Coffs Harbour City Council

15 March 2017

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

The above meeting will be held in the Council Administration Building

Cnr Coff and Castle Streets, Coffs Harbour on:

 

Thursday, 23 March 2017

 

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                                                          23 March 2017

Order of Business  

General Manager's Reports

GM17/02         Motion to 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government, Intensive Agriculture...................................................................................... 4

GM17/03         Policy Review 2017 (Part 1)............................................................................... 5

GM17/04         New Gallery/Museum  Policies ................................................................. 138

GM17/05         Council Committees - appointment of members and approval of Terms of Reference..................................................................................................... 157

Directorate Reports - Business Services

BS17/09          Bank and Investment Balances for February 2017......................... 157

BS17/10          Reverse Auction RFT-7947-TO - Supply of Electricity for Contestable Sites and Street Lighting............................................................................ 157

Notices of Motion Sustainable Communities

NOM17/05      Rural Lands - Intensive Agriculture..................................................... 157

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Communities

SC17/12          Coffs Harbour CBD - Review of Height and Built Form Controls 157

SC17/13          Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Precincts 3, 4 and 5............................................................................. 157

SC17/14          Submission on Planning Legislative Updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.......................................................... 157

SC17/15          Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches................................................................................................................ 157

Directorate Reports - Sustainable Infrastructure

SI17/05           Property Owner Contributions For Ancillary Road Infrastructure Items....................................................................................................................... 157

Trust Reports

T17/07             TRUST REPORT - Relocation of Marine Rescue Woolgoolga to Arrawarra Headland Facility - Progress Report......................... 157   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

GM17/02      Motion to 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government, Intensive Agriculture

Author:                        Group Leader Governance

Authoriser:                  General Manager

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

Attachments:              Nil

 

Executive Summary

At the meeting on the 9 March 2017, Council resolved for councillors to submit any motions to the General Manager by 10 March 2017, for deliberation at the next Ordinary meeting of Council. These motions are for consideration to submit to the 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government conference to be held in Canberra in June 2017.  One motion was received:

 

Cr Knight has submitted the following motion and is seeking Council’s endorsement.

 

‘In recognising the impacts intensive agriculture and  the rapid blueberry industry growth has had on the Mid North Coast of NSW, that the regulation of agriculture should be solely a local government responsibility and this includes land use, water allocation, land rehabilitation, spraying/pesticide use and visual impacts of netting.’

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council consider its position in submitting the motion provided by Mayor Councillor Knight, as follows:

‘In recognising the impacts intensive agriculture and the rapid blueberry industry growth has had on the Mid North Coast of NSW, that the regulation of agriculture should be solely a local government responsibility and this includes land use, water allocation, land rehabilitation, spraying/pesticide use and visual impacts of netting.’

to the 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government Conference.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

The rationale provided by Cr Knight with the motion is:

 

In recent years, the blueberry industry (and intensive agriculture more generally) has increased to the point where it now intrudes on the liveability of our community. In particular, intensive agriculture utilises huge amounts of water, that in regional Australia, is our most valued commodity. In addition, the visual impact of netting etc negatively impacts on the aesthetic quality of our rural landscape and has a detrimental  effect on our locals and tourists.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

GM17/03      Policy Review 2017 (Part 1)

Author:                        Governance Coordinator

Authoriser:                  General Manager

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

Attachments:              ATT1  GM17/03  Code of Conduct Policy

ATT2  GM17/03  Code of Meeting Practice

ATT3  GM17/03  Fraud and Corruption Control Policy

ATT4  GM17/03  Gifts and Benefits Policy

ATT5  GM17/03  Local Government Elections Caretaker Period Policy

ATT6  GM17/03  Library Operations Policy

ATT7  GM17/03  Library Collection Development Policy

ATT8  GM17/03  Public Interest Disclosures Internal Reporting Policy

ATT9  GM17/03  Risk Management Policy  

 

Executive Summary

It is a requirement of s165 Local Government Act to review all policies within 12 months of a local government general election. This report presents the first group of Council’s policies that are ready for re-adoption following review.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the following policies as part of the 2017 policy review:

1.       Code of Conduct Policy

2.       Code of Meeting Practice

3.       Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

4.       Gifts and Benefits Policy

5.       Local Government Elections Caretaker Period Policy

6.       Library Operations Policy

7.       Library Collection Development Policy

8.       Public Interest Disclosures Internal Reporting Policy

9.       Risk Management Policy

 

Report

Description of Item:

After a Local Government general election, all councils have 12 months to review all policies and re-adopt.  After this time policies that have not been reviewed are automatically revoked.  This provides Council with the opportunity to review its current policies for improvements, legislative compliance and ensure they are achieving their purpose.  Council has approximately 120 existing policies which are requiring review.  This report presents the first of three reports of groups of policies that have been reviewed and are ready for adoption.

 

Policies and details of changes are presented in the table below:

 

Policy Name

Modification detail

Fraud and Corruption Control Policy

Changes made were aimed at aligning the policies wording and definitions to AS 8001-2008:  Fraud and Corruption Control and Council’s Fraud and Corruption Prevention Strategy.

Code of Conduct

Formatting changes only.

Library Operations Policy

Removal of restrictions that are burdensome to library users, in particular:

·    To remove the limitation of 3 reservations per borrower (Library Team Leader can now set the number)

·    To remove the restriction that borrowers can only borrow once without their library cards (showing ID is now accepted)

Code of Meeting Practice

Formatting changes only.

Gifts and Benefits Policy

Minor rewording to further align with Council’s code of conduct by adding the definition of cash-like gift.

Risk Management Policy

Alignment with ISO 31000:  Principles and guidelines and inclusion of a table to depict Council’s risk tolerance position.

Local Government Elections Caretaker Period Policy

Formatting changes only.

Protected Interest Disclosures Internal Reporting Policy

Updated in accordance with the NSW Ombudsman guidelines and Model Internal Reporting Policy for Local Government.  Changes incorporate relevant Council policies, external resources and identifies the current Disclosures Coordinator and contact details for external investigating authorities.

Library Collection Development Policy

Revised to make the document policy focussed by removing detail that will be documented within a Collection Plan.  Detail removed includes criteria for selection, weeding and retention in the different areas of the collection (i.e. Fiction, Large Print, Non Fiction etc.).

 Issues:

This review presents the opportunity to ensure all policies are presented consistently, meet compliance obligations and are readily accessible. Adopted policies will all be available on Council’s website.

Options:

It is considered that the following options are available to Council:

 

1.   Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.

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

3.   Reject the recommendation provided to Council.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

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

•     Social

Not applicable to this report.

•     Civic Leadership

The purpose of council policy is to ensure transparency and accountability in local government. The implementation of policy enables Council to identify and respond to the community. This is consistent with the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan, Strategy LC3 - We have strong civic leadership and governance.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broad economic impacts associated with the implementation of the recommendations.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The ongoing development and review of Council policies and plans are accommodated within Council’s budget structure. This expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews.

Risk Analysis:

There are no perceived risks in the adoption of the policies listed in this report.

Consultation:

Council has conducted relevant internal consultation during the development and review of Council’s policies.

 

As these policies contain amendments only, don’t relate to approvals or orders (s158 Local Government Act) or the ‘tightening’ of procedures it is not necessary to place them on public exhibition.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Section 165 (4) of the Local Government Act 1993 states that:

“A local policy (other than a local policy adopted since the last general election) is automatically revoked at the expiration of 12 months after the declaration of the poll for that election.”

Implementation Date / Priority:

Implementation is immediate.

Conclusion:

That Council adopts the policies as attached to this report.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

GM17/04      New Gallery/Museum  Policies

Author:                        Governance Coordinator

Authoriser:                  General Manager

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

Attachments:              ATT1  GM17/04  Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Collections Policy

ATT2  GM17/04  Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Exhibition Policy

ATT3  GM17/04  Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Loans Policy

ATT4  GM17/04  Coffs Harbour Regional Museum Collection and Conservation Policy  

 

Executive Summary

As part of the ongoing process improvement and the organisational wide policy review, Council has recently developed four new cultural facility policies (attached). These are presented for Council adoption.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council adopts the following policies:

1.   Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Collections Policy

2.   Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Exhibition Policy

3.   Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Loans Policy

4.   Coffs Harbour Regional Museum Collection and Conservation Policy

 

Report

Description of Item:

The purpose of policy is to document Council’s intent, commitment and/or a position on a particular topic as well as ensure transparency and accountability in local government.  The following table provides detail of the new policies that are ready for adoption.


 

 

Policy Name

Policy Detail

Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Collections Policy

This policy is a strategic tool that will provide the Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery with a framework to enable the achievement of two goals from Coffs Harbour 2030:  Community Strategic Plan (2013):

 

·    LC4.1  Support local artistic & cultural expression, and

·     LC4.2  Support opportunities for artistic and cultural growth and enjoyment.

This is through collecting works of merit for the enjoyment of Coffs Harbour’s residents and visitors.

Similarly this policy supports the goals identified in Creative Coffs: Cultural Strategic Plan 2017-2022 (2017)

 

1.       Engage our community and visitors in the cultural life of the area

2.       Create and maintain vibrant cultural and public places

3.       Understand and celebrate our cultural heritage and diversity.

The need for the policy was identified by an audit conducted in 2016.

Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Exhibitions Policy

This policy sets out the principles the Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery will adopt and factors it will consider when developing and approving temporary, collection and touring exhibitions and the overall exhibition program.

The need for the policy was identified by an audit conducted in 2016.

Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery Loans Policy

This policy sets out the principles that the Coffs Harbour Regional Gallery will adopt and factors it will consider when assessing, approving and conducting loans.

The need for the policy was identified by an audit conducted in 2016.

Coffs Harbour Regional Museum Collection and Conservation Policy

This policy guides the decision making process for shaping the collections of the Coffs Harbour Regional Museum.  It provides principles and criteria that guide collecting, conservation, loans and de-accessions.

The need for the policy was identified by an audit conducted in 2016

 

Issues:

There are no issues associated with this report.

Options:

It is considered that the following options are available to Council:

 

1.   Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.

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

3.   Reject the recommendation provided to Council.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

•     Social

Council’s cultural facilities provide clear social, economic and cultural benefits and outcomes to the community.  These policies further support Councils cultural facilities by setting commitments and objectives.

•     Civic Leadership

Policies are important for ensuring transparency and accountability in local government.  Their implementation enables Council to identify and respond to the community.  This is consistent with the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan strategy LC3 We have strong civic leadership and governance.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

There are no broad economic impacts associated with the implementation of the recommendations.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The ongoing development and review of Council policies and plans are accommodated within Council’s budget structure.  This expenditure is monitored through Council’s monthly and quarterly budget reviews.

Risk Analysis:

There is no perceived risk in the adoption of the policies listed in this report.

Consultation:

Internal stakeholders were consulted with the drafting of these policies.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The following are related to these Policies:

 

Legislation

·    NSW Uncollected Goods Act 1995

·    Personal Properties Securities Act 2009

·    Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

·    Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Act 2013

·    Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Regulation 2014

·    Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986

·    Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulation 1987

 

Publications

·    Museums Australia Code of Ethics 1999

·    Code of Ethics for Museums: ICOM, 2013

·    Movable Heritage Principles: NSW Heritage Office, 2000

·    Australian Best Practice Guide to Collecting Cultural Material: Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department, Ministry for the Arts, 2014

·    Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan: Scheme Guidelines: Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department, Ministry for the Arts, 2014

·    Aboriginal Arts and Cultural protocols: Arts NSW, 2011

·    Continuous Cultures, Ongoing Responsibilities: Principles and guidelines for Australian museums working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage:  Museums Australia, 2005

 

Council strategy

·    Coffs Harbour City Council Creative Coffs: Cultural Strategic Plan (2017)

 

Implementation Date / Priority:

Immediate.

