs of the local area in the future, with a medical or café use considered a potential use for adaptation.”

Comparison of the low and medium density zones

A comparison of the objectives and the pertinent permissible uses for the R2 (adjoining) and R3 (requested) zones is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 – Zone objectives and pertinent permissible uses in the R2 and R2 zones

	R2 Low Density Residential zone	R3 Medium Density Residential zone
Zone objectives	• 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.	• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. • To provide opportunities for development for the purposes of tourist and visitor accommodation where this does not conflict with the residential environment.
Pertinent uses permissible in both R2 and R3 zones.	Boarding houses; Centre-based childcare facilities; Community facilities; Dual occupancies; Group homes; Home-based child care; Home businesses, Home industries; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Respite day care centres; Secondary dwellings; Seniors housing (Housing SEPP)
Pertinent uses permissible in one but not the other zone	Bed and breakfast accommodation; Dwelling houses; Health consulting rooms; Semi-detached dwellings;	Emergency services facilities; Home occupations; Hostels; Information and education facilities; Multi dwelling housing; Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Shop top housing; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Veterinary hospitals

Local Character

With funding provided by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), consultants RobertsDay prepared a Shoalhaven local character assessment report in consultation with Council to assist with future related work.

The report titled Guiding Future Growth – Shoalhaven Character Assessments was completed in 2020. The RobertsDay report describes the existing character of Sanctuary Point as follows:

A middle order centre that sits on St Georges Basin, surrounded on three sides by the estuary, Sanctuary Point is a suburban and family-friendly town. It is a residential settlement supported by a retail and community core, with the amenities of Vincentia and the beaches of Jervis Bay a 10-minute drive away. Large suburban family homes in traditional post-war styles, clear public-private delineation and curved roads all add to the suburban character of this settlement. Sanctuary Point provides basic retail, services and recreational uses for surrounding settlements, offering a family-friendly and convenient place to live in a well-loved waterfront area.

The report describes the following ‘elements to retain’ in Sanctuary Point:

• Good selection of retail, services, recreation and community uses

• Simple built form character featuring brick and modest setbacks

The report also describes the following ‘elements to improve’ in Sanctuary Point:

• Amenity of the retail centre and its role as a community hub

• Lack of landscaping in newer areas

• Poorly serviced open spaces

• Poor permeability

• Estuarine and public foreshore assets

Preliminary Assessment

DPE’s LEP Making Guideline was released in December 2021, replacing the ‘Guide to preparing planning proposals’ and ‘Guide to making LEPs’. Council’s Planning Proposal Guidelines will be reviewed in coming months to ensure consistency with the new Guideline which contains more detailed criteria than was provided in the preceding guidelines. Hence, the assessment undertaken below focuses primarily on DPE’s Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (the Guideline).

DPE’s Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline states that a Planning Proposal must have strategic merit and site merit to be progressed.

Strategic merit is the degree to which a proposal is consistent with the NSW strategic planning framework, which includes a range of NSW Government and endorsed Council documents, and Ministerial directions issued under section 9.1 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Site merit is the site-specific environmental, social, and economic impacts/cost/benefits of the proposal.

Preliminary assessments of strategic and site merit are provided below.

Preliminary Strategic Merit Assessment

A preliminary strategic merit assessment is provided below. The following overarching strategic documents have been considered.

· Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan 2041 (ISRP)

· Shoalhaven 2032 Community Strategic Plan (CSP)

· Shoalhaven 2040 (Local Strategic Planning Statement - LSPS)

· Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy (GMS) (V1)

· Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy (JBSS) 2003

· Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy, December 2017

In summary, the proponents’ Planning Proposal is considered partly consistent and partly inconsistent with the strategic framework.

· The proponents’ proposed Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the strategic framework as it seeks to facilitate provision of additional housing within an existing urban area close to a range of services and social infrastructure associated with the Sanctuary Point commercial centre.

· However, Council’s strategic planning documents all include priorities/actions that any such proposal must consider the lifestyle needs of the adjoining residents, and potential impacts on local character and amenity.

· The proposed increase in building height provisions would potentially enable 4 storey building(s) to be considered. The proponents’ documentation does not adequately demonstrate that this height increase will not have unacceptable impacts on local amenity and character. This is also discussed further under ‘Preliminary Site Merit Assessment’ below.

Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan 2041 (ISRP)

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with this plan as it seeks to facilitate provision of additional housing within an existing urban area close to a range of services and social infrastructure associated with the Sanctuary Point commercial centre.

The proponents’ Planning Proposal report contends that the provision of medium density development will increase the supply and diversity of housing within an existing urban area, close to commercial and retail facilities and public transport (bus services).

Shoalhaven 2032 Community Strategic Plan (CSP)

Priority 2.2 is to ‘Manage growth and development with respect for environmental and community values’. One of the ‘outcomes’ sought under this priority is that ‘Development contributes to and enhances neighbourhood character’.

The subject land is well located to allow some form of residential development. The proponents’ Planning Proposal report contends that the proposal will improve the viability and vibrancy of the Sanctuary Point Village centre. The provision of additional housing in this location will help assist the viability of the Sanctuary Point commercial centre.

The proposed increase in building height provisions is however not considered appropriate given the nature of existing development in the locality, potential impacts on adjoining residential properties, and the precedent of increasing the height in this location.

Shoalhaven 2040 (Local Strategic Planning Statement - LSPS)

Priorities relevant to this Planning Proposal request include:

Planning Priority 1: Providing homes to meet all needs and lifestyles

Planning Priority 3: Providing jobs close to home

Planning Priority 13: Protecting and enhancing neighbourhoods

Comments:

· The subject land is close to the Sanctuary Point Commercial Centre, and as such, is well located to accommodate appropriate residential development.

· As noted in the proponents’ Planning Proposal: Increasing the number of people living in and around centres supports the viability of shops and businesses.

· However, any proposal to rezone the site to medium density residential and increase the building height controls needs to be balanced against the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents, and consideration of potential impacts on local character and amenity.

Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy (GMS) (V1)

The proposal to rezone the subject land to R3 and also increase the building height provisions to 13m is considered to be inconsistent with the following strategic directions in this Strategy:

C.5 Create connected urban areas that reinforce the strengths, individual character and identity of each place.

C.10 Encourage growth which promotes community wellbeing and quality of living throughout various stages of life.

Comment: the proposed building height increase would potentially impact on the amenity of adjoining residents and on this basis is not consistent with this direction.

EN.4 Create urban environments that meet community needs.

Comment: the proposed building height increase would potentially reduce solar access for adjacent dwellings located on Gibson Crescent and on this basis is not consistent with this direction.

Strategy Section 5 summarises the existing endorsed structure plans and settlement strategies including the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy, which is discussed below.

Strategy Section 6 provides a hierarchy of settlements in the LGA. The St Georges Basin district (including Sanctuary Point) is identified as one of several ‘major towns’, which should have a mix of low and medium density dwellings.

Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy, 2003

This Strategy recognises the need to identify and investigate opportunities for appropriate infill development, urban renewal and consolidation within existing urban areas in the longer term given the environmental constraints and finite social infrastructure and services (refer to Actions 1 and 2 under ‘Urban Renewal’). In this regard, the JBSS acknowledges the challenge of accommodating future housing demands without adversely impacting on local character.

The site is well located and large enough to accommodate an appropriate form of residential development. However, rezoning to R3 combined with an increase in the maximum height of buildings to 13m has the potential to substantially impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings and also possibly have an impact on local character.

Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy, December 2017

The subject land meets the numerical criteria of being within 600 m of B2 zoned land at Sanctuary Point. The proponent’s documentation indicates an intention to provide a mix of two and three bedroom units. No one bedroom units are proposed and there appears to be no intention to specifically provide an ‘affordable housing’ product. Hence, the proposal is only partly aligned with Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy.

The proponents should be requested to consider the provision of one bedroom units if they proceed with development.

Ministerial Directions under s 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

The relevant Ministerial Directions are briefly discussed below.

1.1 Implementation of Regional Plans

The proposal is broadly consistent with the Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan and therefore with this Direction. Refer to earlier discussion.

5.1 Integrating Land Use and Transport

The proposal is generally consistent with this Direction. The subject land is located within walking distance of the Sanctuary Point commercial centre and associated services and facilities. Bus services operate between Nowra/Bomaderry and the Bay and Basin area and locally.

6.1 Residential Zones

The proposal is generally consistent with this Direction apart from concerns about potential impacts on local amenity, loss of privacy, overshadow etc which are relevant to (1)(d) of this Direction. See discussion below under Preliminary Site Merit Assessment.

Precedent

The proposed increase in the maximum height of buildings (HOB) on the subject land to 13m would potentially set a precedent for the towns and villages around the St Georges Basin waterway given the inconsistency with the existing height controls that are discussed earlier in this report.

The Anson Street example discussed below is also relevant to this proposal given that it relates to the adjoining town of St Georges Basin.

Island Point Road (Anson Street) Planning Proposal

In 2019, Council finalised a Planning Proposal (PP023) to reduce the mapped HOB over Lots 1 and 6 in DP1082382 at Island Point Road (Anson Street), St Georges Basin, from 13m to 8.5m (and retain the 8 m HOB that applied to part of Lot 1).

The 13m building height limit was introduced when the LEP commenced in 2014, in response to landowner submissions as part of the process of transitioning to the Standard Instrument LEP format. It was first recommended at the time that the height increase not be supported as it was inconsistent with the former DCP No. 17 that applied to the locality.

Of relevance to the current Planning Proposal request, the rationale for PP023 was essentially that a 13m HOB was considered inconsistent with the existing and desired future character for the St Georges Basin area.

Preliminary Site Merit Assessment

DPE’s Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline includes the following site merit considerations:

• the natural environment on the site to which the proposal relates and other affected land (including known significant environmental areas, resources or hazards)

• existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of land in the vicinity of the land to which the proposal relates

• services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

Potential impacts on adjoining properties

The proposed increase in maximum building heights to 13 m (from 8.5 m and 11 m) would potentially have significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. The proponents’ information suggests that No’s 11, 13 and 15 Gibson Crescent would be severely impacted by overshadowing, reduced solar access, and loss of privacy.

• The midwinter shadow diagrams included in the Urban Design Assessment Report fail to adequately identify the existing dwellings and associated structures (including a swimming pool at 13 Gibson Crescent, which would be overshadowed from 2 pm onwards).

• Although the dwelling at 15 Gibson Crescent is not shown on the shadow diagrams, it appears that the solar panels would also be affected by shadowing. The orientation of the house 15 Gibson Crescent suggests that the living area would also be overshadowed.

• As shadow diagrams have not been provided for the mid-summer scenario, overshadowing for this time of year has not been assessed for either of the two most adversely affected adjoining properties.

• The Planning Proposal report claims that the urban design assessment has found the proposal competently manages the nine design principles of SEPP 65. The following comment is offered in regard to two of the principles:

o Principle 1 – Context and Neighbourhood Character. As discussed further below, the proposed increase in building height provisions is not considered to be in keeping with local character. The proponents’ shadow diagrams suggest that there would be significant overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the south/south-east (including a swimming pool in the rear yard of 13 Gibson Crescent) could potentially have health impacts on the occupants (e.g. arising from reduced use of the pool).

o Principle 2 – Built Form. “Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing and desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings”. Established one and two storey developments help establish the existing character. The desired future character for the area has also been influenced somewhat by the zoning of land on the north side of Paradise Road to R3 with a height limit of 11 metres.

The proponents’ Urban Design Assessment recommends that consideration be given to “…greater setbacks to the north-east side boundary, in return for relaxed setbacks to the south-west as a best means of equitably sharing setbacks and mitigating impacts.” The Assessment says that a 9 m setback should ideally be applied to the residential property to the NE. It is unclear if this is intended to mean to the boundary with No’s 11, 13 and 15 Gibson Crescent or to No 56 Paradise Beach Road.

Page 6 of the Urban Design Assessment also says:

There should also be 9m setbacks to the rear, although as these are vacant sites and non-rectilinear it is considered a 6m setback to the rear would achieve the objectives of the ADG for visual privacy.

The above statement possibly refers to No’s 13 and 15 Gibson Crescent, however these properties are not vacant, and they will be impacted by loss of privacy, overshadowing etc.

Local Character

The proponents’ Urban Design Assessment states that:

The proposed design is considered to be compatible with the character of the area without imitating the existing built form stock, much of which has a poor quality of design, and will be an harmonious addition to the area.

The Councils staff assessment, however, is that the proposed 13m height limit would have a significant impact on local character given:

• The comparative height difference between the proposed development (4 storeys) and existing development in Sanctuary Point (1 and 2 storeys).

• The site is prominently located on Paradise Beach Road (main entry road) and is relatively elevated.

