Development & Environment Committee

 

 

Meeting Date:     Monday, 18 January, 2021

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

Time:                   5.00pm

 

Membership (Quorum - 5)

Clr Mitchell Pakes - Chairperson

Clr Bob Proudfoot

All Councillors

Chief Executive Officer or nominee

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Agenda

 

1.    Apologies / Leave of Absence

2.    Confirmation of Minutes

·      Development & Environment Committee - 1 December 2020.................................... 1

3.    Declarations of Interest

4.    Mayoral Minute

5.    Deputations and Presentations

6.    Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Nil

7.    Reports 

City Futures

DE21.1........ Post Exhibition Finalisation - Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy and Works in Kind Policy Package............................................................................................. 15

DE21.2........ Post Exhibition Finalisation - Shoalhaven Contribution Plan 2019 - Amendment No.1 (CP2019.1)................................................................................................... 27

DE21.3........ Proposed Natural Disaster Clause - NSW Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan............................................................................................................... 35

DE21.4........ Proposed Planning Proposal - Riverview Road Precinct (Nowra) and Huntingdale Park Estate Precinct (Berry)......................................................................... 45

DE21.5........ Update - 'Legacy' Planning Proposals - Timing and Progression - NSW Government Direction........................................................................................................ 52

DE21.6........ Proposed Council Submission - Draft Local Character Clause - Local Environmental Plan............................................................................................................... 64

DE21.7........ Information Report - NSW Productivity Commission Report - Infrastructure Contributions System................................................................................... 80  

City Development

DE21.8........ Companion Animals - Activities for 2019-20................................................ 83       

8.    Confidential Reports                       

Nil


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page  

 

Development & Environment Committee

Delegation:

Pursuant to s377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) the Committee is delegated the functions conferred on Council by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), LG Act or any other Act or delegated to Council, as are specified in the attached Schedule, subject to the following limitations:

i.        The Committee cannot make a decision to make a local environmental plan to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the LG Act;

ii.       The Committee cannot review a section 8.11 or section 8.9 EPA Act determination made by the Council or by the Committee itself;

iii.      The Committee cannot exercise any function delegated to the Council which by the terms of that delegation cannot be sub-delegated;

iv.      The Committee cannot exercise any function which s377(1) of the LG Act provides cannot be delegated by Council; and

v.       The Committee cannot exercise a function which is expressly required by the LG Act or any other Act to be exercised by resolution of the Council.

SCHEDULE

a.    All functions relating to the preparation, making, and review of local environmental plans (LEPs) and development control plans (DCPs) under Part 3 of the EPA Act.

b.    All functions relating to the preparation, making, and review of contributions plans and the preparation, entry into, and review of voluntary planning agreements under Part 7 of the EPA Act.

c.    The preparation, adoption, and review of policies and strategies of the Council in respect of town planning and environmental matters and the variation of such policies.

d.    Determination of variations to development standards related to development applications under the EPA Act where the development application involves a development which seeks to vary a development standard by more than 10% and the application is accompanied by a request to vary the development standard under clause 4.6 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 or an objection to the application of the development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards.

e.    Determination of variations from the acceptable solutions and/or other numerical standards contained within the DCP or a Council Policy that the Chief Executive Officer requires to be determined by the Committee

f.     Determination of development applications that Council requires to be determined by the Committee on a case by case basis.

g.    Review of determinations of development applications under sections 8.11 and 8.9 of the EP&A Act that the Chief Executive Officer requires to be determined by the Committee.

h.    Preparation, review, and adoption of policies and guidelines in respect of the determination of development applications by other delegates of the Council.

i.     The preparation, adoption and review of policies and strategies of the Council in respect to sustainability matters related to climate change, biodiversity, waste, water, energy, transport, and sustainable purchasing.

j.     The preparation, adoption and review of policies and strategies of the Council in respect to management of natural resources / assets, floodplain, estuary and coastal management.


 

 

 

 

Minutes of the Development & Environment Committee

 

 

Meeting Date:     Tuesday, 1 December 2020

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

Time:                   5.00pm

 

 

The following members were present:

 

Clr Mitchell Pakes - Chairperson

Clr Amanda Findley – arrived at 5.04pm

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr John Wells

Clr Patricia White

Clr Kaye Gartner – (Remotely)

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr Annette Alldrick

Clr John Levett – (Remotely)

Clr Andrew Guile – (Remotely)

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Stephen Dunshea - Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Nil

 

 

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Wells)                                                                                      MIN20.884

That the Minutes of the Development & Environment Committee held on Tuesday 03 November 2020 be confirmed.

CARRIED

 

 

 

Declarations of Interest

Nil

 

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

Nil

 

 

Deputations and Presentations

 

DE20.131 - DA20/1494 – 25 Sunnymede Lane, Berry – Lot 3 DP 713138

Graham Stokes – AGAINST

 

DE20.132 - DA20/1579 – 42 Naval Parade Erowal Bay

Chris Grounds – FOR

 

DE20.133 - DA20/1751 – 42 Lyrebird Drive NOWRA – Lot 72 & DP 1198691

Anthony Barthelmess – FOR

 

DE20.135 - SF10804 – 104 Taylors Lane, Cambewarra – Lot 3 DP 851823

James Robinson – AGAINST

 

DE20.139 - Review of Tabourie Lake Entrance Management Policy

Matt Philpott – FOR

 

 

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

 

DE20.127   Question on Notice - Subdivision - Edendale Street, Woollamia

HPERM Ref: D20/517130

These questions are in relation to an approved development proposal/subdivision on the north side of Edendale St, Woollamia. The matter was drawn to my attention by a group of concerned residents.

The subject block was originally known as Lot 71 DP 9289 and in June 1994 the applicants instructed Alan Price & Associates to apply for a subdivision of Lot 70 and Lot 71 DP9289 on the corner of Woollamia Road and Edendale Street, Woollamia.

On 19 April, 1995 application SF7945 was approved for three Lots in Woollamia Road.

Question

1.   In January 1995 when the application was lodged how many nearby property owners were notified or are likely to have been notified and does Council have evidence of this notification?

On 25 January 1996 a 13 Lot subdivision SF7946 was approved in Edendale St.

 

2.   This DA should have expired on 25 January, 2001…why is it still active?…in what way was a substantial start made ?

 

3.   What planning law permits a DA approval to be acted upon 24 years after the original assessment and does that law permit reassessment by Council to bring the consent conditions up to contemporary standards ?

In August 1997 Council apparently approved a “borrow pit” to excavate 6,500 cubic metres of soil to use on SF7945 to build 2 metre high mounds so that future structures might be out of flood reach. The clearing of bush and the excavation of the “borrow pit” began in May 2000.  Local residents estimate that more than 100 trips were made per day for almost three weeks by 10 tonne dump trucks travelling to and from along Edendale St and Woollamia Rd, creating a dangerous situation for residents.  Residents questioned the validity of the development as they were not aware of any substantial start occurring and they conveyed their concerns to Shoalhaven City Council, Department of Land & Water Conservation, NPWS and the Departments of Planning and Health.

 

4.   Was the work on the “borrow pit” approved under SF7945 on 19 April 1995 and what community consultation took place in relation to the approval and the truck movements that would be involved ?

If, as residents claim, work on the “Pit” began in May 2000 wouldn’t such work be illegal due to the expiration of SF 7945 a month before ?

 

5.   Were permits required from the Dept. of Land & Water Conservation before these earthworks could take place and if so why were they not applied for ?

The attached letter from the DL&WC and signed by Noel Kesby, Manager Resource Assessment & Planning, states that; “The Department has no record of any previous referral from Council in relation to seeking DL&WC comment on natural resource management issues for the subject lands at the subdivision application stage…and how Council addressed relevant State policies on natural resource management”

The DL&WC letter went on to say that Council would be aware that the proposed development; “is likely to be impacted on and impact flood behaviour…and should be considered in accordance with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy…to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on individual owners and occupiers, and to reduce the private and public losses resulting from flooding”

 

6.   What flood plain management plans existed when this development was approved and what plan now exists to mitigate against the potential impacts of flooding in the area as a result of the development proceeding ?  Is there such a thing as a Currambene Creek Floodplain Management Plan (the creation of which was suggested by DL&WC back in 2000 before Council made any further development decisions in the area) and if so does it address the issue of flood free access and evacuation requirements, including hazards on access routes in the event of a major flood?

 

7.   Is Council satisfied that it is protected under Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 in the event that litigation arises as a result of flooding at this site ?

 

8.   When this development was approved, did Council give appropriate consideration to relevant State Natural Resource Policies, can Council give evidence of doing so, and  what conditions of consent were applied as a result of these considerations ?

The issues that should have been addressed are detailed in the October 2000 DL&WC letter under the broad headings of; management of water quality, vegetation  management, the existence of acid sulphate soils, and effluent disposal.

 

9.   The riparian land on the site is defined in Council documentation as “drainage reserve”.  Is Council satisfied that this description is accurate and in the words of DL&WC, “appropriately reflects the total function as a riparian corridor and its connection to a State significant wetland system.”   What riparian protection or enhancement, including buffer zones, has Council built into approvals at this site by way of consent conditions ?

DL&WC offered the view at the time of approval that the so called drainage reserve; “would in fact contain inherent conservation values and provide a significant environmental function that would warrant consideration of its definition (and zoning) that affords greater protection”

The Statement of Environmental Effects that accompanied the application offered the opinion that; “no protected or endangered fauna would visit the area”.  On 15th June, 2000 after the excavation of the “borrow pit” began and in response to representations from the public, two officers of the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service inspected the Edendale site and in a letter to Development Manager, Tim Fletcher on 13th July, 2000, Michael Hood (Manager, Conservation Planning, NPWS south) described the property differently, as “a mature coastal forest” and added that; “such a community provides habitat for a number of fauna species which at the time were listed on the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act.”

 

10. Did Council at any stage consider having the original Statement of Environmental Effects peer reviewed?

Of additional concern to Michael Hood was that there was no evidence of consideration of Aboriginal Heritage as part of the development application, notwithstanding the fact that the location of the site, adjacent to Currambene Creek should have triggered an archaeological assessment.

 

11. Has an archaeological assessment of the site been requested by Council and has any consultation with the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council taken place ?

The NPWS letter also drew attention to the impact of the “pit” excavation and the building of pads to elevate future dwellings, citing concerns about destruction of habitat and the impact on possible aboriginal sites.

 

12. Will Council allow more mining for fill at the “borrow pit” and permit further house construction on “pads” given the warnings from NPWS about the environmental sensitivity of the site.

 

13. Since the sale of the site some 12 months ago, has Council received an application to modify the DA in any way or a request for a “Certificate of Construction” to clear bushland on the site ?

 

Response

A report responding to the Questions on Notice will be presented to a future Development & Environment Committee meeting.

 

 

 

Reports

 

DE20.128   Nebraska & Jerberra Estates - Options for Future Management of E2 Environmental Conservation Land

HPERM Ref: D20/434779

Note: Clr Findley arrived at 5.04pm

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Development & Environment Committee:

1.    Receive the update on the Nebraska Estate Planning Proposal (LP145.1) for information.

2.    Agree “in principle” to the development of a new policy for the voluntary acquisition of “residual” E2 Environmental Conservation land in the Nebraska & Jerberra Estates, to be funded by any profits from the sale of developable Council land in each Estate.