Conclusion:

That council adopt the attached policies.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

GM17/05      Council Committees - appointment of members and approval of Terms of Reference

Author:                        Governance Coordinator

Authoriser:                  Group Leader Governance

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

Attachments:              ATT1  GM17/05  Terms of Reference - Community Venue Management Committees

ATT2  GM17/05  Terms of Reference -  Sportz Central Advisory Committee  

 

Executive Summary

Both nominations for Council Committees and Committee Terms of Reference (ToR) require approval by Council.  This report is seeking Council endorsement of four committee nominations and two revised Committee ToRs.

 

 

Recommendation:

1.       That Council Appoints:

·   Katie Evans to the Sportz Central Advisory Committee

·   Stephanie Ney to the Jetty Memorial Theatre Management Committee

·   Dr Mary-Kathryn Smyth to the Access Advisory Committee

·   Stephen Cleary to the Eastern Dorrigo Community Hall & Showground Venue Management Committee

2.       Endorse the attached Terms of Reference for the:

·   Community Venue Management Committees

·   Sportz Central Advisory Committee

 

Report

Description of Item:

As part of the normal functioning of Council Committees, community members are nominated to fill vacant positions.  For nominees to be appointed, they need to be ratified by Council.  The following nominations have been submitted:

 

·    Katie Evans to the Sportz Central Advisory Committee

·    Stephanie Ney to the Jetty Memorial Theatre Management Committee

·    Dr Mary-Kathryn Smyth to the Access Advisory Committee

·    Stephen Cleary to the Eastern Dorrigo Community Hall & Showground Venue Management Committee

 

The following attached ToRs are presented for Council Approval:

 

·    Terms of Reference - Community Venue Management Committees

·    Terms of Reference -  Sportz Central Advisory Committee

Issues:

There are no issues relevant to this matter.

Options:

1.    Adopt the recommendation provided to Council.

2.    Amend the recommendation provided to Council by rejecting one or more nominated committee members or adjusting the attached Terms of Reference, and then adopt.

3.    Reject the recommendation provided to Council.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

•     Social

The care, control and management of these local community facilities by local residents and local community groups enables a sense of community ownership, community involvement and development and overall community well being.

 

Appointing community members to Council committees also recognises and uses the valuable contribution the community makes for the effective provision of Council’s functions.

 

•     Civic Leadership

This approach is addressed in Coffs Harbour 2030 through:

 

-  LC1.1 Build pride and identity in Coffs Harbour as a community and a place

-  LC1.4 Promote a caring, inclusive and cohesive community

-  PL2.2 Provide public spaces and facilities that are accessible and safe for all

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Management committees are generally formed to manage, on behalf of Council, a facility or service in the interest of the user and community at large.  These committees are involved in the day to day management and are also delegated certain functions of the General Manager to allow them to ensure the facility or service meets Council’s expectations.  These committees report annually to Council on their performance.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

These committees strive to be self-funding but most require a contribution from Council and this is resolved within Council’s Operational Plan and budget setting process.  Most committees involve Council in technical, secretarial or administration costs.  The time and assistance given to Council by volunteers represents significant cost savings to the organisation.

Risk Analysis:

There are no specific risks associated with the appointment of committee members and endorsement of ToRs.  All volunteers are required to sign and comply with Council’s Code of Conduct.

Consultation:

Consultation has occurred and continues to occur with various stakeholders involved in each of these committees.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The following statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 are applicable

 

Section 355 How does a council exercise its functions?

 

A function of a council may, subject to this Chapter, be exercised:

 

a)   by the council by means of the councillors or employees, by its agents or contractors, by financial provision, by the provision of goods, equipment, services, amenities or facilities or by any other means, or

b)   by a committee of the council, or

c)   partly or jointly by the council and another person or persons, or

d)   jointly by the council and another council or councils (including by means of a Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils of which the councils concerned are members), or

e)   by a delegate of the council (which may, for example, be a Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils of which the council is a member).

 

Section 377 General power of the council to delegate

Implementation Date / Priority:

Immediate

Conclusion:

That Council endorses the recommendations within this report.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

BS17/09       Bank and Investment Balances for February 2017

Author:                        Section Leader Financial Planning

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

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

Attachments:              ATT1  BS17/09   Monthly Investment Report for the period ended 28 February 2017   

 

Executive Summary

The purpose is to report on Council’s Bank Balances and Investments as at 28 February 2017.  Council receives independent advice and invests surplus funds in accordance with Councils Investment Policy to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the bank balances and investments totalling $190,447,539.27 (including from loans, Developer Contributions and other avenues that form the restricted accounts and are committed for future works) as at 28 February 2017.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

A copy of the state of Bank Balances and Investments as at 28 February 2017 is attached.

 

It should be noted that Council is required to account for investments in accordance with the Australian International Financial Reporting Standards.  Term deposits are shown at face value and all other investment balances at the end of each month reflect market value movements which would be inclusive of accrued interest.

 

Interest when paid, say quarterly, would result in reductions in the market value of the investments.  The Investment Report reflects the above requirements and reflects the interest earned (or accrued) on each investment, based on the acquisition price.

 

Reports written by Laminar Group Pty Ltd (Council’s investment portfolio advisors), which examine economic and financial markets data for February 2017 are available in the Councilors’ Resource Centre.

Issues:

There are no issues associated with the report.

Options:

As the report is for noting only, an options analysis is not required.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no perceived current or future environmental impacts.

•     Social

There are no perceived current or future social impacts.

•     Civic Leadership

Council invests surplus funds to maximise investment income and preserve capital to assist with funding requirements for projects listed under the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Council’s investments are held according to ther requirements stated within Council’s investments policy and the returns are acceptable in relation thereto. In the long term earnings from investments can vary due to econcomic conditions and financial markets.  Council constructs its investment portfolio with consideration of current conditions and to comply with the Office of Local Government (OLG) investment policy guidelines.

•     Economic – Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

As at 28 February 2017 it is noted that the total bank and investment balances total $190,447,539.27, comprising restricted and unrestricted General, Trust, Water and Sewerage Fund cash and investments.

Risk Analysis:

The likelihood of risks associated with New South Wales Local Government’s investing funds is now remote due to the conservative nature of investments permitted under statutory requirements.  The risk of capital not being returned in relation to each individual investment Council owns is indicated in the attachment.

 

The main risks for Council’s investment portfolio are liquidity and credit risk, both of which are being managed under the advice of Laminar Group Pty Ltd.  Liquidity risk is the risk that the investor is unable to redeem the investment at a fair price within a timely period and thereby incurs additional costs (or in the worst case is unable to execute its spending plans).  Credit risk is the risk of loss of principal stemming from a financial institutions failure to repay that principal when that principal is due.  Investors are compensated for assuming credit risk by way of interest payments from the financial institutions issuing the investment security.

 

Credit risk is rated by various rating agencies.  Investment securities in Council’s current portfolio are rated by either Standard and Poors or Fitch, with the majority of the portfolio rated by Standard and Poors.  Standard and Poors credit ratings and an explanation of their ratings are as follows:

 

Rating

Ratings Explanation

AAA

Extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments. Highest Rating.

AA

Very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.

A

Strong capacity to meet financial commitments, but somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions and changes in circumstances.

BBB

Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions.

BBB-

Considered lowest investment grade by market participants.

BB+

Considered highest speculative grade by market participants.

BB

Less vulnerable in the near term but faces major ongoing uncertainties to adverse business, financial and economic conditions.

B

More vulnerable to adverse business, financial and economic conditions but currently has the capacity to meet financial commitments.

CCC

Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.

CC

Currently highly vulnerable.

C

Currently highly vulnerable obligations and other defined circumstances.

D

Payment default on financial commitments.

 

Ratings from ‘AA’ to ‘CCC’ may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories.

 

Types of investment securities by credit risk ranking from highest to lowest are as follows:

 

·    Deposits/Covered Bonds – these share first ranking

·    Senior debt – Floating Rate Notes/Fixed Coupon Bonds.

·    Subordinated debt

·    Hybrids

·    Preference shares

·    Equity shares (common shares).

 

Subordinated debt, hybrids, preference and equity shares are not a permitted investment under the current Ministerial Order.  Term deposits of $250,000 or less per financial institution are covered under the Commonwealth Government Deposit Guarantee Scheme and therefore by default have the same credit rating as the Commonwealth Government, ie AAA.

 

All credit unions, building societies and mutual banks are Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADI’s) and are regulated in the same way as all other Australian banks.  ADI’s are regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) under the Corporations Act 2001, and by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) under the Banking Act 1959.

Consultation:

Council’s investment advisors, Laminar Group Pty Ltd have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council funds have been invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy (POL‑049), which was adopted on 27 November 2014.

Local Government Act 1993 – Section 625

Local Government Act 1993 – Investment Order (dated 12 January 2011)

Local Government General Regulation 2005

The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) and 14C(2)

Implementation Date / Priority:

Nil.

Conclusion:

Council should consider the information provided in the report and the Councillors’ Resource Centre and the recommendation provided.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                    23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

BS17/10       Reverse Auction RFT-7947-TO - Supply of Electricity for Contestable Sites and Street Lighting

Author:                        Team Leader Contracts and Procurement

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LP1 Coffs Harbour is a regional centre for future-driven, innovative and green business and industry

Attachments:              Nil

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council that Regional Procurement have approached Coffs Harbour City Council to once again participate in the calling of a reverse auction for the supply of electricity for our large Contestable sites (using greater than 160MWh electricity per annum) as well as our street lighting.

 

Council has previously undertaken three successful reverse auctions with Regional Procurement for the supply of electricty for our large contestable sites and street lighting for the periods of 2012/13, 2014/15 and 2016/17.  By undertaking a reverse auction Council will be testing the retail electricity market with a view of obtaining the best possible outcome.

 

The reverse auction process for the supply of electricity for our large contestable sites and street lighting with Regional Procurement will be coordinated by their business partners Energy Action and represents an innovative approach to procurement.

 

 

Recommendation:        

That Council notes the undertaking of a reverse auction for the supply of electricity for Council’s large contestable sites and streeting lighting.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

The process of a reverse auction allows Council to dynamically view the offers being made to it by the various electricity retailers in a live environment.  Regional Procurement in association with its partner Energy Action, has provided the solution to Council for the current contracts due to expire on 31 December 2017, as well as for previous contracts.

 

As the name suggests, a reverse auction is a web based public auction open to licenced energy retailers where by “bids” may be placed in whole dollars, centered on Council’s total spend for consumption, across both contestable sites and street lighting. Poles and wire costs are not included in the reverse auction process as these charges are not contestable.

 

In a reverse auction, the role of buyer and seller is reversed with the buyer driving the auction as opposed to the seller.  Typically a buyer contracts with a markert intermediary, and in this case Energy Action, to conduct all the necessary preparations in conveying the reverse auction.  The process includes identifying suppliers, organising the auction, managing the auction event, and providing auction data to buyers to facilitate decision making.