• The bulk and scale of the suggested 4 storey apartment building would differ significantly from that of the existing development in the locality.

• Under the LEP 2014, the ‘maximum height of buildings’ at Sanctuary Point and surrounding townships of St Georges Basin and Vincentia etc is 8.5m and 11m.

Internal feedback

Strategic Transport

• The proponents’ traffic study has used 2014 traffic data and ideally should be updated with contemporary data at the appropriate point but is considered adequate for the purpose of progressing a Planning Proposal.

• A closer examination of the driveways would be required to ensure ramping up/down of the driveways does not create unsatisfactory pedestrian issues along the frontage.

• The description of proposal suggests sight distance at the driveway exit will be satisfactory however:

o There appears to be non-compliant obstructions

o Parking restrictions are likely to be required to ensure satisfactory sight distance(s)

• Implications of the motel located on the opposite side of Paradise Beach Road should be considered (at DA stage).

• If increased densities are to be considered in Sanctuary Point, a broader parking demand analysis should be undertaken to determine if additional parking will be required. The Shoalhaven Contributions Plan may then need to be updated to ensure that new developments contribute to the cost of providing increase in car parking

Shoalhaven Water

Shoalhaven Water has no objections to the Planning Proposal proceeding and provided technical feedback to the proponent in December 2021

City Development

· The adjoining R3 land is on the opposite side of Paradise Beach Road. The predominant adjoining zone is R2 Low Density Residential.

· Rezoning the subject land to R3 would be at odds with the surrounding development, as would the proposed height increase.

· Notes that the proponents’ Planning Proposal report refers to R3 Mixed Use Business. Is this meant to be R3 Medium Density Residential or B4 Mixed Use Business?

Conclusion

Any Planning Proposal should only be progressed if it has both strategic merit and site merit. Given the subject land’s position and close proximity to the Sanctuary Point commercial centre there is considered to be strategic merit in rezoning the land to enable medium density residential development provided impacts on local character and amenity are acceptable.

The proponent’s proposed 13m building height limit would potentially result in unacceptable impacts on local character and amenity. Adjoining residential properties, particularly those on Gibson Crescent would potentially be severely impacted if a building of the scale depicted in the proponent’s conceptual architectural drawings is built.

Thus it is recommended that Council progress a Planning Proposal that seeks to:

1. Rezone the subject land to R3 Medium Density Residential; and

2. Apply an 8.5m building height limit to the subject land.

Community Engagement

The proponent’s documentation was made available on Council’s pre-gateway Planning Proposal page.

The following community stakeholders were notified: adjoining/nearby landowners, the Basin Community Form (Community Consultative Body) and Sanctuary Point Community Pride.

In response, six (6) submissions were received, including from the three properties to the rear (No’s 11, 13 and 15 Gibson Crescent). All submissions were opposed to the proposed rezoning and height increase. The issues raised are listed below and are summarised in Attachment 1.

· Loss of privacy – particularly the properties off Gibson Crescent

· Loss of solar access (properties off Gibson Crescent)

· Impacts on local character, (noise, dust, visual impact)

· Traffic and car parking

· Children safety (overlooking the school playing field)

· Precedent of the proposed building height increase

· Affordable housing / housing affordability

· Social impacts (increased vandalism, increased competition for limited local jobs, increased strain on local services, e.g. health, primary school placements)

One submission acknowledged that the site is well suited for development but encouraged Council to not increase the height provisions above 11m. One submission stated that a far smaller medium density development consisting of simple townhouses would be better suited and would not impact the community as significantly.

If the land is ultimately rezoned, further opportunities for community input would result as part of the development application process.

Policy Implications

An 8.5m height limit would be consistent with other residential zones in the area and in keeping with the scale/character of the existing adjacent residential development. This height would also be consistent with land in close proximity to other centres in the broader area.

It would however be inconsistent with the majority of other R3 zones city wide, where the height limit is generally 11m (to enable some flexibility given the development nature of the zone). Given that the subject land is currently being specifically considered, a specific height in this circumstance is considered appropriate.

Financial Implications

If Council resolves to progress a Planning Proposal that seeks to rezone the land to enable residential development, the appropriate fees will be applied to recoup costs incurred by Council. A recommendation has been included to confirm that the Planning Proposal would be treated as ‘major’ in terms of the applicable fees.

Risk Implications

If Council does not support the proponent’s Planning Proposal as submitted, or it does not make a decision within 90 days of receipt, the proponent will have the option of applying to DPE for a pre-Gateway review.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.546 Exhibition Outcomes/Proposed Finalisation - Planning Proposal (PP064) - Willinga Park Equestrian Centre, Bawley Point - Functions

HPERM Ref: D22/280690

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Summary of Community Submissions and Proponent Responses (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Internal Consultation Summary - Proponent Responses ⇩

3. Covering letter - Proponent Response to Submissions ⇩

Reason for Report

Present the public exhibition outcomes of a Planning Proposal (PP064) for the Willinga Park Equestrian Centre (Willinga Park) at Bawley Point (Proponent - Capital Property Corporation through BBC Consulting Planners).

The PP seeks to change/clarify the planning provisions by making ‘function centre’ a site-specific permissible use, to broaden the range of events permitted on the site. The proponent is no longer pursuing a secondary element of the PP that sought to allow functions involving up to 350 people (excluding staff) to be ‘development without consent’.

As a result, the report seeks finalise the PP to make ‘function centre’ an additional permitted use on the site, noting that any proposed expansion of events would require development approval and further assessment.

Note: Council will be briefed on this matter on 27 October 2022.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Support the proponent’s decision to not pursue the secondary (exempt) purpose of the exhibited Planning Proposal (PP064) for functions involving up to 350 people (excluding staff) to be allowed as ‘development without consent’.

2. Amend, adopt and finalise PP064 in accordance with Part 1 to make ‘function centre’ an additional permitted use (with consent) within the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone under Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 on the subject land (Lot 21 DP 1217069 and Lot 33 DP 1259627, Forster Drive, Bawley Point) including:

a. requesting the proponent to amend the PP document in accordance with Part 2 and provide a copy to Council staff for review prior to uploading to the NSW Planning Portal;

b. forwarding the amended PP064 to the Office of the NSW Parliamentary Counsel (PCO) with a request to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014;

c. Issuing a final invoice for the balance of fees outstanding, to be paid by the proponent prior to making the LEP amendment.

3. Note that a future development application (DA) would be subject to public notification in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Council’s Community Consultation Policy for Development Applications and that members of the community would have the opportunity to review the DA documentation and to make any necessary submissions.

4. Acknowledge that technical studies to address relevant traffic, access, environmental and amenity impacts (such as effluent disposal, noise and light spill) arising from the proposed ‘function centre’ use will need to be prepared by the proponent and submitted as part of the DA documentation for assessment; and

5. Independent of the PP and DA process, offer to facilitate a meeting and participate in discussions between the proponent and relevant NSW State agencies with a possible view to securing a more permanent alternate access arrangement to Willinga Park for heavy vehicles from the Princes Highway.

Options

1. As Recommended

Implications:

‘Function centre’ would be made an additional permitted use within the RU2 Rural Landscape zoned area part of the site. This would potentially allow a wider range of events/functions (unrelated to equine activities) subject to development approval, enabling the existing significant facilities to be more fully utilised, contributing to the tourism profile of Shoalhaven and broader region.

The proponent’s decision to not pursue the ‘exemption’ for events involving up to 350 people means potential impacts arising from holding additional functions, would be appropriately assessed at development application (DA) stage and be managed via development consent conditions. The proponent could seek to modify the existing events approval (DA18/1237) or apply for separate approval(s).

Any future DA would be subject to separate notification and consideration.

2. Finalise the PP as exhibited.

Implications: The exhibited PP included a proposed provision that sought to allow for functions up to 350 people (excluding staff) to occur without development consent. This secondary component of the PP would have meant there would be no planning path available to consider new or cumulative impacts^{^[1]}. Further, if functions are permitted to take place as “development without consent” the approved Event Management Plan linked to DA18/1237, with amenity controls, would not be triggered.

Just over half the submissions opposed the PP, expressing concerns about frequent, possibly daily, functions with up to 350 people (excluding staff) being permitted as “development without consent” specifically because the potential traffic, environmental and amenity impacts have not been assessed and are therefore not quantifiable.

This option would not address these community concerns. In response, the proponent has decided to not pursue the ‘exempt’ provisions in the PP. Option not recommended.

3. Another Recommendation

Implications: Would depend on the recommendation, but could include deferring the matter or resolving to not proceed.

Background

Subject land

The PP applies to part of the ‘Willinga Park’ property at Lot 21 DP 1217069 and Lot 33 DP 1259627 Forster Drive, Bawley Point (See Figure 1 below).

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 - Aerial Photo

The PP applies to the land zoned RU2 Rural Landscape. It does not apply to land within Lot 21 that is zoned C2 Environmental Conservation under Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Zoning under Shoalhaven LEP 2014

Planning Proposal (PP) Request

Council initially received a proponent initiated Planning Proposal (PP) request for Willinga Park on 29 April 2021 that sought to amend the LEP to:

· make ‘function centre’ an additional permitted use, meaning that a wider range of events could potentially be held at the site with approval; and

· make functions of up to 350 people (excluding staff) ‘development without consent’ (meaning development consent is not required).

In this context, Function centre means a building or place used for the holding of events, functions, conferences, and the like, and includes convention centres, exhibition centres and reception centres, but does not include an entertainment facility.

The initial PP request generated a large volume of community submissions. The matter was reported to Council on 5 October 2021. The report (DE21.114) includes detailed background on the development history, analysis of the proposed LEP amendments and a summary of the preliminary community feedback.

In response, Council resolved (MIN21.688) to support the PP as submitted (both components) and submit it to the NSW Government for initial Gateway determination.

Gateway conditions

The resulting Gateway request was made to the NSW Department of Environment & Planning (DPE) on 10 November 2021 and a favourable Gateway determination was issued on 10 December 2021, with a 12-month timeframe (completed before 10 December 2022).

As required by the determination, the proponent was requested to make the following changes to the PP prior to public exhibition:

· Provide an assessment of the proposal against the current Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan (dated May 2021) and Shoalhaven Local Strategic Planning Statement and to remove reference to the superseded South Coast Regional Strategy; and

· Exclude land zoned C2 Environmental Conservation from the proposed Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Use clause and Local Clause Map

· Include an estimate of potential number of jobs that could be generated because of the planning proposal

· Update the Project Timeline.

The pre-exhibition Gateway conditions were satisfied, enabling the PP to be publicly exhibited. The public exhibition is discussed below.

Public Exhibition

The PP was publicly exhibited on Council’s website from 25 May to 24 June 2022 (30 days).

The exhibition package was made up of the following:

1. PP064 - Exhibition Notice - (115kb)

2. PP064 - Explanatory Statement - (218kb)

3. PP064 - FAQ Planning Proposal - (324kb)

4. PP064 - FAQ Existing Approvals & Operations - (782kb)

5. PP064 - Planning Proposal Document - (2,626kb)

6. PP064 - Gateway Determination - (216kb)

A basic questionnaire was also provided via a dedicated Willinga Park Planning Proposal Get Involved project page to assist with feedback.

Community Submissions

One hundred and eleven (111) submissions were received - approximately 41% in support and 59% opposed.

Attachments 1 and 2 provide relevant submission summaries – they also include proponent feedback and staff comments.

Copies of the actual submissions can be made available to Councillors if requested.

Positive Submissions

Just over 40% of the submissions received supported Willinga Park (and by inference also the PP). The key summarised comments indicate a level of support in the community and note that Willinga Park:

1. is a world-class facility that is a great asset to the local area and wider community

2. provides local employment and the proposal will create an additional 17 jobs

3. supports the local economy and benefits local businesses

4. infrastructure has sufficient capacity to facilitate additional events and functions

5. supports local community groups and has been a good neighbour; and

6. there is support for the PP from multiple NSW Government agencies; and

7. the range of permitted uses will grow the economy and culture of the region - will also allow Willinga Park to deliver social and educational benefits and to reach its potential.

Willinga Park has grown into and is recognised as a unique, world class equestrian centre. Hosting a broader range of functions is consistent with the strategies and actions identified in the Shoalhaven Destination Management Plan (pp36, 49) where Willinga Park is identified as a venue with the potential to “provide excellent event opportunities in the future”. The Shoalhaven 2040 Local Strategic Planning Statement (Planning Priority 7, p36) also identifies Willinga Park as a suitable venue to help deliver a year-round visitor economy.

Therefore, there is strategic merit/justification to finalise an amendment to the LEP to make ‘function centre’ a permitted use (Option 1).

