Agenda of Ordinary Council

MINUTES Ordinary Council Meeting

15/02/2017

PRESENT

Members:

Councillor Peter Besseling (Mayor)

Councillor Rob Turner

Councillor Michael Cusato

Councillor Sharon Griffiths

Councillor Peter Alley

Councillor Justin Levido

Councillor Geoff Hawkins

Councillor Lisa Intemann

Councillor Lee Dixon

Other Attendees:

General Manager (Craig Swift-McNair)

Acting Director of Community and Economic Growth (Liesa Davies)

Acting Director of Corporate and Organisational Services (Robyn Wilson)

Director of Development and Environment Services (Matt Rogers)

Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management (Jeffery Sharp)

Group Manager Governance and Executive Services (Blair Hancock)

Governance Support Officer (Bronwyn Lyon)

Communications Manager (Andy Roberts)

The meeting opened at 5:30pm.

01 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Mayor opened the Meeting with an Acknowledgement of Country and welcomed all in attendance in the Chamber.

02 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRAYER

Reverend Malcolm Hausler from the Uniting Church delivered the Local Government Prayer.

03 APOLOGIES

Nil.

04 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLVED: Levido/Intemann

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 14 December 2016 be confirmed.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

05 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Councillor Levido declared a Non-Pecuniary, Significant Interest in Item 13.05 - Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Administrative Review [PP2016-7], the reason being that Councillor Levido a Partner in law firm Donovan Oates Hannaford and the firm acts for the owners of two separate properties to be part of the Draft Planning Proposal being the subject of the report.

Councillor Dixon declared a Non-Pecuniary, Less Than Significant Interest in Item 11.02 - Construction Industry Action Plan, the reason being that Councillor Dixon has an extended family member in the Action Group.

Councillor Dixon declared a Non-Pecuniary, Significant Interest in Item 11.03 - Commercial Activities on Council-managed Land Policy, the reason being that Councillor Dixon has a family member who uses Council managed land as a personal trainer.

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Cusato

That the Disclosures of Interest as presented be noted.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

The Mayor advised that he had no Mayoral Minutes to present to the Meeting, however he thanked, on behalf of Council, the Rural Fire Services and all emergency services and support staff for their efforts on the weekend during the unprecedented and catastrophic heatwave conditions.

07 CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE TO ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

RESOLVED: Levido/Turner

That Council determine that the attachments to Item Numbers 09.08 be considered as confidential, in accordance with section 11(3) of the Local Government Act.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

08 PUBLIC FORUM

The Mayor advised of applications to address Council in the Public Forum from:

1. Dr Debra King regarding Fernbank Creek Road.

2. Mrs Nancy Burley regarding parks and gardens budget. Presentation and safety issues - Town Beach and surrounds.

RESOLVED: Cusato/Dixon

That the above requests to speak in the Public Forum be acceded to.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

08.01 Fernbank Creek Road

Dr Debra King, resident of Fernbank Creek Road, addressed Council in regard to Fernbank Creek Road and displayed a presentation.

08.02 Parks and Gardens Budget. Presentation and safety issues - Town Beach and Surrounds

Mrs Nancy Burley addressed Council in regard to parks and gardens budget, presentation and safety issues - Town Beach and surrounds. Mrs Burley also answered questions from Councillors.

Requests to Speak on an Agenda Item

The Mayor advised of requests to speak on an agenda item, as follows:

Item 09.14 - Mr Malcolm Merrick in support of the recommendation.

Item 12.03 - Mr Peter King in opposition of the recommendation.

Item 12.03 - Ms Lisa McLeod in support of the recommendation.

Item 12.03 - Mr Peter Stace in opposition of the recommendation.

Item 13.01 - Mrs Diane Gilbert in opposition of the recommendation.

Item 13.09 - Mr Mike Parsons in support of the recommendation.

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Cusato

That the requests to speak on an agenda item be acceded to.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Suspension of Standing Orders

RESOLVED: Alley/Hawkins

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow Items 09.14, 12.03, 13.01 and 13.09 to be brought forward and considered next.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.14 Review of Select Council Committees

Mr Malcolm Merrick, representing the Port Macquarie Tacking Point Lions Club Inc., addressed Council in support of the recommendation and answered questions from Councillors.

RESOLVED: Turner/Cusato

1. Establish a new Steering Group called the ‘Cultural Steering Group’.

2. Adopt the Cultural Steering Group Charter as included in this Review of Select Council Committees report.

3. Seek Expressions of Interest (EOI) for members of the Cultural Steering Group, with the results of the EOI to be reported to the 19 April 2017 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

4. Work with members of the following existing Council Committees to transition them into working groups with objectives, actions and reporting lines to the Cultural Steering Group:

a) Port Macquarie-Handa Sister City Sub-committee.

b) Australia Day Sub-committee.

c) Port Macquarie-Hastings Youth Advisory Committee.

