Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 December 2022

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.636 Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Next Steps - Review of Planning Options for Taylors Lane

HPERM Ref: D22/478527

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Option Concept Layout Plans (drawing SK001 - SK008) ⇩

2. Summary of Submissions - Taylors Lane Planning Options Nov 2022 ⇩

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the outcomes of the recent public exhibition of the planning options review for the Taylors Lane area, Cambewarra (to be renamed Badagarang in due course), identify the preferred options and recommend the next steps to conclude/advance the outcomes of the review.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. For the ‘West’ section of Taylors Lane:

a. Adopt Option W1 as shown in Attachment 1 drawing SK001 being upgrade of Taylors Lane to a ‘Tree Lined Boulevard’ in accordance with the adopted Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter NB3:

i. Widen the road ~5m each side of the existing centreline.

ii. Remove the existing mature trees on the northern side of the existing pavement.

iii. Plant suitable Street Trees along the upgraded Taylors Lane consistent with the adopted Moss Vale Road South Species List

b. Receive a further report on options that may help to deliver the required road upgrade in a timely manner to support the overall Moss Vale Road South URA.

2. For the ‘East’ section of Taylors Lane:

a. If it wishes to retain the trees, proceed to upgrade Taylors Lane in accordance with Option E3 as shown in Attachment 1 drawing SK006, with Option E1 as shown in Attachment 1 drawing SK004 as a ‘backup’ option, and commence negotiations for a possible joint funding and delivery arrangement with the landholder/developer of DA SF10898;

b. If it does not wish to retain the trees, proceed with the upgrade of Taylors Lane in accordance with Option E2 as shown in Attachment 1 drawing SK005.

3. Notify those who made submissions during the public exhibition period of this decision.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: Council will adopt a policy position on Taylors Lane and resolve the current uncertainty for local landholders and developers. Taylors Lane within Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area (URA) will be upgraded to a ‘Tree Lined Boulevard’ in accordance with adopted DCP 2014 Chapter NB3 as the adjoining land is developed. Council will advance with project detailed design, land acquisitions, negotiations for a joint funding / delivery arrangement and construction for the Taylors Lane upgrade East of the URA as part of the Far North Collector Road Network.

2. Defer a decision and receive a further briefing from staff.

Implications: Council will receive a briefing from staff on the outcomes of the public exhibition, the preferred options and recommended actions before deciding what steps to take next. This is likely to delay the adoption of a policy position on Taylors Lane and the delivery of the required road upgrades by several months and is not the preferred option.

3. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the nature of the alternate resolution. The review has identified a number of alternate options for Taylors Lane that are not considered to be feasible. Further investigation of alternate options will delay the required road upgrade, prolong the uncertainty for local landholders and development and may yield little or no benefit. As such this is not the preferred option.

4. Do not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Council will not adopt a policy position on Taylors Lane. This is likely to create ongoing uncertainty for local landholders and developments, delay the release of new housing supply, and delay the required upgrade of Taylors Lane. As such this is not the preferred option.

Background

Council resolved in June 2020 (MIN20.419) to ‘defer’ a decision on the planned upgrade of the Taylors Lane area, Cambewarra (to be renamed Badagarang in due course), as part of the Far North Collector Road project and commence a review of options for how the existing trees that are currently a feature of Taylors Lane can feasibly be retained and how the required road upgrade could still be provided as part of the future development of the broader area.

The review considers potential changes to planning controls that may be required to support the long-term retention of the trees, given the development that is enabled under the existing zones. It also considers the ongoing appropriateness of the existing urban zones (R3 Medium Density, B1 Neighbourhood Centre and SP2 Infrastructure) at the eastern end of Taylors Lane.

The review area includes the full length of Taylors Lane and adjoining land as shown in the figures below. The existing zoning of the review area is shown in Figure 2.

The ‘Indicative Layout Plan’ in the adopted DCP Chapter NB3: Moss Vale Road South URA identifies Taylors Lane within the URA as a future ‘Tree Lined Boulevard’. This would see the existing trees removed and replaced with new urban street trees through time. The adjoining residential zoned land within the URA is currently being subdivided and developed and will be a major source of new housing supply for the next 5-10 years.

The upgrade of the section of Taylors Lane east of the URA boundary is currently in the scope of the Far North Collector (FNC) Road project (see Figures 1 and 2).

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Aerial view of review area

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Existing zoning of review area

Council considered an initial Options Report (prepared Studio GL in 2021) on 7 September 2021. The report included a range of options that could retain the trees based on planning, urban design and transport considerations. The review however did not investigate/consider the potential costs, technical feasibility or environmental impacts of the options in any detail.

Options were presented and considered separately for the ‘West’ and ‘East’ sections of Taylors Lane as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Concept Layout Plans for each option are shown in Attachment 1 drawings SK001 - SK008.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: ‘West’ Options

Diagram, map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: ‘East’ Options

The Council resolution from 7 September 2021 is below (MIN21.619).

That Council:

1. Receive the review of options for Taylors Lane, as detailed in the report prepared by Studio GL at Attachment 1 for information.

2. Request that Council staff undertake further investigations into the indicative costs (construction, land acquisition, habitat loss, cultural heritage loss and environmental heritage loss) associated with each option, including identification of a preferred option/s, and receive a Councillor briefing from staff at the appropriate point on this work.

3. Place the consultant’s report and additional information (point 2 above) on public exhibition for at least 30 days, invite comment on it from local stakeholders and the broader community.

4. Receive a further future report to consider the outcomes of the public exhibition and decide how to proceed with the review of planning controls associated with Taylors Lane, Cambewarra.

5. Notify local stakeholders (landowners and developers around Taylors Lane), participants in the stakeholder workshops, development industry representatives and the Cambewarra Residents and Ratepayers Association and Pride of Bomaderry of this decision and of the exhibition arrangements when they are known.

Strategic Options Assessment report

Consistent with Part 2 of the above resolution, a Strategic Options Assessment report was prepared for Council by engineering etc. consultancy Cardno Pty Ltd (now Stantec Pty Ltd) to address part 2) of the resolution. It provides the following fuller assessment of the options:

· Preliminary cost estimate - including design, construction and land acquisition.

· Potential environment and cultural heritage impacts.

· Review of technical feasibility including civil design, utilities, geotechnical conditions, flooding/hydrology and traffic/connectivity.

· Options scored and ranked on ‘Cost’ and ‘Environment/cultural heritage impact’.

The analysis is at a ‘desktop’ level; as such, the results are indicative and are subject to potential change as more detailed investigation is undertaken in the future.

Councillors received a briefing on the results of these investigations on 28 July 2022.

Summary of Findings

Several options that retain the trees are considered ‘not feasible’ for two main reasons:

Long term impact on tree health:

Options W2, W3, W3a & E1a will require earthworks, construction and drainage work in tree root zones. The impact of any resulting damage to roots and altered drainage on the long-term health of the trees is not known in any detail at this point.

Unacceptable or unknown traffic outcome:

Council’s long term planning strategies (Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan etc) identify a two-way Taylors Lane as part of the required local road network supporting the development of the Moss Vale Road URA’s.

Options W3 and W3a do not meet that requirement. Options E4 and E5 reduce connectivity for traffic travelling to North Nowra due to left-in-left-out intersections with the Far North Collector Road (FNC). They would potentially make a new roundabout further east on the FNC redundant once the existing Taylors Lane is closed to traffic.

The options considered ‘not feasible’ are highlighted red in Figure 5. The remaining options considered ‘feasible’ (subject to further investigation) are E1, E2, E3 and W1. They are highlighted green in Figure 5.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: Summary of options considered Feasible (green) and Not Feasible (red)

The scores/ranks of East and West options are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively (higher rank/score indicates a more favourable option).

Table 1: Scores - East Options (green = feasible, red = not feasible)

Table

Description automatically generated

Table 1 indicates that the options that retain the trees (E1 and E3) will cost approximately $1M and $2.6M more respectively than the option that removes the trees (E2). E1 and E3 score similar on environment/cultural heritage impact but the nature of impact differs - E3 impacts more vegetation, whilst E1 encroaches into a waterway. Cultural heritage was not a differentiating factor – all options were found to have the same potential to impact on cultural heritage that may be present.

Table 2: Score results - West Options (green = feasible, red = not feasible)

Table

Description automatically generated

Table 2 indicates that W1 is the only ‘West’ option considered to be feasible at this point.

Community Engagement

The Review of Planning Options for Taylors Lane was publicly exhibited from Wednesday 5 October to Friday 4 November 2022 (31 days) in accordance with part (3) of Council’s 7 September 2021 resolution.

Notification of the exhibition arrangements was sent to local landholders and developers of land around Taylors Lane, the Cambewarra Village CCB, Pride of Bomaderry CCB, development industry representatives, persons subscribed to the ‘Get Involved’ pages for the Nowra-Bomaderry URAs and the FNC and all who have previously made submissions throughout the review.

The exhibition package which is still available for viewing on Councils exhibitions webpage included:

1. Explanatory Document

2. Options Report (Studio GL, 2021)

3. Strategic Options Assessment Report (Stantec, 2022)

4. Public Notice

Six submissions were received - five from local residents/landholders and one from the developer of the R3 zoned land around the eastern end of Taylors Lane. The submissions from local residents/landholders are summarised in Table 3 and Attachment 2. Copies of the actual submissions can be made available to Councillors if needed on request.

Table 3: Summary of local resident/landholder submissions

Option	For (Against)	Summary of comments
W1	2 (2)	*For* – Simple and cost-effective. Aligns with the adopted URA masterplan upon which developments are based. Minimal disturbance to existing properties. Avoids having to redesign approved developments around another option. The trees in ‘West’ are of lesser scenic quality than those in ‘East’. *Against* - Loss of existing character, habitat value and natural/scenic amenity. *Neither* – one submission noted the removal of the trees is the most likely outcome and asked that they be retained for as long as practical.
W2	1	*For* - Appears to have least impact on the existing trees.
W3 / W3a	-	-
E1	2	*For* – generally aligns with the adopted URA masterplan.
E1a	1	*For* – would enhance ability for drivers to experience the laneway, enhancing its value and character of the area. Would like to see more detail on this option.
E2	(4)	*Against* – Permanent loss of natural character/amenity and a rare feature of exceptional beauty. Valued community and recreational asset. The only scenic buffer and east-west wildlife corridor in the URA. Many hollow bearing trees (>100yrs) which provide important habitat. Trees are important for the mental health of the residents. Need to retain some of the existing character that will disappear with the future housing development.
E3	2 (1)	*For* – Considered the most favourable option. Opportunity to deliver as part of the development of the R3 zoned land with the landholder/developer’s support, a good way forward. *Against* – Prevents access to an existing farm south of Taylors Lane. Further fragments farmland. Interferes with existing services (gas pipeline, electricity, sewer). The land is flood prone. May interfere with the future Western Bypass.
E4	1 (1)	*For* – retains the trees and character laneway. *Against* – Prevents access to an existing farm south of Taylors Lane. Further fragments farmland. Interferes with existing services (gas pipeline, electricity, sewer). The land is flood prone. May interfere with the future Western Bypass.
E5	(1)	Against – Prevents access to an existing farm south of Taylors Lane. Further fragments farmland. Interferes with existing services (gas pipeline, electricity, sewer). The land is flood prone. May interfere with the future Western Bypass.

The submission provided for a developer operating in the URA presents an analysis that draws different conclusions about the cost and environmental impact of options E1 and E3:

· E1 is estimated to cost $7.6M, not $5.36M. The road is aligned over a watercourse which will most likely need to be diverted, with no consideration given to the associated costs or whether the Department of Planning & Environment - Water would support this approach. Flood modelling has not been done to verify whether the design is feasible. Council’s cost estimate does not account for the 10m strip of R3 zoned land between existing Taylors Lane and E1 which would need to be acquired by Council.

· E3 is estimated to cost $5.6M, not $7.06M. Council’s costing includes a bridge span, however earthworks and culverts would be capable of addressing drainage flows. The inclusion of a bridge significantly inflates Council’s costing.

· Based on analysis Option E1 actually has a higher estimated cost than E3 when all relevant factors are considered.

· Many of the trees impacted by option E3 are in the R3 zone. As such it is likely that those trees will be impacted (either immediately or over time) when the land is developed, and this reduces the relative environmental impact of E3.

Discussion

Taylors Lane West

Submissions on the ‘West’ options were mixed, with some opposed to the removal of the trees and others supportive and/or accepting of that ultimate outcome. The support in some submissions to retain the trees for their character/amenity and habitat value is acknowledged, however, there are significant practical issues with retaining the trees in a developing URA that was essentially planned around removing them.

Approved developments on either side of Taylors Lane are predicated on a URA layout plan adopted by Council in 2018. Adopting a different outcome at this stage may have unintended effects on developments and possibly further delay housing release. Planned street intersections with Taylors Lane will require trees to be removed whichever option is adopted.

Works associated with the construction of Options W2 and W3 and dwellings on adjoining lots will occur in the tree root zone. The Options Report suggests that a 13 metre tree protection zone (TPZ) is required to ensure the long term health of the trees. It would encroach significantly into adjoining residential lots and may require Council to acquire the land to ultimately facilitate this outcome and this would be a significant extra cost that is not factored into the cost estimates.

As noted in submissions, the trees are a feature of the existing landscape but the area is however transforming into an urban landscape. The trees are less likely to be compatible in that new landscape. For example, there is likely to be pressure from future residents to remove trees considered dangerous to dwellings. Piecemeal removal of trees is likely to compromise the remaining trees. There is a likelihood that the existing trees will be lost through time, even if they are retained initially with the best intentions.

For these reasons options W2 and W3 are not considered feasible and it is recommended that Council adopt option W1 being the upgrade of Taylors Lane to a new ‘tree lined boulevard’ consistent with the adopted DCP.

It may be some time before the existing concessional lots along Taylors Lane develop and upgrade their respective sections of road. To ensure the road is delivered in a timely manner to support the overall URA it may be necessary to include it in the Contributions Plan or establish another appropriate mechanism. In this regard it is recommended that Council review potential options/mechanisms and receive a further report on them at the appropriate point.

Taylors Lane East

Submissions were generally very opposed to removing the trees (option E2) in this section. They are regarded as an asset to the community, an important wildlife corridor and an integral part of the local character. With no adopted area specific DCP or infill development in ‘East’ there may be more of an opportunity to adopt an alternate option and retain the trees.

The two alternate options identified as ‘feasible’, E1 and E3, generally received the most support in submissions. It is recommended that the other options W3a, E1a, E4 and E5 that are considered ‘not feasible’ be ruled out from further consideration at this point. E2 does remain a ‘feasible’ option should Council decide to proceed with it.