Negative Submissions

Five (5) submissions fundamentally opposed the PP. The balance of the submissions (59%) raised concerns about the proposed ‘exempt’ provisions of the PP which sought to allow functions with up to 350 people (excluding staff) as ‘development without consent’.

The key concerns raised:

1. Cumulative, negative amenity impacts - increased traffic, noise and light pollution (spill)

2. Continuing degradation of local infrastructure (roads) due to increased vehicular traffic (cars, floats and heavy vehicles)

3. Direct access to Willinga Park from the Princes Highway is preferable

4. Detrimental impacts on water quality of Willinga Lake exacerbated

5. Supporting studies relate to DA18/1237 (Events) - not updated and not relevant to the impacts of this proposal

6. Function centre use is incompatible with the RU2 land-use zone and local character due to lack of infrastructure and/or services

Comments on the broad areas of concern are provided below

Proponent’s Response to Submissions

The proponent requested copies of all submissions – the documents were provided in late July 2022 via the GIPA process.

In this regard, DPE’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Making Guideline (December 2021) states:

“If the planning proposal is proponent-initiated, the proponent should have the option to respond to Council on any issues raised in submissions received. The Council should provide a copy of the submissions to the proponent. This gives the proponent the opportunity to address or redress issues raised in submissions, including amendments to the proposal.

“Depending on the level of stakeholder interest and number of submissions received, proponents should be given between 5-25 working days to provide a response ….”

The proponent’s final responses to the points raised were received in early September 2022 and they are incorporated into the attachments to this report

The proponent advised that they no longer wish to pursue the secondary provisions of the PP which sought to make functions involving up to 350 people (excluding staff) ‘development without consent’. The following is an extract from their response (Attachment 3):

“the Proponent does not [emphasis added] press that part of the owner-initiated Planning Proposal which seeks to make functions with a capacity of less than 351 persons as a type of development which is permissible without consent. Accordingly, having regard to the submissions which have been made, the Proponent now only seeks an amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 so as to make ‘function centre’ a use which is permissible with consent at Willinga Park (except on the part zoned C2 Environmental Conservation).

Further, the proponent acknowledged (Attachment 3) that, should Council support the PP (as amended), a Development Application (DA) would be necessary and, whilst not pre-empting this, provided the following indicative list of likely function types:

· business conferences;

· product launches;

· training seminars/classes/workshops;

· ceremonies (awards dinners, graduations, presentation nights etc);

· exhibitions/trade shows;

· community events/ gatherings, Government disaster emergency response, forums;

· fund raisers; and

· concerts/recitals.

The exclusion of ‘Weddings’ was emphasised. It was also emphasised that the type of functions intended to be hosted “are those which will enhance, not diminish, the established high standard of the estate”.

Council Staff Comment:

Opening Note - external submissions are summarised and the proponent’s full response to the issues raised is at Attachment 1. Staff comments are included as appropriate.

The key community concerns appear to both directly and indirectly relate to the secondary (exempt) purpose of the exhibited PP. The underlying theme being, there would be no planning pathway for community concerns about new and cumulative impacts to be considered and assessed.

If the exhibited PP is adopted (Option 2), environmental assessment may nevertheless still be required under legislation, for example the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act 1997 for any noise or pollution impacts.

The proponent’s decision to not proceed with the ‘exempt’ provisions does not diminish these concerns but, it is welcomed because issues can be assessed via the subsequent DA stage, supported by the required technical studies.

1. Cumulative, negative impacts (traffic, noise, amenity)

In relation to traffic impact, the PP relied upon the traffic report for DA18/1237 (Events) and the development consent conditions:

“In relation to the issue of traffic, the development consent to DA18/1237 (as modified) contains conditions to manage traffic impacts which may arise as a result of the hosting of events at Willinga Park. Given that the events approved by the consent to DA18/1237 are likely to give rise to much greater traffic impacts than those resulting from the types of functions which are sought to be made permissible by this planning proposal, there is no risk of any greater traffic impact being generated by the proposal that would not already be controlled by these conditions of consent.”

The premise that the PP would generate a relatively minor increase in traffic compared to that permitted under the consent was generally not supported by Council staff and no traffic study has been prepared to support this claim. The traffic report is not relevant to the PP as it does not address the more permanent traffic impacts that may arise from it.

Environmental impacts such as noise and light spill are also of considerable ongoing concern. In relation to noise, the PP states:

“development consent to DA18/1237 (as modified) contains conditions to manage noise and the acoustic impacts which may arise as a result of the hosting of events at Willinga Park. Given that the events approved by the consent to DA18/1237 are likely to give rise to much greater noise impacts than those resulting from the types of functions which are sought to be made permissible by this planning proposal, there is no risk of any greater acoustic impact being generated by the proposal that would not already be controlled by these conditions of consent.”

Currently no noise assessment report has been prepared to support this statement. The proponent has advised (Attachment 3) that concerts and recitals (presumably featuring amplified music) are among the types of functions proposed to be hosted. Amplified music and concerts were not assessed under DA18/1237 as the noise assessment report specifically excluded them. For example, the report stated that “there will be no concerts or similar occurring at Willinga Park for the proposed events”.

Relevant justification (studies) is required to ensure that the potential impacts of allowing more frequent functions (unrelated to equine activities) are appropriately assessed and managed.

The original PP request acknowledged that the ‘exempt development’ provisions had the potential to be problematic. The proponent’s decision not to proceed with these provisions means that, if supported, community concerns in relation to traffic, access, noise and lighting, including cumulative impacts, will be further considered at development application stage.

Continuing degradation of local roads

The PP did not discuss the condition of the local road network but described the means of access to and from the Princes Highway as follows:

[the site] … is located to the west of Bawley Point on Forster Drive, an east-west aligned all-weather road which connects with Murramarang Road, then Bawley Point Road to the Princes Highway at Termeil.

Long term and continuing degradation of local roads in and around Bawley Point as a consequence of heavy vehicular traffic associated with Willinga Park attracted many comments to which the proponent has responded (Attachment 1) - and summarised as follows:

· Heavy vehicle movements are not anticipated to be generated by the very large majority of functions

· The existing road infrastructure is capable of accommodating traffic generated by functions (which will be likely to occur at a typical frequency of 2 per week)

· Local road conditions in and around Bawley Point are consistent with road conditions throughout the Shoalhaven generally (i.e., damage is symptomatic of the general status of roads)

· Willinga Park does not generally operate in the period mid-December to mid-January, [therefore] it is not adding to traffic volumes at peak time and the traffic volume it generates at other times is significantly below the design capacity of the roads.

· traffic generated by Willinga Park at any time is inconsequential when compared to the summer holiday period season traffic influx

· the part of Forster Drive, constructed by Willinga Park, shows no sign of degradation and is one of the best local roads in the locality.

Internal Council staff feedback suggests that the capacity of the local road network to accommodate the additional traffic has potentially not been adequately assessed by any traffic study received to date. Thus a traffic study is required to consider the cumulative impacts of the approved DA18/1237 (Events) and any new ‘function centre’’ use. This will be required to support any development application that seeks to broaden the range of functions/events permitted at Willinga Park and to also, via the submission of a DA, assess the cumulative impacts of the additional traffic, including the capacity of the existing road infrastructure/network and whether alternate access (for heavy vehicles) is required.

Direct access from the Princes Highway

On this key concern, the proponent responded (summary) as follows:

· the management team at Willinga Park has no foreseeable new plans for further expansion of the facilities at Willinga Park (other than a DA for functions, which is dependent (of course) on the Planning Proposal);

· heavy vehicle use will therefore be limited to the normal operations of the estate as opposed to new construction;

· the Willinga Park team has no plans for, or any intention to seek, a permanent access off the Princes Highway: rather, any such access would be on an ‘as needs’ basis as the cost would be prohibitive and unjustifiable given the adequate and functional existing access arrangements off Forster Drive;

· in the event of an unforeseeable situation arising relating to abnormal heavy vehicle use the Willinga Park team will investigate and consider temporary/ time-limited use of the access road off the Princes Highway (subject to appropriate approvals).

There is community concern about continuing degradation of local roads caused by heavy vehicle usage (construction traffic), approved events (horse floats and trailers) and the cumulative impact of additional functions, unrelated to equine activities. Internal Council staff comments suggest that associated traffic, particularly heavy vehicles, has affected road conditions in the vicinity. The proponent however does not agree that Willinga Park is responsible for deteriorating local road infrastructure and also does not agree that alternate permanent access to the Princes Highway is necessary, suggesting that the cost of such a new access would be “prohibitive and unjustifiable given the adequate and functional existing access arrangements off Forster Drive.”

Notwithstanding, the proponent conceded that if an unforeseeable situation were to arise where heavy vehicular access is required, they would be willing to consider/investigate, subject to approvals, the provision of temporary access similar to that enabled under DA18/1867 (soil importation for Show Jumping Arena).

As noted in Attachment 1, there is an existing right-of-way (r-o-w) through land owned by the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (not currently part of Murramarang National Park) that benefits the land owned by Capital Properties P/L. Independent of the PP and any DA process, the opportunity should possibly be explored with the relevant State agencies, including TfNSW, to see if this r-o-w could be formalised to provide a more permanent legal/practical heavy vehicle access. Council could consider facilitating a meeting and participating in discussions in this regard.

2. Willinga Lake water quality impacts

Concerns were raised about the impact that hosting additional functions might have on the capacity of the existing on-site sewage management system (OSMS) and Willinga Lake. The proponent responded as follows:

· “The use of existing facilities for the hosting of functions is unlikely to have any unreasonable impact on the local environment. This issue will be further addressed in the DA.

· “Current concerns of residents regarding harm to the water quality of Willinga Lake should be reported to and investigated by Council.”

Internal Council staff feedback noted concerns about the existing OSMS and also its capacity to process the additional effluent. Some of the concerns raised (Attachment 3) are already being addressed by the proponent and an effluent disposal report would need to be included in any future DA documentation. It is understood that an updated report is being prepared.

3. Reliance on supporting studies for DA18/1237 (Events)

As noted above there is an undue reliance in the PP on technical studies submitted as part of DA. These studies relate to the development history of Willinga Park, but are not necessarily relevant to the PP.

If the recommendation is supported, a DA will need to be submitted, supported by technical studies to address relevant traffic, access, parking, environmental and amenity impacts (such as effluent disposal, noise and light spill) arising from the use of ‘function centre’.

However if Option 2 is pursued, then community concerns about a range of impacts will not necessarily be addressed/managed.

4. Function centre use incompatible with RU2 zone

This is a broader policy issue that was raised in many submissions. The following proponent responses are relevant in this regard:

· “The world class nature of the facilities at Willinga Park estate lends itself to use for functions, particularly the EEC, whilst still maintaining an environmental quality compatible with the RU2 zoning of the estate and its surrounds.

· “The existing zoning will remain unchanged but for the addition of ‘function centre’ as another permissible use of the Willinga Park estate.”

It is correct that, if the PP to allow Willinga Park to host functions is finalised as recommended, the RU2 zone that applies to the land will not change. The PP does not establish a poor planning precedent as claimed in several submissions. Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses of the LEP already includes provisions for site-specific uses across Shoalhaven. The ability to add additional permitted uses is included in the NSW Government’s standard LEP instrument and, therefore, has state-wide application.

Comments on the broader policy issue of ‘function centres’ in rural zones is discussed below under Policy Implications.

NSW Government Agency Consultation

The following agencies were consulted prior to public exhibition, as required by the Gateway determination:

· NSW Rural Fire Service

· Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

· NSW Police

Additionally, Council sought comments from the following additional agencies:

· NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

· NSW State Emergency Service (SES)

The comments received are summarised below:

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

NSW RFS generally raise no objection to progression of the proposal to exhibition stage, however concern is raised that where functions of up to 350 people are permitted without consent there may not be the appropriate measures in place to ensure procedures in the event of a bush fire emergency are followed.

NSW RFS request an amendment to point (3) of the proposed Schedule 1 clause as follows: (3) Notwithstanding (2) above, consent is not required for an event, function, conference or the like provided the number of attendees is less than 351 persons (excluding staff). An on-site manager shall be present at any function permitted without consent to ensure the requirements of the Willinga Park Bushfire Emergency Management and Evacuation Plan are followed in the event of a bush fire emergency.

It would be the preference of NSW RFS that this amendment be made prior to exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

Staff Comment: The proponent amended the PP by adding the following text to the exhibited version:

An on-site manager shall be present at any function permitted without consent to ensure the requirements of the Willinga Park Bushfire Emergency Management and Evacuation Plan are followed in the event of a bush fire emergency.

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

TfNSW has completed an assessment of the planning proposal, based on the information provided and focussing on the impact to the state road network. The key state road is the Princes Highway. TfNSW notes:

• The subject site is accessed via local roads and has no direct connections to a classified state road. Council should consider any potential traffic impacts of the proposal on the surrounding local road network.

