Ordinary Meeting

 

 

Meeting Date:     Monday, 09 May, 2022

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

Time:                   5.30pm

 

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

 

 

 

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

 

Statement of Ethical Obligations

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

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

 

Agenda

 

1.    Acknowledgement of Country

2.    Moment of Silence and Reflection

3.    Australian National Anthem

4.    Apologies / Leave of Absence

5.    Confirmation of Minutes

·      Ordinary Meeting - 26 April 2022

6.    Declarations of Interest

7.    Presentation of Petitions

8.    Mayoral Minute

9.    Deputations and Presentations

10.  Call Over of the Business Paper

11.  A Committee of the Whole (if necessary)

12.  Committee Reports

Nil

13.  Reports

City Performance

CL22.209..... Draft Delivery Program Operational Plan and Budget 2022-23 - Public Exhibition........................................................................................................................ 1

CL22.210..... Draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 - Public Exhibition..... 17

CL22.211..... Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns - April 2022..................... 24

City Futures

CL22.212..... Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Planning Proposal (PP063) to Amend LEP Clause 7.25  - Part of Lot 1 DP 1257338, Moss Vale Road, Kangaroo Valley............................................................................................................ 26

CL22.213..... Tenders - Albatross Aviation Technology Park - Non-Potable Water Storage Tanks for Firefighting Reserves.................................................................................... 38

City Services

CL22.214..... Tenders - Sustainable Tourism Projects - Bherwerre Wetland................... 40

CL22.215..... Review of Waste Services Policies.............................................................. 42

CL22.216..... Electric Vehicle Trial Update........................................................................ 57

City Development

CL22.194..... Development Application - DA21/1834 - 14 Jay Street Culburra Beach - Lot 7 DP246986..................................................................................................... 60

CL22.217..... SF10923 – 111 Elizabeth Drive Vincentia – Lot 228 25099........................ 88

CL22.218..... Regional Development Committee & Southern Regional Planning Panel Membership.................................................................................................................... 109

City Lifestyles

CL22.199..... West Nowra Infrastructure and Recreational Facilities Upgrade Program - Investigations and Way Forward................................................................ 115

CL22.219..... Draft - Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2022-2026 - Public Exhibition....... 127

Shoalhaven Water

CL22.220..... Tenders – Various Mains Relining Project................................................. 136

CL22.221..... Review of Shoalhaven Water Group Policies – Round Four..................... 139

14.  Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL22.222..... Notice of Motion - Ward Boundary Review - Community of Interest......... 151

 

 

 

 

 

15.  Confidential Reports

Reports

CCL22.12.... Tenders – Albatross Aviation Technology Park - Non-Potable Water Storage Tanks for Firefighting Reserves

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

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

CCL22.13.... Tenders – Sustainable Tourism Projects - Bherwerre Wetland

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

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

CCL22.14.... Tenders – Various Mains Relining Project

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.209   Draft Delivery Program Operational Plan and Budget 2022-23 - Public Exhibition

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/136433

 

Department:       Corporate Performance & Reporting

Approver:           Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance 

Attachments:     1.  Draft Delivery Program Operation Plan & Budget 2022-23 (councillors information folder)

2.  Draft Fees & Charges 2022-23 – Part 1 (councillors information folder)

3.  Draft Fees & Charges 2022-23 – Part 2 (councillors information folder)

4.  Draft Resourcing Strategy 2022-26 (councillors information folder)  

Reason for Report

To provide Council with the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP) and Draft Budget and Draft Fees and Charges for 2022/23, and to seek the endorsement of Council to place these documents on public exhibition in accordance with legislative requirements.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.   Endorse the Draft 2022/23 Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Resourcing Strategy for the purpose of placing on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

2.   Maintain the 2021/22 rating structure, comprising both base and ad valorem amounts noting that the use of a base amount results in bringing the higher and lower values closer together and in effect spreads the burden across the board to all ratepayers – noting also that this is a commonly used rating structure that is considered to provide the fairest and most equitable distribution of the rate levy across the LGA. 

3.   In accordance with Section 566(3) of the Act, endorse the rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 (inclusive) to be 6% per annum which is the Office of Local Government recommended maximum for 2022/23 financial year.

4.   Note that interest charges will continue to be waived for ratepayers that are experiencing financial hardship and they can apply for financial assistance under Council’s Hardship Policy.

5.   Approve the Minister’s allowable limit of a 4.53% increase (1.7% rate peg plus 2.83% SRV catch-up) in 2022/23 to the notional yield as permitted by Section 511 of the Local Government Act 1993.

6.   Receive a report on feedback from the community on the Draft 2022/23 Delivery Program Operational Plan and Budget following the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Options

1.    Council resolves to place the Draft DPOP, Budget and Fees and Charges for 2022/23, on public exhibition for 28 days inclusive with the 4.53% rates increase as recommended.

Implications: The documents will be placed on public exhibition as presented in the report with a report back to a Council in June with details of submissions received including any community feedback on the inclusion of 2.83% SRV increase in the Draft DPOP.

 

2.    Council resolves to place the Draft DPOP, Budget and Fees and Charges for 2022/23, on public exhibition for 28 days with the Council Resolution on:

a.    1.7% rate peg rates increase which will not be sufficient to fund increase in recurrent operational costs.

b.    Council nominating an alternate rate increase noting that each percent (1%) reduction from the recommended 4.53% increase would equate to a reduction in revenue of $0.86 million.

c.    Other amendments to the draft 2022/23 DPOP, Budget and Fees & Charges as determined by Council.

Implications: Council would need to provide direction to staff in relation to the necessary budget adjustments to accommodate the recommended alternate rate increase. Ideally, options in this regard should be placed on public exhibition with the DPOP documents presented in this report.

 

Background

In accordance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) requirements in the NSW Local Government Act, Council has developed a Delivery Program for the period 2022-2026. The Delivery Program inclusive of the draft Operational Plan and Budget 2022/23, is presented to Council for endorsement for public exhibition and community feedback.

The draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 is also presented to Council for endorsement for public exhibition and is included as an additional report to this Council meeting.

Council has developed an accompanying Resourcing Strategy 2022-2026. The Strategy is an operational document which contains the Workforce Strategy, Asset Management Policy and Strategy, ICT Strategy, and the Long-Term Financial Plan 2022-2032. The Resourcing Strategy addresses how Council will implement and resource the Delivery Program through planning for our finances, assets, and workforce. This document will also be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

The adoption of a high-level budget strategy and economic parameters by Council will generally take place in December of each year and thus enables staff to prepare the draft budget with an improved level of confidence that the draft budget, when discussed at budget workshops and ultimately presented formally for consideration, will meet Council’s expectations. It is also considered that the adoption of a high-level budget strategy and economic parameters by Council makes the budget preparation more transparent and efficient with strategic priorities and budget constraints being identified in advance.

However, due to timing of the elections, it was not possible for the Council to adopt budget parameters in advance and as a result of the time constraints, the draft budget parameters and strategies were discussed in a briefing to Councillors on Thursday, 10 March 2022 and further refined at the budget workshop on 26 March 2022.


 

The Strategic Budget Principles are outlined below:

Adopted Budget Strategy/Parameter

Achieved

The budget will not result in an unrestricted cash deficit.

P

Maintain or improve Council’s financial and asset management performance indicators reported in the annual financial statements.

P

Maintain an adequate working funds balance.

P

Rates are increased by 4.53% to cover known additional costs in 2022/23 including a reduction of funding gaps for roads, parks and precincts, buildings, and newly commissioned assets.

P

User fees and charges are increased by 2%

P

Salaries and wages will be increased by 2% (as per Local Government Award)

P

Maintain a stable level of non-commercial borrowings for the General Fund

P

Prioritise funding in the following order:

i.     Provide sufficient funding for all continuing services

ii.     Continue Council’s commitment to asset renewal

iii.    Continue a program of capital improvements at similar budget levels and ratios

iv.   Provide funding for recommended service expansions

 

P

b.    Should the need arise during the year for additional borrowings, the following options in priority order will be considered:

i.      Internal borrowing opportunities

ii.     Low-cost loan initiative

iii.    External loans not subsidised by the low-cost loan initiative

P

 

Council Priorities

The Delivery Program details what activities Council intends to undertake to achieve the key priorities outlined in the draft Community Strategic Plan 2032. These priorities are grouped under the themes of: 

·    Resilient, safe, accessible and inclusive communities

·    Sustainable, liveable environments

·    Thriving local economies

·    Effective, responsible and authentic leadership

 

Each of the themes and key priorities that have been identified by the community have been allocated 4-year objectives in the Delivery Program, and 1-year actions in the Operational Plan.

The draft combined Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP) outlines these 54 objectives, and the actions, projects and services Council will deliver in the 2022-23 financial year.

 

Major Projects and Initiatives

Full details on Council’s planned major projects and initiatives are included in Attachment 1 – Draft Delivery Program Operation Plan & Budget 2022-23.

Major project highlights include:

·    Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct (SCaRP) - progressing construction of the new sporting facilities for AFL, Cricket and Croquet.

·    Sanctuary Point Library – anticipated construction to commence before end of 2022.

·    Nowra Riverfront Precinct progressing with proposed urban design and land use planning changes which will enable redevelopment of this key city precinct.

·    Boongaree Berry – Pump Track, Skate Park, practice netball courts and cricket nets.

·    Revitalisation of Vincentia Village shopping mall

·    Continue construction on the Bioelektra Resource Recovery Facility, expecting to be fully operational by end of 2023.

·    Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) - installation of equipment to commence mid-2022.

·    Continue work on the Far North Collector Road to help address traffic congestion and accommodate future housing growth.

·    Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas construction of sewer and water infrastructure.

 

Highlighted Initiatives

·    Investigations to articulate a vision for a new Shoalhaven Regional Gallery

·    Support for volunteer led museums

·    Celebrate contribution of aboriginal & multicultural communities

·    Develop Community Sustainable Living Program

·    Review and update of Employment Land & Economic Development Strategies

·    Continued development of our Industrial Estates

·    Ulladulla Boardwalk, Harbourside and new Berthing facilities

·    New skate parks - Ulladulla (grant dependent) and Bay & Basin

 

Focus on Recovery and Resilience

Ongoing actions include:

·    Operation of the Natural Disaster Office to coordinate recovery of key road infrastructure damaged in recent natural disasters

·    Build community awareness and encourage planning for disasters

·    Develop community profiles to identify hazards, critical infrastructure, vulnerable facilities or groups

·    Working with partners to implement initiatives which encourage help-seeking and to build community understanding of mental health issues and available supports.

·    Implementation of the updated Shoalhaven Adaptation Plan.

 

Performance measures

Performance measures against each Operational Plan Action have been included to ensure that Council continues to be accountable against the objectives that have been set and to better manage community expectations. These measures can be targets, benchmarks or milestones.

 

Revenue Policy

Proposed 2022/23 Rates Structure

It is recommended that Council maintain the 2022/23 rating structure, comprising both base and ad valorem amounts. The use of a base amount brings the higher and lower values closer together and in effect spreads the burden across the board to all ratepayers. This is a common rating structure and is considered to provide the fairest and most equitable distribution of the rate levy across the LGA. 

The rating structure has a flat base amount of $698, with the exception of the Residential – Non-Urban category that has a base of $49.

Business – Ordinary category that does not have a base amount and is subject to an ad valorem rate in the dollar levied on the value of the property supplied by the Valuer General of NSW.

Business – Ordinary rates are levied on parcels of land held by the Crown and categorised as Business Permit (i.e., Crown leases such as permissive occupancies, jetties, slipways, moorings, pastoral leases, etc.). 

The following rates are proposed for 2022/23 in respect of each category of ordinary rate levied by Council:

·    Residential: Will be levied a base amount of $698 and an ad valorem rate of 0.1895 cents in the $ for Ordinary Residential Rates and a base amount of $49 and an ad valorem rate of 0.1895 cents in the $ for Residential Non-Urban Rates.

·    Farmland: The rates for both Farmland and Dairy Farmland will be levied a base amount of $698 and an ad valorem rate of 0.1569 and 0.0799 cents in the $, respectively.

·    Business: All sub-categories will utilise the same base amount of $698, excluding Business Permit (Ordinary – Business category), where no base amount is applied given the type of properties within this category. However, different ad valorem rates have been applied, depending upon the level of service provided in each area. An ad valorem rate for Nowra CBD business rates is 0.5899 cents in the $, Business Permit 0.38983 and Business Commercial / Industrial 0.2736.

 

Draft Fees & Charges 2022-23 are included as Attachment 2 (Part 1) and Attachment 3 (Part 2).

 

Interest on Overdue Rates & Charges

Council’s current policy is to adopt the maximum permissible interest rate for each year on overdue rates, charged on a simple interest basis. This is consistent with the policy of the other local councils in the region.

It has been determined that the rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 (inclusive) will be 6.0% per annum.

Interest charges will be waived for ratepayers that experience financial hardship and can apply for financial assistance under the Council Hardship Policy.

 

 

2022/23 Rates Increase

In 2010, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales (IPART) was delegated responsibility for determining the allowable annual increase in local government general rates income. In 2015, the NSW State Government declared Shoalhaven City Council as a Fit for the Future Council. This was based on a Council submission provided to the Office of Local Government (OLG) and IPART which outlined several actions the Council would undertake to improve its financial sustainability. 

To ensure consistency with our Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and to meet our Fit for the Future benchmarks, Council successfully applied to IPART in February 2018 for a Special Rates Variation (SRV) for each of the three financial years: 2018/19; 2019/20 and 2020/21.  

The Special Rates Variation (SRV) was approved to allow the Council to improve its financial sustainability, fund capital expenditure, reduce its infrastructure backlog, reduce its operating deficit, and fund asset renewal and maintenance.

As per IPART determination, in 2020/21 Shoalhaven City Council could increase rates by maximum 5% (2.6% rate peg plus 2.4% increase in addition to the rate peg as per approved SRV). However, in consideration of the economic impact of the unprecedented effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, Shoalhaven City Council did not take up the full SRV in 2020/21 and increased rates by 2.6% (rate peg only).

Furthermore, as per the IPART determination, in the 2021/22 financial year, in addition to the prior year 2.4% SRV increase, Council could take up another 0.6% SRV increase, which in total equates to $2.384 million of additional revenue. However, Council resolved to increase rates only by the rate peg of 2.6% and did not take up any SRV increase for the 2021/22 financial year.

According to the Local Government Act 1993, Council has a period of up to 10 years to catch-up on any Special Rates Variation increases that was not taken up in previous years.

In addition to the SRV, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has announced that the Rate Peg for Shoalhaven City Council for the 2022/23 year is 1.7%. The Local Government Cost Index for the year ending 30 June 2021 is 0.9% less an adjustment of 0.2% for the cost of the 2021 local government elections, Shoalhaven also has had a population factor of 1% added to their rate peg amount.

It is important to note that the recent economic forecast indicates that Australia will face rapid inflation in upcoming years and being an indicator that is based on historic CPI calculations, rather than inflation forecast, the rate peg will not be sufficient to address rapid inflation.

It is recommended to increase rates by 4.53% in the 2022/23 financial year which includes 1.7% rate peg increase and $2.384 million (2.83%) SRV catch up as the rate increase alone will be insufficient to fund the known additional costs for 2022/23 budget as outlined in the Major Operating Budget Requirements section of this report.

The 4.53% rates increase will result in a total additional rate revenue of $3.8 million, with the full SRV of $2.4 million being caught up:

 

 

 ($‘000)

%

Current Rates Yield 2021/22 Permissible income +0.5% growth (a)

 82,006

100%

Plus: Rate peg increase (b)

 1,394

1.70%

Plus: SRV (increase above Rate Peg) (c)

 2,384

*2.83%

Projected 2022/23 Rates Yield (a+b+c)

 85,784

104.53%

 

* Note: In contrast to the rate peg which is the annual % increase set up by IPART, Special Rates Variation increase for Council is a fixed $ amount of $2,384 and the percentage of SRV increase = SRV $ amount/current rates yield.

 

An impact of the rate increase on average residential property is summarised in table below:

Average Residential Rates

Increase/ Annum

Increase/ Quarter

2021/22 Current rates

$1,335.41

2022/23 with 1.70% Rate Peg

$1,358.24

$22.83

$5.71

2022/23 with 4.53% Increase (additional)

$1,396.24

$38.00

$9.50

4.53% Total Increase over current rates

$60.83

$15.21

 

As discussed in detail with Councillors during the budget workshops and presentations, the 4.53% is the minimum rates increase required for the Council to have a balanced budget and fund the current level of servicing for buildings, parks and roads and maintain a mostly consistent capital works program. As has been explained during the workshops, the SRV revenue is essential to start to address the significant deterioration in the condition of roads across the Shoalhaven. 

While Council continues to prioritise renewal and maintenance of existing assets during the budgeting process, the amount available for these activities remains insufficient due to limited available funds. Each financial year that the required maintenance is not being fully funded, increases risk and customer satisfaction decreases, as these services being provided from the assets become less reliable, less safe, less secure, and not fit for purpose. Subsequently, the number of assets in poor to very poor condition is increasing year upon year. The proposed 4.53% increase of rates revenue will continue to improve the situation as more funds will be allocated towards assets renewal and maintenance.

Council’s assets on average have expired 32% of their expected life and a large number of assets are in poor to very poor condition which is below customer expected levels of service. This remains an ongoing fiscal challenge for Shoalhaven City Council, and many other councils in NSW, and is a key factor considered in Council’s long-term financial and asset management strategic plans.

Whilst it is impossible for Council to address all significant maintenance and renewal gaps in one year, the 2022/23 budget as presented will reduce the maintenance budget gaps significantly and will secure this additional revenue into future years which is the cornerstone of the long-term financial sustainability of Council.

Major Operating Budget Requirements

Based on an in-depth review of the current budget requirements and taking into consideration projected increases in materials / services and employee costs, management identified the following 2022/23 operational budget savings/increases:

 

Category shortfall /(savings)

$’000

Reason

Reduction in Defined Benefits Plan

($402)

decrease in contributions

Interest Income

($150)

Increase in revenue

Labour 2%

$1,300

Award increase as per the LG Award

Increase in super contributions

$402

Increase from 9.5% to 10%

Admin. & other expenses 0.50%

$198

nominal increase to reflect CPI

Insurance

$300

Insurance premium

Borrowing Costs

$165

Estimated increase

Operational Plant Costs

$600

unavoidable increase, mainly fuel

New Assets Maintenance (inc. Boongaree)

$1,500

new assets

Roads Maintenance

$2,000

historic shortfall

Parks and precincts maintenance shortfall

$2,700

increase of level of service in 21/22

Road and Drainage Reserves Vegetation Maintenance

$612

historic shortfall

Asset Protection Zone Maintenance

$262

historic shortfall

Public Amenity Cleaning

$710

current cleaning schedule is consistently underfunded to meet community expectations.

Savings on Cleaning Contract

($285)

Contract savings

Community Buildings repairs and maintenance

$712

historic shortfall

Admin. Buildings Programmed Maintenance

$207

historic shortfall

Grounds Maintenance

$203

historic shortfall

Works Depots Programmed Maintenance

$166

historic shortfall

Statutory Inspections

$124

historic shortfall

Emergency Services Programmed Maintenance

$31

historic shortfall

Entertainment Centre Maintenance

$125

historic shortfall

Total

$11,480

 

The budget requirements summarised above include only known current budget shortfalls and exclude additional budget required to address the long-standing assets backlog.

As discussed during the budget workshop held on 26 March 2022, next year’s Draft Budget will address unavoidable costs/savings identified such as a reduction in Defined Benefits Plan contributions and an increase in super contributions, labour increase, interest income, increase of administrative, insurance, borrowings and operational plant costs; and will partially address maintenance shortfalls with the strategy to fully address historic maintenance shortfalls over the next three financial years as summarised below:

 

Shortfall

2022/23 ($’000)

2022/23 (%)

2023/24 ($’000)

2023/24 (%)

2024/25 ($’000)

2024/25 ($’000)

New Assets Ongoing Maintenance

290

22%

790

61%

1,290

100%

Boongaree Maintenance

210

100%

210

100%

210

100%

Roads Maintenance

2,000

100%

2,000

100%

2,000

100%

Parks and precincts maintenance shortfall

1,200

44%

1,950

72%

2,700

100%

Road and Drainage Reserves Vegetation Maintenance

204

33%

408

67%

612

100%

Asset Protection Zone Maintenance​

262

100%

262

100%

262

100%

Public Amenity Cleaning

710

100%

710

100%

710

100%

Savings on Cleaning (if contract awarded)

(285)

100%

(285)

100%

(285)

100%

Community Buildings R&M

237

33%

475

67%

712

100%

Admin. Buildings Programmed Maintenance

69

33%

138

67%

207

100%

Grounds Maintenance

68

33%

135

67%

203

100%

Works Depots Programmed Maintenance

55

33%

111

67%

166

100%

Statutory Inspections

41

33%

83

67%

124

100%

Emergency Services Programmed Maintenance

10

33%

21

67%

31

100%

Entertainment Centre Maintenance

42

33%

83

67%

125

100%

Total:

5,114

56%

7,090

78%

9,067

100%

 

It is important to note that the management strategy to address budget shortfalls is subject to Council’s endorsement of the full SRV catch-up in the 2022/23 financial year and will not be achievable with a lower rate increase than the recommended 4.53%.