 

Energy Action, on behalf of Council, issues a Request For Proposal (RFP) to purchase a “lot” of electricity supply.  At the designated date and time several suppliers will log on to the auction site and input their offer/quotes over a ten minute period.  The reverse auction process, via the internet and in real time, results in dynamic bidding and this assists in driving price quotations down as opposed to the traditional tender process.

 

The reverse auction will be evaluated on several criteria and weightings, comprised of 90% for the tendered price and 10% for customer service, which includes specific weightings for payment terms and facilities, complaints received and electronic reporting.

Issues:

Whilst the reverse auction process ensures that Council will achieve the best possible outcome and simultaneously meet our statutory requirements there is a need to benchmark the pricing.  As a result, Council will have access to Local Government Procurement’s (LGP) “Price Band” for their upcoming tender for the supply of contestable electricity and street lighting.  The “Price Band” will be set as a benchmark for Regional Procurement’s business associate Energy Action, to forward to all potential bidders as Council’s reserve price prior to the reverse auction.

 

Council is not obliged to accept the outcome of the reverse auction if it deems it is not cost effective to do so.

Options:

As the report is for noting only, an options analysis is not required.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

At the time of writing this report the reverse auction process will not include a quotation bidding process for the supply of Green Energy.  Council will have the opportunity to negotiate Green Energy post the reverse auction with the assistance of Regional Procurement’s business associate Energy Action.

•     Social

There are no anticipated current or future social impacts.

•     Civic Leadership

The reverse auction will demonstrate leadership by Council in promoting our own Procurement Policy and guidelines and ensuring that this process delivers a value for money outcome on behalf of the community. Reverse auctions represent an innovative approach to procurement.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

Regional Procurement have advised that Energy Action has called in excess of 2000 reverse auctions with proven results.  Energy Action assures Council that this process will demonstrate that the best outcome is achieved at the time the reverse auction is conducted.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

Expenditure is allocated in line with Council’s budget.

 

The closure of Hazelwood Power Station (located in the La Trobe Valley, Victoria) is scheduled to occur on 31 March 2017.  This may cause power prices to increase in the 2017/18  and 2018/19 financial years.

Risk Analysis:

The risks are minimal as this process will ensure the most appropriate price is obtained for purchased electricity.  It is to be noted that all prospective tenderers in the reverse auction process are licenced with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART).

Consultation:

Consultation has included discussions with relevant Council officers.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Council has previously undertaken reverse auctions for the supply of electricty for our contestable sites and street lighting on three previous occasions in 2010, 2013 and 2015. It is to be noted that a reverse auction is exempt from the requirements of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005-Part 7 Tendering. A reverse auction is deemed to be a public auction under Section 55 of the Local Government Act.

Implementation Date / Priority:

The proposed contract for the supply of electricity for our large contestable sites and street lighting will commence on 1 January 2018 and run for a minimum of 24 months.

 

Due to the nature of the electricity market, tender prices can only be held for a short time and requires formal acceptance within five working days of the reverse auction outcome. Provided the evaluation of the reverse auction outcome is positive, the General Manager will execute the necessary agreement under delegation.

Conclusion:

Council is undertaking a reverse auction for the supply of electricity to our large contestable sites and streeting lighting as part of a Regional Procurement initiative with their business partners Energy Action. It is anticipated that Council will achieve the most cost effective outcome from this process.

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

NOM17/05   Rural Lands - Intensive Agriculture

Attachments:          Nil

 

Motion:

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

1.   "That Council staff prepare a Planning Proposal to support an amendment to the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 which removes ‘intensive plant agriculture’ from ‘permitted without consent’ in the land use table in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone and places this activity into the list ‘permitted with consent’.

2.   That staff review the Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan and develop suitable amendments to reflect the intent of 1 above."

 

Rationale:

“In recent years, a rapid increase in intensive plant agriculture has seen a transformation to the rural landscape across Coffs Harbour LGA and surrounding areas. Preliminary findings of our draft Rural Land Strategy as well as feedback from MyCoffs and other engagement processes have identified that land use conflicts in this space are of increasing concern.  There is no legislative or statutory framework in place to ensure best practices are maintained.

A way forward is to require a Development Application process by which proposed intensive plant agriculture developments can be assessed against guidelines such as those developed by Department of Primary Industries and also against the goals as per Coffs Harbour’s Strategic Plan.

The objective is to ensure thriving rural industries which minimise off-farm impacts and protect waterways and significant vegetation as well as minimising impacts on neighbouring properties.”

Staff Comment:

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 24 November 2016, Council received an update and next steps report on the progress of the Rural Lands Strategy component of the Local Growth Management Strategy Review. The report sought endorsement from Council to commence Phase 2 of the project and provided a Project Scope for that work.  At that meeting, it was resolved that Council:

1.   Note the findings of the public exhibition of the Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy Phase 1 Draft Issues and Options Paper, Background Report and Community Workshop Outcomes (Attachment 1).

2.   Undertake a procurement process to select appropriately qualified consultants to prepare Phase 2 – Draft Coffs Harbour Rural Lands Strategy in accordance with the Project Scope (Attachment 3).

3.   Establish a Section 355 Agricultural Advisory Committee in accordance with the attached Terms of Reference (Attachment 4).

The procurement process is underway in accordance with the resolution. Phase 2 has begun.

Key issues identified in the Project Scope involve mechanisms for facilitating a productive and economically sustainable long-term future for rural lands, while simultaneously recognising and managing the opportunities and challenges presented by the environmental values of the area. This involves a broad-scale strategic analysis of whether the existing planning controls for rural lands within the LGA are achieving their original intended purpose and whether updates are necessary, including mechanisms for protection and conservation of areas of environmental significance; consideration of any impacts in relation to biodiversity reforms; resolution of land use conflicts; and the pressure for land use change (i.e. subdivision, development and rural housing).

The completion of the Rural Lands Strategy component of the Local Growth Management Strategy Review will deliver an integrated holistic strategic policy for rural land within the LGA, and will make recommendations as appropriate for amendments to both Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

SC17/12       Coffs Harbour CBD - Review of Height and Built Form Controls

Author:                        Senior Planner / Urban Designer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

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

Attachments:              ATT1  SC17/12   Project Plan for a Review of the Coffs Harbour CBD Height and Built Form Controls

ATT2  SC17/12   Consultant Brief for the Review of the Coffs Harbour CBD Height and Built Form Controls  

 

Executive Summary

The objective of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of a Project Plan (Attachment 1) and Consultant Brief (Attachment 2) to deliver a review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls. This follows a Notice of Motion regarding CBD height restrictions at a Council meeting on 9 February 2017 and the allocation of funds at a subsequent meeting on 23 February 2017.

 

Recommendation:

That Council endorse the Project Plan (Attachment 1) and Consultant Brief (Attachment 2) for the Review of the Coffs Harbour CBD Height and Built Form Controls.

 

Report

Description of Item:

At its meeting of 9 February 2017, Council considered a Notice of Motion regarding CBD height restrictions and resolved the following:

1.    That Council commence urgently a review of the building heights in the CBD of Coffs Harbour (as defined in the CBD Masterplan) with a view to seeking an amendment to the LEP based on the findings.

2.    That a funding report to commence the review be presented to Council at the next meeting.

At its meeting of 23 February 2017, Council subsequently resolved:

That Council notes the funding for the CBD height restrictions review will be allocated from the Developer Contributions Study budget and that it will be confirmed through the next budget review.

In light of these resolutions, the review of height restrictions in the Coffs Harbour CBD will be undertaken within a wider strategic framework to understand the community’s expectations for built form in this location. This will take into consideration built form modelling to understand urban design principles as they apply in the Coffs Harbour CBD. This includes building height, skyline, bulk, floor space ratios and climate responsive design considerations (including sunlight and shadowing, reflection and glare). It is not considered ideal to address building height in isolation of a wider urban design and modelling study, or without community engagement.

This body of work can then be followed with a market demand and economic viability that will further detail the impacts that any changed urban design outcomes will have on infrastructure provision, traffic management, floor space yields and ultimately development contributions. In effect, the forecast Developer Contributions Study would become a second stage. There is a possible nexus between any changes in urban design, built form and height controls within the CBD and resultant impacts on the level of any subsequent developer contributions required through any redevelopment.

A Project Plan (Attachment 1) and Consultant Brief (Attachment 2) are provided to outline the proposed work to be undertaken. The Project Plan proposes the 3D modelling of three scenarios for the CBD. Scenario 1 will demonstrate the likely built form outcome of the current development controls (contained within both Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 and Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan (DCP) 2015). Scenarios 2 and 3 will explore alternative built form outcomes (possibly a mid-rise approach and a mid-rise with strategically located taller heights). An initial community engagement exercise is proposed before the modelling is undertaken, to explore the community’s appetite to additional height in the CBD.

Issues:

A review of height restrictions in the Coffs Harbour CBD would be best undertaken within a wider strategic framework to understand the community’s expectations for built form in this location. This would take into consideration urban design principles including building height, bulk, floor space ratios and climate responsive design considerations (including sunlight and shadowing, reflection and glare). It is not considered ideal to address building height in isolation of a wider urban design study, or without community engagement. Hence the Project Plan has been designed to offer 3D modelling of three scenarios for built form and building height; with opportunity for community engagement. The use of 3D modelling will provide a visual understanding of the alternatives and their impact on the skyline (when viewed at a distance) and at the ‘human scale’ (when viewed at ground level in relation to amenity, climatic and aesthetic considerations).

Options:

Council has a number of options to progress this matter. This report recommends that Council pursue Option 1 as outlined below.

1.   That Council endorse the attached Project Plan (Attachment 1) and Consultant Brief (Attachment 2) to deliver a review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls.

Comment: This will allow the project to commence immediately the Project Plan is adopted by Council.

2.   That Council not endorse the attached Project Plan and Consultant Brief to deliver a review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls.

Comment: This means that the project will not commence.

3.   That Council provide amendments to the attached Project Plan and Consultant Brief to deliver an alternative approach to a review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls and endorse these amendments to progress this project.

Comment: This will require that the Project Plan and Consultant Brief are amended prior to project commencement.

This report recommends Option 1 as the preferred option.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There are no environmental issues as a result of this report. The review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls will address sustainability and environmental outcomes within the CBD. This reflects Council’s long term strategic vision for the City as endorsed in the Our Living City (OLC) Settlement Strategy, Coffs Harbour Community Strategic Plan (CSP) 2030, Coffs Harbour (CH) City Centre Masterplan 2031, Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 and Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan (DCP) 2015.

•     Social

A review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls will seek to address issues of quality design options, solar access to City Square, amenity and visual impacts. This reflects Council’s long term long term strategic vision for the City as endorsed in the OLC Settlement Strategy, the Coffs Harbour CSP 2030, CH City Centre Masterplan 2031, LEP 2013 and DCP 2015.

•     Civic Leadership

The proposed review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls will influence on the following objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 CSP:

-  LP2 - We have a strong and diverse economy

-  LP3 - Our city centre is a place where people can live, work and play

-  LC3 - We have strong civic leadership and governance

-  LC4 - We have many opportunities to enjoy life together.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls aims to provide a technical review and analysis of built form characteristics that should be achieved through height controls. This review will endeavour to increase the capacity of the CBD to foster economic growth and to meet the demographic needs of the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area which is characterised by a high population growth rate and an ageing population.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

This report is proposing that the review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls is funded in the current financial year with monies allocated from the Developer Contributions Study budget within Council’s adopted 2016/17 Operational Plan. The Developer Contributions Study will then form Stage 2 of the project, utilising any remaining funds from the 2016/17 Operational Plan, and requiring additional funds allocated from the 2017/18 draft Operational Plan. Work is proposed to be undertaken by consultants. Project assistance will be provided by staff in Council’s Local Planning Section, to assist consultants and to keep costs at a minimum.

