Coffs Harbour City Council

19 October 2016

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

The above meeting will be held in the Council Administration Building

Cnr Coff and Castle Streets, Coffs Harbour on:

 

Thursday, 27 October 2016

 

The meeting commences at 5.00pm and your attendance is requested.

 

 

AGENDA

 

1.         Opening of Ordinary Meeting

2.         Acknowledgment of Country

3.         Disclosure of Interest

4.         Apologies

5.         Public Addresses / Public Forum

6.         Mayoral Minute

7.         Mayoral Actions under Delegated Authority

8.         Confirmation of Minutes

9.         Rescission Motion

10.      Notices of Motion - General

11.      General Manager’s Reports

12.      Notices of Motion – Business Services

13.      Directorate Reports – Business Services

14.      Notices of Motion – Sustainable Communities

15.      Directorate Reports – Sustainable Communities

16.      Notices of Motion – Sustainable Infrastructure

17.      Directorate Reports – Sustainable Infrastructure

18.      Trust Reports

19.      Requests for Leave of Absence

20.      Questions On Notice

21.      Matters of an Urgent Nature

22.      Consideration of Confidential Items (if any)

23.      Close of Ordinary Meeting.

 

 

Steve  McGrath

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

Order of Business  

General Manager's Reports

GM16/18         Local Government Reform - Joint Organisations Update - Boundaries ...................................................................................................................................... 3

GM16/19         Delegation to the General Manager...................................................... 13

Directorate Reports - Business Services

BS16/36          Proposed Revotes for the Year Ended 30 June 2016........................ 21

Notices of Motion Sustainable Communities

NOM16/23      Formation of Agricultural Advisory Committee............................. 37

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Communities

SC16/54          Development Application No. 0043/17 - Office Addition, Shop Reconfiguration/Reconstruction and Associated Car Parking - 63 Harbour Drive (Lot 1, DP796866), 31 Vernon Street, (Lot 1, DP421199), 35-61 Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour.................................................................. 38

SC16/55          DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 0983/16 - PLACE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP (ADDITION) - LOT 1, DP116111, NO. 1-13 RIVER STREET, WOOLGOOLGA......................... 80

Notices of Motion Sustainable Infrastructure

NOM16/24      Investigation into Options for Bulky Goods Waste....................... 99

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Infrastructure

SI16/37           Amendment to current dog off leash provisions on Ocean View Beach and Murrays Beach........................................................................................ 101

SI16/38           Amendment to Alcohol Free Areas in Coffs Harbour CBD........ 143   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

GM16/18      Local Government Reform - Joint Organisations Update - Boundaries

Author:                        Director Business Services

Authoriser:                  General Manager

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LC3 We have strong civic leadership and governance

Attachments:              1.  Joint Organisations: Getting the Boundaries Right - September 2016  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 16 September 2016 the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Paul Toole issued a four page paper titled ‘Joint Organisations: Getting the boundaries right’ (attachment 1), seeking feedback. Primarily the JO boundaries paper finalises criteria for setting JO boundaries.

 

Throughout the Joint Organisation (JO) development process and consultation with Councils the JO boundary for the proposed North Coast JO has included Coffs Harbour City, Clarence Valley, Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Council areas. At this late stage of the process the State Government is now proposing an expanded North Coast JO to also include Port Macquarie-Hastings and Kempsey Shire Councils.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings and Kempsey Shire Councils were originally to be part of the proposed Mid-North Coast JO, together with Great Lakes, Greater Taree City and Gloucester Shire Councils. However, the recent ambulation of the Great Lakes, Greater Taree City and Gloucester Shire Councils to form the new Mid-Coast Council, with its proposed inclusion as part of the Hunter JO, has left only two Councils remaining for inclusion in the Mid-North Coast JO. The State Government has determined this is unviable and has therefore proposed the expanded North Coast JO.

 

This report explores the JO boundaries paper and proposes that Council provides a submission expressing its concerns with the proposed expanded North Coast JO boundaries and supporting the original boundaries. However, it is also recommended that Council continues to support the JO concept to ensure that, in whatever form JOs are constituted, Council is able to have input to deliver the best outcome possible for its community.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Receives and notes the report; and

2.       Provides a submission outlining Council’s concerns as detailed in the Issues Section of this report.

 

Report

Description of Item:

The State Government’s Fit for the Future Reform process included the establishment of pilot Joint Organisations (JOs) of Councils in late 2014. JOs are seen by the State Government as a key part of achieving strong modern local government, to provide a forum for local councils and the state to work together on key issues that cut across traditional council boundaries such as jobs, education, roads and transport.

 

A mid pilot report was released in July 2015 which anticipated an evaluation report and final JO model in early 2016 to inform government decision making and legislative processes in the second quarter of 2016, with implementation planned from the start of the next local government term, from September 2016. The timing of implementation has since been delayed until early 2017.

 

Also, Coffs Harbour City Council, in conjunction with the other member Councils of the proposed North Coast JO, Bellingen Shire, Nambucca Shire and Clarence Valley Councils, since late 2013 have been pursuing participation in the Pilot JO Program. Council last considered progress on the proposed North Coast JO at its meeting on 11 February 2016, at which time it endorsed the intent of an updated Expression of Interest for submission to the Minister for Local Government when the next opportunity arises.

 

On 8 June 2016 the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Paul Toole issued an Overview and Background Paper detailing the proposed operational arrangements for JOs, seeking feedback by 15 July 2016. Council provided a brief submission expressing its support for the arrangements.

 

On 16 September 2016 the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Paul Toole issued a four page paper titled ‘Joint Organisations: Getting the boundaries right’ (attachment 1), seeking feedback by 27 October 2016. Council officers have requested and received confirmation that feedback from Coffs Harbour City Council can be provided on 28 October 2016 to allow Council to consider the matter at this meeting. Primarily the JO boundaries paper finalises criteria for setting JO boundaries as follows:

 

“Each JO should

√        align or ‘nest’ within strategic growth planning boundaries

√        demonstrate clear community of interest between member councils and regions

√        not adversely impact on other councils or JOs, for example, leaving too few councils to form a JO

√        be based around a strong regional centre, where possible

√        be of appropriate scale and capacity to partner with the NSW Government, Commonwealth Government and other partners.

 

This report explores the JO boundaries paper and proposes that Council provides a submission.

Issues:

Throughout the JO development process and consultation with Councils the JO boundary for the proposed North Coast JO has included Coffs Harbour City, Clarence Valley, Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Council areas. At this late stage of the process the State Government is now proposing an expanded North Coast JO to also include Port Macquarie-Hastings and Kempsey Shire Councils.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings and Kempsey Shire Councils were originally to be part of the proposed Mid-North Coast JO, together with Great Lakes, Greater Taree City and Gloucester Shire Councils. However, the recent ambulation of the Great Lakes, Greater Taree City and Gloucester Shire Councils to form the new Mid-Coast Council, with its proposed inclusion as part of the Hunter JO, has left only two Councils remaining for inclusion in the Mid-North Coast JO. The State Government has determined this not to be viable and has therefore proposed the expanded North Coast JO.

 

As part of considerations of the proposed JO boundaries, the MIDROC General Managers Advisory Committee (GMAC) agreed that they would seek an independent high-level analysis of the benefits and disadvantages of three potential options identified for a JO available to the remaining MIDROC members, being:

 

1.   Port Macquarie-Hastings and Kempsey.

2.   MIDROC Councils and Clarence Valley Council.

3.   From Port Macquarie-Hastings Council in the south through to Tweed City Council in the north.

AEC Group were engaged to undertake desktop research and collated data to provide insight into the merits of the three JO options. To provide context to the analysis regional profiles have been undertaken which assist in illustrating key economic, financial, infrastructure and demographic characteristics of the MIDROC members. In assessing the JO options each has been spatially defined and assessed equally against set criteria including:

 

·    Opportunities for inter-regional economic development, tourism and visitation benefits.

·    Presence of communities of interest and common social-economic characteristics.

·    Best fit within existing State and Commonwealth funding and administrative boundaries.

·    Existing and potential for joint operations (ie. waste management).

·    Opportunities for regular and irregular planning and reporting exercises (eg. community strategic plans, corporate plans, economic development strategies, grant applications, annual reports)

 

The key findings from the AEC Group’s report are:

 

·    Local politics retains a strong influence over regional priorities - origins of councils as agricultural, urban or marine based communities will have an ongoing influence their JO involvement.

·    Work required on any JO with respect to governance but the more members the more complex the small ‘p’ and large ‘P’ politics – parochialism is a challenge.

·    Many economic, tourism, social plans already exist so question what benefit an additional layer of planning will be for the members.

·    Challenge is on identifying practical opportunities and initiative for collaboration, shared services and shared arrangements that have a genuine application that would deliver something that councils require such as technical (bridge inspectors) or back office services (procurement).

·    Relative sizes of the JO member councils will have a significant influence on how they interact, manage the relationship and select JO priorities.

·    Communities of interest are not generally defined consistently and are relative to those defining the communities in terms of socio-economics and/or participation in sport or interests.

·    Defining the communities of interest for a future JO will be driven by infrastructure investment, increased access to Northern NSW and consolidation of growth along the coastal fringe driven by the draft Regional Plan.

·    There are MOUs (ie waste services) shared services arrangements and agreements in place between some councils that are working and ought to be carried over into any JO.

·    Opportunities to better prepare and advocate for joint, regional funding priorities.

 


 

Based on these findings the report concludes in relation to the three options for a JO for the MIDROC members:

 

·    Option 1 – Not viable with only the two councils – not large enough to be effective as a regional grouping to influence and work with the State/Commonwealth as envisaged by the State – one partner would dominate.

·    Option 2 – Sits comfortably within the draft Regional Plan – incorporates two of the three Regional Cities and associated infrastructure – could be effective for advocacy.

·    Option 3 – Represents the whole of the draft Regional Plan – would be a significant stakeholder for the State to work with – logistics of meeting and coordinating politics would be challenging.

 

Therefore from a MIDROC perspective, Option 2 being the State Government’s proposed expanded North Coast JO is the preferred option. Part of the rationale for the conclusion is a likely definition in the State Government’s Regional Growth Plan of the Mid North Coast Region being the same as the area of the expanded North Coast JO. However, it is unclear which policy position, JO or Regional Plan, is driving which.

 

However, for Coffs Harbour City Council and its community this option is still considered sub-optimal. There are legitimate concerns that the proposed expanded North Coast JO does not meet a number of the State Government’s own criteria for setting JO boundaries.

 

An evaluation of the proposed expanded North Coast JO based on the criteria for setting JO boundaries is provided as follows.

 

1.   Align or ‘nest’ within strategic growth planning boundaries - The boundaries of the Regional Growth Plan appear to be subject to revision at the same time as the finalisation of the JO boundaries. There is no benefit  necessarily, for Coffs Harbour City Council and its community of interest in this change as it is highly likely that the two major growth centres (Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie-Hastings) will at times be competing for growth infrastructure and resources.

2.   Demonstrate clear community of interest between member councils and regions – It is more easily argued that with two major growth centres (Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie-Hastings) there are logically two separate communities of interest. This has been recognised both in the Regional Growth Plan and the Local Government Reform processes to date.

3.   Not adversely impact on other councils or JOs, for example, leaving too few councils to form a JO – This appears the main driver to the proposed expanded North Coast JO; however, it is not a problem that should unnecessarily impact on Coffs Harbour City Council and its community of interest.

4.   Be based around a strong regional centre, where possible – Clearly the intent of this criterion is not satisfied and requires the ‘where possible’ qualifier for the proposed expanded North Coast JO to be justified.

5.   Be of appropriate scale and capacity to partner with the NSW Government, Commonwealth Government and other partners – Out of the five criteria this is the only one that is truly satisfied by the proposed expanded North Coast JO.