Budget Summary

Income Statement by Fund

 

 

 

($‘000)

General
Fund

Water
Fund

Sewer
Fund

Interfund Adj.

Consol.

Income from Continuing Operations

298,671

34,616

57,138

(66,821)

323,604

Expenses from Continuing Operations

266,221

31,311

48,373

(64,827)

281,078

Net Surplus

32,450

3,305

8,765

(1,994)

42,526

Net Surplus/(Deficit) before Capital

306

(359)

6,365

(1,994)

4,318

Net Cash Movement

(46,811)

(9,593)

(7,808)

0

(64,212)

Net Reserve Movement

46,811

9,593

7,808

0

64,212

Net Unrestricted Cash Movement

0

0

0

0

0

 

The proposed Draft 2022/23 Budget includes a capital expenditure of $192 million across General, Water and Sewer funds along with the $281 million of operating expenditure required to provide the essential services to our community which brings the next year’s consolidated budget to $473 million.

 

 

($‘000)

Consolidated Budget

Capital Budget

191,985

Operating Budget

281,078

Total Budget

473,063

 

The budget was prepared based on the principles of prudent financial management and fiscal discipline. It is a balanced budget meaning that the budgeted general fund operational and capital expenditures do not exceed the general revenue and available internal and external restrictions of the Council and conforms to the requirement for generally no cash deficit budgeting. Maintaining a healthy level of working capital was also taken into consideration in the proposed 2022/23 Budget.

The proposed balanced budget is outlined below ($‘000):

 

2021/22 Budget ($'000)

General Fund

Water Fund

Sewer Fund

Consol.*

Rates & Annual Charges

114,726

4,495

48,434

167,655

User Charges and Fees

63,398

23,109

4,127

90,634

Interest and Investment Revenue

3,803

831

379

2,824

Other Revenues

4,052

6

0

4,058

Internal Revenue

60,323

2,511

1,798

0

Grants and Contributions provided for Operating Purposes

20,225

0

0

20,225

Grants and Contributions provided for Capital Purposes

32,144

3,664

2,400

38,208

Total Income

298,671

34,616

57,138

323,604

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Benefits and On-Costs

77,793

6,565

10,270

93,683

Borrowing Costs

2,790

0

3,360

5,955

Materials and Contracts

72,127

7,674

11,428

90,687

Depreciation and Amortisation

48,032

10,688

16,416

75,136

Other Expenses

15,679

38

0

15,617

Internal Expenses

49,800

6,346

6,899

0

Total Expenses

266,221

31,311

48,373

281,078

 

 

 

 

 

Net Operating Results

32,450

3,305

8,765

42,526

 

 

 

 

 

Net Surplus/(Deficit) before Capital

306

(359)

6,365

4,318

Other Cash Adjustments

 

 

 

 

Capital Expenditure

(142,601)

(24,367)

(25,018)

(191,986)

New Borrowings

21,080

0

0

21,080

Loan Principal Repayments

(13,425)

0

(5,416)

(18,908)

Proceeds from the disposal of assets

5,659

120

100

5,879

Receipt of Internal Loan Repayment

0

1,119

(1,119)

0

Depreciation Adjustment

48,032

10,688

16,416

75,136

Dividend Paid to General Fund

1,994

(458)

(1,536)

0

Net Cash Outflow

(46,811)

(9,593)

(7,808)

(64,212)

Reserve Movements

 

 

 

 

Net Transfers from Reserves

46,811

9,593

7,808

(64,212)

 

 

 

 

 

General Fund Net Cash Movement

0

0

0

0

*Note: Consolidated results include interfund adjustments not listed in the table.

Capital Works Program

An extensive $192 million capital works program has been allocated in the Draft Budget for 2022/23 with the road’s renewal program being a focus of general fund budget:

Capital Program

$'000

Roads and Transport

23,341

Waste and Recycling Program

22,956

Open Space, Sport and Recreation

19,760

Economic Development

18,469

Strategic Roads and Bridges

16,581

Buildings and Property

12,541

Commercial Undertakings

11,973

Stormwater

5,235

Fleet and IT Services

4,793

Environmental Management

3,728

Community and Culture

1,395

Waterways Infrastructure

819

Bridges

830

Regulatory Services

180

Total General Fund

142,601

Water and Sewer Capital Works

49,385

Total Capital Program

191,986

 

The proposed funding sources for the capital works program are:

Funding Source

Proposed Budget ($’000)

%

Grants

27,794

14%

Existing Loans

34,030

18%

New Loans

21,080

11%

16 Berry Street – subject to investigation / direction​

208

Buildings Fire Compliance Works​

599

Depot Safety Improvement Works​

700

EOI 100 St Vincent St Ulladulla - Stage 2 Fire Compliance Works​

203

Nowra Players Theatre-Stage 2 Compliance​

410

SEC - Compliance Works​

293

Ulladulla Civic Centre Improvements​

395

Park Road Netball Court Redevelopment - South Nowra​

2,300

Showgrounds Amenities - SCC BLERF Contribution​

3,900

Ulladulla Skate Park (subject to successful grant application)​

1,000

Currarong - Currarong Rd –Rehab - CH7.5-1 CH1.7​

1,000

Roads Rehabilitation Works​

4,243

Tourist Parks (commercial loan)​

3,926

Bioelektra Resource Recovery Facility RRF​

1,000

Other Grant Funded Projects Co-Contribution​

905

General Fund Including Carry Forwards

15,713

8%

Special Rates

9,713

5%

Industrial Land

7,478

4%

Section 7.11 Deleted

2,641

1%

Waste Reserve

4,815

3%

Plant Replacement

7,709

4%

Section 7.11

7,188

4%

Stormwater Levy

1,161

1%

Other Internal Reserves

3,279

2%

Total Capital Program

142,601

74%

Water and Sewer Funds

49,385

26%

Total Capital Program

191,986

100%

 

Budget Details – General Fund

The Operating Result for 2022/23, excluding capital grants, is a surplus of $306K, compared to the 2021/22 deficit of $737K (as per original budget). The main reason for the improvement in financial performance is an increase in rates revenue by 4.53%, and an increase in revenue for waste services. Furthermore, the 2021/22 budget included a one-off business system implementation cost of $2.4M and 2022/23 budget only allocates $500K for this project.

With the inclusion of capital grants, the net operating result is a surplus of $32.45M There is no net impact on the cash flow result for unrestricted general fund, that is, the budget.

Budget Details - Shoalhaven Water

The Operating Result for the Water Fund for 2022/23, excluding capital grants, is a deficit of ($359K), an improvement from the previous year budget deficit of ($843K). This is based on an increase of residential usage charge by 10 cents from $1.80 to $1.90 and no increase to residential availability charge $84. When capital grants and contributions are included, the net operating result is a surplus of $3.3M.

The Operating Result of Sewer Fund for 2022/23, excluding capital grants, is a surplus of $7.8M. This is based on an increase of availability charge by $18 (2%) from $892 to $910. When capital grants are included, the net operating result is a surplus of $10.15M.

The Shoalhaven Water Directorate capital expenditure of $49.4 million has been allocated in the Draft Budget for 2022/23. The total includes the following significant projects/programs:

Water Fund:

·    Moss Vale Road expansion area: $6M​

·    Flinders Depot electrical workshop: $3.7M​

·    Danjera Camping Facility & Refuge: $2.1M

 

 

Sewer Fund:

·    Moss Vale Road expansion area: $10M​

·    Flinders Depot electrical workshop: $3.7M​

·    St Anns and Lyrebird Park SPS upgrade: $2.7M

 

Key Performance Indicators

The key performance indicators are set by the Office of Local Government to measure financial performance and suitability of local councils across NSW. The projected 2022/23 indicators for each of the funds as well as consolidated funds for Shoalhaven City Council is outlined below.

 

Financial Performance Indicators:

 

Description

Calculation

Target

Fund

2022/23

Operating Performance Ratio

Measures Council's achievement of containing operating expenditure within operating revenue

Total continuing revenue 
(excl Cap Grants & Contributions) - 
Operating Expenses

Greater than 0%

Consolidated

1.5%

General

0.1%

Total continuing revenue 
(excl Cap Grants & Contributions)

Water

-1.2%

Sewer

11.6%

Own Source Operating Revenue Ratio

Measures fiscal flexibility. It is the degree of reliance on external funding sources such as operating grants and contributions

Total continuing operating revenue (less ALL grants and Contributions)

Greater than 60%

Consolidated

81.9%

General

82.5%

Total continuing operating revenue

Water

89.4%

Sewer

95.8%

Unrestricted Current Ratio

To assess the adequacy of working capital & its ability to term for the unrestricted activities of Council

Current assets less all external restrictions

Greater than 1.5

Consolidated

1.50

General

1.50

Current liabilities less specific purpose liabilities

Water

11.51

Sewer

2.47

Debt Service Cover Ratio

Measures the availability of operating cash to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments

Operating result before capital excluding EBITDA

Greater than 2.0

Consolidated

3.44

General

3.15

Principal Repayments + Borrowing Interest Costs

Water

No Debt

Sewer

2.64

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding Percentage

To assess the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts

Rates, annual and extra charges outstanding

Less than 10%

Consolidated

8.9%

General

8.0%

Rates, annual & extra charges collectible

Water

11.3%

Sewer

10.9%

Cash Expense Cover Ratio

To assess the number of months a Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without additional cash inflow

12* Current year's cash and cash equivalents plus all term deposits

Greater than 3 months

Consolidated

5.11

General

3.13

Payments from cash flow of operating and financing activities

Water

14.47

Sewer

3.01

 

Infrastructure Asset Performance Indicators:

 

 

Description

Calculation

Target

Fund

2022/23

Infrastructure Renewal Ratio

To assess the rate at which these assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating

Asset Renewals

Greater than 100%

Consolidated

98.0%

General

101.3%

Depreciation, amortisation and impairment

Water

125.2%

Sewer

73.2%

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio

The ratio shows what proportion the backlog is against the total value of a Council's infrastructure

Estimated cost to bring assets to a satisfactory standard

Less than 2%

Consolidated

2.7%

General

3.3%

Net carrying amount of infrastructure assets

Water

1.9%

Sewer

1.2%

Asset Maintenance Ratio

Compares budget vs required annual asset maintenance. A ratio above 1.0 indicated Council is investing enough funds to stop infrastructure backlog growing

Actual asset maintenance

Greater than 1x

Consolidated

0.93

General

0.88

Required asset maintenance

Water

1.00

Sewer

1.00

Cost to bring assets to agreed service level

The ratio provides a snapshot of the proportion of outstanding renewal works compared to the total value of assets under Council's care and ownership

Estimated cost to bring assets to an agreed service level set by Council

No Benchmark

Consolidated

0.93%

General

1.50%

Gross Replacement Cost

Water

0.01%

Sewer

0.01%

 

Comments on the indicators that do not meet the benchmark:

Operating Performance Ratio, Water Fund Benchmark >0%, projected ratio is: -1.2%: this ratio is projected to be slightly below the benchmark but shows significant improvement in comparison to prior years. It is anticipated for the ratio to meet the benchmark over time as the water user charges increase.

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding Percentage, Water and Sewer Fund Benchmark<10%, projected ratio is 11.3% and 10.9%: this ratio measures outstanding rates and charges rather than overdue balances and due to the timing of water and sewer billing, not all balances outstanding at year-end are overdue. As such, this ratio is misleading for these funds. If we apply a calculation based on overdue annual charges, the result will meet the benchmark: Water 5.7% and Sewer 5.8%.

Infrastructure Renewal Ratio, Sewer Fund Benchmark >100%, projected ratio is 73.8%: this ratio was above the benchmark in previous years and due to the delivery of a one-off significant capital project such as the sewer infrastructure for Moss Vale Road Urban Release Area and will set the ratio below the benchmark in 2022/23. This will be a one-off for this year and the ratio will bounce back in 2023/24.

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio, General Fund Benchmark <2%, projected ratio is 3.3%: growing backlog is a known ongoing issue for the local councils across NSW due to chronical shortage of budget available for assets renewals. Council is working on the long-term strategies to improve this ratio.

Asset Maintenance Ratio, General Fund Benchmark >1, projected ratio is 0.88: whilst this ratio is not going to meet the benchmark next year, as outlined in this report, Council has a strategy to improve the situation over next three years and taking up full SRV rate increase next financial year will significantly reduce maintenance shortfalls.

Resourcing Strategy 2022-26

The Resourcing Strategy is the link between the Community Strategic Plan and Council’s Delivery Program, it outlines how we will help achieve the Community’s long-term priorities in terms of time, money, assets, and people. The Resourcing Strategy contains the following elements:

·    Workforce Management Strategy - Builds the capability and capacity of the workforce to achieve Council’s strategic goals and objectives. It considers what people, with what capabilities and experience are required to deliver Council’s four-year Delivery Program.

·    Asset Management Strategy and Plan - Includes the Asset Management Policy, Strategy direction for continuous improvement in the asset management of Council’s $4.9 billion in infrastructure, community, operational and commercial assets.

·    Information Communication Technology Strategy - Outlines opportunities to build on the recent investment made in systems and technologies to create an exceptional customer experience.

·    Long Term Financial Plan 2022-2032 - A 10-year rolling plan that informs decision-making and demonstrates how objectives of the Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program commitments will be resourced and funded. It outlines Council’s ability to deliver cost-effective services to our community with a focus on financial sustainability.

 

The draft Resourcing Strategy 2022-26 is included as Attachment 4. Given the timing constraints already referenced in this report it is proposed to brief councillors on the Resourcing Strategy during the DPOP public exhibition period. Feedback from Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee will also be sought during this period in relation to the Draft Long Term Financial Plan and reported back to Council along with the any public submissions received.

 

Community Engagement

A community engagement strategy has been prepared to ensure that the community can be informed about the contents of the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Budget, and Fees & Charges. These engagement activities are included in the Stage 2 plan for the review and update of the Community Strategic Plan and is included as an attachment to that report.

The engagement strategy includes a range of communication activities including advertising, media opportunities, digital promotions and information distribution, contact through CCBs, Advisory Committees and through Council’s community engagement portal ‘Get Involved’.

The exhibition will be promoted at scheduled community engagement sessions occurring throughout the 28-day period. Submissions will be able to be provided to Council online through our community engagement page, via email or in written form.

 

Conclusion

In is recommended that Draft 2022/23 Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Resourcing Strategy as presented in the report be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.210   Draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 - Public Exhibition

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/136526

 

Department:       Corporate Performance & Reporting

Approver:           Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance 

Attachments:     1.  Draft Community Strategic Plan 2032 (councillors information folder)

2.  Draft CSP - Community Engagement Report Stage 1 (under separate cover)

3.  Draft CSP DPOP - Community Engagement Plan Stage 2 (under separate cover)   

Reason for Report

Each Local Government Area is to have a Community Strategic Plan that has been developed and endorsed by the Council on behalf of its community. Council must review the Community Strategic Plan before 30 June in the year following an ordinary election of Council.

The current Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2027 has been reviewed and updated with the draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 being presented to Council for endorsement for public exhibition and invite further community feedback.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Endorse the Draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 for the purpose of placing on public exhibition for a period of 28 days to seek further community feedback

2.    Receive the ‘Stage 1 Community Engagement Report for the Community Strategic Plan Review’ for information

3.    Endorse the Community Engagement Plan for Stage 2 of the Community Strategic Plan Review

4.    Thank the community for their participation to date and invite further feedback during the public exhibition period

5.    Receive a report on feedback from the community on the Draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 following the public exhibition period.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: Public exhibition and proposed engagement activities can proceed in a timely manner to ensure the updated Community Strategic Plan is endorsed within legislative timeframes.

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes and could postpone exhibition period. Any further amendments can be incorporated following the public exhibition period.

Background

Local Councils in NSW are required to undertake their planning and reporting activities in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021. The Act and Regulation provide guidelines for Councils to follow to ensure community involvement is central to the formation of strategic plans that drive Council’s long-term planning and day to day operations.

The Community Strategic Plan (CSP) is the community’s plan for the Shoalhaven. It has a minimum ten-year timeframe and should reflect the community’s aspirations (needs and wants) for the Shoalhaven. Council’s role in the production of the CSP is to facilitate its development and produce the document. It should be very clear that the CSP is not a Council plan but a community plan. While Council will use the CSP as a guide for creating other plans it is important to note that other State and Federal Agencies will also use the CSP to develop their own Strategies and Plans for the Shoalhaven.

Following an ordinary election, Council may endorse the existing plan, or develop and endorse a new Community Strategic Plan, as appropriate, to ensure that the area has a Community Strategic Plan covering at least the next 10 years.

The current Community Strategic Plan 2027 was endorsed by Council in June 2017. At the Strategy & Assets Committee of 12 October 2021, Council endorsed an approach to review the current CSP to ensure it captures contemporary and appropriate themes (MIN21.718). This endorsed plan can be referenced as the Community Engagement Strategy for the purposes of section 402A of the Local Government Act.

This report includes the outcomes of the community engagement activities to date, outlines any updates to the CSP themes and priorities and presents the Draft Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2032 to be endorsed for public exhibition.

 

Snapshot of proposed amendments

Following input through community engagement activities, consultation with stakeholders, Councillors and staff, updates are proposed to the Community Strategic Plan.

Significant changes have been made to Council’s 4-year Delivery Program Objectives throughout this process and these are outlined in a separate report.

The following table outlines the proposed updates to the themes and priorities from the current CSP 2027 to the updated CSP 2032. Highlighted text indicates the proposed changes and brief rationale included. The draft CSP Shoalhaven 2032 is included as Attachment 1.

CSP 2027 Theme/Priority

Draft CSP 2032 Theme/Priority

Rationale for change

1. Resilient, safe and inclusive communities

1. Resilient, safe, accessible & inclusive communities

Accessibility included in theme as important priority.

1.1 Build inclusive, safe and connected communities

1.1 Support inclusive, safe and connected communities

Change to reflect numerous community-led initiatives occurring.

1.2 Activate communities through arts, culture and events

1.2 Preserve, support and develop cultural and creative vitality across our communities

Broaden the statement to note the different ways to foster creative and cultural vitality. 

1.3 Support active, healthy liveable communities

 

1.3 Support community wellbeing through fostering active and healthy communities

Inclusion of ‘wellbeing’ to widen the definition.

2. Sustainable, liveable environments

2. Sustainable, liveable environments

No change proposed.

2.1 Improve and maintain road and transport infrastructure

2.1 Manage our infrastructure and assets for long term sustainability to meet community need

Broaden to include all infrastructure and reference importance of meeting community need.

2.2 Plan and manage appropriate and sustainable development

2.2 Manage growth and development with respect for environmental & community values

Recognition that there are a variety of community values that need to be respected as our area grows and develops.

2.3 Protect and showcase the natural environment

2.3 Protect the natural environment and enhance sustainability

Strong feedback to include sustainable use of resources and mitigation of carbon emissions. 

3. Prosperous communities

 

3. Thriving local economies

Feedback that prosperous was ambiguous meaning across community.

3.1 Maintain and grow a robust economy with vibrant towns and villages

3.1 Strengthen and diversify the economy

Refocus on importance of economy and providing employment opportunities close to home.

 

3.2 Deliver safe, vibrant & attractive public spaces

New priority included to recognise that well designed public spaces are crucial for activation of local economies.

4. Responsible governance

 

4. Effective, Responsible & Authentic Leadership

Broaden to elevate importance of leadership being authentic and effective.

4.1 Deliver reliable services

 

4.1 Deliver reliable, high quality services

Provision of quality services are important.

4.2 Provide advocacy and transparent leadership through effective government and administration

4.2 Provide transparent leadership through effective government and administration

Advocacy included in leadership definition. New objectives included in Delivery Program.

4.3 Inform and engage with the community about the decisions that affect their lives

4.3 Inform and engage with the community about the decisions that affect their lives

No change proposed.

 

 

 

Outcomes of Stage 1 Community Engagement

The community can contribute to the development of the Community Strategic Plan through a variety of mechanisms. The following schematic outlines the main feedback channels in which the community can contribute.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 public health restrictions, many face to face engagement methods were explored, but did not eventuate.

The stage 1 engagement included activities to get community members to think about and answer the following questions:

·    What do you love about Shoalhaven City?

·    What would you like to see in Shoalhaven City by 2032?

·    What would you like to see less of in Shoalhaven City by 2032?

·    What are the challenges facing Shoalhaven City in the next 5-10 years?

