Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Tuesday, 16 December 2025

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.418 Proposal to Reform Community Consultative Bodies (CCB) Model of Engagement

HPERM Ref: D25/569158

Department: Communication & Community Engagement

Approver: Andrew Constance, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Place Based Councils Comparison Table ⇩

2. Comparison Councils Precinct Models Map ⇩

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to reform the Community Consultative Bodies (CCB) model of engagement.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Formally discontinue the Community Consultative Bodies model of engagement in its current form, from 1 July 2026.

2. Thank all current Community Consultative Bodies for their contributions to community dialogue and undertake community consultation in February-March 2026 to discuss options to become independently incorporated bodies.

3. Provide administrative and financial support to assist any Community Consultative Bodies to become an incorporated community group before 1 July 2026, and enable them as independent bodies, be it Ratepayers Associations, Community Forums, Progress Associations, to:

a. consult properly with all tiers of government,

b. apply for grants for potentially up to 100%,

c. no longer be beholden to Council rules.

Background

The Community Consultative Bodies (CCB) model was established in 1991 to provide a structured mechanism for community groups to engage with Council on local issues. For many years, these resident groups provided an important conduit between community and Council.

Currently, there are 23 resident groups that are endorsed by Council as a CCB and perform engagement functions as the representative group for residents and ratepayers within a defined geographical area. As a CCB, they are required to disperse information, promote and facilitate discussion and communicate shared and collective views of the community to Council.

Under the CCB model, each community group independently develops and manages its own terms of reference, constitution, and membership. Variations in structure and representation can limit the effectiveness of the CCB engagement model, as they may not always fully reflect the diversity of the communities they are intended to represent.

While the model has served its purpose in the past, reviews and recent community feedback have highlighted significant limitations in its effectiveness, inclusivity and alignment with best-practice engagement methods and principles, as those outlined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) and the NSW Office of Local Government.

While all community groups are a valuable way to share information with communities, the ongoing evolution of communication tools and techniques has enabled Council to directly reach and engage with residents of all ages, abilities and interests.

Safe Work considerations

Council currently has two NSW Safe Work orders requiring that it make changes to improve the safety of its elected officials. The existing model does not fully support Council’s obligations under NSW Safe Work psychosocial safety requirements, particularly in circumstances where elected officials and staff may experience challenging or unsafe interactions.

Current engagement methods

The Shoalhaven City Council Community Engagement Strategy and Framework 2025-29 details a contemporary engagement model that applies principles to facilitate authentic, transparent and inclusive consultation.

Council’s engagement framework is based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) model to determine the level and method of engagement.

To be effective, engagement with stakeholders needs to occur at the most opportune time in the planning process to influence decisions of Council. This occurs with the community through the development of the Council’s highest order of planning document, the Community Strategic Plan, the annual Delivery Program and Operational Plan as well as through specific consultation opportunities for projects and initiatives that are held throughout each year. This year alone, Council conducted 21 community engagement projects, including for the development of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan, the Disability Inclusion and Access Plan and many small-scale projects such as parks and playgrounds.

To promote engagement and reach target audiences for consultation, Council distributes information to a range of community contact networks, including those endorsed as CCBs.

Alternative Engagement Models

To achieve the highest level of engagement (Collaborate or Empower), community reference groups of stakeholders, such as steering groups, advisory committees and citizen panels are some of the most impactful ways people can partner with Council to influence decision making and help shape their lifestyles.

Benchmarking

A desktop review conducted on 128 councils in NSW found that four councils (North Sydney, Randwick, Waverly and Wollongong) recognised community facilitated groups as formal engagement committees. Each council provides varying levels of financial, governance and administrative support to a different number of groups under their respective models (Attachment 1).

By comparison, Shoalhaven endorses the highest number of community organisations representing significantly less of the towns, suburbs and geographical area of the LGA than others (Attachment 2).

To examine possible alternatives to the CCB model, community engagement protocols of 11 councils have been reviewed including OLG Category 5 councils (Coffs Harbour, Maitland, Mid-Coast, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Port Stephens, Shellharbour, Tweed and Wollongong), and neighbouring councils (Kiama, Bega and Eurobodalla).

Two main structural approaches emerged that are designed to achieve the highest levels of engagement:

· Project-specific groups: Established for the duration of a project or initiative. These can be established as community reference groups or working groups for major infrastructure or social planning projects. A recent example of this includes the Nowra Riverfront Precinct Working Group for the development of the riverfront master plan, as well as the longstanding inter-government agency Nowra Riverfront Action Taskforce.

· Thematic advisory committees: Long term established to focus on specific policy areas of social, environmental and/or infrastructure. Current examples of this at includes the Floodplain Risk Management Committees, Aboriginal Advisory Committee, Youth Advisory Committee and the Inclusion and Access Committee.

Currently, Council maintains 13 committees that address a range of projects and initiatives including affordable housing, transport, finances, land use planning and development.

Next steps

In February and March 2026, Council staff will consult with the CCBs about the reform and determine the most appropriate methods to continue to engage with each as individual community groups.

Information will be provided about the process to becoming an incorporated group that would facilitate independence and access to external funding opportunities for projects and initiatives. Staff will provide support to assist with transitioning to an incorporated body before 1 July 2026.

Risk Implications

The reform of the CCB engagement model presents minimal risks to people, the environment, Council’s finances, or systems.

Internal Consultations

Organisational staff have been consulted, with no negative feedback provided.

External Consultations

Other Councils have been contacted for information.

Community Consultations

The CEO announced that we would undertake a process to reform the CCB model at the CCB Executive meeting on 1 December 2025 and no comments were received at that time. Further engagement with the CCBs would be conducted in February – March 2026.

Policy and Statutory Implications

There are no policy implications.

Financial Implications

Council currently provides each CCB with $500 per year for administrative purposes. In the 2025–26 financial year, this totalled $11,500. Additionally, insurance costs for 2025–26 was $14,825.45, and is projected to increase to between $16,500 and $17,000 in 2026–27.

Application fees (up to $500) for any CCB wanting to become an incorporated body by 1 July 2026 would be paid for by Council from the existing 2025-26 budget.

In 2026-27, it is anticipated a total savings of approximately $28,000 to $28,500, which would be ongoing.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.419 Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy

HPERM Ref: D25/569630

Department: Business Assurance & Risk

Approver: Katie Buckman, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. Draft Code of Meeting Practice (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Draft Public Forum Policy (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose:

To report on the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy, summarise submissions received and outline recommended changes.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Adopt the Draft Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment 1) as exhibited, noting that no changes are recommended following public exhibition.

2. Adopt the Draft Public Forum Policy (Attachment 2) subject to the following amendments proposed following consideration of public submissions outlined in this report:

a. Amend clause 4.2(g) to provide as follows:

1. “Applications to speak at the Public forum must be received by 9.30am on the day of the Public Forum.”

b. Insert additional sentence in clause 4.2(h):

2. “Applicants requesting to make an oral submission must provide a written summary (max. one page) of their intended address when lodging their application. This summary will be distributed to all Councillors prior to the related Council meeting.”

c. Insert additional sentence in clause 4.2(j)

“The Chief Executive Officer or their delegate must give reasons in writing for a decision to refuse an application.”

d. Include an additional clause under section 4.2 – Implementation

3. “Approved speakers who require assistance due to disability or additional needs may nominate a support person to assist or continue their presentation if necessary. The total speaking time must not exceed the five (5) minutes allocated for submission.”

3. That the Council’s newly adopted Code of Meeting Practice and Public Forum Policy become effective on 1 January 2026 to align with the requirements of the Model Code.

4. Publish the adopted Code of Meeting Practice and Public Forum Policy on Council’s website, together with information explaining the new processes and application forms relating to Public Forums.

Background

Following the release of the Model Code of Meeting Practice by the Office of Local Government, in August this year, a report was provided to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 October 2025. The Council resolved to place the Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy on public exhibition in accordance with section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The exhibition period ran from 31 October to 12 December 2025, providing the community with an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed documents.

As previously outlined to Councillors in briefings and reports, the exhibited Draft Code incorporates all mandatory provisions of the Model Code, including rules for councillor attendance, order of business, voting, and conduct during meetings. These provisions are legally required and cannot be altered by Council.

The Draft Public Forum Policy outlines a structured process for oral and written submissions prior to Council meetings, aiming to enhance transparency and community engagement while maintaining orderly and lawful decision-making.

Public Forums are intended to be separate from formal Council meetings, consistent with the Model Code and Office of Local Government guidance. This separation ensures that forums provide an opportunity for community input without forming part of the decision-making process. The draft policy also includes measures to manage time, maintain equity among speakers, and uphold respectful conduct in a forum structure,

The agenda for the Council meeting is scheduled for publication on 11 December 2025 to allow sufficient time for Councillors and the public to review. As the exhibition period closes on 12 December, this report contains all submissions received by Council up to 5 December and it is intended that an addendum report will be prepared and published on 15 December 2025 to address any submissions that may be received after the agenda is approved and before the close of exhibition. If no further submissions are received during this period, an addendum report will not be provided to supplement this report.

Summary of Submissions

Council has received eight (8) individual submissions during the exhibition period. Key issues raised included requests for greater accessibility, independent facilitation, expanded speaking rights, and changes to procedural timeframes. Each submission was assessed against legislative requirements, operational feasibility, and Council’s commitment to transparency and inclusivity. Where concerns related to mandatory provisions of the Model Code (e.g., councillor attendance via audio-visual link), Council is legally unable to make changes. Recommended amendments to the Draft Public Forum Policy following consideration of the submissions include:

· Extending the application deadline to 9:30 am on the day of the Public Forum.

· Requiring oral submission applicants to provide a written summary of their intended oral address.

· Allowing a nominated support person for speakers with disability or additional needs.

· Requiring written reasons for any refusal of an application.

These changes aim to balance accessibility and fairness with operational efficiency and compliance with statutory requirements.

Summary Table

Document

Key Issues Raised

Staff Consideration

Draft Public Forum Policy

1. Require written reasons for all discretionary decisions by the CEO, circulated to councillors and made public.

2. Record refusals and speaker limitations in Council minutes.

3. Introduce a right of review for refused applications.

4. Expand speaker limits and improve accessibility.

5. Use independent facilitation for public forums.

1. Council currently provides written reasons for refusal of an application.

Recommendation: Amend clause 4.2(j) of the Draft Public Forum Policy to reflect this practice.