 

Based on this evaluation it is recommended that Council provide a submission expressing its concerns with the proposed expanded North Coast JO boundaries and supporting the original boundaries. However, it is also recommended that Council continues to support the JO concept to ensure that, in whatever form JOs are constituted, Council is able to have input to deliver the best outcome possible for its community.

 

Options:

Council’s options in relation to the recommendations in this report are:

 

1.       Adopt the recommendation provided to Council and therefore provide a submission outlining Council’s concerns as detailed in the Issues Section of this report.

2.       Amend the recommendation provided to Council and then adopt. Council may wish to identify specific aspects of the proposed JO boundaries on which it would like to provide comment for inclusion in its submission.

3.       Reject the recommendation provided to Council and therefore not provide a submission on the proposed JO boundaries.

Sustainability Assessment:

•      Environment

Council’s support of JO and its proactive involvement in a proposed North Coast JO assists in ensuring that Council can continue to provide levels of service required to sustainably manage the local environment.

•      Social

Council’s support of JO and its proactive involvement in a proposed North Coast JO assists in ensuring that Council can continue to provide levels of service required by and that support its community.

•      Civic Leadership

Council’s support of JOs and its proactive pursuit of a North Coast JO with its neighbours demonstrates broader regional leadership.

•      Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The formation of a North Coast JO will provide increased regional strategic capacity and collaboration which are expected to yield positive economic benefits over time.

•      Economic – Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no budgetary implications in relation to this report. The ongoing costs of a North Coast JO will be known once the model and funding base are confirmed by the State Government, which will include the cost of executive support.

Risk Analysis:

There are no budgetary implications in relation to this report. The ongoing costs of a North Coast JO will be known once the model and funding base are confirmed by the State Government, which will include the cost of executive support.

Consultation:

The JO boundaries paper builds on the work previously undertaken, including consultation by Council with the members of the proposed North Coast JO, MIDROC members and relevant internal stakeholders.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The JO concept is part of the NSW State Government’s Local Government Reform Agenda known as the Fit for the Future Program

Implementation Date / Priority:

If the recommendation is adopted, a brief submission will be provided by the agreed deadline of 28 October 2016.

Conclusion:

This report explores the JO boundaries paper and proposes that Council provides a submission expressing its concerns with the proposed expanded North Coast JO boundaries and supporting the original boundaries. However, it is also recommended that Council continues to support the JO concept to ensure that, in whatever form JOs are constituted, Council is able to have input to deliver the best outcome possible for its community.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

GM16/19      Delegation to the General Manager

Author:                        Group Leader Governance

Authoriser:                  General Manager

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LC3 We have strong civic leadership and governance

Attachments:              1.  s377 Local Government Act

2.  Instrument of Delegation to the General Manager  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Local Government Act (the Act) s377 enables Council by resolution to delegate to the General Manager any of the functions of council, other than those functions expressly excluded under s377(1) of the Act. The General Manager is then able to sub-delegate functions to the appropriate council staff performing these roles and in accordance with position descriptions.

 

The recent amendment to the Local Government Act included an amendment to s377.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.   Delegate to the General Manager, Stephen Charles McGrath, the functions of the Council under Section 377 of the Local Government Act as amended from time to time.

2.   Authorises the Mayor to sign the instrument of delegation on behalf of Council

 

3.   For the period 27 October 2016 and ongoing appoint one of: Director Business Services, Director Sustainable Infrastructure, Director Sustainable Communities to act as General Manager if the General Manager is sick or otherwise absent from work on leave. Such appointment to cease upon the return to work of the General Manager or other resolution of the Council.

4.   Delegate to any person acting as General Manager pursuant to this resolution all the functions, delegations, and sub-delegations given to the General Manager by the Council. 

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

s377-381 of the Local Government Act details the statutory requirements for the issue and operation of delegations. Council is able to delegate all of its functions under the Local Government Act to the General Manager, with the exception of those listed in s377(1)(a) – (u). (Attachment 1).

 

An amendment was made to this section effective 23 September 2016. s377(1)(i) now allows for the delegation of the acceptance of tenders, other than ‘the acceptance of tenders to provide services currently provided by members of staff of the council’.

 

Attachment 2 is the instument of delegation to the General Manager to be signed by the Mayor on behalf of Council.

 

 

s351 of the Local Government Act relates to temporary appointments within the organisation:

 

351   Temporary appointments

If a position (including a senior staff position) within the organisation structure of the council is vacant or the holder of such a position is suspended from duty, sick or absent:

(a)  the council, in the case of the general manager’s position, or

(b)  the general manager, in the case of any other position,

may appoint a person to the position temporarily.

 

If the General Manager, Steve McGrath is away for any reason, it is general practice that one of:

 

·    Director Business Services – Andrew Besick

·    Director Sustainable Communities – Chris Chapman

·    Director Sustainable Infrastructure – Mick Raby

 

be appointed to the position of General Manager temporarily. The recommendation contained in this report provides the temporary holder of this position with the appropriate delegations to perform the role.

Issues:

There are no perceived issues as a result of this report.

Options:

1.   Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.

2.   Amend the recommendation provided to Council and then adopt the revised recommendation.  

3.   Reject the recommendation provided to Council. This would pose a significant risk to Council’s operations as a large amount of day to day operational matters require delegated authority from the General Manager. eg. sewer inspections, replying to correspondence, issuing of certificates.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental implications as a result of this report.

•     Social

There are no social implications as a result of this report.

•     Civic Leadership

Delegations within council are consistent with the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan strategy LC 3 – We have strong civic leadership and governance.  

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no economic implications as a result of this report.

Risk Analysis:

The report recommendations are in accordance with legislation. Council can enhance the legislative requirements only, not weaken them

Consultation:

Not applicable to this type of report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Local Government Act (1993) NSW

Implementation Date / Priority:

Immediate

Conclusion:

Delegations are required to ensure that Council staff can perform all of their roles and functions. The delegation by Council and subsequent sub-delegations by the General Manager ensure this occurs in the most efficient and cost effective manner.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

BS16/36       Proposed Revotes for the Year Ended 30 June 2016

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Planning

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LC3 We have strong civic leadership and governance

Attachments:              1.  Summary of Revotes by Directorate  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarises the proposed unspent funds to be carried forward or revoted from the 2015/16 Operational Plan budgets into the 2016/17 Operational Plan budgets. These revotes are necessary due to a variety of reasons, including timing (project spans financial years), contractual obligations, commitments or monies held aside for specific purposes. Council’s Leadership Team have reviewed all revotes to minimise their extent.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the revotes from 2015/2016 to 2016/2017 as detailed in the attachment and summarised below.

Summary

Revote ($)

Funding

Revenue ($)

External ($)

Environmental

Levy ($)

Restricted

Equity ($)

General Fund

Water Fund

Sewer Fund

18,819,614

0

420,712

3,824,118

0

0

6,924,570

0

50,906

86,060

0

0

7,984,866

0

369,806

Total

19,240,326

3,745,660

7,010,292

86,060

8,319,856

 

Report

Description of Item:

Although not a statutory requirement under any legislation, it is normal practice for Councils to carry forward unspent money from one financial year to the next. This is also known as a ‘revote’. The majority of the revotes requested in this report are tied to grants and contributions from external bodies, developer contributions (section 94), reserve funds held for specific purposes, special rate variation funds as approved by IPART or Environmental Levy funds. A full schedule of revotes is included in the attachment with explanation of specific items provided below.

 


 

Explanations of Revotes by Fund and by Directorate

 

GENERAL FUND

 

Office of the General Manager

 

Financial Sustainability

A revote of the following projects funded by the Special Rate Variation approved in June 2014 is required:

·        Asset Maintenance – to fund maintenance and scheduling resource.

·        Buildings Maintenance of – earmarked for urgent priority works.

·        Road Pavement Renewals – enable additional project from 2016/17 priority list.

·        Open Space Asset Renewal – required to fund the jetty structure condition assessment and to supplement the 2016/17 funding of $500,000 for the expected recommended pile / girder replacement program.

·        Buildings Renewal of – primarily Fitzroy Oval amenities reconstruction, Elizabeth St works and Nana Glen Pool renewal.

 

Governance & Risk

Revotes are necessary to meet costs related to:

·        Internal Audit– required to facilitate the review of the Strategic Audit Plan for the next three years and audit costs related to Section 355 committees.

 

Community Facilities

A revote of the following projects funded by the Community Facilities reserve is required:

·        Community grants funding pool for committed allocations to:

–   Nana Glen Sport, Recreation & Equestrian Centre for construction of a storage facility for bulky equestrian equipment;

–   Special Needs Support Group Inc for installation of a skylight;

–   Sawtell & Districts BMX Club Inc for a starting gate upgrade;

–   Sawtell Croquet Club Inc for construction of a third croquet lawn; and

–   Sawtell Toormina Sports Recreation Club Inc for ridged all weather shade shelter at Rex Hardaker oval.

·        Public Amenities Upgrade– partly grant and Section 94 funded for works at Diggers Beach, in conjunction with Coffs Coast Regional Park.

·        Woolgoolga netball courts upgrade was partly grant and loan funded along with a contribution from the netball association. Revote required to complete drainage and turf improvements.

 

CBD Masterplan

In June 2014 Council secured ministerial approval to extend its CBD special rate a further 9 years. The City Centre works program has been developed through the City Centre Masterplan. All revotes of $2,486,752 are part of Council’s ongoing commitment and development of these revitalisation works.

 

Jetty Foreshores Project

In October 2013 Council adopted the Jetty4Shores Project Concept Plan, which included an implementation plan and budgets. All revotes of $842,188 are part of Council’s ongoing commitment and development to Stage 2 of these revitalisation works.

 

Business Services Directorate

 

Airport

The only revote necessary is for capital infrastructure, being:

·        RPT Apron Overlay & Resurfacing of $6,371,765 – relating to the successful application for funding through Restart NSW Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund. Council’s original contribution towards these works is $1.4m from the airport reserve.

 

Business Systems

The following comments relate to these recommended revotes:

·        Computer hardware and software – replacement of Council Agenda and Minutes software. Project commenced in April 2016 and will be completed in September 2016.

·        Mobile tablets – purchase of tablet computers for the Leadership Team and Councillors. A trial of devices commenced in May 2016 and devices will be purchased by September 2016.

 

Program Support

The only revote required relates to the Environmental Levy (EL) matching grant funds which are unspent and needs to be made available in the event a relevant grant opportunity arises. All EL revotes were approved at the Council Meeting 11 August 2016.

 

Human Resources and Organisational Development

The only revote necessary relates to the Employee Performance Management Project. Consultant work has been under taken but invoice has been delayed.

 

Sustainable Communities Directorate

 

Local Planning

Revotes for this program include:

·        Placemaking – Two projects underway where funds need to be revoted to allow the following works to be completed:

1)   Woolgoolga Project: Additional consultant engagement currently underway, to address some shortcomings resulting from the Peer Review (Resolution No. 114 - 9 June 2016). Additional traffic and parking and Section 94 Plan work is also required (Resolution No 9 - 11 February 2016), and consultants have been engaged to do this work; and

2)   Library/Gallery Project: Council resolution of 23 June 2016 requires precinct analysis work to be undertaken by the Local Planning Section.

·        Bonville Rural Residential Studies - Some minor additional works have been required by NSW Department of Planning and Environment after exhibition of the Planning Proposal. The matter is close to finalisation.

·        Local Growth Management Strategy - Phase 1 Rural Lands underway. Phase 2 Residential Lands due to commence. Delays incurred as a result of community engagement. Completion scheduled for December 2018.

·        Local Environment Study of West Sapphire and West Korora - under contract, finalised and signed July 2015. Project nearing reporting to Council, consultants to undertake additional work.

·        Jetty Foreshores Precinct Planning Exercise - Reported to Council on 24 October 2013. Resolution No. 267 states: That a Project Plan for a Precinct Planning exercise (incorporating a community participation plan) for the wider Jetty and Foreshores area be brought back to Council in 2014, aimed at developing a long term community vision for future land uses and associated planning provisions in the locality.