The costs of E1 and E3 are estimated to be $1 million and $2.6 million higher than E2 respectively. The developer submission suggests cost will be higher for E1 and lower for E3 for several reasons. These conclusions may or may not be accurate and can only be confirmed with further investigation. The submission suggests that the trees impacted by option E3 will be impacted by future development regardless, reducing the relative impact of E3. This also may be a valid conclusion.

There is the potential for Council and the developer to possibly jointly fund and deliver option E3 as part of the proposed development application (DA) for the R3 zoned land (DA SF10898). The DA proposal (see Figure 6) generally incorporates E3 as a ‘new’ Taylors Lane. The western end is modified to address concerns raised in another submission about access to farmland on the southern side of Taylors Lane. The proposed road that crosses Taylors Lane is at an existing gap in the trees.

Diagram, map

Description automatically generated

Figure 6: Proposed subdivision - R3 zoned land (SF10898)

The DA is subject to a range of assessment considerations under the LEP, DCP and other planning instruments. It may or may not ultimately be approved or be approved in an amended form. Council will need to bear this in mind in negotiating any joint funding and delivery arrangement with the developer. At this point though E3 may be a pragmatic way forward and is the recommended option if Council wishes to retain the trees.

Option E1 does not ‘fit’ with the developer’s current proposal and it may be more difficult to achieve and reach agreement on cost-sharing. It is recommended that Council adopt E1 as a potential ‘backup’ option if Council wishes to retain the trees.

If Council adopts either option it will need to carefully manage its role as proponent for the adopted option and its role as consent authority for the DA to ensure probity.

Potential Planning Controls

It has been envisaged throughout the review that the existing Taylors Lane will ultimately become a shared pedestrian and cycleway if the trees are retained. It is understood that the current DA proposal incorporates that outcome.

A range of related issues will need to be resolved including connections into existing/planned shared paths, provision of tree protection zones, the long-term ownership/management of the Tree Protection Zones, lot/dwelling orientation relative to Taylors Lane etc. These issues could possibly be addressed as part of the DA and in the development of option E3 by Council.

Alternatively, Council could prepare site-specific DCP provisions. Ideally they would encompass the adjoining B1 and SP2 zones and be coordinated with any proposed changes to those adjoining zones (discussed below). this is not likely to be a practical option given that the current DA process is now driving the outcome on a large part of the site.

The public exhibition package reviewed possible changes to the existing R3 Medium Density, B1 Neighbourhood Centre and SP2 Infrastructure - Educational Establishment zones at the eastern end of Taylors Lane shown in Figure 7. No comment was made on the options in the submissions.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 7: Existing R3/B1/SP2 zones

Potential options for adjusting/reviewing the zones are generally limited. The R3 zone is the subject of a current development proposal. The SP2 land is no longer considered suitable as a school site and is constrained by flooding, the regional services easement and the FNC alignment. There may be value in rezoning the land around the final FNC-Taylors Lane alignment to create consolidated parcels of R3 and B1 zoned land. This could be considered when the FNC-Taylors Lane projects are completed and the final alignments known.

Policy Implications

The review of options for Taylors Lane commenced more than 2 years ago and now needs to be drawn to a conclusion and a policy position resolved on the future of Taylors Lane. This is important to enable new planned housing developments to proceed with certainty and the required connection to be delivered between Moss Vale Road South URA and the FNC.

The recommended West option (W1) is consistent with the adopted Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter NB3: Moss Vale Road South URA.

LEP and/or DCP amendments could be prepared with the preferred East options (E3 and E1) but are not recommended at this time.

Supporting amendments to existing LEP and/or DCP controls may be required if Council resolves to adopt alternate options.

Financial Implications

The cost estimates provided in this review are indicative only. The costs associated with the options that move forward will become clearer as further design and investigation is undertaken. Council will receive updates at the appropriate points as work progresses.

Taylors Lane West

The options would ordinarily be delivered by development in accordance with the adopted DCP as the adjoining land is developed. This includes the dedication of land for road widening.

However, options W2 and W3 are likely to have extra costs that need to be met by Council. Both may require Council to acquire land along the northern side for a tree protection zone, a significant additional cost that is not factored into the current cost estimates. W2 may also require Council to acquire more land along the southern side.

Taylors Lane East

There is currently $3 million grant funding allocated to the upgrade of Taylors Lane as part of the FNC Road project. The cost estimates for E1, E2 and E3 exceed that amount. Council could seek more grant funding however it is likely that any excess cost will be borne by Council.

Option E3 (recommended) has the highest estimated cost ($7.06 million) compared to E1 ($5.36 million) and E2 ($4.39 million). There is however the potential for the costs of E3 to be shared with the developer to lower the cost to Council.

Costs associated with repurposing the existing Taylors Lane to a shared path and ongoing tree management/maintenance are not included in the cost estimates. These will be an additional cost to Council for options that retain the trees.

Risk Implications

The risks associated with the preferred options will become clearer with further design and investigation. At this point the general risks that are identified include:

Feasibility - Options W2, W3, W3a & E1a are considered ‘not feasible’ because they risk long term impacts on the health of the trees due to works in the root zone. Options W3, W3a, E4 and E5 are considered ‘not feasible’ because they risk unknown and/or unacceptable traffic outcomes.

Financial – Options W2 and W3 carry potentially significant additional costs for land acquisition that are not factored into the cost estimates.

Probity – Council will need to carefully manage its role as DA consent authority and proponent for option E3 or E1.

Timing – The absence of a Council policy position on Taylors Lane risks additional costs and delays to new housing development in Moss Vale Road South URA.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.638 Proposed Licence - T & C Hoskin - Part Mahogany Creek Reserve North Nowra

HPERM Ref: D22/408761

Department: Technical Services

Approver: Paul Keech, Director - City Services

Reason for Report

This report provides Council with an opportunity to consider the approval of a licence over part Lot 8 DP 789881, otherwise known as Mahogany Creek Reserve and located at Page Avenue, North Nowra. The proposed five (5) year licence is to formalise encroachment into the Reserve by the North Nowra Preschool operated by T & C Hoskin.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Enter into a five (5) year licence over part of Lot 8 DP 789881 Page Ave, North Nowra, with T & C Hoskin for the purpose of encroachment of preschool playground located at 75 Page Ave North Nowra, with the commencing rent being $543.00 plus GST per annum increased annually by CPI;

2. Authorise income received to be allocated to Finance Project 102308 – Reserve Access Licence fees – various;

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

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: The licence will allow the North Nowra Preschool to continue to use those parts of the preschool playground that are located within the encroachment into Mahogany Creek Reserve.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation

That Council

2. Requires that the Licensee remove all buildings, fixtures and fittings from Lot 8 DP 789881 at the end of this Licence period and restore the area of encroachment as no further licenses will be entered into regarding this encroachment.

Implications: The licence will allow the North Nowra Preschool to continue to use those parts of the preschool playground that are located within the encroachment into Mahogany Creek Reserve for the licence period only and will provide the Licensee with ample time to vacate the encroachment into Council owned community land.

3. Not adopt the recommendation

Implications: The continued occupation of part of Lot 8 DP 789881 without a lease or licence is in breach of the Local Government Act 1993.

Background

North Nowra Preschool is located at 75 Page Ave, North Nowra. The Preschool is a commercial enterprise that backs onto Mahogany Creek Reserve. In the mid-1990’s, the then Department of Community Services advised the North Nowra Preschool that their fencing did not meet regulations. The Preschool subsequently installed compliant fencing at the rear of the property extending 5 metres beyond the rear boundary into Mahogany Creek Reserve (Figure 1).

A map of a city

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 1: Highlighted lot forms part of Mahogany Creek Reserve. The red box indicates the proposed licence area.

Mahogany Creek Reserve (NNN074) is Council owned community land categorised as ‘Park’. Under Section 47D of the Local Government Act 1993, exclusive occupation, or exclusive use by any person of community land otherwise in accordance with a lease, licence or estate is prohibited. Licenses can only be granted where the licensed area is used either in accordance with the Plan of Management or is a prescribed purpose such as kindergartens and the like.

In 2013, Council sought to formalise the encroachment with the Parks Operations Manager wishing to enter into an agreement for the life of the structures after which time they would need to be removed. At that time, the Plan of Management for Mahogany Creek Reserve did not permit licensing of longer than 12 months, so Council invited T & C Hoskin to enter into an annual licensing arrangement. The area has been licensed since that time. A key stipulation of the licence was, and is, that the Licensee was not to make any improvements upon the Licensed Area or alterations to any existing structures upon the Licensed Area.

Figure 2: Rear fence of 75 Page Ave in 2013

A fenced in yard with trees

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 3: Rear fence of 75 Page Ave in 2022

Through changes to the Mahogany Creek Plan of Management, Council is now able to offer a five-year licence to formalise occupation of Mahogany Creek Reserve by T & C Hoskins, trading as the North Nowra Preschool. From the images above, it is clear that there have been improvements made to the encroachment, albeit minor in nature. A benefit of offering a five-year licence is that Council is able to consider the long-term occupation/encroachment of Mahogany Creek Reserve.

The North Nowra Preschool is a commercial enterprise that has been in operation since the mid 1990’s. The owners of the business have invested in developing a wonderful creative outdoor play space for the children, although some of it is located on Council land. Should Council decide that the encroachment needs to be rectified (removed), this could be included in the five-year licence and would therefore provide the operators of the North Nowra Preschool with a five-year window with which to address this matter.

Terms Schedule

Licensee	T & C Hoskin
Licensor	Shoalhaven City Council Administration Building 42 Bridge Road, Nowra, NSW, 2541 Tel: 02 4429 3111 Email: Council@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au
Premises	Part Lot 8 in DP 789881
Site area	As described as “Area of Encroachment” in survey plan below
Term	Five (5) years
Rent	$543.00 plus GST per annum, payable yearly in advance
Rent Review	Annually to CPI
Percentage of Outgoings	0%
Permitted Use	Encroachment of Pre-School playground located at 75 Page Ave North Nowra
Amount of Public Liability Insurance	A minimum of $20 million

Licence Area

Chart, diagram

Description automatically generated

Community Engagement

In accordance with Section 47A of the Local Government Act, a public notice of the proposed licence was published in the South Coast Register on 27 July 2022. Adjoining property owners were notified, and the notice was placed on Council’s website, in Council offices and at Mahogany Creek Reserve for a period of 28 days.

One submission was received. This was in the form of a phone call from an adjoining landowner who was seeking clarification that the licence was for the existing area of encroachment only and that the preschool would not be extending further into the Reserve.

Policy Implications

The licence is in accordance with Council’s Occupation of Council Owned or Managed Land Policy.

Financial Implications

The Licensee will cover all costs associated with the granting of this licence including advertising, valuation, and legal fees in addition to the annual rent of $543 (plus GST).

Income from rent will be allocated to general fund – Reserve Access Licence Fee – Various and used for future maintenance responsibilities.

Risk Implications

Continued occupation of part of Mahogany Creek Reserve is unlawful without a licence or lease in place. Either the encroachment is licenced, or it will need to be removed. Should Council decide that the encroachment needs to be rectified, the North Nowra Preschool, which is a long-established local business, would benefit from a set date to vacate so that they can plan the transition accordingly.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.639 Quarterly Review for Compliance Matters

HPERM Ref: D22/416444

Department: Certification & Compliance

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. Penalty Notices & Warnings Issued & Patrols - Quarterly Review - City Development - July to September 2022 ⇩

Reason for Report

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 13 November 2018 it was resolved to receive a detailed quarterly report on compliance activities (MIN18.907).

At Council’s meeting of 23 May 2022, it was resolved for all future reports to provide an analysis of trends, effectiveness and current and arising areas of risk (MIN22.348).

This report provides information on the period from 1 July to 30 September 2022 (first quarter 2022/2023).

Recommendation

That Council receive the 1 July to 30 September 2022 quarterly report on compliance matters for information.

Options

1. Council receives the report for information.

Implications: Nil

2. Council receives the report and provides additional direction for future reports.

Implications: Any changes or additional matters can be added to future reports.

Report

Compliance activities are completed by the following Teams within City Development:

(a) Compliance Team: Development compliance matters including unauthorised development, development not in accordance with development consent, land use issues and swimming pool safety issues.

(b) Environmental Health: Pollution incidents (noise, water and sediment control), environmental incidents, food shops and the operation of on-site sewage waste management facilities.

(c) Rangers: Parking, animal management, unauthorised camping, littering, rubbish dumping and other environmental offences.

(d) Fire Safety: Fire Safety relating to commercial buildings.

This report provides Councillors with an update on the penalties issued (number, type, and ticket value) and any Local or Land and Environment Court matters determined or progressing.

This report relates to July - September 2022 (first quarter).

Penalties Issued During the Period

A combined total of 1,464 penalty notices were issued by the Teams during the period. These penalties have a face value of $378,184. Historically Council stands to receive approximately 70% of this ticketed figure.

A total of 83 warnings were issued during the period.

Attachment 1 to this report provides a breakdown of the penalties and warnings issued.

The following is a summary of the penalties issued for each team:

Table 1:- Penalty notices issued for the 1st quarter 2022/2023

Team	Number Issued	Total Amount	% of total amount	Warnings issued
Compliance	17	$39,660	10.5%	43
Fire Safety	2	$1,200	0.3%	4
Compliance – Pools	13	$6,160	1.6%	12
Environmental Health	5	$7,640	2.0%	1
Rangers – Animal issues	168	$80,620	21.3%	17
Rangers – Environmental issues	22	$33,270	8.8%	1
Rangers – Parking	1,237	$209,634	55.5%	5
Sewer Management Facility	0	0	0	0
Total	1,464	$378,184	100%	83

The following details are provided in relation to compliance penalty notices issued during the period:

a) Sanctuary Point ($550):- One penalty notice was issued to the owner of a property for having a swimming pool without a complying barrier.

A further three warning notices were also issued, and these would have equated to $1830 if issued as penalty notices.

b) North Nowra ($550):- One penalty notice was issued to the owner of a property for having a swimming pool without a complying barrier.

A further three warning notices were also issued, and these would have equated to $1830 if issued as penalty notices.

c) Ulladulla ($550):- One penalty notice was issued to the owner of a property for having a swimming pool without a complying barrier.

A further two warning notices were also issued, and these would have equated to $660 if issued as penalty notices.

d) Fishermans Paradise ($12,000):- Six penalty notices were issued to the owners of a premises for non-compliance with a development consent and for failing to comply with a development control order (3 to each owner).