2. The Public Forum is conducted prior to a Council meeting and is not minuted as part of the formal meeting proceedings. The Office of Local Government has confirmed the intent is that the forum remains distinct from the decision-making process of the Council meeting.

No action recommended.

3. Refusals are based on procedural grounds only (e.g., breach of policy conditions, exceeding speaker limits), not on political or personal views. Applicants who cannot speak may submit a written submission instead.

Introducing a review process would also create operational delays and administrative complexity given the application deadline and scheduling of Public Forums.

No action recommended.

4. The Draft Public Forum Policy provides for speakers to be granted an extension of time at the discretion of the Chairperson.

Clause 4.2(g) of the Draft Public Forum Policy proposes that applications to speak must be received by 3pm on the day prior to the Public Forum.

Recommendation: Improve accessibility by amending clause 4.2(g) of the Draft Public Forum Policy to provide that applications to speak at the Public Forum must be received by 9.30am on the day of the Public Forum.

5. The Model Code gives councils discretion to set rules for public forums. The draft policy proposes that Public Forums be chaired by the Mayor or a nominated Councillor to ensure consistency with the Model Code of Meeting Practice, accountability to the elected Council. Independent facilitation would add cost and complexity without improving transparency, which is already supported through livestreaming.

No action recommended.

Draft Code of Meeting Practice

Support for the draft Code – fostering a respectful and lawful decision-making environment in council meetings.

Comment noted – reinforces objectives of the Model and draft Code.

No action recommended.

Draft Public Forum Policy

Concerned that public forums may create pressure for decisions to reflect popular opinion expressed by vocal groups rather than strategic planning and statutory obligations.

Public forums are for requests to address agenda items only and do not replace representative decision-making.

Written submissions remain available as an alternative as provided in the Draft Public Forum Policy.

No action recommended.

Draft Code of Meeting Practice/Draft Public Forum Policy

1. Emphasised the need for respectful conduct during Council meetings and public forums, ensuring community members feel safe and valued when making address to the forum.

2. Suggested providing questions in advance so as not to ‘blindside’ speakers.

1. Comment noted – reinforces objectives of the Model and draft Code.

No action recommended.

2. Operationally, very difficult to implement. The turnaround time between receiving requests to address, distributing them to councillors, and then getting questions back to speakers before the meeting is extremely tight (and in many cases impossible), especially when applications close quite close to the meeting date. It should also be noted that there is nothing to prevent Councillors asking questions of the speaker on the floor of council as they arise.

In addition, to achieve this the submitter would be required to provide all the information they wish to address in advance of the meeting for Councillors to consider.

No action recommended.

Draft Code of Meeting Practice

Three submissions were received in regard to:

Objection to restrictions on councillor attendance via audio-visual link, believing councillors should be able to join meeting online without needing a reason or Council approval, and further, this could potentially disenfranchise remote and disadvantaged populations in particular.

Clauses 5.18 – 5.27 reflect mandatory provisions of the Model Code in regard to councillor attendance via audio-visual link. Council is required to comply with all mandatory provisions and cannot alter these clauses.

No action recommended

Draft Code of Meeting Practice

Clause 17.10 (non-mandatory)

Contention that only allowing notices of motion to alter or rescind a resolution relating to a development application to be lodged within one (1) day of the meeting is too restrictive and suggests extending it to three (3) business days to allow adequate time to gather facts and prepare a case.

Council reports and submissions are intended to provide Councillors with relevant facts for decision making. Councillors may seek deferral of decision making if they are unsure or seek other information before deciding. Extending the timeframe to three (3) business days may complicate processes from a statutory aspect and create lack of community understanding about when a decision is considered finial.

For Council’s consideration.

Draft Public Forum Policy

Concern that the proposed quorum of one Councillor and separation of Public forums from Ordinary/Extraordinary meetings reduces opportunities for all Councillors to hear from the public and ask questions, placing greater reliance on staff reports and increasing time demands on Councillors.

Public Forums will remain separate from Council meetings in accordance with the Model Code of Meeting Practice, they also will be webcast and therefore available to be viewed by any Councillor who is unable to join the forum at the advertised time. Requiring a quorum of greater than one Councillor (to chair) may result in cancelled forums where speakers have lost the opportunity to put information before the Council as there would be no provision for the rescheduling of Ordinary Meetings on the basis that a forum did not proceed.

A written summary of verbal address at the forum, as well as written submissions, ensure that all Councillors are informed of community views when considering agenda items.

To support information being available to Councillors, the draft policy could be amended to require applicants making oral submissions to provide a written summary of their intended address when lodging their application. This ensures all Councillors have access to key points prior to the related Council meeting, even if they cannot attend the Public Forum.

Recommendation: Amend clause 4.2(h) of the Draft Public Forum Policy to add the following:

Applicants requesting to make an oral submission must provide a written summary (max. one page) of their intended address when lodging their application. This summary will be distributed to all Councillors prior to the related Council meeting.

Draft Public Forum Policy

Submission suggests revising clause 4.2(b), which limits speakers to one ‘for’ and one ‘against’ each item, to allow flexibility for speakers who may require assistance due to disability or additional needs. The submitter proposes an option for a backup speaker to ‘tap in’ mid-speech to support inclusivity.

Allowing a nominated support person has been Council practice for some time. It promotes accessibility and participation for people with additional needs without compromising the draft Policy’s intent to manage time and maintain equity among speakers. Council may wish to consider implementing an additional clause under 4.2 – Implementation to cement this practice.

Recommendation:

“Approved speakers who require assistance due to disability or additional needs may nominate a support person to assist or continue their presentation if necessary. The total speaking time must not exceed the five (5) minutes allocated for submission.”

The Council practice has traditionally been to hear one deputation for and against each item. Council’s engagement policy allows and facilitates community consultation on complex issues or matters of significant impact on the Shoalhaven before a Council Report is provided for decision. The community is encouraged to participate at earlier stages of consultation where available. However, Council may consider amending the number of speakers in a forum setting.

For Council’s consideration.

Classification of provisions contained in the draft Code of Meeting Practice

The classification has been retained from the previous report to Council on 28 October 2025, where the draft Code of Meeting Practice [Attachment 1] was attached prior to public exhibition.

Colour	Meaning
Black	Mandatory provisions from the Model Code (including council set parameters such as timeframes, marked in “bold” font)
Red	Non-mandatory provisions from the Model Code
Blue	Council’s current non-mandatory provisions that it wishes to retain (including any proposed amendments marked in “bold” font)
Green	New non-mandatory provisions proposed to be introduced by Council to support the implementation of mandatory provisions in the Model Code

Risk Implications

Reputational risk: Failure to provide clear and transparent processes for public participation could undermine community trust and confidence in Council’s decision-making. Recommended amendments such as requiring written summaries of oral submissions and allowing support persons for speakers with additional needs can mitigate this risk by improving accessibility and transparency.

Corporate Governance risk: Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Model Code of Meeting Practice or the Local Government Act 1993 could expose Council to legal challenge. The Draft Code incorporates all mandatory provisions, and recommended changes to the Draft Public Forum Policy remain consistent with legislative requirements.

Corporate Governance risk: Public Forums involve interaction between community members, Councillors, and staff. Clear behavioural standards, livestreaming, and informed safety/risk assessments reduce the risk of inappropriate conduct and ensure a safe environment for participants.

Internal Consultations

Internal consultation with the Executive Leadership Team and at Councillor briefing, both which occurred prior to the previous report to Council on 28 October 2025. The Governance team has now reviewed the submissions lodged during the exhibition period, and a summary and recommendations are provided in this report.

External Consultations

The OLG released the 2025 Model Code of Meeting Practice via Circular No 25-20 on 29 August 2025, following extensive sector-wide consultation. Council staff participated in engagement sessions held by the Office of Local Government.

Community Consultations

In accordance with Section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council publicly exhibited the Draft Code, inviting community submissions prior to adoption.

Policy and Statutory Implications

The recommendations comply with Sections 360 and 361 of the Local Government Act 1993, ensuring the Draft Code of Meeting Practice incorporates all mandatory provisions and was publicly exhibited.

Proposed amendments to the Draft Public Forum Policy are lawful, align with the Office of Local Government guidance, and do not conflict with existing policies. Adoption of these documents strengthens Council’s commitment to transparency, accessibility, and good governance.

Financial Implications

Adoption of the Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy will have negligible financial impact. Minor administrative costs that may be associated with implementing recommended changes, such as processing written summaries, supporting speakers with additional needs, could be absorbed within existing budgets. No additional funding is required.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.420 Determination of Date and Time of Ordinary Council Meetings

HPERM Ref: D25/569980

Department: Business Assurance & Risk

Approver: Katie Buckman, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. Proposed Meeting Dates (one Ordinary Meeting per month) ⇩

Purpose:

To set the date and time of Ordinary Council Meetings from January 2026 aligning with the commencement of the new Model Code of Meeting Practice. The report also proposes times for associated Public Forums with respect to business on Council Ordinary Meeting agendas.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Adopt a schedule of one (1) Ordinary Council meeting per month held on the fourth Tuesday, commencing in January 2026 until the end of October 2026 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report.

2. Determine, that Ordinary and Committee meetings are not to be held on public holidays or during the following periods, unless required for reasons of urgency or unusual circumstances requiring Council immediate deliberation:

a. Christmas/New Year Break - 20 December 2025 to 11 January 2026.

b. Easter Break – 03 April 2026 – 06 April 2026.

3. Determine that Ordinary meetings will generally commence at 5.30pm.

4. Conduct a live-streamed Public Forum, in accordance with the adopted Code of Meeting Practice and Public Forum Policy, generally on the third Tuesday of each month commencing at 5.00pm (i.e. One (1) week to the Ordinary Meeting).

Background

All Ordinary Council meetings must be held in accordance with requirements in the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 (Regulation) and the Council’s Code of Meeting Practice. A separate report to the Council on those matters is provided on the agenda of this meeting.

With the adoption of a New Code of Meeting Practice, and/or the commencement of the mandatory aspects of the Model Code of Meeting Practice on 1 January 2026, Council is required to establish a schedule of meetings for 2026.