Risk Analysis:

By not proceeding with the review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls, development opportunities for higher buildings in the CBD may not be realised.

Consultation:

Relevant consultation will be undertaken with the community, key stakeholders and businesses within the CBD during the preparation of the review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls. The consultant who Council engages to prepare this body of work will be required to outline a community engagement framework. This will involve community engagement to understand the community appetite for additional height within the CBD and engagement in relation to the 3D modelling, which will give the community a clear understanding of the differences between scenarios. Ultimately if amendments to the controls contained within both Coffs Harbour LEP 2013 and DCP 2015 are proposed as a result of this review, there will be further opportunity for engagement with the community at that stage.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls will ensure consistency with the OLC Settlement Strategy, Coffs Harbour CSP 2030, Coffs Harbour City Centre Masterplan 2031, Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013, Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan (DCP) 2015 and draft North Coast Regional Environmental Plan.

Implementation Date / Priority:

It is proposed that the review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls will commence in April 2017 and be completed by December 2017.

Conclusion:

The review of the Coffs Harbour CBD height and built form controls will ensure that existing planning controls are achieving their intended outcomes and the driving principles outlined in the CH City Centre Masterplan 2031 continue to be achieved. The endorsement of the Project Plan (Attachment 1) and Consultant Brief (Attachment 2) is the first step in this process.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

SC17/13       Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Precincts 3, 4 and 5

Author:                        Urban Planner / Designer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

Coffs Harbour 2030:   PL1 Our infrastructure and urban development is designed for sustainable living

Attachments:              ATT1  SC17/13   Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Environmental Studies March 2017

ATT2  SC17/13   Submission to the Korora - West Sapphire - Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area Environmental Studies  

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Environmental Studies March 2017 (Attachment 1) and to make recommendations in relation to appropriate future zones within the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee (KWSM) Investigation Area based on findings of the Environmental Studies.

In July 2013, Council resolved to allocate $150,000 from the 2014/15 budget to fund an Environmental Study for the West Sapphire, West Korora and Moonee candidate areas identified in Council’s Rural Residential Strategy 2009. Subsequent to that resolution, Council engaged consultants. The Environmental Studies were completed and reported to Council on 10 November 2016.

Council has made resolutions concerning Precinct 1 (Korora Basin) and Precinct 2 (Tiki Road) at that meeting, while deferring consideration of Precinct 3 (Maccues Road), Precinct 4 (Wakelands/Fairview/Sugarmill Roads) and Precinct 5 (Gaudrons Road/The Mountain Way) until March 2017. This report deals with these three deferred precincts.

The Environmental Studies provided estimated lot yields and development costs for each precinct, to inform the potential for large lot residential development. The findings of the Environmental Studies were that Precincts 3, 4 and 5 are environmentally constrained and economically unviable for rezoning due to projected infrastructure costs associated with road upgrades and in some instances requiring the acquisition of private roads for upgrading and maintenance. Development in Precincts 3-5 is also estimated to be well in excess of the statutory capped limit of $30,000 that is allowable for Section 94 Developer Contributions.

A submission has been lodged on behalf of various owners of land in the Investigation Area (Attachment 2) in relation to considerations published in Council’s business paper of 10 November 2016. Conclusions and recommendations listed in that submission are addressed in the Issues section of this report.

This report recommends that Council take a strategic approach to the release of land for large lot residential purposes, in accordance with the 2030 Plan which aims to achieve sustainable living. It recommends that Council not proceed with rezoning of lands within Precincts 3, 4, and 5 within the KWSM Investigation Area.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.   Note the findings of the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Environmental Studies March 2017 (Attachment 1), in respect to the Maccues Road, Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road, and Gaudrons Road/The Mountain Way precincts.

2.   Not proceed with the rezoning of any land within Precinct 3 (Maccues Road) due to prevailing environmental and economic constraints identified within the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Environmental Studies March 2017  (Attachment 1).

3.   Not proceed with the rezoning of any land within Precinct 4 (Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road) due to prevailing environmental and economic constraints identified within the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Environmental Studies March 2017  (Attachment 1).

4.   Not proceed with the rezoning of any land within Precinct 5 (Gaudrons Road/The Mountain Way) due to prevailing environmental and economic constraints identified within the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area: Environmental Studies March 2017 (Attachment 1).

5.   Inform landowners within Precincts 3, 4 and 5 of Council’s decision. 

 

Report

Description of Item:

The results of Environmental Studies for the Korora West Sapphire Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area were completed and presented to Council on 10 November 2016. At that meeting, Council resolved the following:

1.    Note the findings of the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) and findings of the Review of Estimated Lot Yields and Development Costs for the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Investigation Area (Attachment 2).

2.    Endorse and forward the Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) and Planning Proposal (Attachment 3) for rezoning part of Precinct 1 (Korora Basin) from RU2 Rural Landscape to R5 Large Lot Residential to NSW Planning and Environment seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’, to place the Korora Basin Planning Proposal on public exhibition.

3.    Place draft Chapter G7 Korora Large Lot Residential Special Area Controls of Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 (Attachment 4) on public exhibition, concurrently with the Planning Proposal and Environmental Studies.

4.    Place draft Korora Large Lot Residential Area Developer Contributions Plan 2016 (Attachment 5) on public exhibition, concurrently with the Planning Proposal and Environmental Studies.

5.    Consider a further report, outlining the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Korora Basin Large Lot Residential Planning Proposal, Development Control Plan and Contributions Plan.

6.    Not proceed with the rezoning of any land within Precinct 2 (Tiki Road) due to prevailing environmental constraints identified within the Environmental Studies for the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Investigation Area (Attachment 1).

7.    Defer consideration of rezoning of Precinct 3 (Maccues Road), Precinct 4 Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road and Precinct 5 (Gaudrons Road/Mountain Way) to allow further time for public access to the Environmental Studies report and the Estimated Lot Yields and Development Costs report until the second meeting in March 2017.

8.    Investigate alternative means for additional dwellings on rural allotments.

9.    Inform landowners within each of the precincts of Council’s decision.

This report is in response to Resolution 7 as outlined. Resolution 8 will be addressed as part of the Rural Lands Strategy component of the Local Growth Management Strategy, currently being prepared by Council.

The Investigation Area

The KWSM Investigation Area is located north of Coffs Harbour (approximately 9 kilometres from Coffs Harbour CBD) and consists of the candidate area as identified in the Coffs Harbour Local Growth Management Strategy - Rural Residential Component 2009. A map of the KWSM Investigation Area, and the current zoning under Coffs Harbour LEP 2013, is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 – KWSM Investigation Area and Existing Zones under Coffs Harbour LEP 2013.

 

The KWSM Investigation Area has been divided into five separate precincts for analysis, and are as follows:

-      Precinct 1 - Korora Basin. On 10 November 2016, Council resolved to progress a Planning Proposal for residual land within the Korora Basin to be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential.

-      Precinct 2 - Tiki Road. On 10 November 2016, Council resolved not to proceed with the rezoning of any land within Precinct 2 due to prevailing environmental constraints.

-      Precinct 3 - Maccues Road;

-      Precinct 4 - Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road; and

-      Precinct 5 - Gaudrons Road/The Mountain Way.

Precincts 1 and 2 are not addressed further by this report. The potential of the remaining precincts is discussed in the Issues section of this report.

Issues:

·    Strategy Timeframes

The KWSM Investigation Area is a Council endorsed candidate area identified in the Coffs Harbour Local Growth Management Strategy - Rural Residential Component 2009 (LGMS Rural Residential Strategy 2009). It was identified as Stage 2 with a 2019 timeframe for investigation.

At its meeting of 25 July 2013, Council resolved to undertake Environmental Studies for the KSWM Investigation Area in advance of the timeframe within the LGMS Rural Residential Component 2009. As such, rezoning land within the KWSM Investigation Area is inconsistent with Council’s adopted Strategy. However, the completion of the Pacific Highway Upgrade in this location means that the timing constraints associated with the investigation have changed.

·    Strategic Overview

A review of Council’s Local Growth Management Strategy is currently underway. On 19 March 2015, Council endorsed the findings of the Local Growth Management Strategy Review Stage 1 – Land Capacity Assessment Audit 2014 and Issues Report. That report provided a snapshot to Council of land capacity (supply and demand) by zone type, for the Local Government Area (LGA).

That report made the following recommendations with regard to the provision of Large Lot Residential zoned lands (rural residential):

·      that, in the short term, no further land be rezoned for rural residential purposes given the ample supply that presently exists; this recommendation acknowledges that land identified in Bonville (Stage 1 of the Rural Residential Component 2009) is presently being investigated for rural residential purposes and is likely to result in excess of 400 hectares of land being rezoned for this purpose.

·      that the one hectare minimum lot size be retained on the basis that this standard is the major contributor to the creation of a semi-rural ambience within rural residential areas; that it provides sufficient area to properly manage environmental constraints and cater for effluent treatment and disposal; is a readily understood standard for both the community and development industry; and, is practical for administrative purposes (determining lot yields, monitoring take up rates and setting staging programs).

Detailed environmental and economic studies completed for the Bonville Large Lot Residential Investigation Area were reported to Council in December 2016 and estimated that a total of approximately 340 lots can be realised within the Bonville study area, with draft S94 Developer Contributions estimated at broadly between $8,000 and $24,000 per new allotment. This represents a 10 year supply of lots to the market, based on existing takeup rates and lot yields of 35 lots per annum for the LGA, which were identified in Council’s Land Capacity Audit 2014.

·    Environmental Findings

The Environmental Studies undertaken for the KWSM Investigation Area (Attachment 1) comprise a review of environmental constraints within each of the five precincts including: biodiversity values, flood hazard, acoustics, potential acid sulfate soils, steep land, geotechnical stability, landslide risks, contaminated land and pesticide residue, bushfire hazard, traffic movement, vehicular access, servicing, visual issues and European heritage and Aboriginal cultural heritage values. Attachment 1 identifies land which is environmentally constrained in each precinct and which land is suitable for large lot residential development. It also makes recommendations on minimum lot sizes based on environmental constraints.

·    Economic Feasibility

The consultant report (Ecological Australia 2016 - Attachment 1) also included an engineering and economic feasibility analysis for future development of each precinct within the KWSM Investigation Area for large lot residential purposes. This analysis determined that future subdivision potential is limited by the existing subdivision pattern, location of existing dwellings, topography of the land, the minimum road standard required to meet Council’s standards for access to new large lot residential subdivisions and the associated cost of upgrading roads to Council’s standards. While infrastructure such as reticulated water and sewer services are not required to service large lot residential development, the potential increase in dwellings and population would require the construction of new roads and the upgrading of existing major access roads.

The Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) identify that Precincts 3-5 have been assessed and are considered as environmentally constrained and  economically unviable for rezoning due to projected infrastructure costs associated with road upgrades, which would also require Council to acquire private roads for upgrading and maintenance.