5. Work with Heritage, Arts and Cultural Priorities Advisory Group to transition it into the Cultural Steering Group.

6. Replace quarterly Glasshouse reporting to Council with six monthly reporting in February and August each year detailing key performance measures and financial information for the previous financial year period.

carried: 7/2

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Griffiths and Hawkins

12.03 DA2016 - 774.1 Multi Dwelling Housing And 1 Into 13 Lot Strata Subdivision At Lot 3 DP 634929, No. 1096 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills

Ms Clarke advised that Ms Lisa McLeod submitted the Request to Address form on behalf of both herself and Mr Collins and requested they be permitted to speak.

RESOLVED: Turner/Dixon

That the requests for Ms Donna Clark and Mr Derek Collins to speak on item 12.03 be acceded to.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Mr Peter Stace, neighbour, addressed Council in opposition of the recommendation and answered questions from Councillors.

Mr Derek Collins, architect, addressed Council in support of the recommendation and answered questions from Councillors.

Mr Peter King, member of local residents group, addressed Council in opposition of the recommendation, displayed a presentation and answered questions from Councillors.

Ms Donna Clarke, applicant, addressed Council in support of the recommendation and answered questions from Councillors.

RESOLVED: Levido/Turner

That DA 2016 - 774.1 for Multi Dwelling Housing and 1 into 13 Lot Strata Subdivision at Lot 3, DP 634929, No. 1096 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions and the following:

- Amend condition 2 in Section B to read: “Stormwater systems including sub-surface drainage for retaining walls.”

- New condition in Section B of the consent to read: “Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate dwelling number 8 architectural plans are to be amended to be consistent with the overall site plan and provide for a minimum 1.9m setback to the north western corner of the patio from the northern boundary.’’

- Replace condition 18 in Section E of the consent with a condition to read: “Prior to occupation or the issue of any Occupation Certificate, evidence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority that satisfactory arrangements are in place for collection of general waste (rubbish), recycling and food and garden organics from the premises by a private waste contractor. All wastes are to be collected as separate waste streams. All waste receptacles are to be collected from within the site and adjacent to each individual dwelling or pursuant to such other alternate proposal approved by Council.”

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

13.01 Building Better Regions Fund - Round 1 Funding Applications

Mrs Diane Gilbert, representing the Wauchope Heated Indoor Pool Association, addressed Council in opposition of the recommendation.

Dixon left the meeting, the time being 7:17pm.

Dixon returned to the meeting, the time being 7:20pm.

RESOLVED: Cusato/Levido

That Council:

1. Submit the following applications for Round 1 of the Building Better Regions Fund:

Infrastructure Projects Stream:

a) Lake Rd duplication from Toorak Court to the Oxley Highway;

b) Upgrade of the Coastal Walkway from Town Beach Port Macquarie to Windmill Hill (including wayfinding signage).

Community Investments Stream:

a) Expansion of the Creative Summer Program at the Glasshouse.

b) Local skills audit as included in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Economic Development Strategy.

2. That Council make representations to the Member for Lyne and Member for Cowper to provide detailed information on and request their support for our application.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

13.09 Optimising Utilisation of Port Macquarie Sports Fields

Mr Mike Parsons, representing Football Mid North Coast, addressed the Council in support of the recommendation and answered questions from Councillors.

RESOLVED: Turner/Cusato

That Council:

1. Note the information contained within the Optimising Utilisation of Port Macquarie Sports Fields Report.

2. Request the General Manager provide a report to the 19 July 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting to:

a) Report on progress against the adopted Recreation Action Plan 2015-2025.

b) Propose an updated implementation plan that incorporates additional priorities identified in the Optimising Utilisation of Port Macquarie Sports Fields report.

3. Consider an allocation in the development of the 2017-2018 Budget and Operational Plan to carry out priority works to be identified in the updated Recreation Action Plan 2015-2025.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.01 Status of Reports From Council Resolutions

RESOLVED: Turner/Cusato

That Council:

1. Note the information in the Status of Reports from Council Resolutions report.

2. Add the annual Recreation Action Plan report (as described in the Plan itself) as a cyclic annual report each July.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.02 Performance Measurement Framework

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Dixon

That the information in the Performance Measurement Framework report be noted.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.03 Project Management

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Alley

That Council:

1. Adopt the Project Management Policy, as attached to the Project Management report.

2. Rescind the:

a) Project Management and Gateway Policy.

b) Project Management Guidelines Policy.

3. Request the General Manager table a report at the October 2017 meeting of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee on the implementation, operation and effectiveness to date of the Project Management Policy.