Staff Comment: The proponent noted the comments at Appendix 10 of the PP document and no changes were made to it in response to the comments.

NSW Police

Cannot see this being an issue for us. Events, with large gatherings of people, have not been an issue for us at any stage. They are well managed and catered for. Can only see this being a welcome addition to the Shoalhaven. In regard to the works, increased traffic both during the construction and afterwards will be an issue. The entrance is quite a way off Murramarang Road through Bawley Point, so impact on north south traffic would potentially be minimal. As long as traffic issues are attended to during construction, do not see any issues.

Staff Comment: The proponent has noted the comments from NSW Police at Appendix 10 of the Planning Proposal (PP) document. No changes were made to the PP in response to the comments.

The PP proposes that functions would generally be held within the existing Equine Education Centre building. This being the case, no new construction works/traffic is envisaged as a consequence of the PP.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Provided detailed comments in relation to the need to regulate, mitigate or manage potential noise impacts from activities being undertaken at the function centre. These comments were made in the context of the secondary (exempt) PP provisions being finalised. In summary, the EPA favours:

- proactive noise management conditions which establish clear standards and expectations for the local acoustic environment.

- a comprehensive acoustic study which properly characterises the acoustic environment of the area, identifies sensitive receivers and outlines strategies that ensure the acoustic amenity of those receivers is properly protected.

Staff Comment: The proponent noted the comments and no changes were made to the PP. The proponent responded that:

· the development consent to DA 18/1237 (as modified) contains conditions to manage noise and the acoustic impacts which may arise as a result of the hosting of events at Willinga Park;

· given that the events approved by the consent to DA 18/1237 are likely to give rise to much greater noise impacts than those that will result from the types of functions which will be hosted as a result of the Planning Proposal there is no risk of any greater acoustic impact being generated by the proposal; and

· the existing buildings at Willinga Park which are capable of hosting functions are built to the highest construction standards and are well-removed from the site’s boundaries

As noted, no relevant noise assessment report was submitted to support the PP. However, the proponent’s decision not to pursue the secondary (exempt) provisions of the PP will allow potential noise impacts to be examined more closely through the subsequent DA assessment.

NSW State Emergency Service (SES)

Overall, the NSW State agencies did not raise any fundamental objections to the PP.

Should Council agree to endorse and finalise an amended PP as recommended, any DA would be referred to NSW RFS and NSW EPA for comment as required.

Internal Council Consultation

Internal feedback was received from a number of directorates (see Attachment 2) and the proponent’s responses are also contained in the attachment.

The issues raised were largely linked to the secondary purpose of the exhibited PP to allow functions involving up to 350 people (excluding staff) to be ‘development without consent’. This link is acknowledged by the proponent in the responses received on 5 September 2022.

Comment

As the proponent has decided not to pursue the exempt component of the PP, any new and cumulative impacts arising from additional events could be appropriately assessed under a DA supported by the necessary technical studies.

Policy Implications

The broader policy issue related to the growth of event locations/venues (weddings etc) in existing rural/environmental zoned areas of Shoalhaven (particularly the northern part of the City) is relevant.

The PP is however a proponent-initiated, site-specific proposal to broaden/diversify the range of events/functions (unrelated to equine activities) that can be held within the existing facilities at Willinga Park, subject to development approval. Given the circumstances (e.g., significance of the existing facility), it is considered that the PP will not create a broader precedent for enabling function centres in rural areas.

At present, other locations/venues have used the provisions of LEP Clause 2.8 – Temporary use of land to obtain development approvals for events in rural/environmental zones.

Financial Implications

Fees & Charges

This matter is being managed in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges for progressing proponent-initiated PP’s.

Road Infrastructure

Council is responsible for maintaining the road network, including the roads required to access Willinga Park. Deterioration of the local roads due to the cumulative impact of increased vehicular traffic in the area (cars, floats and heavy vehicles) was raised in submissions.

Internal staff comments suggest that traffic associated with Willinga Park, contributes to road conditions in the vicinity. However, it is not possible to definitively determine the extent to which road deterioration can be attributed to construction activities and events Willinga Park. It is likely that a new/revised traffic study will be required to support any DA(s) to expand the range of events and this provides an opportunity to look more closely at this aspect.

Conclusion

As discussed, Willinga Park is an existing unique, world class equestrian centre and there is sound strategic merit/justification for the proposed amendment to the LEP to make ‘function centre’ a permitted use of the site, to allow consideration of a broader range of events/functions/conferences to be held there.

The proponent has responded to the community feedback by deciding not to pursue the secondary (exempt) provisions proposed in the exhibited PP. Any new and cumulative impacts arising from additional functions/events would be assessed under a DA supported by the necessary technical studies.

This report includes a recommendation to offer to facilitate a possible meeting with the proponent and relevant NSW State agencies to explore the possibility of a more permanent arrangement for heavy vehicular access to/from the Princes Highway and Willinga Park, independent of the PP or any DA process.

If Council supports the recommendations of this report, a new clause would be introduced in Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses of the LEP, making ‘function centre’ an additional permitted use (with consent) on the RU2 zoned land within at Willinga Park.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.547 Tree Management in Shoalhaven - Proposed Trial Amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - 45 Degree Rule and Asset Protection Zone Clearing

HPERM Ref: D22/421733

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Draft Amendment to Chapter G4 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reasons for Report

The reason for this report is:

i. To seek endorsement to amend the 45 Degree Rule exemption in Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 on a 12-month trial basis.

ii. To seek endorsement to commence work to run an educational campaign and prepare an Urban Greening strategy for Shoalhaven.

iii. To not progress an amendment to the DCP regarding a possible additional exemption for the clearing of asset protection zones (MIN22.229).

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Support the exhibition of the draft 12-month trial amendment to Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014, as shown at Attachment 1, for a period of 28 days as per legislative requirements.

2. Advise key stakeholders, including key relevant tree removal operators working in the Shoalhaven Local Government Area, of this decision and exhibition arrangements.

3. Facilitate a tree contractor information session/workshop during the public exhibition period.

4. Commence the preparation of:

a. A data collection tool that will enable the efficient collection of the self-notification data relating to the 45 Degree Rule exemption.

b. An educational campaign relating to tree management and the 45 Degree Rule exemption, as outlined in this report, subject to the identification of required funding.

5. Receive a further report:

a. On the draft amendment following the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

b. After the 12-month trial operation period of the amended 45 Degree Rule exemption, that includes an analysis of data received during this period and recommended next steps.

6. Commence the preparation of an Urban Greening Strategy for Shoalhaven, including the identification of funding required to prepare the strategy.

7. Not progress an amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 regarding an additional exemption for the clearing of asset protection zones (MIN22.229).

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This option enables the retention of the 45 Degree Rule exemption with some augmentation and a 12-month trial to address community concerns, legislative requirements, manage risk and align the exemption more closely with industry best practices.

This option includes suggested data collection over a 12-month period to better understand how and where the exemption is used.

An education campaign is considered critical in developing a broad reaching understanding of the value of trees, best practice tree management, as well as when the 45 Degree Rule exemption can be used and how. The preparation of an Urban Greening Strategy for Shoalhaven is also recommended.

This option also seeks to not progress a further exemption for tree removal relating to clearing for asset protection zones. It is considered that the existing mechanisms in place (development assessment/complying development process and the NSW Government's 10/50 Rule) provide a range of opportunities in this regard. Tree removal beyond these mechanisms can be considered by existing development approval and tree permit pathways.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes/additions.

3. Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This could mean that no changes to Chapter G4 relating to the 45 Degree Rule exemption would be made at this time, and as such, the status quo would be retained. The option is not recommended. The 45 Degree Rule exemption is unique to Shoalhaven, it can be considered inconsistent with industry and environmental law standards and is subject to high levels of misuse and misunderstanding.

Tree and Vegetation Management and the 45 Degree Rule in Shoalhaven

Background & History

Shoalhaven’s first Tree Preservation Order (TPO) came into effect in 1971. The TPO sought to help secure and preserve amenity, stop indiscriminate and uncontrolled removal, lopping etc. of trees in urban areas, and manage approval requirements for these trees.

In 2004, the new Shoalhaven TPO 2004 was adopted by Council. Importantly, this new TPO introduced the 45 Degree Rule exemption which made exempt:

“Tree works on private land where any part of a tree is above a line 45 degrees from the vertical extension of the wall of any building measured from its base.”

The TPO remained in place until 2014, when the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1985 was replaced by Council’s new Standard Instrument LEP (Shoalhaven LEP 2014). The provisions of the TPO (including the 45 Degree Rule exemption) were transitioned into the new Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 shortly after the LEP came into effect.

Current planning legislation and policy establishes that a person must not cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation without a permit granted by Council (e.g., development application or private tree permit). However, there are currently a few exceptions to the restrictions, the most notable being the 45 Degree Rule exemption.

The 45 Degree Rule exemption can be used or is triggered where any part of a tree is within the 45 degree area of an approved dwelling, garage or outbuilding (including any part of the trunk or canopy), as per Figure 1 below.

The 45 Degree Rule exemption overrides the protection of any declared vegetation in Section 5.1 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014, except where there are overriding consent conditions, 88B instruments or heritage listing protections. Without an exemption, a development application or private tree permit would be required to consider the removal of a tree or trees.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: 45 Degree Rule Exemption

2022 Mayoral Minute and Review

On 21 February 2022, a Mayoral Minute was presented to Council seeking an amendment to Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management of the DCP to remove the 45 Degree Rule exemption (MM22.3). Council resolved to ‘defer’ the matter to a Councillor briefing for further consideration and discussion (MIN22.118).

This Council briefing was held on 12 May 2022 and a further briefing was held on 15 September 2022.

Attachment 1 presents a recommended amendment to Chapter G4 of the DCP. This proposed model was presented and discussed at the 15 September briefing. The proposed amendment seeks to retain the 45 Degree Rule exemption with some refinement to address a range of concerns, as follows:

· Its application has been refined to ‘lawfully erected buildings (including dwellings and outbuildings)’.

· Require tree removal to be undertaken by an Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) Level 3 arborist in accordance with relevant Australian Standards. Level 3 = minimum requirements in theoretical and practical tree assessment and care

· Specify that the 45 Degree Rule does not apply:

- To a tree where that tree does not pose a demonstrable risk to the respective building.

- Beyond the lot the lawfully erected building is located on, which includes public land.

- To land in the Jerberra Estate (already the case as outlined in the DCP).

- To trees with hollows or nests.

- To trees on upward slopes greater than 18 degrees.

- To the removal of trees on land zoned RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape (already the case as outlined in the DCP).

· Require notification of Council and all adjoining and adjacent landowners/occupants of the proposed tree removal works in writing, at least 72 hours before the tree removal is due to commence.

The notification mechanism will allow the gathering of more definitive information for a 12-month period on the use of the rule, prior to Council possibly making an ultimate decision on the future of the 45 Degree Rule at that time.

Council may also wish to consider the preparation of an urban greening strategy for Shoalhaven.

Recommendation

Considering the above and discussions at the two Councillor briefings, it is recommended that:

· Proceed with a 12-month trial amendment to Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management of the DCP, as shown at Attachment 1. It is noted that the proposed amendment also includes minor administrative changes to reflect changes that have been made to legislation and policy since the last amendment.

· A data collection tool be prepared that will enable the efficient collection of the self-notification data relating to the 45 Degree Rule.

· An educational campaign be prepared and run, relating to tree management and the 45 Degree Rule, as outlined in this report.

· Commence the preparation of an Urban Greening Strategy for the Shoalhaven.

Asset Protection Zone Clearing – 2022 Notice of Motion

Council at its 28 March 2022 Ordinary meeting, considered a Notice of Motion seeking an exemption for the clearing of asset protection zones (APZ) under certain circumstances. The Notice of Motion recommended:

That Chapter G4 of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 be amended to allow the creation of asset protection zones on mapped bushfire prone land, subject to the follow criteria being met.

1. In order to permit clearing of trees and other vegetation to create asset protection zones around legally constructed dwellings, buildings and associated property access, or any development that would have been for a ‘Special Fire Protection Purpose’ & associated property access, pursuant to the provisions of the NSW Rural Fires Act 1997 on land mapped as being bushfire prone.

2. The clearing of vegetation for the creation of Asset Protection Zones must not exceed the minimum clearing standards set out in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 for structures with a BAL 12.5 rating. The extent of clearing required must be in accordance with a report prepared by an accredited bushfire consultant, with a minimum qualification of BPAD 2.