Development in Precincts 3-5 is estimated to be well in excess of the $30,000 statutory capped limit allowable for Section 94 Developer Contributions, with estimates of $40,054 (Precinct 3 – Maccues Road), $101,855 (Precinct 4 - Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road) and $90,420 (Precinct 5 - Gaudrons Road/The Mountain Way - not including land acquisition or forward funding costs) per new allotment, with a total estimated lot yield of just 75 lots across the 3 precincts if the rezoning were to proceed (representing a three year supply). By way of comparison, the Bonville Large Lot Residential Investigation Area reported to Council in December 2016 is likely to achieve approximately 340 lots, with draft S94 Developer Contributions estimated at broadly between $8,000 and $24,000 per new allotment, representing a 10 year supply of lots to the market.

·    Submission Received in Relation to Precincts 3, 4 and 5

At the 10 November 2016 meeting, Council resolved to defer consideration of rezoning of Precincts 3, 4 and 5 to allow further time for public access to the Environmental Studies. A submission on behalf of landowners in the Investigation Area was lodged with Council on 3 March 2017. Notwithstanding that the resolution to defer did not include an instruction to place the Environmental Studies on public exhibition, the submission that was received has been treated as a formal submission to a publicly available document and is included in Attachment 2.

The conclusion/recommendations in the submission are summarised as follows, and a staff comment is provided:

·     Road Contributions:

Submission: The roads in the study area are largely of a high standard, well above the standard that is exhibited in most government areas in northern New South Wales. Council should strike a rural road contribution for the locality described as Precinct 3 (Maccues Road), Precinct 4 Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road and Precinct 5 (Gaudrons Road/Mountain Way), in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is requested that the maximum permissible rate is $24,410.

Comment: The overall KWSM Investigation Area has been broken up into precincts for the assessment of Section 94 contributions in the Environmental Studies, because each precinct has a separate access onto the Pacific Highway and is seen as its own entity. This is to ensure there is a correct nexus or relationship between the proposed works and the benefitting future population, which is in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act. As a result, certain precincts display high developer contribution rates.  It is considered the submission’s proposal does not meet the criteria for S94 in so far as it proposes to levy developer contributions evenly on all precincts with a proposed contribution rate of $24,410. For example, there is considered to be no nexus or link between works on The Mountain Way and, say Sugarmill Road, and a challenge to the contributions by a developer in Sugarmill Road would likely succeed based on the lack of benefit ensuing from the proposed works.

In accordance with Councils adopted AUSPEC Road standards, a road in a Large Lot Residential (rural residential) area is required to be sealed and of a 6 metre width. If a rezoning proceeded, this would trigger the need for the roads in each precinct to be upgraded to Council adopted AUSPEC standards as identified in the Environmental Studies. It is considered that the any proposed rezoning to Large Lot Residential would create the demand for the upgrade. The additional development would receive the benefit and therefore should contribute to the works required as a result of the rezoning. Both the consultants who prepared the planning proposal and Council staff concluded from site inspections that the road upgrade works as identified in the council report were required should the re-zoning proceed.

·     Lot Arrangements and Density:

Submission: Council should zone the whole of Precinct 3 (Maccues Road), Precinct 4 Wakelands Road/Fairview Road/Sugarmill Road and Precinct 5 (Gaudrons Road/Mountain Way) as R5 Large Lot Residential, amend the minimum lot area map to specify the location where the 1 ha standard would apply and the location where the 2 ha standard would apply as recommended by the Environmental Studies, and protect land of environmental importance as identified by the studies via the introduction of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map layer. It is further requested that Council give consideration to bringing into its LEP provisions to permit Rural Dual Occupancy (Detached) and promote educational forums within the LGA to inform owners and subdividers about Community Title subdivision as a permissible subdivision pathway in the rural area.

Comment: Precincts 3, 4 and 5 contain a number of environmental values as outlined in the Environmental Studies (Attachment 1). These include Endangered Ecological Communities, Over Cleared Vegetation Types as adopted by Council on 28 November 2013, High Value Arboreal Habitat as adopted by Council on 8 May 2014, Secondary and Tertiary Koala Habitat as mapped in the Coffs Harbour Koala Plan of Management 1999, threatened species as recorded in the NSW Wildlife Atlas, and a sub-regional corridor as mapped in the 2003 National Parks and Wildlife Service Key Habitats and Corridors study.

Council’s current practice is to remove areas of known environmental sensitivity from development footprint areas at the strategic planning stage and apply environmental zones where deemed appropriate, so as to give clearer guidance to landholders and developers as to the final future development footprint in an area. This approach accords with the current proposed legislative amendments to the EP&A Act, which aim to strengthen the strategic planning process and improve development expectations and outcomes at the development assessment stage.

The matter of additional dwellings in rural areas (including workers dwelling and detached dual occupancies) will be addressed in Council’s Rural Lands Strategy component of the Local Growth Management Strategy, currently being prepared by Council.

·    Recommendations for Precincts 3, 4 and 5

PRECINCT 3 – MACCUES ROAD

The Maccues Road precinct is located west of the Pacific Highway and is accessed by Maccues Road (from Solitary Islands Way).

The Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) addressed environmental and economic factors, including estimated lot yields and development costs for the Maccues Road precinct. The Studies comprised an analysis of the existing condition of Maccues Road, topography and biodiversity values. It has determined a potential yield of 23 large lot residential allotments (minimum lot size 1 hectare) within the Maccues Road precinct. An upgrade of approximately 600 metres of Maccues Road would be required to comply with Council’s large lot residential construction standards for roads. This upgrade cost is estimated at $921,244 (including allowances for design costs and planning studies). It has been estimated that the resulting Developer Contributions would be approximately $40,054 per new allotment, if Council were to support a rezoning of the land.

Pursuant to Section 94 of the EP&A Act 1979 and Regulation, Council cannot levy developer contributions to applicants which exceed $30,000 per new lot unless approval is obtained from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

On the basis of the environmental and economic constraints within this precinct, it is recommended that land within Precinct 3 - Maccues Road is not rezoned for large lot residential purposes.

PRECINCT 4 – WAKELANDS ROAD / FAIRVIEW ROAD / SUGARMILL ROAD PRECINCT

The Wakelands Road / Fairview Road / Sugarmill Road precinct is located west of the Pacific Highway, south of Precinct 3, and is accessed by Wakelands Road and Sugarmill Road (from Solitary Islands Way).

The Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) indicate that this precinct has a potential yield of 16 additional large lot residential allotments, located in the central part of the precinct and on the southern side of Sugarmill Road. The projected upgrade costs for Wakelands Road, Fairview Road and Sugarmill Road is estimated at $1,629,679 (including allowances for design costs and planning studies) to comply with Council’s Large Lot Residential construction standards. This translates to a Developer Contribution of $101,855 per new allotment, which is considerably in excess of the statutory cap of $30,000 per new lot.

Similar to the previous discussion concerning Precinct 3, pursuant to s94 of the EP&A Act 1979 and Regulation, Council cannot levy developer contributions to applicants which exceed the statutory cap of $30,000 per new lot, unless approval is obtained from IPART.

Due to the environmental and economic constraints which apply to this precinct, it is recommended that land within Precinct 4 - Wakelands Road / Fairview Road / Sugarmill Road is not rezoned for large lot residential purposes.

PRECINCT 5 – GAUDRONS ROAD / THE MOUNTAIN WAY PRECINCT

The Gaudrons Road / The Mountain Way precinct is located west of the Pacific Highway and is accessed by Gaudrons Road and The Mountain Way (right-of-carriageway) from Solitary Islands Way.

The Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) indicate a projected lot yield of 36 additional lots (minimum lot sizes of 1 or 2 hectares) within this precinct. Upgrade costs for Gaudrons Road and The Mountain Way have been estimated at $3,255,125, to comply with Council’s large lot residential construction standards. Based on a projected yield of 36 new lots, this translates to a Developer Contribution of $90,420 per new allotment (excluding road acquisition costs), which is considerably in excess of the statutory cap of $30,000 per new lot which can be levied to applicants.

Should Council consider forward funding an upgrading of The Mountain Way to the required construction standard, estimated Developer Contributions are forecast to further increase by approximately $55,000 per lot to an estimate of $145,420. It should also be noted that this estimate does not include acquisition costs of a twenty metre wide public road reserve to replace the current right-of-carriageway. Acquistion of The Mountain Way would require long term (separate) negotiations with all affected landholders, with no guarantee of Council recovering its acquisition costs in a reasonable time frame.

For the reasons discussed, this precinct is considered to be significantly affected by economic and environmental constraints. The land within Precinct 5 – Gaudrons Road / The Mountain Way is therefore not recommended to be rezoned for large lot residential purposes.

Options:

Council has two options to consider in relation to this planning investigation, including:

1.   Resolve not to proceed with any amendments to the LEP, DCP or Contributions Plan for any lands within Precincts 3, 4, and 5 of the KWSM Investigation Area.

Comment: This option will not allow the rezoning of any additional land in the KWSM Investigation Area. In an economic sense, this option is more sustainable and carries no financial risk to Council in terms of land acquisition, forward funding or exceeding the statutory cap for levying of S94 contributions.

2.   Resolve to apply to IPART seeking a variation for Precincts 3, 4 and/or 5 in the KWSM Investigation Area where estimated Section 94 developer contributions exceed the statutory limit of $30,000.

Comment: This option requires Council to seek approval from IPART to vary the statutory cap on developer contributions under s94 of the EP&A Act 1979 for all or any of Precincts 3, 4 and 5. Notwithstanding this, rezoning land within Precincts 3, 4 and 5 is considered to be economically unviable due to projected infrastructure upgrade costs and carries a financial risk to Council, as there is no guarantee of recovering initial costs (of acquiring private roads) in a timely manner. This scenario is inconsistent with orderly and efficient land development, as the projected total lot yield for Precincts 3, 4 and 5 (75 lots) represents approximately three years supply at a significantly high cost. In comparison, the Bonville locality (which Council is also currently investigating for rezoning) is considerably more viable in an economic sense, with no acquisitions or forward funding of infrastructure required. It should also be noted that if IPART refuses the variation to the statutory cap, Council may be at risk of having to fund the contribution gap.

Option 1 is the recommended course of action.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

Environmental sustainability issues have been addressed by the Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) undertaken for the KWSM Investigation Area including:

-      Flora and fauna assessment;

-      Acid sulfate soils analysis;

-      Geotechnical assessment;

-      Bushfire hazard assessment;

-      Floodprone land assessment;

-      Visual and acoustic analysis;

-      Contaminated land assessment; and

-      Archaeology assessment (Indigenous and post-settlement).

•     Social

Social sustainability issues have been addressed by the Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) undertaken for the KWSM Investigation Area including:

-      visual and acoustic analysis;

-      opportunity for employment; and

-      new large lot residential precincts which are located close to existing centres and services.

•     Civic Leadership

Civic leadership is demonstrated in this report by the Environmental Studies addressing the following themes and objectives of Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan:

-      Places for Living

  We have vibrant rural communities.

  We reduce our impact on the environment.

  We have designed our built environment for sustainable living.

-      Moving Around

  We have a system of well-maintained and safe roads for all users.

-      Looking After Our Environment

  Our natural environment is protected and conserved for future generations.

  We maintain and conserve our flora and fauna through a protected, connected network of well-managed corridors and reserve systems.

  We manage and develop our resources sustainably.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) for the KWSM Investigation Area include an assessment of economic feasilibities. This report recommends that Council does not proceed with rezoning of precincts within the KWSM Investigation Area which are environmentally and economically unviable and which would carry significant financial risks to Council.