·        North Boambee Valley Release Area - Most recently reported to Council 10 December 2015 (Resolution No. 283), outcome being provision of further information to Council.  Additional work being undertaken in response to submissions received during public exhibition is likely to trigger the need to re-exhibit the planning proposal. These monies should be held to contribute to the additional work needed.

·        Rezoning Applications - Monies paid from rezoning requests need to be held for use during the life of the rezoning process for each application. Individual rezoning’s can take up to 3 years.

·        The revotes for Environmental Levy funded projects have been tabled in a separate report to Council.

·        The revotes for all grant funded projects are in line with the conditions of each grant.

 

Development Assessment

The following comments relate to these revotes:

·        Development assessment tracking upgrade – primarily grant funded project for software implementation.

·        ePlanning– project continues with software configuration of LODGE (online lodgement of applications) and PLAN (online planning enquiries).Testing being undertaken with additional 'styling' of sites likely to be required.

·        Airport subdivision development application - This DA is undergoing assessment by an independent planning consultant. Final report to be presented to Council prior to the application being reported to the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

1)         Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement

The only revote is for ongoing Coramba fuel remediation works funded by an Office of Environment & Heritage grant. It is anticipated these works will be discontinued within the 2016/17 year.

 

Stadium & Major Events

The following items require revoting:

·        Business Events Support– this funding has been raised through the business community with a commitment from Council that it would contribute to the attraction of major events.

·        Events Marketing - for existing contracted commitments.

·        Events Seed Funding - this is earmarked for several regional events in 2016/17. It has been funded by a special rate.

·        CCSLP Major Events & Transport Project – 50% funded National Stronger Regions fund, Council’s 50% contribution is from reserve funds. The revised commencement date is March 2017 and expected to be completed by June 2017.

·        CCSLP New Turf Wicket – funded by Cricket NSW grant plus Council contribution. Project has commenced and expected to be completed by year end.

 

Community Programs

Sustainability

Revotes requested are:

·        Sustainability Program – The 2016/17 Sustainable Living Festival has been reduced in scope to account for reduced funding from the Environmental Levy. This program has been reviewed; however, with the revote Council is able to continue to market the Coffs Harbour based event as well as contribute to the Our Living Coast partnership marketing campaign that ties together events happening across the region with Bellingen and Nambucca Shire Councils.

·        The revotes for Environmental Levy funded projects have been tabled and approved in a separate report to Council’s meeting held on 25 August 2016.

·        The revotes for any grant funded projects are contractual obligations.

 

Lifeguard Services

Revotes requested are:

·        Beach safety education expenses - Following the double drowning at North Wall Beach in April 2016 the need for additional beach safety awareness marketing and communication to target visitors, backpackers and seasonal workers has been identified.

 

Libraries

Revotes for the libraries include:

·        Library resources - used for purchasing new material for the library's collections which are currently well below state standards.

·        Computer equipment - purchase and installation of new public access catalogue computers at the central library (hardware and data/power cabling). New small-form factor computers installed in strategic locations around the library book stacks.

·        Local priority projects – committed work per grant approval, including library refurbishment, public entrance automatic turnstiles and promotional signage and materials.

·        Radio Frequency Identification Project – committed work per grant approval under the Country Libraries State Government Program for implementation of bar code readers.

·        Technology Access Project – committed to complete the Technology Access Project funded by a Public Library Infrastructure Grant from the State Library of NSW.

 

Cultural Services

Revotes include:

·        Concept plan for expanded Library and Gallery per Council resolution - planning works ongoing.

·        Cultural Strategic Plan and Performing Arts Centre feasibility study per Council resolution - planning works ongoing.

 

Community Services

The majority of Community Services revotes are primarily funded by grants from various state and federal bodies or developer contributions. The revenue revotes are:

·        2030 implementation - end of term report surveys, customer service survey and community wellbeing surveys.

·        Youth Week projects - required for delayed youth engagement activities to address a significant and high-priority gap in Council's community engagement strategy.

·        Naidoc Week - as this event falls in the first week of July, the timing negatively impacts on arranging payments and invoicing within the 2015/16 financial year.

 

Sustainable Infrastructure Directorate

 

Strategic Asset Management

Waste Management

In relation to this budget, all surpluses and deficits are reflected through the Waste Management reserve. Both revotes requested are predominantly grant funded with Council’s contribution sourced from the Waste Management reserve. They are also in line with the Waste Strategy adopted by Council.

 

Design Services

Majority of these revotes are tied to external grants, Environmental Levy and Section 94 funding. The sole revenue funded revote requested is:

·        Coastal Works unallocated funding - available for matching grant funding as they are approved during the course of the year.

 

Infrastructure Construction and Maintenance

Open Space

All of the revotes are funded by Section 94 reserves, the Environmental Levy or tied to grants and contributions made by external parties.

 

Local Roads

Regular programming meetings are held to ensure spend responsibilities are met in relation to grant funded projects and Council’s minimum revenue component spend in relation to Roads to Recovery grant income.

Revotes are related to either contribution / handover or grant funds. This includes the funding paid directly by Leighton Fulton Hogan Joint Venture for pavement damage. It is proposed to hold the funding to ensure that the maximum possible life can be extracted from the three roads (Tramway Drive, Barkhut Rd and Pullen St) prior to the proposed rehabilitation. This strategy is proposed due to some ongoing maintenance that is required by the Pacific Motorway that requires construction traffic to access these pavements.

 

Bridges

The only revote requested is for major repairs on Rhodes bridge which is entirely funded by Council's special rate as approved by the Office of Local Government. Due to delays in the supply of the precast bridge components these works were delayed. Physical construction of the bridge is complete with the bridge opening to traffic in the first week of August.

 

Footpaths and Cycleways

Revotes requested are:

·        Cycleways design of $10,086, which is 50% grant funded for Diggers Beach Road to Korora

·        Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan Scheme works (PAMPS) – matching Council funds for 2016/17 grant funding opportunities as they arise.

·        Bus shelters construction - installation of three shelters scheduled for August 2016 at Nightingale St Woolgoolga, Sandy Beach Drive Sandy Beach and Pacific Street Corindi.

 

Parking

Revotes requested are:

·        Castle St Carpark improvements– installation of a disability hoist in amenities block.

 

Drainage

Council has a program of flood mitigation works of almost $14m, which includes funding from:

·     Natural Disaster Resilience Grants;

·     $6m loan over 20 years of which repayments are funded from the stormwater levy;

·     A further $6m loan over 10 years per Council resolution 11 March 2010 of which repayments are funded by a special rate variation;

·     The majority of these funds are currently held in reserve, however some allocations needs to be revoted, including works at Spagnolos Rd.

 

Survey & Design

Majority of these revotes are funded by Section 94 reserves, the Environmental Levy or tied to grants and contributions made by external parties. A substantial portion of the Harbour Drive / Gordon St development have been completed in September with the remainder of the works to be completed within the 2016/17 year.

 

WATER FUND

No revotes requested. It is anticipated a review of all water fund budgets will occur as part of the September quarterly budget review process.

 

SEWERAGE FUND

One revote requested relates to the Sawtell sewerage treatment plant for decommissioning and compensatory planting, which is funded 12.1% grant and remainder from unexpended loans.

Similar to the water fund, the sewerage funding is anticipated to undergo a review of all budgets as part of the September quarterly budget review process.

 

Issues:

All revotes have been considered with Council’s Delivery Program in line with the Long Term Financial Plan. Council has been increasing its focus on ensuring its commitments are met in a timely manner and has reduced its revote level from that approved in previous years, as illustrated below.

Financial Year

Total Revote Amount

2014/15

$23,495,075

2013/14

$51,149,864

2012/13

$45,521,953

2011/12

$62,123,114

Options:

Council’s options in relation to this report are to:

1.   Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.

2.   Amend the recommendation provided to Council and then adopt. Depending on the nature of the change, certain projects and/or commitments to the community and other parties may not be able to be delivered.

3.   Reject the recommendation provided to Council. This would leave the Operational Plan budgets in their original position prior to the recommendation being sought and defer or cease the advancement of a number of projects, initiatives and commitments to the community and other parties from being delivered in the 2016/17 financial year.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

Environmental impacts in relation to expenditure being revoted in this report would have been dealt with at the time the original funds were allocated.

•     Social

The provision of basic infrastructure and community services is an essential requirement of maintaining community wellbeing.

•     Civic Leadership

Council has provided sound civic leadership in striving for a surplus as budgeted in the 2015/16 Operational Plan. It will continue to endeavour to maintain similar forecasts in future years in line with the 2030 Community Strategic Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

When dealing with increased community desires for services and infrastrucuture Council needs to focus on the balance of providing levels of service with the funds available. Council must also ensure that a healthy financial position is maintained to ensure the ongoing viability of the organisation.

 

•     Economic – Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

This report provides Council with an overview of the outcomes unable to be achieved in the last financial year but will be met in the current or a subsequent financial year. A summary of the revotes by Fund and Funding Source is as follows:

 

Summary

Revote ($)

Funding

Revenue ($)

External ($)

Environmental

Levy ($)

Restricted

Equity ($)

General Fund

Water Fund

Sewer Fund

18,819,614

0

420,712

3,824,118

0

0

6,924,570

0

50,906

86,060

0

0

7,984,866

0

369,806

Total

19,240,326

3,745,660

7,010,292

86,060

8,319,856

 

Risk Analysis:

The recommended revotes relate to projects and intiatives committed to through Council’s planning process and with other bodies, such as grantors. If Council does not follow through on such commitments, service delivery will be impacted as well as Council’s reputation. Council is also usually legally obliged to complete grant funded projects through funding deeds and infrastrucure works through contracts.

Consultation:

The Group Leader Team reviewed the requests for revotes which were put forward by each Directorate. Each request was assessed against the revote criteria as outlined in the Interim Budget Preparation and Review Procedure, namely:

·     No revotes for operational funding will be considered unless the funds are under contract, an order has been raised or they are linked to sources of funding such as, grants, contributions, loans, etc. or other significant reasons such as event planning and implementing and funding for venue operations covering reporting periods.

·     Any Capital Revote must provide a justification and be assessed by the Executive and then by Council. This justification must demonstrate that the capital funds are required for a project that extends over financial years, that there are orders raised, the project is under contract, the funds directly relate to the expenditure of Section 94 or grant funding, or other significant matters.

All the items in the attachment, for works that have not commenced or were incomplete at 30 June 2016, have been assessed against the criteria and recommended for revote.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The Interim Budget Preparation and Review Procedure provides guidelines to staff regarding their responsibilities relating to effective and transparent budget review and assessment processes. This framework provides guidance in achieving the objective of a year-end balanced budget.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Management will continue to monitor the organisation’s performance with a view to at least maintaining Council’s service delivery commitments.

Conclusion:

This report summarises the proposed revotes from the 2015/16 Operational Plan budgets to the 2016/17 Operational Plan budgets.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

NOM16/23   Formation of Agricultural Advisory Committee

Attachments:          Nil

 

Motion:

Councillor Swan has given notice of her inention to move the following:

"That Council investigate the formation of an Agricultural Advisory Committee."

 

Rationale:

Primary Production is a key component of our LGA's economy. The nature and scope of agriculture has changed markedly in the last decade.   Council is currently working on a Rural Lands Strategy.  The formation of this committee would be beneficial in helping to shape our farming future.

 

I commend this Notice of Motion to Council.

 

Staff Comment:

At its meeting of 14 July 2016, Council considered a report on the Draft Issues and Options Discussion Paper which formed the basis of Phase 1 of the Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy. At this meeting, it was resolved that Council:

1.       Endorse the attached Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy Phase 1 – Draft Issues and Options Discussion Paper, Background Report and Community Workshop Outcomes and place on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

2.       Receive a report back on the Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy Phase 1 – Draft Issues and Options Discussion Paper, following the exhibition period.