3. The CEO be permitted to make drafting amendments to the policy.

The Notice of Motion Report outlined the following reasons for the motion:

In the wake of the Black Summer bushfires, the opportunity should be taken to amend Chapter G4 of the DCP to allow homeowners to maintain their properties in accordance with best practice guidelines to ensure adequate bushfire mitigation measures are in place for the protection of life and assets. I have given this much thought, and I believe that the foregoing should be included in the exemption criteria within Chapter G4.

Council resolved (MIN22.229) that the CEO report back to Council on the proposed Notice of Motion contained in the Business Paper (CL22.164) and the report be based on the Notice of Motion.

Existing Mechanisms in Place

There are two main mechanisms currently in place to address APZ’s and vegetation management around structures:

· Development Assessment Process (New Development):

- A Development Application Assessment by Council. Any new building in a bushfire risk zone requires a bushfire assessment which prescribes the construction level (BAL rating), the required APZ and several other bushfire risk mitigation measures as required by the NSW Government’s Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019. This process will also consider the impacts of the APZ (and any other) clearing on biodiversity, as required by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

- A Complying Development Certificate issued by Council or a private certifier. Development on some bush fire prone land may be considered as complying development, however, complying development cannot be undertaken on land identified as a high bush fire risk (BAL 40 or Flame Zone). Any new building in a bushfire risk zone requires a BAL certificate confirming the land is not BAL 40 or Flame Zone. The proposal must be compliant with the NSW Government’s Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (including APZs) and conditions are imposed accordingly.

· The NSW Rural Fire Service 10/50 Rule (Existing Development). Where an APZ has not been captured through the development application process (i.e., it pre-dates Planning for Bushfire Protection), eligible home owners can apply the 10/50 rule. Whilst there is no obligation for these properties to upgrade Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 standards, many wish to ensure that their properties are consistent with industry best practice. Owners cannot ‘double dip’ and further clear their land under the 10/50 provisions if they have a conditioned APZ around their dwelling.

The NSW Rural Fire Service introduced the 10/50 rule in 2014 following the 2013 bushfires that heavily affected the Blue Mountains area in the Greater Sydney region. The 10/50 rule allows people in a designated area to:

- Clear trees on their property within 10 metres of a home, without seeking approval; and

- Clear underlying vegetation such as shrubs (but not trees) on their property within 50 metres of a home, without seeking approval.

Image showing the clearing of trees within 10 metres of a home and vegetation within 50 metres of a home

Figure 2: Example of 10/50 rule (NSW RFS)

The Biodiversity Offset Scheme

DCP Chapter G4 relates to the removal or pruning of vegetation that is under the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold on all non-rural land (land in any zone other than RU1-RU4) within the Shoalhaven LGA.

As per section 2.6(2) of SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, a person must not clear native vegetation in a non-rural area of the State that exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme (BOS) threshold without the authority conferred by an approval granted by the Native Vegetation Panel under Part 2.4. Therefore, under the SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Council can only issue a permit (or exemption) to clear if the clearing is below the BOS.

Council is permitted to assess clearing over the BOS via the development application process only (not via complying development). Appropriate clearing for retrospective APZ purposes, even to achieve BAL 12.5 on bushfire prone land, would still likely require very large APZs and in many cases, would exceed the BOS clearing threshold. Outside of the development application process, Council has no authority to permit this extent of clearing.

The proposed asset protection zone clearing exemption is essentially a self-assessment tool in a technically complicated space, which raises a number of concerns, the main being that Council cannot lawfully introduce an exemption that would allow clearing to exceed the BOS clearing threshold.

Discussion and Recommendation

Considering the above, the existing development application and complying development process for new development adequately considers appropriate APZ requirements and vegetation management for new development. The conditions of consent imposed will restrict any additional clearing beyond the APZ and a local clearing exemption in DCP Chapter G4 cannot override this restriction.

The NSW Government’s 10/50 rule already enables clearing for bushfire protection and management for existing development. It establishes industry best practice and is similar to the Victorian and Queensland models. The added benefit of this approach is that it is a state lead exemption program which does not place any liability implications on Council.

A change to Chapter G4 of the extent proposed in the Notice of Motion could result in:

· Potential liability implications for Council with regards to bushfire safety of all residents in non-rural land (e.g., the APZs allowed are inadequate to protect a property/life).

· Community confusion regarding application, relationship to other exemptions (i.e., 45 Degree Rule and 10/50 Rule) and potential breaches of development consent conditions.

· Breaches of the SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021. In many instances, the envisaged APZs would exceed the BOS clearing threshold without consent from Council or a permit issued by the Native Vegetation Panel. This can result in criminal proceedings with significant fines. There are also potential liability implications for Council with regards to enabling an exemption that may be inconsistent with State and Commonwealth legislation.

It is recommended that the following existing processes continue to be relied upon for APZ type management, rather than adopting a further Shoalhaven specific exemption for tree and vegetation clearing:

· Development application process (and complying development pathway) in accordance with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

· The NSW Government’s 10/50 rule.

The development application or private tree permit process could be considered for land not eligible/designated for the NSW Government’s 10/50 Rule.

Community Engagement

DCP Amendment

The draft DCP Amendment will need to be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days in accordance with legislative requirements.

Tree contractor representatives will be directly notified of the exhibition arrangements.

Specific Industry Consultation

Current tree removal operators in Shoalhaven are generally aware that the 45 Degree Rule is under consideration by Council. The recommended amendments to the 45 Degree Rule, including the transition to a AQF Level 3 qualification for some, will have some impact on the industry.

There is merit in holding an information session/workshop for the tree removal operators regarding the proposal during the public exhibition period. There would also be benefit in undertaking subsequent industry workshops:

· At the commencement of the 12-month trial to explain any change and to assist in the transition as far as practicable.

· Towards the end of the 12-month trial period to identify how the process is and is not working from the perspective of the industry.

Educational Campaign

It is also recommended that an educational campaign be undertaken concurrently with the DCP amendment and commencement process, that considers a range of matters including:

· Tree awareness, the cultural, social, economic and environmental value of trees and a balanced tree management approach.

· The specialist role of the NSW State Emergency Service post storm.

· The correct application and use of the amended 45 Degree Rule.

· Detail and clarification regarding threatened species and implications of unlawful habitat loss.

· Opportunities for appropriate plant species options for new plantings.

· Encouraging regular tree inspections.

· Reporting any unsafe trees on public land to Council.

Policy and Risk Implications

The 45 Degree Rule

The 45 Degree Rule exemption is somewhat unique to Shoalhaven, it can be considered inconsistent with industry and environmental law standards and is subject to misuse and misunderstanding. This presents risk to both Council and landowners, as discussed at the 15 September 2022 briefing.

Asset Protection Zone Clearing

The Notice of Motion seeks consideration of an additional exemption in the DCP to enable tree removal for the purpose of asset protection zones. The proposal could result in potential liability implications for Council with regards to:

· Bushfire safety of all residents in non-rural land (e.g., the APZs allowed are inadequate to protect a property/life).

· Enabling an exemption that may be inconsistent with State and Commonwealth legislation. Council cannot lawfully introduce an exemption that would allow clearing to exceed the biodiversity offset scheme clearing threshold.

Financial Implications

The draft amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 will continue to be resourced within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

Council will need to consider any additional staff resources required to manage additional demand for tree removal applications and auditing/monitoring, on an as needs basis, during the initial 12-month period.

The preparation of an educational campaign and urban greening strategy would also need the allocation of an adequate budget.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.548 Update and Proposed Next Steps - Land Use Planning Changes for Agritourism

HPERM Ref: D22/443695

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. March 2022 Agritourism Reform Resolution ⇩

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a report on the agritourism related land use planning changes being pursued by the NSW Government, as per MIN22.747 (10 October 2022), and provide a range of recommended possible next steps for Council’s consideration.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Urgently and strongly object to the quasi mandating of ‘Agritourism’ and its sub terms as permissible with consent in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 from 1 December 2022 and February 2023.

2. Should the NSW Government persist with effectively mandating ‘Agritourism’ in certain zones in Shoalhaven:

a. Opt-in to the ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clauses for Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and the ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clause for the Shoalhaven LEP (Jerberra Estate) 2014.

b. Commence the preparation of a Planning Proposal to provide additional development standards relating to the ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clauses. Report the draft Planning Proposal back to Council with the draft Tourism Amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014, in due course.

c. Strongly request a deferral from the commencement of the Agritourism Reforms until February 2024, to enable the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of a Planning Proposal and detailed Development Control Plan provisions (as required), that will establish additional Shoalhaven specific development standards for the range of agritourism land uses.

3. Note Council’s strong disappointment that the exempt and complying provisions that were exhibited in 2021 have been amended and notified without any meaningful consultation with Council.

4. Request that the NSW Government commit to:

a. Arranging public information sessions, as a matter of urgency, to explain the reforms to the public and interested communities; and

b. Depending on what eventuates, undertaking a 12 month review of the reforms to enable them to be refined/improved/adjusted if needed or appropriate.

5. Send a copy of this resolution to:

a. The NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Agritourism Team).

b. The Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW, the Hon. Paul Toole.

c. The Minister for Planning and Minister for Homes, the Hon. Anthony Roberts.

d. The Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Dugald Saunders.

e. The Member for the South Coast, the Hon. Shelley Hancock.

f. The Member for Kiama, Mr Gareth Ward.

g. Local Government NSW.

h. The community members/industry representatives who have previously engaged with Council on this issue.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it reinforces Council’s string objection to the Agritourism Reforms, but also recommends a range of alternative measures that are needed to help protect the interests of the Shoalhaven community, should the NSW Government not support/accept Council’s objection and continue with the Agritourism Reforms as released. This includes opting in to the optional clauses for ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ (as appropriate to the relevant LEP) and seeking a deferred commencement until February 2024 to enable the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Shoalhaven DCP 2014, as required.

2. Make an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the changes made and could include continuing to opt out of the optional clauses, not progress amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Shoalhaven DCP 2014 or make additional nominations for the agritourism related land uses.

3. Receive this report for information and make no further representations or submissions to the NSW Government.

Implications: This is not favoured as it appears the Agritourism Reforms will progress largely unchanged. As such, there is merit in establishing adequate development standards, development controls and guidance to provide some level of certainty for the community, industry and developers to ensure good development outcomes that are in the public interest.

Background to the Agritourism Reforms

In March 2021, the NSW Government released initial exhibition material relating to Agritourism and small-scale agriculture development. This exhibition proposed amendments to the NSW Planning System to boost farm businesses and regional tourism, by streamlining the approval of agritourism and other small-scale agricultural development. The proposed reforms are part of the response to the economic impacts of natural disasters and COVID-19 on the farming community.

Council made a submission at the time that contained a range of feedback. The detailed report (DE21.41) relating to this resolution can be accessed here.

The Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) supporting the 2021 exhibition outlined that additional consultation would be needed relating to the agritourism proposals. Given the relevance of this matter to Shoalhaven, Council requested to be included in any additional consultation and engagement to ensure that the final reforms were appropriate for Shoalhaven, functioned as intended and balanced impacts (MIN21.252(2)).

In December 2021, further material on the Agritourism Reforms was released by the NSW Government and additional consultation commenced in this regard. The focus of this additional consultation was for Councils across NSW to:

· ‘Opt in’ or ‘out’ of the proposed new ‘optional’ clauses in the Standard Instrument LEP for ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’. If opting in, councils could nominate development standards as relevant for each optional clause.

· Nominate zones to apply the proposed new land use terms for ‘Agritourism’, ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm experience premises’.

Council’s resolution relating to the additional consultation opportunity and nomination process is at Attachment 1. Essentially though, this resolution Council signalled that it wanted to ‘opt out’ of, or not be included in, the proposed Agritourism Reforms.

Mayoral Minute – October 2022

On 10 October 2022, Council considered a Mayoral Minute relating to land use planning changes for agritourism, following the notification of part of the Agritourism Reforms and ongoing community interest in the matter. Council resolved (MIN22.747) that:

1. Council urgently and strongly confirm to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, that Shoalhaven City Council:

a. ‘opts out’ of the new provisions for agribusiness/tourism until such time as we conduct our own review of where the provisions/clauses could possibly be appropriate;

b. Reaffirms Parts 1 to 3 of its resolution of 28 March 2022 (MIN22.200);

c. Objects to the land use terms ‘Agritourism’, ‘Farm experience premises’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ being made permissible with consent anywhere in our LEPs at this stage;

2. Once confirmed, Council write to those who have previously engaged with Council on this issue to reassure them of Council’s position;

3. Given the community concern that this matter is generating, Council receive a short report as soon as practical on the agritourism related land use planning changes being considered/pursued by the NSW Government.

In October 2022, correspondence was sent to the NSW Government (relevant Ministers etc) and community members who previously engaged with Council on this matter, advising of Council’s position.

This report now addresses part three of the above resolution.