·    From the 10 Key Priorities in the current CSP, select the 3 most important priorities to you

 

Overview of Engagement Numbers

·    14,100 postcards to raise awareness

·    12,607 people reached through social media, 86 comments

·    1,000 visits to Get Involved Project Page

·    350 detailed survey responses

 

Consideration of previous consultations

Analysis was undertaken from relevant engagement activities that have taken place over the last 18 months so that findings could be incorporated into the CSP review. This exercise helped mitigate against engagement fatigue in the community and demonstrates the appreciation Council has for the valuable feedback our community provides to us.

The following consultations involved over the input of over 1600 participants:

·    Community Satisfaction Survey 2020

·    Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS)

·    Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) (in development)

·    Shoalhaven Community Wellbeing Plan (in development)

·    Community Voices Survey

·    Recovery Into Resilience Project (RRP) Survey

The engagement report outlines the main themes from these consultations which were considered in the review and update of the CSP themes and key priorities. 

 

Assessment of Community-Led Strategic Plans

Since 2013, there have been several community-led strategic plans which have been developed by communities across the Shoalhaven. An assessment was undertaken on the alignment of these Community-led strategic plan priorities as part of update of the CSP and development of Council’s Delivery Program. The following community plans were assessed to ensure alignment with the draft CSP 2032 priorities:

·    Shoalhaven Heads - Our Future - Strategy 2013

·    Berry Community Strategic Plan 2016

·    Conjola District strategic Action Plan 2014-2030

·    Sussex Inlet and District strategic Action Plan 2015-2030

·    Bay and Basin Community Led Strategic Plan 2021

Red Head Villages Association are in the process of developing a community-led Masterplan with the support of Council funding. The assessment of community plans key priorities against the draft CSP 2032 priorities is included in report included as Attachment 2.

 

What our community said

The draft CSP 2032 outlines the main areas the community love about living in the Shoalhaven, what they want to see into the future and what they are concerned about. Also outlined is a summary of the key challenges for our area.

The complete Stage 1 Community Engagement Report is included as Attachment 2.

 

Community Engagement and Communications Plan - Stage 2

Due to the easing of COVID-19 public health restrictions, public awareness events are proposed to be held at places that the community congregate such as markets and shopping areas. 

Key engagement activities will include:

·    Information stalls at:

Tomerong Markets - 21 May

Marriott Park Markets - 28 May

Mollymook Beach Markets - 29 May

Jervis Bay Maritime Museum Winter Morning Markets - 4 June - TBC

Berry Country Fair - 5 June - TBC

·    Online feedback form on Council’s Get Involved page

·    Social media posts and advertisements to raise awareness and drive traffic to Get Involved page

·    Promotional flyers at Council facilities

·    Targeted invitations to provide feedback from State Agencies, Council advisory committees and Community Consultative Bodies

The Stage 2 Community Engagement and Communications plan is included as Attachment 3.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.211   Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns - April 2022

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/151301

 

Department:       Business Assurance & Risk

Approver:           Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance  

Reason for Report

To provide the Council with the Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns from newly designated persons lodged with the Chief Executive Officer for the period of 1 April to 30 April 2022 as required under Section 440AAB of the Local Government Act 1993 and Part 4.26 of the Model Code of Conduct.

 

Recommendation

That the report of the Chief Executive Officer regarding the Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns lodged for the period of 1 April to 30 April 2022 be received for information.

 

Options

1.    As Recommended

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

 

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

Implications:  Not known

 

Background

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

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

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

Part 4.26 of the Model Code of Conduct states:

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

This report is one of a series of reports of this nature which will be provided throughout the year to align with the legislative requirements.

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

 

Directorate

Name

Designated Position Start Date

Returned

City Development

Anne McDonald

12/03/2022

12/04/2022

City Performance

Juanita Sheldrick

31/01/2022

13/04/2022

City Development

Teresita Chan

11/04/2022

21/04/2022

City Development

Blaire Burke

21/03/2022

22/04/2022

City Services

Judi Douglas

27/01/2022

22/04/2022

City Development

Kate Balding

14/03/2022

27/04/2022

City Performance

Debra Webb

17/01/2022

29/04/2022

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

 

Risk Implications

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

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.212   Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Planning Proposal (PP063) to Amend LEP Clause 7.25  - Part of Lot 1 DP 1257338, Moss Vale Road, Kangaroo Valley

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/162740

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  WaterNSW submission - PP063

2.  RFS submission - PP063

3.  Post exhibition version - PP063 - Clause 7.25 amendment (under separate cover)

4.  Submission Summary - PP063 - Clause 7.25 Amendment - Moss Vale Rd, KANGAROO VALLEY   

Reason for Report

·    Present the public exhibition outcomes for this Planning Proposal (PP) to amend/clarify the existing Clause 7.25 of Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2014, to allow the Strata subdivision of the designated multi-dwelling housing (MDH) lot.

·    Obtain endorsement to finalise the attached post-exhibition version of PP063 and proceed to amend the LEP.

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Adopt and finalise the attached version of Planning Proposal PP063 to Amend Clause 7.25 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 that applies to part of Lot 1 DP 1257338, Moss Vale Road, Kangaroo Valley.

2.    Liaise with the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to amend the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 using Council’s delegation.

3.    Advise the proponent and other stakeholders, including adjoining landowners and those who made a submission, of this decision and when the LEP amendment is made.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option and will enable the LEP amendment to be finalised. This is consistent with previous Council resolutions and the submissions received during the exhibition period. The attached post-exhibition version of the PP incorporates additional information to address a submission from a neighbouring landowner. This additional information does not alter or impact on the intent of the exhibited PP or the proposed LEP amendment.

 

2.    Make an alternate resolution.

Implications: Will depend on the nature of any resolution.

 

Background

The subject land comprises land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential and E3 Environmental Management within Lot 1 DP 1257338. Two small areas of Lot 1 DP 1257338 zoned RU1 Primary Production are not included in the subject land. Lot 1 is surrounded by RU1 and RE1 Public Recreation zoned lots.

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Subject Land

The subject land does not have direct frontage to Moss Vale Road. Access to Moss Vale Road is gained via a 25m-wide Right-of-Carriageway over the adjacent Council-owned Lot 16 DP 773481, which is zoned RE1 Public Recreation. The current minimum lot size (LSZ) for the subject land is 3,000 m2 in the western portion of the site, correlating with the R5 Large Lot Residential zoned land, and 40 ha over the remainder of the land.

A previous proponent-initiated PP over this land resulted in Amendment No. 5 to the LEP in August 2015. This amendment inserted LEP Clause 7.25 and added the land to the associated local clauses map overlay.  Clause 7.25 conditionally permits subdivision of part Lot 1 DP 1257338 into a maximum of 12 lots, one of which is intended for multi dwelling housing, comprising no more than six (6) dwellings.

On 23 December 2019, Council approved a Torrens Title subdivision (SF10697) of Lot 14 DP 773481 into nine (9) lots. Following the consolidation of Lot 14 DP 773481 with an unformed road portion, to form Lot 1 DP 1257338, an application to modify the consent (DS20/1603) was approved on 27 April 2021, allowing a twelve (12) lot Torrens Title subdivision – see Figure 2.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 2. Extract from the stamped approved plans

(Note: the designated multi dwelling site is highlighted in yellow and is affected by easements and restrictions as to user relating to access and the location of buildings and bin enclosures)

 

A request to undertake this proponent-initiated PP was submitted to Council by consultants, on behalf of the landowners, on 25 August 2021. The PP request sought to permit Strata subdivision of the multi-dwelling lot currently permitted by Clause 7.25(3)(a) of the LEP. Note: The proposed amendment does not seek to increase the number of dwelling entitlements.

Council initially considered the PP request on 5 October 2021 and resolved (in part) to:

1.         Support the Planning Proposal (PP) request to amend Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014) consistent with the explanation of provisions outlined in this report, primarily to permit Strata subdivision of the designated multi dwelling housing lot that was approved under LEP Clause 7.25, without increasing the number of dwellings.

2.         Prepare and submit the required PP documentation to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for Gateway determination, and dependent on the outcome proceed to exhibit the PP and report back to Council post-exhibition.

Council subsequently received a favourable Gateway determination from the then NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for the PP on 29 November 2021, which enabled it to proceed, subject to early consultation with the following public authorities and public exhibition (28 days):

·    NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

·    WaterNSW

 

Feedback from Public Authorities

Formal submissions were received from the RFS and WaterNSW who raised no objections to the PP.

WaterNSW

Two submissions were received from Water NSW: an initial submission highlighted potential uncertainty around timing of necessary Water and Sewerage connections, and establishment of an effective storm water management system, within a future Strata subdivided multi-dwelling housing lot.

After discussing Water NSW’s initial concern with Council Development Assessment officers, clarification was provided. Water NSW subsequently confirmed that the issues can be suitably resolved during the development assessment process for the future subdivision.

A copy of WaterNSW’s second submission is provided as Attachment 1.

 

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

RFS reviewed the proposal with regard to Section 4.4 of the Ministerial Directions issued in accordance with Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and provided comments which raised no objection to the proposal subject to a requirement that the future subdivision of the land complies with Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019. Compliance with Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 will be assessed through the Development Application process.

A copy of the RFS submission is provided as Attachment 2.

 

Community Feedback

One submission was received from an adjoining landowner during the exhibition period. This submission did not object to the proposal, however, it identified minor grammatical errors in the PP and raised concerns that future easements burdening the multi-dwelling housing lot (Lot 12) were not adequately described in the PP document and that future maintenance burdens are not resolved. The matters raised are summarised and commented on below:

1.    Expresses concern that the PP document does not provide sufficient clarity with regards to the existing Right of Carriageway (ROC) that burdens Lot 12 in favour of surrounding Lots.

       Staff Comment - Noted. The updated PP document includes additional text to make it clearer that the designated multi dwelling lot is affected by a right of carriageway (ROW) and restrictions as to user.

2.    Expresses concern that the responsibility for the management burden of the existing, and future extension of, the ROC has not been established.

Staff Comment - Noted. Apportionment of infrastructure management burdens will be addressed within the development application stage of the Strata subdivision.

Additional information has been included in the revised PP to address the above issues where required – see Attachment 3 (separate cover).

A more detailed summary of the submissions and a Council staff response is included as Attachment 4. The landowner submission can be provided to Councillors if needed.

 

Community Engagement

The PP was publicly exhibited on Council’s website and the NSW Planning Portal between 23 February 2022 and 25 March 2022 (inclusive).

The exhibition package included:

·    Planning Proposal (PP063) document

·    Explanatory statement

·    Gateway determination

·    Exhibition notification

Outcomes from public authority consultation and the public exhibition are summarised and discussed above.

 

Conclusion

This PP seeks to amend Clause 7.25 to Strata subdivision of the designated multi-dwelling housing (MDH) lot on the subject land. It does not seek to allow any additional dwelling entitlements beyond what was intended through the original PP that was finalised over this land in 2015.

No relevant objections were received during the exhibition period, and it is now appropriate to finalise this PP and proceed to amend the LEP accordingly.

 

Policy Implications

Clause 7.25 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 conditionally permits subdivision of part Lot 1 DP 1257338 into a maximum of 12 lots, one of which is intended for multi dwelling housing, comprising no more than six (6) dwellings.

The PP seeks to amend Clause 7.25 to allow 12 Torrens Title Lots and 6 Strata Title Lots (a maximum of 18 resulting Lots). Further, subject to advice from Parliamentary Counsel, additional wording may be included to clarify that multi-dwelling housing is permissible on the site (as it is not a permissible use within the applicable R5 land use zone).

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Text, letter

Description automatically generated

A picture containing background pattern

Description automatically generated


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with low confidence

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.213   Tenders - Albatross Aviation Technology Park - Non-Potable Water Storage Tanks for Firefighting Reserves

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/169001

 

Department:       Economic Development

Approver:           Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures  

Reason for Report

The reason for this report is to inform Council of the tender process, the evaluation and proposed awarding of contracts for the construction of a non-potable water storage tanks for Industrial firefighting at the Albatross Aviation Technology Park.

In accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, some information in this regard should remain confidential as it would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information as it may reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional, or financial interests. This information will be considered under a separate confidential report.

 

Recommendation

That Council consider a separate confidential report “Tenders – Albatross Aviation Technology Park – Non-Potable Water Storage Tanks for Firefighting Reserves” in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Options

1.    Consider the separate confidential report.

Implications: Full details of the tendering process is provided in the confidential report to enable Council to make an informed decision in this regard.

Background

The Albatross Aviation Technology Park (AATP) was established by Council in the mid-1990s to leverage off the Department of Defence (DoD) contracting out the supply of new rotary wing aircraft platforms and the through life support for these platforms. Other defence support activities have also been secured by Council to operate from this specialised industrial estate adjacent to HMAS Albatross to the southwest of Nowra.

The NSW Government has been very supportive of this project and have granted to Council several financial packages to assist in the development of this defence support industrial park. This assistance has been instrumental in the initial extension of utility services (electricity, water and sewer) to Yerriyong being at least 4km from trunk mains. Several years ago, again the NSW Government provided assistance to augment the electricity supply.

The subdivisional work, now into Stage 5, has been undertaken by Council including the provision of a taxiway to link the industrial activities to the runways of HMAS Albatross.

The provision of water to the AATP is maintained by a watermain coming directly into the AATP from Nowra Hill. However, the difference in relative heights of the Shoalhaven Water supply facility and the AATP has limited the waterflow and three factories have had to install offline water storage (on-site tanks) to augment the water supply in case of a fire. Special firefighting water supply requirements are required by DoD whenever Commonwealth assets are housed or stored inside a building/hangar and these requirements are beyond the capacity of the existing municipal water supply reticulation system to meet.

The solution is to instal an offline storage capacity that is pumped throughout the AATP so that in the case of a fire this system can continue to top-up the onsite storage tanks and suppress the fire as designed for that purpose at each individual industrial situation.

This RFT has been designed and sought to be implemented alongside a separate Fire Reticulation system RFT to be awarded within the requirements of that RFT.

Stage 5 and Stage 6 of AATP developments requires an integrated approach to incorporate the overall fire services into the design to all buildings.

 

Community Engagement

Stakeholders for this asset provision are primarily the DoD and the industries that build and maintain DoD assets within the AATP. Other agencies such as Fire and Rescue and the local Rural Fire Service brigade will be advised of how this system will operate during an industrial factory fire.

It should be noted that this non-potable water supply will not be available for general use within the AATP, nor will it be available for fighting rural fires.

 

Policy Implications

The project forms one of a number of Economic Development projects across the city to create employment and stimulate economic activity that will grow the Shoalhaven economy.

Connection fees and annual testing charges will be levied on the industries utilising the system.

 

Financial Implications

The current combined AATP projects have an estimated total budget $6,750,000 and is substantially grant funded, utilising the NSW Growing Local Economy funding program. Council’s contribution which will amount to 25% of the total is coming from Council’s Industrial Land Development Reserve.

The NSW Government’s financial grant to Council is primarily to build both the tank storage facility and to reticulate the system throughout the AATP.

 

Risk Implications

The construction of the tank storage and water reticulation are engineering works of a nature commensurate with the supply of water in situations where pressurised mains are used to maintain water at Council’s water storage facilities. Aspects of the system will be regularly tested by Shoalhaven Water to ensure operational functionality when required.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.214   Tenders - Sustainable Tourism Projects - Bherwerre Wetland

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/117830

 

Department:       Technical Services

Approver:           Paul Keech, Director - City Services  

Reason for Report

To inform Council of the tender process for 68611E - Design and Construction Bherwerre Wetland Boardwalks.

In accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, some information should remain confidential as it would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information as it may reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional, or financial interests. This information will be considered under a separate confidential report.

 

 

Recommendation

That Council considers a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Options

1.    Accept the recommendation

Implications: Consider a separated confidential report on the matter

 

2.    Alternative recommendation.

Implications: No opportunity to assess and make an informed decision on the tender process and results.

 

Details

Project Description

The design and construction of 1,700m of boardwalks throughout the Bherwerre Wetlands in Sanctuary Point. This project is Deliverable 4 of the Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Grant Package.

Tendering

Council called tenders for Design and Construction Bherwerre Wetland Boardwalks on 11 January 2022 which closed at 10:00 am on 15 February 2022. Seven tenders were received at the time of closing. Tenders were received from the following:

Tenderer

Location

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd

Regents Park, NSW

ByGroup Pty Ltd

Sanctuary Point, NSW

Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd

Kembla Grange, NSW

GC Civil Pty Ltd

St Georges Basin, NSW

Jirgens Civil Pty Ltd

South Nowra, NSW

Steelworks Engineering Pty Ltd

Berkeley Vale NSW

Zauner Pty Ltd

Ulladulla, NSW

 

Details relating the evaluation of the tenders are contained in the confidential report.

 

Policy Implications

Nil. The tender process has followed the requirements under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Financial Implications:

Details of the Financial implications are contained in the confidential report.

 

 

Risk Implications

Details relating to the Risk Implications are contained in the confidential report.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.215   Review of Waste Services Policies

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/157693

 

Department:       Commercial Services

Approver:           Paul Keech, Director - City Services 

Attachments:     1.  Attachment A - Waste Management - Disaster Recovery Policy

2.  Attachment B - Waste Disposal - No Charge Tipping Vouchers

3.  Attachment C - Garden Waste Mulch - Community Assistance Policy   

Reason for Report

All Public and Local Approval Policies are to be submitted to Council within 12 months of the election of Council. These policies are proposed for reaffirmation with respect to Waste Services responsibilities

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Adopt the following revised policy documents as attached to the report: 

a.   Waste Management - Disaster Recovery Policy,

b.   Waste Disposal - No Charge Tipping Vouchers

c.   Garden Waste Mulch - Community Assistance Policy

2.    Rescind the No Charge Tipping of Storm Damaged Materials at Waste Depots Policy as the provisions of that policy have been incorporated into the revised Waste Management  - Disaster Recovery Policy.

 

 

Options

1.    Adopt the recommendation as written.

Implications: Minor changes will be made to maintain currency. Specific details of changes are outlined further below

 

2.    Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Council can request further details, seek further community input or make other changes

 

Background

All Public and Local Approval Policies are to be submitted to Council within 12 months of the election of Council.  The following amended policies (attached) are presented to Council for consideration:

·    Waste Management - Disaster Recovery Policy (based on a combination of “No Charge Tipping of Storm Damaged Materials at Waste Depots Policy POL16/168 and Waste Management - Disaster Recovery Policy POL16/128) (Attachment ‘A’),

·    Waste Disposal - No Charge Tipping Vouchers Policy (previously POL 16/169) (Attachment ‘B’),

·    Garden Waste Mulch - Community Assistance Policy – (previously POL 16/170) (Attachment ‘C’),

The policies provide a framework and guidelines for staff when administering requests in respect to these matters.

Proposed changes to policies

Combine the two policies, “No Charge Tipping of Storm Damaged Materials at Waste Depots” and “Waste Management - Disaster Recovery Policy ”, into one policy.

The no-charge tipping of storm damaged materials policy was initially adopted in October 2002, following a significant windstorm event, but only relates to waste from windstorms.  The disaster recovery policy was introduced in 2016 to cover waste produced as a result of significant flooding but incorporates waste produced through other large scale natural disasters, including flood, windstorm or tempest, earthquake, tsunami, heatwave, landslides, bushfire, plant and animal disease or plague, and pandemic.  

The combined policy provides a pre-determined threshold that will empower Council staff to waiver the tip fees for disaster generated waste at the Recycling and Waste Depots.  This will reduce delays in waiting for a decision and improve customer service. 

Any costs incurred by Waste Services need to be accounted for within the Waste Operations annual budget.  Costs include staff costs, sorting, transport, machinery, and any material processing costs.  The EPA levy may need to be paid to the State Government in instances where they have not acknowledged the event to be a Natural Disaster.  Currently a nominal provision of $50,000 is incorporated in each year’s annual budget

Waste Disposal - No Charge Tipping Vouchers 

The policy previously provided for two no charge tipping vouchers for domestic waste but has been revised to provide for four no-charge tipping vouchers (two vouchers for general domestic waste including green waste and two vouchers for green waste only) to be issued annually for each assessment which is charged for a domestic waste management service and for rural property owners not on a domestic waste management charge. 

The equivalent tipping fee value of no-charge vouchers during the 2020/2021 financial year was $3.53 million.  The funding for these vouchers is sourced primarily through the annual domestic waste management charge (DWMC) and should therefore only be distributed to residents who pay the annual DWMC.  The policy has been made more explicit on this.

Vouchers are specifically linked to the property paying the DWMC so cannot be used as a solution to provide support to people or groups with specific waste disposal needs.

Garden Waste Mulch - Community Assistance Policy –

The policy allows for Shoalhaven residents and community to collect processed garden waste mulch from any Recycling and Waste Depot, when available, for no charge.  The requirement is for persons to load themselves.  However, loading equipment is available at the three larger Depots (West Nowra, Huskisson and Ulladulla) if people would like the mulch to be loaded for them a nominal loading fee placed on the transaction. 