In accordance with this resolution, Council exhibited the Draft Issues and Options Discussion Paper in July/August 2016 with the submissions currently being reviewed by staff. It is anticipated that the outcomes will be reported to Council later in the year.

This report will be accompanied by a Project Plan for Phase 2 of the project which will result in the preparation of a Draft Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy.  As Council may recall, primary production and the future of farming is one of 4 key issues identified to be addressed in the Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy.

If Council is of a mind to investigate the establishment of an Agricultural Advisory Committee, it may be most appropriate to integrate this committee with the final phase of the Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy. This can be included within the next report to Council on the Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

SC16/54       Development Application No. 0043/17 - Office Addition, Shop Reconfiguration/Reconstruction and Associated Car Parking - 63 Harbour Drive (Lot 1, DP796866), 31 Vernon Street, (Lot 1, DP421199), 35-61 Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour

Author:                        Development Assessment Coordinator

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LP3 Our city centre is a place where people can live, work and play

Attachments:              1.  Development Application 0043/17DA - Section 79C

2.  Development Application 0043/17 - Proposed Plans

3.  Development Applicaton 0043/17DA - Draft Conditions  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an assessment of Development Application 0043/17 for construction of additional office space, associated car parking and reconfiguration/reconstruction of approved shop areas at 63 Harbour Drive (Lot 1, DP796866), 31 Vernon Street (Lot 1, DP421199) and 35-61 Harbour Drive (Lots 1/3, Part Lot 4, Section 8, Lot 6, Section 7, DP 758258, Lot 6, DP 721353 & Lot 1, DP 43845) Coffs Harbour. 

The development proposes variation to the height standard specified under Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013.

Accordingly, this matter is reported to Council for determination as the proposal incorporates a variation greater than 10% to the specified height standard.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Support the request to vary a development standard made pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 for variation to the maximum building height under Clause 4.3(2) of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 in this particular case.

2.       Approve Development Application No. 0043/17 for an Office Addition, Associated Car Parking and Shop Reconfiguration/Reconstruction at 63 Harbour Drive (Lot 1, DP796866), 31 Vernon Street (Lot 1, DP421199) and 35-61 Harbour Drive (Lots 1/3, Part Lot 4, Section 8, Lot 6, Section 7, DP 758258, Lot 6, DP 721353 & Lot 1, DP 43845) Coffs Harbour, subject to the conditions provided in Attachment 3.

 

Report

Description of Item:

·    The Site

The proposed development lots are 63 Harbour Drive (Lot 1, DP 796866) and 31 Vernon Street (Lot 1, DP 421199), Coffs Harbour.  As the application proposes to incorporate the proposed new building into the existing Coffs Central Shopping Centre, the application includes lots that form the Coffs Central Shopping Centre; that is 35-61 Harbour Drive (Lots 1/3, Part Lot 4, Section 8, Lot 6, Section 7, DP 758258, Lot 6, DP 721353 & Lot 1, DP 43845).


 

63 Harbour Drive (Lot 1, DP 796866) has a land area of 725.5m2 and 31 Vernon Street (Lot 1, DP 421199) has a land area of 360.4m2 giving a combined total development area of approximately 1085.9m2.  Development construction approved under Development Consent 0960/13DA is currently occurring on the site. 

·    The Development:

Under Development Consent 0960/13DA there is approval on the site for two levels of shops and a basement car park.

Development Application 0043/17DA proposes three additional building levels to those approved under Development Consent 0960/13DA, to provide a total finished development that consists of five above ground levels and one basement level.  One level of car parking (providing 45 additional car parking spaces) and two levels of office space (1792.9 m2) are proposed. 

The car parking level will connect with existing car parking currently located at the top of Coffs Central.  Part of the additional car parking will be constructed where there is an existing department store ‘back of house’.  This is currently located above Big W.  It is proposed to relocate this area to Level 3.  The new area is larger than the area it is replacing; it will result in an additional 260 m2.

The application also proposes to modify the shops at Level 1, approved under Development Consent 0960/13DA, so that they form an extension to the existing discount department store of Coffs Central (currently Big W) rather than consist as separate retail tenancies.  A service lift will connect this level with the ‘back of house’ area at Level 3.  As a result of this reconfiguration (and other minor modifications at Ground Floor Level) there will be a reduction in shop floor space of 18.6m2.

The highest point of the development (top of the lift over-run) will be 24.68 metres from natural ground level.  The majority of the roof height will be 22 metres from natural ground level. 

Issues:

At its meeting of 22 August 2013, Council adopted a Development Applications - Consideration by Council Policy which outlined:

That development applications for approval involving substantial aspects of the following elements be referred to Council for determination:

-        Significant public interest and community input;

-        Substantial non-compliance with relevant strategic controls;

-        Significant land use;

-        Major environmental issue(s);

This application proposes a variation to the height of buildings development standard specified in Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 which is 17 metres for this site.

The total height of the building to its highest point is 24.68 metres from natural ground level.  This is to the highest point of the building, which is a lift over-run.  This is a very small component of the overall building.  The majority of the building to roof height is 22 metres in height.  This is five metres over the height limit in the area of 17 metres.

In November 2008, the then Department of Planning (DoP) issued a Planning Circular outlining new requirements in relation to the determination and reporting of development applications involving variations to development standards. The circular specifies that all applications which propose a variation greater than 10% in standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards or clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument be determined by full Council rather than under delegated authority.

Assessment of the relevant issues is detailed within Attachment 1 of this report.

Options:

1.   Adopt the recommendation thereby granting consent to the application, subject to conditions.

2.   Reject the recommendation and list reasons for refusal of the application.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The proposed development will not result in any unacceptable environmental impacts in the locality.  All impacts associated with construction of the development can be mitigated with imposition of conditions of development consent.

•     Social

The proposed development will not result in any unacceptable social impacts in the locality.

•     Civic Leadership

Council has a statutory role in assessment of development applications in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations. This report and the recommendation will assist Council in carrying out this role.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broader economic implications resulting from the proposed development.

•     Economic – Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no implications for Council’s Delivery Program / Operational Plan resulting from the proposal.

Risk Analysis:

It is considered that approval of the development application as recommended does not pose a significant risk to Council.

Consultation:

The application was publicly advertised and notified from 18 August 2016 to 31 August 2016.  No submissions were received.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

·    Mid North Coast Regional Strategy

The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy is primarily an overarching strategic planning document which guides Councils in setting regional parameters for future strategic planning. While the strategy is a related policy document, it does not incorporate planning controls which have any implications for the proposed development. The proposed development is permissible with development consent in the zone.

·    Statutory Planning Controls

The statutory instruments relevant to the development include the following:

-    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

-    Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013

-    Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015

Each of these statutory instruments is considered in detail in the Development Assessment Report appended to this report as Attachment 1.

Implementation Date / Priority:

In the event that Council adopts the recommendation, a formal notice of determination will be issued for the development application. A formal notice of determination is valid for five years and the applicant can act on the development consent at any time within that period, subject to meeting any relevant conditions of the consent.

Conclusion:

A comprehensive assessment of the application has been undertaken in accordance with all statutory requirements and it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a number of conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               27 October 2016


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

SC16/55       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 0983/16 - PLACE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP (ADDITION) - LOT 1, DP116111, NO. 1-13 RIVER STREET, WOOLGOOLGA

Author:                        Development Assessment Officer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LC1 Coffs Harbour is a strong, safe and adaptable community

Attachments:              1.  Development Application 0983/16 - Section 79c

2.  Development Application 0983/16 - Proposed Plans

3.  Development Application 0983/16 - Draft Conditions  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an assessment of Development Application 0983/16 for the enclosing of a second storey terrace for the purpose of creating additional storage for the operation of the Sikh Temple at Lot 1, DP116111, No. 1-13 River Street, Woolgoolga.

The development proposes variation to the height standard specified under Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013.

Accordingly, this matter is reported to Council for determination as the proposal incorporates a variation greater than 10% to the specified height standard.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Support the request to vary a development standard made pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 for the variation to the maximum building height under Clause 4.3(2) of Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 in this particular case.

2.       Approve Development Application No. 0983/16 for an addition for the purpose of storage to the Sikh Temple at Lot 1, DP116111, No. 1-13 River Street, Woolgoolga, subject to the conditions provided in Attachment 3.

 

REPORT:

Description of Item:

·    The Site

The site is identified as Lot 1, DP116111, No. 1-13 River Street, Woolgoolga and currently accommodates the well known and identifiable Sikh Temple. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013. The site is bound by the old Pacific Highway to the west (now Solitary Islands Way) and River Street to the east, which serves as the access to the site. The surrounding land zonings include B4 Mixed Use immediately to the north and east and R2 Low Density Residential to the south-east and west.

The following locality plan illustrates the existing development site.

 

·    The Development:

The development comprises a 66.6m2 second storey addition to sit above an existing single storey component of the temple. The addition has been designed to match the existing temple in appearance and the proposed use of the addition is for storage in association with the operation of the temple. The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

Plans of the proposed development are included in this report as Attachment 2.

Issues:

At its meeting of 22 August 2013, Council adopted a Development Applications - Consideration by Council Policy which outlined:

That development applications for approval involving substantial aspects of the following elements be referred to Council for determination:

-        Significant public interest and community input;

-        Substantial non-compliance with relevant strategic controls;

-        Significant land use;

-        Major environmental issue(s);

This application proposes a variation to the height of buildings development standard specified in Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013.  The enclosing of the second storey terrace results in a parapet height of 10.3m.  An 8.5m height control applies to the site. 


 

In November 2008, the then Department of Planning (DoP) issued a Planning Circular outlining new requirements in relation to the determination and reporting of development applications involving variations to development standards. The circular specifies that all applications which propose a variation greater than 10% in standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards or clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument be determined by full Council rather than under delegated authority.

Assessment of the relevant issues is detailed within Attachment 1 of this report.

Options:

1.   Adopt the recommendation thereby granting consent to the application, subject to conditions.

2.   Reject the recommendation and list reasons for refusal of the application.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The proposed development will not result in any environmental impacts in the locality. The addition has been designed to be consistent with the existing Sikh Temple and does not represent noticeable additional bulk.

•     Social

The proposed development will not result in any social impacts in the locality.

•     Civic Leadership

Council has a statutory role in assessment of development applications in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations.  This report and the recommendation will assist Council in carrying out this role.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broader economic implications resulting from the proposed development.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no implications for Council’s Delivery Program / adopted Operational Plan resulting from the proposal.

Risk Analysis:

It is considered that approval of the development application as recommended does not pose any significant risk to Council.

Consultation:

The application was not publicly advertised nor notified to adjoining landowners as it was considered that the development would not detrimentally affect the enjoyment of adjoining land or impact on the interests of the public in the locality. No submissions were received.

The application has been reviewed by relevant Council Sections.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Statutory Planning Controls

The statutory instruments relevant to the development include the following:

-    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

-    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

-    Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013

-    Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015

Each of these statutory instruments is considered in detail in the Section 79C assessment appended to this report as Attachment 1.

Implementation Date / Priority:

In the event that Council adopts the recommendation, a formal notice of determination will be issued for the development application. A formal notice of determination is valid for five years and the applicant can act on the development consent at any time within that period, subject to meeting any relevant conditions of the consent.

Conclusion:

A comprehensive assessment of the application has been undertaken in accordance with all statutory requirements and it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a number of conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

NOM16/24   Investigation into Options for Bulky Goods Waste

Attachments:          Nil

 

Motion:

Councillor Townley has given notice of her inention to move the following:

"That CHCC work with Nambucca Shire Council and Bellingen Shire Council to develop a strategy for domestic bulky goods rubbish. The strategy should explore opportunities for diversion of materials from landfill, as well as for social enterprises, employment and training and income generation."