Summary - Agritourism Reform Changes and Implications for Council

In October 2022, the NSW Government proceeded to notify a range of changes to legislation relating to the first stage of the Agritourism Reforms:

· Environmental Planning and Assessment (Development Certification and Fire Safety) Amendment (Farm Stay Accommodation) Regulation 2022

· Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Agritourism) Order 2022

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Agritourism) 2022

The first stage of the reforms, commencing on 1 December 2022, will:

· Amend the NSW Standard Instrument LEP to:

- Insert the new agritourism and related land use terms. Notably, ‘Agritourism’, and its sub terms (‘Farm experience premises’ and ‘Farm gate premises’) will become permissible with consent in all Standard Instrument LEPs across the State (including Shoalhaven LEP 2014) where ‘Agriculture’ is permissible with consent.

- Refining controls relating to ‘Farm stay accommodation’.

- Expanding ‘development without consent’ opportunities for ‘Poultry farms’ and ‘Pig farms’.

- Introduce the new ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ optional clauses. These clauses remain optional and as such, Council has the opportunity to opt in or maintain its opt-out nomination.

- Make related changes to the Dictionary to reflect the new and amended definitions.

· Amend State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 to:

- Make changes to the Interpretation section (i.e., dictionary) to reflect the new and amended definitions.

- Introduce savings provisions for complying development.

- Introduce an exempt development pathway for the rebuilding of farm buildings damaged by natural disasters, agritourism signs, ‘Farm experience premises’, ‘Farm gate premises’, ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Roadside stalls’.

- Introduce a new Code, being the ‘Agritourism and Farm Stay Accommodation Code’ that provides a complying development pathway for ‘Farm experience premises’, ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’.

· Make consequential changes to the Housing SEPP, Primary Production SEPP and the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Development Certification and Fire Safety) Regulation 2021 in response to the Agritourism Reform changes.

The key themes that are considered to be potentially of most concern for Shoalhaven at this stage are outlined below:

Exempt and complying development pathways

These pathways were originally flagged as part of the initial EIE exhibition process in 2021, however, the notified amendments are different to that exhibited in a range of areas – some strengthened and others weakened. It is considered unlikely that the NSW Government will amend or defer the commencement of these pathways and as such they will commence on 1 December 2022.

Further, it would appear that Shoalhaven does not have a sound policy reason to request an exclusion from these pathways. It is understood that only one exclusion has been accepted to date, being the special Hunter Water Drinking Water Catchment land (note the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment land in Shoalhaven is unlikely to be considered similarly in this regard). The land around Mount Panorama in the Bathurst LGA is currently also being considered by the NSW Government for a specific exclusion.

Recommendation: Note Council’s disappointment that the exhibited exempt and complying provisions have been amended and notified without any meaningful consultation with Council.

Changes to the Standard Instrument LEP and Shoalhaven LEP

The changes to the Standard Instrument LEP and Shoalhaven LEP have substantial implications for Shoalhaven, however unlike the changes to the Codes SEPP, Council has the greater likelihood of influence/change in this area.

Significantly, the new land use term ‘Agritourism’, and its sub terms will become permissible with consent anywhere that ‘Agriculture’ is permissible with consent in NSW from 1 December 2022.

In the Shoalhaven LEP 2014, this means the RU1, RU2 and RE1 zones. In addition to this, the NSW Government has also confirmed that the land use ‘Agritourism’ and its sub terms will also become permissible with consent in the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 sometime in February 2023. Whilst not explicitly mandating these uses as permissible with consent, the NSW Government has advised that Council is likely to be unable to prohibit these land uses in these zones. This is directly contrary to Council’s March 2022 resolution.

As such, come 1 December 2022 (or February 2023 for the RU4 zone), Council could be required to consider development applications for ‘Agritourism’, and its sub terms in the respective zones, however the flow on concern in this regard, Council will not have any contemporary supporting development controls in place for these uses. Any development applications received would then need to be assessed on merit by Council.

Work is progressing on a largescale review and possible future amendment to Chapter G15: Tourist and Visitor Accommodation of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 (Tourism Review) in accordance with Council’s adopted Strategic Planning Works Program. A deferral from the commencement of the Agritourism Reforms until February 2024 would potentially allow the Agritourism Reforms to be adequately considered in the Tourism Review, in a more suitable/realistic timeframe. It is noted that a similar deferral was put in place for the Low Rise Housing Diversity Code amendments to the Codes SEPP around 2018/2019, which enabled Council adequate time to get supporting development controls in place. Other NSW Councils, such as Byron Shire, are considering opportunities to request deferrals as well.

It is noted that Local Government NSW has written to the Hon. Anthony Roberts, NSW Minister for Planning and Minister for Homes, outlining a range of concerns regarding the proposed new agritourism rules. The advocacy on behalf of NSW Councils includes a request to postpone the commencement of the reforms.

Recommendation: That Council:

· Note its objection to the quasi mandating of ‘Agritourism’ and its sub terms as permissible with consent in Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

· Should the NSW Government persist with quasi mandating ‘Agritourism’ in certain zones in Shoalhaven, request a deferral from the commencement of the Agritourism Reforms until February 2024, to enable the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of appropriate development controls and guidance to support the agritourism land uses in Shoalhaven’s planning scheme.

‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clauses

‘Farm stay accommodation’ is already currently permissible with consent in the:

· RU1, RU2, RU4, C3 Environmental Management zones in Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

· C3 zone in Shoalhaven LEP (Jerberra Estate) 2014.

In accordance with Council’s previous resolution, no additional zones were nominated for this use.

‘Farm gate premises’ is however, a new land use being introduced for the first time into the planning scheme. Council nominated to make this land use prohibited in every zone in Shoalhaven, however the NSW Government have essentially mandated the use in a range of zones across the City.

In March 2022, Council also resolved to opt out of the optional clauses for these uses. The optional clauses have been prepared to provide additional rigour and support for these land uses. As such, there is merit in opting in to the optional clause as the ‘Farm stay accommodation’ term already exists in our LEPs and it is apparent that the ‘Farm gate premises’ use will be included in due course.

There has been some concern in the community that if Council does not opt in to the optional clauses, the exempt and complying provisions would be used in the assessment of development applications instead. To clarify, these optional clauses relate to development applications only, and in the absence of any specific LEP or DCP provisions, any applications would be considered on merit only.

It is noted that the optional clauses will commence in Standard Instrument LEPs from February 2023 (where a Council has opted in), however, the notified versions no longer include the suggested detailed or set development standards that Council had previously considered. The notified documentation does, however, specify that development standards can be added by Councils as required. Whilst this provides Council with greater flexibility and opportunities to tailor these clauses specifically for Shoalhaven, the inclusion of additional provisions will need to be undertaken as part of a future planning proposal initiated by Council (not as part of the February 2023 NSW Government managed process). This change in approach has the potential to have resourcing impacts on Council.

It appears abundantly clear however, that the NSW Government intends to progress the Agritourism Reforms, which presents a current and urgent need to prepare appropriate supporting development controls for these land uses in Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Should Council wish to opt in to the ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clauses, Council will also need time and commit resources to consider and progress a Planning Proposal to set additional development standards for these uses.

There is significant merit in pursing Shoalhaven specific development standards for these uses, especially ‘Farm stay accommodation’. For example, the Agritourism Reforms have amended the number of bedrooms for this type of accommodation to 7 (existing in Shoalhaven LEP 2014), but now refined to in buildings. This means that whilst there will be a limit of 7 ‘Farm stay accommodation’ bedrooms in buildings, it appears that there would be no limit on the number of manufactured homes/moveable dwellings and the like that could be considered as part of a development application.

Recommendation: That Council:

· Given what it appears is highly likely to occur irrespective if representations, opts-in to the ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clauses for Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and the Farm stay accommodation optional clause for the Shoalhaven LEP (Jerberra Estate) 2014.

· Formally request a deferral from the commencement of the Agritourism Reforms until February 2024, to enable the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of a Planning Proposal and detailed DCP provisions (as required) that will establish additional Shoalhaven specific development standards for the ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm stay accommodation’ land uses.

Conclusion

Whilst there is merit in continuing to strongly advocate that the Agritourism Reforms do not apply to Shoalhaven, it appears highlight likely (or there is a significant risk) that the reforms will progress regardless NSW wide. As such, there is merit in also progressing a range of alternative measures to help protect the interests of the Shoalhaven community includes, including:

· Opting in to the optional clauses for ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ (as appropriate to the relevant LEP).

· Seeking a deferred commencement until February 2024 to enable the preparation, exhibition and finalisation of amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Shoalhaven DCP 2014 that will provide additional rigour and guidance regarding these amended and new land uses.

Community Engagement and Policy Implications

Council has continued to receive representations from Community Consultative Bodies (CCBs) and community members about the need for rural and agricultural tourism/visitor uses to be restricted or regulated.

Destination Sydney Surrounds South (DSSS) have also continued to advocate for a more certain planning framework for rural and agricultural tourism/visitor opportunities.

The Shoalhaven Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) that was adopted by Council in October 2020 includes the following action:

A7.1 Review planning and development controls for tourist and visitor accommodation and temporary uses to balance the support of tourism activity and manage impacts on communities and sensitive locations. Short-term (Note: this means between 2022-2024).

The recommended approach includes the continued progression of the Tourism Amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 and a Planning Proposal to provide specific development standards to support the ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ optional clauses. Any amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 or Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (including Jerberra Estate) would be exhibited for a period of at least 28 days. Community and industry engagement will be encouraged during the public exhibition period.

Financial Implications

The process of amending Shoalhaven’s LEPs and DCP would be resourced as much as possible via the existing Strategic Planning budget but may require specific funding if external or other assistance is needed to advance the work in a timely manner.

The insertion of the optional clauses (without the additional development standards) will be managed by DPE. As such, there will be minimal financial implications for Council.

Risk Implications

Without specific provisions in Shoalhaven LEP and DCP that guide agritourism development, development applications for these uses will need to be assessed individually on merit. This provides a level of risk and uncertainty for the community and Council and may result in undesirable built form and operational outcomes.

Without a deferred commencement arrangement in place, Council will not be able to get appropriate development standards and controls in place for the commencement of the Reforms in December 2022 and February 2023 respectively.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.549 Natural Disaster Recovery - Change to CEO Delegation of Authority

HPERM Ref: D22/446806

Department: Works & Services

Approver: Craig Exton, Manager - Technical Services

Reason for Report

To allow Council to consider the recommendation, to give the CEO authority to accept tenders and approve variations, on Council’s behalf, under the joint Australian Government-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 related to the funding of asset restoration resulting from Natural Disasters.

Recommendation

That:

1. Council resolves to give the CEO authority to accept tenders and approve variations, on Council’s behalf, for projects funded under the joint Australian Government-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018, related to the funding of asset restoration resulting from the March and July 2022 severe weather events.

2. This delegation be revoked in December 2025 upon completion of the asset restoration from the March and July 2022 severe weather events.

Options

1. That Shoalhaven City Council resolve that the CEO be given authority on Council’s behalf to approve all current and future Capital Expenditure under the joint Australian Government-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018.

Implications: This will ensure that capital projects for the restoration of public assets following declared Natural Disasters are delivered in the shortest program possible.

2. Council could choose to not accept the recommendation.

Implications: Delivery programs may be extended which will could create undue stress for the community.

Background

Shoalhaven City Council is currently undertaking a large program of Capital Projects to repair assets damaged by recent natural disasters in the Shoalhaven in the March and July 2022 severe weather events.

Procurement procedures determine that tenders above the threshold of $1M (including GST) must be reported to Council for approval. This also applies to approving payment of variations to contracts that may have initially been awarded for a value below $1M, but changes in scope have resulted in costs exceeding $1M.

Due to the nature of work under natural disaster funding, which needs to commence and be completed in the shortest timeframes possible, the current procurement process has inherent delays associated with the timeframe to include approval reports at scheduled Council meetings. These delays can add several weeks to delivery programs and as a consequence could contribute to undue stress for the community which is experiencing restrictions to their access to suitable infrastructure, resulting in numerous related issues.

Considering the scale of the damage in recent weather events and impact upon the community, options for expediting delivery timeframes have been reviewed to enable these works to be undertaken as soon as possible.

Delegating authority to the CEO to accept tenders and approve variations, on Council’s behalf, under the joint Australian Government-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018, exclusively related to the funding of asset restoration resulting from the March and July 2022 severe weather events, will eliminate the inherent delay of seeking a Council resolution for approval of works. The standard procurement processes will otherwise be undertaken to demonstrate value for money.