Under the Code, Councillors are required to be given at least three days’ notice of meetings, except for extraordinary meetings called in an emergency.

In February 2022 (re-adopted September 2022 & 2023) Council established a starting time for Ordinary meetings at 5.30pm, with two (2) Ordinary Meetings held per month. These meetings have included addresses from the public in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice.

The recommendation to adopt one (1) Ordinary Council Meeting per month, supported by a Public Forum held a week prior, is based on the following considerations:

1. Compliance with Legislative and Policy Requirements

The proposed schedule aligns with the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, and Council’s adopted Code of Meeting Practice. It ensures statutory notice periods for Councillors and the community while maintaining transparency and accountability.

2. Improved Governance and Operational Efficiency

Reducing the number of Ordinary Meetings from two per month to one consolidated meeting streamlines agenda preparation and administrative processes. This approach allows staff to focus on delivering comprehensive, high-quality reports and supports informed decision-making without compromising governance standards. These matters have been discussed in detail with the Executive Leadership Team and elected Councillors in briefings and previous reporting on the new Code requirements.

3. Enhanced Community Engagement

A dedicated Public Forum held one week prior to the Ordinary Meeting provides a structured opportunity for community members to address Councillors on agenda items. This separation which is recommended by the Office of Local Government ensures Councillors have adequate time to consider information included in the agenda in advance of hearing directly from community members, and, if required, seek further information and advice (which will be published) before deliberation. This will foster responsiveness and trust.

4. Resource and Cost Management

Fewer meetings reduce operational costs, including staff time, venue setup, and live streaming requirements. It also consolidates the scheduling and time dedicated to report writing, approval, publication, printing and related processed which will result in efficiencies. This approach aligns with Council’s commitment to financial sustainability and efficient service delivery.

5. Predictability and Accessibility

A consistent monthly cycle, Public Forum on the third Tuesday and Ordinary Meeting on the fourth Tuesday, offers predictability for Councillors, staff, and the public. This regularity simplifies scheduling and supports better planning for governance and community participation.

Proposed Monthly Generic Calendar

Week	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thu	Fri
1					Staff Reports due to CEO for next meeting
2		5.30pm Deadline for Councillors to submit Notices of Motion for the next meeting		Agenda published to website
3		9.30am: Deadline for oral and written submissions from community for Public Forum 5.00pm: Public Forum – Registered Community participation on Council Agenda items.
4		Ordinary Meeting from 5.30pm			Minutes published on Website

Risk Implications

Corporate Governance and Reputational risks: Council Meetings and their arrangements are required to reflect legislative requirements and provide opportunity for the public to see and hear the decision-making processes of the elected body. They also need to be suitably timed and scheduled for elected members. There are legal and reputational risks for the Council should the framework of meetings not meet these requirements. The impact of the proposed schedule and arrangement will be monitored, with a view to providing advice to Councillors for consideration of any identified adjustments required.

Internal Consultations

Council’s Executive Leadership Team have been consulted on options for change, noting the new arrangements that will be required under the Model Code. Councillors informal feedback to staff on meeting arrangements have also been considered.

External Consultations

Council has previously surveyed the NSW Councils and determined that most Councils meet once per month and hold a separate public forum in place of deputations.

There are no requirements to consult with external parties or organisations prior to the adoption of scheduling or related arrangements for Council meetings. Information provided by the Office of Local Government with respect to the related Model Code of Meeting Practice has been considered in the drafting of the proposed schedule.

Community Consultations

Council is required to make publicly available a list of endorsed meeting times and dates.

The proposed Public Forum arrangements will continue the Council’s practice of allowing constituents to be heard on matters listed on the agenda of the Council.

Formal community consultation has been undertaken in regard to the Draft Code of Meeting Practice and Draft Public Forum Policy during the public exhibition period. The proposed schedule has previously been included for consideration and information in Council reports leading up to the adoption of the Draft Model Code of Meeting Practice.

Policy and Statutory Implications

Arrangements proposed in this report do not impact on policy documentation of the Council but will prepare the Council for operation under a new Code of Meeting Practice.

The Council may adjust the timing of proposed meetings and related aspects of the schedule by resolution at any time.

Financial Implications

The frequency and time dedicated to Ordinary Meetings has a direct correlation with the administrative costs and resources for those meetings. The proposal (including forums) is expected to reduce administrative and resourcing costs related to Ordinary meetings by approximately 30%.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.422 Investment Report - November 2025

HPERM Ref: D25/565998

Department: Finance

Approver: Katie Buckman, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. Monthly Investment Review - November 2025 (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Statement of Investments - November 2025 (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose:

The reason for this report is to inform the Councillors and the community on Council’s investment returns. The report also ensures compliance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, that requires a written report is provided to Council setting out the details of all funds it has invested.

Summary and Key Points for Consideration:

Council’s total Investment Portfolio returned 4.63% per annum for the month of November 2025, outperforming the benchmark Aus Bond Bank Bill Index (3.66%p.a.) by 97 basis points (0.97%).

Recommendation

That Council receive the Record of Investments for the period to 30 November 2025.

Background

Investment Portfolio

Council’s investment balance as of 30 November 2025 was $270 million and consisted of the following types of investments:

A blue and white rectangular object with white text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The details of each investment held by Council on 30 November 2025 is included in the Statement of Investments at Attachment 2.

The graph below illustrates Council’s investments balance on a rolling 12-month basis. The timing of expenditures and receipt of grant funds fluctuates throughout the year, leading to monthly variations in the overall balance.

The $10M boost in the Council’s portfolio is primarily attributed to:

1. Grant Income: the Council received approximately $6 million from various grants.

2. Rates Revenue: the second rates instalment was due on 30 November 2025 and had begun being receipted by month end.

A graph of a graph of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Portfolio Return

For the month of November, the total investment returns were a positive 4.63% p.a. outperforming Aus Bond Bank Bill Index (3.66%) by 97 basis points.

Investments

Graph 1 below, shows the performance of Council’s Investment Portfolio against the benchmark on a rolling 12-month basis.

A graph of a graph showing the average return and bank bill index

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Investment Interest Earned – November 2025

Much of Council’s cash is restricted in its use to specific purposes by external bodies (e.g. specific purpose unspent grants), legislation (e.g. developer contributions, domestic waste management, water and sewer funds) and Council resolutions (i.e. internally restricted reserves). Interest earned on externally restricted cash must be allocated to those external restrictions in accordance with legislation. The two tables below show the allocation of interest to each applicable Fund.

Table 1 below, shows the interest earned for the month of November 2025.

Table 1 - Interest Earned for the Month of November 2025

Fund	Monthly Budget $	Actual Earned $	Difference $
General	440,045	535,668	95,623
Water	169,398	196,412	27,014
Sewer	110,024	160,701	50,677
Total	719,467	892,781	173,314

The interest earned for the month of November 2025, was $892,781 compared to the monthly budget of $719,467.

Investment Interest Earned - Year to Date

Table 2 below, demonstrates how the actual amount of interest earned year to date has performed against the 2025/26 budget.

Table 2 - Amount of interest earned year to date, against the total budget

Fund	Total Annual Budget $	Actual YTD $	% Achieved
General	5,353,884	2,746,721	51%
Water	2,061,012	1,023,908	50%
Sewer	1,338,624	763,091	57%
Total	8,753,520	4,533,720	52%

The cumulative interest earned for the year (July to November) was $4,533,720 which is 52% of the current full year total annual budget.

The interest earned in the general fund of $2,746,721 includes interest earned on unspent s7.11 developer contributions and Domestic Waste Management reserves, which is required to be restricted by legislation. Interest earned on unspent s7.11 developer contributions is $673,761 and Domestic Waste Management reserves is $410,398 to the end of November. This leaves $1,662,561 which is unrestricted.

All investment returns on externally restricted funds are allocated to those funds in accordance with legislation.

All investment returns on unrestricted funds are included in Council’s budget as general revenue and are utilised to help fund core services.

Graph 2 (3 separate graphs) below, illustrates the cumulative interest earned for the year for each fund (General, Water and Sewer) against budget:

Graph 2 - Cumulative interest earned for the year for each fund against budget.

Risk Implications

All investments are placed with preservation of capital being the key consideration to prevent any loss of principal invested.

Internal Consultations

Not applicable.

External Consultations

Council’s investment advisor, Arlo Advisory Pty Ltd.

Community Consultations

Not applicable.

Policy Implications

All investments have been placed in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy.

Financial Implications

Financial markets declined this month as global central banks, including Australia, moved away from an easing bias, with some now forecasting a rate increase next year if inflation persists.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2021 and Council’s Investments Policy POL23/2.

Mathew Badcock Date: 4 December 2025

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.425 Review of Comerong Island Ferry Fees and Charges

HPERM Ref: D25/520630

Department: Works & Services

Approver: Andrew Constance, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Comerong Island Ferry Services - Discussion Paper ⇩

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Comerong Island Ferry fees be reinstated to the rates applied in the 2024/2025 financial year, due to the lack of targeted consultation with significantly impacted residents prior to the adoption of the 2025/2026 fees and charges.

Due to the scheduled refurbishment of the ferry and subsequent technical issues from September to early December 2025, the 2025/2026 charges have not been applied to date.

Any future proposals to amend the Comerong Island Ferry fees will be subject to a formal report to Council, which will include consultation with residents and primary land users of Comerong Island.

Recommendation

That the fees for the Comerong Island Ferry revert to those adopted for the 2024/2025 financial year, due to the lack of targeted community consultation undertaken prior to the adoption of the 2025/2026 fees and charges.

Background and Supplementary information

The Comerong Island Ferry provides essential access to Comerong Island and forms part of the local road network. There are no alternative road connections to the island; therefore, residents and other users rely entirely on the ferry for access. This includes 14 residential dwellings, adjacent farmland, and areas managed by National Parks.

Historically, residents of Comerong Island were not charged for ferry use with fees only being applied to non-residential users. However, new fees were introduced in the 2025–26 financial year following Shoalhaven City Council’s annual review of Fees and Charges. This includes, among other things, a fee structure that applied to residents.