3.    Agree to the preparation of a draft policy for Council’s consideration based on the following:

a.    the cost-neutral voluntary acquisition of undevelopable E2 land in each Estate, to the extent possible, funded by the net profit from the sale of Council-owned land with development potential;

b.    if offers to sell E2 land are received before any developable Council-owned land has been sold, general funds be used to purchase E2 properties in each Estate limited to the anticipated net profits from the future sale of the Council-owned land;

c.    land in Nebraska Estate is not purchased until the Planning Proposal has been finalised and the land zoning has been resolved;

 

d.    the policy be limited to the acquisition of E2 properties that are not able to form part of a development parcel;

e.    the cost of removing any unauthorised structures from the land be deducted from the acquisition price;

f.     any land acquired by Council under the new policy be managed for conservation purposes consistent with clause 34A of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation using any available surplus funds and/or external funding programs and subject to resourcing;

g.    receiving further advice from the NSW Government on the likelihood of receiving clause 34A certification for Nebraska on the basis of parts 2 and 3 above; and

h.    consultation with the landowners in each Estate, in particular to gauge the interest of the E2 land in Jerberra Estate and proposed E2 land in Nebraska Estate.

4.    Agree an independent valuation advice be obtained in order for management to provide detailed estimates of the following for consideration before a draft policy is presented to Council:

a.    the potential net profit from the sale of Council land in each Estate;

b.    total unimproved land value of the undevelopable E2 land (existing and proposed); and

c.    the annual cost of maintaining land to the Council.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Gash)                                                                                MIN20.885

That the Development & Environment Committee:

1.    Receive the update on the Nebraska Estate Planning Proposal (LP145.1) for information.

2.    Agree “in principle” to the development of a new policy for the voluntary acquisition of “residual” E2 Environmental Conservation land in the Nebraska & Jerberra Estates, to be funded by any profits from the sale of developable Council land in each Estate.

3.    Agree to the preparation of a draft policy for Council’s consideration based on the following:

a.    the cost-neutral voluntary acquisition of undevelopable E2 land in each Estate, to the extent possible, funded by the net profit from the sale of Council-owned land with development potential;

b.    if offers to sell E2 land are received before any developable Council-owned land has been sold, general funds be used to purchase E2 properties in each Estate limited to the anticipated net profits from the future sale of the Council-owned land;

c.    land in Nebraska Estate is not purchased until the Planning Proposal has been finalised and the land zoning has been resolved;

d.    the policy be limited to the acquisition of E2 properties that are not able to form part of a development parcel;

e.    the cost of removing any unauthorised structures from the land be deducted from the acquisition price;

f.     any land acquired by Council under the new policy be managed for conservation purposes consistent with clause 34A of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation using any available surplus funds and/or external funding programs and subject to resourcing;

g.    receiving further advice from the NSW Government on the likelihood of receiving clause 34A certification for Nebraska on the basis of parts 2 and 3 above; and

h.    consultation with the landowners in each Estate, in particular to gauge the interest of the E2 land in Jerberra Estate and proposed E2 land in Nebraska Estate.

4.    Agree an independent valuation advice be obtained in order for management to provide detailed estimates of the following for consideration before a draft policy is presented to Council:

a.    the potential net profit from the sale of Council land in each Estate;

b.    total unimproved land value of the undevelopable E2 land (existing and proposed); and

c.    the annual cost of maintaining land to the Council.

CARRIED

 

 

DE20.129   Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Planning Proposal and Draft DCP Amendment - Urban Release Areas Small Lots Clause

HPERM Ref: D20/472861

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1.    Adopt and finalise Planning Proposal (PP055) as exhibited.

2.    Forward PP055 to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

3.    Make the resulting amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 using Council’s delegation.

4.    Adopt and finalise the amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter NB3: Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area as exhibited and give the required public notice advising of its commencement date.

5.    Advise all affected and adjoining landowners, the Cambewarra Residents and Ratepayers Association and development industry representatives of this decision, and when the LEP and DCP amendments will be made effective.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr White)                                                                                   MIN20.886

That Council:

1.    Adopt and finalise Planning Proposal (PP055) as exhibited.

2.    Forward PP055 to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

3.    Make the resulting amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 using Council’s delegation.

4.    Adopt and finalise the amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter NB3: Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area as exhibited and give the required public notice advising of its commencement date.

5.    Advise all affected and adjoining landowners, the Cambewarra Residents and Ratepayers Association and development industry representatives of this decision, and when the LEP and DCP amendments will be made effective.

CARRIED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DE20.130   'Legacy' Planning Proposals - Timing and Progression - NSW Government Direction

HPERM Ref: D20/488125

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1.    Receive the updates on each of the ‘legacy’ Planning Proposals (PP’s) for information.

2.    In respect of each PP covered in the report, take the following steps:

a.    Warrah Road, Bangalee (PP005): continue toward finalising this PP under a new Gateway determination.

b.    Halloran Trust Land, Culburra (PP006): withdraw the current PP and seek a new Gateway determination, subject to further discussions with the proponent and the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) in an attempt to resolve a development footprint.

c.    Nebraska Estate, St Georges Basin (LP145.1): withdraw the current PP and seek a new Gateway determination while continuing efforts to secure certification for the new planning controls under Clause 34A of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017.

d.    Badgee Lagoon Deferred Areas, Sussex Inlet (LP407): withdraw the current PP on the basis that it will be added to and covered by a new PP and accompanying Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report (BCAR) that is being prepared by the proponent.

e.    Inyadda Drive, Manyana (PP007): withdraw the current PP and seek a new Gateway determination once the outcome of the proponent’s upcoming referral under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) is known.

3.    Prepare a future report on revising/updating Council’s Planning Proposal Guidelines once DPIE has updated it is relevant guidelines and the revised Planning Proposal process is clearer.

 

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Gash)                                                                                      MIN20.887

That Council:

1.    Receive the report for information.

2.    Defer this item to:

a.    Request an extension of time from Dept of Planning Industry and Environment to seek further advice, including but not limited to the existing expert reports that have been prepared for the applications.

b.    Request an urgent meeting with the Hon Shelly Hancock MP Member for South Coast and The Hon. Robert Stokes MP to discuss the NSW Government Direction on these Planning Proposals.

CARRIED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DE20.131   DA20/1494 – 25 Sunnymede Lane, Berry – Lot 3 DP 713138

HPERM Ref: D20/259112

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council determine Development Application DA20/1495 by way of approval subject to the conditions at attachment 10.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Alldrick / Clr Guile)                                                                                    MIN20.888

That in relation to DA20/1494 – 25 Sunnymede Lane, Berry – Lot 3 DP 713138:

1.    Council defer the item and refer back to staff to consider:

a.    If under 7.13 of the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan the Council can legally require a further Development Application should a change to short term holiday letting be required by the owners;

b.    The submissions by surrounding residents;

2.    A report be provided on the above to the next Development & Environment Meeting.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against:    Clr Findley, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio and Clr Levett

CARRIED

 

 

DE20.132   DA20/1579 – 42 Naval Parade, Erowal Bay – Lot 45 DP 1052512

HPERM Ref: D20/478805

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application DA20/1579 to demolish existing structures and construct shop top housing at Lot 45 DP 1052512, 42 Naval Parade, Erowal Bay not be supported by Council having regard to the reasons contained in Attachment 3 of this report.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Wells)                                                                                    MIN20.889

That Development Application DA20/1579 to demolish existing structures and construct shop top housing at Lot 45 DP 1052512, 42 Naval Parade, Erowal Bay not be supported by Council having regard to the reasons contained in Attachment 3 of this report.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Findley, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Levett, Clr Guile, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against:        Clr Gash

CARRIED

 

 

DE20.133   DA20/1751– 42 Lyrebird Drive NOWRA – Lot 72 & DP 1198691

HPERM Ref: D20/478771

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application No. DA20/1751 for the construction of dual occupancy (attached) be determined by way of refusal for the reasons set out in the draft Notice of Determination at Attachment 1.

 

 

Motion (Clr White / Clr Gash)

That in relation to DA20/1751– 42 Lyrebird Drive NOWRA – Lot 72 & DP 1198691:

1.    Council approve the Development Application; and

2.    Conditions of Consent be modelled on Attachment 5 and amended to reflect this development including the need for a Flood emergency plan.

 

Clr Proudfoot raised a Point of Order against Clr Digiglio regarding her comment about Councillors not making moral decisions. The Chairperson ruled as a Point of Order. Clr Digiglio was asked to withdraw her comments. Clr Digiglio withdrew her comments.

 

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Gash)                                                                                      MIN20.890

That in relation to DA20/1751– 42 Lyrebird Drive NOWRA – Lot 72 & DP 1198691:

1.    Council approve the Development Application; and

2.    Conditions of Consent for the development  be modelled on Attachment 5 to the report and amended to reflect this development, including the need for a Flood emergency plan.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Guile, Clr Watson and Clr Kitchener

Against:    Clr Findley, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Levett, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

CARRIED on the CASTING VOTE of the Chair.

 

 

DE20.134   SF10686 – Red Gum Dr Ulladulla – Lot 600 DP 1249606 & Lot 2 DP 1076005

HPERM Ref: D20/480834

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application SF10686 for a residential subdivision to create eight (8) Torrens Title allotments, including seven (7) residential allotments, one (1) public reserve lot, and associated site works within the subdivision approved by SF9275 at Lot 600 DP 1249606 and Lot 2 DP 1076005, Red Gum Drive, Ulladulla, be refused for the reasons contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

 

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Proudfoot)                                                                               MIN20.891

That Council defer this recommendation until such time as the issues with Transport NSW are sorted out and resolved, with a  time limit of 12 months to be applied for that resolution.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Guile, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Clr Proudfoot

Against:    Clr Findley, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Levett and Stephen Dunshea

CARRIED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DE20.135   SF10804 – 104 Taylors Lane, Cambewarra – Lot 3 DP 851823

HPERM Ref: D20/509320

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the report on SF10804 – 104 Taylors Lane, Cambewarra – Lot 3 DP 851823 be received for information.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr White)                                                                                      MIN20.892

That in relation to SF10804 – 104 Taylors Lane, Cambewarra – Lot 3 DP 851823:

1.    The report be received for information; and

2.    SF10804 be called in for determination by the elected Council on the basis of public interest in the Development.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Findley, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Levett, Clr Guile, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against:    Nil

CARRIED

 

 

DE20.136   Quarterly Review for Compliance Matters

HPERM Ref: D20/422071

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receive the quarterly report on compliance matters for information.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Alldrick)                                                                                    MIN20.893

That Council receive the quarterly report on compliance matters for information.