Precincts 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be economically unviable for rezoning due to projected infrastructure costs associated with road upgrades, and in some circumstances would also require Council to acquire private roads for upgrading and maintenance. This scenario would require long term negotiations with all affected landholders and would result in a significant increase to Developer Contributions with no guarantee of Council recovering its acquisition costs.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

There are no implications to Council’s Delivery Program or Operational Plan in regards to the contents of this report.

Risk Analysis:

The Environmental Studies (Attachment 1) for the KWSM Investigation Area included an assessment of risks if rezonings were to proceed in each precinct.

Progressing the rezoning of land within Precincts 3, 4 and 5 of the KWSM Investigation Area carries a high financial risk for the reasons discussed earlier in this report. Rezoning of land within those precincts is considered to be economically unviable due to projected infrastructure upgrade costs and carries a financial risk to Council, as there is no guarantee of recovering initial costs (of acquiring private roads) in a timely manner. Council would open itself up to considerably more risk if forward funding of infrastructure was proposed.

Consultation:

The Environmental Studies have been referred to all relevant areas within Council and input from these areas has been considered as part of the investigations.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The following policies and statutory documents are relevant to this report and have been addressed:

·      Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013;

·      Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015;

·      Local Growth Management Strategy - Our Living City Settlement Strategy Component 2009;

·      Local Growth Management Strategy - Rural Residential Component 2009;

·      Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006;

·      Mid North Coast Regional Strategy 2009 and Growth Area Maps;

·      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs);

·      Section 117 Ministerial Directions;

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations;

·      Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan; and

·      Coffs Harbour City Koala Plan of Management 1999.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Should Council resolve not to proceed with rezoning of Precincts 3, 4 and 5 within the KWSM Investigation Area (Option 1 as discussed in this report) by means of a Planning Proposal, no further work will be undertaken in relation to those precincts.

Conclusion:

Previous resolutions have been made by Council regarding Precincts 1 and 2 of the Korora – West Sapphire – Moonee Large Lot Residential Investigation Area.

This report provides Council with environmental studies and economic feasibilities which allow it to make clear decisions in relation to the remaining Precincts 3, 4 and 5 within that Investigation Area (which were previously deferred at the Council meeting of 10 November 2016).

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                    23 March 2017

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

SC17/14       Submission on Planning Legislative Updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Author:                        Senior Planner / Urban Designer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

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

Attachments:              ATT1  SC17/14   Submission by Coffs Harbour City Council to the Proposed Legislative Updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

ATT2  SC17/14   Consultation Material - Planning Legislation Updates - Summary of Proposals January 2017  

 

Executive Summary

The objective of this report is to provide Council with an overview of proposed legislative updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to provide a submission for lodgement with the State Government (Attachment 1). The State Government’s Planning Legislation Updates - Summary of proposals is provided for information (Attachment 2).

 

Recommendation:

That Council endorses the submission (Attachment 1) to the NSW Government regarding the legislative updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Report

Description of Item:

On 6 May 2016, the Minister for Planning announced the NSW Government would draft amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to help build a simpler, modern planning system. The proposed amendments build on recent policy, operational and legislative improvements to the NSW planning system. The current proposals also build on areas of agreement from 2013 (ie Planning Bill 2013 and the White Paper: A New Planning System for NSW).

As a result of the consultation undertaken thus far, a number of suggested amendments have been developed by the State government, including:

·      enhancing community participation by establishing a new part of the Act that consolidates community consultation provisions and requires decision-makers to give reasons for their decisions;

·      completing the strategic planning framework through local strategic planning statements, up-to-date Local Environment Plans and more consistent and workable Development Control Plans;

·      improvements to the various development pathways and preventing the misuse of modifications;

·      improved State significant development through better environmental impact assessment and more effective conditions of consent;

·      clearer building provisions through simplified and consolidated building provisions, allowing conditions on construction certificates and ensuring consistency with development approvals;

·      elevating the role of design through a new design objective in the act, and a Design-Led Planning Strategy; and

·      improving enforcement with the introduction of enforceable undertakings in compliance actions.

The legislative updates consultation package comprises a Summary of Proposals, a Draft Bill, and a Plain English Guide to the Bill and a report on stakeholder feedback to date.  Submissions to the consultation package are being invited from 10 January 2017 until 31 March 2017. Information sessions have been held throughout NSW for practitioners during February and March to assist in clarifying and interpreting the proposed amendments.

A submission has been prepared for lodgement with the State Government and is included as Attachment 1. The Summary of Proposals is the most relevant component of this package and has been provided as an attachment to this report (Attachment 2).

Issues:

The EP&A Act has been amended about 150 times since its enactment in 1979. While it still provides an arguably solid foundation for the NSW planning system, there has been a need to remove the unnecessary complexity that has built up over the years and return the focus to delivering transparent processes that enable best practice planning outcomes. Particular emphasis has been placed on the protection and enhancement of the community’s participation in the planning system.

While the targeted amendments aim to build greater confidence in the planning system by enhancing community participation, strengthening upfront strategic planning and delivering greater probity and integrity in decision making, the most important issue is the significant resource burden being placed on local government to undertake the new strategic processes. Some of these processes include:

·      the need to prepare a Community Participation Plan and Local Strategic Planning Statement;

·      the requirement for a five yearly check on Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) against set criteria; and

·      the requirement to implement a standard format for Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) to enable it to be spatially represented on the NSW Planning Portal.

A key reform of interest to local government is aimed at improving confidence in decision making. A key objective of the proposed changes to the EP&A Act is to build community confidence through enhancing the probity and accountability of decision-making in the planning system. This involves improving transparency and balance in assessment and determination processes, and the independence and expertise of the decision-makers.

There is scope to improve confidence in decision-making at all three levels of the planning system – local, regional and State significant development.  Specifically, the government's proposals aim to:

·    deliver better local decisions through promoting the consistent use of local planning panels and establishing tools to ensure experts make decisions where needed;

·    update the thresholds for regional development – that is, development determined by regional planning panels; and

·    strengthen decision-making in relation to state significant development through changes to emphasise the independence and determinative function of the current Planning Assessment Commission.

Attachment 1 to this report is Council’s detailed submission to the proposed amendments, and addresses several of these issues.

Options:

1.   That Council endorse the attached submission for lodgement with the State Government on the legislative updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2.   That Council not endorse the attached submission and provide an amended submission on the legislative updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.   That Council provide no submission to the legislative updates to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

This report recommends that Council pursue Option 1 as outlined.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

The proposed amendments endeavour to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision making about environmental planning and assessment. In addition, the amendments aim to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State.

•     Social

The Coffs Harbour community has a desire to see their natural environment protected and conserved for future generations. This broad vision has been championed, along with other more specific goals and strategies, in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan (CSP) which was adopted by Council in 2009.

•     Civic Leadership

The proposed amendments will impact on the following objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 CSP. The recommended submission (Attachment 1) discusses issues relating to these objectives:

§ LP1 - Coffs Harbour is a regional centre for future-driven, innovative and green business and industry.

§ LC1 - Coffs Harbour is a strong, safe and adaptable community.

§ LC3 - We have strong civic leadership and governance.

§ LE1 - We share our skills and knowledge to care for our environment.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The proposed amendments aim to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment resulting in better quality outcomes for the local economy.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

The proposed amendments could potentially impact significantly on existing staff resources which will ultimately affect Council’s 4 year Delivery Program. Funding maybe required to be sought from the State Government to assist in achieving the necessary outcomes.

Risk Analysis:

The proposed amendments will potentially necessitate comprehensive reviews of Council’s LEP, DCP, Local Growth Management Strategy and other policies to ensure consistency.

Consultation:

The legislative updates consultation package comprises a Summary of Proposals, a Draft Bill, and a Plain English Guide to the Bill and a report on stakeholder feedback to date. The Summary of Proposals is the most relevant component of this package and has been provided as an attachment to this report (Attachment 2). All other documents can be viewed on DPE’s website at www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Legislative-Updates.

As part of this, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) held a series of forums around the State to discuss issues with the current planning system and options for addressing them. In addition, targeted stakeholder consultations were also held in Sydney, Parramatta, Queanbeyan, Gosford, Newcastle, Tamworth, Griffith, Coffs Harbour, Wollongong and Dubbo. Submissions to the consultation package are being invited from 10 January 2017 until 31 March 2017.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

Relevant documents of Council that will be impacted and may require amendment include Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan, Coffs Harbour Local Environment Plan 2013, Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015 and Local Growth Management Strategy (various components).

Implementation Date / Priority:

The public consultation period runs from 10 January 2017 until 31 March 2017 with the Department of Planning and Environment. If endorsed by Council, the Coffs Harbour City Council submission (Attachment 1) will be lodged immediately.

Conclusion:

This report has provided Council with an overview of the proposed legislative changes as exhibited to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as exhibited by the NSW Government, and a submission for lodgement with the State Government.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

SC17/15       Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches

Author:                        Senior Biodiversity Officer

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Communities

Coffs Harbour 2030:   LE3 Our natural environment and wildlife are conserved for future generations

Attachments:              ATT1  SC17/15   Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches Feb 2017

ATT2  SC17/15   Executive Summary - Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches Feb 2017  

 

Executive Summary

The objective of this report is to have Council endorse the Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches February 2017 (Attachment 1) for exhibition. An Executive Summary of the draft Plan is also provided (Attachment 2).

The Coffs Harbour Local Government Area (LGA) is a focal area for important elements of north-east NSW’s renowned biodiversity, including the Eastern Grey Kangaroo. Lands supporting relatively high kangaroo populations interface residential development, caravan parks, holiday parks and golf courses at a number of locations along the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches.  In these areas residents and visitors experience encounters with free-ranging kangaroos, often positive but sometimes negative, in the form of direct threats and aggression.  Kangaroos are also the victims of domestic dog and human attacks, and collisions with motor vehicles are not uncommon. 

The draft Kangaroo Management Plan was developed in partnership with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service Inc (WIRES), to address issues relating to populations of kangaroos living within, and in proximity to, human population centres on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches.

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.   Adopt in principle the attached Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (Attachment 1) and place it on exhibition for a period of 28 days seeking feedback to enable Council’s final determination on this matter.

2.   Note that a further report be brought back to Council for consideration following the public exhibition of the draft Plan.

 

Report

Description of Item:

The Coffs Harbour region has naturally abundant eastern grey kangaroo populations with highly suitable environmental conditions, expanding urban development and increasing interactions.  In recent times, a number of these interactions have been negative and have triggered heightened community concern and a call for authorities to respond. 

Council has developed a Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches February 2017, in partnership with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service Inc (WIRES). The draft Plan aims to address issues relating to populations of kangaroos living within, and in proximity to, human population centres on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. The objective of this report is to have Council endorse the Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (Attachment 1) for exhibition. An Executive Summary of the draft Plan is also provided (Attachment 2).

While kangaroo attacks and threats on people are infrequent they are locally significant.  Conversely, instances of human and domestic dog attacks on kangaroos are moderately frequent and have obvious kangaroo welfare implications including injury and often death. Vehicle collisions with kangaroos are also a significant issue impacting all peri-urban locations associated with kangaroo populations.  Motor vehicle accidents are by far the single most common cause of WIRES kangaroo call-outs on the Mid North Coast.  Other issues raised in the draft Plan include the likelihood of disease transmission to humans, which was found to be very low, and biodiversity impacts from overgrazing of sensitive vegetation.