Each year, Council reviews its Fees and Charges as part of developing and adopting the Delivery Program Operational Plan (DPOP). This process outlines the proposed and adopted works, budget allocations, and fees required to achieve the goals set out in Shoalhaven 2035 Community Strategic Plan.

For the 2025–26 financial year, the DPOP was placed on public exhibition for 28 days (MIN25.196) and subsequently adopted on 19 June 2025 (MIN25.324). The adopted fees are detailed in Fees and Charges – Part 2 (2025/26), page 60.

Key Changes

Compared to the 2024–25 structure (Table 1), the 2025–26 fee structure (Table 2) introduced significant changes, including a new fee for Comerong Island residents to use the ferry and several additional charges.

Table 1 – 2024-25 Fees and Charges

Fee Description	Purpose	Pricing Policy	Recovery	GST incl.	2024/2025 Amount
Comerong Island Ferry Toll	As stated, return trip per vehicle, including bicycles and motorbikes	Partial cost recovery	7.40%	Y	$20.00 return trip per vehicle including bicycles

Table 2 – 2025-26 Fees and Charges

Fee Description	Purpose	Pricing Policy	Recovery	GST incl.	2025/2026 Amount
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Agricultural Tractor - Annual	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$400.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Agricultural Tractor - Return Trip	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$30.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Bicycle / MotorCycle - Annual	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$200.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Bicycle / MotorCycle - Return Trip	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$10.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Bicycle / MotorCycle - Weekly	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$35.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Car / Vehicle under 3 tonne capacity - Annual Pass (limit of two per residence)	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$400.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Car / Vehicle under 3 tonne capacity - Return Trip	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$20.00 per service
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Car / Vehicle under 3 tonne capacity - Weekly	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$70.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Caravan, Box or boat trailer (additional charge excluding vehicle) - Return trip	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$20.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Vehicle over 3 tonne capacity - Annual	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$800.00
Comerong Island Ferry Toll - Vehicle over 3 tonne capacity - Return Trip	As stated	Partial cost recovery	10%	Y	$40.00

Although these changes were publicly exhibited as required by MIN25.196, no targeted consultation occurred with the ferry’s impacted users. After adoption, residents received a letter dated 20 August 2025 outlining the new fees and a permit system for residents. This prompted the community to submit a Discussion Paper to Council expressing concerns, including:

“Council included an unprecedented fee schedule into the Draft Delivery Program Operational Plan & Budget 2025/26 without any community engagement or consultation. The first time any Comerong Island property owners were aware of this change was in a letter dated 20 August 2025, which included a permit system for residents with the following restrictions…”

This lack of consultation and the resulting fee structure prompted a site meeting between residents and the Director of City Services on 31 October 2025. During preparations for, and at the meeting itself, it was confirmed that no consultation had occurred beyond the general public exhibition, and the changes were not specifically communicated to ferry users.

Given the financial impact on residents who rely on the ferry for access to their homes, the lack of targeted consultation is considered insufficient. Accordingly, this report recommends:

- Reverting to the 2024–25 adopted Fees and Charges for the Comerong Island Ferry.

- Ensuring that any future fee adjustments include targeted consultation with impacted ferry users so that implications are fully considered before adoption.

Risk Implications

Failure to revert to the 2024/2025 fee structure presents a significant reputational risk to Council. It may be perceived that Council did not undertake adequate, targeted community consultation prior to adopting the 2025/2026 Comerong Island Ferry fees, particularly given the substantial financial impact these fees impose on Comerong Island residents.

From a financial perspective, the risk is minimal. The anticipated increase in revenue under the current fee structure remains relatively insignificant when compared to the overall cost of operating the ferry.

Internal Consultations

Minimal internal consultation has been undertaken regarding the proposed revision of fees, as the internal impact is assessed to be low.

External Consultations

No external consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report, as the impacts are limited to the affected community members.

Community Consultations

Comerong Island residents and several associated land users were consulted on the proposal outlined in this report during a site meeting held on 31 October 2025. Additionally, consideration has been given to the contents of the joint Comerong Island Community Statement, which was submitted to Council on 27 October 2025 (Attachment 1).

Policy and Statutory Implications

No policy or statutory implications have been identified in the preparation of this report.

Financial Implications

Reverting to the 2024/2025 fee structure will reduce Council’s capacity to generate revenue to support the ongoing operation of the ferry. However, even under the 2025/2026 fee structure, the projected revenue represents only a small fraction of the ferry’s operational costs. Consequently, the associated reduction in revenue is not considered significant.

Due to the scheduled refurbishment of the ferry and subsequent technical issues occurring from September to early December 2025, the associated charges have not been applied to date. This delay in implementation has resulted in no revenue being generated from the newly introduced fees during this period.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.426 Policy Review - Occupation of Council Owned or Managed Land (POL25/49)

HPERM Ref: D25/447148

Department: Buildings & Property Services

Approver: Kevin Norwood, Director - City Services

Attachments: 1. POL25/49 - Occupation of Council Owned or Managed Land ⇩

Purpose:

Current Council Policy (POL22/98) – Occupation of Council Owned or Managed Land is now due for review. The Policy has been reviewed, and changes have been made to the prevailing policy. The draft revised policy is now identified as POL22/49.

The revised policy is reported to Council for adoption.

Recommendation

That Council adopt revised POL25/49 – Occupation of Council Owned or Managed Land as shown as an attachment to this report.

Background and Supplementary information

Shoalhaven City Council’s Policy (POL22/98) Occupation of Council Owned or Managed Land was adopted 21 December 2009, with amendments in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020 and 2022. In line with the requirement for policy reviews to occur within each Council term, the policy review has been completed.

The policy has been revised in response to feedback from key internal stakeholders, who indicated that the previous version did not deliver effective outcomes or align with best practice. Since the policy’s adoption 12 years ago, no significant changes had been undertaken, and it is necessary to ensure Council’s policies remain contemporary. Headline changes to the policy include:

1. Policy Purpose and Statement
Wording updated to reflect strategic alignment with Council’s responsibilities for lease and licence considerations under the principal related legislation: the Local Government Act 1993 and Crown Land Management Act 2016.

2. Policy Provisions
Expanded content to include:

· Leases and licences occupying Council-managed Crown Land

· Statutory requirements for lease advertising

· Lease terms, rental calculation, and cost recovery

3. Expression of Interest & Tendering
New provisions for EOI and tendering requirements associated with leasing and licensing public land, aligned with the Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government.

4. Benchmarking
The review process included an assessment of other Councils’ policies to ensure alignment with contemporary local government practices and to support best-value outcomes for Shoalhaven City Council.

5. Delegations
The revised policy introduces a new Chief Executive Officer delegation for approving leases and licences. Currently, MIN14.912 and POL22/98 require a Council resolution for approval in the following situations:

· Annual rental greater than $5,000

· Lease term exceeds five years

· An objection has been submitted to Council during statutory lease advertising

Shoalhaven City Council currently has the lowest level of delegation compared to other Councils, resulting in most new lease and licence agreements being reported to Council—an inefficient and unsustainable process.

6. Fixed Rental Subsidy Model
A fixed percentage rental subsidy model is being introduced. Currently, subsidies for eligible groups are determined case-by-case using a rental subsidy calculator, which relies on individual officer interpretation and is difficult to apply. This has led to protracted negotiations and inequity over time.
The new fixed subsidy method (Rental Assessment Framework) will simplify the process, ensure transparency, and deliver consistent outcomes for all stakeholders in future lease and licence negotiations.

Risk Implications

Council’s interests have been considered and there is minimal risk associated with the recommended changes to POL25/49.

Internal Consultations

Internal stakeholders were consulted with the policy review.

Revised POL25/49 has been endorsed by the Executive Leadership Team. Draft policy changes have been made since the ELT endorsement in October 2025 including the removal of Council’s building insurance as an outgoing (operating cost) and recouped from the lessee (section 4.1.7 of the draft policy), as well as exclusion of market rental valuation costs (section 4.1.8 of the draft policy) from Council’s cost recovery in lease/licence preparation.

External Consultations

A certified practicing valuer was consulted to advise on valuation processes to ensure the integrity of future land dealings for Council and to support best value outcomes for Council and the community. The revised policy contains provisions under “Rent and Fees” in relation to valuations procured for new lease and licence negotiations.

Community Consultations

The proposed draft policy aims to ensure future consultation with community groups and organisations wishing to occupy Council property under renewed lease or licence can be undertaken with improved transparency for better outcomes.

Current lessees/licensees were directly consulted on the revised draft policy and provided a period of 28 days to make comment. At the end of the direct consultation process, five lessees/licensees made comment or sought clarification on the policy review. The comments received during the consultation period are summarised below:

*Matter raised*	*Commentary*
Rent review by qualified valuer after five years or mid-way through a licence term is unnecessary and costly	The draft policy includes provision for annual rent increase by CPI, and a market rent review at five-year intervals (of a longer term lease with options to extend). The draft policy only requires the rent to be reviewed after five years of a longer-term lease and where options exist, to ensure Council is receiving fair market rent for the property, which is standard leasing practice. Unless it is specified in an individual lease following individual lease negotiation process, a rent review will not be undertaken mid-way through the term. Otherwise, when a lease or licence ends and Council is prepared to enter a renewed agreement, a market rent review or market appraisal must be undertaken in order to determine a fair and reasonable rental subsidy under the Rental Assessment Framework and is standard practice. Council’s prevailing policy is not specific in relation to rent review. The revised policy contains specific provisions for clarity. No changes are considered necessary to the draft policy.
Impact of draft policy on prevailing licence agreements for Community Gardens	The prevailing Community Gardens policy of Council (POL22/52) is the relevant policy pertaining to a community garden on Council owned or managed land. Existing or prospective community gardens licensees will still be required to submit a Proposal to Occupy Council Property and be responsible for usage charges associated with the licensed use (eg; electricity and water). These requirements are expressed in draft POL25/49. No changes are considered necessary to the draft policy with the exception of referencing POL22/52 (Community Gardens on Council Managed Land) within the new revised policy.
Costs to be incurred by not for profit groups need to be fair and equitable	No specific details were provided within the submission. The draft policy proposes a new Rental Assessment Framework (RAF) and clearer definition around cost recovery and outgoings which on balance are believed to be improved outcomes for community groups.
Impact of the draft policy on prevailing agreements and future renewals	This specific comment was in relation to a current short-term licence agreement, which exists as there is no corresponding plan of management in place and Council can only currently issue a short-term licence. The draft policy has no impact on current agreements. With regard to the comment made in this particular submission, the new policy provisions will only impact the licensee in a new agreement if a short-term licence is being replaced by a standard (5-year term) agreement.
Whether changes to the draft policy generated by stakeholder concerns will be re-circulated to stakeholders	On the basis of the stakeholder comments, minor changes have been incorporated into the draft policy, but these are not considered significant to warrant further advice or circulation prior to the policy being adopted by Council.