For context, some current examples of Natural Disaster recovery works exceeding the $1M approval threshold include:

1. Basin Pavement Rehabilitation Package Round 1

The original awarded contract value of $643,292.38 (excluding GST) has extended to a final contract value of $987,690.04 (excluding GST) due to additional damages identified from time of tender to delivery. The works were undertaken as the additional scope in its current condition posed a risk to commuters and could be undertaken by the contractor on site. The inclusion of the additional work then exceeded the tendering threshold for reporting to Council. Value for money had already been determined via the tendering process for the original contract sum.

2. Central Pavement Rehabilitation Package Round 1

The inclusion of additional work has exceeded the tendering threshold for reporting to Council. The original awarded contract of $848,681.22 (excluding GST) included a provisional sum of $269,535.99 so that Council could take the opportunity to improve repairs and extend the scope of works for Callala Beach Road. In consultation with the Roads Asset Manager, the opportunity was taken to include the addition scope and resulted in an improved standard of works on this road in an expedited timeframe. The inclusion of the provisional sum has subsequently exceeded the tendering threshold for reporting to Council.

3. Major Landslip Package

Early estimates indicate that the Major Landslip Package tender, that was released to the market on 31 October 2022, could have a contract value more than $40M. The Contract award is expected to occur over the Christmas period between Council meetings. The ability to obtain approval from the CEO without waiting for the Council meeting at the end of January would avoid delays in awarding the Contract and subsequent commencement of works on the ground.

Community Engagement

Community sentiment received to date clearly demonstrates a desire to expedite the works

and minimise delays.

Policy Implications

In practice this resolution will result in the following change to policy

1. For the period to 31 December 2025 (or until otherwise revoked by Council resolution), the CEO shall have unlimited authority to accept tenders specific to the Joint Australian Government-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018.

2. For all other matters, the CEO delegation to accept tenders will remain limited to <$1M

3. For all other matters resolution of Council will be sought for tenders >$1M and where recommendation is to not accept any tender or to take a particular path under Regulation 178(3).

The Delegation to the CEO to deal with Tenders is limited by the following provisions:

· Section 178(3) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 which requires a Council resolution not to accept tenders, invite fresh tenders and enter into negotiations:

“178(3) A council that decides not to accept any of the tenders for a proposed contract or receives no tenders for the proposed contract must, by resolution, do one of the following:

(a) Postpone or cancel the proposal for the contract

(b) Invite, in accordance with clause 167, 168 or 169, fresh tenders based on the same or different details,

(c) Invite, in accordance with clause 168, fresh applications from persons interested in tendering for the proposed contract,

(d) Invite, in accordance with clause 169, fresh applications from persons interested in tendering for contracts of the same kind as the proposed contract,

(e) Enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the tender,

(f) Carry out the requirements of the proposed contract itself.”

· S377(u) of the Local Government Act 1993 which states that council cannot delegate:

“(u) any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.”

Should it be identified that additional emergency arrangements are required to deal with Tenders limited by the above provisions during the Christmas period, a further report will be provided to the Council.

Financial Implications

Nil. Funding model remains the same. Funds will be approved prior to going to tender.

Risk Implications

Reduces risk as it expedites the program for delivery.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.555 Variations to Development Standards - September Quarter 2022

HPERM Ref: D22/415901

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. Variations Report - 3rd Quarter - September 2022 ⇩

2. Planning Circular - Variations to Development Standards - May 2020 ⇩

Reason for Report

This report is submitted to the Ordinary Meeting due to the requirement (Department of Planning and Environment) that the information contained in the report is to be reported to the full elected Council and to the Department on a quarterly basis. All reports to the Department must be submitted through the NSW Planning Portal.

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

Council is also required to publish the variations in addition to reporting the variations to the full Council and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

This is a regular information report.

Recommendation

That Council receive the Variations to Development Standards – September Quarter Report 2022 for information.

Options

1. Receive the report for information.

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

2. Resolve an alternative and provide details to staff.

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

Background

Procedural and reporting requirements

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

· A written application (by an applicant) must be made to support a variation.

· An online register of all variations to be maintained. (Council’s website.)

· A report must be submitted through the Portal.

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

Summary of reportable variations

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

There were five (5) reportable variations for the September Quarter.

Table – Variations September Quarter 2022

DA	Lot	DP	Street Name	Suburb	Post Code	Description	Standard Varied	Extent Of Variation	Decision	Date
SF10931	147	10209	Fleet Way	CALLALA BAY	2540	Torrens subdivision of approved dual occupancy	Lot size	8.46%	Assumed concurrence. Delegation.	08/07/2022
DA22/1310	30	1267172	Beach St	HUSKISSON	2540	Flat Building	Height	6.15%	Assumed concurrence. Delegation	11/07/2022
DA22/1041	12	264461	Augusta Place	MOLLYMOOK BEACH	2539	Dual occupancy	Lot size	2.3%	Assumed concurrence. Delegation	20/07/2022
DA22/1163	2	1269899	Gumtree Lane	KANGAROO VALLEY	2577	Dwelling	Lot size	8%	Assumed concurrence. Delegation	31/07/2022
SF10934	13	1194919	Red Gum Drive	ULLADULLA	2539	Subdivision	Lot size	7%	Assumed concurrence. Delegation	11/08/2022

SF10931 approved a Torrens title subdivision of an existing approved and under construction dual occupancy.

The parent lot is of an irregular shape with the two resulting ‘child’ lots containing a dwelling on each lot. The development appears as two dwelling houses. The subdivision does not affect the outward appearance of the development with the impacts of the development largely known as a result of the built form.

DA22/1310 - approved a residential flat development consisting of 14 apartments over 4 storeys and basement parking. The maximum height limitation was 13 metres. The height penetration (0.8m) was attributable to a small portion of skillion roof which incorporated a lift overrun.

DA22/1041 – approved a double storey dual occupancy on land zoned R3. Development consent must not be granted to development for a dual occupancy on R3 land unless the lot is less than 800 square metre, and the consent authority is satisfied that lot amalgamation is not possible. The lot was 819 square metres (19 square metres over the numeric requirement). However, the applicant has clearly demonstrated amalgamation is not possible. The land on either side is already developed and in different ownerships. The land behind the site is the golf course.

DA22/1163 – approved an in-principle dwelling site – that is a concept approval requiring a future DA for the dwelling. The lot was originally created in a manner to retain all prime agricultural land in another lot, in a previous subdivision.

SF10934 – approved a six (6) lot subdivision. One of the lots was smaller than the minimum lot size. The variation was supported as the subdivision pattern was consistent with the adjoining lots, the variation relatively minor, the size of the lot will fit a modern dwelling. Further a pathway between the lot and adjoining development will provide further separation between developments.

Conclusion

· The variations and applications approved during the September quarter have been uploaded to the Department of Planning and Environment Portal site and published on Council’s website.

· This report to Council, combined with the report (via the Portal) to the Department and website publication satisfies the requirements for the Department’s reporting regime for clause 4.6 matters.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.557 Feasibility Study - Community Infrastructure at Wowly Creek Reserve, Callala Bay

HPERM Ref: D22/380772

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: Jane Lewis, Director - City Lifestyles

Attachments: 1. Excerpt from internal Council email dated 10 February 2014 ⇩

2. Callala Bay - Wowly Creek Reserve - Public Toilets - Policy & Resources Committee 17/9/13 - Assets & Works (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Public Toilet Utilisation Survey of Portaloo at Wowly Creek Callala Bay - Friday 30 September 2016 ⇩

4. Response to Callala Bay Community Association Wowly Creek Toilet ⇩

5. Site images - Wowly Creek Reserve ⇩

Reason for Report

This report is to provide Council with information on the feasibility of additional community infrastructure at Wowly Creek Reserve, Callala Bay, in accordance with MIN22.567.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Accept this report for information regarding the feasibility of additional community infrastructure at Wowly Creek Reserve, Callala Bay.

2. Incorporate the investigations for additional community infrastructure at Wowly Creek into strategic documents such as the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan and Council’s priority ranking for new amenities.

3. Continue to provide a portable toilet at Wowly Creek during peak usage periods.

4. Provide way-finding signage to nearby amenities at the entrance of Wowly Creek Reserve.

Options

1. Adopt the above recommendation.

Implications: By including Wowly Creek Reserve in the review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan, Council will be allowing a more holistic and comprehensive consideration of recreational facility needs within the area, as well as ensuring alignment with Council’s broader suite of strategic documents. It will also allow Council to strategically prioritise projects based on need and funding availability.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: Pending the significance of the alteration, this may result in impacts to Council’s existing strategic program of works, capital budgets, and the environment.

Background

Wowly Creek Reserve is situated at the end of Monarch Place, Callala Bay. The reserve is predominantly used as a thoroughfare to the Callala Bay foreshore and Wowly Creek. The reserve currently contains limited infrastructure, including a small gravel car park, bike rack, rubbish bin, and a picnic table.

Wowly Creek Reserve is divided into two lots of Council owned community land. The smaller lot is categorised as Park, and the larger lot is categorised as a Natural Area – Foreshore. Wowly Creek Reserve is classified as a local level park. An image of the site can be viewed below.

Figure 1: Wowly Creek Reserve - Cadastre Lots

Council has provided a portable toilet at Wowly Creek Reserve during peak visitation periods. There have been ongoing requests for permanent amenities at this site, since the portable toilets were first introduced in 2007.

The towns of Callala Bay and Callala Beach have 6 public toilets provided by Council. The nearest public toilet to Wowly Creek is at the Callala Bay boat ramp, approximately 700 metres (9 minute walk) from this location.

At the Ordinary meeting of Council on 22 August 2022, a Notice of Motion was submitted to Council regarding community infrastructure facilities at Wowly Creek, Callala Bay. As a result, it was resolved (MIN22.567):

That:

1. Council undertakes a scoping and feasibility study into the provision of the following in the Wowly Creek precinct:

a) Toilets

b) An electric barbeque

c) Seating and a shade structure

2. The cost of the report be funded from operation funds to be adjusted in a quarterly review

3. The matter be reported back to Council with possible funding options

Historical Information

The provision of a permanent amenities block at Wowly Creek Reserve, has been raised several times over the years by various community members. The most recent being a letter dated 5 April 2022, from The Callala Bay Community Association, requesting a permanent toilet at the site.

Council has considered this site in its toilet block prioritisation lists over the years. This can be seen in Attachment 1 (pg. 3) and Attachment 2 (pg. 3) in which Council has considered the site for a permanent toilet block in 2013/2014, and based on cost and utilisation rates, deemed the site inappropriate.

In response to continued community demand for a permanent toilet at this location, Council undertook a survey in 2015 - 2017 collecting actual usage rates of the portable toilet Wowly Creek Reserve during peak periods.

This data was used to inform the potential future need and use of a possible permanent toilet facilities. The results identified that there were extremely low usage rates of the portable toilets. It was determined that there are public toilets with much higher identified utilisation levels. See Attachment 3 (Public Toilet Utilisation Survey - raw data).

A summary of the data is below:

· 2 May 2015 between 9.45am and 11.45am – Sunny Weather - 2 patrons utilising amenities

· 30 September 2015 between 8.45am to 12.15pm – cool weather – 0 patrons utilising amenities

· 30 January 2017 between 10:00am to 12:00pm – hot weather – 1 patron utilising amenities

Wowly Creek reserve was considered for a permanent toilet block again in 2018, this was communicated to the wider community and specifically the Callala Bay Community Association. However, utilisation rates, and proximity to another toilet nearby deemed this site not a priority see Attachment 4.

As it currently stands Wowly Creek toilet block in not listed in Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Existing Community Infrastructure at Wowly Creek Reserve

Wowly Creek Reserve currently contains limited infrastructure to cater for public use. The site is situated at the cul-de-sac on Monarch Place, where an informal gravel carpark is located. The car park can hold approximately 8 vehicles.

At the entrance to the reserve there is signage, a bin, dog faeces bag dispenser, and a bike rack. The reserve consists of a gravel access track and steps, to allow access to the nearby beach and Wowly Creek. There is also a small clearing, that contains a single picnic table with views of Wowly Creek. The infrastructure provided to Wowly Creek Reserve is consistent with the Reserve ‘category and classification for a local park.

Photographs of the site can be viewed in Attachment 5. The image below depicts the location of the existing infrastructure within the reserve.

A high angle view of a road

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 2: Wowly Creek Reserve - Site Layout

Colour	Infrastructure
Red	Gravel car park
Blue	Bin
Purple	Bike rack
Green	Picnic Table
Orange	Access Path

Portable Toilet Installation

Public amenities are normally provided in conjunction with other facilities to increase their utilisation and are provided in areas of high activity.

Best practice asset management principles require that the replacement of existing public amenities should be prioritised prior to the construction of any new amenities. For this reason, portable toilets are a viable interim option for areas with fluctuating usage rates, associated with high seasonal usage during the holiday period.