4. Request the General Manager table a report at the November 2017 Council meeting on the implementation, operation and effectiveness to date of the Project Management Policy, incorporating the views of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.04 Designated Persons

RESOLVED: Cusato/Levido

That Council determine that the following position become a Designated Person pursuant to the provisions of section 441 of the Local Government Act 1993:

- Ranger (Litter and Illegal Dumping).

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.05 Disclosure of Interest Return

RESOLVED: Levido/Hawkins

That Council note the Disclosure of Interest returns for the following positions:

- Sport and Recreation Officer.

- Building Surveyor- Regulation.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.06 Making a Decision About Future Rates

RESOLVED: Intemann/Hawkins

That Council:

1. Adopt the amended 2013-2017 Delivery Program.

2. Adopt the amended Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026.

3. Request the General Manager submit an application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) under section 508(2) of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, for a permanent single year Special Rate Variation (SRV) of 3.89% in addition to the rate peg amount of 1.5% (total 5.39%), noting that this is a continuation of the funding provided by the existing SRV which expires June 2017, for the purpose of maintaining and renewing Council’s road network.

carried: 8/1

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Griffiths

09.07 Monthly Financial Review for January 2017

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Levido

That Council adopt the adjustments in the “Financial and Economic Implications” section of the Monthly Financial Review Report for January 2017.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.08 Quarterly Budget Review Statement

RESOLVED: Levido/Cusato

That Council note the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the December 2016 quarter.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.09 Investments - December 2016

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Alley

That Council note the Investment Report for the month of December 2016.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.10 Investments - January 2017

RESOLVED: Alley/Hawkins

That Council note the Investment Report for the month of January 2017.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.11 Glasshouse Quarterly Report And Update on Strategic Plan Recommendations

RESOLVED: Turner/Griffiths

That Council note the information provided in the Glasshouse Quarterly Report And Update on Strategic Plan Recommendations Report.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.12 2016-2017 Operational Plan Quarterly Progress Report as at 31 December 2016

RESOLVED: Cusato/Griffiths

That Council note the 2016-2017 Operational Plan Quarterly Progress Report as at 31 December 2016.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

09.13 Alternate Chairs for Committees

RESOLVED: Levido/Turner

That Council note the process to appoint Alternate Chairs to subcommittees, groups and boards.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Item - 09.14 Review of Select Council Committees - has been moved to another part of the document.

09.15 Revised Economic Development Steering Group Charter and New Membership

RESOLVED: Turner/Hawkins

That Council:

1. Adopt the revised Economic Development Steering Group Charter.

2. Include the Chair of the External Grants and Revenue portfolio as an additional Councillor member of the Economic Development Steering Group.

3. Note expressions of interest for members of the Group will be undertaken in late February, with recommended membership to be reported to the 19 April 2017 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

10.01 Contaminated Land Policy - Draft

RESOLVED: Intemann/Griffiths

That Council:

1. Place the draft Contaminated Land Policy and Guidelines on public exhibition between 16 February 2017 and 17 March 2017.

2. Note that further report to be tabled at the May 2017 meeting of Council, detailing the submissions received from the public during the exhibition period.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

10.02 Community Events Program to End of April 2017

RESOLVED: Turner/Griffiths

That Council note the Community events program for the period March- April 2017.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

11.01 Changes to the NSW Crown Land Management Act 2016

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Levido

That Council note the information provided regarding changes to the NSW Crown Land Management Act 2016.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

11.02 Construction Industry Action Plan

Councillor Dixon declared a Non-Pecuniary, Less Than Significant Interest in this matter and remained in the room during the Council's consideration.

RESOLVED: Intemann/Levido

That Council note:

1. The completion of actions identified within the Construction Industry Action Plan.

2. The ongoing role for the Construction Industry Action Group as a means for Council and industry engagement.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

11.03 Commercial Activities on Council-managed Land Policy

Councillor Dixon declared a Non-Pecuniary, Significant Interest in this matter and left the room and was out of sight during the Council's consideration, the time being 8:00pm.

RESOLVED: Levido/Griffiths

That Council:

1. Note the recent review of the Commercial Activities on Council-managed Land Policy.

2. Place on public exhibition Commercial Activities on Council-managed Land Policy commencing from 24 February 2017 to 23 March 2017 for a minimum of 28 days.

3. Note that a further report is planned to be tabled at the 19 April 2017 meeting of Council, detailing the submissions received from the public during the exhibition period.

carried: 8/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Dixon returned to the meeting, the time being 08:04pm.