Consultation through the development of the draft Plan showed that overall, the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches community has an aversion to the idea of kangaroo culling although some people have a desire to see lower numbers. The majority of people who live with kangaroos at the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches enjoy kangaroo interactions and the appeal of observing wild kangaroos is also high for tourists and travellers. The idea of non-lethal methods of kangaroo population control, such as the remote delivery of contraceptive implants to female kangaroos, was supported and is currently part of a trial program being undertaken by the University of Sydney.

In addition to ongoing research, the main outcome of the draft Plan is engagement and education as the basis for ongoing proactive management of kangaroo issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. An engaged and educated community will go a long way towards resolving management issues.

Issues:

Action relating to kangaroo management issues is not mandated by statutory drivers (as opposed to threatened species) and local government’s role in the management of native species is limited.  However, Council does have a role as both a land manager and a consent authority. 

Land use planning undertaken without the consideration of kangaroo management issues has the potential to favour kangaroo population growth in unfavourable areas such as new residential areas waiting for houses to be built and community open spaces including sports playing fields and parklands.  Careful planning is needed to ensure new areas of conflict are not created.

Options:

1.   Support the recommendation in this report and adopt the Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches for the purpose of exhibition; or

2.   Amend the recommendation in this report and/or elements of the draft Plan; or

3.   Reject the recommendation.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

Kangaroos are an iconic species in Australia and the draft Kangaroo Management Plan establishes a strategic approach to maintaining wild populations of eastern grey kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches.

•     Social

The Coffs Harbour community has a desire to see their natural environment protected and conserved for future generations. This broad vision has been championed, along with other more specific goals and strategies, in the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan which was adopted by Council in 2009.

•     Civic Leadership

The draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches will impact on the following objectives of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan:

-      LC3 - We have strong civic leadership and governance

-      LE1 - We share our skills and knowledge to care for our environment

-      LE3 - Our natural environment and wildlife are conserved for future generations

-      LE4 - We reduce our impact on the environment

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The sustainable management of the region’s kangaroo population provides broad economic benefits to the community as the iconic species is important to the region’s identity as an eco-tourism destination.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

Local Government has an essential role to play in managing and planning for kangaroo management through both land use planning and open space management. While the plan has no direct implications for the Delivery Program or Operational Plan, future planning and management of areas described in the draft Plan should consider the Plan’s outcomes.

Risk Analysis:

While there are no specific risks associated with the adoption of the draft Plan, risks do apply to inaction.  Failure to act carries risks to the community and has animal welfare implications whereas the application of informed strategic management actions can ameliorate many likely impacts.

Consultation:

The draft Plan has been prepared in consultation with the Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee who included representatives from the local community, Council, NPWS, WIRES, a local veterinarian, the University of New England, the University of Sydney, and the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage.

Representatives of the Garlambirla Guyuu Girrwaa (Coffs Elders group) and the Garby Elders were also informed about the development of the draft Kangaroo Management Plan by NPWS and will be further consulted through the plans exhibition.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

-      Companion Animals Act 1998

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

-      Local Government Act 1993

-      National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

-      Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

Relevant documents of Council that may need to be reviewed once the draft Plan is adopted include the Coffs Harbour Development Control Plan 2015.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Once the draft Plan has completed the proposed exhibition period, a report will be provided for Council summarising any submissions received. This will occur later in 2017. Once this report has been considered the draft Plan can be adopted and implemented.

Conclusion:

This report has provided Council with an overview of the Draft Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches February 2017 (Attachment 1).

Kangaroo management is complex, and adaptive management informed by ongoing community engagement and education, as well as ongoing research, will be required over the long term.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                    23 March 2017

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                    23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                            23 March 2017

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

SI17/05         Property Owner Contributions For Ancillary Road Infrastructure Items

Author:                        Director Sustainable Infrastructure

Authoriser:                  Director Sustainable Infrastructure

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

Attachments:              Nil

 

Executive Summary

This Report discusses Council’s current policy of collecting financial contributions from property owners towards the costs of providing kerb and gutter, new footpath and new cycleway adjacent to their properties. The purpose of this Report is to provide information on relevant and related issues and thereby provide Councillors with the opportunity to review the current policy stance, and to either change or recommit to that position.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       Remove the Property Owner contribution charge of 50% of the cost of supplying Cycleway.

2.       Remove the Property Owner contribution charge of 50% of the cost of supplying Footpath.

3.       Note that the existing Property Owner contribution charge of 50% of the cost of supplying Kerb and Gutter will remain in place.

4.       Note that the appropriate processes to amend Council’s published Fees and Charges to reflect the required changes to Property Owner Contributions will be commenced.

 

 

Report

Description of Item:

This Report provides Council with an opportunity to review its policy position in relation to charging property owners a contribution for the provision of Kerb & Gutter, Footpath and Cycleway. For clarity, this Report does not explore the policy relating to the requirement for developers of commercial developments to provide paving across the frontages of commercial developments which is separately administered and is driven by separate and distinct strategic imperatives.

 

Council is empowered under a provision of s217 of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) to charge individual property owners a contribution towards the cost incurred by Council in the provision of kerb and gutter, cycleway and footpath assets along their individual property frontages. Any fee, if it is charged, may not exceed 50% of the total cost of provision, and the fee may be set at a lower percentage at Council’s discretion. Council is limited by the provisions of the Act to charge only those residents across whose property frontage the item is installed and may not utilise the provisions to “share the charge” across all residents, or a group of residents. Council may, if it so wishes, charge no fee at all.

 

Council’s current position on this matter is to charge property owners 50% of the cost of providing these asset types where these asset types are to be installed across property frontages. Council adopted this position at least 12 years ago and the 50% Property Owner Contributions charge has been applied since that time. Council makes provision in its annually published Fees and Charges for that purpose.

 

This Roads Act provision, which replaces a similar provision removed from the pre-1993 LG Act, is largely intended to operate as a balancing mechanism for roads authorities, such as CHCC, to ensure equity amongst property owners. The equity argument flows largely from the factual existence of two types of subdivisions within an LGA:

-     Recent Subdivisions – developers of more recent subdivisions have been required, at their cost, to provide as a matter of course kerb, gutter and footpaths in addition to the more usual roads, drainage, water and sewer. When a property owner later purchases a property within such a subdivision it is implied that they are also “purchasing”, within the price they pay for their property, the attendant ancillary infrastructure such as kerb, gutter and footpaths which has been installed across the development by the developer. In short, it is implied therefore that the property owner has, by that mechanism, paid for the supplied ancillary infrastructure from their own private funds.

 

-     Earlier Subdivisions – Earlier subdivisions tend not to contain kerb, gutter and footpaths as a simple result of the fact that the development requirements which operated at that time rarely required developers to provide them as a component of the development. It is implied therefore that property owners in such areas have not paid for kerb, gutter and footpaths from their own private funds as have the purchasers in later subdivisions.

Issues:

The following issues are canvassed in this Report: Provision of Kerb, Gutter, Footpaths and Cycleways • Neighbouring Council Practices • Contributions Charged • Resident Equality and Equity Considerations • Financial Impacts for Council • Summary of Advantages/Disadvantages of Resident Contribution to Cost of Asset Construction.

 

The Equity Argument Supporting Contributions

This perceived difference between older and newer developments raises a potential equity conundrum whenever kerb, gutter and footpath are provided at a later date in older subdivisions.

The issue can be expressed in the form of a question:

“Given that property owners in more recent subdivisions have privately paid for their ancillary road reserve infrastructure, should property owners in older subdivisions now be provided these ancillary assets purely at the public expense?”

This perceived difference between the two types of subdivisions and its potential unequal cost impact on property owners provides the base case, whether it be strong or weak, for the equity balancing mechanism which is explicit in the Roads Act.

From an Asset Management perspective it is obvious that a policy of levying such charges increases the cash available for councils to provide ancillary roads infrastructure. However this is not necessarily the driver which explains the existence of the provision in the Roads Act, rather it appears to be more of a (lucky) collateral outcome.

Arguments For and Against Resident Contributions

A Case Against Charging – Unfair Distribution of the Cost Burden: In accordance with Council’s adopted Road Hierarchy & associated standard cross sections, most streets in Coffs Harbour will only ever have, at best, a footpath or cycleway on one side of the street. Therefore, less than half the property owners of Coffs Harbour could expect to be required to contribute to the cost of providing a network of footpaths/cycleways used by the whole community.

A Case For Charging – A Private Gain at Public Expense: The provision of Kerb and Gutter, where none existed previously, arguably increases both the level of protection from flooding, and the amenity and appeal of the individual property. These impacts operate collectively to increase the overall value of the property. If this argument has merit then it would represent a private windfall gain to the property owner at a socialised cost, unless they contribute to the cost of provision.

This assessment is also supported by the historically very low level of formal complaints received when charges for Kerb and Gutter have been previously levied against property owners. In fact Council receives from time to time requests from property owners to pay the full cost to Council to get early installation of kerb and gutter.

A Case Against Charging – A Private Loss at Private Expense: It is unlikely that the provision of Footpath and Cycleway operates to increase the affected property’s value in the same way as Kerb and Gutter. In fact, it is possible that the effect is the opposite given the level of privacy at the property frontage is potentially detrimentally impacted. This assessment is supported by the historically higher level of formal complaints (comparative to the K&G case above) received when charges for footpath generally, and cycleway in particular, have been previously levied against property owners.

A Case Against Charging – Public Gain At Private Cost: In the Coffs Harbour context footpath and cycleway is provided in accordance with a clear strategic intent as described in Council’s adopted Pedestrian Access Management Plan and Bike Plan. The clear objective of both plans is to create alternative transport networks other than roads which operate to the wider benefit of the entire community.

The premise underlying this strategic objective is that the integrated provision of footpath, and to an even greater extent, cycleway, enhances the health, economic and community connectivity outcomes for the benefit of all residents of entire LGA.  In the light of that premise it could be argued that causing only some, but not all, property owners to subsidise the provision of footpath and cycleway is inequitable.

Neighbouring Council Practices

The following table indicates how neighbouring councils apply the provisions of the Roads Act in respect to resident contributions to works. 

Council

K&G

– Require Contribution?

Footpath

– Require Contribution?

Cycleway

-     Requires contribution?

Bellingen

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nambucca

Yes

Yes

Yes

Kempsey

Yes

Yes

No

Clarence

No

No

No

 

In summary there is no clear or consistent regional approach to the issue which would either inform, or restrict, Council’s position on the matter.

 

Contributions Charged

The Roads Act authorises Council to recover up to 50% of the cost of the construction of new ancillary road infrastructure as a contribution from directly adjacent property owners only. 

However, due to the varying terrain of the LGA, the cost of construction itself actually varies widely between streets and so to preserve some fairness Council sets a standard contribution rate (per metre) when the Fees and Charges are adopted as part of each financial year’s Management Plan. 

Each property affected pays the set Charge Rate as listed in the Fees and Charges multiplied by the width of the individual property’s street frontage.

Current Charge Rates at Coffs Harbour

Asset Type

Contribution by Property Owners per 16/17 Fees and Charges

(representing 50% of the average actual cost of provision)

Average cost charged to a  standard residential block (assuming a 15m frontage)

Kerb and Gutter

$101 per lineal metre

Approximately $1500

Footpath

1.2m width

$95 per lineal metre

Approximately $1450

Cycleway

2.4m width

$159 per lineal metre

Approximately $2400

 

Resident Financial Considerations

As Council’s Works Programs are necessarily adopted only on a yearly basis, the notification by Council of an additional and unexpected bill can cause hardship for some households, even with the existing provisions to defer or pay by instalments which are offered by Council as a matter of course.