 

Rationale:

1.         CHCC ceased operation of its 'tip shop' in 2011 when the contract operator withdrew their services. Since then, no action has been taken to provide opportunities for people to dispose of useable goods through Council's waste services, apart from its Bulky Goods collection. Bulky Goods collection is relatively expensive to ratepayers and no systematic diversion practices are employed. That is, almost all material collected goes straight to landfill. Councils who have moved away from this practice have reported significant savings, as well as considerably increased diversion rates.

2.          

3.         Numerous councils in Australia, either alone or with other organisations, have developed significant re-use facilities, many of which contain employment and training opportunities. Some of these enterprises take advantage of government grants and subsidies, including wage subsidies, however there are many examples of enterprises which are entirely self-funded.

4.          

5.         CHCC has been locked in a contract for this service and now the time is appropriate to explore more modern ways of diverting our unwanted but still usable materials. CHCC is in a position to take strong leadership in this area and also to possibly develop an important income stream. Diversion of waste from landfill and re-use facilities are key actions in our adopted Waste Strategy.

6.          

To work with our neighbouring councils on this area will have significant environmental, social and financial benefits.

 

I commend this Notice of Motion to Council.

 

Staff Comment:

A strategy for bulky goods waste can be investigated by staff with their counterparts from the Coffs Coast Waste Services (CCWS) group of councils.

Staff would recommend that such a strategy be completed conjointly with the wider body of work related to providing Council with a recommendation to enter into a new waste service contract which is due to be presented to Council in March/April 2017.  The recent CCWS Request for Tender to establish a new waste service, which is still currently on the market, includes a request that respondents provide offers for six different transport options for bulky goods, and this information when available, will provide a reasonable start point for future decision-making by Council on the bulky goods issue.

At this point in time the bulky goods service effectively recovers and diverts from landfill all metal and whitegoods, and all mattresses (approximately 5000 per year). The recovery rate of other items and materials is low.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

SI16/37         Amendment to current dog off leash provisions on Ocean View Beach and Murrays Beach

Author:                        Recreation and Open Space Officer

Authoriser:                  Group Leader Financial Services and Logistics

Coffs Harbour 2030:   PL2 Our public spaces are enjoyed by all our people

Attachments:              1.  Maps showing Ocean View & Murray Beaches proposed leash free areas

2.  Ocean View Beach - Summary of Submissions

3.  Murrays Beach - Summary of Submissions

4.  Submissions Received - Confidential (a)

Confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act as it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors).  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Early in 2016 Council received a significant number of community requests from residents of Arrawarra Headland and Mullaway requesting that Oceanview Beach be changed from dogs on leash to dogs off leash. During this period Council also received a number of requests to consider changing Murrays Beach Sawtell from dogs on leash to dogs off leash.

 

In response to those requests Council staff conducted significant community consultation with both communities and residents were provided 28 days to comment.

 

A total of 431 submissions were received, 404 in relation to Oceanview Beach and 54 in relation to Murrays Beach. In Summary:

 

Location

Supportive

Not Supportive

Oceanview Beach

185

192

Murrays Beach

37

17

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That:

1.       No further action be undertaken in relation to amending the current dog on lead requirement for Oceanview Beach, Arrawarra Headland;

2.       Council commence a 12 month trial of dogs off leash on Murrays Beach, Sawtell between the hours of 4.00 pm and 9.00am.  A report will be returned to Council detailing the outcome of the trial; and,

3.       A review of dog off leash opportunities within the LGA be undertaken in conjunction with the planned review of the Coffs Harbour Open Space Strategy. This review will incorporate the outcome of the trial at Murrays Beach.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Early in 2016 Council received 129 form letters, principally from residents of Arrawarra Headland and Mullaway requesting that Oceanview Beach be changed from dogs on leash to dogs off leash. The current off leash opportunity in this area is Corindi Beach. Reasons cited for wanting an additional off leash beach included poor access to the current dog off leash beach, conflicting/incompatible uses.

 

Council also received a request to consider changing Murrays Beach Sawtell from dogs on leash to dogs off leash, possibly under a time share arrangement a time share arrangement whereby dogs are permitted off leash outside of peak use periods. The current off leash opportunity in this area is Boambee Beach.  Reasons cited for wanting an additional off leash beach in the area included difficulty access to the current dog off leash beach, particularly for the elderly, and a number of conflicting/incompatible uses such as high numbers of 4WD’s and horse riding.

 

In relation to Murrays Beach, Council has received previous requests to consider changing the beach to dog off leash. In 2013 a community survey in relation to the matter indicated that, of the 50 people who responded opinion was fairly evenly divided (23 opposed, 32 in favour, 2 undecided.)  At that time no further action was undertaken in relation to the matter as there was not demonstrated strong community support. Note that a timed trial was not an option canvassed at that time.

 

In recognition of the high levels of dog ownership in Australia, Council's 2010 Open Space Strategy recommends developing more leash free opportunities within Council's reserve system generally.

 

In response to these requests Council prepared two proposals as follows:

-        Trialing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach and

-        Trialing dogs off leash on Murrays Beach between the hours of 4.00pm and 8.00am.

 

Community consultation in relation to the proposals involved:

·           Mail out to all residents within Arrawarra Headland and Mullaway Given the size of the Sawtell and Toormina community it was not practical to mail out to all residents. In lieu of this signs were placed at each of the formal entrances to Murrays Beach advising of the proposal,

·           Public notice in the Advocate, and

·           Online comment form on Councils website.

 

Residents were provided 28 days to comment.

 

A total of 431 submissions were received, 404 in relation to Oceanview Beach and 54 in relation to Murrays Beach. In Summary:

 

Location

Supportive

Not Supportive

Oceanview Beach

185

192

Murrays Beach

37

17

 


 

A letter of acknowledgement was sent to all persons who provided a submission.  A number of people subsequently responded to indicate that they had not provided a submission in relation to the Ocean View Beach proposal.  This affected both the supporting and opposing submissions and it would appear that a number of the Ocean View submissions are fraudulent.  So given that this affected both the opposing and supporting views, it is not considered that this would make any material difference to the ratio of people supporting and opposing.

 

Summary of Community Submissions

 

A full summary of the community submissions is provided as Attachments 2 & 3. An overview summary of the major issues raised is provided below.

 

Opposing Oceanview Beach

 

1.       Conflicts with existing beach users as the location is a popular spot for families, young children, retirees and visitors,

2.       Conflicts with native wildlife, in particular shorebirds and native fauna,

3.       Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance, particularly for people who are anxious about dogs or who have had negative experiences.

4.       The problem of dog faeces not being removed by owners

 

Staff comment

 

The beach visitation would likely be variable throughout the year in response to holiday times, summer vs winter months.  As with the majority of beaches in the LGA, there would be periods where the beach is busier than at other times.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that dogs may cause conflicts with other beach users it is considered that it is not the dogs per se that give rise to conflicts with other beach users but rather irresponsibility on the part of the dog owners. This can be addressed through encouraging responsible dog ownership in public spaces, along with appropriate enforcement where necessary, and increasing community awareness and a sense of responsibility through improved signage, information brochures and education and awareness programs and appropriate targeted enforcement

 

Dog owners are responsible for the removal of all faeces that their dog leaves in public places. This once again comes down to encouraging responsible dog ownership and enforcement where necessary.

 

5.       Adequate off leash beach provision in the northern beaches for dog ownersSubmissions noted that of Council's eight dog off leash opportunities, five are within the Northern Beaches.  It was also noted that there are only three dog prohibited beaches within the Northern Beaches.

 

Staff Comment

 

Note. The existing number of dog off leash beaches throughout the Northern Beaches is in recognition of the linear topography, the spread of the development footprint and the disconnected village nature of settlement areas. Several submission opposing dogs off leash suggested making the northern end only of the beach off leash as a compromise. This is not recommended as the beach is small and enforcement would be problematic.

 


 

6.       Conflicts with Community Strategic Plan

 

Staff Comment

 

Providing off leash opportunities for dogs is considered to be consistent with the Community Strategic Plan. Specifically LC 2.1 Promote healthy living, PL 2.2 Provide public spaces and facilities that are accessible and safe for all.

 

7.       Dog attacks are more likely in dog off leash areas

 

Staff Comment

 

An article by Van de Kuyt, N. (2001). Prevention of dog attacks in public places. A local government strategy adopted by 11 Victorian Councils makes the following statement in relation to Victoria:

 

“Only 9% of dog aggression incidents in public places occurred in parks or reserves, despite off leash areas traditionally being a topic of community concern. A possible explanation for this is that dogs tend to be in ‘play’ mode in this environment, as opposed to behaving more aggressively when defending their property”. There may also be fewer attacks as there is the lower risk of dogs being territorial due to the tide movement removing previous scents.

 

In favour of Oceanview Beach

 

1.       Oceanview Beach is not well used most of the time.

 

Staff comment

 

The beach visitation would likely be variable throughout the year in response to holiday times, summer vs winter months.  As with the majority of beaches in the LGA, there would be periods where the beach is busier than at other times.

 

2.       Pipeclay is unsafe due to 4WD’s

 

Staff Comment

 

Noted. Pipeclay has a number of uses that do not lend themselves to off leash, specifically surf schools and 4WDs.  It is considered however that given the length of Pipelclay (4 kms) there would be area available for dogs owners to avoid congested sites. The issue of speeding 4WD’s can be addressed through driver education and awareness, and enforcement.

 

3.       Access is difficult to Pipeclay provides better, wider access and has more visibility from the access points.

 

Staff Comment

 

Agreed, however in the first instance it is recommended that council explore options to improve the access to Pipeclay Beach.

 

4.       Oceanview is a quite beach in comparison to Pipeclay

 

Staff Comment

 

Noted. Pipeclay Beach has additional uses such as the surfschool and 4WD’s

 


 

5.       Oceanview Beach provides windbreaks

 

Staff Comment

 

Agreed. Oceanview would be a more sheltered beach than Pipeclay due to the presence of the two headlands. However this factor would also make the beach more attractive to families for swimming, given the greater predictability of the rip locations.

 

Murrays Beach time share

 

Key points raised by people opposing the trial are:

1.       Boambee Beach already provides an off leash opportunity.

 

Staff comment

 

Noted however Boambee Beach has high levels of 4WD use and a range of other activities that are not necessarily consistent with dogs off leash. Access to Boambee Beach is also difficult for people who are elderly, infirm or mobility impaired.

2.       Dogs who are currently illegally off leash on Murrays are not well controlled and are a nuisance for other beach users, including those with dogs on lead

3.       Some dog owners are irresponsible and this would lead to conflicts with other users.

4.       Concerns about the faecal matter that may be left on the beach

5.       Conflicts with local wildlife

 

Staff comment

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that dogs may cause conflicts with other beach users and wildlife,  it is considered that this is not the dogs per se that give rise to conflicts with other beach users but rather irresponsibility on the part of the dog owners. This can be addressed through encouraging responsible dog ownership in public spaces, along with appropriate enforcement where necessary, and increasing community awareness and a sense of responsibility through improved signage, information brochures and education and awareness programs. Appropriate targeted enforcement

 

Dog owners are responsible for the removal of all faeces that their dog leaves in public places. This once again comes down to encouraging responsible dog ownership and enforcement where necessary.

 

6.       More dogs will use Murrays beach leading to more conflict

 

Staff Comment

 

It is not possible to quantify this assertion at this time.

 

7.       Dogs off leash are incompatible with family use of Murrays Beach

 

Key points raised by people supporting the trial are:

-        There is a need for more off leash opportunities within the area.

Agreed. There is only one off leash are in the southern part of the LGA. This is supported by Councils Open Space Strategy which recommends investigating additional off leash opportunities.

-        Boambee Beach is too congested for dogs off leash, and vehicles on the beach are a major concern

-        Many of the dogs that use Boambee beach are larger breeds and staffies/pitbull crosses. It would be good to provide an alternate option for smaller breeds

Agreed. Boambee Beach is the main 4WD beach in Coffs Harbour and is heavily used by visitors to the region. It also has a range of other activities that are not necessarily consistent with dogs off leash included recreational horse riding, racehorses, licensed horse riding, licensed camel rides, sandmining, in additional to fishing and passive recreation pursuits..