The policy allows for non-profit organisations to access the mulch at no charge following an approval process, to be approved by delegated authority to the Waste Services Manager.

The policy also allows for commercial use of the mulch at a charge per tonne.

 

Community Engagement

There is no statutory requirement to publicly exhibit any of the policies contained in this report.  Council may choose to do so should they consider any changes of significance.

 

Policy Implications

All policies included in this report are proposed for reaffirmation as the nature of the changes are minor and therefore have no implications or deviation from the intent of the existing approved policy.

 

Financial Implications

Changes proposed to the Policies will have no financial implications to current approved budget.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.216   Electric Vehicle Trial Update

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/167650

 

Department:       Commercial Services

Approver:           Paul Keech, Director - City Services  

Reason for Report

To provide an update to Council on the performance of the electric vehicles and future plans for further adoption.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Note the following key report findings:

a.    Existing range of electric vehicles are well suited and fit for purpose as pool vehicles that are typically used for short, local journeys.

b.    Existing driving range and charging time of current vehicles available represent a limitation for immediate expansion.

c.    Operational cost including depreciation is more than non-electric comparator vehicles.

2.    Maintain the existing three electric vehicles within the passenger fleet, with the CEO (Director City Services) authorised to continue monitoring of the market to identify suitable fit for purpose electric options to further supplement or expand the fleet as required.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended

Implications: Council will be able to take advantage of new technologies as they launch, reducing emissions, delivering greener services to the community.

 

2.    Maintain current fleet of 3 electric vehicles with no further growth

Implications: Council will miss out on emerging technologies, which could drive down costs, reduce carbon emissions and improve Councils environmental image.

 

3.    Withdraw the vehicles from the fleet and replace with ICE/Hybrid models

Implications: This is not recommended as per Option 2

 

Background

Following Council Minute MIN18.916, 3 Hyundai Konas full electric vehicles were purchased and delivered in June 2019. Two vehicles were allocated as pool vehicles for Council staff use, with the third allocated as the Mayoral Vehicle. A report (SA21.97) was provided in May 2021 on the first twelve months of the trial.

 

This report provides Council with the findings of the trial.

 

Update

As reported in May 2021, the first part of the trial found that

·    Electric vehicles are well suited for pool vehicles that are typically used for short, local journeys.

·    Operators find the vehicles comfortable, safe and drivable.

·    The range is a concern being 44% below specification.

·    Airconditioning and lights markedly impact the range.

·    The recharge is time consuming with fast charges still requiring ~9 hours.

·    Greenhouse gas generation is markedly below comparator vehicles.

·    Operational cost including depreciation is markedly more than comparator vehicles.

·    Servicing in Sydney is a further demonstration of market maturity and limited vehicle numbers resulting in increased cost and reduced availability

 

These findings continue to remain true, with the exception that a local motor mechanic has been qualified as an authorised electric vehicle service centre. The local servicing has significantly reduced the cost and downtime of servicing, as transportation to Sydney and return is no longer required, with the exception of any warranty or recall work.

 

To fully assess the cost of the trial, one of the cars was recently sent to Auction for sale, with a reserve figure set at 80% of the purchase price, in line with the other vehicles within the fleet. The vehicle reached a bid of $48,500 (including GST) and was sold. It is now proposed to replace this vehicle with another fully electric vehicle.

 

Taking into account the capital, servicing and charging costs, the vehicle cost is still higher than a similarly sized diesel vehicle, however the marked increase in fuel prices over the last six months reduces this difference significantly

 

The vehicles continue to be popular amongst staff when used and are highly suitable as pool cars. The current make-up of Council’s light vehicle fleet makes it difficult to roll out greater numbers of electric vehicles with the models available on the market – of the 177 passenger vehicles, only three meet the classification of “small car”, and 41 would be considered small SUVs. Of these, 13 vehicles are hybrid, and this number will continue to grow as current vehicles become due for replacement, with ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles no longer being offered for these categories.

 

The lack of local fast charging infrastructure continues to impact the ability for staff to use the vehicles for full days of travel, however there with commitments from the state government, energy distributors and private companies such ChargeFox, to increase this presence significantly over the next four years, this barrier will reduce over time.

 

 

State of the Market

There were 6752 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2022, accounting for 2.6% of the entire new car market. The Tesla Model 3 accounted for 65% of this number, with the remaining made up of 22 different models. Excluding Tesla – which did not report sales to VFACTS last year – there were 2335 new electric cars reported as sold, an increase of 141 per cent over the same period in 2021. Like their petrol and diesel counterparts, deliveries of electric vehicles have been severely impacted by global supply constraints, and this is expected to continue throughout the remainder of 2022

 

There are currently about 38 options for electric vehicles available in Australia, compared to 400 worldwide – this limited market is likely due to the lack of government measures like sales targets, phase-out dates for internal combustion engine cars, fuel efficiency standards for new cars and incentives.

 

Moving Forward

The electric space is a fast-moving and dynamic environment, with new models and technologies launching regularly. Council’s Fleet Services department monitor this space through dealer contacts, industry bodies and Local Government contacts.

 

As more options become available, both in the passenger vehicle market, as well as plant and equipment spaces, these will be tested and adopted based on fit for purpose and value for money criteria.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.194   Development Application - DA21/1834 - 14 Jay Street Culburra Beach - Lot 7 DP246986

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/156228

 

Department:       Certification & Compliance

Approver:           James Ruprai, Director - City Development 

Attachments:     1.  s4.15 Assessment Report (under separate cover)

2.  Draft Notice of Determination - Part Approval (under separate cover)

3.  Draft Notice of Determination - Approval (under separate cover)

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

5.  Architectural Plan Set & Colour Schedule (under separate cover)  

This report was deferred from the Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2022.

Description of Development: Demolition of existing structures, Construction of a Single Storey Dwelling and Detached Shed

Owner: V A Tracy & G G Tracy

Applicant: Hotondo Homes

Notification Dates: 17 August 2021 – 2 September 2021

No. of Submissions:  Seven (7) were received

Purpose / Reason for Consideration by Council

On 7 February 2022 Council resolved to call in development application DA21/1834 for determination citing public interest (MIN22.53). The application is for a new dwelling and detached shed. 

The application was previously reported to the Ordinary Council meeting on 26/4/2022 where it was resolved to defer the item to the Ordinary meeting of Council to be held on 9 May 2022 to allow Councillors to consider additional information (MIN22.277). This information relates to an amended landscape plan, and this is now incorporated into the report and Attachment 5 has been included for reference to the updated set of architectural plans.

Additional information as referred to in MIN22.277 has been submitted. This additional information removes the driveway access to the rear shed to increase the landscaped/permeable area. However, this additional area would still need to be utilised as a trafficable area for vehicle access to the proposed shed, furthermore, no additional information has been submitted that adequately addresses the wall height or setback issues. Therefore, the additional information has not materially changed the assessment outcome or recommendation.

As a result of the original and additional information presented, this report recommends the part approval of the dwelling component and refusal of the shed. As the stormwater issues for the site have not yet been resolved, the recommendation for part approval is via deferred commencement.

Recommendation

That Development Application DA21/1834 be determined by way of Part Approval and Part Refusal as follows: 

1.    The new dwelling component be approved by way of deferred commencement to allow for the resolution of stormwater considerations and subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

2.    The shed component be refused for the reasons outlined in Attachment 4 - DRAFT Notice of Determination, vis.

a.    The shed is inconsistent with the development controls set out in Chapter G12 of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014.

b.    The shed fails to adequately demonstrate compliance with the development controls set out in Chapter G2 of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014.

c.    The shed will have adverse amenity impacts on the built environment in the locality.

d.    The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

e.    The shed is not in the public interest.

 

Options

1.    The Application is determined in accordance with the Recommendation.

Implications: The application would be determined by way of part approval with the dwelling component being approved and detached shed component being refused. The application would also be determined via deferred commencement in that the applicant must provide satisfactory stormwater details and evidence that stormwater has been designed and considered in accordance with Chapter G2 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 to Council prior to the consent becoming operational. If the deferred commencement conditions are not satisfied within the specified timeframe (6 months) the consent would lapse.

Once determined, the applicant has the option to apply for a section 8.2 review of Council’s decision and/or could lodge an appeal with the NSW Land and Environment Court against Council’s decision.

2.    Refuse the Application 

Implications: The dwelling and shed would be refused on the grounds listed in the draft refusal consent (Attachment 4), having regard to section 4.15(1) considerations. Council would need to provide reasons for the refusal of the dwelling component.

The applicant would be entitled to seek a section 8.2 review of Council’s decision and / or could lodge an appeal with the NSW Land and Environment Court against Council’s decision.

3.    Approve the Application by way of deferred commencement subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Implications: Council would have to determine the grounds on which the application is to be approved. This would need to include reasons to support the development having regard to section 4.15 considerations. The application would be determined via deferred commencement in that the applicant must provide satisfactory stormwater details and evidence that stormwater has been designed and considered in accordance with Chapter G2 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 to Council prior to the consent becoming operational. If the deferred commencement conditions are not satisfied within the specified timeframe (6 months) the consent would lapse.

Under some circumstances, where a third party (i.e., an objector) considers there to have been a breach of law in the granting of a consent or application of the EP&A Act 1979, they may be able to seek to remedy or restrain an approval through the NSW Land and Environment Court under section 9.45 of the Act.

4.    Alternative Recommendation.

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

 

Location Map

A picture containing text, vending machine

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Location Map - Locality

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Location Map - Subject Site

Background

Proposed Development

The proposed development includes:

·    Demolition of the existing structures

·    Construction of a single storey dwelling

·    Construction of a detached shed

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Site Plan. Additional information as referred to in MIN22.277 showing updated plan removing driveway access to rear shed and increase landscaped/permeable area

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: Dwelling & Shed Elevations

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: Dwelling & Shed Elevations

Subject Land

The subject land is located at 14 Jay Street, Culburra Beach (Lot 7 DP 246986).

Site & Context

The subject site is located on the southern side of Jay Street and is legally identified as Lot 7 DP246986 and described as 14 Jay Street, Culburra Beach. 

The site is a regular shaped allotment of 651.29m².  The site has connections to town water and a reticulated sewer system.  Existing development on the site consists of a single storey dwelling and associated ancillary development.  Under the provisions of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 the subject land is zoned R2- Low Density Residential.

Chart

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 6: Zoning Map

 

A picture containing grass, outdoor, tree, sky

Description automatically generated

Figure 7: Photo of existing development on site viewed from Jay Street

History

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

(a)   DA20/1067 – previous application for detached metal shed: - Development application DA20/1067 for a detached metal shed on the subject site was lodged on 30 January 2020.

The proposed detached metal shed had a floor area of 104m² with a wall height of 4.9m and an overall height of 5.678m.  The proposed detached shed was setback 2.5m from the rear boundary.

Council staff advised the following as part of the assessment of DA20/1067 noting the proposed shed height, bulk and scale was not consistent with or sympathetic to the area:

Having undertaken a site inspection and reviewed the plans and documentation submitted in support of the above application, the following is required to be able to undertake a determination.

1.   Please provide a written statement detailing the proposed use of the detached shed. The application form has been completed stating the proposed use is “other”, but the use has not been further specified.

2.   Please confirm if a new driveway is proposed as part of this application.

3.   As the proposed wall height of 4.900 metres and an overall height of 5.678m is considered excessive within a residential area and not consistent or sympathetic to the bulk and scale of the existing development on the site, a photographic montage of the proposed shed as it relates to the site & surrounding dwellings is required. A written statement detailing how the size of the shed, used in conjunction with the dwelling, is appropriate for the garaging of residents vehicles is also required before a determination can be considered. An alternative to this is to amend the elevations to reduce the height of the shed for the area that sits above the two smaller roller doors. This would assist in reducing the bulk & scale of the detached shed.

4.   As the existing dwelling pre-dates our records, no information is available as to the current stormwater disposal system. As the existing system is to be relied upon for the new large roof area, please provide accurate details of the proposed method of stormwater disposal. Or alternatively the stormwater can be diverted to the street.

5.   Please provide a landscape plan. Consideration should be given to relocating the shed slightly further to the west of the site to allow for a visual landscaping barrier along the eastern boundary line to assist in reducing the impact of such a large shed within a residential area.

Development Application DA20/1067 was withdrawn on 15 April 2020.

(b)  DA21/1834 for a single storey dwelling and detached shed: - This is the current application, and it was lodged with Council on 29 July 2021.

Additional information was requested on 15 September 2021. The applicant was advised the bulk and scale of the proposed shed was excessive and would not be supported in its current form.

On 23 September 2021 the applicant provided a written response to the additional information seeking to justify the proposed detached shed.

On 16 November 2021 Council requested further information from the applicant. In this request, the applicant was advised the bulk and scale of the shed remained an issue together with the proposed stormwater drainage system being inconsistent with Chapter G2 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

There was ongoing correspondence between Council staff and the Applicant regarding the proposed development and requirements of Shoalhaven DCP 2014. The Applicant has sought to justify the size, bulk, height and reduced rear setbacks of the proposed detached shed. Council staff have advised the proposed shed is not supportable in its current form as it is not of an appropriate scale and is inconsistent with the objectives and relevant performance criteria set out in Chapter G12 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

On 7 February 2022 Council resolved to call in DA21/1834 for determination citing public interest (MIN22.53).

On 29 March 2022 Council staff requested the applicant address the stormwater considerations, previously outlined in the request for information on 16 November 2021. On 6 April 2022 the applicant provided a copy of a letter (dated 30 March 2022) sent to the adjoining landowner at 14 Park Row, Culburra Beach, requesting an easement. To date, a response has not been received from the adjoining landowner.

Issues

Landscaping, wall height, rear setbacks, bulk and scale of the proposed detached shed

The proposal does not comply with the acceptable solutions A19.1 (minimum landscaped area) A33.2 (wall height of detached shed) and A35.2 (rear setback for detached shed) in Chapter G12 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Council staff have considered the merits of the development and have concluded the proposed detached shed is not consistent with the objectives of the DCP or the relevant performance criteria.

Additional Information Requested: Landscaped area - Shoalhaven DCP Chapter G12

Additional information as referred to in MIN22.277 has been submitted. This additional information removes the driveway access to the rear shed to increase the landscaped/permeable area (Refer Figure 3). The subject site has an area of 651.29m2.

The minimum landscaped area required to comply with the development control is 30% (i.e., 195.4m2). The updated site plan now provides 34% landscaped area, and this now complies with the landscaping development controls. It should be noted that although this area is not hardstand it will likely need to be utilised as trafficable area to access the proposed rear shed.

Wall height of detached shed - Shoalhaven DCP Chapter G12

The proposed shed adopts a compliant gross floor area of 104m2.  However, the proposed shed has a wall height of 5.125m from natural ground level which does not comply with the 3m wall height acceptable solution. The proposal seeks a 2.125m (70%) departure to the maximum wall height development control set by Acceptable Solution A33.2.

The relevant control DCP objectives, performance criteria and acceptable solutions are noted below:

Objectives

i.    Ensure that the bulk and scale of new development is compatible with the existing streetscape amenity and the existing or desired future character of the area.

ii.    Minimise the visual impacts of elements of the development that exaggerate the built form and impacts negatively on desired future streetscapes.

iii.   Encourage design that ensures that the amenity of surrounding development is properly considered and not adversely impacted.

iv.  Allow adequate separation between buildings to promote natural light, solar access, ventilation, landscaping and privacy.

v.   Minimise the impacts upon the site and surrounding land following construction of non-habitable structures before the construction of a dwelling.

vi.  Retain the amenity of the public domain.

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solution/s

P33.1 The bulk and scale of new development, particularly on the perimeter of the development site, or where that locality or development site has heritage significance and/or distinctive character, is:

·    Compatible, consistent and sympathetic to the bulk and scale of existing development in the locality.

·    Sympathetic with the streetscape and complements the existing and desired future character of the area.

 

P33.2 The size of a garage, or other similar structure, used in conjunction with a dwelling is appropriate for the garaging of resident’s vehicles.

 

P33.3 The size of the non-habitable structure is appropriate for its purpose.

A33.2 The gross floor area and eave height of a garage, or other similar structure, complies with the provisions in Table 4.

 Table

Description automatically generated

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant provided the following commentary in support of their application:

Dear General Manager,

RE: Development Application DA21/1834 | 14 Jay St, CULBURRA BEACH | Lot 7 DP 246986 | Request for Information | Building Height of Shed Structure

1.    I refer to Council’s letter dated 15 September 2021.

2.    It is unfortunate to receive Council’s letter requesting additional information, which does not in fact request additional information. Rather, the letter requests a substantive change to a development application that is already wholly compliant with all relevant development standards and controls.

3.    It is also concerning that Council has seemingly not engaged with the detail contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) that accompanied the application or the detail of the operation of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (the DCP).

Council’s request

4.    Council suggests that the height of the proposed shed structure is excessive and is not consistent or sympathetic to the bulk and scale of the development on the site. Council goes on to request that the development be amended so as to reduce the height of the shed structure or remove it altogether as a component of the development.

5.    This is not a request for information. Respectfully, this is an unreasonable demand which has no legal or planning basis.

How to apply the DCP

6.    Most of the Chapters within the DCP contain ‘performance criteria’ and ‘acceptable solutions’.

7.    However, the relevant controls for the purposes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) are those controls identified as the ‘performance criteria’. The ‘acceptable solutions’ are not controls, but rather pre-determined circumstances in which compliance with the standard will be deemed to occur. This is an important distinction to make when determining if the application complies with the DCP.

8.    As was set out in the case of Houghton v Shoalhaven City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1195, where at [76] Commissioner Morris found [emphasis added]:

       The acceptable solutions are not mandatory controls or standards and, in accordance with the provisions of S79C(3A) of the EP&A Act, must be flexibly applied. The acceptable solutions are ways, if implemented ensure that the relevant performance criteria are satisfied.

9.    The same was said of Council’s acceptable solutions in the matter of Thomas v Shoalhaven City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1264, where at [22] the Court found:

       Acceptable solutions are provided as example of what council will accept for achievement of the relevant performance criteria. Alternatives may be proposed, if it can be demonstrated that the alternative will satisfy the design objectives and criteria.

10.   The position was made even more clear in the case of Platford v van Veenendaal and Shoalhaven City Council [2018] NSWLEC 27. In that case, Chief Justice Preston held:

       39. … The controls specify the Performance Criteria that must be met for ancillary structures. The Acceptable Solutions are ways in which those Performance Criteria can be met. In a sense, by meeting an Acceptable Solution, the ancillary structure is deemed to comply with the Performance Criteria. But the converse does not apply: …

       40. In this case, the Council Officer assessed that, although the ancillary structure of the boathouse arm, including the screen wall, did not meet the Acceptable Solution A22.1 (because the wall exceeded 3m in height), it nevertheless achieved the Performance Criteria, including P22.1. In this way, the ancillary structure could be described as being “compliant” with the controls for ancillary structures in s 5.3.8 of Shoalhaven DCP.

11.   It follows that, in the Court’s opinion, the acceptable solutions are not ‘standards’ for the purpose of section 4.15(3A), and it is not the acceptable solutions with which an application must comply.

12.   In other words, an application can fail to comply with the acceptable solution but still comply with the relevant standard in the DCP, being the performance criteria. To interpret it another way amounts to ‘an incorrect understanding of the controls’.

13.   However, if the acceptable solution is complied with, then the development is deemed to have achieved the performance criteria.

14.   Council cannot require the applicant to comply with a more onerous standard than that which is contained in the DCP. Section 4.15(3A)(a) of the EPA Act provides as follows:

       If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority—

       (a)           if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development

15.   If Council predicates a determination to refuse the application on the assertion that it fails to comply with the DCP because it fails to comply with the performance criteria, despite the application complying the acceptable solution, then Council’s determination will be in error at law. If my client submits a Class 1 appeal, Council may be ordered to pay my client’s costs, even though Class 1 proceedings are ordinarily a no costs jurisdiction.

The application of the DCP to the present development

16.   Council suggests that the height of the proposed shed structure is excessive. However, the DCP contains a development control with respect to building heights of ancillary structures. The SEE submitted with the application conveniently addresses this control for Council on page 28.

Excerpt from Statement of Environmental Effects:

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

17.   P34.1 of Chapter G12 of the DCP requires that the height of the ancillary structure (in this case a shed) is to be compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area. The corresponding acceptable solution to this control is contained at A34.1, which states: ‘Building heights must comply with Clause 4.3 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 or Shoalhaven LEP (Jerberra Estate) 2014’.

18.   The SEE also provides a compliance table on page 10, which identifies the maximum building height for the site under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP) as 8.5 metres.

19.   The proposed shed structure is proposed to be constructed at a maximum height of 6.1 metres which is approximately 70% of the maximum permissible height.