An additional three lessees/licensees requested clarity on the changes from the prevailing policy. In response, the prevailing policy (POL22/98) was provided to the lessees as well as the following generic summary of the key changes to the draft policy:

“The main changes to the policy are:

- inclusion of statutory provisions for lease and licence of public land, such as lease terms and advertising requirements (section 4).

- new provision for the consideration of Expression of Interest and Tender process to occupy Council land under lease or licence (4.1.13).

- changing the current rent subsidy calculator process to a fixed percentage subsidy (for eligible community groups and organisations), plus associated provision for negotiated final rental outcomes with lease and licence renewals, to achieve improved transparency (4.1.6)

- clearer policy provisions for outgoings and cost recovery associated with lease and licence agreements with Council (4.1.7 & 4.1.8)

- change to the delegations for approval of a lease/licence (4.1.14).”

Policy and Statutory Implications

As part of this review, amendments have been incorporated into the prevailing policy to align with contemporary local government practices and statutory requirements relating to leases and licences. These changes will better position Council to undertake lease negotiations and dealings, while providing greater certainty to prospective lessees and the community.

The leasing and licensing of Council-owned and managed land is a delegable function of Council. The policy review introduces higher delegations to the Chief Executive Officer and Director City Services, enabling them to approve individual leases and licences where the new rental terms agreed by the parties are consistent with the policy.

Financial Implications

There are financial implications associated with the proposed policy amendments.

As part of this review, the prevailing practice of seeking lessee cost recovery for Council’s building insurance associated with leased premises will no longer be pursued. This practice has been in place for approximately the past 12 months.

The ability of lessees/licensees to sustain rent increases under the Rental Assessment Framework, in addition to building insurance costs, has been questioned and has frustrated rent review processes and outcomes. In some cases, rent increases have been compromised to accommodate building insurance cost recovery.

The imposition of building insurance costs on lessees will not be pursued in the draft revised policy. The majority of Council’s lessees/licensees are community-based organisations (including not-for-profits) that do not have the financial capacity to absorb Council’s building insurance premiums in addition to rental and other outgoings/recoverables.

As Council has not actively practiced building insurance cost recovery over a sustained period, it is not considered that there will be an appreciable financial impact on Council.

The policy incorporates a change from an individually assessed rental subsidy system using Council’s Rental Assessment Framework (RAF), to a fixed rent subsidy model. Fixed rent subsidy models are used by other Council’s and provides improved budget forecasting. Prevailing rental subsidies to community groups have been considered in the formulation of the new fixed rental subsidy framework.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.427 Shoalhaven Coastal Management Programs Implementation and Resourcing

HPERM Ref: D25/526536

Department: Technical Services

Approver: Kevin Norwood, Acting Director - City Services

Purpose:

Council has recently adopted three Coastal Management Programs (CMPs) that set the strategic intent for the management of the Shoalhaven coastal zone within high-priority estuaries over a ten-year period. Through the adoption of the various CMPs, Council requested a report back on the resourcing requirements and the implementation of the CMPs and the associated management actions (MIN25.298, MIN25.300 and MIN25.562). This report has been prepared for this purpose to provide information to Council.

Recommendation

That Council note and receive this report for information.

Background

Council has prepared four Coastal Management Programs (CMPs) under the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act), in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management Manual and covering the coastal zone defined by the CM Act and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP). Over the course of 2025, Council has adopted three CMPs that relate to the management of five high-priority estuaries within the Shoalhaven coastal zone. The CMPs comprise a program of integrated management actions that are intended to address key issues, and harness new opportunities for the management of the Shoalhaven coastal zone.

The CMPs prepared and adopted by Council are outlined below, alongside key details of each CMP:

· Shoalhaven Open Coast and Jervis Bay CMP – adopted 6 May 2024 (MIN24.253). The CMP includes 116 management actions for implementation at a total cost of $45 million over 10 years.

· St Georges Basin/Sussex Inlet, Swan Lake and Berrara Creek CMP – adopted 10 June 2025 (MIN25.298). The CMP includes 66 management actions for implementation at a total cost of $17.8 million over 10 years.

· Lake Conjola CMP – adopted 10 June 2025 (MIN25.300). The CMP includes 51 management actions for implementation at a total cost of $12.2 million over 10 years.

· Lower Shoalhaven River CMP – adopted 28 October 2025 (MIN25.562). The CMP includes 56 management actions for implementation at a total cost of $23.48 million over 10 years.

At the meeting of 10 June 2025 following the adoption of the St Georges Basin/Sussex Inlet, Swan Lake and Berrara Creek CMP and Lake Conjola CMP, Council resolved to:

Receive a report back on the resourcing requirements and the implementation of the plan and its actions (Stage 5 Implementation) (MIN25.298 and MIN25.300).

MIN25.562 in relation to the Lower Shoalhaven River CMP resolved that Council note the resourcing requirements of the CMP and the financing of management actions as outlined in the Business Plan.

This report has been prepared for information in response to the above resolutions.

A Business Plan was developed for each individual CMP which outlines the key components of the funding strategy for the CMP to implement the management actions, including the cost of proposed actions, proposed cost-sharing arrangements, and other potential funding mechanisms. Funding for management actions will be established in consultation with key stakeholders, with capital and operational allocations to be determined via Council budget processes. Funding for management actions may be gained from various sources, including competitive State and Federal Government grant programs and Council’s internal funds.

Following the certification of the CMPs (pending at the time of writing for the Lake Conjola and Lower Shoalhaven River CMPs), Council is eligible to apply for grant funding for the implementation of management actions through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) Coastal and Estuary Implementation Stream Grants. This funding has been specifically created to provide a two-to-one funding ratio for actions within a certified CMP. This grant funding program is competitive and prioritises Councils with certified CMPs. However, success in receiving grants is constrained by the available funding from the NSW State Government and the number of applications received across the State in a given year.

In preparing the CMPs, it has been recognised that for Council to implement and deliver the identified management actions, additional resourcing is required. Each CMP includes a management action to respond to this and sets out for Council to “Establish one new Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Coast & Estuary Officer role within Council” (two roles proposed in the case of the Shoalhaven Open Coast and Jervis Bay CMP). The Business Plan within the CMPs has assigned the relevant management actions an expected cost of $1.3 million, equating to $3.9 million across all three estuary CMPs (in addition to the $2.4 million expected cost for the Shoalhaven Open Coast and Jervis Bay CMP) over the 10-year lifecycle of the CMP to ensure that internal capability is maintained to oversee and carry out strategic actions. This operational funding identified for internal Council resources (and any capital project allocations) will be determined through standard Council budget processes and long-term financial planning, accounting for whole of organisational resourcing requirements and capability.

Staff resourcing and associated Council budgets for the implementation of the CMPs is vital to ensure the delivery of Stage 5 is achieved in line with the associated business plans. This is paramount given the significant increase in workload requirements for Council staff to implement management actions from each CMP in line with legislation.

Risk Implications

The ongoing CMP implementation faces resourcing and funding risks, with delivery of management actions dependent on available financing (internal and external), and resourcing and capacity of staff. The DCCEEW Coastal and Estuary Implementation Stream Grant Program has been established to fund project works only and does not provide financing for staff positions or project management through the delivery of works. Therefore, resourcing of staff positions cannot easily be funded through NSW State Government grant programs and will need to be prioritised by Council.

Internal Consultations

Throughout Stages 1-4 of the CMP development, internal consultation was carried out within Council, including consultation across and within Council Directorates to obtain feedback on the existing risks and opportunities, and proposed management actions within each CMP study area. Council has adopted each of the CMPs following reports provided to Council at various Ordinary Meetings between 2024 and 2025. Internal consultations will be ongoing throughout the implementation of the CMPs.

External Consultations

Throughout Stages 1-4 of the CMP development, external consultation was carried with a range of representatives from a range NSW State Government agencies and Non-Government Organisations. The management actions within the CMPs identify where these external entities have been identified as a ‘supporting partner’ in the implementation of the actions. Letters of support have been provided by relevant agencies listed against management actions as ‘supporting partners’ for each CMP. Council will continue to engage with these entities throughout the implementation of the CMP and to ensure that the relevant legislation under each of their jurisdictional boundaries is appropriately complied with.

Community Consultations

Stakeholder and community engagement has been implemented progressively through each stage of the CMPs. The various engagements were coordinated and developed in line with CMP Engagement Guidelines developed by the NSW State Government (DCCEEW), the Shoalhaven City Council Community Engagement Strategies 2022-2026 and 2025-2029, and the use of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) guidelines. This included engagement with Traditional Owner Groups, local communities, and public authorities through a range of methods – including workshops, drop-in sessions, surveys, one-on-one meetings and interactive online map-based platforms. The CMP documents outline the community consultation process employed throughout the lifecycle of each CMP development. The draft CMPs were publicly exhibited in line with the requirements for consultation as outlined in the Coastal Management Act 2016 prior to being presented to Council for adoption. Ongoing consultation with the community will occur throughout the implementation stage of the CMPs with this activity reflected in the management actions of each CMP.

Policy and Statutory Implications

The CMPs have been prepared in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management Framework that is governed by the CM Act.

A CMP is considered a ‘living document’ that is to be reviewed and updated continually throughout its lifecycle. A strategic review of the CMPs should occur at least once every ten years to assess the effectiveness of the CMP in achieving its objectives and to incorporate changes, considering new information, legislative and policy changes, and improved understanding of the local coastal and estuarine processes.