At present people use the southern end of Boambee for larger, less well behaved dogs. This then impacts on the Sawtell residents who use this this southern end of the beach for smaller breeds.

-        Boambee Beach is not that accessible and the railway bridge access is problematic for mobility impaired/elderly people, many of whom reside in Sawtell.

Agreed. The current access to Boambee Beach does not lend itself to access for older members of the community or those who are not steady on their feet.

Issues

Dogs require access to areas for exercise, social interaction and play. Dogs ownership in Australia is increasing (Pet Information Advisory Service, 2010) and it is likely that, as the population ages, there will be increased demand for accessible off leash opportunities.

 

At present there are over 15,644 dogs currently microchipped in the Coffs Harbour LGA It is estimated that there is an additional significant percentage on top of this that are not microchipped. To accommodate this level of ownership and the corresponding demand for spaces to exercise dogs, Councils Open Space Strategy identifies the need to provide dog off leash opportunities generally.

 

Uncontrolled dogs

 

In the majority of cases uncontrolled dogs stem from a lack of responsibility on the part of the dog owners. By law, all dogs must be under effective control at all times in public spaces. It is incumbent on the owners to understand what “effective control” is and make the decision whether their dog will be under effective control if off leash. This applies to both large dog owners and smaller breeds. It is important that owners of small breed take appropriate corrective action when their dogs are antagonising larger breeds.

 

This can be addressed, in part, through encouraging responsible dog ownership in public spaces and increasing community awareness and a sense of responsibility through improved signage, information brochures and education and awareness programs.

 

Wildlife Impacts

 

Council currently has seven off leash dog beaches.  As with the point above, any negative impacts on wildlife largely stem from poorly controlled dogs. Education and enforcement will assist in reducing impacts.

 

Monitoring the impacts on wildlife would be a key requirement during the trial period of dogs off leash on Murrays Beach, if supported.

 

Murrays Beach

 

Based on demand and current provision there is a need to provide for more accessible off leash opportunities within the Sawtell/Toormina area generally. At present there is only one off leash opportunity, Boambee Beach, in this area. Access to Boambee Beach is problematic for the elderly/mobility impaired and has a range of other uses that are not necessarily compatible with dogs off leash (high numbers of 4WD’s and horse riding in particular).

 

Council’s lifeguards report that Murrays Beach is not a safe swimming beach due to the number of rips, and the unpredictability of where they will occur. The safe swimming areas are on Sawtell Beach which is patrolled.

 

It is considered that trailing a time share dog off leash opportunity on Murrays Beach is a reasonable compromise as it would still allow for dog on leash outside of these hours, and, with the adjacent dog prohibition on Sawtell Beach, the gamut of beach users are reasonably well catered for. Many other LGA’s successfully use timed off leash use of beaches to cater for the broad range of recreational demand on this resource. Dog owners are currently breaching Councils dogs on leash requirement for the beach. By allowing legal dog off leash between certain times this may assist in reducing the incidence of dogs off leash during peak visitation during the day.

 

Councils initial proposal suggested off leash 4.00pm-8.00am. Feedback from the community suggested that this was too restrictive. A review of other LGA’s in relation to time share showed a range of times, varying between summer and winter. At this stage it is recommended that the trial off leash period be between 4.00pm and 9.00am.

 

Creating a purpose built dog off leash Park in the Sawtell/Toormina area would also assist in addressing the lack of off leash opportunities for local dog owners. At present the LGA only has one dog off leash park Thompsons Road Reserve in Coffs Harbour.

 

The Open Space Strategy recommended development of a purpose built dog off leash Park within the Toormina Sports Complex, at the Corner of Hulbert and Toormina Roads, Toormina. This location is central to both Sawtell and Toormina, has good natural surveillance and is readily accessible by pathways. Provision of a purpose built dog park would decrease pressure on beaches to provide leash free opportunities.

 

Oceanview Beach

 

The northern beaches area is reasonably well served with five of Council's eight off leash opportunities located on beaches between Emerald Beach and Arrawarra.  In contrast there are only two dog prohibited beaches. Residents requesting the change to Oceanview cited poor access and conflicts with other users on Pipeclay Beach.  Rather than open Oceanview for dogs off leash, at this time, it is recommended that Council instead investigate options to improve access to Pipeclay Beach and look at measures to reduce the conflicts between 4WD use and dogs. 

 

Consideration could also be given to developing a purpose built dog park on the Northern Beaches. Councils current Open Space Strategy recommends a location at Mullaway.

 

Education

 

Many of the respondents opposing dog off leash areas cited existing uncontrolled dogs, faeces and nuisance as a major concerns. Additional education around responsible pet ownership may be of benefit in mitigating this behaviour.

Options:

Options available to Council in this matter are:

1.       No to the Oceanview Beach and Yes to Murrays time share Review the outcome of the Murrays time share in conjunction planned review of the Open Space Strategy

Or

2.       No to both proposals and review in conjunction with planned review of the Open Space Strategy

Or

3.       Trial both Oceanview and Murrays Beach proposals for 12 months.

Sustainability Assessment:

•        Environment

It is considered that there will be no net change to the environment as a result of adopting the recommendations within this report. Dog faecal matter is required to be removed by the dog owner regardless of whether the dog is on leash or leash free.

•        Social

Australia has one of the highest rates of dog ownership in the world. In urban settings public areas to walk or run dogs off leash are very important. Currently there are over 15,500 dogs registered in the Coffs Harbor plus another 4000 estimated to be unregistered. It is anticipated that as our community ages the levels of pet ownership will rise with a corresponding increase in the demand for accessible leash free opportunities.

 

Pet ownership is positively associated with social interactions, community involvement, social favours, neighbourhood friendliness and sense of community.

•        Civic Leadership

The proposal is consistent with the Community Strategic Plan. Specifically LC 2.1 Promote healthy living, and PL 2.2 Provide public spaces and facilities that are accessible and safe for all.

•        Economic

Broader Economic Implications

 

There are no economic impacts as a result of this report.

 

Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

 

There will be a minor impact on the Delivery plan as signage at Murrays Beach will need to be updated to reflect the dog off leash trial. This cost is estimated to be less than $500. There will also be a minor impact on staff resources as rangers will be required to police the Murrays Beach trial area, during the establishment phase, to ensure compliance.

Risk Analysis:

Council currently provides a number of existing off dog off leash areas. The addition of a time share off leash opportunity on Murrays Beach is not considered to increase Council's risk exposure.

 

The Companion Animals Act requires Council to provide a minimum of one off leash public space. In recognition of the linear nature of the LGA and the existing settlement footprint Council has provided nine off leash areas.

 

In terms of risk the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 states that the dog owner or other person over 16 years who is in charge of the dog at the time is responsible for controlling their dog at all times, and this would include in off leash dog exercise areas.

 

This Act further provides for the declaration and control of dangerous and restricted dogs. Provided Council is complying with the requirements of the Act in relation to such dogs it is unlikely that Council would be liable in the event of an in injury arising from the actions of  a third party in relation to a declared dog within an off leash area.

 

Council is provided defenses under the Civil Liability Act 2002.

 

To further mitigate risk it is recommended that for all dog off leash areas:

·        Be well signposted and promoted as an off leash dog exercise area and the broader community is fully aware of any potential risks,

·        There is potential for the broad community including visitors to avoid walking through an off leash dog exercise area to travel to destinations (including access to the beach) if desired, and

·        Dangerous and restricted dogs are appropriately managed in accordance with the Companion Animals Act 1998 and Council continues to maintain the proper procedures for dealing with this.

Consultation:

Community submissions were invited for a period of 28 days.

 

The matter has been discussed with relevant internal stakeholders including Local Land Use Planning, Regulatory Services, Roads and Open Space Maintenance, Holidays Parks Manager.

 

The matter has been discussed externally with officers from NSW NPWS.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The Legislation that is most relevant to the Dogs in public places includes:

·        NSW Companion Animals Act 1998

·        Companion Animals Amendment (Outdoor Dining Areas) Bill 2010

·        NSW Local Government Act 1993 (Section 632)

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

The overriding implications of the relevant Legislation are as follows:

·        Dogs in public places must be under effective control.

·        There are a number of public places where dogs are not allowed (such as around playgrounds and food preparation and consumption areas, recreation and sport areas prohibited by Council, schools and child care centres unless permitted, and environmental areas designated for protection) and these should be appropriately managed and promoted.

·        The dog owner (or other person over 16 years who is in charge of the dog at the time) is guilty of an offence if their dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal.

·        The dog owner (or other person over 16 years who is in charge of the dog at the time) must immediately remove and properly dispose of a dog’s faeces (if a dog defecates in a public place).

·        Local authorities (Council) should provide sufficient rubbish receptacles for the proper disposal of dog faeces where a place is commonly used for exercising dogs.

·        Dogs are allowed in outdoor eating areas if the dog is under effective control.

·        In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and related Regulations 2000, it is necessary for Council (the determining authority) to assess the potential impact of an activity (including the ‘use of the land’ such as dogs using an area) on the environment. This includes the potential impact on environmental, recreational, social, cultural, historical and other qualities and values.

Implementation Date / Priority:

The trial time share on Murrays Beach will commence upon installation of the required signage.

Conclusion:

Given the strong community opposition, and the strength of the arguments provided, coupled with the fact that there are a number of off leash opportunities already within the Northern Beaches, it is recommended that no further action be taken in relation to Oceanview Beach at this time.

 

Following the previous 2013 survey result and the positive recent survey it is recommended that Council trial dogs off leash on Murrays Beach between the hours of 4.00 pm and 9.00am. .A report will be returned to Council detailing the outcome of the trial. It is recommended that an appropriate level of enforcement be undertaken during the trial.

 

Note that since exhibition of the two proposals a further petition was received by Council in relation to amending the current dog on leash prohibition for Sapphire Beach to dog off leash.  This matter will be considered separately.  However given this degree of community interest and dog off leash opportunities, the high levels of pet ownership within the LGA, and the need to cater for many competing recreation interests within Council's open space, it is recommended that a review of dog off leash opportunities generally be undertaken in conjunction with the planned review of the Coffs Harbour Open Space Strategy. This review will incorporate the outcome of the time share trail at Murrays Beach.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               27 October 2016


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               27 October 2016

 

SUBMISSION NUMBER

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

COMMENT

OCEANVIEW BEACH

SUPPORT

 

1-         153

Form Letter in favour of allowing dogs off leash on Ocean view Beach. Key points include:

·           Ease of access and good visibility

·           Oceanview Beach is more quite in comparison to Pipeclay which has surf schools operating and 4WD’s

·           Good shade opportunities at the rear of the beach

·           Good windbreaks provided by the two headlands

 

 

OCEANVIEW BEACH

OPPOSING

 

154- 278

Form letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Proposal conflicts with existing beach users. Beach is popular with families,  retirees and visitors

·           Oceanview beach has high environmental values, adjoining Garby Nature Reserve and Arrawarra Headland protection zone

·           Off leash dogs will bring unacceptable dog impacts – faeces, dog fights, threats to wildlife

·           Dog off leash opportunities are already well provided for in the northern beaches. The area actually needs more dog prohibited beaches

·           The proposal is in conflict with Coffs Harbour Community Strategic Plan.

 

 

OCEANVIEW BEACH

SUPPORTING

 

279

Letter supporting the Oceanview beach dog off leash proposal. Key points raised include:

·           Pipeclay beach is quite busy, particularly in the mornings

·           4Wd’ s on Pipeclay drive too fast and dog owners don’t feel safe

·           Oceanview beach is more suitable as it is not as busy and has no vehicles

 

 

280

Submission in support of dogs off leash on Oceanview beach. Key points:

·           Oceanview beach is safe and easily accessible.