 

Summary of Advantages/Disadvantages and Options to Progress

Advantages of maintaining a contribution for Kerb and Gutter

Disadvantages – Kerb and Gutter

An additional length of kerb and gutter would be constructed each year utilising the adjoining resident contribution

 

Delivery of Council’s kerb and guttering backlog is faster

 

Broad community acceptance that Kerb and Gutter enhances property values

 

General resident opposition to kerb and gutter contribution is (historically) very low demonstrating acceptance of the current practice of charging a contribution.

Lack of contribution results in reduced length of kerb and gutter that can be constructed each year

 

Completion of kerb and gutter network is slower

OPTION TO PROGRESS: KERB AND GUTTER - Retain the current charge rate of 50%.

 

ReasoningK&G enhances property amenity and increases the flood resilience of the individual property. Both mechanisms result in increased property value to the benefit of the owner therefore the owner should contribute. K&G also enhances the lifespan of the roadway to the financial benefit of Council, who should therefore share in the cost of provision.


 

 

 

Advantages of maintaining a contribution for Footpath

Disadvantages – Footpath

 

An additional length of footpath would be constructed each year utilising the adjoining resident contribution

 

Accelerated delivery of Council’s PAMP footpath network

 

Safer path provided at faster rate

 

 

Lack of contribution results in reduced length of footpath that can be constructed each year

 

Completion of footpath network is slower

 

Potential inequality in application as less than ½ of property owners would ever contribute to a community path network noting that a path will usually only be built on one side of a street and many of the minor streets will never have a constructed footpath at all.

 

General resident opposition to footpath contribution is medium/high – and there is no broad community acceptance that footpath enhances property values

 

OPTION TO PROGRESS: FOOTPATH - Remove the current charge rate.

 

ReasoningFootpath does not enhance property amenity or value – there is therefore no private benefit gained by a property owner from its installation across the property frontage. A footpath along only one side of a street benefits all local residents equally and to levy a charge against only one half of those residents is inequitable.

 

 

Advantages of maintaining a contribution for Cycleway

Disadvantages - Cycleway

An additional length of cycleway would be constructed each year utilising the adjoining resident contribution.

 

Completion of the cycleway network envisaged in Council’s Bike Plan is achieved in a shorter timeframe.

 

Safer cycleway provided at faster rate.

 

 

Lack of contribution results in reduced length of cycleway that can be constructed each year.

 

Completion of cycleway network is slower.

 

Significant potential of inequality in application as very few property owners (possibly less than 5%) would ever contribute to a community cycleway network noting that cycleway will usually only be installed along significant transport/collector roads.

 

Little to no community acceptance that cycleway increases property values

 

General resident opposition to cycleway contribution is very high to extreme - a significant argument exists amongst residents that cycleway operates, or is intended to operate primarily as LGA-wide transport link rather than local community links.


 

OPTION TO PROGRESS: CYCLEWAY - Remove the current charge rate.

 

ReasoningCycleway does not enhance property amenity or value – there is therefore no private benefit gained by a property owner from its installation across the property frontage. Cycleways principally support the development of alternate transport options which benefit all residents and visitors the wider LGA. To levy a charge against only some residents, given the very large number of beneficiaries who derive benefit from the cycleway network is inequitable.

 

 

 

Options:

1.       Adopt the Recommendations (which remove the existing property owner charges for cycleway and footpath) – this is likely to address a majority of expressed community concerns regarding the operation of the current policy. There will be some impact, but not insurmountable, to Council’s current ability to provide footpath and cycleway.

 

2.       Reject the Recommendations (and keep the current policy position) – this would have zero impact on Council’s current ability to deliver footpath, kerb & gutter and cycleway; but the expressed concerns of the community will not diminish.

 

3.       Amend the Recommendations (and adopt a halfway position somewhere between 1 and 2 above) – eg adopt a lower percentage charge rate, for example.

Sustainability Assessment:

•     Environment

There is no environmental impact created by the recommendations of this report.

•     Social

This report describes the social implications of Council’s current policy position in some detail above.

•     Civic Leadership

A significant number of residents, affected by Council’s current policy position, have requested Council to review the operation of Resident Contribution Charges for Cycleway, Footpath and Kerb & Gutter.

•     Economic – Broader Economic Implications

The funding available in each financial year for the construction of K&G, footpath, and cycleway on public roads would reduce should property owner contributions towards the cost of construction no longer be collected.

•     Economic - Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications

If the recommendations are adopted the impact on annual Operational Plans for each asset class is assessed as follows:

 

-     Quantity of Kerb and Gutter delivered: if the Resident Contribution is removed the quantity of K&G planned to be delivered under future Delivery Program would fall by approximately 50%.

 

-     Quantity of Footpath delivered: The majority of footpath within the Coffs LGA is built across the frontage of residential property boundaries and is therefore heavily subject to the Property Owner Contribution scheme. Recent Operational Plan budgets have not funded the delivery of new footpath. As a result, no property owner contributions for footpath have been collected in 16/17 because no significant new footpath work has taken place across the LGA.

 

If however Council establishes a Footpath Budget in the future, and the Property Owner Contribution is subsequently removed as recommended in this Report, then the quantity of footpath delivered will be simply limited to the amount of the budget established by Council.

 

-     Quantity of Cycleway delivered: Recent Operational Plan budgets have included some “seed” funding for new cycleway, and have been heavily reliant upon the gaining/leveraging of cycleway grants for the rest. This approach has been significantly successful over many years and has been responsible for the majority of cycleway which now exists in the LGA.

 

The vast majority of cycleways built during that period have not been installed along residential frontages. As a result, no property owner contributions for cycleway have been collected in 16/17.

 

If Council maintains the current funding approach for cycleways, and the Property Owner Contribution is subsequently removed, as recommended in this Report, then the quantity of cycleway delivered will be largely unaffected.

 

Risk Analysis:

Generally, an amendment to the relevant Fees and Charges could create some risk to the speed at which Council delivers it ancillary road infrastructure. Given the prevailing circumstances, and under the Recommendations, this risk is largely contained and minimised for Footpath and Cycleway, and is completely removed for Kerb and Gutter.

 

The Recommendations, as written, also remove the majority of any latent reputational risk which is created by Council’s current stance on collecting Property Owner Contributions for ancillary road infrastructure when its reasons for doing so are not well understood nor well accepted by the community.

Consultation:

Appropriate internal consultation has been conducted in order to assess the Operational Plan impacts of any potential changes to the Fees and Charges. Ongoing consultation with affected resident parties has initiated the development of this report.

Related Policy, Precedents and / or Statutory Requirements:

The Roads Act 1993 provides Council with the authority to collect contributions for Footpath, Kerb and Gutter, and Cycleway from property owners. The decision to implement the authority offered by the Roads Act is a matter of choice for Council, and therefore Council is not limited in any way by the Act in deciding this matter. The Recommendations in this Report would require a change to Council’s current practice of collecting property owner contributions for new Footpath and Cycleway which crosses private property frontages. The adoption of the Recommendations in the Report would require an amendment to Council’s existing Fees and Charges.

Implementation Date / Priority:

Immediate.

Conclusion:

Council has the authority under the Roads Act 1993 to impose contribution charges onto property owners when installing Footpath, Kerb & Gutter, and Cycleway along their property boundaries. Significant community opposition has historically attached to the collection of Footpath, and especially, Cycleway charges whenever Council has executed that authority in the past.

 

A far lesser level of community opposition has attached to the provision of Kerb and Gutter contributions. This Report endorses Council reconsidering its current position and amending, or entirely removing, the charges for Footpath and Cycleway.  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                          23 March 2017

T17/07          TRUST REPORT - Relocation of Marine Rescue Woolgoolga to Arrawarra Headland Facility - Progress Report

Author:                        Manager Holiday Parks and Reserves

Authoriser:                  Director Business Services

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

Attachments:              Nil

 

 

Executive Summary

In accordance with Council’s resolution 2017/3 at its meeting held on 9 February 2017, progress reports are provided to each Council meeting on the relocation of Marine Rescue Woolgoolga to Arrawarra Headland.

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, as Corporate Manager of the Coffs Coast State Park Trust, note the progress report.

 

Report

Council, as Corporate Manager of the Coffs Coast State Park Trust, is continuing to work with Marine Rescue Woolgoolga (MRW) and Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club (WSLSC) to secure suitable bases of operation for each organisation.  After significant investigation work a suitable location for MRW has been found at the Arrawarra Headland Research Station, which is also a Crown Reserve.

The proposed relocations are vitally important to the future operations of both MRW and the WSLSC.  The WSLSC advised the Trust in early 2017 that funding sources are at threat due to the WSLSC project not being ‘spade ready’ by 30 June 2017.

Progressing the proposed relocations has required significant negotiations to change existing tenures and ensure the future operational requirements of all parties are considered.  The land tenure changes required to enable the MRW relocation to occur are complete.  Following initial design work, obtaining quantity surveying estimates and further negotiations, up to $600,000 funding from the Coffs Coast Trust has now been committed to the MRW relocation project.

This report provides progress on the MRW relocation project as at 10 March 2017 (Council/Trust reports due date) and is detailed by milestone in the following table.  It should be noted that the completion of milestones is at certain stages dependent on other parties.  Council officers recognise the critical importance of completing the MRW relocation project as quickly as possible to facilitate WSLSC’s relocation.


 

 

Milestone

Status as at 10 March 2017

Legal access to the Arrawarra Headland facility

National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) have agreed in principle to provide a licence for access to the site until the Coffs Coast Regional Park Plan of Management is finalised and an easement can be provided.  Council has progressed this to a point where further action is required from NPWS and Council is waiting for their response.

 

Final design of the Arrawarra Headland facility

Designs completed and ready for inclusion in development application. Consultants engaged to complete detailed design of services. Minor detail items still require resolution between Council and Marine Rescue but project is able to proceed to development application stage.

 

Development consent for the Arrawarra Headland facility

Development application and tender/construction contract documents are being progressed.  Development application to be submitted week ending 17 March 2017.

 

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage process has been advertised and letters sent to stakeholders.  Three responses received and stakeholder meeting scheduled for 17 March 2017.

 

Tender and contract for construction of the Arrawarra Headland facility

Tender/construction contract documents are being progressed with consultants engaged to develop specifications. Estimated completion of documentation from consultants by 31 March 2017. Tenders will be called concurrently with the development application assessment process.

 

Surrender of Marine Rescue lease at Woolgoolga Beach Reserve

Marine Rescue NSW has previously confirmed their intent to relinquish their existing lease once construction contract documentation is executed.

 

Letter of offer to the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club for a lease lot over part of Woolgoolga Beach Reserve, including proposed terms and conditions of lease, has been forwarded to the club and accepted. Surveyor engaged to undertake survey and develop a new lease lot. Lease documentation is being prepared.

 

 

In addition to progressing the project milestones, stakeholder engagement activities are continuing, including:

 

·    Meeting requested with the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club to provide a project update and to address any concerns arising;

·    Meeting requested with Kevin Hogan MP to provide an update on project progress and to assist in securing existing grant funding; and

·    Frequently Asked Questions prepared and circulated relating to future boat trailer parking and related facilities in the Woolgoolga Beach reserve.