CARRIED

 

 

DE20.137   Misuse of Vegetation Policy Report

HPERM Ref: D20/461817

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1.    Receive this report for information; and

2.    Having regard to the fact that there is already a process through the Land & Environment Court, supported by the Tree (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, to deal with the type of issues outlined in Council Minute MIN20.637, Council not proceed with developing a separate policy relating to the misuse of vegetation at this time.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Kitchener)                                                                         MIN20.894

That Council:

1.    Produce a draft Voluntary Vegetation Planting Code with a specified list of guidelines including view sharing, vegetation invasiveness, overshadowing and bushfire hazard;

2.    Update and refresh the Shoalhaven City Council Tree Guides;

3.    Offer street trees for council to plant in residential streets on private land at the request of homeowners.

4.    Receive a briefing from a member of council’s legal panel on legal and best practice advice in relation to vegetation management.

CARRIED

 

 

Procedural Motion - Adjournment of Meeting

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Findley)                                                                                   MIN20.895

That the meeting be adjourned for five (5) minutes to allow for refreshments.

CARRIED

 

 

The meeting adjourned the time being 7.39pm.

 

The meeting resumed the time being 7.45pm.

 

Clr Mitchell Pakes - Chairperson

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr John Wells

Clr Patricia White

Clr Kaye Gartner – (Remotely)

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr Annette Alldrick

Clr John Levett – (Remotely)

Clr Andrew Guile – (Remotely)

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Stephen Dunshea - Chief Executive Officer

 

 

DE20.138   Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Two-Year Trial Action Plan - Final Report

HPERM Ref: D20/480826

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Support the preparation of the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Action Plan to guide the work of the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Group under Council’s Bushcare Program. This will be supported by Council’s 2020 Collingwood Beach Coastal and Estuary Grant, should it be successful;

2.    Allocate $37,700 in the 2021/22 budget for Council’s contribution for the 2020 Collingwood Beach Coastal and Estuary Grant;

3.    Allocate a dedicated annual budget of $15,000 from 2021/22 onwards to continue to implement Council’s Vegetation Prevention Vandalism Policy across the Shoalhaven, noting the type of replacement trees planted in the dune from Susan Street to Albion Street must be on the approved revegetation species list;

4.    Consider allocation of an additional $125,000 for additional annual maintenance funds from 2021/22 onwards, to prune overhanging vegetation, to allow for at least three maintenance events each year of the Shoalhaven’s 170 km of coastline with more than 250 beach access ways;

5.    Undertake an audit of the stormwater outlets, shared pathway and accessways along Collingwood Beach to inform the Coastal Management Program to maintain the resilience of the dune and identify any maintenance works that are required; and

6.    Adopt the recommendations of the Final Report - Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Action Two-Year Trial Plan.

 

Motion (Clr White / Clr Gash)

That Council:

1.    Support the preparation of the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Action Plan to guide the work of the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Group under Council’s Bushcare Program and completed within four months. Such plan to be in accordance with the NSW Coastal Dune Management manual and the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016.  This plan will be supported by Council’s 2020 Collingwood Beach Coastal and Estuary Grant, should it be successful. 

2.    Allocate $37,700 in the 2021/22 budget for Council’s contribution for the 2020 Collingwood Beach Coastal and Estuary Grant.

3.    Allocate a dedicated annual budget of $15,000 from 2021/22 onwards to continue to implement Council’s Vegetation Prevention Vandalism Policy across the Shoalhaven, noting the type of replacement trees planted in the dune from Susan Street to Albion Street must be on the approved revegetation species list in the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Action Plan.

4.    Allocate additional funding for annual maintenance funds from 2021/22 onwards, to prune overhanging vegetation, to allow for at least three maintenance events each year for Collingwood Beach.

5.    Undertake an audit of the stormwater outlets, shared pathway and accessways along Collingwood Beach to inform the Coastal Management Program to maintain the resilience of the dune and identify any future maintenance works that are required.

6.    Submit a grant immediately under the CZMP funding opportunities for the implementation of the storm water discharge concept proposed by City Services, with the responsibility for all matters relating to the dunes of Collingwood Beach be transferred to City Services.

7.    Receive the Final Report – Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Action Two Year Trial Plan for information

8.    Re-endorse the Council resolution on February 11, 2020 (subject to a Recission Motion Council Meeting February 25, 2020 - defeated), that Council immediately remove all banksia root suckers, seedlings and saplings and:

a.    This resolution is to be included in the proposed Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Plan  with the removal of the new growth banksia to be replaced with species from the list prepared for replanting as undertaken in Trial Site 1 and in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 and the NSW Coastal Dune Management Manual and Council’s publicly displayed acknowledgement the houses are built on the hind dune.

b.    This resolution is to be included in the proposed Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Plan  with the removal of the new growth banksia to be replaced with species from the list prepared for replanting as undertaken in Trial Site 1 and in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 and the NSW Coastal Dune Management Manual.

9.    Tall tree species that potentially endanger people, residences and infrastructure will not be planted particularly in unstable foredune areas.

10.  All deadwood will be removed from Collingwood Beach Dune areas.

11.  Undertake within the next 3 months further pruning and thinning of Banksia’s where thickets occurring from Susan Street to the north to Illfracombe Ave.

 

 

Procedural Motion – motion be put (Clr Wells / Clr White)

That the MOTION be PUT.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Guile, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Clr Proudfoot

Against:    Clr Findley, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Levett and Stephen Dunshea

PROCEDURAL MOTION CARRIED

the motion was put to the meeting and carried

 

RECOMMENDATION (Clr White / Clr Gash)

That Council:

1.    Support the preparation of the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Action Plan to guide the work of the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Group under Council’s Bushcare Program and completed within four months. Such plan to be in accordance with the NSW Coastal Dune Management manual and the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016.  This plan will be supported by Council’s 2020 Collingwood Beach Coastal and Estuary Grant, should it be successful. 

2.    Allocate $37,700 in the 2021/22 budget for Council’s contribution for the 2020 Collingwood Beach Coastal and Estuary Grant.

3.    Allocate a dedicated annual budget of $15,000 from 2021/22 onwards to continue to implement Council’s Vegetation Prevention Vandalism Policy across the Shoalhaven, noting the type of replacement trees planted in the dune from Susan Street to Albion Street must be on the approved revegetation species list in the Collingwood Beach Dunecare Action Plan.

4.    Allocate additional funding for annual maintenance funds from 2021/22 onwards, to prune overhanging vegetation, to allow for at least three maintenance events each year for Collingwood Beach.

5.    Undertake an audit of the stormwater outlets, shared pathway and accessways along Collingwood Beach to inform the Coastal Management Program to maintain the resilience of the dune and identify any future maintenance works that are required.

6.    Submit a grant immediately under the CZMP funding opportunities for the implementation of the storm water discharge concept proposed by City Services, with the responsibility for all matters relating to the dunes of Collingwood Beach be transferred to City Services.

7.    Receive the Final Report – Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Action Two Year Trial Plan for information

8.    Re-endorse the Council resolution on February 11, 2020 (subject to a Recission Motion Council Meeting February 25, 2020 - defeated), that Council immediately remove all banksia root suckers, seedlings and saplings, and:

a.    This resolution is to be included in the proposed Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Plan with the removal of the new growth banksia to be replaced with species from the list prepared for replanting as undertaken in Trial Site 1 and in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 and the NSW Coastal Dune Management Manual and Council’s publicly displayed acknowledgement the houses are built on the hind dune.

b.    This resolution is to be included in the proposed Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Plan  with the removal of the new growth banksia to be replaced with species from the list prepared for replanting as undertaken in Trial Site 1 and in accordance with the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 and the NSW Coastal Dune Management Manual.

9.    Tall tree species that potentially endanger people, residences and infrastructure will not be planted particularly in unstable foredune areas.

10.  All deadwood will be removed from Collingwood Beach Dune areas.

11.  Undertake within the next 3 months further pruning and thinning of Banksia’s where thickets occurring from Susan Street to the north to Illfracombe Ave.

For:             Clr Pakes, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr White, Clr Guile, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against:    Clr Findley, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick and Clr Levett

CARRIED

 

 

DE20.139   Review of Tabourie Lake Entrance Management Policy

HPERM Ref: D20/486502

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1.    Adopt the Tabourie Lake Entrance Management Policy (June 2019), with the policy recommendation to increase the trigger level, for mechanical opening, from 1.17m AHD to 1.3m AHD.

2.    Continue to investigate stormwater drainage issues affecting properties on Princes Highway, Tabourie Lake in conjunction with Transport for New South Wales.

 

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Digiglio)                                                                                MIN20.896

That Council:

1.    Adopt the Tabourie Lake Entrance Management Policy (June 2019), with the policy recommendation to increase the trigger level, for mechanical opening, from 1.17m AHD to 1.3m AHD.

2.    Continue to investigate stormwater drainage issues affecting properties on Princes Highway, Tabourie Lake in conjunction with Transport for New South Wales.

For:             Clr Findley, Clr Wells, Clr Gartner, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Levett, Clr Guile and Stephen Dunshea

Against:    Clr Pakes, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

 

Note: A Rescission Motion was received after the meeting closed in relation to DE20.139 Review of Tabourie Lake Entrance Management Policy signed by Clr Kitchener, Clr White & Clr Watson.

 

   

 

 

 

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 8.52pm.

 

 

Clr Pakes

CHAIRPERSON

 

 

 

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.1       Post Exhibition Finalisation - Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy and Works in Kind Policy Package

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/424616

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Public Exhibition Submission Summary

2.  Combined Policy Package with recommended post exhibition changes (under separate cover)   

Reason for Report

·    Present the submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) and Works in Kind Agreement (WIKA) Policy Package (the Policy Package).

·    Enable the final adoption and implementation of the Policies.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1.    Adopt the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) and Works in Kind Agreement (WIKA) Policy Package as exhibited, with changes shown in Attachment 2 to the report.

2.    Endorse the exhibition of the proposed new fee structure for VPA and WIKA applications ($280 per agreement) as part of the 2021/22 Fees and Charges process and review the fee amount after a 12-month period.

3.    Delegate the management of the VPAs and WIKAs outlined in Table 2 of this report to the Chief Executive Officer (or his delegate) for consideration and resolution, with the following VPAs and WIKAs being reported to Council:

·    Those that fall outside the criteria in Table 2 in this report, or

·    As a result of negotiations, additional or different provisions or credit arrangements were required to be included, or substantial objections or issues were raised as a result of public notification.

4.    Advise the Development Industry Representatives and those who made a submission of this resolution.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable this much needed Policy Package to be finalised. This also responds to a number of matters raised during the public exhibition period.

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes and could delay the finalisation and implementation of the Policy Package.

3.    Not proceed with the Policy Package.

Implications: This is not recommended as it would mean:

·    It would be inconsistent with Internal Audit Recommendations and previous Council decisions.

·    There would be a policy gap regarding WIKAs.

·    Outdated information and processes would remain relating to VPAs. 

 

Background

Following an increase in the number of VPAs and WIKAs being received by Council, it was identified that an additional and more comprehensive process was required to better manage these mechanisms moving forward. 

Council currently has an existing Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy in place, but not a policy relating to WIKAs. The need for updated and new policy guidance in this regard was also raised though Council’s Internal Audit process.

On 20 July 2020 Council resolved (MIN20.467) to:

1.    Endorse the public exhibition of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) and Works in Kind Agreement (WIKA) Policy Package at Attachment 1.

2.    Endorse the review of the existing fee structure relating to VPA’s and WIKA’s and prepare a new fee structure as required. 