20.   Council’s DCP contains a standard with respect to building heights. That standard has a corresponding acceptable solution which requires only that the ancillary structure be no higher than the maximum building height identified in the SLEP.

21.   My client complies with this control.

22.   As a consequence of the operation of section 4.15(3A)(a) of the EPA Act, Council is not permitted to require that my client comply with a more onerous standard than that contained in A34.1.

23.   Council may well have formed the view that bulk and scale of the development being sympathetic to existing development remains a relevant contention. Unfortunately for Council, the DCP already addresses this issue and provides a standard which the application meets. The EPA Act prevents Council from pressing this issue further.

24.   I look forward to receiving Council’s positive determination of the application as soon as possible.

Discussion

A33.2 establishes acceptable solutions for gross floor area and wall height for an ancillary structure based on the zoning of the land (e.g., residential or rural) and lot size.

The Applicant’s letter discusses the difference between the acceptable solutions and performance criteria and identifies Shoalhaven DCP 2014 allows for a development to propose a performance-based solution where the acceptable solution has not been met, so long as the performance criteria are achieved.

The applicant has suggested in correspondence to Council that the proposal complies with A33.2 (wall height) as the shed does not include any eaves. This interpretation is not supported by staff as the intent of the control is to limit the size of the sheer face of a wall.

Council staff are of the opinion the proposed detached shed is not sympathetic to the low-density residential character of the area and the bulk and scale of the shed is not compatible with the surrounding residential land uses and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residences.

Consideration of the relevant performance criteria for A33.2 by staff is provided below:

Performance Criteria

Commentary

P33.1 The bulk and scale of new development, particularly on the perimeter of the development site, or where that locality or development site has heritage significance and/or distinctive character, is:

·    Compatible, consistent and sympathetic to the bulk and scale of existing development in the locality.

·    Sympathetic with the streetscape and complements the existing and desired future character of the area.

The proposed shed has a rear wall height of 5.125m and is located 0.9m from the rear boundary. This increased wall height of the proposed shed creates additional bulk and scale which contrasts with the existing development in the locality.

The reduced rear setback and topography of the site with the land sloping to the rear exacerbates the bulk and scale of the shed and will make the shed visually prominent from adjoining properties.

The development would result in a large Colourbond wall dominating the rear setback which will be prominent from adjoining properties. The bulk and scale and location of the proposed shed will compromise the amenity of adjoining residences and enjoyment of rear yards and private open space.

There are sheds on adjoining properties however, these appear to be smaller in height and have floor areas less than 50m2.  The bulk and scale of the shed is inconsistent with other sheds in the vicinity of the site.

If the proposed shed is to be approved, it will likely establish precedent for the local area which is not considered to be consistent with the existing and desired future character of the area.

 

P33.2 The size of a garage, or other similar structure, used in conjunction with a dwelling is appropriate for the garaging of resident’s vehicles.

The proposed shed consists of an area of 104m2, a wall height of 5.125m and an overall height of 6.15m.

Three roller doors provide vehicle access to the shed and the dimensions of these are as follows:

·    3m (h) x 2.876m (w)

·    3m (h) x 2.876m (w)

·    4.5m (h) x 4.3m (w)

The overall height of the shed is considered to be excessive for residential use in the context of the immediate residential locale.

 

P33.3 The size of the non-habitable structure is appropriate for its purpose.

There is no guarantee that the proposed shed, given its size/scale, would not be converted from or utilised contrary to the garaging of vehicles as ancillary to the premises dwelling. If approved, recommended conditions of consent will require the shed not be used for any commercial, industrial or habitable purposes.

 

Rear setback for proposed detached shed - Shoalhaven DCP Chapter G12

The proposed shed does not comply with the 3m rear setback acceptable solution (A35.2).  The proposed shed is setback 0.9m from the rear boundary for the full length of the shed and as such, seeks a 2.1m (70%) departure to the rear setback development control.

The relevant control objectives, performance criteria and acceptable solutions are as follows:

Objectives

i. Ensure that the bulk and scale of new development is compatible with the existing streetscape amenity and the existing or desired future character of the area.

ii. Minimise the visual impacts of elements of the development that exaggerate the built form and impacts negatively on desired future streetscapes.

iii.              Encourage design that ensures that the amenity of surrounding development is properly considered and not adversely impacted. iv. Allow adequate separation between buildings to promote natural light, solar access, ventilation, landscaping and privacy.

iv.             Minimise the impacts upon the site and surrounding land following construction of non-habitable structures before the construction of a dwelling.

v. Retain the amenity of the public domain.

 

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solution/s

P18.1 The front setback is generally consistent with adjoining development and does not undermine the integrity of the prevailing building lines.

P18.2 The location and siting of the building complements the existing setbacks in proximity to the site, foreshore (if applicable) and the streetscape.

P18.3 The proposed development is setback and of a scale that is relative to the street reserve width, in such a way to ensure pedestrians do not feel buildings are overbearing.

P18.4 Setbacks avoid loss of view, undue overshadowing and provide/maintain privacy (visual and acoustic), traffic safety and maintain adequate daylight and sunlight access.

P18.5 Adequate levels of light and ventilation to adjoining buildings, landscaping, services and infrastructure are protected.

P18.6 The proposal maintains adequate provision for on-site car parking.

 

35.2 Setbacks shall comply with the provisions in Table 2 (Section 6.1.2 of this Chapter), where the site is located in the following zones:

·    R1 General Residential.

·    R2 Low Density Residential, where the site area is less than 2000m2.

·    RU5 Village

·    SP3 Tourist

 

(See below table 2)

 

 

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant provided the following commentary in support of their application in the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application:

As the requirement to comply with Table 2 is set out in the acceptable solutions, a 3 metre rear setback for the shed is not a standard that it must technically meet.

More central to compliance is the need to remain consistent with the existing and desired future character of the area, particularly from the perspective of the street front.

The proposed shed only has a setback of 900mm, but it is not a structure used for habitable purposes. Moreover, the 900mm setback is consistent with development immediately south and adjacent to the rear boundary, where an existing shed of comparable style and dimension is also constructed approximately 900mm off the boundary. The existing shed poses no adverse impacts. It stands to reason that the proposed shed will also cause no adverse impacts.

As set out in the Note to Table 2, ‘Reduced setbacks may be considered where the prevailing street character permits and the future desired character of the area is not prejudiced’.

The applicant submits that the shed is in keeping and consistent with the existing character of development in the immediate vicinity and does not affect the street character in any way.

No variation is required. It is submitted here that the proposed shed complies with the performance criteria which constitute the control.

Discussion

Acceptable Solution A35.2 and the relevant performance criteria establish the setbacks requirements for an ancillary structure.

The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted by the applicant notes the proposed shed has a rear setback of 0.9m and suggests this is consistent with adjoining properties and therefore complies with the performance criteria.

While it is acknowledged some sheds on adjoining properties do have reduced setbacks, the proposed shed presents a different outcome, being a substantially larger shed with an increased wall height.  Additionally, the shed takes up the majority of the rear setback as compared to sheds on adjoining properties which appear to be less than 50 percent. 

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Figure 8: Aerial imagery of subject site noting small detached ancillary structures on adjoining properties. Subject site highlighted in blue and 12 and 18 Jay Street highlighted in yellow for clarity in discussion below.

The proposed shed dimensions, include a wall height of 5.125m, an overall height of 6.15m and an area of 104m2. The size of the shed, reduced setback and increased wall height have compounding impacts to the amenity of adjoining properties.

For comparison, ancillary structures on adjoining properties typically have floor areas ranging between 30m² to 60m², with wall heights of approximately 3m and peak building heights of 3m to 3.5m.

For example, the detached shed at 12 Jay Street is setback 0.9m from the rear boundary and 1.2m from the side boundary and has an approximate floor area of 40m² and a wall height of approximately 2.5m to 3m.

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Figure 9: Aerial imagery of existing detached shed at 12 Jay Street

A fenced in yard with trees and houses in the background

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 10: Photo of existing detached shed at 12 Jay Street

Similarly, the existing detached shed at 18 Jay Street is setback 4.5m from the rear boundary and 0.9m from the side boundary and has a floor area of 42m² and a wall height of 2.7m.

Figure 11: Aerial imagery of existing detached shed at 18 Jay Street

A picture containing tree, outdoor, area, surrounded

Description automatically generated

Figure 12: Photo of existing detached shed at 18 Jay Street

This design in its current form would negatively impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties as the dimensions proposed work to exaggerate the visual impact of the development.

The cumulative effect of the significant wall height in conjunction with the reduced setback proposed is not compatible with the future desired character of the area. The proposed development does not achieve the relevant performance criteria for these controls and given the height, size and setbacks, the proposed shed is not considered to be of an appropriate bulk and scale for the development site. Consideration of the relevant performance criteria for A35.2 by staff is provided below:

Performance Criteria

Commentary

P18.1 The front setback is generally consistent with adjoining development and does not undermine the integrity of the prevailing building lines.

This is not deemed to be relevant as the proposed shed is located behind the building line.

 

P18.2 The location and siting of the building complements the existing setbacks in proximity to the site, foreshore (if applicable) and the streetscape.

The proposed shed presents as a substantially larger structure in comparison to those observed on adjoining properties; sheds on adjoining properties appear to be less than 50m2.  This is particularly evident when considering the increased wall height in combination with the length of the shed, which extends for the majority of the rear boundary. Although some sheds are observed on adjoining properties with reduced rear setbacks, these are significantly smaller in height and size.

The bulk and scale of the proposed shed is inconsistent with other sheds in the vicinity and the reduced rear setback in this instance would contribute to its prominence when viewed from adjoining properties and would compromise the amenity of adjoining properties and their enjoyment of rear yards and private open space. 

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

 

P18.3 The proposed development is setback and of a scale that is relative to the street reserve width, in such a way to ensure pedestrians do not feel buildings are overbearing.

This is not deemed to be relevant as the shed is located behind the building line.

 

P18.4 Setbacks avoid loss of view, undue overshadowing and provide/maintain privacy (visual and acoustic), traffic safety and maintain adequate daylight and sunlight access.

The visual impacts of the shed are exacerbated by the reduced rear setback.  Along the rear boundary, the shed presents with a length of 13m, a rear wall height of 5.125m and an overall height of 6.15m. This would result in the proposed shed dominating above a 1.8m boundary fence. The amenity of the adjoining properties will be unduly impacted by the bulk and scale of the proposed shed. 

Also, the topography in the immediate vicinity of the location of the proposed Shed slopes towards Park Row with a fall between 1-2m, further exacerbating the amenity impacts for properties located south, south-east and south-west of the development.

Chart

Description automatically generated

The proposed detached shed will reduce solar access to adjoining properties; however, it is not considered to result in overshadowing impacts to habitable rooms and principal private open space above the acceptable levels outlined in Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

 

P18.5 Adequate levels of light and ventilation to adjoining buildings, landscaping, services and infrastructure are protected.

The proposed shed is located over an existing sewer main with a vertical junction.

Calendar

Description automatically generated

The application proposes to encase the sewer main and relocate the sewer manhole in order to accommodate the proposed shed. The applicant will need to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to ensure the Shoalhaven Water infrastructure is protected.

 

P18.6 The proposal maintains adequate provision for on-site car parking.

Adequate car-parking is provided on-site.  An attached garage is included as part of the single storey dwelling.

 

Stormwater disposal – Shoalhaven DCP 2014

The development application is proposing a charged line system to the street but has failed to provide the required documentation to support the concept stormwater design required under chapters G2 and G12 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant has advised the application complies with the stormwater requirements of Shoalhaven DCP 2014, noting in the Statement of Environmental Effects as follows:

The proposal complies. As set out in the notes of the Site Management Plan, guttering will be connected to the stormwater system or the rainwater tank as soon as practicable.”

Discussion

On 16 November 2021 the applicant was advised that to justify the use of a charged stormwater drainage system, it needs to be demonstrated that suitable efforts have been made to show that drainage to the street via gravity or creation of a drainage easement is not possible as required by A2.1 in Chapter G2 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Chapter G2 outlines the necessary steps to be satisfied that stormwater drainage via gravity or creation of an inter-allotment drainage easement is not possible and that a charged line is satisfactory:

On 6 April 2022 the applicant provided a copy of a letter (dated 30 March 2022) sent to the adjoining landowner at 14 Park Row, Culburra Beach, requesting an easement.

On 21 April 2022 a letter was provided to Council signed by the landowner of the property to the rear (13 Park Row, Culburra Beach).  The landowner is not willing to grant an easement. This means the applicant will need to provide a charged stormwater line to the street gutter. 

The deferred commencement approval would require the applicant to complete appropriate investigations to support a charge line to the street within six (6) months of the determination date.

Planning Assessment

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

Consultation and Community Engagement:

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

Key issues raised as a result of the notification include but were not limited to matters listed below:

Summary of Public Submissions

Objection Raised

Assessing Officer Comments

Permissibility and intended use of shed

Extracts of submissions received:

“I also would like to express my concern for the intended usage of the shed. Given the shed's dimensions and design (i.e., three large roller doors) as well as the applicant(s) ownership of a prime mover for a semi-trailer, it is fair to postulate that the shed is intended for commercial use. Commercial use is not a type of authorised usage within Zone R2 Low Density Residential applications. Should there be amendments reducing the total height of the shed to a maximum of 3M, in line with the Shoalhaven Development Plan 2014 to accompany their single storey dwelling, we would be supportive.”

 

I think the industrial sized and intended use of the shed (as mentioned in previous application that has now been withdrawn) will ruin the residential zoned area, create noise and most importantly create a danger hazard from the prime mover that will be housed within it. The prime mover with pose a risk because of its size and the limited space they are trying to drive it around in- putting young children from the street and from the community at great risk.”

 

“I am opposed and also disgusted with the development proposal for a large scaled commercial heavy vehicle maintenance shed. Is the exact same shed that was withdrawn by Mr & Mrs Tracy [landowners redacted] in early 2020 DA20/1067. I have several issues with the new DA that was been lodged on behalf of Mr & Mrs Tracy [landowners redacted] by Hotondo South Coast. They are renowned for having a prime mover parked in the street or in the bush across the road from their house and I must make aware to you that this street is zoned as R2.”

 

“I have had several other residents speak to me up of their concerns about this development surely a garage this large is more suited to a heavy industrial zoned area as looking at the plans it appears to take up over a third of the property and the proposed house already has a double garage.

 

I am extremely concerned about the development as it appears to be a second attempt to build a massive commercial shed /garage that due to its size makes me concerned that it will be used to work on large trucks as well as cars in a very quiet residential zoned area.”

 

“I welcome the investment in a new residential dwelling in the street, however the inclusion of a large 4.9m tall commercial heavy vehicle maintenance shed at the rear of the property is not in keeping with the residential nature of the surrounding area, and the failure to disclose this significant fact within the development application and SEE analysis is a significant concern.”

 

The size of the shed that is in this application (14 Jay St) is to house a prime mover for a semi-trailer. This is not residential - this is commercial. A truck this size going in and out of this property - a meter from our bedroom and loungeroom windows will not only destroy our peaceful existence - but it will no longer feel safe for our children to play and be on their push bikes etc. This is a residential street and should remain this way.”

The proposal includes a shed on R2-zoned residential land.  A shed is proposed to be used ancillary to the residential use of the land and is therefore a permitted land use within the zone. 

If approved, conditions of consent will be imposed requiring the shed not be used for any industrial, commercial or habitable purposes without separate development consent, or unless otherwise exempt under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 for a change of use.

Amenity Impacts resulting from Bulk and Scale of Shed

Extracts of submissions received:

“SLEP 2014 P34.1 & 35.1 - Incorrect SEE assessment - height and rear setback of heavy vehicle maintenance shed is not compliant, and the interpretation of previous case history is not applicable to this consent application.”

 

“The proposed total shed height is 5,939 with an approximate internal peak of 6,150. This is significantly higher than the maximum wall height of 3 metres for a garage in a Zone R2 low residential area (as stipulated in The Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter G12 Table 4 and Figure 10).”

 

“I really don't feel a 104m2 large scaled commercial heavy vehicle maintenance shed falls under this category. The size of this shed is also 5.939m at the ridge which exceeds the Height limit for a shed which is stated in The Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter G12 Table 4 and Figure 10 allows for a maximum wall height of 3 metres for a garage in a Zone R2 Low Residential area.”

 

 “I also feel the proposed development appears to be very close to our boundary fence this appears to be due to the extremely large driveway that I can only assume is of this size due to the size of vehicles that will be using it.”

 

“The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) that supports this DA is primarily focussed on the residential dwelling and has not explicitly considered the size and nature of intended use of the large 4.9m tall heavy vehicle maintenance shed at the rear of the property.”

 

It is view of Council’s assessment staff that the bulk and scale of the proposed shed is inconsistent with the development controls.

The proposed wall height compounded by the height of the drop edge beam is excessive in the residential context.  The visual impacts of the shed are exacerbated by the reduced rear setback.

The height, size and setbacks of the proposed shed is not considered appropriate bulk and scale.  The Shed is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area. 

Solar Access

Extracts of submissions received:

“This application is strikingly similar to DA20/1067 proposed in January 2020. This previous proposal included the shadow effects of the development which seems to be missed in this application. The shed in the DA20/1067 application had a height of 5,678; the newly proposed shed is almost 300 taller. This current application will have a dire impact on the environment (not meeting the requirement outlined in paragraph 8.2 around enhancing streetscapes) and will essentially "black out" out property for a significant period each day.”

The proposed detached shed will reduce solar access to adjoining properties; however, it will not result in overshadowing impacts to habitable rooms and principal private open space above the acceptable levels outlined in Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

The proposed development would maintain at least 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June to principal private open space and north facing living room windows and roof surfaces as required by acceptable solution A10.3 in Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

Gross floor area

Extracts of submissions received:

The development has more than 550m2 of either hard standing (driveway) or building (dwelling plus shed) on a lot size of 652m2 - well above the 50% allowed under SLEP 2014.”

“Site calculations are incorrect - they have not allowed for the floor area of the heavy vehicle maintenance shed. Gross building area including the shed is 297m2 (not including the hard standing driveway), not 188m2 as stated.”

Shoalhaven DCP 2014 sets a floor space ratio of 0.5:1 and a maximum floor area for sheds od 110m².

The proposed development complies with the FSR and shed GFA acceptable solutions outlined in Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

Impervious and hardstand area

Extracts of submissions received:

“SLEP 2014 P6.2.1 - Incorrect SEE assessment - calculations are incorrect. Building area (including heavy vehicle maintenance shed) is 297m2. Hard standing driveway is 256m2. Total area is 550m2 within a 652m2 lot size - this is not compliant.”

 

“I have an issue with the amount of hard stand and even to the new fill which is being brought in the raise the ground height this area already has a water issue. No allowance has been made for flood planning. Anecdotal evidence from neighbouring properties that flooding during rainfall is already problematic. The development has more than 550m2 of either hard standing (driveway) or building (dwelling plus shed) on a lot size of 652m2 - well above the 50% allowed under SLEP 2014. Also, the proposed area behind and next the shed and right-hand side next to our property must be taken into consideration as I'm sure it will be concreted, and no grass or soil will be placed there as nothing will grow there.”

 

 “I also have issue with the lack of green space this will adversely affect the native bird life a real draw card to this area as often there are large flocks of Black Cockatoos, Lorikeets and many other native bird species They have also spoken about raising the level of the land this ground holds a large amount of water when it rains, and I do not want the ground levels altered as it may result in my property being flooded.”

The subject site is not mapped as being Flood Prone Land however, with respect to the increase in hardstand/impervious areas, a development must provide adequate stormwater details and must not result in concentration of water onto adjoining properties.

The application has not been supported by sufficient stormwater details and appears to be proposing the use of charged stormwater lines to the street.

The departure to landscape area controls further reduces the amount of pervious area available on site.

Privacy Concerns and Siting of the Dwelling

Extracts of submissions received:

“The current dwelling has only one window on the right-hand side of the property currently and I must raise now there are 5 windows that will be looking onto no.12 I feel our privacy will be taken away from us.”

The proposed single-storey dwelling has provided appropriate setbacks on the western side of the building. Also, the rooms adjoining No. 12 Jay Street consist of bedrooms.  Bedrooms are considered low usage rooms, therefore the impact on privacy is considered minimal and consistent with the relevant development controls. 

The proposed dwelling maintains privacy to adjoining dwellings.

Noise generated from gas, water and air-conditioning infrastructure

Extracts of submissions received:

 

 “I also am concerned with the gas bottles so close to my boundary and their hot water unit why can’t it be placed at the back of their house near the tank.”

Council is satisfied the gas bottles and hot water unit are appropriately located on the site to minimise noise and acoustic impacts to neighbouring properties.

If approved, conditions of consent will require this infrastructure not cause “Offensive Noise” as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act).

 

Financial Implications:

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

Legal Implications

A section 8.2 review and/or an appeal with the Land and Environment Court are possible if the application is refused or determined by way of part approval.