Sixteen warning notices were also issued, and these would have equated to a further $22,320 if issued as penalty notices.

e) Wattamolla ($9,460):- Three penalty notices were issued to the owner of property for failing to comply with a development control order and development without consent.

f) Budgong ($860):- Three penalty notices were issued to three owners of a premises for operating an on-site sewage management system without approval and failing to have a working smoke alarm.

A further twenty-one (21) warning notices were also issued, and these would have equated to a further $21,090 if issued as penalty notices.

g) Jaspers Brush ($660):- Two penalty notices were issued to the owner of a premises for failing to maintain a compliant pool barrier.

h) Callala Beach ($3000):- One penalty notice was issued to a demolition contractor for demolishing a dwelling containing asbestos without development consent.

i) South Nowra ($770):- Two penalty notices were issued to the owner of a premises for not having a child proof barrier and for not registering a pool.

One warning was also issued for a separate breach and this would have equated to $110 if issued as a penalty notice.

j) Ulladulla ($550):- One penalty notice was issued to the owner of a property for failing to comply with a written direction to rectify a non-complaint swimming pool barrier.

k) Culburra Beach ($3000):- One penalty notice was issued to the owner of a premises for failing to comply with a development control Order requiring them to stop use of the premises for residential accommodation as it was prohibited in the zone.

l) Shoalhaven Heads ($550):- One penalty notice was issued to owner of a property for not providing a complaint swimming pool barrier.

One warning notice was also issued for another breach of the Swimming Pools Act and this would have equated to $110 if issued as a penalty notice.

m) Milton ($770):- Two penalty notices were issued to the owner of a premises for breaches of the Swimming Pools Act for failing to maintain a compliant barrier and for not registering a swimming pool.

One warning notice was issued for a subsequent offence and this would have equated to a further $550 if issued as a penalty notice.

n) Wandandian ($550):- One penalty notice was issued to the owner of a premises for a breach of the Swimming Pools Act for failing to surround a pool with a child resistant barrier.

One warning notice was issued for failing to register the pool and this would have equated to $220 if issued as penalty notice.

o) South Nowra ($12,000):- Four penalty notices were issued to the owner of a commercial premises for unauthorised development.

One warning notice was issued and this would have equated to $3000 if issued as a penalty infringement notice.

Warnings Related to Compliance issues

A total of 55 warning notices were issued for compliance matters in the period and these have no dollar value. Potentially the Compliance Team could have issued a further $51,720 in penalties for the period. The caution rate is approximately 52% of the total potential.

Figure 1 shows the penalties and warnings issue for the period by suburb.

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 1:- Penalties and warnings issued for the period by suburb

Court Elected Penalties:

There were no court elected penalties this quarter.

Compliance merits received this quarter

The Compliance Team received 87 Merits, and the following tables highlights the trends.

Type of Merits Received	Number Received	Percentage of total
Asbestos issues	3	3.5
Building Works - Not in Accordance Consent	15	17.2
Building Works - Without Consent	28	32.2
Defective Building Works	2	2.3
Earthworks - Without Consent	2	2.3
Land Use - Without Consent	5	5.7
Stormwater Runoff	17	19.6
Swimming Pool Fencing Inspection	5	5.7
Manhole Adjustments (For Review)	10	11.5
TOTALS	87	100

The Compliance Team have been proactive in addressing areas of risk by developing fact sheets, web-site updates and media campaigns for swimming pools, moveable dwellings and camping grounds. The Team is currently working on a media campaign and web-site update for shipping containers as these are becoming more prevalent.

The following additional comments are made:

(a) Stormwater:- Stormwater complaints reflect a high number of merits received representing just under 20% of the total created. The number of complaints received was substantially higher, however these matters can be difficult to establish cause and in many cases were because of excess overland flow due to the recent rainfall events and merits are not created for investigation in these instances.

A significant number of stormwater complaints come from areas in the LGA without street drainage infrastructure, where properties are being inundated from excess overland surface water. Stormwater issues in general can be difficult for Council staff to enforce compliance due to weak legislative powers under the Local Government Act 1993.

(b) Development without consent:- Development without consent also remains high representing 32.2% of the total number of merits.

Moveable dwellings installed on land for both residential and tourist and visitor accommodation use remains a consistent issue. Council has also seen an increase in unauthorised swimming pool being installed.

(c) Swimming Pool Compliance:- Swimming pool merits represent just under 6% of the total merits created and this reflects a drop in the number of referrals having been received from private certifiers. This is likely due to an increase in property managers and conveyancers opting to utilise Council for certification works.

In total, Compliance undertook 89 individual swimming pool inspections during the quarter resulting in forty (40) certificates of compliance being issued and thirty (30) certificates on non-compliances being issued.

Figure 2 shows the total number and type of compliance merits received for the period.

Figure 2:– Compliance MERITS received for the period

Ranger Activities

Of the penalties issued by Ranger Services, there are trends for animal management and environmental offences. Ranger Services are working on a number of Media programs including responsible pet ownership, tree vandalism and illegal dumping to address the main risks.

(a) Print and Post commenced on 12 July 2022 which is a service provided by Revenue NSW. Rather than putting the fine on the vehicle or posting it to the alleged offender, Revenue NSW send the notice out on Council’s behalf.

(b) Ranger Services collaborated with Environmental Services and National Parks to create a media campaign and bus advertising for the 2022/2023 shorebird season. Three buses in Nowra and Ulladulla will display the advert for 26 weeks.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

A picture containing calendar

Description automatically generated

Figure 3:- Customer requests for environmental issues

Calendar

Description automatically generated

Figure 4:- Customer requests for animal related issues

(d) Dog attacks:- Rangers received and attended 52 reports of dogs attacking during the period. Of these reports, 22 investigations have been completed with 27 penalty notices issued (i.e. 27 x $1,320 = $35,640). A further 30 matters remain under investigation.

Although the penalty is high, dog attacks remain a major risk. Whilst there is more awareness in the community, there may still be unreported dog attacks.

The following figure provides information on the dog related penalty notices issued by suburb for the period (Refer Figure 5).

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 5:- Dog related penalty notices by suburb for the period

(e) Animal registrations:- A total of 71 penalty notices were issued for non-compliance with the lifetime registered requirements by the Companion Animals Act.

(f) Beach patrols:- Rangers completed 419 beach patrols during this quarter. A number of dog owners have been spoken to during this period. A total of 359 compliant dogs and 51 non-compliant dogs were observed. Enforcement action and education is undertaken when offences are detected.

(g) Vegetation vandalism:- Rangers received 46 reports of vegetation vandalism and 10 are still under investigation. Rangers continue surveillance and on-going monitoring of these vandalised areas in accordance with Council’s Vegetation Vandalism Prevention Policy.

(h) Illegal Dumping:- Shoalhaven City Council received 236 reports of illegal dumping and Council’s Works and Services has removed 17.93 tonne with approximate cost of $29,308.00 during the July - September quarter. A total of 82.19 tonne of illegally dumped waste was also reported.

i. Penalty Notices:- a total of 12 Penalty Notices (totalling $26,550) were issued this quarter to offenders depositing household waste in bushland areas. These offences occurred in Tianjara, Pyree, Culburra Beach and West Nowra.

All offenders were ordered to clean up and dispose of their waste at a lawful waste facility. A total of six Clean Up Notices have also been issued and these have had administration fees applied (i.e. 6 x $591 = $3,546).

ii. Proactive Patrol – Illegal Dumping:- Shoalhaven City Council has implemented proactive illegal dumping patrols for all Rangers.

A total of 52 proactive patrols occurred and breakdowns of Land Custodian, officer and other options are now available to identify known “Hot Spots”. In this quarter 19 proactive patrols were within NPWS lands. This data will assist in determining effectiveness of proactive patrols as well as improving targeting specific areas.

iii. Media Projects:– Rangers have been successful in obtaining a grant to implement an education program to promote use of RID online. This program utilises social media together with face to face information sessions.

Council’s Media, IT and Waste Services staff have participated in the three month program which focused on emotional response to Wildlife, being included in the educational material. This includes branding and display banners to promote EPA/RID Online.

Graphical user interface, website

Description automatically generated

(i) Parking:- A total of 1,237 penalty notices were issued for parking offences in the period. Figure 6 highlights the penalties issued by suburb for the period.

Chart

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 6:- Parking by town.

(j) The Responsible Dog Ownership project was launched in this quarter promoting three key topics. These messages are being delivered via social media and media releases. Posters are also displayed in Council’s foyer and at Council events.

A person walking a dog on a leash on a path by the water

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A person sitting on the floor with a dog

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

A person holding a dog

Description automatically generated with low confidence

(k) Animal Shelter: The Shelter currently has over 18,625 followers on Facebook. This platform provides an effective means of advertising adoptions, lost dogs and the promotion of responsible pet ownership.

i. Data for incoming and outgoing animals: - A total of 223 animals entered the Shelter (64 via Ranger, 37 surrenders, 12 offspring, 8 returns and 102 from the public). A total of 277 animals left the Shelter (138 adoptions, 66 reclaims, 30 euthanised, 36 transfers to rescue organisations and 7 unassisted deaths (6 guinea pigs).

ii. Animal desexing vouchers given to pensioners:- The Shelter collaborated with many external units and was able to obtain continued support for the animal desexing program. This resulted in 87 free animal desexing vouchers being provided to pensioners.

iii. Contributions to the shelter:- The Shelter received $1,893 in contributions from the public and businesses in the last quarter.

The Shelter would like to acknowledge the generosity of the public and these businesses. The Shelter will be using these donations to create friendly and bright spaces in the exercise yards.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.640 RA22/1003 - McIntosh Street Shoalhaven Heads - Part Lot 7005 DP 1075719

DA. No: RA22/1003/4

HPERM Ref: D22/472888

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

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

2. Draft - Determination (under separate cover) ⇨

3. DPI Fisheries Referral Response - General Terms of Approval ⇩

Description of Development: Coastal protection works including modification of an existing rock revetment structure to ameliorate the end effect erosion

Owner: Crown Lands

Applicant: Shoalhaven City Council

Notification Dates: 27/07/2022 – 10/08/2022

14/09/2022 – 14/10/2022

No. of Submissions: Two (2) submissions

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

To review the section 4.15 assessment report and determination prepared by an independent consultant which is to be submitted to the Southern Regional Planning Panel for consideration.

Recommendation

That:

1. Council receive and note the report RA22/1003 - McIntosh Street, Shoalhaven Heads - Part Lot 7005 DP 1075719.

2. Council support RA22/1003 for coastal protection works at McIntosh Street, Shoalhaven Heads on the basis that it has been satisfactorily assessed pursuant to section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. The resolution made by Council be submitted to the Southern Regional Planning Panel prior to their consideration and determination of RA22/1003.

Options

1. Support the consultant’s recommendation to the Southern Regional Planning Panel (SRPP) for approval of the application and advise the SRPP accordingly.

Implications: The recommendation would be provided to the SRPP for their information as part of their consideration of the regional application.

2. Make an alternative resolution and make a separate submission to the SRPP.

Implications: The alternative resolution would be provided to the SRPP for their consideration. The SRPP will be the determining authority for the application.

Location Map

Figure 1 – Site location / Aerial view

Background

Why this DA is being reported to the Regional Planning Panel

· The works constitute coastal protection works to be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority.

· The Southern Regional Planning Panel is the determining authority for the application in accordance with section 8A of Schedule 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021, (SEPP).

8A Certain coastal protection works

(1) The following development on land within the coastal zone that is directly adjacent to, or is under the waters of, the open ocean, the entrance to an estuary or the entrance to a coastal lake that is open to the ocean—

(a) development for the purpose of coastal protection works carried out by a person other than a public authority, other than coastal protection works identified in the relevant certified coastal management program,

(b) development for the purpose of coastal protection works carried out by or on behalf of a public authority (other than development that may be carried out without development consent under clause 19(2)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018).

The determination by a Panel adds a layer of transparency to the assessment process. Furthermore, the application was also independently assessed by a reputable Planning Consultancy – Mecone. These assessment and management measures are intended to deal with any potential conflicts of interest.

Proposed Development

Council is in receipt of a development application (DA) which seeks approval for coastal protection works.

The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) outlines the full scope of foreshore management activities to be undertaken by the applicant, however, the applicant has specified that development consent is sought only for the proposed rock revetment works which could not be undertaken as exempt or complying development in accordance with 2.16 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

The applicant has explained that ‘other’ works specified in the SEE, including proposed sand/beach nourishment works do not form part of the DA.

The DA assessment is limited only to the proposed rock revetment works. The ‘other’ works are to be dealt with under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A detailed description of rock revetment works for which development consent is sought is provided below:

· Temporarily remove rock armour (primary and secondary) and geotextile underlayer.

· Re-align and re-profiling the lower section of earth bank to the design slope of 1V:1.5H

· Replace geotextile, secondary armour, and a single layer of primary armour only, to a maximum crest height of 4 metres AHD (adjacent to private boat ramp) and reducing to level of natural ground at the eastern end

· Place excess/excavated soil onto current erosion scarp at eastern end of rock revetment, burying end of revetment within bank alignment if possible.

· Nourish the intertidal area of foreshore to elevate it to a consistent longshore level (at least 1.1 metres AHD) against revetment toe, per current levels of areas further to the west.

As mentioned previously, the development involves coastal protection works to be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority (Council), in accordance with section 8A of Schedule 6 of SEPP (Planning Systems) 2021, the application constitutes a regional development application, and the Southern Regional Planning Panel is the determining authority for the application.

The proposed site plan is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Site Plan

Subject Land and Surrounds

The subject site is located at McIntosh Street, Shoalhaven Heads, fronting Shoalhaven River. It forms the north-western foreshore of the Shoalhaven River immediately landward of Shoalhaven Heads and traverses approximately 500 metres along the foreshore up to 20 metres wide to include the river foreshore, waterway and vegetated embankment.

The land is legally identified as Lot 7005 DP 1075719 and includes the Shoalhaven River waterway.

The site predominantly comprises sandy beach with some locations with pebble deposits over the sandflats. There are existing vegetation and stormwater pipes to the south.

The site is surrounded by residential developments and by Shoalhaven River.

The land is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014), under which the proposal is prohibited, however, permissible with consent in accordance with section 2.16(2)(b), State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

Planning Assessment

The DA has been (independently) assessed under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

The DA was first notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2021 (the EP&A Regs) and Council’s Community Consultation Policy for Development Applications on 27 July 2022 to 10 August 2022. One (public) submission was received during the notification period.

Following amended documentation being provided by the applicant, the application was renotified between 14 September 2022 to 14 October 2022. A submission was received from the Crown Lands Office on 25 October 2022.

The (public) submission identified the following items:

· Lack of detail regarding existing tree on the site to be retained and/or removed.