Financial Implications

Financial implications for the resourcing and implementation of the various CMPs has been outlined above in the background section. As part of the implementation of the CMPs sustainable funding and financing arrangements for management actions will be established in consultation with key stakeholders, with capital and operational allocations to be determined via budget processes, and the reliance on grant funding for delivery.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 16 December 2025

Page 0

CL25.413 Development Application DA2024/1589 - 737 Woollamia Road WOOLLAMIA - Lot 12 DP 9289

DA. No: DA24/1589/4

HPERM Ref: D25/441456

Department: Development Services

Approver: Gordon Clark, Manager - Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Architectural Plan Set (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Draft Notice of Determination - Refusal (under separate cover) ⇨

3. S4.15 Assessment Report (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Covering Letter RFI Response (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Response to SCC (under separate cover) ⇨

6. Suitability of Material or Construction Methods Report (under separate cover) ⇨

7. Flood Risk Management Peer Review (under separate cover) ⇨

8. Flood Affectation Report (under separate cover) ⇨

9. Emergency and Evacuation Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

10. Flood Evacuation Map (under separate cover) ⇨

11. Hydraulic Model Results (under separate cover) ⇨

12. Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

13. Adaptable Housing Assessment Report (under separate cover) ⇨

14. Arborist Impact Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

15. Bushfire Assessment Report (under separate cover) ⇨

16. Site Plan Rev. D (under separate cover) ⇨

17. DA3.00 Section Plans (under separate cover) ⇨

18. Landscape Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

19. First Referral Response - Crown Lands (under separate cover) ⇨

20. Second Referral Response - Crown Lands (under separate cover) ⇨

21. Draft Notice of Determination - Approval including draft conditions of consent (Not Recommended) (under separate cover) ⇨

22. Letter from Northrop Engineers (under separate cover) ⇨

23. Covering Letter from Applicant dated 4 December 2025 (under separate cover) ⇨

Note: This report was deferred from the Council meeting on 9 December 2025.

Recommendation

That development Application DA2024/1589 for construction of 3 new multi-dwelling housing units in addition to the approved dwelling (under DA23/1694 as modified by MA2024/1346) be refused subject to the recommended reasons for refusal in Attachment 2.

Reason for consideration by Council

On 23 September 2025 Council resolved to call in development application DA2024/1589 for determination citing public interest and any further additional information the applicant provides to Council staff prior to the matter being reported back to Council be taken into consideration (MIN25.372).

Description of Development: Construction of 3 new multi-dwelling housing units in addition to the approved dwelling under DA23/1694 (as modified by MA2024/1346).

Owner: Liliana Zreik and Nader Zreik

Applicant: Liliana Zreik

Notification Dates: 22 August 2024 – 5 September 2024

No. of Submissions: Five (5)

Location Map:

Figure 1: Location Map

Figure 2: Location Map - Aerial imagery of subject site.

Note - existing dwelling to be demolished under DA23/1694

Background and Supplementary Information

Proposed Development

The proposal includes:

· Construction of three one-storey attached multi-dwelling housing units with lofts.

· Construction of associated driveways.

· Landscaping of the site.

· Construction of suitable infrastructure to service the proposed development, including stormwater, sewerage connections, electricity supply and telecommunications.

· Modification of Development Application No. DA23/1694 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a single storey dwelling at 737 Woollamia Road, Woollamia.

A blueprint of a house

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3: Site Plan – note red clouded dwelling approved under DA23/1694

Figure 4: Elevation Plans

Subject Land

The subject site is legally identified as Lot 12 DP 9289 and is described as 737 Woollamia Road Woollamia (refer to Figures 1 and 2).

Site & Context

The site is located on the eastern side of Woollamia Rd and extends towards the banks of Currambene Creek. The site occupies an area of 1991.81m², is relatively flat with a slight fall from south to north. A tributary of Currambene Creek flows through 1 Edendale Street, 2 lots north of the subject site.

A weatherboard cottage and metal garage currently occupy the eastern portion of the site and are approved to be replaced under DA24/1694 by a new dwelling with a greater building footprint.

The site is zoned RU5 – Village under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 and is located within bushfire prone and flood prone land.

The site falls within a High Hazard Flood Storage hazard/hydraulic category for the 1%AEP event and High Hazard Floodway hazard/hydraulic category for a PMF event under the Currambene and Moona Moona Creeks Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (2016). The site has a projected Flood Planning Level of 2.8m AHD.

The subject site is adjoined by Crown land to the south and east and low-density residential development.

A map of a multi-colored area

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 5: Zoning Map – RU5 - Village

History

On 5 September 2023, DA2023/1694 was lodged for a new single storey dwelling with two lot Torrens title subdivision of the land. As part of the assessment of the development application, Council’s Flood Engineer identified that the dwelling house could be supported, on the basis of a better flood outcome for single residence however the intensification of the land by way of subdivision did not meet the relevant requirements outlined in Clause 5.21 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Chapter G9 of Development Control Plan 2014.

Following a detailed assessment of amended plans and documentation provided by the applicant (that deleted the two lot Torrens title subdivision from the proposed development), this development application was approved on 6 December 2023 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a single storey replacement dwelling only.

On 8 May 2024 pre-lodgement advice was provided for concept plans showing the construction of three (3) attached dwellings in addition to the approved detached dwelling (issued under DA23/1694 as modified by MA2024/1346) to form a multi-dwelling housing development. Refer to pages 18-19 in Attachment 3.

Despite the provided pre-lodgement advice, the current development application, DA2024/1589 for multi-dwelling development was lodged on 30 July 2024. The development application was notified between 22 August and 5 September 2024. Five submissions were received all objecting to the proposed development.

Council issued three Requests for Information (RFIs):

· First RFI (21 August 2024): Sought clarification on the proposed modification to DA23/1694 and requested an amended landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Chapter G13 of the DCP. The Applicant responded on 26 August 2024.

· Second RFI (10 September 2024): Requested details on floodplain management, impacts on adjoining Crown land (following review of the proposed development by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure), the proposed development’s interaction with a low-pressure sewer pipe (following Shoalhaven Water review), and further clarification on the proposed modification. The Applicant responded on 13 September 2024.

· Third RFI (29 October 2024): sought clarification of floodplain management issues. The applicant responded on 22 November 2024.

In addition to the abovementioned RFI requests, Council held an online meeting with the landowner’s and their representatives on 29 October 2024 to discuss the development application.

On 8 November the applicant requested an extension of time to respond to the third RFI. The development assessment officer provided an extension to submit a response to the RFI until 26 November 2024.

On 6 January 2025 the application requested a further meeting to discuss the development application and flood concerns raised by Council’s flood planning section.

On 21 January a meeting was held in person in Council chambers with Council staff and the landowners, while the landowner’s representatives attended online.

On 12 March 2025, the Applicant lodged a Class 1 appeal against Council’s deemed refusal.

On 29 August 2025 a Land & Environment Court section s34 conciliation conference was held on the subject site. Council and the Applicant could not reach an agreement due to flood planning contentions.

On 7 October 2025 the Applicant provided further information in the NSW Planning Portal.

On 12 November 2025Council assessment staff held a meeting with the applicants to discuss the remaining outstanding issues for the proposal.

On 13 November 2025 the applicant responded to two (2) of the issues by providing updated landscape plan and section plan.

On 4 December 2025 the applicant emailed the following four (4) additional documents to council after the Business Paper for the Ordinary meeting on Tuesday 9 December 2025 had been published on council’s website:

· Covering Letter dated 4 December 2025

· Letter from Northrop Engineers dated 20 November 2025 addressing structural integrity of the proposed development when flood inundated (Attachment 22)

· Acid Soil Management Plan prepared by Terra Insight dated 28 November 2025 (Attachment 12)

· Adaptable Housing Assessment Report dated 17 November 2025 prepared by the applicant (Attachment 13)

Issues

Flooding

Development assessment must consider clause 5.21 – Flood Planning of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Chapter G9 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 with regard to the flooding considerations relevant to this proposal.

Applicant’s Submission

The Applicant has provided the following flood related material to support the proposed development:

· RFI Cover Letter (D24/509783, Attachment 4)

· Response to SCC (Rienco Consulting) (D24/509764, Attachment 5)

· Flood Risk Management Peer Review (Woolacotts) (D24/509766, Attachment 7)

· Suitability of Material or Construction Method Report (D24/509768, Attachment 6)

· Flood Affectation Report (D24/509770, Attachment 8)

· Emergency and Evacuation Plan (D24/509773, Attachment 9)

· Flood Evacuation Map (D24/509779, Attachment 10)

· Hydraulic Model Results (D25/443416, Attachment 11)

· Northrop Engineers Letter dated 20 November 2025 addressing structural integrity of proposed development when flood inundated (Attachment 22)

Discussion

Flood Planning Assessment – Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Clause 5.21

Clause 5.21 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 sets out two key legal requirements. Firstly, under subclause (2), Council cannot approve development on land identified as being in a flood-prone area unless it is satisfied that the proposal meets specific flood related safety and planning criteria. This means, Council cannot approve development on land that is prone to flooding unless it is satisfied that the proposal meets all of the following conditions:

1. Flood Compatibility (Clause 5.21(2)(a)): The development must work with the natural flood patterns of the land. It should not interfere or change how floodwaters flow across the site.

2. No Increased Flood Risk to Other Properties (Clause 5.21(2)(b)): The development must not make flooding worse for nearby properties or increase the risk of damage elsewhere. The letter from Northrop Engineers dated 20 November 2025 advises that the buildings will be designed and certified to resist flood forces up to PMF events.

3. Safe Occupation and Evacuation (Clause 5.21(2)(c)): The development must not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people or exceed the capacity of existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area in the event of a flood.

4. Risk to life is managed (Clause 5.21(2)(d)): The development must include measures to protect people’s lives during a flood, such as safe building design and emergency plans.

5. No Harm to the Environment (Clause 5.21(2)(e)): The development must not cause unnecessary erosion, damage to riverbanks or vegetation, or other environmental harm.

Secondly, when assessing a development application on flood-prone land, in accordance with subclause (3), Council must consider the following:

1. Climate Change Impacts (Clause 5.21(3)(a): Whether the development could be affected by future changes on flood behaviour due to climate change.

2. Design and Size of Buildings (Clause 5.21(3)(b): Whether the buildings are designed and scaled appropriately for a flood-prone area.

3. Safety and Evacuation Measures (Clause 5.21(3)(c): Whether the development includes features that reduce risk to life and allow people to evacuate safely during a flood event.