In order to understand the current volume of users, further investigations could be completed at Wowly Creek Reserve using smart technology or the Internet of Things. This option (if suitable for a portable installation) would provide an evidence-based approach for Council to consider the need for amenities outside of the times where a portable toilet is installed.

Environmental Implications

A suite of National and State legislation and Council policies (listed in the recently drafted Foreshore Reserves Policy) relate to the environmental protection and conservation of foreshore reserves, all pertaining to best practice management to enhance biodiversity and mitigate risk of impacts on foreshore reserves.

The Natural Area classified portion of Wowly Creek Reserve comprises two protected Endangered Ecological Communities – Saltmarsh and Bangalay Sand Forest. The Wowly Creek environs is recognised as a Sanctuary Zone within the Jervis Bay Marine Park.

Further development of recreational facilities within the reserve would potentially negatively impact on the environmental values of the reserve through necessary site disturbance, including vegetation clearing and excavation during construction activities, plus soil disturbance and site denudation over time due to increased visitor activities relating to the developments.

The accumulation of these impacts can cause siltation and pollution of the adjacent waterway, foreshore erosion, degradation of significant vegetation communities and habitat values, both terrestrial and aquatic. The current seasonal higher visitation to the reserve is already having an impact on the health of the environmental assets of the natural area reserve.

The protection and enhancement of the foreshore vegetation and habitat is critical to maintain the environmental integrity of the reserve and to enable it to function as a buffer zone to mitigate environmental threats to the integral aquatic sanctuary zone.

Policy Implications

Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan

Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP) makes recommendations for the future provision, priorities, and funding of community infrastructure at local, district and regional levels.

Wowly Creek Reserve is not identified in the CISP, therefore there are no future recommendations at the site. Under the CISP, Wowly Creek Reserve is identified as a local level park.

Local parks provide a range of recreation opportunities for local residents. These parks contain limited infrastructure yet offer local community benefits. Local passive recreation parks are intended to offer residents a complementary open space to their backyards. They are likely to attract users from a small catchment area and generally cater for short visits by small groups.

The provision of amenities and electric barbecues within local parks is not recommended under the CISP.

Master Plan Priority List

A Councillor briefing and subsequent report was presented to Council regarding prioritising upcoming Master Plans throughout the Shoalhaven Local Government Area. At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 June 2022, it was resolved (MIN22.443):

That Council:

1. Adopt the following priority list of Master Plans for Council owned or managed land for upcoming budget expenditure:

a. Parramatta Park, Nowra

b. Rannoch Reserve, West Nowra

c. Crest Park, North Nowra

d. Edwards Avenue Reserve, Bomaderry

e. Depot Farm, West Nowra

f. Greenwell Point Foreshore Reserve

g. Francis Ryan Reserve, Sanctuary Point

h. Culburra Beach Community Centre

i. Wool Lane Sporting Complex, Sanctuary Point

2. Receive a future workshop and report at the completion of the above Master Plans, to re-prioritise other additional Master Plans that remain outstanding

Wowly Creek Reserve was not identified as an area on the Master Plan priority listing. The provision of major infrastructure or upgrades to a reserve generally would not occur in the absence of a recent Master Plan.

10 Year Capital Plan – Public Amenities

Shoalhaven City Council holds a priority list for the upgrade, decommission, or creation of public amenities within the Local Government Area. The first 10 priorities on this list include:

1. Upper Cyrus St Reserve, Hyams Beach

2. Myola Breakwall, Cathrine St, Myola

3. Boat Ramp, Lower Cyrus St Reserve, Hyams Beach

4. Surf Club (Gumley Reserve), Shoalhaven Heads

5. Davis Park, Nowra

6. Boree Carpark, Ulladulla

7. Green Street, Ulladulla

8. Fire Brigade Park, Erowal Bay

9. Adj Lake Entrance, Narrawallee

10. Sussex Inlet Road (Marine Rescue), Sussex Inlet

Wowly Creek Reserve is not identified in the 10-year capital plan. It is to be noted that there was no budget allocated in the 2022/23 financial year to progress any of the above projects.

Community Engagement

Extensive community consultation has been conducted to inform Council’s CISP and the 10-year capital plan for public amenity upgrades/installations.

Further community consultation would be required to inform any proposed upgrades to Wowly Creek Reserve.

The CISP review will be undertaken across 2022/23 and 2023/24 and this may present an opportunity to reconsider any further development and investment at Wowly Creek.

Financial Implications

The provision of portable toilets over peak periods is currently budgeted for by Council’s Building Services Team. Currently, the cost for weekly rent of a portable toilet is approximately $54 per week, and pump outs cost approximately $72 (ex GST). Further budget is required for delivery and ongoing maintenance/cleaning of the portable toilets.

Since upgrades to Wowly Creek Reserve have not been identified in any of Council’s strategic plans or forward planning working documents, there is no capital or operational budget for the provision of any additional infrastructure that is not already provided at the site.

Funding options for potential upgrades at Wowly Creek Reserve include seeking grant funding, or the redistribution of funding for capital projects.

Risk Implications

Upgrades to community infrastructure at Wowly Creek Reserve has not been identified in any of Council’s strategic or forward planning documents. Any further progression into investigations, planning, or budgeting for potential improvements will require a shift in budgets and resourcing from other projects, potentially putting these at risk.

This presents a possible reputational risk to Council, as approved projects awaiting budget or resources will be further delayed and impacted. Potential impacted projects in the 2022/23 financial year could include Master Plans for Kangaroo Valley and Milton Showgrounds, Crookhaven amenities, Boongaree stages 4 and 6, and pump track consultation and design for Bomaderry, Sanctuary Point, Sussex Inlet, and Ulladulla should Council decide to reallocate resources away from these projects towards improvements at Wowly Creek Reserve.

It is proposed that the provision of community infrastructure is guided by Council’s strategic documents, to ensure a considered and justifiable distribution of facilities across the Shoalhaven Local Government Area.

Any additional development to this area may have significant environmental impacts to the sensitive ecological environment surrounding this area and appropriate due diligence investigations would first need to be undertaken.

An alternative approach would be to install way-finding signage to direct patrons to nearby permanent public toilets amenities at Callala Bay Boat Ramp, this could resolve the demand whilst having minimal environmental and financial impact.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 31 October 2022

Page 1

CL22.574 Question on Notice - Youth Week 2022

HPERM Ref: D22/437154

Submitted by: Clr Moo D'Ath

Question

Shoalhaven City Council held three events during Youth Week 2022 (1-14 April). The three events were the ‘Futures Fair’ (Friday 1 April), Open-Air Cinema Roadshow (Wednesday 6 April) and ‘Futures Fest’ (Tuesday 12 April). These questions are proposed to find out if youth in the Shoalhaven enjoyed the events and found them easily accessible. The responses could be very useful for planning of future events.

1. How many people attended each of the three events?

2. What was the average age demographic that attended the events?

3. Was there feedback gathered from people attending these events, if so, can the feedback be sent out to councillors?

4. Were there any young people involved in developing these event ideas?

5. Where and how much in advance were the events advertised?

Response

1. How many people attended each of the three events?

Open Air Cinema Night to showcase ‘Shazam!’.

Number of community members in audience: 5

Futures Fair

Number of Service Providers: 20

Number of participants: 10

To note – the Futures Fair and Open Air Cinema where affected by bad weather and ultimately combined. The location was moved from Harry Sawkins Park to an indoor venue ‘El Horses’, with 24 hours notice which affected attendance.

Futures Fest

Number of community members in audience: 100+

2. What was the average age demographic that attended the events?

75% - high school students

25% - tertiary level

3. Was there feedback gathered from people attending these events, if so, can the feedback be sent out to councillors?

Evaluation of feedback from Youth Week 2022 identified that future Youth Week events should provide opportunities for young people to showcase their talents and skills (through music, art and culture for example). The inclusion of young people in all aspects of the planning and delivery process should be built upon from the youth consultation and engagement that did take place in 2022, and in fact, is the case for Youth Week 2023.

It was identified that including young people specifically in the project management phase, will encourage their peers to participate. Young people reported that they are less inclined to attend events organised by Council exclusively, but more so with service providers and community groups / organisations that have a youth focus.

Feedback suggested that youth events organised in partnership with such organisations provides an avenue for more effective engagement and promotion among young people. They also reported that initiatives that are delivered by schools, should not be replicated during Youth Week, for example, career pathways initiatives. Such feedback has been considered for future Youth Week events. This feedback relates to the Youth Pathway Expo which was, in part, a duplication of other events supported by local schools.

Responses regarding the Futures Fest, where young people were able to showcase their talents, was very positive and most people reported that they would attend a similar event in the future. One young person was quoted as saying, “(this was a) great opportunity for young people to perform and for us as a first-time band, we found it was a brilliant environment”.

4. Were there any young people involved in developing these event ideas?

The Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) were instrumental in developing ideas for Youth Week 2022, and through their learnings on the committee, identified that employment and training pathways were one of the key themes that should be incorporated into the week’s events. Some were unaware, however, of the role their schools play in organising similar initiatives in more senior levels at school. The YAC were also regularly consulted throughout the planning phase of Youth Week 2022.

Additionally, partner organisations that support young people, provided opportunities for this demographic to be involved in the planning and delivery of events, including showcasing their own short films and participating in a battle of the band’s competition.

5. Where and how much in advance were the events advertised?

The Communications Team at Shoalhaven City Council were engaged on 28 January 2022 prior to the event, to develop a communications strategy that would ensure early, extensive and suitable communication and promotions were distributed for Futures Fair. The plan sought to identify opportunities to increase attendance at the event by young people.

However, due to the Communications and Media Teams needing to pivot their focus due to necessary flood communications being prioritised, the final collateral wasn’t made available until 17 March 2022. This provide a shorter lead time than initially planned for an event that taking place on 1 April 2022.

The Future Fair branding worked well, and separated itself well from the Council’s corporate branding, thus creating a community feel that was attractive to young people and community members.

Given the short timeline for sharing posters, the media was not shared in enough time prior to the event. Social media was only made live on the day prior to the event and posters delivered in the week prior. This meant the community were not aware of the event.

In future, it will be necessary to provide more general Youth Week promotion, and direct people to event online platforms for updated event details. Future events could include opportunities for more widespread visual communication, with posters in key locations throughout the community.

Other

Concurrently Council ran a Youth Week grant program to encourage organisations across the Shoalhaven to deliver events for youth week.

These other Council funded events were:

· Nowra Youth Centre’s Youth Week Events

o Inspirational Quote Competition

o Life Skills Information Session

o Art Activity raising awareness of sexual health

Attendees were asked to complete feedback forms regarding the info sessions and here are some responses:

o “I enjoyed this session, I thought it was really helpful”

o “I really like the way they explained it, the people were so nice”

o “Great informative session”

o “I liked the session, it had a relaxed atmosphere and the couches were good”

o “I liked the info session it was really good”

o “I learned about a lot of stuff that I didn’t know”

However, the Centre found it difficult to engage young people during the school holidays and this was reflected in low attendance numbers.

· CWA – Creatives Winning Ways

This event was free for young people aged 13-25 and ran daily, from Sunday 1 April to Thursday 14 April.

The program had 11 young people participate who took part in excursions to Bundanon, the Shoalhaven Regional Gallery and activities including screen printing, drawing and other craft.

· Headspace Nowra – Design your own Tote Bag

This was a pop-up event where young people were invited to attend and design their own tote bag. 16 people attended the event and where able to connect with headspace staff and each other.

· Mission Australia’s Youth and Seniors Intergenerational Morning Tea

35 young people attended as well as 15 seniors. Feedback from all attendees was that they enjoyed meeting people from other generations. The session was targeted at students from Ulladulla High School and local Senior Citizens. The event fostered community connection and reduced isolation as both generations met.

[1] The EP&A Act notes that: ‘Environmental assessment of the development may nevertheless be required under Division 5.1 – Environmental Impact’ and other legislation would therefore still apply, for example the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act 1997 for any noise or pollution impacts. Any licence or permit required from a public authority may still require an environmental assessment.

Directorate	Name	Designated Position Start Date	Returned
City Development	Michael Smith	15/08/2022	26/09/2022
City Futures	Fallon Kassis	19/07/2022	30/08/2022

Tenderer	Location
State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd	Prestons, NSW 2170
Stabilised Pavements of Australia Pty Ltd	Somersby, NSW 2250
Rural Bitumen Services Pty Ltd	South Nowra, NSW 2541
Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd	Unanderra, NSW 2526
NA Group Pty Ltd	Padstow, NSW 2211
Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd	Mogo, NSW 2536
All Pavement Solutions Pty Ltd	Bella Vista, 2153 NSW

Tenderer	Location
Jirgens Civil Pty Ltd	South Nowra NSW 2540