Summary and Conclusion

The proposed detached shed that forms part of the development application seeks significant departures to acceptable solutions A19.1 (minimum landscaped area), A33.2 (wall height) and A35.2 (rear setback).

In addition, the application has not been supported by adequate stormwater justification or detail as required by Chapter G2 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

The cumulative impacts of the reduced landscaped area reduced rear setbacks and increased wall height relating to the proposed detached shed is not consistent with the objectives and relevant performance criteria set out in Shoalhaven DCP 2014 and the detached shed is considered to have significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.  The application has not demonstrated the development is compatible with the existing low density residential character and desired future character of the locality.

It is recommended the dwelling part of the application should be determined by way of Part Approval via deferred commencement.  This will allow for the resolution of the stormwater issues. 

It is recommended the departures sought to Chapter G12 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 in relation to the detached shed should not be supported and this part of the development should be refused.  The following reasons for refusal are provided:

1.         The proposed detached shed is inconsistent with the objectives and performance criteria specified in Chapter G12 of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

2.         The development application has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed detached shed will not have adverse amenity impacts on the built environment in the locality. (Section 4.15(1)(b) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3.         The information submitted with the development application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed detached shed (Section 4.15(1)(c) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

4.         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. (Section 4.15(1)(e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.217   SF10923 – 111 Elizabeth Drive Vincentia – Lot 228 25099

 

DA. No:               SF10923/4

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/109221

 

Department:       Development Services

Approver:           James Ruprai, Director - City Development 

Attachments:     1.  Notice of Determination - Draft Conditions of Development Consent

2.  Section 4.15 Planning Report (under separate cover)   

Description of Development:  One (1) into Two (2) Lot Torrens Title Subdivision

 

Owner:                                   Bruce Whatley & Rosemary Smith

Applicant:                              Allen Price & Scarratts Pty Ltd

 

Notification Dates:               Notification not required in accordance with Section 3.3.1, Table 2 of the Community Consultation Policy. (Note: the proposal is for subdivision of an existing approved development. There is no material change to the development.).

 

No. of Submissions:  Nil

 

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

In accordance with Planning System Circular No. PS20–002, the Secretary’s concurrence may not be assumed by a delegate of Council if the development contravenes a numerical standard by greater than 10% (a 28.42% variation to the development standard is proposed). Variations of this nature are instead required to be considered by the Council.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Confirm that it supports the clause 4.6 variation of 13.68% for Lot 1 and 28.42% for Lot 2, with respect to the lot size of the proposed subdivision.

2.    Approve the Development Application SF10923 for a one (1) into two (2) lot Torrens title subdivision of an existing and approved Dual Occupancy development at Lot 228 DP 25099 111 Elizabeth Drive, Vincentia, as detailed in the draft conditions of consent (Attachment 1) to this report.

 

 

Options

1.    That Council approve the recommendation as printed.

 

Implications: This would permit the subdivision of the subject site to go ahead.

It is considered that support of the development would not jeopardise or lead to an abandonment of the minimum lot size requirement under cl. 4.1.

 

This is due to the subdivision of dual occupancy development beneath the minimum lot size in the R1 General Residential and R2 Low Density Residential zone is permitted under cl. 4.1A(4).

 

Council has recently approved a similar DA at 68 Yeovil Drive Bomaderry (SF10873) at the Development & Environment Committee on 7 September 2021 [MIN21.623].

 

2.    Refuse the Development Application (DA).

 

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

 

3.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

 

Implications:

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

 

Location Map

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Locality Map

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 – Site Location

 

Background

Proposed Development

The proposed development is for a two (2) lot Torrens title subdivision of an approved detached dual occupancy via Clause 4.1 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014.

 

The dual occupancy development was approved on Lot 228 DP 25099 under DA19/2239 on 20 February 2020.

 

A subdivision plan prepared by Leslie & Thompson dated 8 October 2021 accompanies this proposal.

 

A summary of the proposed lots is as follows:

•     Proposed Lot 1 – is approximately 431.6m2 with approximate average width of 19.3m and depth of 22.9m that fronts Elizabeth Drive. This lot increases in width to the rear.

•     Proposed Lot 2 – is approximately 357.9m2 with approximate average width of 25.6m and depth of 14.2m that fronts Edward Street.

 

The proposal is for subdivision only and therefore, the physical environment does not change from what was proposed in DA19/2239.

 

No vegetation removal results from the proposal. The proposed subdivision can be seen below in Figure 3:

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 – Proposed Subdivision Layout

 

Lot Size Variation

The proposed subdivision is reliant upon a variation to the minimum lot size development standard under the SLEP 2014.

 

Under cl. 4.1 of the SLEP 2014 the site is constrained by a minimum lot size of 500m2.

 

The proposed development seeks development consent to vary the minimum lot size development standard pursuant to cl. 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards.

 

The parent lot area is approximately 790m2. and the subdivision creates the following non-compliant lot areas:

·    Proposed Lot 1 – 431.6m2

·    Proposed Lot 2 – 357.9m2

Proposed Lot 1 is 68.4m2 under the minimum lot size requirement. This is representative of a departure to development standard of 13.68%.

 

Proposed Lot 2 is 242.1m2 under the minimum lot size requirement. This is representative of a departure to development standard of 28.42%.

 

It is worth noting that despite being technically non-compliant with the minimum lot size requirement under cl. 4.1, the proposed development remains consistent with the SLEP 2014.

Under cl. 4.1A(4), the subdivision of dual occupancy development beneath the minimum lot size requirement is permitted with development consent. The provision of the SLEP 2014 was gazetted on the 11 August 2020 under amendment no. 35.

 

In this regard, if an application was lodged after the gazetting of amendment no. 35 to the SLEP 2014, for the erection of a dual occupancy and its respective subdivision at the subject site, the proposed development would be compliant with the SLEP 2014. However, this proposed subdivision is unable to be undertaken pursuant to this clause, as the dual occupancy approval was issued under a superseded and former version of the SLEP 2014.

 

Accordingly, under these circumstances, there is no utility in maintaining the minimum lot size development standard under cl. 4.1 in this case, as the respective subdivision for dual occupancy beneath the minimum lot size is permitted under cl. 4.1A (4).

 

Subject Land

The property is Lot 228 DP 25099 which is located at 111 Elizabeth Drive, Vincentia (Subject Site). The subject site is approximately 500m north from the Vincentia town centre and approximately 150m west of Jervis Bay.

 

The site has an area of 790.40m2, is irregular in shape and slopes slightly from the Eastern boundary to the Western boundary by approximately 0.4m.

 

Site & Context

The site currently contains two (2) class one (1) dwelling houses and is bounded by residential development to the north, south, east, and west.

 

The locality is made of up of a combination of zonings. The subject site and most of the lots south of Edward Street are zoned R1 General Residential and the lots to the north of Edward Street is zoned R2 Low Density Residential (see Figure 4).

 

Chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 4 – Zoning Map – SLEP 2014

 

Issue 1

Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size of SLEP 2014

The objectives of this clause are:

 

(a)  to ensure that subdivision is compatible with, and reinforces the predominant or historic subdivision pattern and character of, an area,

(b)  to minimise any likely impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

(c)  to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions are able to accommodate development consistent with relevant development controls.

The SLEP 2014 includes a minimum lot size map, which overlays different minimum lot size requirements for land throughout the Local Government Area (LGA).

 

A minimum lot size of 500m2 (I) applies to the site and can be seen in Figure 5.

 

Chart, surface chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 - Minimum Lot Size Map – SLEP 2014

 

Development Standard to be Varied

The application seeks a variation to clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size in accordance with clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014.

 

Clause 4.1 (3) states:

 

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

Extent of Variation

The parent lot area is approximately 790m2. and the subdivision creates the following non-compliant lot areas:

 

·    Proposed Lot 1 – 431.6m2

·    Proposed Lot 2 – 357.9m2

Proposed Lot 1 is 68.4m2 under the minimum lot size requirement. This is representative of a departure to development standard of 13.68%

 

Proposed Lot 2 is 242.1m2 under the minimum lot size requirement. This is representative of a departure to development standard of 28.42%.

 

Under clause 4.6(4) of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014, development consent is not permitted to be granted for development that contravenes a standard unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

These two items are addressed below.

Written Request Provided by the Applicant

The applicant has submitted a written request to justify the contravention of the development standard. Council is required to consider subclauses (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 4.6. Clause 4.6(3)-(5) are extracted from SLEP 2014 below:

 

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

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

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

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

a)   the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council must be satisfied that the abovementioned clauses have been addressed prior to granting development consent.

 

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

To assess whether compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, the Land and Environment Court (LEC) has provided guidance in the required assessment.

 

This guidance has particular reference to the accepted "5 Part Test" for the assessment in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 noting also the principles outlined in Winten Developments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 and further clarified by Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118.

The “5-part Test” is outlined as follows:

1.    The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard.

2.    The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

3.    The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

4.    The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

5.    The zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

The applicant does not rely on part 4 of the ‘5 Part Test’ as it is not considered applicable. The argument put forward is focussed on parts 1 – 3.

 

·    Part 1        The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard.

The following table outlines the respective objectives of the minimum lot size requirement and the applicant’s comments regarding how the proposed development is achieving the objective.

 

Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Objective

Applicant Comment

To ensure that subdivision is compatible with, and reinforces the predominant or historic subdivision pattern and character of, an area,

The proposed subdivision provides two lots that are capable of supporting individual dwellings which have subsequently approved and built under DA19/2239.

To minimise any likely impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

The proposed subdivision will not have a negative impact on the existing amenity of the area or impact neighbouring properties. There are no physical works proposed as a result of the subdivision. Proposed Lot 1 and 2 will remain consistent with the neighbouring properties and retain the amenity of residential uses surrounding the site.

To ensure that lot sizes and dimensions are able to accommodate development consistent with relevant development controls.

Proposed Lot 1 at 431.6m² is 13.6% deficiency in area when compared to the 500m² minimum lot area; and

Proposed Lot 2 at 357.9m² is 27.42% deficiency in area when compared to the 500m² minimum lot area.

No variations to the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (SDCP) 2014 result from this proposed subdivision and the existing dwelling will be retained with compliant setbacks, access and car parking.

 

Having regard to the applicant’s justification it is considered that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objects of cl. 4.1.

·    Part 2 - The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary

The underlying objectives and purpose of the minimum subdivision lot size are relevant to the proposed development.

 

The underlying objective and purpose of the standard (clause 4.1 – Minimum Lot Size) is relevant and the above assessment has revealed that compliance with the objectives has been achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical standard.

 

It is worth noting that compliance in this case is unnecessary, as the respective subdivision for dual occupancy development beneath the minimum lot size in the R1 General Residential zone is now permitted under cl. 4.1A (4).

 

·    Part 3 - The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

There is no utility in maintaining the minimum lot size development standard under cl. 4.1 in this case, as the respective subdivision for the dual occupancy beneath the minimum lot size is permitted under cl. 4.1A (4). It is specifically noted that Council has recently approved a similar DA with a cl. 4.6 variation for a two (2) lot subdivision of an existing dual occupancy under similar circumstances at 68 Yeovil Drive Bombaderry (SF10873) at the Development & Environment Committee on 7 September 2021 [MIN21.623].

 

Clause 4.6(3)(a) Evaluation of the written request relating to Clause 4.6(3)(a)- Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

The consent authority must form the positive opinion of satisfaction that the applicant’s written request(s) have adequately addressed those matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3)(a). The applicant has applied the first test established in Wehbe v Pittwater that the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The following justifications are made by the applicant:

 

It is noted that in addition to the objectives of Clause 4.1, Clause 4.1A (4) of the SLEP 2014 also provides a framework for Council to grant consent subdivision into separate lots for a dual occupancy (detached) in the R1 zone if the parent lot is equal to or greater than 700m².

 

Clause 4.1A (4) explicitly permits variations to the minimum lot size standard subject to both the proposed dual occupancy and subdivision being considered as a single DA. Clause 4.1A (4) was gazetted on 11 August 2020 as Amendment 35 of SLEP 2014 subsequent to the consent for the dual occupancy being issued on 20 February 2020 under DA19/2239. As such, compliance with the Clause 4.1A (4) would render compliance with the minimum lot size standard unreasonable and unnecessary. The proposed development is consistent with Clause 4.1A (4) (demonstrated in the SEE), and therefore compliance with Clause 4.1 is unreasonable and unnecessary as the dual occupancy development already exists.

 

Comment: The justification is considered acceptable. 

 

Clause 4.6(3)(b) Evaluation - There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard

The consent authority must form the positive opinion that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed those matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3)(b).

 

To demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, held that the grounds relied upon by the applicant in the written request under cl 4.6 must be “environmental planning grounds” by their nature: see Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [26].

 

The adjectival phrase “environmental planning” is not defined but would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope, and purpose of the EPA Act, including the objects in s 1.3 of the EPA Act.

 

The environmental planning grounds relied on in the written request under cl 4.6 must be “sufficient” (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [24]). In [24] of the judgment, Preston CJ outlined the two methods for demonstrating that a Clause 4.6 is “sufficient” at paragraph [24] of case as follows:

 

First, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must be sufficient “to justify contravening the development standard”. The focus of cl 4.6(3)(b) is on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not on the development as a whole, and why that contravention is justified on environmental planning grounds. The environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole: see Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 at [15].

 

Second, the written request must demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard so as to enable the consent authority to be satisfied under cl 4.6(4)(a)(i) that the written request has adequately addressed this matter: see Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [31].” The applicant’s clause 4.6 variation request must provide a written justification that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Applicant’s Response:

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a flexible approach to the application of the lot size control as it applies to the site. The following site-specific environmental grounds justify the proposed variation to the minimum lot size standard:

 

•     The proposed lot size variation will not generate any unacceptable adverse environmental impacts in respect of overshadowing, view loss or privacy impacts;

•     Notwithstanding the proposed lot size variation, the proposal continues to satisfy the objectives of the relevant objectives of the lot size control applying to the site;

•     The dual occupancy has already been constructed and the proposed subdivision will not physically change the appearance of the surrounding environment; and

•     The proposed variation will not result in a development which is out of character with that envisioned for the local area.

 

Further to the above, there are no environmental planning grounds that warrant maintaining and/or enforcing the numerical lot size standard in this instance. Rather, there are clear and justifiable environmental planning merits that validate the flexible application of the lot size control allowed by Clause 4.6 of the SLEP 2014.

 

Comment: The justification is considered acceptable.

 

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) Evaluation – Public Interest

 

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

 

Pursuant to the provisions of the SLEP 2014 the land is zone R1 General Residential, the objectives of which are:

 

To provide for the housing needs of the community.

To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

To identify land suitable for future urban expansion.

 

The proposed subdivision will continue to provide for the housing needs of the community. This is exhibited in the proposed subdivision creating separately titled lot for an existing dwelling in a dual occupancy development.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the R1 zone. Under these circumstances the proposed development is in the public interest.

 

Clause 4.6 (b) – Concurrence of the Secretary

 

The Council assumes the concurrence of the Secretary in this instance, when considering the application.

 

Clause 4.6(5)(a) - Matters of Significance for State or Regional Planning

 

The non-compliance with the minimum subdivision lot size requirement development standard will not raise any matter of significance for State or Regional planning.

 

Clause 4.6(5)(b) - Public Benefit of Maintaining the Planning Control Standard

 

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

 

Comment: The applicant has demonstrated that the non-compliant lot-size will provide a better planning outcome as opposed to strict compliance with the development standard or amending the application to reduce or remove the extent of the variation.

 

Clause 4.6(5)(c) - Other matters

 

No other matters need to be taken into consideration by the Secretary

 

Issue 2:

 

Departure to A79.2 of Chapter G11 – Subdivision of Land – Shoalhaven Development Control Plan

A79.2 requires the subdivision of land to have the following lot width and dimensions:

Table

Description automatically generated

 

The lot dimensions of proposed Lot 1 as an irregular shaped lot are as follows:

·    Square width – 15.43m (Complies)

·    Width at building line – 19.7m (Complies)

·    Mean width – 19.282m (Complies)

·    Depth – 22.8m (Non-compliant)

 

The lot dimensions of proposed Lot 2 as an irregular shaped lot are as follows:

·    Square width – 14.25m (Complies)

·    Width at building line – 13.8m (Non-compliant)

·    Mean width – 14.2m (Non-compliant)

·    Depth – 25.6m (Non-compliant)

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that despite being technically non-complaint with components (acceptable solutions) of the SDCP 2014 the proposed lot configuration is reasonable under the circumstances.

 

Strict adherence to the lot shape and dimension requirements imposed by planning control A79.2 under Chapter 11 of the SDCP is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this particular development. The subdivision of the existing dual occupancy and the resultant lot layouts will have no environmental planning impacts in the circumstances.

 

No formal request has been lodged for this variation; however, the objectives of the planning control can be achieved. In this regard, Council can be flexible in the application of the planning controls – as required by sub-section 4.15(3A) (b) of the EP&A Act 1979 and allow the development proposal.

 

Note:  Applicants are able to comply with acceptable solutions or seek an alternative performance-based solution.  In this instance, the intent of the lot dimensions is to ensure that a modern dwelling can fit on a lot of land.  This has already been demonstrated by virtue of the approved and constructed development.

 

Planning Assessment

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

 

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Pursuant to Section 3.3.1, Table 2 of Council’s Community Consultation Policy, development which involves a two (2) lot Torrens subdivision of an approved dual occupancy development is not required to be notified within the surrounding locality. This is because the subject application does not involve any physical works and notification was already carried out as part of the assessment of the dual occupancy development within Council’s approved Development Application No. DA19/2239.

 

Financial Implications:

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

 

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Summary and Conclusion

This application has been satisfactorily assessed having regard for section 4.15 (Evaluation) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Having regard to the assessment and the matters described in ‘Issues’ above, the clause 4.6 variation of the minimum subdivision lot size is acceptable and the proposed DCP variation is considered to warrant support on its merits. As such, it is recommended that Development Application No. SF10923 be approved in accordance with the draft notice of determination at Attachment 1 to this Report.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.218   Regional Development Committee & Southern Regional Planning Panel Membership

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/166879

 

Department:       Development Services

Approver:           James Ruprai, Director - City Development  

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to outline the role of the Regional Planning Committee and Southern Regional Planning Panel, as well as recommend the cessation of Shoalhaven City Councils Regional Development Committee and recommend membership to the Southern Regional Planning Panel.

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Not appoint any members to the Southern Regional Planning Panel.

2.    Disestablish the Regional Development Committee on the basis that Ordinary Council Meetings will provide the forum to consider Regional Development Applications and respond by way of resolution to the Southern Regional Planning Panel.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: The Southern Regional Planning Panel (the Panel) will not have any Council allocated representatives.  The Panel is however still able to function and make decisions, with membership independent of Council. 

The disestablishment of the Regional Development Committee, will result in reports being put to an Ordinary Meeting of Council, attended by all Councillors.  The Council will be able to consider a matter and express an opinion on a development and provide feedback to the Panel by resolution of Council.

This option will enable all Councillors (and the whole of Council) to consider and express an opinion on regionally significant development applications through formal resolutions (prior to Panel meetings), without any arising conflict by virtue of committee involvement, or as a member of the Panel.

 

2.    Retain the Regional Planning Panel and nominate Councillors and / or community representatives to the Panel.

Implications: The retention of the Regional Development Committee will retain the established Committee.

The Committee is typically convened on an ‘as needed’ basis.  It is just held prior to formal Panel meeting.  This practice requires the arrangement of a Regional Development Committee meeting, preparation of a business paper, notification and the like in addition to the current meetings of Council and Committees.

The nomination of Councillors and/or community members will require one of the parties to be an ‘expert’ in a particular category.

If Council nominates Councillors, it will also need to nominate an alternate(s) (in the event of interest declarations).

Council is also able to nominate a Councillor and community representatives.

 

3.    An alternative.

Implications: Council would be required to resolve accordingly.

 

Background

Panel Membership

 

Part 2 Division 2.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) outlines the requirement for and constitution of Sydney District and Regional Planning Panels.

 

Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the EP&A Act specifies the Southern Regional Planning Panel is specified as the applicable planning panel for Shoalhaven City Council.

 

What are the functions of the regional planning panels?

 

The Planning Panels

 

·    determine regionally significant development applications (DAs), certain other DAs and s4.55(2) and s4.56 modification applications

·    act as the Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) when directed

·    undertake rezoning reviews

·    provide advice on other planning and development matters when requested

·    determine site compatibility certificates under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 that replaced former SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 this year.

 

The predominant role is for the determination of regionally significant development applications (DAs), certain other DAs and s4.55(2) and s4.56 modification applications.

 

Regional development, as outlined in Schedule 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021:

 

·    Development with a Capital Investment Value (CIV)* over $30 million

·    Development with a CIV* over $5 million which is:

Council related

lodged by or on behalf of the Crown (State of NSW)

private infrastructure and community facilities

eco-tourist facilities

·    Extractive industries, waste facilities and marinas that are designated development,

·    Certain coastal subdivisions

·    Development with a CIV* between $10 million and $30 million which is referred to the Planning Panel by the applicant after 120 days.