4. Flexibility for Future Changes (Clause 5.21(3)(d): Whether buildings can be moved, modified, or removed if flooding or coastal erosion affects the area in the future.

As identified in the Section 4.15 Assessment Report (Attachment 3), Council assessment staff have considered the requirements of clause 5.21 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Chapter G9 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

It has been determined that the proposed development does not meet the flood planning requirements under Clause 5.21 of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 as outlined below:

1. Compatibility with Flood Function and Behaviour (Clause 5.21(2)(a))

· The Flood Impact Statement assumes the development is compatible with flooding simply because the area is already a high hazard. However, it doesn’t explain how the land behaves during floods or provide enough detail to confirm the development is compatible with that behaviour.

· The development increases the intensity of use in a high-risk flood zone, which could change how floods behave both on the site and nearby. The Flood Impact Statement acknowledges it “does not address flood behaviour for other sites within the overall catchment,” which is essential consideration in assessing flood compatibility.

2. Safe Occupation and Evacuation (Clause 5.21(2)(c))

· The proposal does not demonstrate that the development will not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people during the event of a flood. In a major flood (PMF), the evacuation route could be cut off within two hours, but the NSW SES Timeline Evacuation Model (best practice for evacuation capabilities) identifies that the time required to evacuate would require a minimum of 3.3 hours. This means that the time needed to evacuate exceeds the available time on site.

· The site lacks a formal flood warning system, and the SES has no additional forecasting tools for the catchment. This means local SES units are also likely to be cut off during a flood, limiting their ability to assist. This is because the nearest SES units to the site are in Nowra and St Georges Basin. In a flood event, both these units would likely be cut off from access to the site and its locality due to local flooding of access roads. Therefore, there would be no way for them to access the site or its locality to undertake door knocking and to assist in evacuation. It is noted that door knocking is the only reliable way of communicating an evacuation order.

· The submitted evacuation plan relies on trespass over Crown land. Despite the likelihood of such an evacuation occurring during an event, Council does not have the judicial authority to approve access over third party land without the consent of the Crown, which has not been given. (Attachment 9).

· These factors indicate that safe evacuation cannot be readily achieved. In McCarthy v Shoalhaven City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1643 (1 Wharf Road) the Court was ultimately satisfied that evacuation was feasible as an appropriate risk management response. The judgement held that development on flood affected land was not precluded and that the decision maker must have reasoned satisfaction that evacuation can be achieved, rather than eliminating all risk. Council’s consultant legal team has provided advice which notes that the subject proposal is distinguishable from Wharf Road for three reasons:

o Greater scale and intensity – the proposal comprises three (3) new dwellings in addition to the approved replacement dwelling, which will create a situation where multiple households and vehicles would need to evacuate at the same time;

o High Hazard Flood Storage – the location has a more severe hazard profile with a longer duration of inundation and the likelihood of evacuation routes being cut significantly earlier relative to the time needed for evacuation; and

o The proposal identifies a timing deficit between the evacuation timeline (3.3 hours) and the closure of the evacuation route (2 hours) – resulting in operational access for the SES being potentially impeded.

Council’s preliminary legal feedback is that these matters were not present, or not to the same degree, in Wharf Road, where the Court emphasised modest scale and practicable evacuation with conditions. The legal advice concludes that the Court’s findings in Wharf Road support the staff recommendation.

3. Managing Risk to Life (Clause 5.21(2)(d))

· The applicant proposes a shelter in place strategy; however, this is unsuitable given the site’s high hazard classification, prolonged inundation periods (up to 7.5 hours in a 1% AEP flood event and 30+ hours in a PMF), and lack of access to essential services during flood events.

· The ground floor habitable floor level (bed 1 & 2 and general areas) meets the 1% Flood Planning Level for 2050 level while being 1.5m below the PMF level.

· The 1^st floor habitable floor level (bed 3) is at 4.35m AHD (50mm) above the PMF level. This means occupants in a PMF level event would be stuck on the first floor for up to 30 hours with limited access to sustenance and facilities (food, drink, sanitary facilities).

· The site would be inaccessible to essential services during flood events, posing unacceptable safety risks to the occupants of multiple dwellings and emergency personnel, thereby placing undue strain on emergency services.

· The application lacks sufficient detail to assess the long-term acceptability of site isolation under a shelter-in-place strategy.

· The site and proposed development are inconsistent with the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s 2024 shelter-in-place guidelines for flash flooding (SIP) and lacks sufficient information to demonstrate the acceptability of long-term isolation. The SIP guidelines also do not apply to sites affected by High Hazard floodway, H5 or H6 areas or where inundation could exceed a maximum 12-hour period. Additionally, Council lacks an adopted policy to determine the suitability of shelter-in-place as an emergency management strategy.

· Overall, the intensification of development creates multiple households on a single site and creates unnecessary risk to life and emergency response capability.

Flood Planning Assessment – Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter G9

The proposed development does not comply with the following performance criteria in Chapter G9 of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014:

i. The development will not increase the risk to life or safety of persons during a flood event on the development site and adjoining land.

ii. The development will not unduly increase dependency on emergency services.

The proposed development is likely to increase risk to life and safety during flood events, given that evacuation is agreed by the applicant and Council flood engineers to be unfeasible.

The applicant’s reliance on shelter in place for 7.5 hours during a 1% AEP event and up to 30+ hours in a PMF event for four (4) dwellings is a much higher risk to life than the decision for 1 Wharf Road where the Court required mandatory evacuation for a single dwelling where shelter in place was not feasible.

Leaving 4 households stranded in a PMF event for up to 30 hours will require emergency services to monitor these residents for any emergency medical, food and or rescue needs as they will not be able to leave the site. These factors collectively indicate that the proposal does not meet the flood risk management objectives of the DCP and are a threefold increase on the level of risk due to the number of additional dwellings compared to the single dwelling (1 Wharf Road).

Acid Sulfate Soils

Development assessment must consider clause 7.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Chapter G26 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 with regard to the acid sulfate soils considerations relevant to this proposal.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant has provided a new Acid Soil Management Plan prepared by Terra Insight dated 28 November 2025 (Attachment 12) to support the development application.

Discussion

The new Acid Soils Management Plan by Terra Insight confirms staff concerns that the site is constrained by the presence of acid soils. It has appropriately assessed the site and developed a plan for the management of soils during demolition/construction.

The Management Plan provides numerous management requirements within the body of the report which include a required treatment application rate of lime (33kg CaCo3 per tonne) to neutralise acid, restrictions on excavation period for soils untreated and treated, liming of strip footings and dewatering protocols.

If Council were of a mind to approve the application, then all the requirements of the Acid Soil Management Plan (Part 6 of the Plan report) would need to be complied with to minimise the potential for a pollution incident to Currambene Creek. Thus a condition is included in the draft consent conditions requiring that the erosion and sediment control plan must include the soil stockpile areas and treatment pad in accordance with this plan and that all demolition and construction activities carried out on the site for DA2024/1589 and DA20223/1694 (as amended by MA2025/1346) must comply fully with the Recommendations of Part 6 Of the Terra Insight Acid Soil Management Plan (Ref: TERRA22-327.ASSMP Rev 0) dated 28 November 2025. (Attachment 21).

Compliance with the National Construction Code (NCC formerly BCA) – Ceiling Heights

The development application must consider compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant has provided revised architectural drawings (in particular DA3.00 (Rev D) (D25/536348) Attachment 17) to support the development application.

Discussion

The revised section plans DA3.00 (Rev D) received 13 November 2025 clarify that minimum floor to ceiling height for bed 2 complies with NCC requirements.

Liveable Housing Compliance

Development assessment for multi dwelling housing must consider Silver Level requirements in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (LHDG) in accordance with Section 5.4.3 of Chapter G13 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant has now provided an Adaptable Housing Assessment Report, dated 17 November 2025 and prepared by the applicant (Attachment 13 - D25/570607) to support the development application.

Discussion

The following aspects are relevant as background in this regard

Accessibility – Is the greatest degree of features/elements in a building to accommodate people with a disability. Full compliance with AS1428.1-2021 is required by the Building Code of Australia (BCA)/National Construction Code (NCC) for most Classes of buildings, but not Class 1a.

AS1428.1-2021 was adopted by an Amendment to BCA 2022 on 29 July 2025, superseding AS1428.1-2009.

Adaptability – Housing that is designed in a way that it can be easily adapted at a minimal cost to suit individual requirements/circumstances. Compliance with the essential and desirable features of one of the three Adaptable House Classes in AS4299-1995 Adaptable housing, depending upon the site constraints.

AS4299 contains reference to compliance with AS1428.1 for some of the features. AS4299 requires a post-adaptation plan to be provided to demonstrate that the proposal can comply with the objectives, performance requirements and minimum requirements in AS4299.

Adaptable housing is not required by the BCA/NCC. The need to provide adaptable housing arises from planning instruments, such as SEPP’s, LEP’s and DCP’s, and hence AS4299 is not referenced in the BCA/NCC. Compliance with conditions of development consent regarding adaptability can form part of a Construction Certificate (CC) assessment.

Liveability – This requires the least measures in the building and is a building that is designed and constructed to meet the changing needs of occupants in their lifetime. For many years, liveability for Class 1a was required only by planning instruments. The planning instruments often referenced the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (LHDG). The LHDG contains three performance levels, with the Silver Level (the minimum requirement) only requiring 7 elements to be addressed.

In BCA/ NCC 2022, the Australian Buildings Code Board (ABCB) introduced liveable housing design (Part H8 of the BCA Vol 2). However, there was a variation that excludes NSW from those requirements. Currently, any liveability requirements for dwellings in NSW remain requirements of planning instruments. Compliance with conditions of development consent regarding liability can form part of a CC assessment.

At least one dwelling is required to meet Silver Level standards. The applicant claims all three new dwellings can comply with LHDG and also indicates that the dwelling approved under DA23/1694 will be liveable and adaptable under AS4299.

Comments - Council Certifier

It does not appear that liability to the proposed three dwellings on the property has been fully addressed in this latest submission. The current plans do not address concerns that were raised in earlier referral comments.