 

281

Submission in support of dogs off leash on Oceanview beach and also would like Mullaway to considered for dogs off leash

 

282

Submission in support of dogs off leash on Oceanview beach.

 

283

Submission in support of dogs off leash on Oceanview beach however would like a requirement that dogs off leash not attack people or wildlife, with appropriate penalties for offenders.

 

OCEANVIEW BEACH

OPPOSING

 

284

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Proposal will create additional dog faeces on the beach with associated health impacts on children

·           Oceanview beach is heavily used by families and visitors and as such is not suitable for dogs off leash

·           Potential negative impacts on tourism

·           Potential negative impacts on wildlife

 

 

285

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Safety concerns from dogs off leash

·        Concerns regarding councils  liability should a dog attack someone

 

286

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Dogs off lash are incompatible with Oceanviews amenity values

·           There is already sufficient off leash areas in the northern beaches

·           Making Oceanview dog off leash will discriminate against people who don’t want to be bothered by dogs whilst visiting the beach.

 

287

Email opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        There are already sufficient dog off leash beaches.

·        Pipeclay beach has dog faeces issues, uncontrolled dogs and no policing

 

 

288

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Ocean view is a popular destination and off leash dogs are not compatible with this visitation

·           There are sufficient off leash beaches in the northern beaches area

 

289

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Oceanview is a nice safe beach away from 4wd’s and boats

·           Concerned about impact of unleashed dogs on shorebirds

·           Access is constrained at Oceanview

 

290

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Uncontrolled dogs are confronting for people who are fearful of dogs.

·           Pipeclay beach is better suited for off leash as less family use of that beach

 

291

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Current informal system of locals letting well behaved dogs off leash on Oceanview works well.

·           Irresponsible dog owners will use the beach and spoil it for locals

Oceanview Beach is currently dog on lead. There is no way to legal way to have a system in place whereby some well-behaved dogs are allowed to be off leash and other is not.

292

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Uncontrolled dogs are confronting for children who are fearful of dogs: The authors children had experienced dog bites whilst on the beach. Dogs are not adequately controlled at present.

 

 

293

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Concerned about impacts on wildlife and faecal material not being picked up

 

294

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Beach is well used by visitors

·        Worried about impact on environmental values

 

295

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Parking is not adequate

·        Arrawarra Beach is better suited

·        Beach is well used by visitors

·        Worried about impact on environmental values

 

296

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs are not always controlled by their owners and annoy other beach goers

·        Concerned about impacts on wildlife.

·        Suggests development of a dog park within the northern beaches

 

297

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Proposal conflicts with existing beach users. Beach is popular with families,  retirees and visitors

·           Oceanview beach has high environmental values, adjoining Garby Nature Reserve and Arrawarra Headland protection zone

·           Off leash dogs will bring unacceptable dog impacts – faeces, dog fights, threats to wildlife

·           Dog off leash opportunities are already well provided for in the northern beaches. The area actually needs more dog prohibited beaches

·           The proposal is in conflict with Coffs Harbour Community Strategic Plan

 

298

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dog off leash opportunities are already well provided for in the area

·        Beach is highly used

·        Dogs are unpredictable

·        Nobody follows the current  rules re on leash

 

299

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dog off leash opportunities are already well provided for in the area

·        Beach is highly used

·        Dogs are unpredictable

·        Nobody follows the current  rules re on leash

 

300

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Safety concerns for people and smaller dogs

·        Pack mentality of groups of dogs

·        Dog are uncontrolled by owners

·        Disregard for current on leash requirement

Submission made suggestions as follows:

·        Limit dog breeds that can be registered

·        Explore time share off leash

·        Allow small breeds off leash on beaches

·        More use of rectrable leads

·        More enforcement

 

301

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Beach is too popular for off leash

·        Unleashed dogs are already a problem on the beach

·        Owners less inclined to pick up faces if dogs not leashed

·        Dogs are not well controlled

·        Concerned about councils liability in the event of an attack

 

302

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs are not well controlled on this beach

·        Worried about more dogs on the beach if it is made leash free

·        Concerned about councils liability in the event of an attack

 

303

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dog off leash opportunities are already well provided for in the area

·        Beach is too small and as such is very safe for swimming

·        Lots of family use

·        Rules already disregarded

·        Owners have no control over dogs off leash

 

304

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Beach is very popular with families

·        Tired of poorly behaved dogs

·        Current dog rules disregarded by owners

·        Need more enforcement by Rangers of current rules

·        Faeces not picked up now

 

305

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Do not agree with the points raised by those in favour of the proposal

·        Current dog rules in relation to Oceanview disregarded by owners as it is

·        Heavy visitor use of the beach does not lend itself to off leash

·        Area overused already

·        Worried about impacts on wildlife

·        Feel that it would increase the chance of a dog attack

 

306

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Problems with dog attacks now in Arrawarra Headland

·        Pipeclay is better suited

·        Need for more Ranger presence in Arrawarra Headland

 

307

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Unrestrained dogs are quite confronting

·        No dogs off leash are fully under control

·        Put people first

 

308

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Problem with leash free dogs attacking dogs on  leads

·        Beach is very popular and not suitable for off leash

·        Access is poor

·        Car parking inadequate

·        Pipeclay is more suitable and has good access

 

 

309

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Sufficient off leash opportunities in the area, don’t need more

·        Problems with dog attacks now in Arrawarra Headland and dogs knocking over children on the beach

·        Parking is poor

 

310

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach.
 

 

311

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Sufficient off leash beaches between Safety Beach and Corindi

·        Need to preserve Oceanview for families

·        Darkum Beach  is good for off leash

·        Concerned about damage to vegetation if dogs tethered near dunes

·        Already a lot of dog attacks in Arrawarra Headland village

 

312

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

Beach is too close to the residential area for off leash

·        Already sufficient off leash beaches between Safety Beach and Corindi

 

 

313

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Current rules re on lead disregarded

·        Some dog owners are irresponsible

·        Pipeclay is not that busy

 

 

314

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Has had negative experiences with dogs off leash

·        Dogs off leash are not well controlled and create problems for other beach users

 

 

315

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs off leash are not well controlled and create problems for other beach users

·        Concerned about safety, small dogs at risk from larger dogs

·        Already sufficient off leash beaches in the area

 

316

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Already sufficient off leash beaches in the area and changing Oceanview would leave very little on lead  beach

·        Oceanview does not have good access

·        Southern end of Oceanview is a child friendly beach and dogs off leash would impact on this. If anything, only allow off leash on northern end

 

317

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs off leash not compatible with family nature of the beach

·        Worried about dog attacks and faeces

 

318

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Already sufficient off leash beaches in the area

·        Beach is very popular

 

319

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Rules disregarded already in relation to on leash

·        Dogs can be dangerous off leash

·        Dogs off leash harass other beach users

·        Would like Oceanview to be dog prohibited

·        Enough leash free beaches in the area already

 

 

320

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Concerned about impacts on wildlife

·        Enough leash free beaches in the area already

 

 

321

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Worried about impacts on wildlife and children

·        Pipeclay is sufficient for off leash

 

322

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Major user of the beach is families, surfers and holiday makers-concerned proposal would impact on these groups

·        Worried about dog attacks

·        Beach is popular with young families and proposal will inhibit their use

·        Oceanview is a small beach, often inundated at high tide, reducing the available area for beach goers.

·        Sufficient off leash at nearby Pipeclay beach.

 

323

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        On leash beach is more inclusive of all users

·        Major user of the beach is families, surfers and holiday makers-concerned proposal would impact on these groups

·        Sufficient off leash at nearby Pipeclay beach

·        Concerned about impacts of tourists with dogs

 

 

324

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Some dog owners are irresponsible which spoils it for everyone

·        Dogs are often uncontrolled and cause problems

·        Sufficient off leash at nearby Pipeclay beach.

 

325

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        No dogs near small children

 

326

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs are often uncontrolled and cause problems

·        Sufficient off leash at nearby

 

327

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Uncontrolled dogs may intimidate other dogs and children

·        Beach is popular with families

 

328

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs in public places should be leashed

·        Beach is popular with families

·        Uncontrolled dogs may intimidate other dogs and children

 

 

329

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Worried about impacts on wildlife and children

·        Sufficient off leash  already

·        Will no longer holiday here if off leash

 

330

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Uncontrolled dogs on Oceanview are a nuisance for other beach users and owners do nothing

·        Need more ranger patrols

 

 

331

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Beach is popular with families

·        Uncontrolled dogs on Oceanview are a nuisance for other beach users and owners do nothing

·        Dog fights are a problem

 

332

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Safety concerns

·        Worried about wildlife impacts

 

 

333

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Proposal conflicts with existing beach users. Beach is popular with families,  retirees and visitors

·           Off leash dogs will bring unacceptable dog impacts – faeces, dog fights, threats to wildlife

·           Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach

 

 

334

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·           Proposal conflicts with existing beach users. Beach is popular with families,  retirees and visitors

·           Safety concerns

·           Off leash dogs will bring unacceptable dog impacts – faeces, dog fights, threats to wildlife

·           Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach

·           Consider only  making northern end leash free if anything

 

 

335

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach.

 

336

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach.
 

 

337

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dog owners are often irresponsible and let their dogs 100’s of metres away

·        Safety concerns for children and small dogs

 

 

338

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dog faeces

·        Safety concerns for children and small dogs

 

339

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Worried about impacts on families and children

·        Sufficient off leash  already

·        Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach

 

340

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Worried about impacts on disabled beach users

·        Sufficient off leash  already

 

341

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Worried about impacts on families, visitors and children

·        Sufficient off leash  already

·        Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach and can frighten people

·        Dog fights and faeces

 

342

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Worried about impacts on families, visitors and children

·        Sufficient off leash  already

·        Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach and can frighten people

·        Dog fights and faeces

 

343

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Council should enforce the current rules- dogs are frequently off leash

·        Would be OK if all dog owners were responsible but many are not

·        Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach

·        Will no longer use the beach if leash free

 

 

344

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach.

 

345

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach

·        Northern end only if proposal proceeds

 

 

346

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Uncontrolled dogs are a nuisance on the beach and can be frightening

·        Safety concerns

·        Popular beach for families

·        Sufficient leash free in the area

 

347

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach.

 

 

348

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dog faeces will increase

·        Pipeclay more suitable – larger less congested

·        Oceanview too small

·        Northern end only if proposal proceeds

 

349

Online response opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach.

·        Popular beach for families

·        Sufficient leash free in the area

 

350

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Risks to beachgoers as beach is very popular

·        Negative impacts on beach users

·        Pipeclay is sufficient for off leash

 

 

351

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Negative impacts on beach users from faeces

·        Dog owners have less respect for the beach than other users

 

 

352

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Risks to beachgoers too high as beach is very popular

 

 

353

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Dogs are a nuisance on the beach and potentially dangerous especially to young children

·        Sufficient off leash already in the area

·        Dog faeces

·        Dogs already off leash on the beach causing problems

 

 

354

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        The majority of dog owners are often irresponsible and do not control their dogs and pick up faeces

·        Dog attacks on other dogs is distressing

·        Council has not responded to complaints

 

 

355

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Current rules on Oceanview are not being enforced

·        There will more faces and disturbance to beach goers

·        There are parking issues at Pipeclay unless events are on

·        Sufficient off leash on pipeclay

·        Maybe consider Mullaway instead

 

356

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        Current rules on Oceanview are not being enforced

·        There will more faces and disturbance to beach goers

·        There are parking issues at Pipeclay unless events are on

·        Sufficient off leash on Pipeclay Beach

 

 

OCEANVIEW BEACH

SUPPORT

 

357

Letter in support of trialling dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach:

·           There are many dogs within Arrawarra Headland area and majority are well socialised.