 

* CIV is calculated at the time of lodgement of the DA for the purpose of determining whether an application should go to a Panel.

 

Council’s development staff or consultants of Council carry out the assessment of a proposal for a Panel’s determination of the DA, including the notification, advertisement, and consideration of any submissions.

 

Public Panel meetings are held for contentious matters with significant community interest so the Panel can hear from those who wish to express their views on the DA before a decision is made.

 

Membership

 

Section 2.13 “Members of Sydney district and regional planning panels” of the EP&A Act outlines the Council membership requirements to be a member of the regional planning panel as follows:

 

·    A Regional Planning Panel is to consist of the following 5 members—

(a)  3 members appointed by the Minister (the State members),

(b)  2 nominees of an applicable Council (the Council nominees) who are Councillors, members of Council staff or other persons nominated by the Council. (emphasis added)

 

·    Each applicable Council is to nominate 2 persons as Council nominees for the purposes of a Regional Planning Panel.

 

·    If an applicable Council fails to nominate one or more Council nominees, a Regional Planning Panel is not required to include 2 Council nominees for the purposes of exercising its functions in relation to the area of the Council concerned.

 

·    A person is not eligible to be a member of a Regional Planning Panel if the person is—

(a)  a property developer within the meaning of section 53 of the Electoral Funding Act 2018, or

1.   Note—

2.   Section 53 of the Electoral Funding Act 2018 provides that property developer includes a person who is a close associate of a property developer.

(b)  a real estate agent within the meaning of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002.

 

However, a person is not ineligible to be a member of a Regional Planning Panel merely because the person carries on the business of a Planning Consultant.

 

·    At least one of the council nominees of a Regional Planning Panel is to be a person who has expertise in at least one area of planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering or tourism.

 

·    For the purposes of exercising the functions of a Regional Planning Panel in relation to a matter, the Council nominees on the panel are to be those nominated by the applicable Council for the land to which the matter relates.

 

In summary three (3) members of the Panel are state independent experts appointed by the Minister for Planning. The other two (2) are Council representatives. The Council appointed members can either be Councillors, community members or a combination of both.

 

The membership for the 2020-2021 Council members of Panel were as follows:

2020-2021 Council Members

Clr Watson

Clr White

Clr Alldrick (Alternate)

Clr Kitchener (Alternate)

 

Expression of Interest

 

Council invited written Expressions of Interest (EOI) from suitable qualified persons to fill a potential Community position to represent Council on the Panel from 7 March 2022 – 25 March 2022. The EOI was published in the local papers and on Council’s online platforms during this period.

 

In response Council received one (1) nomination from a community member.  Details can be provided if required, however one (1) response is not considered to be a suitable field representative of the broader community interest.

 

Upcoming meetings and current applications

 

To provide an outline of the types of development applications considered by the Southern Regional Planning Panel, the following outlines the current applications being considered by Council.

 

(To be considered imminently)

 

·    RA17/1000 – Anson Street St, Georges Basin

Concept masterplan for a mixed-use development (comprising of residential flat buildings, commercial premises and shop top housing) and associated minor boundary adjustment subdivision

 

·    SF10633 – 169 Hockeys Lane, Cambewarra & 121 Taylors Lane, Cambewarra

Staged residential subdivision to create 127 Torrens Title allotments, including 126 residential allotments, one (1) residue lot, and provision of roads, drainage and utility infrastructure along with associated landscaping works.

 

Other regional applications currently under assessment include:

 

·    RA21/1000 – Terara Road, Terrara

Extractive Industry (Sand Mining) – Proposed extension to the approved dredge area to the northern and western sides of Pig Island

 

·    RA21/1001 – 17 Norfolk Ave, South Nowra

Proposed 47 Unit Industrial Development, Ancillary Café, access, signage and landscaping

 

·    RA21/1002  - Flatrock Road, Mundamia

Construction of Materials Recycling Facility as Addition to an Existing Waste or Resource Management Facility

 

·    RA21/1003 – 41 Main Road, Cambewarra

Staged residential subdivision to create 259 Torrens Title allotments, including 258 residential lots, and provision of associated civil infrastructure and landscaping.

 

·    RA22/1001 – 192 Kerry Street, Sanctuary Point

Construction of the new two storey Library.

 

·    RA22/1002 – 44-52 Coomea Street, Bomaderry

Construction of In-fill Affordable Housing Development comprising Two (2) Residential Flat Buildings (39 Dwellings)

 

·    DA21/2330 – 82 Cyrus St, Hyams Beach

Retaining wall (Coastal Protection Works)

 

Regional Development Committee

 

The Committee was constituted to specifically consider development applications of regional significance, in order to provide Council’s view on a matter when the legislation introducing Panels was first introduced.

 

The details and membership of the Regional Development Committee endorsed by Council on 25 January 2022 (MIN22.13) are as follows:

 

“That Council continue the operation of Regional Development Committee for the period to September 2022 as outlined below.

Meetings per year – As Required

No set commencement time

Quorum – Three (3)

(39964E)

Objective: To consider staff reports sent to the Southern Regional Planning Panel

Delegation:

To make determinations in support or otherwise in relation to reports sent to the Joint Regional Planning Panel, including making representations to the Southern Regional Planning Panel.

Chairperson – Appointed by Council

2022 Membership

Mayor Findley (Chairperson)

All Councillors

CEO or nominee”

 

The disestablishment of the Regional Development Committee would remove the Committee and its functions.  It would also remove the associated administration (for example, arranging a venue, producing a business paper and the like).

 

If Council chooses to disestablish the Regional Development Committee, Councillors will consider and provide comment on a development via meetings of the Ordinary Council and the resultant resolution would be support or otherwise to be forwarded to the Panel.  In effect, the same function would still occur, without an ‘extra’ committee.

 

Financial Implications

·    If Council elects to nominate representatives to site on the Panel, a sitting fee of $400.00 per meeting is paid to the Council and Community Representatives.

 

·    The disestablishment of the Regional Development Committee would remove the need for administrative support to the Committee.

 

 

 

Conclusion

Council has options concerning the participation in the membership of the Panel.  This report recommends not to appoint any members, leaving the membership to the State appointed experts. The Council would still be able to express an opinion on a development via consideration of reports and resolution of (Ordinary) Council.

The disestablishment of the Regional Development Committee removes a layer of administration.  Given that regionally significant applications would be presented to Ordinary Council, Council retains the ability to review, consider and express an opinion on a development which is ultimately determined by the Southern Regional Planning Panel.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.199   West Nowra Infrastructure and Recreational Facilities Upgrade Program - Investigations and Way Forward

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/74387

 

Department:       Community Planning & Projects

Approver:           Jane Lewis, Director - City Lifestyles 

Attachments:     1.  Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan 2017 (under separate cover)

2.  Map - West Nowra Community Infrastructure and Recreational Facilities - Opportunities for Embellishments   

This report was deferred from the Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2022

Reason for Report

This purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of investigations and funding in the West Nowra area in relation to upgrades to infrastructure and recreational facilities following the Notice of Motion which was submitted to the January Ordinary Meeting of Council, the adoption of MIN22.42, and to seek direction on a way forward.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Accept this report as an update on funding options to investigate the provision of community facilities available in West Nowra.

2.    Note that further investigation into infrastructure and recreational facilities in the West Nowra area under the review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan, currently being undertaken by Council. This is to include investigations into upgrades of the Depot Farm Picnic Area.

3.    Note that staff are continuing to investigate opportunities for minor embellishments to existing infrastructure and open space to improve facilities for West Nowra residents and visitors.

 

 

 

Options

1.    Adopt the above recommendation.

Implications: This provides Council with an update on the progress of investigations and funding in relation to upgrades to infrastructure and recreational facilities in the West Nowra area, in accordance with MIN22.42.

It will also allow for the progression of reviewing infrastructure and recreational facilities in West Nowra area as part of the forthcoming review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan.

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: Pending the significance of the alteration, this may result in delays to the progression of this project and not be in accordance with previous Council resolutions.

 

Background

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 25 January 2022, a Notice of Motion was reported to Council in relation to infrastructure and recreational facilities upgrades in the West Nowra area.

As a result of the report, Council resolved (MIN22.42):

That Shoalhaven City Council:

1.    Prioritise as a matter of urgency an upgrade to infrastructure and recreational facilities for West Nowra;

2.    Provide Councillors with a report detailing allocated funding in the current and future budgets of Council which addresses the lack of facilities available to residents and visitors to West Nowra that currently pose a severe risk to safety and restrictions to quality of lifestyle;

3.    Acknowledge the need for community improvements to provide West Nowra residents and visitors with facilities available in many other villages in the Shoalhaven, including but not be limited to:

a.    To immediately undertake the construction of footpaths along Yalwal Road to allow vulnerable and elderly motor scooters users safe passage into Nowra CBD rather than the current situation of navigating Yalwal Road near heavy vehicles. To also allow safe passage for parents and guardians with infants in prams through the village and to access childcare locations.

b.    To investigate the upgrade of the Depot Farm Picnic area to provide picnic facilities as the name suggests and offer more suitable parking access. To provide a recreational area of a standard more suitable to the area adjacent to one of the Shoalhaven's most popular and well-known scenic walks - Bens Walk.

4.    A Councillor briefing on this matter be held as soon as is possible.

This report provides an update to Council on the progress of investigations to date, identifies potential embellishment improvements to enhance open space, and details the process to ensure the need for recreational facilities / embellishment in the West Nowra area are considered in the future along with appropriate levels of funding.

 

Part 1 - Infrastructure and Recreational Facilities Investigations

Prioritise as a matter of urgency an upgrade to infrastructure and recreational facilities for West Nowra;

Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan 2017 (CISP) is the overarching strategic document to guide Council’s Social and Infrastructure Planning Team.

The Shoalhaven LGA has been divided into five planning areas within the CISP, consistent with other relevant planning studies, for which Nowra (inclusive of West Nowra) is located within Planning Area One. The CISP is provided as Attachment 1.

Consultation, along with detailed open space analysis, was undertaken as part of the development of the CISP. An excerpt of the CISP’s Community Infrastructure Current Supply Analysis (summary) is provided in Table 1 which identifies Planning Area One as having a general surplus of open space now and into the future.

 

Table 1 Planning Area One – Open Space current supply, demand and gap analysis (summary of Table 4 CISP)

Community Infrastructure Type – Open Space

Provision standard per population

Current supply

Quantity analysis

Number

Area (ha)

Current surplus (ha)

(2015)

Future surplus

(ha)

(2036)

Sports parks

1.9ha/1,000

21

141.48

+57.80

+34.44

District

1.3ha/1,000

17

79.26

+22.00

+6.02

Regional

0.6ha/1,000

4

62.22

+35.79

+28.42

Recreation parks

1.3ha/1,000

75

127.60

+70.34

+50.13

Local

0.5ha/1,000

46

78.80

+56.78

+51.02

District

0.6ha/1,000

27

48.19

+21.79

+18.19

Regional

0.2ha/1,000

2

0.62

- 8.19

- 7.55

 

The current CISP identifies 4 community infrastructure or open space items in the West / South Nowra area (see Figure 1), with an additional 6 community infrastructure/open space items identified by the Social Infrastructure Planning Team through a desktop site investigation. These sites present opportunity for embellishments and upgrades.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1  Excerpt of Council's CISP illustrating identified community infrastructure and open space in Nowra

It is noted that the current CISP does not capture the entirety of the West Nowra locality, which is depicted in Figure 1. This will be addressed as part of the review of the CISP.

Desktop research identifies a total of 10 community infrastructure/open spaces in the West Nowra area, listed below and illustrated in Figure 2.

·    North Lydon Crescent Park

·    Racemosa Avenue Reserve

·    Racemosa Avenue Reserve North

·    Racemosa Avenue Reserve South

·    Maybush Way Reserve

·    Glenair Avenue Reserve

·    Depot Road Reserve

·    Rannoch Drive Reserve

·    Reserve at Candlebark Close

·    Reserve at Rouken Glen Drive

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2  Open Space / Community Infrastructure in West Nowra area

The CISP has identified (as per Table 1) that there is sufficient open space to service the residents of West Nowra located within Planning Area One, however, the infrastructure and embellishments may be lacking.

Rannoch Drive Reserve (illustrated in Figure 3) playground has been identified by Council staff as being the priority upgrade for the 2022/23 Financial Year.

In the draft budget for 2022/23 onwards, soon to be considered by Council, it is proposed to allocate funding of $845,000 each financial year for old and outdated playground replacement. $175,000 could be included in the 2023/24 budget to deliver a new playground at Rannoch Drive Reserve (local recreation park) after a consultation process in 2022/23. 

A map of a city

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 3 Rannoch Drive Reserve

 

Part 2 - Review of the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP)

Provide Councillors with a report detailing allocated funding in the current and future budgets of Council which addresses the lack of facilities available to residents and visitors to West Nowra that currently pose a severe risk to safety and restrictions to quality of lifestyle;

Council Staff are currently undertaking a review of the CISP, which will involve the strategic review of all recreational and park land within the City of Shoalhaven.

The infrastructure and recreational facilities program for the West Nowra area will be investigated under the review of the CISP, which will ensure the program is strategically planned to connect to surrounding localities. Opportunities have been identified for a connected open space network throughout Council owned community land.

The current community use and future needs for these open spaces will be further investigated during community consultation for the CISP review, which can be incorporated in the strategic development of an integrated infrastructure program.

The outcome of these investigations is anticipated to form the basis of the reviewed CISP with identified actions and estimated required budget to deliver the actions for the whole of the Shoalhaven, including West Nowra.

Currently Council’s budget is allocated on a project / program basis rather than by locality.

Council’s playgrounds are regularly inspected by the Playground Maintainer.  This process identifies and addresses risks and enables replacement parts to be sought to ensure the equipment is safe to use, fit for purpose and well maintained.  Feedback is also provided through this process to assist with prioritising the playground replacement program.

 

Part 3a - Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan

Acknowledge the need for community improvements to provide West Nowra residents and visitors with facilities available in many other villages in the Shoalhaven, including but not be limited to:

a.    To immediately undertake the construction of footpaths along Yalwal Road to allow vulnerable and elderly motor scooters users safe passage into Nowra CBD rather than the current situation of navigating Yalwal Road near heavy vehicles. To also allow safe passage for parents and guardians with infants in prams through the village and to access childcare locations.

Council has a Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) which sets out a strategic ranking methodology, and supporting mapping to plan the expansion of paths, pedestrian crossings and bicycle infrastructure across the Shoalhaven. The purpose of the Plan is to:

·    Identify priorities for pedestrians and cyclists

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

·    Assist Council in prioritising works

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

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

Yalwal Road provides key east-west access to the Nowra CBD from the localities of Bamarang, Longreach, Mundamia and West Nowra. At present, Yalwal Road largely lacks connecting formalised footpaths.

Under the PAMP (excerpt for West Nowra locality provided at Figure 4) a footpath, and shared user path (SUP) are proposed along Yalwal Road through West Nowra.

 Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4  West Nowra Locality (excerpt from Council's PAMP)

The Concept Design for the proposed SUP from Albatross Rd along Yalwal Rd to George Evans Road has recently been completed. However, (as discussed at a Councillor Briefing on 3 February 2022) it has since been identified that further road upgrades are required along Yalwal Road to allow for safe and suitable access that provides for the current and future projected population increase for the locality of West Nowra and surrounds.

It is anticipated the proposed SUP along Yalwal Road will progress to Detail Design in the 2022/2023 Financial Year and a budget of $100,000 has been proposed for this work in the draft budget papers.  This budget will also look at the concept of then extending this path to connect into the Nowra network.

 

Part 3b - Depot Farm Reserve

b.    To investigate the upgrade of the Depot Farm Picnic area to provide picnic facilities as the name suggests and offer more suitable parking access. To provide a recreational area of a standard more suitable to the area adjacent to one of the Shoalhaven's most popular and well-known scenic walks - Bens Walk.

Depot Farm Reserve is identified under the current CISP as a “Local Recreation Park”, with no future works proposed, on this basis no funding provision has been sought for any improvements or upgrades.

The CISP defines a “Local Recreation Park” as follows:

“Local passive recreation open space (parks) provide a range of recreation opportunities for local residents. These parks contain limited infrastructure, yet offer local community benefits.

Local passive recreation parks are intended to offer residents a complementary open space to their backyards. They are likely to attract users from a small catchment area (about 400m radius) and generally cater for short visits by small groups.”

The review of Council’s CISP will provide opportunity for reassessment and re-evaluation for Depot Farm Reserve in a strategic way, ensuring an integrated approach with surrounding localities and infrastructure such as Ben’s Walk.

This investigation will involve potential provision of picnic facilities and assessment of suitability for more parking access. The review process will include extensive community consultation and stakeholder engagement to gauge support for the proposed upgrades.

 

Part 4 - Councillor Briefing

A Councillor briefing on this matter be held as soon as is possible.

It is noted that a Councillor Briefing has been requested on investigations and funding in the West Nowra area in relation to upgrades to infrastructure and recreational facilities. A briefing and presentation will be scheduled in accordance with Council’s processes and prioritised with other business of Council for which a briefing has been sought to ensure this matter is discussed further with Councillors.

 

Embellishment Opportunities

Council staff have conducted an initial desktop review of possible embellishment opportunities in the West Nowra area. Opportunities have been identified in the open space network of Council owned community land.

Possible embellishment opportunities could include:

·    Outdoor Exercise Equipment;

·    Inclusive Playground;

·    Local Skatepark;

·    Modular Pump Track;

·    Basketball Halfcourt;

·    Outdoor BBQ and Picnic Tables;

·    Nature Play;

·    Shelters, seating, and shade; and

·    A multi-sports cage.

The current community use and future needs for open spaces in West Nowra will require further investigation through community consultation. Upon the identification of desirable sites, the relevant investigations and approvals will be sought in order to deliver the upgraded embellishments.

An overview of the embellishment and open space opportunities in the area can be seen in Attachment 2.

 

 

Worrigee, East Nowra and West Nowra Integrated Recreational Strategic Plan

A similar proposal was submitted to Council’s Strategy & Assets Committee meeting of 9 March 2021, in which a Mayoral Minute was reported to Council regarding an Integrated Recreational Plan for Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra. As a result, Council resolved (MIN21.118):

That Council undertakes a strategic review of all recreational and park land that has been set aside in the areas of Worrigee, East Nowra, and South Nowra, with a view to creating an integrated and connected recreational strategic plan. The aim of the plan would be to deliver different recreational offerings across the three precincts and have them connected with a cycle way and way finding, encouraging residents from each of the precincts to seek a new adventure in each of these areas.

A Report was presented to Council at its Strategy and Assets Committee meeting on 20 July 2021 in response to MIN21.88, providing an update to Council on the progress of investigations to date, and also the emerging needs of the current and predicated growth of the Worrigee, South Nowra, and East Nowra townships and increase in population.

Upon consideration of the Report, it was resolved (MIN21.509):

That Council:

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

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

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

It is proposed that any opportunities for West Nowra be considered under the review of the CISP along with West, South and East Nowra and Worrigee. This will allow for a holistic approach to planning across this part of the City with an integrated and connected recreational strategic plan.

This would be consistent with the adopted approach for the localities noted above to address the provision of facilities. The need for community improvements in the West Nowra locality under the CISP review would ensure further investigations will extend and connect to the wider Shoalhaven.

 

Community Engagement

It is proposed that community engagement for infrastructure and the recreational facilities program would occur as part of the review of the CISP, with targeted consultation to occur in West Nowra area. This will ensure a thorough community engagement and consultation process is undertaken with a range of stakeholders, community groups and residents.

Community engagement is anticipated to be an opportunity to identify community improvements and provide embellishments to existing infrastructure to create an area that offers appealing places to gather, socialise, exercise and relax.

 

Policy Implications

Council’s CISP was developed and endorsed by Council in 2016 to provide a strategic framework to guide the direction, actions, and priorities for the provision of community infrastructure in the present and for the next 20 years, with reviews every 5 years to ensure relevancy. 

The CISP identifies that the Shoalhaven LGA is well provided for with community facilities overall, however when considered in the context of local communities, the quality of embellishments in the West Nowra locality are lacking variety, and multiuse and ageing options.

Upon review of the CISP, it will be ensured that West Nowra is better represented, and all open spaces are identified, with recommendations provided for future vision and needs.

 

Financial Implications

The investigations of recreational facilities in West Nowra to date are ‘desktop’ based, along with preliminary site visits and have been funded through the Community Planning and Projects Department operational budget.

Council does not currently have an identified budget to design, upgrade or create recreational facilities, or provide upgraded embellishments to open space that are located in the West Nowra Area. It is proposed that this in included in the scope of works to be undertaken with the review of the CISP to ensure a strategic approach and alignment with other social infrastructure planning across the City.