With respect to the existing approved dwelling, the revised Adaptability Report and post-adaptation plan have not demonstrated that compliance with AS4299 can be achieved with the submitted design. Refer to the s4.15 assessment report (Attachment 3) for full detail of the deficiencies identified.

Revision to the adaptability report and floor plans will be required to address AS4299. It is strongly recommended that a suitably qualified person be engaged to assist in the design and preparation of these plans and documentation should the matter proceed. If Council is of a mind to approve the application a draft condition is proposed requiring amended plans (Attachment 21).

Biodiversity

Development assessment must consider the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, Chapter G3: Landscaping Desing Guidelines and Chapter G5: Biodiversity Impact Assessment of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 with regard to the biodiversity considerations relevant to this proposal.

Applicant’s Submission

The Applicant has provided the following biodiversity related material to support the proposed development:

· Arborist Impact Assessment (D25/443439, Attachment 14)

· Bushfire Assessment Report (D25/443438, Attachment 15)

· Site Plan – Rev. D (D25/443434, Attachment 16)

· Landscape Plan (D25/536335, Attachment 18)

Discussion

The two Swamp Mahogony trees on site provide suitable breeding and foraging habitat for some mobile native species, as such they represent valuable habitat. The current plans include the removal of one of the large Swamp Mahogany tree (tree 2) along the western boundary of the site. The presence and required removal of this large tree was not shown in previous iteration of the site plans, although the location of the impacting driveway has not changed.

In accordance with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, Section 1.3(k), as amended by the Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Offsets Scheme) Act 2024 No 96, developments must apply the avoid, minimise and offset hierarchy in their plans to ensure a proposed development avoids, minimises and/or offsets any proposed impacts on biodiversity regardless of entry into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS). Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate how the impacts have been avoided, minimised and offset. Avoidance is best achieved by first my investigating other design concepts that avoid impacts to native vegetation and/or native species. Where complete avoidance cannot be achieved, minimisation of impacts must be demonstrated before offset/compensatory measures are applied.

An updated landscape plan DA6.00 Rev B provides mitigation/offset of impacts required by providing supplementary and complimentary planting on the site. A suitable replacement tree for the Swamp Mahogany should be selected in accordance with the Shoalhaven Tree Species list – Woollamia and native flora species consistent with vegetation in the locality. Exotic species must not be used. This matter could be dealt with by condition if Council is minded to grant consent.

External Consultations

Crown Land – Objection

Crown Lands advised on 3 October 2023, that the developer cannot use adjacent Crown Land (Reserve R755928) for access in relation to DA23/1694 (for the existing approved dwelling house). On 29 August 2024, the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) issued a referral response objecting to the current proposal, with reasons detailed in that correspondence.

DPHI policies require new developments to be designed with setbacks and fire breaks to avoid impacting Crown land. This includes avoiding use of Crown land for asset protection zones, emergency access, or perimeter trails, unless explicitly permitted.

In this case the relevant Crown Land reserve is currently under Aboriginal Land Claim and as such Crown Lands do not provide any private development with the opportunity to make any application impacting the reserve until such time as all land claims have been resolved.

DPHI has not given permission for the developer to lodge applications that involve the use of Crown Land. The Department continues to oppose the proposed development, consistent with its previous communications.

Both the approved development (DA23/1694) and the current application (DA2024/1589) should be amended to remove any impact on Crown Land including deletion of the proposed access gate.

Further details are available in the Department’s referral responses (see Attachments 19 and 20).

Community Consultations

Five (5) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. All five (5) submissions were objections to the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 25m buffer of the site. The notification was for a two week period.

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

Flooding and Emergency Risk

· The site is located in a high hazard flood storage zone, with frequent flooding observed over recent years.

· Increasing the number of dwellings from one to four could result in up to 24 residents, placing strain on emergency services during flood or fires.

· The flood impact statement is inadequate and outdated, failing to reflect recent flood events and climate change impacts.

Infrastructure Limitations

· The development would intensify pressure on already limited services and increase traffic and parking demands.

Inappropriate Scale and Density

· Overdevelopment of the site.

· The development represents medium/high density housing, which is incompatible with Woollamia’s character of single, low-rise cottages.

Zoning and Planning Concerns

· Woollamia is zoned RU5 – Village, intended to preserve its rural and low-density character.

· The proposal does not align with the intent of the zoning or with the surrounding RU2 – Rural Landscape areas.

· Approval would set a precedent for future multi-dwelling developments, risking permanent change to the village’s identity.

Financial Implications

Financial Implications Arising from Refusal Decision

The applicant lodged an appeal on 12 March 2025 with the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) on the grounds of deemed refusal. There are significant costs associated with defending a refusal.

Potential Financial Implications Arising from Approval Decision

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of an approval of the application. If the Council were to grant consent to the DA and either inadvertently or intentionally fail to take into account, the jurisdictional requirements at clause 5.21 of the SLEP2014:

a) Council may incur personal liability and not benefit from protections and indemnity afforded by section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 if an aggrieved party was also able to establish some form of harm and causation; and

b) it would be open for a third party to challenge the validity of the consent in the Land and Environment Court by way of proceedings pursuant to section 9.45 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Council may incur costs associated with defending third party appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Legal Implications

Section 733 Local Government Act 1993

Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a Council does not incur any liability with anything done, including the granting or refusal of consent to a development application with respect to flood liable land, so long as it has been done in good faith by the Council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding.

Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides local councils and statutory bodies representing the Crown, including a councillor or an employee, with a limited legal indemnity for certain advice given that relates to the likelihood of flooding or the extent of flooding.

Clause 5.21 Flood Planning of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 is a jurisdictional requirement and must be appropriately considered by Council prior to determination being made.

If Council were to grant consent to the DA and either inadvertently or intentionally fail to consider the jurisdictional requirements at clause 5.21, Council may incur liability, as set out above, if an aggrieved party was also able to establish some form of harm and causation.

It would also be open for a third party to challenge the validity of the consent in the Land and Environment Court by way of proceedings pursuant to section 9.45 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Act also provides that a council that acts in accordance with the Manual relating to the management of flood liable land is taken to have acted in good faith in relation to advice given, or things done or not done, relating to the likelihood of flooding or the extent of flooding.

Summary and Conclusion

There have been significant changes to planning for development in flood prone areas in recent years following catastrophic flood events across NSW in 2022.

For example, in February 2022, flooding in Lismore far exceeded the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) event by 2 metres. Even the 0.2% AEP (1-in-500 year) event was exceeded by 1.4 metres.

As a result of the 2022 floods, the NSW Government Flood Inquiry made Recommendations 18 and 21 which establish a risk-based approach when making decisions on developing flood prone land.

Planning Circular PS 24/001 (1 March 2024) provides guidance to decision makers on determining development proposals under clauses 5.21 and 5.22 of the LEP, recommending the application of a risk-based approach.

The applicants have consistently acknowledged safe and efficient evacuation by the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) cannot be relied upon and therefore the proposal must, by default, rely on sheltering in place.

The NSW Shelter in Place guidance acknowledges that this is not a design or safety solution without risk. It recommends that the duration of shelter-in-place due to isolation by floodwaters is less than 12 hours and not subject to high hazard flooding in scenarios which include the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The current proposal is in a high hazard flood storage area and relies on shelter-in-place for up to 30 hours during a PMF event which is contrary to the guidance.

The proposal will further exacerbate these issues by increasing the number of people on site who will potentially be vulnerable to flooding events in the future. Despite the applicant’s position that this does not constitute intensification, the NSW Land & Environment Court has accepted in Giacometti v Inner West Council [2021] NSWLEC 1438 that “the proposed development for the conversion of an existing dwelling house into three (3) separate residential units results in an intensification of use on a flood control lot in an area of high hazard category flood risk.”.

This development proposal increases the risk by introducing three (3) additional households (above the existing single approved household) in an area with an unacceptable risk profile. Conservatively, that is potentially 7 additional people (based on the census average of 2.3 persons per household) but potentially far more who could be at risk in a future flood event and who will then have to deal with the associated human impacts. If similar intensification were replicated across other flood-affected properties, the cumulative impact on evacuation capacity for the emergency services would most likely be severe and unsustainable.

Recently a range of broader research has also been released about the risks of housing developments expanding into areas with high natural hazard risk and associated impacts (e.g. insurance costs) on affected or impacted households.

Locations where evacuation out of the floodplain is not possible before inundation, such as 737 Woollamia Road, may require flood rescue operations by NSW SES volunteers during flood events. When the duration of isolation is extensive, i.e., longer than 12 hours, users of the site may change their mind regarding sheltering in place whilst surrounded by flood water. This scenario and potentially others would compel SES volunteers to divert limited resources (if available) to undertake rescue operations in high flood hazard areas putting the users of the site and the volunteers undertaking such rescue operations at an unacceptable and avoidable risk.

Furthermore, Council has never adopted or accepted shelter-in-place as an emergency response strategy previously and a decision in favour of this may set an undesirable precedence. The use of shelter-in-place should be investigated in a catchment-wide assessment through a Flood Risk Management Study and Plan to fully understand the inherent risk, liability, cumulative impact and its suitability as a strategy, before adopting shelter in place in lieu of evacuation as an accepted response.

Based upon the recommendations of the s4.15 Assessment Report (Attachment 3), Development Application No. DA2024/1589 is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal
1)	Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is non-compliant with the jurisdictional requirements set out in clause 5.21 of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and inconsistent with the clause objectives.
2)	Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is non-compliant with the jurisdictional requirements set out in clause 5.22 of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and inconsistent with the clause objectives.
3)	Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is non-compliant with the development controls set out in Chapter G5: Biodiversity Impact Assessment and Chapter G9: Development on Flood Prone Land of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 and is inconsistent with the acceptable solutions.
4)	Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development may have an adverse likely social and economic impact as a result of flooding impacts.
5)	Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the information submitted with the development application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed use.
6)	Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, having regard to the above matters to address the relevant provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the granting of development consent is not considered to be in the public interest.

Directorate	Name	Designated Position Start Date	Returned
Councillor	Debbie Killian	16 September 2025	16 September 2025 *
City Development	Jesica Hughes	27 October 2025	4 November 2025
City Development	Samantha Turner	27 October 2025	11 November 2025

Tenderer	Location
AJM United Steels Pty Ltd	Auburn NSW 2144