· Details of tree location and protection details are required.

· Provide details that two (2) mature tree (Banksia Trees) are not to be removed and are vitally important to the river bank.

The applicant advised that no vegetation removal is required for the development application. Protection zones for trees from machinery and vehicles is to be maintained in accordance with AS 4970- 2009 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

The submission from the Crown Lands Office identified the following potential impacts:

· “The potential for the proposed works to move the end effect to the east (also referred to in the WRL 2022 report) without undertaking mitigation activities.

· The sourcing of sand from Seven Mile beach may increase the vulnerability of sand dunes and vegetation along the beach.”

Crown Lands advised that:

“If RA22/1003 is granted consent the following should be considered as part of the DA consent the applicant must prepare a Coastal Protection Works Management Plan (‘CPWMP’) for the area comprising the rock revetment structure and sand nourishment.”

A condition of consent has accordingly been included as part of draft conditions.

Financial Implications:

If the development is approved and the development proceeds, the Council will be required to fund the project.

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of a refusal of the application. Whilst Council is the applicant, it could (unusually) choose to appeal the situation. However, more than likely if the application were to be refused, Council would pursue a review of the decision. There would be costs associated with investigations to resolve any issues and reasons for refusal.

Legal Implications

Pursuant to section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, a decision of the Southern Regional Planning Panel (SRPP) may be the subject of a review by the applicant in the event of approval or refusal. If such a review is ultimately pursued, the matter would be put to the SRPP for consideration. Additionally, a right of appeal would be available.

Summary and Conclusion

This application has been satisfactorily assessed having regard for section 4.15 (Evaluation) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Based upon the recommendations of the s4.15 Assessment Report (Attachment 1), Development Application No. RA22/1003 is recommended to the SRPP for conditional development consent.

The draft conditions of development consent are contained in Attachment 2 to this report. As the conditions reference the General Terms of Approval (GTA) issued by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Fisheries, the GTA is included in Attachment 3 to this report.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.641 Development Application - DA22/1614 - 5 Flora Street, Sanctuary Point

HPERM Ref: D22/458055

Department: Certification & Compliance

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. s4.15 Assessment Report (Class 1 & 10) (under separate cover) ⇨

2. DRAFT Notice of Determination (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Architectural Plans (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Demolition of Existing Structures, Construction of a Dual Occupancy (attached) and associated Torrens Title Subdivision of One (1) Lot into two (2) Lots

Owner: D J Azar, M M Azar, A T Azar, A Azar

Applicant: Nemco Design

Notification Dates: 29 August 2022 – 14 September 2022

No. of Submissions: Ten (10) were received

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

On 26 September 2022 Council resolved to call in development application DA22/1614 for determination citing public interest (MIN22.825).

Recommendation

That Development Application DA22/1614 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a dual occupancy (attached) and associated Torrens title subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) lots be approved subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided at Attachment 2.

Options

1. Approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.

Implications: This would enable the development to proceed according to the recommended conditions of consent.

2. Refuse the application.

Implications: Council would need to determine the grounds on which the application is refused, having regard to the section 4.15(1) considerations. The applicant would be entitled to seek a review and / or pursue an appeal in the Land and Environment Court.

3. Alternative recommendation.

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

Location Map

Figure 1: Location Map - Locality

Figure 2: Location Map – Subject Site

Background

Proposed Development

The development application includes:

· demolition of existing structures

· construction of a two-storey dual occupancy (attached) and

· associated Torrens title subdivision of 1 lot into 2 lots.

Figure 3: Demolition Plan

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: Site Plan

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: East and South Elevations

A picture containing text, device, screenshot

Description automatically generated

Figure 6: West and North Elevations

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Figure 7: Subdivision Plan

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 8: Landscape Plan

Subject Land

The development site is legally identified as Lot 277 DP 26390 and is described as 5 Flora Street, Sanctuary Point (refer to Figures 1 & 2).

Site & Context

The development site is located on the western side of Flora Street. The site is a regular shaped allotment having an area of 942.16m².

The existing development on the site includes a single storey dwelling house and a detached shed (to be demolished). The site has connections to town water and a reticulated sewer system. The site is accessed directly from Flora Street.

Immediately adjoining the site are single storey dwelling houses and associated ancillary development. Under the provisions of the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2014 (SLEP-2014) the subject land is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential (refer to Figure 9).

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 9: Zoning Map

A dirt path leading to a house

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 10: Photograph of existing development on site viewed from Flora Street

History

The development application was lodged on 27 May 2022. Additional information was requested on 20 June and 13 October 2022.

The applicant provided additional information on 27 July 2022 and as part of this, amended plans were provided removing the secondary dwellings from the development. The application currently before Council is for a dual occupancy (attached) and associated Torrens title subdivision only.

There are outstanding stormwater drainage issues but these can be adequately resolved by a condition requiring the submission of amended plans prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The amended plans need to show the stormwater from the buildings being directed to Flora Street and runoff from the driveways being directed to absorption trenches.

On 31 October 2022 Council resolved to call in development application DA22/1614 for determination citing public interest (MIN22.825).

Consultation and Community Engagement

Ten (10) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. All of the submissions received were objections to the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a twenty-five (25)m buffer of the site. The notification was for a two (2) week period.

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

Summary of Public Submissions

Objection Raised

Comment

Development is out of character with area

“This planned development is totally out of keeping with the local area. It would be visually detrimental to the quiet bushy neighbourhood - more suited to the main street of a larger town. It will stand out like a sore thumb.”

“the building proposed is not integrating with natural surrounds and will destroy the 'feel' of Sanctuary Point.”

The subject site has a site area of 942.16m² which complies with the site area required for a dual occupancy (attached).

The proposal complies with landscaping, site coverage, height and setback controls. The building design is well articulated and is compatible with the surrounding area.

Car Parking

“The plans include off street parking for one car for each of the two primary dwellings. With two secondary dwellings proposed vehicles will inevitably spill out onto Flora Street.”

“the proposed building doesn't reflect a realistic amount of off street parking for the amount of residents proposed.”

During the course of the assessment the application was revised to remove the secondary dwellings. The current application is for a dual occupancy (attached) and associated Torrens title subdivision only.

The development provides 2 car parking spaces for each dwelling (1 x internal in a garage and 1 x stacked on the driveway) which complies with Chapter G21 of Shoalhaven DCP-2014.

Privacy

“Our use of our land will be seriously impaired if Shoalhaven Council allows the development of the adjoining allotments with insufficient privacy taken into consideration. The proposed development in a low density residential area is going to have impacts on all surrounding properties for privacy and noise concerns.”

“A number of properties in this area are single level, the floorplan of this property has windows looking over into neighbouring yards, this will just tower over some of the existing properties and cause ongoing issues with sunlight to gardens and grounds, and overlooking from the top level windows into living areas of a number of neighbours.”

The proposed dual occupancy (attached) is not considered to unreasonably impact on the privacy of the adjoining development.

The majority of the openings on the second storey of the northern and southern elevations is to bedrooms, bathrooms and otherwise generally service low usage rooms. The sill heights of the windows on the second storey have sill heights ranging from 1.4m to 1.8m to help reduce any privacy impacts onto adjoining properties.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 11: Northern Elevation

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 12: Southern Elevation

Noise

“This is a very small space for 4 dwellings and noise will definitely be a big problem for surrounding residences in such a quiet area.”

“it seems this block has currently one little house on it. It is a low density block, all blocks here in Sanctuary Point are low density. I do not agree with crushing 20+ people on one block in our peaceful and quiet neighbourhood. Imagine the chaos if the proposed apartments are rented for the holidays.”

The development is residential in nature and is appropriate for the locality.

There are only two dwellings proposed in this development.

Landscaping

“the proposed building includes a lot of concrete and will not allow for enough plants and trees to be planted again to make sure we preserve the current present wildlife we enjoy here. I suggest two townhouses maximum be plenty and more gardens.”

“The design of this development does not fit in with the leafy

quite character and environment that Sanctuary Point provides, this type of design takes

away from the feel of our area, the trees on this property have already been cut down

which is already showing the beginning of a barren landscape and stands out from the

existing properties. Can we confirm if an environmental impact review or arborist

report was prepared prior to these being removed? If not this needs to be seriously

addressed with the owners.”

The development complies with Chapter G13 of Shoalhaven DCP with regard to landscaping.

The current development application does not involve any tree removal.

Stormwater Issues

“it is known that storm water runoff is an issue here in Sanctuary Point. This proposal will certainly flood neighbouring properties.”

“We currently have an inundation of stormwater from neighbouring developments which have been completed adjoining our property recently, stormwater measures taken with these developments have not been addressed. And we are now suffering a severe financial loss due to these outstanding issues. We are concerned with the proposed development and the adequate capturing of stormwater. Strict measures should be being taken to ensure any hardstand areas in the courtyards, paths and driveways will have a means of capturing the stormwater and disposing of it to council mains rather then it running straight into our property as it currently does.”

The development application has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineering team. Recommended conditions of consent have been provided requiring stormwater from the buildings be directed to Flora Street and runoff from driveway areas be directed to absorption trenches.

Council is satisfied that stormwater from the development can be suitably managed. Conditions of consent will ensure the stormwater system is designed, installed and maintained so as not to increase surface water being concentrated onto adjoining properties.

Subdivision

“The Shoalhaven City Council S10.7 advised that Lot 277 DP 26390, 5 Flora Street is zoned as R2 Low Density Residential, after reviewing the 310.7 and Shoalhaven mapping, the minimum lot size for subdivision in a R2 Low Density Residential lot is 500sqm. The proposed DA is under the minimum lot size and

should not be allowed.”

The proposal includes Torrens Title subdivision of the proposed dual occupancy (attached) pursuant to clause 4.1A of Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

The lot has a site area greater than 500m² and therefore the proposal meets the requirements of subclause (2).

Development consent for the dual occupancy has been sought under clause 4.1A(2), therefore the dual occupancy can be subdivided into lots of any size to enable the resulting individual dwellings on those lots to have separate titles pursuant to subclause 4.1A(4).

Council is satisfied the subdivision and proposed lot size and layout is appropriate, and that the proposal is consistent with the development controls and performance criteria set out in Chapter G11 of Shoalhaven DCP-2014.

The proposed Torrens Title subdivision is suitable with regard to the considerations of Chapter G11.

Financial Implications

There are potential cost implications if Council decide to refuse the application. Such costs would be associated with defending an appeal in the Land and Environmental Court of NSW.

Legal Implications

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

Summary and Conclusion

The proposed development is compliant with the provisions of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and is generally consistent with Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

The application is considered capable of support as there are no substantial planning reasons to warrant refusal. Accordingly, it is recommended it is approved subject to the conditions in the draft consent (Refer Attachment 2).

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.642 Development Application - DA21/2438 - Currambene St & Hawke St Huskisson - Lot 1 DP 209436, Part Lot 7010 DP 1076858 & Lot 7012 DP 1021163

DA. No: DA21/2438/4

HPERM Ref: D22/470890

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

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

2. Architectural Plans (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Ethos Urban - Visual Impact Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Ethos Urban - Visual Impact Evidence - Appendix A (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Draft Determination Notice - Conditional Approval (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Community Facility (Alterations and Additions to Existing Volunteer Marine Rescue Building)

Owner: Crown Lands Department

Applicant: Marine Rescue NSW

Notification Dates: 15^th December 2021 to 14^th January 2022

No. of Submissions: Two (2)

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

In accordance with section 47E (details are provided later in this report) of the Local Government Act 1993, City Development does not have the delegation to determine the Development Application and it instead must be determined by the elected Council

Recommendation

That Development Application No. DA21/2438 be determined by means of approval, subject to the conditions of consent as attached at Attachment 5.

Options

1. Approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.

Implications: This would enable the development to proceed according to the recommended conditions of consent. Under some circumstances, third parties (i.e., objectors) can seek a judicial review of Council’s decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court.

2. Refuse the Development Application (DA).

Implications: The development is unable to proceed as applied for. The applicant can, however, apply for a section 8.2A review of Council’s decision and/or could lodge an appeal with the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) against Council’s decision.

3. Alternative recommendation.

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

Location Map

Background

Section 47E of the Local Government Act 1993

Section 47E is reproduced below:

47E Development of community land

(1) No power of a council under an environmental planning instrument to consent to the carrying out of development on community land may be delegated by the council, if—

(a) the development involves the erection, rebuilding or replacement of a building (other than a building exempted by or under subsection (2) from the operation of this paragraph), or

(b) the development involves extensions to an existing building that would occupy more than 10 per cent of its existing area, or

(c) the development involves intensification, by more than 10 per cent, of the use of the land or any building on the land, or

(d) the location of the development has not been specified in the plan of management applying to the land and the development is likely, in the opinion of the council, to be unduly intrusive to nearby residents.

(2) The following buildings are exempt from the operation of subsection (1)(a)—

(a) toilet facilities,

(b) small refreshment kiosks,

(c) shelters for persons from the sun and weather,

(d) picnic facilities,

(e) structures (other than accommodations for spectators) required for the playing of games or sports,

(f) playground structures,

(g) work sheds or storage sheds,

(h) buildings of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(3) An existing area referred to in subsection (1)(b) does not include the area of any awning, balcony, verandah or other thing that extends beyond the main structural outline of the building.

(4) A delegation granted before the commencement of this section, to the extent that the delegation could not have been granted if this section had been in force at the time it was granted, is void.

The increase in floor area is approximately 29%. The intensification of the building equates to approximately 29%. Accordingly, the matter must be reported to Council.

The land is also covered by a Plan of Management. The Plan of Management (PoM) was endorsed by SCC on 22 July 2003 and adopted by NSW Crown Lands on 20November 2003 (File Ref No. 27590). There is a current lease between Council as Crown Land Manager and Marine Rescue. It is a 20-year lease, with a termination dated of 31 December 2037.

Proposed Development

In accordance with the submitted Architectural Plans prepared by Ecosystem Architecture (Plan No’s 1910–04 Sheet No’s DA00 to DA11, dated 17^th October 2020) located at Attachment 2 to this Report, the applicant proposes alterations and additions to an existing Emergency Services Facility (Alterations & Additions to the existing Volunteer Marine Rescue Jervis Bay Base, Huskisson).

The nature of works proposed are described as follows:

· New proposed ramp and walkway providing accessible access to the first floor level of the building from the adjacent public pathway.

· The following alterations to the layout of the Ground Floor Level of the development are proposed (Note: no extensions to the Ground Floor Level are proposed):

o Existing private change facility to be demolished and replaced with a new accessible change room facility.

o Existing open plan ‘Council’ area in the northern part to be replaced by an enclosed lifesaving room which incorporates lifesaving facilities including a first-aid bay and pool communications.

o Enclosure of existing kitchenette facility from the meeting / training room.