Subject to confirmation of the draft budget and allocation of funding for the CISP review, investigation, and planning of recreational facilities in West Nowra will be included in this project along with other areas of the Shoalhaven.

In the draft budget for 2022/23 onwards, soon to be considered by Council, it is proposed to allocate funding of $845,000 each financial year for old and outdated playground replacement. $175,000 could be included in the 2023/24 budget to deliver a new playground at Rannoch Drive Reserve (local recreation park) after a consultation process in 2022/23.

It is anticipated the proposed SUP along Yalwal Road will progress to Detail Design in the 2022/2023 Financial Year and a budget of $100,000 has been proposed for this work in the draft budget papers. This budget will also look at the concept of then extending this path to connect into the Nowra network.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Map

Description automatically generated


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

 

CL22.219   Draft - Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2022-2026 - Public Exhibition

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/137692

 

Department:       Community Connections

Approver:           Jane Lewis, Director - City Lifestyles 

Attachments:     1.  Implementation Table

2.  Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2022-2026 (under separate cover)   

Reason for Report

Each Local Government Area is required to have a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) that has been developed and endorsed by Council on behalf of its community.

The NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014 requires each Local Government in NSW to have a DIAP in place at all times. As the current DIAP expires at the end of June 2022, the revised DIAP 2022-2026 needs to be adopted to allow commencement on 1 July 2022 and submitted to NSW Disability Council.

 

Recommendation

That Council

1.    Endorse the Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2022-2026 for the purpose of placing on Public Exhibition for a period of 28 days to seek further community feedback.

2.    Receive a report on feedback from the community on the Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2022-2026 following the 28 days public exhibition period.

3.    Thank the community for their participation to date and invite further feedback during the public exhibition period.

 

 

Options

1.   Adopt the recommendations

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will allow the community the opportunity to comment on the Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2022-2026 prior to the Plan being adopted by Council for implementation on 1 July 2022, and copy given to NSW Disability Council.

 

2.   Council does not adopt the recommendations and provides further direction to staff

Implications: There is a legislative requirement for the new Shoalhaven Disability Inclusion Action Plan to commence from 1 July 2022. The Plan must be on public exhibition for a 28-day period and staff require appropriate time to incorporate public feedback into the final plan before the plan commences. If Council does not endorse the public exhibition period at the 9 May 2022 Ordinary Meeting, there will be insufficient time for Council to incorporate community feedback before the plan commences.

 

Background

The Shoalhaven Disability Inclusion Action Plan is Council’s strategy to remove barriers to accessing infrastructure, services and employment as well as promote the rights of people living with a disability.

 

Since 2017, NSW local governments have been required by the NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014 to undertake disability inclusion action planning every four years and have a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) in place at all times. The Act requires Local Government organisations to review their plan before the end of the 4-year plan period. The review must involve a consultation process, evaluation and updated DIAP as outlined in the Act.

 

As all NSW Local Government organisations were granted a 12-month plan extension due to the impacts of Covid-19, the current Shoalhaven Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2017-2021 expires in July 2022.

 

In 2021, Council’s Community Connections team commenced review of the 2017-2021 DIAP and development of the new plan. Council engaged a consultant, The Flagstaff Group, and extensive community engagement was used to identify the priority areas for Council’s inclusion work over the next four years. Community Connections worked with teams across Council to develop actions that will address the identified priorities. By developing the actions with the teams who will deliver them, we could ensure that the actions reflect the expert knowledge and experience of Council’s teams.

The Shoalhaven Disability Inclusion Plan 2022-2026 represents Council’s commitment to integrating inclusion into our work, with the aim of ensuring that people living with disability have fair access to services and can participate in life in the Shoalhaven.

To reflect the four key outcome areas recommended across the state, the DIAP is structured into the following focus areas:

1.   Create Positive Attitudes and Behaviours Within Community

2.   Create Accessible and Liveable Communities

3.   Improve Access to Our Systems and Processes

4.   Support Access to Meaningful Employment

Across the four focus areas, the Shoalhaven DIAP 2022-2026 identifies 15 priorities and 43 actions that will be undertaken. These actions are set out in the attached DIAP document, with further details on implementation resourcing provided in the document’s Appendix 1.

In terms of the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework, the DIAP actions are integrated into Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan for work across the organisation, as well as long-term financial planning and ongoing budget processes.

The DIAP also uses Council’s Annual Reports, required by the IP&R framework, to monitor and report annually on progress made in implementing the DIAP. This reporting informs the community on progress, and a copy is provided to NSW Disability Council to meet legislative requirements for DIAP’s.

 

Community Engagement

To ensure the development of the DIAP met the needs of Council and the community, the Community Connections team and The Flagstaff Group undertook internal consultation with representatives from across the organisations prior to beginning external consultation.

This process ensured staff had an opportunity for input on future actions and responsibilities under the DIAP as adopted by Council. This process also set expectations for community consultations and requirements when developing the new DIAP. 

The following internal consultation occurred:

·      One-on-one conversations with the CEO and each Director to determine outcomes, challenges, threats, and opportunities for the review

·      Staff workshop with 34 staff from across the organisation to determine inclusion aspirations within the organisation

·      Management representatives from each of the five Directorates and Shoalhaven Water sat on the Project Control Group to support the action plan development

·      Individual meetings with each department manager responsible for implementing actions to ensure future work aligned with the strategic direction and future planning for each department of Council

 

These internal consultations ensured that senior management, middle management, and

operational staff from across the organisation had opportunity for input. This allowed

development of a DIAP that has organisation-wide support from the earliest stage.

 

An extensive community engagement process was led by The Flagstaff Group and engaged with over 300 people, including:

·      120 people completed online survey

·      6 face-to-face community workshops

·      20 face-to-face individual meetings, including with Councillors

·      2 meetings with Federal and State MPs

·      9 meetings with disability service providers

·      14 disability employment providers consulted

·      5 representatives of Indigenous disability organisations

·      52 employees with disability from various organisations

·      Community Consultative Bodies contacted, and one formal submission received

·      Social media and media relations campaign including a Mayoral video and interviews

 

Council used a range of methods to engage with community to identify communities’ aspirations, these methods included.

 

·      Electronic Direct Mail

·      Production of Mayoral video for web and social media

·      Social media stories and notices

·      Creation of a Council Get Involved page

·      Posters across Council facilities

·      Direct invitation to partners in the not-for-profit disability sector

·      Face-to-face drop-ins to Disability Employment Providers

·      One-on-one telephone interviews to support people with disability

·      Group sessions with providers and stakeholders across the City including Nowra, Bay and Basin (2), and Ulladulla

·      Indigenous disability providers group

·      Articles in Council’s newsletter “In Your Neighbourhood”

·      Group session with Council staff

·      Face-to-face interviews with Council’s Executive Leadership Team

·      Face-to-face and phone interviews with Councillors

·      Media releases

 

It should be noted that the delivery of community engagement and action planning was delayed due to NSW restrictions and staff absences due to Covid-19. These delays were used to offer an extended community engagement process and allowed for a greater action planning process with Council departments.

 

A wealth of community input and insights was provided by the extensive engagement. This was used to identify the priority areas for Council’s future inclusion work and used as the basis for developing actions that will be undertaken to address the identified priorities.

 

Policy Implications

The DIAP is a strategic document required by all public authorities, including Local Government organisations, under the NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014. The Act states that all public authorities must have a Disability Inclusion Action Plan in place at all times and review the document every 4 years.

There are several standards set by relevant legislation, that are important to the development of a DIAP, these are:

·      Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport

·      Disability Standards for Education

·      Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards, 2010 (Premises Standards).

·      Carers (Recognition) Act, 2010 (NSW)

·      Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, 2010 (Commonwealth)

·      National Standards for Disability Services, revised 2013 (Commonwealth)

·      Disability Services Standards, revised 2012 (NSW)

·      Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977 (NSW)

·      The Local Government Act, 1993

As a part of the review, Council have ensured all documentation developed complies with the above legislations and standards.

 

Financial Implications

 

The actions that make up the DIAP were developed with the Lead Teams, the teams who will deliver them. This ensures that the actions reflect the expert knowledge and experience of Council’s teams. It also allowed each Lead Team to identify the most suitable resourcing for implementation.

By working in this way, we are integrating inclusion into Council’s way of working and ongoing business planning. This includes:

·      Improving how we carry out existing processes to be more inclusive

·      Identifying grant funding available to deliver inclusion projects

·      Recognising that many teams and projects across Council are already working to improve accessibility and inclusion

Each Lead Team responsible for delivering actions in the Shoalhaven DIAP 2022-26 has identified the resourcing that will be used to implement their actions. This is detailed in the attached Appendix 1 to the DIAP.

Of the 43 actions:

·      27 actions are not expected to incur costs

·      2 will be entirely funded by grants

·      14 actions will be delivered using budgets identified by the Lead Team, including 2 that will use also grant funding where available

There is no request for financial allocation for delivering the DIAP as the action costs are integrated into ongoing work planning processes across the organisation. Many actions are not expected to incur costs, and the remainder will make use of grant funds and/or budgets identified by the Lead Teams.

If additional funding is required to deliver any DIAP action, Lead Teams will use the established business processes for financial requests / funding considerations.

 

Risk Implications

The legislative requirements for local government in relation to preparing an updated DIAP are:

·      NSW Councils to prepare a DIAP by 30 June 2022

·      Consultation with people with disability must be undertaken and documented as part of the planning process

·      Councils must give a copy of their DIAP to the Disability Council NSW

·      Councils must report on implementation of their DIAP in their Annual Report, and forward a copy to the Minister

·      Council must review their DIAP every four years.

There is a reputational risk to Council if these legislative requirements are not met.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Table

Description automatically generated

Diagram, schematic

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.220   Tenders – Various Mains Relining Project

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/151548

 

Department:       Water Asset Planning & Development

Approver:           Robert Horner, Executive Manager Shoalhaven Water  

Reason for Report

To inform Council of the tender process for the Various Mains Relining Project.

In accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, some information should remain confidential as it would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information as it may reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests. This information will be considered under a separate confidential report.

 

 

Recommendation

That Council consider a separate Confidential Report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Options

1.    Accept the recommendation

Implications: Consider a separate Confidential Report on the matter

2.    Council resolves an alternative to the recommendation.

Implications: This is not recommended as an extensive tender evaluation process has been undertaken comprising price and non-price criteria in accordance with the Procurement Evaluation Plan; with a Targeted Tender to a pre-established panel of suitably qualified contractors conducted.

 

Details

Project Description

Shoalhaven Water’s Asset Management Unit has identified a number of water and sewer mains that are reaching/have reached their end of life and therefore require renewal.  In order to maintain the structural integrity of the subject pipes, the proposed renewal methodology is by pipeline re-lining. Due to the quantum of works, it is intended that an annual prioritised relining program be established for the sewer mains renewals.

 

The mains identified for this package of works are primarily sewer pipelines located in the Nowra region, although it also includes some other high priority sewer mains within the Local Government Area, and a significant water main which crosses Currambene Creek (refer below for listings of all mains forming part of the intended Contract):

 

 

 

 

Separable Portion 1: Wastewater Mains – Gravity

Wastewater Main(s)

Package

Area

Location/Description

Approx. Length (m)

Diameter (mm)

Current Pipe Type

SEW-1A

Nowra

Between Colyer Av/Shoalhaven Street

16

150

VCP

Gravity

SEW-1B

Nowra

North Street Between Collins Way and Shoalhaven Street

133

150

AC/D

Gravity

SEW-1C

Nowra

North Street Between Osbourne Street and Kinghorne Street

343

225

AC/D

Gravity

SEW-1D

Nowra

Corner of Jane Street and Nowra Lane

32

150

VCP

Gravity

SEW-1E

Nowra

Nowra Lane to Jane Street

24

150

VCP

Gravity

SEW-1F

Nowra

Council Land Adjacent to Hyam Street

91

150

CICL

Gravity

 

Separable Portion 2: Wastewater Mains – Gravity

Wastewater Main(s)

Package

Area

Location/Description

Approx. Length (m)

Diameter (mm)

Current Pipe Type

SEW-1G

Nowra

North Street at Corner of Kinghorne Street

40

300

AC/D

Gravity

SEW-1H

Nowra

North Street Between Princes Highway and Brereton Street

70

300

AC/D

Gravity

SEW-1I

Nowra

Nowra Lane to Jane Street

65

300

CICL

Gravity

SEW-1J

Nowra

Worrigee Street to Jane Street

80

300

CICL

Gravity

SEW-1K

Nowra

Stockland to Princes Highway

78

300

CICL

Gravity

SEW-1L

Nowra

Nowra Pool

26

150

CICL

Gravity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Separable Portion 3: Wastewater Mains – Pressure

Wastewater Main(s)

Package

Area

Location/Description

Approx. Length (m)

Diameter (mm)

Current Pipe Type

SEW-1M

Callala Bay

Callala Creek Crossing Along Lackersteen Street and Silkwood Walk

600

300

DICL

Pressure

 

Separable Portion 4: Water Mains – Pressure

Water Main(s)

Package

Area

Location/Description

Approx. Length (m)

Diameter (mm)

Current Pipe Type

WAT-1A

Currambene Creek

Currambene Creek Crossing near Streamside Street

600

450

MSCL

Pressure

 

Tendering

Council called tenders for Various Mains Relining Project on 24 February 2022 which closed at 10:00am on 31 March 2022. One (1) tender was received at the time of closing.  Tenders were received from the following:

Tenderer

Location

Interflow Pty Ltd

254 Toongabbie Road, Girraween, NSW, 2145

 

Details relating the evaluation of the tenders are contained in the confidential report.

 

Community Engagement:

Works are expected to have minimal impact on residential properties, however residents and landowners who may be affected have been notified as part of initial investigation works.

 

Additional community and stakeholder engagement prior to and during construction is proposed, with a dedicated project webpage to be established under Council’s ‘Major Projects & Works’ Portal.

 

Policy Implications

The tender process has followed the requirements under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Council’s procurement procedure.

 

Financial Implications:

Sufficient funds have been allocated in the water and sewer funds for the Various Mains Relining Project within the 2021/22 and 2022/23 financial years.  Funding is available to cover the tender amount including other project costs.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.221   Review of Shoalhaven Water Group Policies – Round Four

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/163307

 

Department:       Water Business Services

Approver:           Robert Horner, Executive Manager Shoalhaven Water 

Attachments:     1.  Non-urban Wastewater Connection Policy

2.  Non-urban Water Supply Connection Policy   

Reason for Report

All Public and Local Approval Policies are to be submitted to Council within 12 months of the election of a new Council. This is the fourth round of policies proposed for reaffirmation with respect to Shoalhaven Water responsibilities.

 

Recommendation

That Council reaffirm the following policies with minor changes

1.    Non-urban Wastewater Connection Policy

2.    Non-urban Water Supply Connection Policy

 

 

Options

1.    Adopt the recommendation as written.

Implications: Minor changes will assist for currency. Specific details of changes are outlined further below.

 

2.    Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Council can request further details, seek further community input or make other changes.

 

Background

Minor changes (tracked) have been made to the two subject policies as shown in the attachments to this Report.  A summary of these changes are outlined below.

 

·    Non-urban Wastewater Connection Policy

-     Change to Policy title from “Rural” to “Non-urban Wastewater Connection Policy”

-     Minor changes for spelling and/or grammar

-     Wording changes to exemptions but no change to intent

-     Change of officer title to match current organisation structure

-     Items added to Criteria for determination of an application, for clarity to applicants.

 

·    Non-urban Water Supply Connection Policy

-     Change to Policy title from “Rural” to “Non-urban Water Supply Connection Policy”.

-     Minor changes for spelling and/or grammar

-     Change of officer title to match current organisation structure

 

Community Engagement

There is no statutory requirement to publicly exhibit any of the policies contained in this Report. Council may choose to do so should they consider any changes of significance.

 

Policy Implications

All policies included in this Report are proposed for reaffimation as the nature of the changes are minor and therefore have no implications or deivation from the existing intent of the current approved policies.

 

Financial Implications

Changes proposed to the policies will have no financial implications to current approved budget.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Graphical user interface, text, website

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 


Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.222   Notice of Motion - Ward Boundary Review - Community of Interest

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/180061

 

Submitted by:    Clr Greg Watson   

Purpose / Summary

The following Notice of Motion, of which due notice has been given, is submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

Recommendation

That Council review the Ward Boundaries with a view of bringing areas of community interest together, which may require an increase in the number of Wards.

 

 

Note by the CEO

Council last considered and adjusted Ward Boundaries on 26 November 2019 in preparation and for implementation for the December 2021 Local Government Election.

Shoalhaven City Council ward boundaries continue to meet legislative requirements.

The process for the adoption of revised ward boundaries is as follows:

1.   Upload of current ABS Data to council’s mapping system

2.   Modelling is undertaken by council staff based on the specific criteria and outcomes required by the Council and legislative requirements

3.   The Elected Council resolves to endorse a preferred model for public exhibition

4.   Approval for the model is obtained from the NSW Electoral Commission and Australian Bureau of Statistics.

5.   A public exhibition / submission period is undertaken (42 days), consulting directly with all electors impacted by the proposal.

6.   Council considers submissions and determines final model to proceed with.

7.   NSW Electoral Commission approval sought for final Model

8.   Once approved, the Electoral Roll is updated for the next election

Should there be changes to the number of Councillors required related to an increased or decreased number of wards, a constitutional referendum would need to occur at the 2024 Council election to allow the new ward arrangements to be in place for the 2028 election.

It is suggested that if Council is of a mind to support the intent of the Notice of Motion a suitable recommendation for the Council to review ward boundaries at this time would be:

That the CEO prepare a report for the Council on a review of ward boundaries to achieve bringing areas of community interest together.

It should be noted that Council will need be specific as to the 'community interest' criteria to be applied in such a review.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 09 May 2022

Page 0

 

Local Government Amendment (governance & planning) act 2016

Chapter 3, Section 8A  Guiding principles for councils

(1)       Exercise of functions generally

The following general principles apply to the exercise of functions by councils:

(a)     Councils should provide strong and effective representation, leadership, planning and decision-making.

(b)     Councils should carry out functions in a way that provides the best possible value for residents and ratepayers.

(c)     Councils should plan strategically, using the integrated planning and reporting framework, for the provision of effective and efficient services and regulation to meet the diverse needs of the local community.

(d)     Councils should apply the integrated planning and reporting framework in carrying out their functions so as to achieve desired outcomes and continuous improvements.

(e)     Councils should work co-operatively with other councils and the State government to achieve desired outcomes for the local community.

(f)      Councils should manage lands and other assets so that current and future local community needs can be met in an affordable way.

(g)     Councils should work with others to secure appropriate services for local community needs.

(h)     Councils should act fairly, ethically and without bias in the interests of the local community.

(i)      Councils should be responsible employers and provide a consultative and supportive working environment for staff.

(2)     Decision-making

The following principles apply to decision-making by councils (subject to any other applicable law):

(a)     Councils should recognise diverse local community needs and interests.

(b)     Councils should consider social justice principles.

(c)     Councils should consider the long term and cumulative effects of actions on future generations.

(d)     Councils should consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

(e)     Council decision-making should be transparent and decision-makers are to be accountable for decisions and omissions.

(3)     Community participation

Councils should actively engage with their local communities, through the use of the integrated planning and reporting framework and other measures.

 

Chapter 3, Section 8B  Principles of sound financial management

The following principles of sound financial management apply to councils:

(a)   Council spending should be responsible and sustainable, aligning general revenue and expenses.

(b)   Councils should invest in responsible and sustainable infrastructure for the benefit of the local community.

(c)   Councils should have effective financial and asset management, including sound policies and processes for the following:

(i)      performance management and reporting,

(ii)      asset maintenance and enhancement,

(iii)     funding decisions,

(iv)     risk management practices.

(d)   Councils should have regard to achieving intergenerational equity, including ensuring the following:

(i)      policy decisions are made after considering their financial effects on future generations,

(ii)     the current generation funds the cost of its services

 

 

Chapter 3, 8C  Integrated planning and reporting principles that apply to councils

The following principles for strategic planning apply to the development of the integrated planning and reporting framework by councils:

(a)   Councils should identify and prioritise key local community needs and aspirations and consider regional priorities.

(b)   Councils should identify strategic goals to meet those needs and aspirations.

(c)   Councils should develop activities, and prioritise actions, to work towards the strategic goals.

(d)   Councils should ensure that the strategic goals and activities to work towards them may be achieved within council resources.

(e)   Councils should regularly review and evaluate progress towards achieving strategic goals.

(f)    Councils should maintain an integrated approach to planning, delivering, monitoring and reporting on strategic goals.

(g)   Councils should collaborate with others to maximise achievement of strategic goals.

(h)   Councils should manage risks to the local community or area or to the council effectively and proactively.

(i)    Councils should make appropriate evidence-based adaptations to meet changing needs and circumstances.