3.    Receive a further report regarding the outcomes of the public exhibition, proposed delegation arrangements for certain VPA’s/WIKA’s, proposed fee structure and proposed finalisation of the draft Policy Package.

4.    Advise relevant stakeholders, including CCB’s and industry representatives of this resolution and exhibition arrangements.

 

Public Exhibition

The draft Policy Package was exhibited for a period of 30 days from Wednesday 12 August to Friday 11 September 2020 (inclusive). A notice appeared on Council’s website and as per the resolution, the key industry stakeholders were notified directly in writing.

The exhibition material included the following documents:

·    Draft VPA Policy and the draft VPA Template (prepared for Council by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers).

·    Draft WIKA Policy and the draft WIKA Template (reviewed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, based on the existing template).

As a result of the exhibition, two (2) formal submissions were received from the following industry representatives:

·    Allen Price & Scarratts.

·    Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (on behalf of Jemalong Mundamia Pty Ltd).

 

Submission Summary and Recommended Post Exhibition Changes

Attachment 1 provides a summary of the submissions received and staff comment on each. Copies of the actual submissions can be made available to Councillors prior to the meeting on request.

As a result of the submissions received, the following changes are proposed to the exhibited draft Policies and Templates, which are also shown in Attachment 2:

·    Remove the reference to ‘staff time’ from section 7 of the draft VPA Policy and clarify that the costs outlined in the draft VPA and WIKA Policy refer to Council’s external costs, such as legal or professional costs/expenses (i.e. valuation and other consultant costs) and disbursements.

·    Add a note into the draft VPA Policy (Section 7) to indicate that the draft VPA template is not ‘static’ and developers can propose changes to the hand-over procedure as set out in the draft VPA template.

·    Provide clarification in the draft VPA Policy regarding security and when a lesser amount may be acceptable.

·    Include a definition for ‘guarantee’ and ‘unendorsed bank cheque’ in the draft WIKA Policy.

·    Amend the reference in Section 5 of the draft WIKA Policy from ‘bank guarantee’ to ‘bank cheque’.

·    Amend clause 7 of the draft VPA template to specify that this clause only prevents a developer from appealing the terms of the VPA they have negotiated. This does not prevent them appealing other aspects of the development.

·    Amend clause 6.2(a) of the draft WIKA template to clarify the value of works.

 

Implementation of an Application/ Supervision Fee

At present, there is no consistent approach regarding how requests for VPAs and WIKAs are submitted. The proposed draft policies require specific information to be provided as part of the preliminary process, and as such it is considered appropriate for a new clear application process to be implemented for efficiency and consistency.

A number of NSW councils have established an application fee for the initial consideration of a VPA or WIKA (i.e. a lodgement fee) and a supervision fee for the construction phase (where appropriate). These fees acknowledge the preliminary work relating to a VPA or WIKA that utilises significant staff and other resources before the proposed VPA or WIKA is supported for progression.

The following table outlines the fees charged for the application of a VPA or WIKA by a number of other NSW councils:

Table 1: Examples of VPA and WIKA fees in NSW

Council

VPA

WIKA

Additional Notes

Blacktown City Council

$530

This fee is for each full Section 7.11 work listed in a contributions plan.

$264

This fee is for each part of a Section 7.11 work listed in a contributions plan.

Strathfield Council

$550

$550

Preliminary assessment.

Wingecarribee Shire Council

10%

10%

This is an administration fee that is 10% of costs of the works.

MidCoast Council

50%

50%

This fee is a management fee and is based on 50% of the cost of preparation.

City of Sydney Council

$880

-

Administration costs.

Clarence Valley Council

$565

-

VPA preparation fee.

Georges River Council

$599

-

Preliminary assessment.

 

Based on the above information, the reviewed councils (largely metropolitan) charge significant fees for the application of both a VPA and WIKA. These fees are considered to be too high for Shoalhaven at this point in time given the regional nature of the area and the desire to not wish to discourage appropriate VPAs or WIKAs. As Council moves to implement a new/amended policy position relating to VPAs/WIKAs, an initial application fee of $280 is considered reasonable. It would be appropriate for the fee amount to be reviewed following a period of 12 months to see if any changes are required. 

It is noted that these fees would be in addition to developers paying for Council’s legal and other external costs associated with the drafting of the VPA or WIKA. An application form will be available to assist developers with the lodgement of VPAs and WIKAs once this Policy Package has been formally adopted.

As Council continues to see an increase in the number of requests for VPAs and WIKAs it is appropriate that there is some administration fee/cost recovery.

 

Delegation

There is currently no consistent approach to reporting proposed or draft VPAs and WIKAs to Council. As part of the current process, legal advice was obtained from Lindsay Taylor Lawyers regarding potential staff delegation opportunities. Staff delegation for the straightforward VPAs/WIKAs of a mechanical, administrative etc. nature would reduce the number of agreements that need to be reported to Council and also assist in reducing time delays associated with development applications.  

Table 2 below (and the draft VPA/WIKA Policies at Attachment 1) outlines instances where VPAs or WIKAs could be considered under delegation and thus may not need to be reported to Council. Generally, this would be when the VPA or WIKA is in accordance with the template form, does not go beyond the specified arrangements, and no objections or substantial issues are raised during public notification. Council could consider providing general delegations to the Chief Executive Officer (or their delegate) for these types of VPAs and WIKAs, enabling staff to:

·    Negotiate, publicly notify and enter into VPAs.

·    Negotiate and enter into WIKAs.

 

Table 2: Instances where VPAs/WIKAs could be considered under delegation

VPAs

WIKAs

·     Where a VPA is in a template format, and

·     The contributions that will be required:

are a standard amount of monetary contributions or an amount of monetary contributions that can be easily calculated using a standard rate, or

consists of work and/or dedicated land that is listed in the Council’s Contributions Plan and Section 7.11 contributions are not excluded, or

consists of work and/or dedicates land that is listed in the Council’s Contributions Plan and Section 7.11 is excluded, but only in relation to Section 7.11 which are for the same category of infrastructure as the works and land to be provided under the VPA, and

·     The VPA does not involve credit or refund arrangements or has credit or refund arrangements which are set out in template format.

·    The WIKA is in a template format, and

·    The WIKA consists of works that are listed in the Council’s Contributions Plan, and

·    The value of works which are recognised are consistent with the value as specified in the Council’s Contributions Plan, and

·    The works satisfy Section 7.11 contributions of the same category of infrastructure as the works, and

·    The WIK Agreement does not involve credit or refund arrangements or has credit or refund arrangements which are set out in template format.

 

 

VPAs or WIKAs would however need to be reported to the Council prior to being entered into if:

·    They fall outside the criteria in Table 2, or

·    As a result of negotiations, additional or different provisions or credit arrangements were required to be included, or substantial objections or issues were raised, as a result of public notification.

 

Conclusion

The proposed Policy Package is need in a timely manner given the increase number of WPA and WIKA requests that Council is receiving. As such it is important that this matter proceed to finalisation, noting that it can continue to be reviewed and improved through time.

 

Community Engagement

The draft Policy Package was publicly exhibited for 30 days in accordance with legislative requirements. Two (2) submissions were received which are summarised at Attachment 1 and discussed above.

 

Policy Implications

The NSW Government announced a review of the NSW Infrastructure Contributions system in 2020. This included a new draft planning agreement policy framework. The review is ongoing, and the Policy Package may need to be adjusted and updated in the future in response to changes to the NSW system.

 

Financial Implications

Finalising the Policy Package will continue to be undertaken within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.2       Post Exhibition Finalisation - Shoalhaven Contribution Plan 2019 - Amendment No.1 (CP2019.1)

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/519119

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Explanatory Statement - Draft Amendment No.1 - Shoalhaven CP2019   

Reason for Report

·    Detail the outcomes of the public exhibition of Amendment No.1 (CP2019.1) to Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 (the Plan).

·    Enable the amendment to proceed to finalisation.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1.    Adopt Amendment No.1 (CP2019.1) to Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 as exhibited and proceed to finalise it.

2.    Advise relevant industry representatives of this decision and when the amendment to Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 will be made effective.

 

 

Options

1.    Adopt the recommendation to finalise the Amendment as exhibited.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will allow the Amendment to be finalised, noting that no submissions were received during the public exhibition period.

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes and could delay the finalisation and implementation of the Amendment.

 

3.    Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This would essentially stop the implementation of the Amendment which is not preferred.

 

Background

The Plan originally commenced on 2 April 2019, and as part of its finalisation, Council resolved to make necessary housekeeping amendments to the Plan and that these be reported for consideration as required. As a result, ongoing reviews of the Plan will be undertaken to ensure the accuracy and operation of the Plan is maintained and improved, and positive outcomes for the community are delivered.

Council resolved (MIN20.713) on 6 October 2020 to endorse the initial draft amendment for exhibition. The main components include the:

1.   Review of certain content in the Plan (i.e. website content).

2.   Deletion of a number of projects within the Plan.

3.   Review and revision of certain projects within the Plan.

Not all components of the 2019 Council resolution have been considered in this amendment and future housekeeping amendments will further refine the Plan and its projects.

 

Community Engagement

Draft Amendment No.1 was publicly exhibited for a period of 30 days from Wednesday 11 November until Friday 11 December 2020 (inclusive) via Council’s website.

The exhibition material remains available on Council’s website and includes the:

·    Explanatory Statement.

·    Fact Sheet.

·    Appendix A – Website Changes.

·    Appendix B – Projects to be Deleted.

·    Appendix C – Projects to be Revised.

·    Public Exhibition Notice.

The ‘explanatory statement’ is provided as Attachment 1 and provides a good overview of the scope of this amendment.

Development Industry Representatives and all CCBs were directly notified of the exhibition arrangements.

At the conclusion of the exhibition period, and at the time of writing this report, no submissions had been received. 

 

Conclusion

Given that the exhibition process has been concluded and no submissions were received that need to be responded to, it is considered appropriate for Amendment No.1 to be adopted as exhibited and it proceed to finalisation.

 

Policy Implications

The proposed amendment seeks to increase the efficiency and improve the operation of the Plan as a whole.

 

Financial Implications

The finalisation will continue to be resourced from the Strategic Planning budget.

 

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.3       Proposed Natural Disaster Clause - NSW Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan 

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/522846

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  August 2020 Staff Submission - Proposed Natural Disasters Clause

2.  NSW Government's Final Natural Disaster Clause Package   

Reason for Report

Obtain endorsement to not ‘opt-in’ to the NSW Government’s proposed new Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Natural Disaster clause but investigate the merits of a different/tailored version of the clause suitable for Shoalhaven.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1.    Not opt-in to the new Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan Natural Disaster clause and advise the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment accordingly (by 15 February 2021) based on the content of this report.

2.    Consider including a different version of the clause, that better meets Shoalhaven’s needs, via the standard Planning Proposal process at the appropriate point in time and receive a future report.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable Council to develop an appropriate Natural Disaster clause that is appropriate to Shoalhaven without being constrained by the ‘model’ clause (Attachment 2). A more tailored clause can be drafted which will meet the specific needs of Shoalhaven now and into the future, which could include all forms of residential development.