· The following alterations and extensions to the layout of the First Floor Level of the development are proposed:

o 78m² extension to the floor area of the First Floor Level to match the floor area of the Ground Floor Level.

o Alterations to existing layout to incorporate an entry area (from the proposed ramp access), administration room, radio room, accessible bathroom facility, training room, search and rescue centre, and external viewing deck.

Subject Land

The site comprises three different allotments owned by Crown Lands and is identified as Lot 1 DP 209436 Currambene St Huskisson, Part Lot 7010 DP 1076858 Currambene St Huskisson and Lot 7012 DP 1021163 Hawke St Huskisson.

Site & Context

The site:

· Is zoned RE1 – Public Recreation in accordance with the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014.

· Is occupied by the existing Volunteer Marine Rescue Jervis Bay building.

· Is partially located over both White Sands Park and Voyager Memorial Park and is operated under the Plan of Management (PoM) endorsed by SCC on 22^nd July 2003 and adopted by NSW Crown Lands on 20^th November 2003 (File Ref No. 27590).

· Is located directly adjacent to other facilities associated with the Parks which are also managed under the PoM including existing swimming pools, playground areas, pathways, and public wharves.

· Is located on the north-eastern edge of the Huskisson CBD area and possesses wide ranging views of Jervis Bay to the north and east and provides an appropriate vantage point having regard to the operational purpose as a volunteer marine rescue organisation.

· Is located within close vicinity to the existing Jervis Bay Hotel which is located at a distance of approximately 15m to the south of the building.

· Is partly identified as being flood prone land affected by the 1% AEP flood level and Flood Planning Area.

· Is mapped within a ‘Coastal Use Area’ and ‘Coastal Environment Area’ pursuant to the SEPP (Resilience & Hazards) 2021.

· Is mapped within a Class 5 acid sulfate soils area and within the Jervis Bay Region pursuant to the SLEP 2014.

· Is partly mapped (Lot 7012 DP 1021163 only) as being an item of local environmental heritage significance (Item No. 201 – Tapalla Point geological rock platform) and within immediate vicinity to a further item of local environmental heritage significance (Item No. 207 – Jervis Bay Hotel).

History

A summary of actions taken as part of the assessment of the Development Application is provided below:

Action / Event	Date
Development Application fees paid and formal lodgement with Council.	26 November 2021
Referrals sent out to various internal sections	6 December 2012
Commencement of notification / advertisement	15 December 2021
Completion of advertisement period (two submissions received)	14 January 2022
1^st Additional Information Request sent to the applicant relating to the following: · A response addressing the submissions received must be provided. · A further assessment against view impact must be provided addressing the view sharing principles contained within: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.	24 January 2022
Applicant response to 1^st Additional Information Request provided the requested documentation.	21 February 2022
Response to all internal referrals received by Council – no additional information requested or required.	30 June 2022
Engagement of Ethos Urban Pty Ltd to complete an independent View Impact Analysis (VIA) of the proposed development, having regard for applicable legislation and Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.	6 July 2022
Completion of independent VIA by Ethos Urban Pty Ltd identifying that the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact.	9 November 2022
Completion of assessment of application and recommendation to the Ordinary Council Meeting of approval subject to conditions of consent.	11 November 2022

Issues

S4.15(1)(b) – Assessment of Potential Impacts Upon the Built Environment

In accordance with section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979, Council is required to consider impacts upon the surrounding built environment as part of the assessment and determination of a Development Application.

One of the matters which is required to be considered as part of the assessment of the potential for impacts upon the built environment, is the potential for view loss associated with existing development surrounding the site.

In this instance, the proposal for an extension to the first-floor level of the Volunteer Marine Rescue building has resulted in two (2) objections being received where concerns were raised regarding the topic of view loss. A further discussion regarding the matters raised in the objections received is provided in the Report below.

Decisions made within the NSW Land and Environment Court have set the parameters and criterion for how view loss is to be assessed in the assessment of Development Applications. This primarily relates to a decision made by Roseth SC in the decision, Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

The following steps must be considered:

26 The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

27 The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

28 The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

29 The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant has undertaken an assessment against the Four-Part Test which can be found within Council’s section 4.15 Assessment Report located at Attachment 1 to this Report. Their assessment provides the following summary in relation to Step 4 –‘ Reasonableness of the Proposal that is Causing the Impact’:

Given the site’s Public Recreation RE1 zoning under Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014, there are no numerical floor space ratio or building height controls that apply to the subject site. Furthermore, the Shoalhaven DCP does not impose any boundary setback controls in respect of the site. The proposal complies with all relevant planning controls and is therefore inherently more reasonable than one which breaches them.

Having regard to the Land and Environment Court planning principle as to whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the view of neighbours, the answer to this question is no.

The proposed extensions to the upper floor level of the Marine Rescue base facility will provide an improved level of amenity and expanded capability to the Marine Rescue Jervis Bay to meet the needs of this organisation. The current premises were constructed in 2006 and are nearing 20 years old and are in need of modernisation to meet current logistical requirements. Given the facility is owned by and shared with Shoalhaven City Council (amenities and pool maintenance equipment) the only available option is to provide additional floor space on the upper floor level.

Furthermore, the design of the proposal avoids the loss or alienation of parkland that a ground floor extension would involve. The ground floor of the existing premises provides toilet and change facilities for swimmers using the swimming pools and the open space facilities more generally. In addition, the ground floor comprises vital storage spaces that are used by both Shoalhaven City Council and Marine Rescue. Given the current ground floor areas are in use and not available for any other purpose, it is not possible for Marine Rescue to expand into the ground floor of the building.

Having regard to the importance of the Marine Rescue operations to the boating community around Jervis Bay and nearby waterways, the proposed development is considered to be reasonable under the circumstances.

Discussion

Noting the opposing views between the applicant and objector and the nature of the submissions (one made by a legal firm), it was considered both prudent and necessary for an independent View Impact Analysis (VIA) to be carried out by an impartial and suitably qualified practicing professional.

A thorough assessment was undertaken by Ethos Urban Pty Ltd (as the impartial and suitably qualified practicing professional) against all relevant planning legislation and controls and in particular, the four-part test established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

The assessment also took into account Rose Bay Marina Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council and anor [2003] NSWLEC. In this matter, a planning principle for consideration of visual impact on the public domain was established. A discussion on this principle can be found in Attachment 3, page 21. In summary a quantitative and qualitative assessment was made taking into account the views from the public domain.

The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and Appendix A (supporting photographic evidence) are attached (Attachments 3 and 4 (photographic evidence) to this Report).

The assessment provides the following summary in relation to Step 4 –‘ Reasonableness of the Proposal that is Causing the Impact’:

Public interest

The provision of marine rescue facilities to service Jervis Bay is in the public interest. It is understood that the proposal will enable better operation of the facility.

Need and nexus

In their SEE, the applicant contends that there is a need for the proposal due to the inadequacy of the current building for the growing needs of the Jervis Bay Marine Rescue service.

There is a nexus between the current facility and rapid access to the service’s moored rescue boat at the Currambene Creek wharf. The facility also provides visibility over part of Jervis Bay, including the entrance to Currambene Creek.

Compliance with planning controls

As has been already noted in this VIA, the site is not subject to planning controls that typically influence view impact such as building height, FSR, site cover or setbacks.

As such, by default for the purposes of Tenacity the proposal is considered to be a complying proposal.

Skilful design

Under Tenacity, ‘skilful design’ refers to alternative options that achieve a better balance between the needs of the applicant and objector:

· ‘the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours’.

This entails a different design on the same site and does not consider alternative sites.

As has been shown in this VIA, the main cause of view loss for the Pavilion is the proposed lateral expansion of the building’s ground storey and vertical extension of the building’s second storey.

Alternative to this, accommodating the same development potential could be achieved by additions:

· maintaining the same building footprint and developing underground

· maintaining the same building footprint and developing above the building

· extending the building footprint forward.

Alterations above the existing building are less desirable as they would block a greater part of the sky, and may also start to intrude within views obtained from other parts of the hotel. In addition, such an extension would make the building more visible in the visual catchment more generally.

While reducing view impact, it is likely that an underground extension would be greatly increased costs due to excavation, may result in greater impact on scenic character due to access arrangements and would impact amenity by reducing visibility to the entrance to Currambene Creek.

While better meeting the needs of the applicant and objector, a forward extension would reduce the amount of Voyager Park for public recreation purposes, an outcome that is inconsistent with the objectives of zone RE1 Public Recreation and challenging public interest considerations under the EP&A Act.

On this basis, it is not considered that there are reasonable alternatives that constitute more skilful design.

Bulk and scale

The existing first floor is setback from the eastern and western edges of the footprint delineated by the ground floor. This creates the appearance of two blocks of mass, the uppermost of which is smaller in size. The proposal involves the filling of this setback with new built form. This creates a single mass, increasing the apparent bulk and scale of the building. Should council consider the proposal suitable for approval, it is recommended that measures be conditioned to reduce the appearance of bulk and scale, in particular when seen from the Pavilion. It is further recommended these be discussed and agreed with the applicant. Possible measures include the use of different yet compatible colours and materiality.

Visual clutter

Through signage and exposed air-conditioning units and associated piping, the current building presents a level of visual clutter to the Pavilion. Subject to discussion and agreement with the applicant and any safety considerations, there is opportunity to mitigate broader overall visual impact and improve visual amenity for the Pavilion by removing signage facing south and better integrating the air-conditioning units and piping into the building.

The Marine Rescue Facility overall

In addition to the proposal, the objector raises concern more broadly about the existence of the Marine Rescue Facility in its current location and Voyager Park more generally.

As can be seen in this VIA, the overwhelming cause of adverse visual impact on the hotel is not the proposal but the existing building. Removal of the building, or even reducing it to a single storey, would considerably reduce visual impact.

It is agreed with the objector that any further extension to the facility beyond the current proposal would likely cross a threshold of reasonableness under Tenacity, and as such should be discouraged. As such, while not impacting the acceptability of the current proposal, further extensions may trigger a conversation about the ultimate, best location for the facility. Given this, council may wish to consider this as opportunities for other local redevelopment arise that maintains similar attributes to the site in terms of nexus with easy access to mooring facilities and visibility of Jervis Bay.

In summary, Council accepts with the conclusions reached by Ethos Urban Pty Ltd in their independent View Impact Analysis in that there are no reasonable alternatives for the location of the building when considering:

· A forward extension would reduce the amount of Voyager Park for public recreation purposes, an outcome that is inconsistent with the objectives of zone RE1 Public Recreation and challenging public interest considerations under the EP&A Act.

· Alterations above the existing building are less desirable as they would block a greater part of the sky, and may also start to intrude within views obtained from other parts of the hotel. In addition, such an extension would make the building more visible in the visual catchment more generally.

· There is a nexus between the current facility and rapid access to the service’s moored rescue boat at the Currambene Creek wharf. The facility also provides visibility over part of Jervis Bay, including the entrance to Currambene Creek.

· The provision of marine rescue facilities to service Jervis Bay is in the public interest. It is understood that the proposal will enable better operation of the facility.

· broader overall visual impact and amenity for the Pavilion can be improved by removing signage facing south and better integrating the air-conditioning units and piping into the building. In this regard, a condition would be included within any consent which requires amended plans which enables better integration of servicing equipment into the building and removal of south-facing signage.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to implementation of conditions of consent (as recommended by Ethos Urban Pty Ltd) which would incorporate the following design amendments to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the development:

a) All proposed signage on the southern-facing side of the building must be deleted.

b) A schedule of colours and materials is required to be submitted which is compatible with and sympathetic to the surrounding locality.

c) Any proposed building plant equipment or proposed air conditioning units must be incorporated into the building design.

In correspondence with Council, the applicant has confirmed agreement to the above requirements forming conditions of any development consent, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Planning Assessment

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

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Two (2) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification and advertisement of the development. Two (2) were objections to the development. Nil were in support of the development. The notification and advertisement were made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy The notification and advertisement was carried out between 15 November 2021 and 14 December 2021.

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

Summary of Public Submissions

Objection Raised

Comment

Non-Compliance with Zoning Objectives

· An emergency services facility for water activities does not meet this objective. The objectives relate to land-based activities carried on in the RE1 zoned area. This is clear from the second point of the objectives. The facility does not provide a recreation setting or protect the natural land-based environment. It protects humans whilst engaging with water activities. This is an entirely different matter and outside the objectives of the zoning.

· By conflating the purpose of water safety as being necessary for enhancing recreation on public land the proponent is trying to indicate that the development meets the zoning objectives. The fact is that the Marine Rescue structure relates to water safety services and does not enhance the public participation in the RE1 land. A Marine Rescue observation post may be erected in the foreshore area and arguably this could be allowable under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 No 165. However, there are other locations that provide much better safety observation and are less obtrusive; and the legislative instruments governing land usage need to be appropriate of purpose.

· The facility to provide radio monitoring, storage, training and meeting rooms does not need to be in Voyager Park or within site of the water.

· Certainly, public safety on water is important. But this does not mean that a structure should be located on RE1 land with devastating impacts on existing land owners and businesses.

Non-Compliance with Zoning Objectives

The assessment against the zoning objectives has found that the proposed development achieves full compliance with the objectives for Zone RE1 – Public Recreation.

This conclusion has been drawn based upon the following considerations:

· The proposal relates to an existing approved and constructed building and the works are wholly contained within this footprint.

· No extensions are proposed which would impact the remainder of the Park.

· An assessment by the Asset Manager (Manager – Swim, Sport & Fitness) and by City Lifestyles (Community Planning and Projects) found that the proposal is entirely consistent with the Intent and Objectives of

- The Plan of Management for Voyager Memorial Park and White Sands Park.

- Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan.

· The proposal would not impact upon the ability of the remainder of the Park to continue to be used for its existing functions – being for recreational purposes.

· Appropriate conditions of consent would be included to ensure that functioning of existing recreational infrastructure within the Park such as the Pools and supporting infrastructure such as the public amenities remain available and accessible during construction works.

Shoalhaven DCP Chapter N18 Setbacks

· Page 13 of Chapter N18 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 provides setback requirements for buildings in the Huskisson CBD. This is relevant as buildings along the Currambene shore line and Voyager Park are required to be set back from the front boundaries by variable setbacks.

· The point is that development is limited along these public recreation areas. Chapter N18 does not consider the public land between the CBD and Currambene Ck where the existing and proposed development are located. However surely if private development is not permitted close to the shoreline area then other types of development outside the objectives of the RE1 zone should also be strictly limited to those essential items (like toilets) that cannot be located elsewhere.