·           Pipeclay Beach is harder to access as you have to walk near private properties

 

358

Letter in support of trialling dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach:

·           Proposal would allow choice for dog owners during different weather and tourist seasons

 

359

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

360

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

 

361

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

362

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

363

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

·           Beach is not well used

 

364

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  :

 

365

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  :

 

366

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

·        Dogs are better behaved when socialised and well exercised

·        Need sufficient dog poo bags/bins

 

367

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

368

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

·        Pipeclay unsafe because of 4WD’s so good to have an option

 

369

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

·           Beach is not well used

·           Some locals just want to have the beach for their own informal off leash use so don’t want it changed to off leash

 

 

370

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

 

 

371

Online response in support of trialling dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach. Key points include:

·        wants more dog bags/dispensers

 

 

372

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  provided owners act responsibly

 

 

373

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

·        Provide bags to encourage owners to act responsibly

 

374

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

 

375

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach

 

 

376

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

377

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

378

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

 

379

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

 

380

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

 

381

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach 

 

 

382

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach:

·        as there are not enough accessible places to exercise your dog

 

 

383

Online response in support of trialling  dogs off leash on Oceanview Beach  Key points include:

·           Beach is not as busy as Pipeclay

·           Access is better than Pipeclay

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                               27 October 2016

 

SUBMISSION NUMBER

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

COMMENT

MURRAYS BEACH

OPPOSING

 

384

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Full time workers cannot walk the beach (after hours) without being jumped on

·    Native fauna inhabit the littoral zone

·    Excess of faeces

 

385

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key point include:

·    Beach is not patrolled by the Rangers already have dogs off leash

 

386

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Require more Rangers to walk and patrol beaches and issuing “on the spot” fines

 

387

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Hours are restricted

·    Lack of Ranger patrols

·    Removes ability for families to not be “harassed” by dogs

·    Threatened species – Sooty and Pied Oyster Catcher, Little Tern

·    Children get frightened

 

388

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Do not want to be annoyed or intimidated by dogs

·    Increases risk of injury to children and elderly

·    There is already a leash free beach 100m’s away (Boambee Beach)

 

389

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

390

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Lack of Rangers at present

·    Increases risk of attack

·    Witnessed a dog killed by an unleashed dog

 

391

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach is leash free and not too far from Murrays

·    Fatalities involving larger leash free dogs

·    Faeces – health issue

 

392

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Concern for safety of children

·    Avoid Boambee Beach for the reason of being leash free

·    Not enough patrols from Rangers at present

·    There have been incidents of native fauna and small dogs being killed by off leash dogs

 

393

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

394

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach is in close vicinity

·    Not enough Ranger patrols at present

 

395

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

396

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Concern for children and elderly

·    Improve access to Boambee Beach for impaired and elderly if required

 

397

Online response opposing trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Not enough control of dogs already

·    Does not walk her dog anymore on the beach as others are not leashed and concern for attack

·    Not enough Ranger patrols at present

·    Need to educate pet owners

 

398

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Murrays Beach. Key points include:

·    Concern about native fauna welfare

·    Not enough Ranger controls at present

 

399

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Murrays Beach. Key points include:

·    Concern about impact on native fauna

·    Uncontrolled dogs urinating on peoples belongings

·    Children and elderly being harassed

·    Witnessed fights from unleashed dogs

 

400

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Murrays Beach. Key points include:

·    Uncontrolled dogs harassing people

 

401

Letter opposing dogs off leash on Murrays Beach. Key points include:

·    Not enough Ranger patrols at present

 

MURRAYS BEACH

SUPPORTING

 

402

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Provision of bags and bin collection service

 

403

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

404

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Clear and concise signage

 

405

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

406

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Consider the hours to be 3pm to 9am during winter

·    Feels that Boambee Beach is unsafe for dogs with the 4WD’s

 

 

407

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Consider the hours to be 3pm to 9am during winter

·    Feels that Boambee Beach is unsafe for dogs with the 4WD’s

 

 

408

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Feels that Boambee Beach is unsafe for dogs with the 4WD’s

 

 

409

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Feels that Boambee Beach is unsafe for dogs with the 4WD’s

 

 

410

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    However dogs should not be allowed to roam littoral zone – to be leashed to & from beach

 

 

411

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

412

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Times are too restrictive

·    Leave southern end leash on & northern end of beach leash free 24/7

·    Signage to indicate zones

 

 

413

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

414

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Feels that Boambee Beach is unsafe for dogs with the 4WD’s

·    Access is difficult to Boambee Beach for elderly

 

415

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

416

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Signage to indicate time restrictions and to ensure that owners are to retain control of their dogs

·    More patrols from Rangers

 

417

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Hours should be 5am-8am and 4pm-7pm

·    Dog bag dispenser

·    Bins to be installed

 

418

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

419

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Hours should be 3pm–9am

 

420

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Hours should be 3pm-5pm

·    Concern for nocturnal wildlife

 

 

421

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

422

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

423

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach can be crowded

 

424

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Should be leash free 24/7

 

425

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Should be leash free 24/7

 

426

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Provides more freedom to dog owners

 

427

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Believes this is fair and equitable proposal

 

428

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach is very busy

 

 

429

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach is difficult to access for elderly

 

 

430

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach is difficult to access for elderly

·    Boambee Beach is very busy

·    80% of walkers those times are people with dogs

 

 

431

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

432

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

433

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell.

 

 

434

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Should be leash free 24/7

·    Feels Boambee Beach is dangerous (attacks etc.)during later hours of the day

 

435

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Too many big dogs & 4WD’s on Boambee Beach

 

 

436

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Murray’s is not good for swimming, better for walking and exercise

·    However, believes the times are unreasonable & restrictive

 

437

Online response supporting trialling a time share of “dogs off leash” on Murrays Beach, Sawtell. Key points include:

·    Boambee Beach is difficult to access for elderly

·    Concern for speeding 4WD’s on Boambee Beach

 

MURRAYS BEACH

SUPPORT

 

438

Letter supporting dogs off leash on Murrays Beach. Key points include:

·    Murrays is an unsafe swimming beach, suited to walking or jogging

·    Not patrolled by Lifesavers

·    Boambee Beach is difficult to access for elderly

·    However, hours are unreasonable particularly in winter

 

439

Letter supporting dogs off leash on Murrays Beach. Key points include:

·    Concern for speeding 4WD’s on Boambee Beach

·    Believes companion pets and walking freely is good for mental health

·    Signs are to indicate hours clearly

·    Suggested times (Summer 8am) to 5pm and (Winter) 10am to 4pm NO DOGS

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                     27 October 2016

SI16/38         Amendment to Alcohol Free Areas in Coffs Harbour CBD

Author:                        Recreation and Open Space Officer

Authoriser:                  Group Leader Financial Services and Logistics

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LP2 We have a strong and diverse economy

Attachments:              1.  Proposed Alcohol Zone Suspension Coffs Harbour CBD 2016  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Special Rate Variation for the Coffs City Centre Masterplan includes funds for marketing and event activations of the City Square. Such events are organised or supported by the City Centre Masterplan Committee to attract people into the City Square

 

Following the re-establishment of the Alcohol Free Zones (AFZs) across the City in 2015 Council has been requested to consider a temporary suspension of the Coffs Harbour CBD City Square AFZ for the purpose of staging the victory ceremony of the World Rally in November.

 

Section 645 of the Local Government Act provides for Council, by resolution, to allow the temporary suspension of AFZs for specific periods or events.  The Act and Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol Free Zones (February 2009) provides a specific procedure which must be followed in relation to suspending AFZs, and this includes a requirement to seek Council’s endorsement.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council

1.       Approve the temporary suspension of the Harbour Drive AFZ on 20 November 2016 from 1pm to 5pm for the purpose of the World rally event pursuant to the provisions of Section 645 of the Local Government Act 1993

2.       Note that it is within Council’s authority, under the Act and Ministerial Guidelines, to make such an approval.

 

Report

Description of Item:

Temporary Suspension of AFZ’s

Following the re-establishment of the AFZ’s across the City in 2015 Council has been requested to consider a temporary suspension of the Coffs Harbour CBD City Square AFZ for the purpose of staging the victory ceremony of the World Rally in November.

 

Section 645 of the Local Government Act provides for Council, by resolution, to allow the temporary suspension of AFZs for specific periods or events.  The Act and Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol Free Zones (February 2009) provide a specific procedure which must be followed in relation to suspending AFZs, and this includes a requirement to seek Council’s endorsement.

 

The Special Rate Variation for the Coffs City Centre Masterplan includes funds for marketing and event activations of the City Square and events are organised or supported by the City Centre Masterplan Committee to attract people into the City Square. Approved concept designs for the revitalisation of City Square provide a space that can be flexible to cater for a range of events, including open-air movie screenings and food and wine tastings. Future events could potentially involve temporary suspension of an AFZ to allow coordination of functions that would appeal to targeted market demographics. Such events will require a further resolution of Council and consultation with the CCLAC.

Issues:

Alcohol Free Zone Suspension

Council officers will be liaising with officers from the NSW CCLAC in relation to the temporary suspension. There are no issues perceived with the temporary suspension as it is for specific managed events in well frequented areas.

 

Allowing the temporary suspension will allow Council and the CBD business community flexibility to stage events and festivals as part of a broader activation strategy.

Options:

1.       Adopt the recommendations.

2.       Modify the recommendation to trial the temporary suspensions for the World Rally Championship CBD podium event.

3.       Reject the recommendation, however failure to allow flexibility within the Coffs Harbour CBD for managed activation events may impact negatively on the CBD businesses and constrain the planned World Rally Championship podium event.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

No negative environmental concerns will occur as a result of the amended alcohol controls.

•     Social

No negative social concerns are associated with amending the CBD alcohol free zone to allow the World Rally Championship podium events to take place.  Police will be monitoring the event and have the powers to deal with any anti-social behaviour that may take place under their existing legislation.

•     Civic Leadership

This proposal works towards achieving the outcomes identified within the Coffs Harbour 2030 Strategic Plan and is directly connected to the themes "Learning and Prospering" and “Looking after our Community”.  The proposal will assist in ensuring that:

·      Promote opportunities around renewable energy, sustainable tourism, sustainable agriculture and fisheries, local produce, creative and clean industries

·      Develop the city centre as a social and cultural focus for Coffs Harbour

These areas are identified as outcomes/objectives in the 2030 Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Activation of the CBD is a key objective of the CBD Masterplan.  Temporarily suspending AFZ for specific events and festivals, as part of an overall activation strategy, will provide an economic benefit for the Region

•      Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The cost of installing notices will be absorbed within current programs.

Risk Analysis:

Temporary suspension of AFZ’s

There are no perceived risks from a temporary suspension of the AFZ for the World Rally event and Council is legally empowered to make such a decision. This event is approved by Council, in consultation with the local police, and appropriate risk mitigation measures will be affected for the purpose on the day.

Consultation:

Internally consultation has occurred with all relevant sections.  Externally, consultation has been undertaken with the Coffs Clarence Police Local Area Command and with City Centre Masterplan Committee, a Section 355 Committee of Council, which advises the Council in regard to expenditure of the City Centre Special Rate Variation funds and associated marketing and events.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Alcohol Free Zones

Section 645 of the Local Government Act provides for Council, by resolution, to allow the temporary suspension of any AFZ. The Act and Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol-Free Zones (February 2009) provide a specific procedure which must be followed in relation to suspending AFZs, and this includes a requirement to seek Council’s endorsement. 

 

Following adoption of the suspension of an AFZ Council must publish a notice in a local newspaper informing the community of the suspension that will be in place: AFZ street signs must be covered immediately on commencement of the timeframe and the covers removed immediately following the suspended time.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Notices will be installed following the Council resolution. The resolution will come into effect once notices are installed.

Conclusion:

It is recommended, for Councillors’ consideration, that allowing a temporary suspension of the AFZ in the City Centre will allow for enhanced opportunities for the World Rally event.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                       27 October 2016