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the nature of the changes; however, a set State-wide Natural Disaster ‘model’ clause may not meet the City’s needs.

 

3.    Not opt-in to the new ‘model’ Natural Disaster clause, or a more specific Shoalhaven version that is developed.

Implications: This is not recommended as in some circumstances there may be uncertainty surrounding the ability to rebuild homes following a natural disaster event. A clause suitably tailored for Shoalhaven will however assist in resolving uncertainty and red tape for landowners. 

 

Background

In response to the 2019-2020 bushfire and flood events, the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) has prepared a ‘model’ draft Natural Disaster clause for inclusion in the NSW Standard Instrument LEP to attempt to alleviate regulatory challenges faced by homeowners seeking to rebuild lawfully erected homes following natural disaster events. 

Anything that assists in this regard is generally seen as a positive step forward, acknowledging that Shoalhaven was significantly affected by the 2019-2020 Bushfire event and was also affected by flood events in 2020. Many people affected by these natural disasters are now seeking planning approval to enable them to rebuild or repair their dwellings.

In August 2020, DPIE sought initial feedback from NSW councils on a proposed clause to ‘cut the red tape’. Due to the timeframes associated with the submission (26 days) and the fact that the draft submission could not be considered by Council for endorsement within that timeframe, a staff submission was provided (Attachment 1). This indicated ‘in principle’ support for the new clause, subject to matters being resolved, including the type of land uses the clause would apply to.

Following consideration of the submission received, DPIE has now provided the final clause package (Attachment 2) for consideration. The Council staff concerns have in part been addressed through the finalisation process; however, there is one main unresolved issue that potentially has significant implications for Shoalhaven.

The proposed clause enables the replacement of a lawfully erected dwelling house or secondary dwelling in appropriate zones; however, this is not considered flexible enough for Shoalhaven. There can be barriers to the replacement of a dwelling (beyond a dwelling house and secondary dwelling) in a zone where that use is no longer permissible; for example, a detached dual occupancy constructed in a R2 zone where that land had been subsequently rezoned to R5 prior to the natural disaster. Medium density development (including dual occupancies) should also be considered in the same way as lower density residential development.

Thus it is important that any clause enables the replacement of any dwelling destroyed by a natural disaster, not just a dwelling house or secondary dwelling. 

Council has now been asked by DPIE to formally consider ‘opting-in’ to the new ‘model’ clause for the relevant Shoalhaven LEPs. Whilst the previous Council staff submission indicated a general interest in the new Natural Disaster Clause, given that the points raised have not been satisfactory resolved, opting-in at this point in time is not considered in Shoalhaven’s best interest. Instead, it would be more appropriate for Council to consider including a different tailored version of the clause into our LEPs that meets Shoalhaven’s needs. This could be undertaken at a later date via the standard Planning Proposal process.  Through this process, the type of development that could be replaced could theoretically be expanded to include other forms of residential development (not just dwelling houses and secondary dwellings). In the meantime, it is likely that most existing dwellings that are lost in such circumstances would benefit from ‘existing use’ rights depending on their legal status.

 

Community Engagement

No community consultation has been undertaken to date, noting that DPIE has consulted directly with NSW councils. Any planning proposal to include a different version of the Natural Disaster clause into Shoalhaven’s LEPs would likely require public exhibition in accordance with the Gateway Determination and legislative requirements.

 

Policy Implications

Opting-in to the new Natural Disaster clause will not offer Council the flexibility it needs to alleviate the regulatory challenges faced by homeowners seeking to rebuild any type of dwelling (not just a dwelling house or secondary dwelling) following these natural disaster events.

It would be more prudent to instead develop a different version of the Natural Disaster clause which will meet all of Shoalhaven’s needs, especially the consideration of all dwelling types.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with making this submission. Any future planning proposal would be resourced via the existing Strategic Planning budget.  


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.4       Proposed Planning Proposal - Riverview Road Precinct (Nowra) and Huntingdale Park Estate Precinct (Berry)

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/538996

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures  

Reason for Report

·    Provide an update on the resolved planning investigations for:

Riverview Road Precinct (Nowra) – dual occupancy exclusion options.

Huntingdale Par Estate Precinct (Berry) – large lot residential zoning options.

·    Obtain endorsement to proceed with a Planning Proposal (PP) to amendment Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 to respond in this regard.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1.    Endorse the preparation of a Planning Proposal with the following scope, and proceed to submit it to the NSW Government for a Gateway determination, and if this is favourable, proceed to exhibition as per the legislative and any determination requirements:

a.    Riverview Road Precinct (Nowra):

i.     Insert a new local clause (similar to clause 4.1A) setting a parent lot size for the erection of a dual occupancy development that is 1,500m2.

ii.     Establish a clause map to identify the land to which the local clause would apply (the land in Figure 1 of this report).

iii.    Amend clause 4.6(8) to ensure that the parent lot size set in the new local clause could not be varied.

b.    Huntingdale Park Estate Precinct (Berry):

i.     Rezone the subject land to R5 Large Lot Residential.

ii.     Set a 2,000m2 minimum lot size for the entirety of the subject land.

2.    Receive a further report following the conclusion of the public exhibition period or if the Gateway determination is not favourable.

3.    Advise key stakeholders of this decision and the resultant exhibition arrangements, including affected landowners, relevant Community Consultative Bodies and Development Industry representatives.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable Council to adjust Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to resolve the planning issues resulting from the Council resolutions on Riverview Road Precinct (Nowra) and Huntingdale Park Estate Precinct (Berry). 

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes and could postpone or stop the resolution of these planning issues.

 

3.    Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This option would stop the resolution of these planning issues. The planning controls in these areas would remain unaltered.

 

Background

Riverview Road Precinct – Nowra

On 2 July 2019, Council resolved (MIN19.459) that:

The next Housekeeping Amendment seek to consider inserting provisions in the Shoalhaven LEP to rule out dual occupancy development in the vicinity of Riverview Road and Lyrebird Drive, Nowra. 

This resolution essentially seeks to prohibit dual occupancy development in the Riverview Road precinct (Figure 1) due to the highly flood prone nature of the land. The precinct includes all the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land located in the Riverview Road Area Floodplain Risk Management Plan area. Dual occupancy development (both attached and detached) is currently permissible with consent citywide in the R2 zone. 

 

Figure 1: The Riverview View Road Precinct

A number of options have been explored to progress this matter, as outlined in the following table.

 

Option

Comment

Use the DCP to highlight the precinct’s flood issues to specify that dual occupancies are not supported in this area.

 

 

Chapter G9: Development on Flood Prone Land of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 already seeks to restrict dual occupancies in this location, stating that no dual occupancy or subdivision will be permitted. 

It is noted that there are difficulties in enforcing this provision solely through a DCP, especially where there is a direct conflict with an environmental planning instrument (i.e. Shoalhaven LEP 2014). Simply a DCP cannot prohibit something that is permissible under an LEP.

From a practicality perspective, this option is not ideal; however, following a discussion with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPIE), this is their preferred option despite the obvious conflict issue.

Rezone the land to a zone that prohibits dual occupancy development.

Dual occupancy development is currently prohibited citywide in the following zones:

·    RU3 Forestry.

·    All business zones.

·    All industrial zones.

·    All special purpose zones. 

·    All recreation zones.

·    All waterway zones. 

None of the above zones would be ideal for the precinct; however, of them all, SP3 Tourist would perhaps be the only one that could even be considered. It is noted that dwelling houses remain permissible with consent in that zone; however, clause 7.27 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 requires that any future dwelling needs to form an integral part of development for the purposes of tourism. This precinct is not an identified tourism precinct and rezoning it SP3 would have a range of additional unintended consequences.

DPIE have advised that applying an appropriate zone to the land is preferable; however, as discussed above, none of the existing zones are considered appropriate if this approach is taken.

Pursue a local clause in the LEP prohibiting dual occupancy development.

Trying to prohibit dual occupancies in the precinct through a local clause will result in what would be termed a ‘sub-zone’ which is not consistent with the Standard LEP Instrument approach and will not be supported by DPIE.

Pursue a new local clause to introduce a minimum parent lot size specifically for the Precinct for dual occupancy development, similar to the new clause 4.1A in the LEP.

In August 2020, an amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 was finalised which introduced a new clause (clause 4.1A) that set a minimum parent lot size prior to the erection of medium density development in certain residential zones.

A similar approach could be considered for the Precinct.  Dual occupancies would remain permissible with consent as per the land use table; however, a local clause would set a parent lot size that is greater than the standard lot size in the area for both attached and detached dual occupancies. It is noted that the largest lot in the Precinct is 4,016.49m2; however, 85% of lots are less than 1,000m2 and 98% are less than 1,500m2. As such, it is considered appropriate for the parent lot size to be set at 1,500m2.  

This would require consolidation of lots for a dual occupancy development and would be less appealing for infill dual occupancy development. 

It is noted that this option is not a prohibition. A dual occupancy development could be considered if land is consolidated and an applicant could seek a variation to the parent minimum lot size standard, unless the proposed new local clause is exempt from clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards (the clause enabling variations to LEP standards).

This is the preferred option should Council still wish to pursue a change to the LEP in this regard.

 

As a result of the investigations, and assuming Council still wishes to pursue this matter, it would be appropriate to progress this matter by amending the LEP via a PP to:

·    Insert a new local clause (similar to clause 4.1A) setting a parent lot size for a dual occupancy development that is greater than the standard lot size in the Precinct, being 1,500m2.

·    Establish a clause map to identify the land to which the new local clause would apply, being the land in Figure 1.

·    Amend existing clause 4.6(8) to ensure that the parent lot size set in the new local clause could not be varied.

 

Huntingdale Park Estate Precinct – Berry

During the public exhibition of Council’s Review of Subdivision Provisions PP (PP027), there were a number of specific requests to review the zoning of certain land within Huntingdale Park Estate, Berry.  As a result, Council resolved on 23 June 2020 (MIN20.448(2b)) to:

As part of a separate process: Review the zoning of the R1 zoned large lots at the periphery of Huntingdale Estate Berry.

The resolved review has now been undertaken in relation to the land within the estate shown in Figure 2, being the larger R1 General Residential lots in the Estate on its periphery.

 

Figure 2: The Huntingdale Park Estate Review Precinct

 

In the planning for the Huntingdale Park Estate area and through the DCP, large lots with a minimum lot size of 2,000m² were envisaged along the northern, western, and southern boundaries to provide a transition from the higher density development in the centre of the subdivision through to lower density development bordering the adjacent rural lands.

Despite the original intentions to create low density lots along these boundaries, following the commencement of LEP in 2014, the majority of the residential portion of the estate was zoned R1 General Residential. Multi-dwelling housing is however generally permitted with consent within the R1 zone and this is considered to conflict with the desired low density characteristics and intentions envisaged for the Huntingdale Estate. Recent multi-dwelling development applications on some of these larger lots have prompted significant community opposition/concern. 

Submissions during the PP027 process suggested that the subject land (Figure 2) be rezoned to R2 Low Density Residential in order to prevent multi-dwelling development which is prohibited within the R2 zone under the LEP. An R2 zone would assist in maintaining the low density large lot characteristics that were initially supported by Council and the community during the original subdivision, with the exception of dual occupancy development and its lawful subdivision via the NSW Government’s State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (the Code) (complying development) and clause 4.1A of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (development application). These opportunities still have the potential to also erode the desired large lot low density characteristics of the subject land. 