· The existing structure should not have been located in the Voyager Park area as a second storey to a public building and certainly should not now be expanded.

Shoalhaven DCP Chapter N18 Setbacks

· The building is an approved structure in its present location and has the right to be located in the present location per the existing and issued approval.

· The works proposed as part of this application involve alterations with the ground floor and on the first floor of the development. There is no extension outwards which alter any setbacks towards the water or otherwise which would permanently impact on the remainder of the Parks.

Scenic Impacts / Loss of View

· The EIA that accompanied DA21/2438 has conflicting and materially incorrect information relating to the site analysis, site lines and assessment of view loss. This conflicting information has the effect of misleading people into an incorrect understanding of the impact of the proposed development.

· The impact of the existing Marine Rescue development is to lose circa 50% of the relevant view from JBP. The additional loss from the proposed addition to the Marine Rescue structure is nearly the entire view of the water and shoreline from JBP.

· Arguments that the loss of view from the hotel is mitigated by standing on different parts of the hotel site are fanciful and have no regard to the facts. This argument would run along the lines that the Marine Rescue structure and the proposed addition has minimal impact on the overall view of the creek, bay and the sky above the horizon from the hotel site. Such an argument is misleading. The fact is JBP exists, and the correct perspective is from the front of this building; not looking at angles from a location elsewhere on the hotel site.

· Steps 2 and 3 on page 12 of the EIA are assessed incorrectly and in a self-serving manner. The EIA advises that Huskisson Hotel enjoys uninterrupted views of voyager park and Callala. Figure 6 is an image taken from the South West corner of the Hotel dining room seeking to indicate minimal loss of view.

· Steps 2 and 3 on page 12 of the EIA do not even consider the impact on JBP. The analysis should have been from JBP instead of pretending that JBP does not exist.

Scenic Impacts / Loss of View

· A detailed assessment in relation to the issue of view loss has been carried out and is detailed in the Report above and within the s4.15 Assessment located at Attachment 1 to this Report.

Economic & Social Impacts

· JBP is open for lunch and dinner 7 days/week for 8 months of the year and 4 days/week for 4 months of the year. As such the venue employs the following staff:

- Front of House 14 FTE

- Kitchen 12 FTE

- Cleaners 2 FTE

- Maintenance 0.5 FTE

- Gardeners 0.5 FTE

This is 29 FTE staff. JBP generates economic activity in the region of circa $12.6m pa (using a multiplier of 3.6 times).

The proposed extension of the Marine Rescue structure will devastate the JBP meaning that it will effectively become an overflow service only taking revenue during the 8 busiest weeks of the year when the hotel is full.

The cost of the loss of economic activity from the JBP significantly outweighs the one- time economic benefit of the $0.56m construction cost of the proposed development.

· Marine Rescue will claim that saving lives is more important than any economic benefit/cost. This is a mischaracterisation of the issue and self-serving narrative. The critical requirement for emergency search and rescue is observation of the Bay area.

The existing and proposed structure provides storage, meeting rooms and a training room. The radio and observation room are 23.3m2. These other activities do not need to be located on this site. They would be better located with direct street and pedestrian access and adjacent to a boat ramp.

Economic & Social Impacts

A response has been provided to each of the items raised below:

· As stated in the Heritage Advisor referral response and as detailed in the independent View Impact Analysis (VIA) prepared by Ethos Urban Pty Ltd, the circa 2019 additions to the Jervis Bay Pub has already provided an interruption to views from the primary fabric of the original Pub structure.

The impact of the development has been revealed in the VIA to be acceptable in nature subject to conditions of consent.

Based upon the fact that the view impact has been found to be acceptable, it is considered that it would not be likely to have an adverse economic impact on the surrounding locality.

· The building is suitably located as it provides an important visual aide and lookout point which is critical for boating and marine safety within the wider Bay area.

As part of the proposed embellishment works to the building includes a designated Search And Rescue Centre (SARC) and Observation Deck which requires specific views of the Creek and Bay to carry out its functions.

These activities do in fact need to be located on the Bay and in a location with close access to the water for search and rescue purposes, which is available at the location, being directly adjacent to the boat ramp and wharf.

White Sands & Voyager Park Plan of Management (PoM)

The submissions raised the following matters:

· Clause 3.1.4 of the White Sands Park and Voyager Park Plan of Management 2003 (the Management Plan) specifies that the Huskisson Town Centre DCP shall guide future uses having regard to the following principles including incorporates view lines from the town centre to Currambene Ck. The original and proposed marine rescue structure does not satisfy this principle. The Huskisson Hotel site is the prime site in the town centre. The principles in the Management Plan do not allow for minor loss of view.

· Clause 5 of the Management Pan specifies the permissible uses of the park. Council is required to consider several factors in deciding whether to grant approval for a development in the Park. The first of these factors is the need for the development on the land. Council has erred in its approval of the marine rescue facility in this location

· The fact that the management plan does not specifically address the Marine Rescue structure is claimed to be a reason to permit the structure. Whereas the proper interpretation should be that because the Management Plan does not address a 2 x storey structure in the Park

White Sands & Voyager Park Plan of Management (PoM)

The following responses have been provided as it relates to each point raised regarding the PoM:

· The principles referred to from Clause 3.1.4 are listed as follows:

- Set aside areas for active and passive uses Reinforce tree planting along foreshores subject to erosion.

- Rationalise boundaries of existing car park and provide shade planting.

- Provide for cycle path.

- Incorporate view lines from town centre to Jervis Bay/Currambene Ck.

- To improve public access, pedestrian linkages should be provided between such reserves, retail centre and car park.

An assessment of the proposal by Council’s City Lifestyles Section confirmed the following as it relates to compliance with Intent and Objectives of the PoM:

“The proposed alterations and additions to the existing building are not considered inconsistent to its underlying objectives and intent”.

The principle only states that view lines from the town centre to the Jervis Bay / Currambene Creek are to be incorporated, no further parameters are given as to how this test is to be measured.

A proper test of how view loss is to be considered was in the NSW LEC case: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

A detailed assessment in this application has been carried out against this test which has found that the proposal is able to achieve compliance with this requirement.

· The building is an existing approved structure. This application is not considering whether the building is appropriate on the land as this has already been considered and approved as part of a separate determination. The application is only considering the alterations and additions to the building, rather than the ‘need for the structure’ as a whole.

· The structure is already approved as a two storey structure. As above, this application is not considering the placement of the entire structure (which is approved) but rather the additions to the structure.

Whilst not referenced with the Management Plan, Council’s City Lifestyles Section relevantly advised:

Despite the absence of any specific reference of the Marine Rescue Base facility in the adopted PoM for Voyager Park, the proposed alterations and additions to the existing building are not considered inconsistent to its underlying objectives and intent.

State Emergency & Rescue Management Act 1989

· There is a claim that the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 No 165 (the Act) permits the construction of the building in its current location. This is not correct and is a significant overreach.

· The Act defines the powers that are available to emergency services organisations. This is to prevent emergencies. Part 1 subdivision 4(1) defines an emergency as an emergency due to an actual or imminent occurrence (such as fire, flood, storm, earthquake, explosion, terrorist act, accident, epidemic or warlike action) which— (a) endangers, or threatens to endanger, the safety or health of persons or animals in the State, or (b) destroys or damages, or threatens to destroy or damage, property in the State, or (c) causes a failure of, or a significant disruption to, an essential service or infrastructure, being an emergency, which requires a significant and co-ordinated response.

· The Act does not give Marine Rescue the right to construct a radio room, training room, storeroom and admin room on the site. The power to enact the stages of emergency needs to be considered in the context of what is reasonable in the circumstances.

State Emergency & Rescue management Act 1989

· The proposal has been assessed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

· The applicant has sought development consent and is permissible with consent under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014.

· The Land Use Table for the applicable zone (RE1) specifies that Community Facilities are permissible with consent.

community facility means a building or place—

(a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

(b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment

· The proposed ramp is located on land which has had landfill relocated to the site. This land fill contained shell deposits that may have come from a midden.

· As a result of this possibility the adjacent land (Lot 2 DP 209436) was registered on the AHIMS on 14 September 2020 with a buffer of 200m. This buffer extends over the site which is the subject of this DA application.

· Accordingly, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit is required. To obtain this permit an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report is required. An ACHA should have been lodged with the DA application. As the ACHA was not lodged the DA material is incomplete and should not have been accepted.

Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment

· It is noted that the site is registered on the AHIMS Register. However the specific location is undefined and there is no evidence that the works would directly impact any shell deposits.

· The best of course action is enforcing a condition of consent which, during construction works, requires the following where any Aboriginal object is discovered during the course of the work:

- All excavation or disturbance of the area must stop immediately.

- Additional assessment and approval pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 may be required prior to works continuing the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery.

- Work may recommence in the affected area(s) if Heritage NSW advises that additional assessment and/or approval is not required (or once any required assessment has taken place or any required approval has been given).

- The Heritage NSW must be advised of the discovery in accordance with section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

This condition has been placed within the Draft Development Consent attached at Attachment 5.

Heritage Impact Assessment

· The site of the hotel sustains the listing. The devastating impact on the view from the front of the site is relevant in any assessment of the proposed DA and the impact on the heritage listing of the Huskisson Hotel site.

· It is strongly arguable that the devastating impact on the view from the property compromises the venues role as a centre for recreation and entertainment.

· The EIA concludes that a Heritage Impact Report is not required. This is an incorrect conclusion and seems to have been made on the basis that the original hotel structure is the listed item. As can be seen from the extract above the "site and building achieve the requisite degree of significance" The proposed development has a material impact on the site including the JBP.

· The fact that the JBP is a recent building does not change the heritage considerations as the significance attaches to the site. In prior periods the hotel outdoor areas stretched to the north boundary of the site and hence the hotel over time has traded from the entire site.

Heritage Impact Assessment

· A detailed assessment of the development has been carried out by Council’s Heritage Advisor, which has concluded that:

“the proposed works will have an acceptable level of impact on this aspect of significance of the hotel building”.

· In this instance, it is found that the proposal has sufficiently demonstrated compliance with clause 5.10 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014.

· Further details regarding the assessment of the proposal against the heritage provisions at clause 5.10 are located within the s4.15 Assessment attached at Attachment 1 to this Report.

Car Parking Controls

· The requirement for car parking has just been assumed away with a statement that street parking is available. Our experience is that such a statement is immediately rejected by SCC staff and our DAs have been so rejected as incomplete for not properly addressing issue of Car Parking.

· The same focus should apply to all DA applications. A required rate of carparking is ignored because there is no specific category in the DCP applicable to Community Facility. This is a deliberate misreading of Chapter G21 part 5 of the DCP. The chapter is clear that the categories are specifically provided to act as a guide to typical minimum requirements.

· The lack of a category does not absolve a proponent from have to provide car parking.

Car Parking Controls

· Community Facilities do not have a specific car parking rate under Section 5.1 – Car Parking Schedule of the SDCP 2014.

· Where there is no specific car parking rate which applies, such developments are required to be considered on a case by case basis.

· In this case, the original Application noted that due to the nature of the activity, no vehicular access was required to service the facility and that the development did not warrant the provision of any additional car parking.

· Whilst the current application proposes a minor increase in floor area, no additional personnel are proposed to utilise the building, who would otherwise require additional parking.

· This is because the works are proposed to enhance the existing building and improve the functionality of the building for existing staff – and is not designed as a means to employ extra staff who would need further parking.

Coastal SEPP Clause (1)(a)

· This requirement has been assumed away as not being impacted. This is again a sweeping and ill-considered conclusion. The specific clauses that are impacted such that the DA application should be rejected are: Clause (1) (a) (iii) - the visual impact is outlined above and is catastrophic. Clause (1)(a)(iv) - As outlined above an ACHA is required. Clause (1)(a) (v) - As outlined above the impact on the built environment is catastrophic for the JBP.

Coastal SEPP Clause (1)(a)

· An assessment has been carried out against SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 which has revealed that the proposal complies with the objectives for the ‘Coastal Use Area’ and ‘Coastal Environment Area’.

· A detailed assessment has been carried out (as described in the Report above) which has revealed that the visual impact of the development has been found to be acceptable, subject to the implementation of conditions within any development consent.

Financial Implications:

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

Legal Implications

Pursuant to section 8.2 of the EP&A Act, a decision of the Council may be subject of a review by the applicant in the event of an approval or refusal. If such a review is ultimately pursued the matter would be put to Council for consideration.

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

Summary and Conclusion

This application has been assessed having regard for section 4.15 (Evaluation) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Having regard to the assessment and the matters described in ‘Issues’ in this report, notably visual impact of the development, the proposal is recommended for a determination by way of approval.

A draft determination has been prepared and is located at Attachment 5 to this report for consideration.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.643 Development Application - DA22/1710 - 12 Milham Street, Lake Conjola - Lot 3 DP 515751

DA. No: DA22/1710/4

HPERM Ref: D22/474697

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. s4.15 Assessment Report (Class 1 & 10) (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Applicant's Revised Clause 4.6 Report (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Draft Determination Notice (Conditional Approval) (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Garage and Construction of New Dwelling

Owner: G A & A J Galway

Applicant: Grant Galway c/o Rygate & West

Notification Dates: 19 July 2022 to 3 August 2022

No. of Submissions: Five (5) in objection

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

The proposed dwelling exceeds the height of building limitation under section 4.3, Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014) by a maximum extent of 1.083m (being 12.7%). The proposed dwelling is 9.583m high.

Council can in this instance assume the concurrence of the Secretary; however, the extent of the contravention requires referral to Council for consideration.

Recommendation

That Development Application DA22/1710 for demolition of an existing dwelling house and garage and construction of a new dwelling house at Lot 3 DP 515751, 12 Milham Street, Lake Conjola be approved subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment 3 of this report.

Options

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

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

2. Refuse the application.

Implications: Council would need to determine the grounds on which the application is refused, having regard to section 4.15(1) considerations.

3. Alternative recommendation.

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

Location Map

Figure 1 – Location Map

Background

Proposed Development

The DA seeks approval for:

§ Demolition of the existing dwelling and garage;

§ Construction of a new three (3) storey dwelling house containing four (4) bedrooms with the following arrangement of rooms and functions:

o Lower ground floor – entry lobby, garage space for two (2) cars, laundry, ground floor bathroom;

o Ground floor – living room, kitchen/dining room, master bedroom, walk-in robe and ensuite, pantry, powder room, front and rear decks;

o First floor – three (3) bedrooms, main bathroom, study nook. This floor is setback from the front and rear elevations.