Thus an R5 Rural Residential zoning is considered more appropriate in securing the low-density intentions of the identified parts of the Estate, as the Code does not apply to this land and limited medium density opportunities are available. Suitable ‘dual occupancy (attached)’ development would remain permissible as would ‘secondary dwellings’ under the NSW Government’s State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposed R5 zoning of the subject land will likely protect the area from the erosion of the existing (and desired) large lot character, as well as respond to issues arising as a result of the Code. This zone is also the same as the land to the north that was rezoned as part of PP027 for (in part) the same reasons. 

In considering the zoning of the subject land, it would be appropriate to also adjust the minimum lot size of the subject land and apply a 2,000m2 minimum lot size to all areas within the precinct (currently part 500m2 and part 2,000m2). 

The rezoning of the land to R5 will trigger clause 4.2D of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 which requires a dwelling entitlement to be established before a dwelling could be considered on the land. It is noted that all lots in the subject area are larger than the 2,000m2 minimum lot size proposed for the land, meaning that each lot by virtue would retain a dwelling entitlement. 

As a result of the investigations, it would be appropriate to progress this matter by amending the LEP via a PP to:

·    Rezone the subject land to R5 Large Lot Residential (Figure 3).

·    Set a 2,000m2 minimum lot size for the entirety of the subject land (Figure 4).

 

Figure 3: Existing and proposed zoning - Huntingdale Park Estate Review Precinct

 

Figure 4: Existing and proposed minimum lot size - Huntingdale Park Estate Review Precinct

 

 

Conclusion

Given the relatively contemporary nature of the resolutions regarding these two matters it is assumed, subject to the consideration of the detail in this report, that Council will be comfortable proceeding with a PP to seek to amend the LEP as recommended.

 

Community Engagement

Any PP to amend Shoalhaven LEP 2014 would require a formal public exhibition in accordance with the Gateway determination and legislative requirements. Affected landowners, relevant CCBs and Development Industry Representatives would be directly notified of the exhibition arrangements.

 

Policy Implications

The suggested approach to resolve the planning issues associated with the Riverview Road Precinct and the Huntingdale Park Estate Precinct will see a reduction in the achievable density in these areas which will need to be adequately justified in any PP.

 

Financial Implications

Any PP would be resourced within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.5       Update - 'Legacy' Planning Proposals - Timing and Progression - NSW Government Direction

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/936

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  DPIE Gateway termination cover letter 15/12/2020

2.  Gateway termination - LP407 Badgee deferred areas, Sussex Inlet

3.  Gateway termination - PP006 Halloran Trust, Culburra Beach

4.  Gateway termination - LP145.1 Nebraska Estate, St Georges Basin

5.  Gateway termination - PP007 Inyadda Drive, Manyana

6.  Gateway termination - PP005 Warrah Road, Bangalee   

Reason for Report

·   Provide an update on the outcomes arising from Council’s resolution of 1 December 2020 (MIN20.887); and

·   Obtain direction on the progression/timing of the five (5) ‘legacy’ Planning Proposals (PPs).

 

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1.    Acknowledge that the Gateway determinations for the Planning Proposals (PPs) in question were terminated by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) on 15 December 2020.

2.    Continue to progress each PP as follows:

a.    Warrah Road, Bangalee (PP005): seek a new Gateway determination immediately and if the outcome is favourable, place the PP and supporting documentation on public exhibition.

b.    Halloran Trust Land, Culburra (PP006): seek a new Gateway determination at the appropriate point once potential development footprint is more fully resolved in consultation with the proponent and DPIE.

c.    Nebraska Estate, St Georges Basin (LP145.1): seek a new Gateway determination at the appropriate point once the policy is adopted that will help resolve the tenure and management of the proposed E2 land (as per Council resolution MIN20.885) to help secure certification for the new planning controls under Clause 34A of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017.

d.    Badgee Lagoon Deferred Areas, Sussex Inlet (LP407): seek a new Gateway determination for each ‘deferred’ area at the appropriate point, subject to considering a new PP request that will include land adjacent to the northern deferred area and an accompanying overall draft Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report (BCAR).

e.    Inyadda Drive, Manyana (PP007): seek a new Gateway determination at the appropriate point once the outcome of the proponent’s upcoming referral under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) is known.

3.    Receive further reports on the above matters as appropriate.

4.    Receive a future report on revising/updating Council’s Planning Proposal Guidelines once DPIE has updated it is relevant guidelines and the revised Planning Proposal process is clearer.

 

 

Options

1.    Seek new Gateway determinations for each PP at the appropriate point.

Implications: This is the recommended approach. DPIE will only consider issuing a new Gateway determination for each PP if there is certainty that it can be completed within one to two years maximum. Each PP in question has different issues. The report recommendations seek to provide direction on each PP, while allowing any key issues to be appropriately resolved before seeking a new Gateway determination. In some cases, a further Council report may be required. The Warrah Road PP (PP005) is the most advanced of the five PPs and should be able to be finalised in less than 12 months.

2.    Seek new Gateway determinations for each PP now.

Implications: This is not recommended as DPIE has stated that PPs will only be supported if they can be completed within one to two years maximum. Except for the Warrah Road PP (PP005) which is exhibition-ready, until key issues have been resolved, the risk of not being able to complete the PPs within two years is considered too high.

3.    Not seek new Gateway determinations

Implications: This option would only be appropriate if, for some reason, Council no longer supports or wants to progress a PP and this has not been indicated to date. Substantial work has been invested by the proponents and Council in all the PPs in question, and as such this option is not recommended.

 

Background

As reported to Council on 1 December 2020, a letter from DPIE dated 1 October 2020 stated that Council’s five ‘legacy’ PP’s were to be finalised by the end of the year (2020). A copy of the Council report can be viewed here. The report included an update on the status of each PP and key issues. The report suggested that Council consider withdrawing each PP and requesting new Gateway determinations for each at the appropriate point.

In response, Council resolved to (MIN20.887):

1.            Receive the report for information.

2.            Defer this item to:

a.   Request an extension of time from Dept of Planning Industry and Environment to seek further advice, including but not limited to the existing expert reports that have been prepared for the applications.

b.   Request an urgent meeting with the Hon Shelly Hancock MP Member for South Coast and The Hon. Robert Stokes MP to discuss the NSW Government Direction on these Planning Proposals.

Council staff wrote to the NSW Department of Planning, Infrastructure & Environment (DPIE) requesting an extension of time to the 31 December 2020 deadline.

Letters were sent to The Hon Shelly Hancock MP and then to The Hon Robert Stokes MP seeking the resolved meeting. These requests were unsuccessful and a meeting with the NSW Minister for Planning & Public Spaces has not been secured.

Correspondence subsequent received from DPIE, dated 15 December 2020, declined Council’s extension request and terminated all five of the Gateway determinations (via amended Gateways). DPIE’s letter and the associated Gateway alterations/terminations is provided as Attachments 1 to 6.

In summary:

•        The extension of time to the 31 December 2020 deadline was not granted.

•        All five Gateways have now been terminated.

•        Council is encouraged to submit PPs for new Gateway determinations at the appropriate point once any outstanding issues have been addressed/resolved.

•        Work carried out to date, including studies, will be considered should a new Gateway be sought.

 

Conclusion

Unfortunately, Council’s representations in this regard have been unsuccessful. As such there is a need to consider and resolve how the PPs will now move forward. This will require requests for new Gateway determinations to be submitted at the appropriate point in the process for each. When these are issued, each PP will then need to be finalised within 1 to 2 years. This is the recommended approach.

 

Community Engagement

Although there has been some community engagement to date on these PPs, none have been ‘formally’ exhibited at this point (as the pre-exhibition conditions of the Gateway determinations have not been addressed).

The community has also not had the opportunity to provide feedback on DPIE’s decision to terminate the Gateways for these PPs. Existing Council resolutions in respect of each PP support the progression of the specialist studies and ultimately public exhibition. 

Should the recommendations of this report be adopted, and DPIE issues new Gateway’s when sought, the community will be engaged as part of the subsequent formal exhibition process for each PP.

 

Policy Implications

Previously PPs were allowed to proceed based on a minimal level of information relevant to the matter/site/issue, in accordance with DPIE’s Planning Proposal Guidelines.

DPIE has made it clear that PPs will now have to be finalised within one to two years maximum. This is likely to mean that more comprehensive supporting documentation will be required prior to seeking Gateways for new PPs. Council will need to assess any new PP requests more closely when received. Council’s current Planning Proposal Guidelines will also need to be revised as a priority once DPIE’s guidelines are updated.

DPIE has also flagged its intention to look at the next tranche of older PPs that are still to be finalised and work with Council on how they will be resolved. This may result in future reports to Council on any applicable PPs.

 

Financial Implications

Four of the five PPs are proponent-initiated and hence funded by the proponent in accordance with Council’s Planning Proposal Guidelines and the applicable fees and charges. The ‘Major PP’ fee which applies to these PPs covers up to 80 hours of staff time. If new Gateways are requested, this fee structure will be carried over.

Council took out a $200,000 loan in 2006 to fund the Nebraska Estate rezoning investigations and to be paid off by the landowners over 10 years through a special rate. There is currently $65,240 in the Nebraska Estate special rate budget. Any funds remaining at the conclusion of the PP/DCP process would then be carried over to any infrastructure upgrade projects.

 

Risk Implications

The outcome, nature and content of any new Gateway determination is unknown. However, four of the five PPs have a strategic basis (key Gateway requirement) as they are specifically identified in an adopted/endorsed strategy. The other PP (Inyadda Drive, Manyana) site is already zoned for development, and is justified by the fact that the PP is seeking to reduce the overall development footprint and provide a better environmental outcome.

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.6       Proposed Council Submission - Draft Local Character Clause - Local Environmental Plan

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/548440

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Proposed Submission - Draft Local Character Clause

2.  Council's 2019 Submission - Proposed Standard Instrument LEP Local Character Overlay

3.  FAQs - Local Character Clause and Overlay   

Reason for Report

Advise of the public exhibition by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) of a draft Standard Instrument LEP ‘Local Character’ Clause and obtain endorsement to make the submission at Attachment 1.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council make a submission (Attachment 1 to this report) to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in relation to its draft Standard Instrument LEP Local Character Clause.

 

 

Options

1.    Endorse Attachment 1 as Council’s submission on the draft Local Character Clause.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable Council to provide a submission highlighting matters that should be considered.

 

2.    Amend Attachment 1 and include additional comments as necessary and submit.

Implications: This option will still enable Council to provide a submission; however, the implications of any changes are unknown and may require closer consideration or refinement which may delay Council’s submission.

 

3.    Not make a submission.

Implications: This is not recommended as it would prevent Council from having any input and the opportunity to identity issues for consideration or resolution would potentially be missed.

 

Background

The NSW Government is working to strengthen the role of ‘character’ in the NSW planning system in recognition of its importance to local communities and the need to appropriately manage the effects of population growth and change on local character and amenity. A range of material on local character is now available through the DPIE website.