It is noted that the existing Lake Conjola Entrance Road access is no longer to be used. Vehicular access is proposed from Milham Street.

Figure 2 – Demolition Plan

Figure 3 – Site Plan

Figure 4 – Street Elevations

Graphical user interface, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 – 3D Views

Subject Land

The development site is Lot 3 DP 515751 (12 Milham Street, Lake Conjola). Refer to Figure 1.

Site & Context

The development site:

§ Has frontage to Milham Street and Lake Conjola Entrance Road and contains a single storey dwelling and detached garage. There are also several large non-native shrubs on the site.

§ Is zoned RU5 Village. The surrounding area is residential in character.

§ Is identified as bush fire, flood prone and potentially contaminated land.

§ Is serviced by reticulated sewer and water and has existing connection to electrical infrastructure.

§ Adjoins land zoned RU5 Village.

Figure 6a and 6b – Photographs of the existing buildings onsite

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

The RU5 Village zone objective is:

§ To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a rural village.

Chart

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 7 – Zoning Extract

Subject Application History

§ This current application was lodged on 23 June 2022.

§ As a result of detailed assessment of the application, additional information was requested from the applicant on three (3) occasions – 14 July 2022, 24 August 2022, 2 September 2022. These requests were generally in relation to contamination, stormwater management and the colour schedule.

§ On 20 July 2022, 30 August 2022, 17 October 2022 and 10 November 2022, the applicant submitted additional information, which was subsequently referred to the relevant sections of Council for comment.

Issues

Section 4.3 (Height of buildings) of SLEP 2014

Section 4.3 of SLEP 2014 contains controls for the maximum height of buildings and specifically outlines that the maximum height of a building must not exceed the height shown on the ‘Height of Buildings Map’ that supports SLEP 2014.

The maximum building height for the development site is 8.5m.

The proposed dwelling exceeds the height by a maximum extent of 1.083m (being 12.7%) for a total building height of 9.583m. See Figure 8 for extract from proposed elevations with 8.5 height limit shown.

Figure 8 – Extract from elevations with 8.5m height limit shown

Section 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) of SLEP 2014

Development consent may, subject to section 4.6, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument.

The applicant has submitted a written request to justify the contravention of the height of buildings development standard pursuant to the requirements of section 4.6 of SLEP 2014. Refer to Attachment 2 for the detailed request made by the applicant and Council’s assessment. The following provides Council’s review (summary) of the request for a height variation in relation to the requirements of section 4.6. Refer to the attached assessment report (Attachment 1) for additional detail.

Council is required to consider subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 4.6. Section 4.6(3)-(5) are extracted from SLEP 2014 below:

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating—

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless—

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that—

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Planning Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Planning Secretary must consider—

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Planning Secretary before granting concurrence.

Section 4.6(3)(a) – Compliance with the Development Standard is Unreasonable or Unnecessary in the Circumstances of the Case

Flooding is the influencing factor in the design solution for the development. The lower level has been designed so that it is not habitable, containing vehicle parking, a bathroom and laundry. The other levels contain the conventional living and sleeping areas.

The contravention to the building height limit is limited to the upper roof, which is of minimal area, height and bulk. Refer to Figure 8.

The building could comply if the roof was adjusted to a flat roof, however the pitching of the roof balances the architectural design of the building. The roof design also incorporates solar panels. Refer to Figure 3.

The design of the dwelling will ensure that it is compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future residential character and therefore this objective is achieved despite noncompliance with the standard.

The architectural design, whilst modern, is well articulated containing variation in form and materials. The building has a modern ‘Queenslander’ appearance. Refer to the illustrations in Figure 5.

The top floor is setback from the front and rear and the dwelling elevations. The site also benefits from a generous setback to Lake Conjola Entrance Rd. These generous setbacks and location of the top floor will assist in mitigating the impact of the height. If the pitched roof were to be eliminated, the architectural form of the building would also be compromised.

The contravention is minor in terms of the overall design of the proposed dwelling and still ensures that the dwelling is compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing locality and objectives of section 4.3.

Section 4.6(3)(b) – Are there Sufficient Environmental Planning Grounds to Justify Contravening the Development Standard?

As identified above, the applicant’s written request has addressed the matters required to be demonstrated in sub-section (3) in that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard.

A developer’s application must also demonstrate that the contravention is justified on ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds’. Such grounds include matters that ‘relate to (the) subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act, including the objects in s 1.3. This leaves developers with a wide range of grounds on which they can rely to justify a 4.6 request, including, for example, that the variation will promote good design and amenity, will allow for the orderly development of land.

In this instance, the increased building height permits the habitable floor level of the dwelling to be consistent with both the 1 in 100 Year Flood Level and Flood Planning Level.

The variation to the building height would therefore permit the future occupants of the dwelling to have long term safety in the event of a flood. This a reasonable design outcome acknowledging the flood characteristics of the site whilst allowing the order and pragmatic development of the site.

This will also result in the proposal remaining consistent with the objectives of the land use zone and results in a built form which is consistent with the existing and desired future character of the street.

Section 4.6(4)(a)(ii) – Will the Proposed Development be in the Public Interest Because it is Consistent with the Objectives of the Particular Standard and Objectives for Development within the Zone in Which the Development is Proposed to be Carried Out?

Section 4.6(4)(a)(ii) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

The public interest test is not simply whether the development is in the public interest in the broad sense. Rather, the test is whether the development would be in the public interest “because” it is consistent with the objectives of both the development standard and the relevant zone. If the consent authority forms the view that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the standard or the zone, or both, it will not meet the public interest test.

The term ‘consistency’ in this context has been interpreted to be synonymous with the term ‘compatible’ and ‘capable of existing together in harmony’. The requirement for development to be ‘consistent’ with the relevant objectives is a less onerous test than actually achieving the particular objectives.

In determining whether it is satisfied that a proposed development is in the public interest, the consent authority, including the Court on appeal, is not limited to considering the cl.4.6 request. It is able can take into account the whole of the development application and other relevant evidence before it. Source: BAL Publication.

The proposed departure from the development standard is considered to be in the public interest as the proposal is consistent with the zone and development standard objective. In particular, the proposal would not impact the ability of the rural village to continue to provide a range of land uses, services, and facilities.

Section 4.6 (4)(b) – Concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained

Council may assume concurrence. In this instance, the extent of the contravention needs to be referred to the elected Council for consideration.

Section 4.6(5)(a) – Would Non-Compliance Raise any Matter of Significance for State or Regional Planning?

The contravention does not raise any matters of significance having regard to State or regional environmental planning. It does not have implications for any State Environmental Planning Policies in the locality or impacts which are considered of a State or regional scale.

Section 4.6(5)(b) – Is There a Public Benefit of Maintaining the Planning Control Standard?

In the judgement of Ex Gratia P/L v Dungog Council [2015] (NSWLEC 148), Commissioner Brown of the NSW LEC outlined that the question that needs to be answered in relation to the application of section 4.6(5)(b) is “whether the public advantages of the proposed development outweigh the public disadvantages of the proposed development”.

The applicant is to demonstrate that there will be better planning outcomes achieved through variation to the development standard as opposed to strict compliance with the development standard or amending the application to reduce the extent of the variation.

In this regard, it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard and a reduction of the building height to achieve compliance would not result in a better outcome.

Summary and conclusion with regard to section 4.6

The written submission provided by the applicant is considered to satisfy the requirements of section 4.6(3), (4) and (5) and in this regard the proposed height variation is considered to warrant approval.

Planning Assessment

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

Council’s internal referrals have assessed the application as being satisfactory with conditions of consent recommended to address matters such as contamination, stormwater drainage and flooding.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Five (5) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy during the period 19 July 2022 to 3 August 2022.

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

Height of the proposed dwelling

Comment

See comments made earlier in this report.

A clause 4.6 variation has been provided and found to be acceptable. It is important to note that the height development standard is not a prohibition. All standard instrument local environmental plans include the ability to vary development standards under clause 4.6. This clause allows flexibility in the application of standards where there will be a positive planning outcome.

Note: Variations to development standards are reportable to the Department of Planning and Council. Council receives a regular quarterly report, detailing the number of variations that have been considered and consented to.

Flooding

Council’s Floodplain Engineer reviewed the documentation submitted with this application and provided the following comments:.

The subject site comprises flood prone land and mapped within a high hazard storage hazard / hydraulic category. The projected 2050 scenario Flood Planning Level (FPL) is 3.5m AHD.

It is noted that the ground floor will consist of non-habitable space with an entry, double garage, laundry, bathroom, storage, and alfresco area. The first and second floors will consist of habitable rooms. The ground floor is proposed to be at 1.6m AHD, and the lowest habitable floor level is proposed to be 4.4m AHD. The entire development site sits within a high hazard flood storage hydraulic / hazard category. There is no option in terms of being able to site the building in a less ‘risky’ location.

Whilst the habitable floor level of the development (i.e. at 3.5m AHD) sits 900mm above the 2050 projected 1% AEP Flood Level (i.e. at 4.4m AHD), it is noted that the Probable Maximum Flood Level (Projected 2100) sits at 4.2m. As such, there is a minimal distance of 200mm between the habitable floor level of the dwelling and the probable maximum flood event.

It is therefore considered that the design has adequately balanced the interests between ensuring the development is adequately flood proofed, whilst also minimising the extent of the variation to the overall building height to the form of the development which incorporates the roof pitch only.

The proposed development has been assessed as a Type A (I) Single Residential/ Habitable Buildings land use category as per Schedule 1 of Chapter G9, SDCP 2014. This means that it is a category of development that can be accommodated however the conditions in Schedule 2 (controls) should ideally be satisfied.

Specific conditions are recommended to deal with the flood risk as follows:

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a professional engineer, (as defined in the National Construction Code) must submit to the satisfaction of the Certifier, certification that the following items have been detailed on the construction drawings:

a) All habitable floor levels must be constructed at or above the Flood Planning Level (FPL) (1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood level plus 500mm freeboard) as documented on a Flood Certificate obtained from Council that is based on the latest flooding information held.

b) Any proportion of the structure below the FPL must be built from flood compatible materials.

c) All electrical installations must be constructed above the FPL or be able to be isolated prior to a flood event.

d) A flood evacuation plan must be prepared to ensure permanent, fail-safe, maintenance-free measures are incorporated in the development to ensure that the timely, orderly and safe evacuation of people is possible from the area and that it will not add significant cost and disruption to the community or the SES. This plan is to consider for pre-flood event planning the use of Flood Warning Products available from the Bureau of Meteorology.

a) Can withstand forces of floodwaters including debris and buoyancy forces up to a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event.

b) Will not become floating debris during a 1% AEP flood event.

Stormwater drainage

Comment

The latest stormwater plans have removed the surface runoff stormwater pipelines. Surface flow direction is indicated on the plans in the direction of the southern-most corner of the subject site. This is acceptable as surface water is indicated to flow to the direction of the stormwater pit adjacent to the southern-most corner of the site.

Contamination

Comment

The site was inspected on 9 November 2022, with there being no evidence of obvious contamination. However, it is apparent that the site is identified as being potentially contaminated land, being PCL427. Council's records indicate that this land may have contained a service station.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer reviewed the PCL file and the submitted geotechnical forensic investigation with supporting letter from the applicant.

The letter proffers some pertinent points regarding the contaminated land status of the site. Namely investigations were undertaken by Terra Insight as part of the geotechnical report which could not identify tanks onsite in aerial photos of the site. A review of the geotechnical report photos dating from 1959 to current shows that the older photos are not clear. The photo from 1987 does not appear to show any tanks onsite or be operating, rather a dwelling house.

It is agreed that the potential for tanks to be still onsite is low and that a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) is not required. However, recommended conditions are to form part of any consent granted, for unexpected finds and the requirement for a site investigation in the case that an unexpected find is uncovered.

There were also concerns about asbestos. In this regard, standard conditions have been recommended for the demolition component for the application. These conditions require neighbour notification and specify how the removal is to be undertaken. The relevant Australian Standard is also referenced in the recommended conditions.

Financial Implications:

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

Legal Implications

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

Summary and Conclusion

The applicant’s submission has provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that given the specific circumstances of this case that the 8.5m height limit is unreasonable, there is sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the height requirement and that the proposal is in the public interest and should be supported.

Further, there are no matters of concern or non-compliances that would warrant the refusal of the application. Accordingly, it is recommended that DA22/1710 is approved subject to the recommended conditions of consent as per Attachment 3.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.644 Worrigee / South Nowra / East Nowra Community Infrastructure Investigations

HPERM Ref: D22/474298

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: Michael Paine, Manager - Community Connections

Attachments: 1. Report - Strategy & Assets Committee 20 July 2021 ⇩

2. Public Private Partnership (PPP) Guidelines (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

To update Council on the progress of investigations in relation to an aquatic facility and community facility for the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra areas.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive this report for information as:

a. An update on investigations in relation an aquatic facility for the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra areas

b. An overview of discussions to date with Schools Infrastructure NSW on partnership opportunities

2. Take no further action in respect of the discussions with Worrigee Sports regarding an aquatic facility.

3. Consider the provision of community infrastructure for Worrigee, South Nowra and East Nowra as part of the upcoming review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP).

Options

1. Adopt the above recommendation.

Implications: This will result in an update to Council on the progress of investigations to date for an aquatic facility and community facility in the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra areas, and include this as an option in the review of the CISP.

2. Adopt an alternate recommendation.

Implications: This project will require a needs analysis, community consultation and alignment with Council’s strategic documents. An alternate recommendation might not allow for an integrated and strategic approach to infrastructure and recreational facilities planning in the Shoalhaven LGA and an inequitable distribution of community infrastructure.

Background

At Council’s Strategy & Assets Committee meeting on 19 January 2021 a Notice of Motion (NoM) was presented to Council on the basis that:

“The Worrigee, East Nowra and South Nowra areas already have 4 schools established in the area, and the State Government is planning the construction of a fifth in the area.

The area also has a large number of young families as well as a public housing estate. The development of a modest aquatic facility in the area would add greatly to the social capital of the area”.

In response, Council resolved (MIN21.11) that:

1. The CEO undertake site identification investigations with a view to finding the most appropriate site to construct an aquatic facility (swimming pool) in the Worrigee/South Nowra area, and report back to Council when the investigations are complete.

2. Once a site has been identified the CEO also report to Council on a source of funding to enable project scoping and preliminary design of the proposed facility.

3. Council give consideration to the possibility of a private-public partnership in respect of the development of the facility.