In 2019 DPIE released a Discussion Paper for comment which explored the proposal to introduce a ‘local character overlay’ in the form of a map and supporting local clause into the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (SI LEP). Council provided a submission to the Discussion Paper on in May 2019 (see Attachment 2). 

 

Exhibition - Local Character Clause Package

Following on from the 2019 Discussion Paper, DPIE released a draft Local Character Clause for comment on 12 November 2020. The formal exhibition period ends on 29 January 2020.

DPIE’s proposed character provisions, as outlined in the exhibited Explanation of Intended Effects, consist of:

·    Draft Local Character Clause in the SI LEP;

·    New map layer for ‘local character areas’; and

·    Local Character Areas Statement for each mapped local character area. This Statement will be developed in accordance with DPIE’s Local Character and Place Guideline and will identify existing character and desired future character.

The exhibition package can be viewed at www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/local-character  and Attachment 3 is the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ sheet that forms part of the package.

The proposed ‘optional’ Clause will allow a council to adopt a map overlay which identifies the boundaries of a local character area and will require a Local Character Areas Statement to be considered when addressing development applications in the mapped area.

Councils will determine how to apply the proposed local character overlay, but it is intended for specific or defined areas where the broader zone objectives in the relevant LEP do not provide sufficient direction to manage, change and support local character. To use the overlay and clause in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (SLEP) Council would need to prepare a future Planning Proposal (PP) addressing criteria established by DPIE.

Under the current proposal, the Local Character Clause and overlay will not trigger local variations or exclusions from state-wide policy, such as complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. However, Council can nominate ‘exclusion zones’ within local character areas where the Low Rise Housing Diversity Code (LRHD Code) will not apply. Exclusion zones would however need to be specifically requested and justified by way of a ‘comprehensive evidence base’ that meets numerous criteria set by DPIE.

 

Draft Council Submission

Given the nature of this proposal and its relevance, it is recommended that Council make a submission on the draft Local Character Clause.

The proposed Council submission (see Attachment 1) provides comments on the draft Local Character Clause and related provisions set out in the exhibited Explanation of Intended Effects. These comments build upon Council’s previous submission.

The key comments in the proposed submission are as follows:

·    The character of many of Shoalhaven’s towns and villages is valued highly by the community. The community has previously raised concerns about the perceived erosion of local character by unsympathetic development in certain areas.

·    The intent of the proposed local character provisions in the Standard Instrument LEP is generally supported. Council may consider introducing these provisions in the SLEP for certain areas in Shoalhaven (e.g. Berry, Milton, Kangaroo Valley, Nowra CBD Fringe, certain coastal villages), subject to consultation with affected communities and endorsement from Council.

·    The local character provisions in the SI LEP should provide clear direction for a consent authority to consider local character and desired future character.

·    A development application should be required to explicitly address the Local Character Areas Statement through a standard format ‘statement of consistency’ or similar. This would provide direction and clarity to both applicants and assessors and would give the community confidence that character considerations are being addressed. 

·    In order to justify the application of the local character provisions, land identified as within a local character area, being land of significant or exceptional character value, should automatically be exempted from complying development.

Allowing complying development to proceed in a local character area will potentially undermine the purpose of the overlay. The additional requirements to support exclusion from the LRHD Code for limited areas are considered to be onerous and overly complex.

 

Conclusions

At present there is limited opportunity in the SI LEP, other than through individual heritage listing, the establishment of Heritage Conservation Areas or perhaps the use of the scenic protection layer, to strengthen consideration of character impact.

Thus, it would be helpful for a mechanism to be introduced and available that would help manage character impacts arising from new development in areas like the older part of Berry, Milton, Kangaroo Valley, certain coastal or rural settlements, and the medium density zones to the west of the Nowra CBD (not exclusively).

This proposal could ultimately provide an additional future opportunity for Council to consider and to appropriately manage this issue through the SLEP.

 

Community Engagement

The draft Local Character Clause is on public exhibition until 29 January 2021 to provide an opportunity for Council, community members and industry stakeholders to provide comments and feedback.

In the future should Council consider using the final clause and applying it to mapped areas of Shoalhaven there would need to be detailed engagement with affected landowners, the community, and others as part of this process.

 

Policy Implications

If DPIE introduce the proposed local character provisions into the SI LEP in the future, Council would have the option to prepare a PP (or PPs) to introduce it into the SLEP for selected areas or settlements. Any amendments in this regard will be separately considered and reported to Council as needed in the future. Through this process, Council will be able to nominate local character areas and provide appropriate justification for their inclusion. 

Under DPIE’s exhibited model, there is an amount of detailed work required to enable the provisions to be pursued. Council will also need to prepare Local Character Areas Statements for each local character area identified on the Local Character Areas Map in accordance with DPIE’s Local Character and Place Guideline. This would likely build on the recently completed Shoalhaven Character Assessment Report

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.7       Information Report - NSW Productivity Commission Report - Infrastructure Contributions System

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/563814

 

Section:              Strategic Planning

Approver:           Robert Domm, Director - City Futures  

Reason for Report

Provide information to Council on the release of a report into the Infrastructure Contributions System that has been released by the NSW Productivity Commission.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receive the report on the release of the NSW Productivity Commission’s report on the NSW Infrastructure Contributions System for information. 

 

 

Options

1.    Receive the report for information.

Implications: The report provides a brief overview of the report into the infrastructure contributions system that has been released by the NSW Productivity Commission. The NSW Government has not yet responded to it. Council will be provided with further update reports when the detail of any system changes is known.

 

2.    Alternate decision.

Implications: This will depend on the nature of the decision made.

 

Background

The NSW Government released the NSW Productivity Commission’s report into the Infrastructure Contributions System on 3 December 2020.

The report was prepared as part of the ongoing reform of the NSW planning system.

Part 7 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) includes the following current infrastructure funding mechanisms:

·    Section 7.4 planning agreements (e.g. VPAs)

·    Section 7.11 local infrastructure contributions

·    Section 7.12 fixed development consent levies

·    Section 7.24 special infrastructure contributions

·    Section 7.32 affordable housing contributions

It was noted that if accepted by the government, recommended sweeping changes to the infrastructure contributions system in NSW could unlock up to $12 billion of productivity benefits over the next 20 years. The changes would also be the most significant to the contributions regime in three decades.

In releasing the report, the NSW Minister for Planning & Public Spaces, Rob Stokes MP, noted that uncertainty surrounding infrastructure contributions was causing a range of impacts, and the report recommends a complete shift in thinking where land rezoning, infrastructure planning and funding are considered together at the start of the process. The Minister noted that: “if the changes in the report are implemented, these barriers will be removed and development will be coordinated with the right infrastructure.”

The review focusses on the following:

·     Funding for growth

·     Role of a reformed infrastructure contributions system

·     Local government rates

·     Local infrastructure

·     State and regional infrastructure funding

The comprehensive review makes 29 recommendations, with the aim of boosting productivity and helping the state respond to COVID-19 impacts, including the following priority reforms:

·     Removing the disincentive for local councils to accept development and growth by allowing for the local government rate peg to reflect population growth,

·     Ensuring charges can be properly factored into feasibility studies by requiring contributions plans to be developed prior to rezoning,

·     Introducing a direct land contribution obligation for landowners following rezoning to provide early and adequate funding for land,

·     Managing the costs and complexity of s7.11 local contributions plans by using benchmark costs and focusing the role of IPART in reviewing such plans,

·     Removing barriers to construction and improving project feasibility by deferring payment of local contributions to the occupation certificate stage of development,

·     Providing a simpler option for local councils by increasing the maximum rate of s7.12 fixed development consent levies in certain circumstances,

·     Limiting the use of state and local planning agreements to direct delivery of works and supporting infrastructure for ‘out of sequence’ developments,

·     Addressing insufficient and ad hoc s7.24 special infrastructure contributions through the implementation of modest and simple broad-based regional charges,

·     Ensuring the beneficiaries of major transport investments contribute to costs by implementing an additional state contribution for rezoned properties within station service catchments,

·     Taking pressure off household water bills by transitioning to cost-reflective developer charges for water connections,

·     Making the infrastructure contributions system easier to navigate and comply with by providing and maintaining clear and rationalised guidance and comprehensive digital tools, and

·     Being more transparent in reporting on how much money is collected and where it is spent.

·     Broad-based regional contributions of between $8,000 and $12,000 per dwelling in Greater Sydney, the Central Coast, Hunter and Illawarra-Shoalhaven, in place of special infrastructure contributions.

·     Restoring water charges for Sydney Water and Hunter Water, which are currently set at zero.

·     Simplifying the system with digital tools, adopting benchmark costs and use of standardised templates.

If accepted by the State government, the recommended reforms in the Final Report will need to be implemented through a combination of legislative changes, the development of a comprehensive suite of digital tools, and the review and consolidation of various policy materials.

The NSW Government is currently reviewing the recommendations and will consider the views of stakeholders in developing a roadmap to implement the reforms by early 2021. The reforms are not expected to be implemented in full until early 2023.

The full report from the Commission is available on the internet at:

http://productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/Final%20Infrastructure%20Contributions%20Review%20Report.pdf      

Additional information regarding the review is also available on the Commission’s website at:

http://productivity.nsw.gov.au/infrastructure-contributions-review

 

Community Engagement

The Commission carried out a range of engagements as part of the preparation of their report and these are summarised on the project website.

 

Policy Implications

This will depend on the NSW Government’s response to the Commission’s report and the resultant planning and associated reforms that result. 

 

Financial Implications

This will depend on the nature of the reforms and system changes that the NSW Government take forward.

 

  


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

Page 0

 

 

DE21.8       Companion Animals - Activities for 2019-20

 

HPERM Ref:       D20/435757

 

Section:              Building & Compliance Services

Approver:           Phil Costello, Director - City Development  

Reason for Report

To provide information in relation to Companion Animals activities within the Shoalhaven for the period 2019-2020.

 

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receives the report Companion Animals – Activities for 2019-2020 for information.

 

 

Options

1.    Council receive the report for information

Implications: Nil

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

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

 

Report

This report provides an update on Companion Animals Activities for 2019/2020. Companion animals, especially dogs, are resource intensive for Council and encompass a wide range of complex issues. This report provides an overview of the program. 

Companion animal community engagement programs.

Community engagement programs related to responsible pet ownership, pet registration, changes in legislation and community awareness regarding dog attacks in the community have been undertaken during the period:

1.    Media releases: Ranger Services continue to raise community awareness on companion animal regulations via the media. From July 2019 to June 2020, nine media releases were created and distributed in collaboration with Council’s communications team. Each of these resulted in media interviews and social media posts on Council platforms as well as publications in local news outlets. Enquiries from the media have also been addressed by Council.

2.    Shoalhaven Animal Shelter’s Facebook Page: Shoalhaven Animal Shelter’s Facebook page now has more than 11,643 followers. The page has a weekly “Did you know” post which shares information about responsible pet ownership in the Shoalhaven with 21 posts during the period. This has included pet registration requirements, desexing assistance, researching breeds before buying, and education about health and welfare. 

Information has also been provided to pet owners and vet clinics about new legislation requiring annual permits for declared dangerous, menacing and restricted breed dogs and for cats not desexed by four months of age. From 1 July 2020:

(a)  Owners of cats not desexed by four months of age are now required to pay an $80 annual permit in addition to their one-off lifetime pet registration fee.

(b)  Owners of dogs of a restricted breed, declared restricted, or declared to be dangerous (including those already on the Register when the requirement came into effect), are required to pay a $195 annual permit in addition to their one-off lifetime pet registration fee.

3.    Animal Shelter Pet Expo: The Animal Shelter held its first Pet Expo on 13 October 2019 at the Nowra Showground. This event showcased the benefits of owning pets and how to be a responsible pet owner. The Pet Expo included a number of stalls providing education, products, services and entertainment. It was a huge success with about 4,000 people attending.

4.    Radio interviews: Animal Shelter staff regularly participate in radio interviews with a number of local stations to discuss pet ownership, kitten season and a special initiative ‘The Cat Project’. The Cat Project focuses on desexing cats to reduce unwanted litters and feral cats in collaboration with the Animal Welfare League (AWL) and the RSPCA.

5.    Council’s webpage: Public information is also available on Council’s website along with posters, brochures and flyers. 

6.    Badging of Council Ranger vehicles: Ranger vehicles are enhanced with Responsible Pet Ownership material depicting pictures and key messaging.

Rangers also hand out trauma puppies to children who have been involved with dog attacks. These soft toys are donated by the Spinners and Weavers group and serve to build up confidence in young children following the incident.

7.    School visits: Responsible pet ownership education was provided to primary school children in November 2019 with a number of schools visited.

8.    Pro-active beach patrols: Rangers conduct proactive beach patrols to identify owners and their dogs not complying with the Companion Animals Act. These patrols are increased during the shorebird nesting season. 

Approximately 4,000 beach patrols were undertaken during the period. This included 142 patrols of Paradise Beach Reserve, Sanctuary Point which is an identified hot spot for dogs off leash.

9.    Nowra Library: Council’s Nowra library has made available books, e-books, DVDs and CDs to help pet owners with a variety of dog and cat issues. The Paws’n’Tails reading program is currently on hold due to COVID19. This usually runs at the Nowra library where trained volunteers provide weekly sessions for children to read aloud to a well-trained dog. 

The library has a movie streaming service called Kanopy which has documentary titles such as “Dog Training 101” and “Understanding your dog’s behaviour”. Due to the bush fires and COVID19, attending or coordinating many events has not occurred in recent months.

Strategies Council has in place to promote and assist the desexing of dogs and cats.

Shoalhaven Animal Shelter promotes the desexing of dogs and cats in conjunction with the Animal Welfare League. A “Chip and Snip” day is held at the animal shelter on the second Sunday of each month. This aids with microchipping and discounted desexing vouchers are given to pet owners.

All animals adopted from the Shelter are desexed showing Council’s commitment to the importance of desexing. 

The Cat Project mentioned above is a key strategy to get cats and kittens desexed, and it will continue due to its popularity. For the 2019/2020 financial year, a total of 296 kittens entered the shelter with 253 desexed and adopted. The aim of the project is to reduce unwanted litters by accepting kittens that would be given away for free within the community and not desexed.  With many kittens desexed, the number of incoming cats should reduce over time. Cat owners are also required to have their cat desexed where possible as a condition of accepting the litter. 

Shoalhaven Animal Shelter promoted the “National Desexing month” in July 2019 by providing free microchipping and cheap desexing in conjunction with the local AWL branch and local veterinary clinics. This initiative is coordinated by the National Desexing Network (NDN). Under this scheme, pet owners are advised to contact local Veterinary Clinics who provide discounted desexing via the NDN. The goal is to end pet overpopulation by making desexing available and more affordable to pet owners who need it most.

Rangers Services regularly provide educational and regulatory information to the public to promote the desexing of animals. Owners of non-desexed pets who come to the attention of Council are also encouraged to take advantage of the discounted registration fee for desexed animals.

Strategies to comply with Section 64 (Companion Animals Act) to seek alternatives to euthanasia for unclaimed animals.

Since Council has been managing the Animal Shelter from June 2018 the Shelter has had a zero-euthanasia rate of healthy, adoptable animals. Council has achieved this rate by adopting the following for its shelter residents:

·    Transfer to breed specific rescue groups

·    Transfer to recue groups specialising in older dogs and cats which may require medical treatment

·    Weekly training from local dog trainers to work on minor behavioural issues that could otherwise complicate adoption

·    Decrease in adoption fees for older dogs and cats and long term residents

Shoalhaven Animal Shelter is embarking on a program to work with other Council managed Shelters in NSW to cross transfer long term animals who may have a higher chance of adoption in another LGA.

Companion animal forms and incoming calls from the public

Approximately 8,000 companion animal forms were processed in the period. Incoming telephone calls to Ranger Services total 8,990 and 75% of these were animal related.

Access areas for dogs

Updates to the Policy, as well as consultation exercises and other decisions of Council or consultations in relation to Shoalhaven dog off-leash areas, are provided via Council’s Get Involved page. This is available at https://getinvolved.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/dogs 

Data relating to dog attacks

A total of 219 dog attacks were reported to the Office of Local Government during the period. An analysis of dog attack data was undertaken and the tables below show a sample of the results. This provides valuable information to assist Ranger Services to develop educational information relevant to what is occurring within the community.

Dog Attack by Land Type

No.

Dog ran out of yard

58

Off leash - beach

5

Off leash - reserve

3

On leash - beach

8

On leash - reserve

25

On leash - road reserve

33

Private property

81

Prohibited - beach

2

Prohibited - reserve

1

Unknown

3

Grand Total

219

Table 1 – Dog attack by land type

The most prolific area for dog attacks is Nowra followed by Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point.  Table 2 provides the breakdown of the dog attacks by area. Interestingly, Tomerong has a high number of attacks for a relatively small population.

Dog Attack by Town

No

Basin View         

10

Bomaderry          

19

Nowra              

28

Sanctuary Point    

19

St Georges Basin   

11

Tomerong           

10

Ulladulla          

10

Worrigee           

8

Other Towns

104

TOTAL

219

Table 2 – Dog attack by town

 

Summary of key aspects of activities undertaken by Rangers

Companion Animals 2019-2020

No

Customer Complaints

2,520

Penalty Notices (not all will be paid)

840

Warnings

242

Dog attacks

219

Proactive Patrols

4,001

Table 3 – Summary of key aspects of activities

Data relating to complaints

Table 4 below highlights the number of customer complaints via incident type (Refer Table 4).

The data indicates there is a trend that dog owners are not securing their dogs in their yard, allowing them to escape and roam. The other issue is dog owners with their dogs in public places not under effective control. Whilst Rangers spend a lot of time explaining the requirements under the Companion Animals Act to pet owners, it is not uncommon to have repeat offenders. This requires increased resources to attend to roaming dogs within the community. 

Customer Complaints - Incident Type

No

Animal Welfare

45

Cat Causing Nuisance

21

Cat Stray Contained for Pickup

167

Cat Surrendered for Pickup

3

Companion Animals Register update

79

Dead Dog or Cat - Scan for Microchip

28

Dog Alleged Restricted Breed - Inspect

3

Dog Attack

219

Dog Barking

105

Dog Being Menacing

80

Declared Dog Premises Inspection

8

Dog Stray - Contained for Pickup

544

Dog Stray - Roaming - Patrol

691

Dog Surrendered for Pickup

2

Dog With Owner - Control Issue

435

Dog Working Dog Inspection

3

Livestock

85

Trap Delivery / Pickup

2

Grand Total

2520

Table 4 – Customer complaints by incident type

Data relating to penalty notices issued by offence types

Table 5 below provides data on the penalty notices issues for the different offence types (Refer Table 5).

Dogs roaming or not under effective control and failure to lifetime register a companion animal account for the highest number of penalty notices issued in the period. This is due mainly to the proactive work being undertaken in these areas and Council’s zero tolerance on dog related offences. 

 

Penalty Notice Offence Types

No

Cause or permit animal to be unattended in public place

8

Companion animal (other) not registered as prescribed - first offence

61

Companion animal (other) not registered as prescribed - second or subsequent offence

3

Companion animal (other) not registered if required by regulations - first offence

13

Dog to be declared dangerous or menacing not under effective control

1

Fail to comply with dangerous dog control requirements

2

Fail to comply with menacing dog control requirements

1

Fail to comply with nuisance dog order - 1st offence

6

Fail to comply with nuisance dog order - 2nd plus offence

6

Fail to prevent dog from escaping - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

140

In charge of dog in prohibited public place

10

In charge of dog not under control in public place

45

In charge of dog which rushes at/attacks/bites/harasses/chases any person/animal

6

Not comply notice re registration (other) - first offence

256

Not comply notice re registration (other) - prior offence

2

Not identify companion animal as prescribed - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

9

Not immediately remove dog faeces from public place

1

Not notify change in registration/identification information - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

22

Owner not comply with restricted dog control requirements

1

Owner of dangerous dog not under control in public place

1

Owner of dog in prohibited public place

44

Owner of dog not under control in public place

180

Owner of dog which rushes at/attacks/bites/harasses/chases any person/animal

21

Owner of menacing dog not under control in public place

1

Grand Total

840

Table 5 – Penalty notice offence types

Data relating to warning issued by offence types

The option of issuing a warning is utilised when the owner has a reasonable explanation for non-compliance. It is a tool to assist Rangers to encourage voluntary compliance without financial consequences for the pet owner. 

The last quarter of the financial year shows a decrease in the number of warnings with only 21 issued.  This is largely attributed to Council’s adopted zero tolerance to dog issues.

Warnings – Offence Types

No

Companion animal (other) not registered if required by regulations - first offence

2

Dog not wearing collar and name tag - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

2

Fail to comply with nuisance dog order - 1st offence

1

Fail to comply with nuisance dog order - 2nd plus offence

1

Fail to ensure registration information entered on Register

6

Fail to prevent dog from escaping - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

69

Former owner not notify change of ownership

1

In charge of dog in prohibited public place

4

In charge of dog not under control in public place

26

In charge of dog which rushes at/attacks/bites/harasses/chases any person/animal

1

Not identify companion animal as prescribed - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

2

Not immediately remove dog faeces from public place

1

Not notify change in registration/identification information - not dangerous/menacing/restricted dog

1

Owner of dog in prohibited public place

20

Owner of dog not under control in public place

91

Owner of dog which rushes at/attacks/bites/harasses/chases any person/animal

14

Grand Total

242

Table 6 – Warning offence types

Conclusion

The trends indicate that whilst there has been ongoing procedural changes to put the onus back onto the pet owner, the trends are not changing. This can be attributed to a range of factors both in relation to how Rangers operate, community expectations and population growth in both residential and visitor numbers. To address this, more proactive work is being undertaken by Rangers to provide a consistent education program to change pet owner behaviour.

Council has excellent teams within Ranger Services, Communications, Community & Recreation and Tourism. These Teams will continue develop and implement programs to create better outcomes for the community, pet owners and their animals.

   


 

 Development & Environment Committee – Monday 18 January 2021

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.