Subsequent to the above resolution, a report was presented to Council at the Strategy & Assets Committee meeting on 29 July 2021 (Attachment 1), outlining initial site investigations and options for delivery/management of the facility. It was resolved (MIN21.509):

That Council:

1. Further investigate the opportunities for a Public Private Partnership in discussion with the Shoalhaven Ex-Servicemen’s Club (Worrigee Sports) and receive a further report at the conclusion of these discussions;

2. Further investigate the need for a community centre / facility for the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra areas under the review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan and continue discussions with Schools Infrastructure NSW regarding access to Department of Education premises;

3. Include the creation of an integrated and connected recreational plan for the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra areas under the review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan, currently being undertaken by Council.

This report provides an update to Council on MIN21. 509 Part (1), the progress of investigations of opportunities to date, an overview of discussions with Worrigee Sports and advice received from Schools Infrastructure NSW (SINSW) regarding access to Department of Education premises.

MIN21.509 Part (1) – Further investigate the opportunities for a Public Private Partnership in discussion with the Shoalhaven Ex-Servicemen’s Club (Worrigee Sports) and receive a further report at the conclusion of these discussions.

Public Private Partnership (PPP)

Council received the following advice in relation to the parameters and definition of a Public Private Partnership:

A Council may only enter into a PPP in accordance with the provisions in Part 6 of Chapter 12 of the LG Act (s 400E of the LG Act).

A PPP is defined in section 400B(1) of the LG Act as:

‘…an arrangement:

(a) between a council and a private person to provide public infrastructure or facilities (being infrastructure or facilities in respect of which the council has an interest, liability or responsibility under the arrangement), and in which the public infrastructure or facilities are provided in part or in whole through private sector financing, ownership or control, but does not include any such arrangement if it is of a class that has been excluded from the operation of this Part by the regulations.’

An ‘arrangement’ includes a contract or understanding (whether or not involving the formation of an entity). The range of possible contractual arrangements which could potentially fall within this definition is immense, as has been noted by the High Court (see R & R Fazzolari Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council; Mac's Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (2009) 254 ALR 1at [76]).

‘Private person’ is defined in s400B (2) to mean:

any person other than:

(a) the Government (including the State, the Crown and a Minister of the Crown, or

(b) a public or local authority (including a council or a State-owned corporation), or

(c) a public sector employee or other person or body acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Government or a public or local authority

Whilst ‘public infrastructure or facilities’ is not specifically defined in the LG Act, s440B(1)(a) provides that public infrastructure or facilities are those in ‘in respect of which the council has an interest, liability or responsibility under the arrangement [being the arrangement which creates or constitutes the PPP]’.

The broad terms of the above advice identifies the key requirement for a project to be eligible for a PPP. As such, there is the potential for Council to pursue a PPP.

However, Council must not enter into a PPP or carry out works under a PPP without notifying the Office of Local Government and satisfying them that the project complies with the Public Private Partnership Guidelines January 2022, and that legal advice has also been sought (see Attachment 2, pg. 9).

Discussions with Worrigee Sports

Four online meetings were held between September 2021 and November 2021. These meetings were attended by Council staff from City Lifestyles, City Futures and Worrigee Sports Board members. A summary of key discussion points is provided below:

· Potential location for the proposed aquatic facility on the Worrigee Sports site

· Aquatic facility requirements and potential site constraints

· Traffic management and car parking requirements

· Proposed partnership options, inclusive of conditions for a PPP

· Options for operation and management

Worrigee Sports see a potential partnership with Council for the proposed aquatic facility as a positive idea and beneficial to the community of the Worrigee area and surrounding locality. This however would require further investigations to assess feasibility of the proposed aquatic facility, community consultation, detailed costings for design and delivery and so forth.

MIN21.509 Part (2) - Further investigate the need for a community centre / facility for the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra areas under the review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan and continue discussions with Schools Infrastructure NSW regarding access to Department of Education premises.

A full investigation regarding the need for a community centre / facility will be undertaken during the review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan

Discussion with Schools Infrastructure NSW

Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with SINSW in 2020, with the aim to form the foundation for a cooperative relationship that works willingly to explore partnership opportunities to benefit schools and the local community.

Bi-monthly meetings are scheduled with SINSW, Asset Activations, and Council staff in attendance. These meetings are ongoing and provide opportunity for SINSW and Council to provide updates on relevant projects and discuss potential opportunities, such as shared facilities and upcoming openings for grant funding applications.

Advice from SINSW had previously indicated that the site was too constrained to consider the construction of an aquatic facility.

The timeframe for the construction of the school is still to be determined. Hence, at this stage it is not possible to advise on any opportunities to co-locate either an aquatic facility or a community facility on Department of Education Land for shared school and public use outside of school hours / use.

Council staff will continue to work with SINSW to determine potential ways forward and possible sites on Department of Education land.

Policy Implications

Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP)

The CISP identifies that the Shoalhaven LGA is well provided for with aquatic facilities and community buildings, which meet demands now and into the future 2036. The review of the CISP to be undertaken in 2022/23 may identify changes in community needs, and gaps in provision of facilities.

Financial Implications

The investigations to date have been funded through the Community Planning and Projects Department staff budget.

Risk Implications

There is significant risk in not ensuring that this project aligns with the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Council is working towards ensuring a strategic and equitable distribution of Community Infrastructure Assets across the LGA, that appropriately responds to population growth or decline, demographics and supply and demand of current infrastructure. As such it recommended that the final determination of whether the investigation for an aquatics facility in this area will be with the CISP.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 05 December 2022

Page 0

CL22.645 Draft Berry Showground Master Plan - Update to Council and Progress to Exhibition

HPERM Ref: D22/158265

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: Michael Paine, Manager - Community Connections

Attachments: 1. Draft Berry Showground Master Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Community Engagement Report - Berry Showground Master Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

This report provides an update on the Draft Berry Showground Master Plan and seeks Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit the document.

Recommendation

That Council;

1. Receive this report for information in relation to engagement activities undertaken to date to inform the Draft Berry Showground Master Plan.

2. Approve release of the Draft Berry Showground Master Plan for public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

3. Receive a future report outlining the outcome of community engagement activities associated with public exhibition of the draft master plan, and recommendations relating to adoption of a finalised Berry Showground Master Plan.

Options

1. Council adopt the recommendation

Implications: This option will enable the Draft Berry Showground Master Plan to be placed on public exhibition and will give the general public an opportunity to comment on the proposed plans. This will allow the project to progress, in line with community expectation.

2. Council adopt an alternative recommendation and provide direction to staff

Implications: Depending on the significance of the recommendation, this may affect the progression of the project, resulting in delay in finalising plans.

Background

Berry Showground (or ‘Hazel Berry Park’) occupies a strategically important location within the village of Berry; between the village’s main street and its railway station. It has been the venue for local agricultural shows since 1888 and is highly valued by the local community, as a cultural and social asset that is enjoyed both by the residents of Berry and visitors from beyond the village.

The Berry Showground is located on Alexandra Street, Berry. The Showground is a mixture of Council owned Community Land and Crown Land, for which Shoalhaven City Council is Trust Manager.

David Berry Memorial Park adjoins the Showground’s south-east. David Berry Memorial Park is a Council owned landscaped area separate from the main Showground space and is used mainly for passive leisure activities. Both areas are included in the Draft Master Plan.

Figure 1: Context Plan, showing extents of subject site in relation to the township of Berry

The Showground is located approximately 250m to 500m from the main business hub of Berry (Queen Street), making it a popular destination for a range of community activities, including: events; markets; sports; along with a highly successful camping ground / caravan park.

The Showground is comprised of the following distinct spaces (areas):

· Oval (or arena, or show ring) and ring road, along with the grandstand and adjacent toilets/changerooms;

· Pavilion (‘Agricultural Pavilion’), Rural Youth Hall and nearby toilets in the north-west corner;

· Berry Village Pool, a separate area on Albany Street fenced from the remainder of the Showground;

· Northern grass (and road) open area;

· Playground area, rotunda, and nearby toilets in the north-east corner;

· Former Council Chambers building and Alexandra Street entrance;

· Campground area, and horse stables, in the south;

· Woodchop arena and surrounding facilities/buildings in the south-east;

· Livestock yards of the site’s south-west corner; and

· Cattle lawn (animal judging area) and nearby animal shelters/pavilions west of the campground.

Draft Berry Showground Master Plan

The Draft Berry Showground Master Plan outlines a general, coordinated approach to the planning, development and implementation of infrastructure and landscaping improvements at Berry Showground.

The Master Plan is informed by extensive internal coordination between Council staff and external consultation with the Berry community. This integrated approach considers the needs of all regular user groups, as well as the wider community and tourists that visit the area. It is anticipated that the needs of all user groups will be met and, subsequently, well managed through implementation of the master plan.

Once finalised, the master plan will identify future infrastructure and amenity upgrades to the Berry Showground that:

· Recognise and enhance its landscape and built character and appeal to the broader community;

· Protect heritage values and other significant assets;

· Accommodate a range of uses on the site;

· Improve site management and asset management outcomes;

The Draft Berry Showground Master Plan identifies a range of discrete projects for future consideration by the elected Council, Council staff, and the Berry Showground Management Committee. Discrete projects are presented as ‘Design Notes’ throughout the Master Plan report, as they relate to each of the following themes:

· Landscaping

· Heritage

· Circulation

· Proposed Use

Design Notes are listed in the relevant chapters and are also published on the corresponding plans (provided as Appendix 1 within Attachment 1).

A Precinct Identification Plan identifies the following precincts (ref. p. 16, Attachment 1):

· Precinct 1 (Agricultural Market)

· Precinct 2 (Camping)

· Precinct 3 (Sporting / Market)

· Precinct 4 (Village Pool)

The Draft Berry Showground Master Plan can be viewed in Attachment 1.

Community Engagement

Engagement for this project was coordinated and led by Gondwana Consulting, supported by Council staff and the Berry Showground Management Committee. Engagement activities undertaken to date include:

FORMAT	DATE	DESCRIPTION
Workshop	11 March 2020	An initial Workshop was held between Council staff and the Berry Showground Management Committee.
Survey	September 2020	A community survey was made available to Berry residents, and promoted via Council’s online channels, as well as via networks of relevant stakeholders. The survey was made available via Council’s Get Involved page and in hard copy. The survey received over 100 submissions.
Drop-in Sessions	17 and 21 September 2020	Two drop-in sessions were held to provide information to the community and an additional forum for the general public to provide feedback.

FORMAT

DATE

DESCRIPTION

Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings

Tuesday 20 October 2020 (5.30pm to 7.00pm)

Berry Showground user groups and event coordinators gathered to discuss the use of the site and potential direction in the future. Representatives included:

· Rotary Club of Berry

· Showground Management Committee

· Historical Car Show

· Elite Energy

· Berry Sunday Markets, Management Committee

· Berry Spinners and Weavers

· Caravan Society

· Show Society, Management Committee

Main themes arising from this meeting included:

· Tree regeneration

· Parking and drainage

· Inclusion and accessibility within the Showground

Wednesday 21 October 2020 (5.30pm to 7.00pm)

Representatives included:

· Fairgrounds Festival

· Berry Silver Band

· Berry Shoalhaven Magpies Rugby Club

· Big Country Festival

· Southern Tablelands Holstein Dairy Cow Judging

· Showgrounds Caretaker

· Show Society, Management Committee

Main themes arising from this meeting included:

· Upgrades to plumbing and electrical infrastructure

· Field (main arena surface) upgrades

· Accessibility concerns

· Parking and drainage

· Protect heritage

A list of Focus Group invitees and participants is provided in Table 1 below

Table 1. Stakeholder Focus Groups Participants

A Community Engagement Report is provided as Attachment 2.

Next Steps

Exhibition

Pending Council’s approval to proceed, the DRAFT Berry Showground Master Plan will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. It is anticipated this will occur in the first quarter of 2023 (February / March). Risk associated with the delay between receiving the elected Council’s endorsement to proceed to exhibition and the proposed exhibition period is considered negligible for this project.

Feedback received will be reviewed, collated, and considered by the Project Team and Project Control Group and presented to the elected Council for deliberation at a future Ordinary Council Meeting.

Final Plan

Once adopted, the Berry Showground Master Plan will be utilised to inform future site management, capital works funding allocations, and grant applications.

Financial Implications

The preparation of the Berry Showground Master Plan (and associated Plan of Management) will continue to be resourced from existing operational budgets (City Lifestyles directorate).

An amount of $30,000 was provided by the Berry Showground Management Committee towards the development of the Berry Showground Plan of Management and the Berry Showground Draft Master Plan.

Future funding applications will be forthcoming (through Council’s 10 Year Capital Works Program) for the delivery of discrete projects identified in the Berry Showground Master Plan. Grant funding opportunities may be explored to allow for the delivery of some (or all) of these works.

Policy Implications

The Draft Berry Showground Master Plan has been developed in accordance with:

· Shoalhaven City Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan 2017 – 2036

· The Berry Forum’s Berry Community Strategic Plan (2016)

Directorate	Name	Designated Position Start Date	Returned
City Development	Rochelle MacKay	07/11/2022	14/11/2022
City Services	Rachael Proksch	10/10/2022	14/11/2022
City Services	Bhavya Dawar	17/10/2022	15/11/2022
City Services	Michael Berzins	19/09/2022	17/11/2022
Shoalhaven Water	Andrew Solari	07/11/2022	18/11/2022
City Lifestyles	Paul Donnelly	07/11/2022	25/11/2022

Registration fees:	Delegates from ACCA LGAs (Includes Shoalhaven City Council delegates )
Early Bird – Full Forum only - Early Bird 19 Dec 2022	$ 1,100.00
Early Bird Special Discount Package – includes Full Forum, Reception and Dinner tickets - Early Bird 19 Dec 2022	$ 1,331.00
Standard Registration – Full Forum only	$ 1,320.00
Standard Special Discount Package – includes Full Forum, Reception and Dinner tickets	$ 1,551.00
One Day - 29 or 30 March 2023	$ 550.00
One Day - FRIDAY 31 March 2023	$ 440.00

Tenderer	Location
Utilstra Pty Ltd	1 Geelong St, Fyshwick ACT 2604
Hisway Pty Ltd	13A Investigator Street, Nowra 2541
Killard Infrastructure Pty Ltd	Suite F.6./72 Berry Street, Nowra, NSW 2541
Quay Civil Pty Ltd	Suite 5.12, 32 Delhi Rd, North Ryde NSW 2113
Ledonne Construction Pty Ltd	43 Planthurst Rd, Carlton NSW 2218
RA Smith Contracting Pty Ltd	3 Cunningham Street MOOREBANK NSW 2170

Tenderer	Location
Jirgens Civil Pty Ltd	38 Trim Street, South Nowra NSW 2541