12.01 DA2013 - 625.4 - Modification to Design of Previous Approved Medical Centre Including Clause 4.6 Objection to Clause 4.3 (Height Of Buildings) Of The Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Lot 180 DP 1197447, 8 Highfields Circuit, Port Macquarie

RESOLVED: Levido/Cusato

That the determination of DA2013 - 625.4 for a modification to design of previous approved medical centre including Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.3 (height of buildings) of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 180 DP 1197447, 8 Highfields Circuit, Port Macquarie, be noted.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

12.02 DA2016 - 0657.1 - Residential Flat Building with Strata Subdivision Including Clause 4.6 Variation to Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 2 & 3 DP 18259 and Lot 1 & 2 DP 1454, 52-58 Church Street, Port Macquarie

RESOLVED: Intemann/Cusato

That the determination of DA2016 - 657.1 for a residential flat building with strata subdivision including Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.3 (height of buildings) of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 2 & 3 DP 1454 and Lot 1 & 2 DP 1454, No. 52-58 Church Street, Port Macquarie, be noted.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Item - 12.03 DA2016 - 774.1 Multi Dwelling Housing And 1 Into 13 Lot Strata Subdivision At Lot 3 DP 634929, No. 1096 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills - has been moved to another part of the document.

12.04 DA2016 - 0798.1 - Demolition Of Existing Dwelling And Construction Of New Dwelling Including Clause 4.6 Variation To Clause 4.3 (Height Of Buildings) And Clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) Of The Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 At Lot 78 DP 232885, 28 Dent Crescent, Port Macquarie.

RESOLVED: Intemann/Turner

That the determination of DA2016 - 798.1 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling including Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.3 (height of building) and Clause 4.4 (floor space ratio) of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 78 DP 232885, 28 Dent Crescent, Port Macquarie, be noted.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Item - 13.01 Building Better Regions Fund - Round 1 Funding Applications - has been moved to another part of the document.

13.02 Asset Management Policy

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Intemann

That Council:

1. Place on public exhibition from 24 February 2017 until 25 March 2017 (28 days) the draft Asset Management Policy.

2. Note that a further report will be tabled at the April 2017 meeting of Council, detailing the submissions received from the public during this exhibition period.

3. Request the General Manager table the Asset Management Policy at the February 2017 Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, with the views of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee being included with other submissions in the further report on the Asset Management Policy to be tabled at the April 2017 meeting of Council.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

13.03 Stormwater Drainage - Risks and Opportunities

RESOLVED: Levido/Turner

That Council:

1. Note the documented significant risks associated with the maintenance and management of the Public Stormwater Drainage Network.

2. Give consideration to an annual allocation of $215,000 as part of the Operational Budget commencing in 2017/18 for the establishment of a Stormwater Cleaning, CCTV and Condition Assessment Team, including 2 new staff and specialist plant and equipment to enable the expansion and continuation of the CCTV and Condition Assessment program commenced in 2015/16.

3. Give consideration to an annual allocation of $1,000,000 as part of the Operational Budget towards the commencement of a stormwater renewals program commencing 2017/18. This allocation includes the creation of a new Stormwater Renewals Operational Crew consisting of a Team Leader, Plant Operator and Labourer and associated plant and equipment to facilitate the physical stormwater renewal works.

4. Request the General Manager develop and implement a proactive maintenance program for the maintenance of Open Drains and Gross Pollution Traps,

5. Give consideration to an annual allocation of $60,000 as part of the Operational Budget and commencing in 2017/18 towards the development and implementation of a proactive maintenance plan for Council’s Drainage Reserves and Stormwater Basins.

6. Request the Water, Sewer and Stormwater Portfolio to continue to investigate a revised funding model for stormwater capital works for consideration as part of the 2018/19 and future Operational Plans to address the risks associated with the management of Council’s Stormwater Network.

7. Request the General Manager make a further detailed submission to the Minister for Local Government for a 100% increase to the current stormwater levy, levied pursuant to Local Government Amendment (Stormwater) Act, 2005.

carried: 8/1

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Griffiths

13.04 Reclassification of Land for Hastings Regional Sports Complex

RESOLVED: Levido/Cusato

That Council:

1. Give public notice of its intention to classify Lot 52 DP1035553, Lots 11 & 12 DP855941 and Lot 2 DP1118155 (land situated on the corner of Oxley Highway and Stoney Creek Road, Wauchope) as “community land”, concurrent with the exhibition of the draft planning proposal to permit the land to be used as a multi-use regional sports and recreation precinct.

2. Note that a further report will be presented to Council following the exhibition period, outlining details of any submissions received.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

13.05 Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Administrative Review [PP2016-7]

Councillor Levido declared a Non-Pecuniary, Significant Interest in this matter and left the room and was out of sight during the Council's consideration, the time being 8:12pm.

RESOLVED: Intemann/Griffiths

That Council:

1. Prepare a draft planning proposal as described in this report, pursuant to section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for the amendment of the provisions of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, in relation to the 15 Issues, as generally described in this report.

2. Forward the draft planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, and exhibit the proposal in accordance with that determination, pursuant to sections 56 - 58 of the Act.

3. Request that the Director General of the Department of Planning & Environment issue a Written Authorisation to Council to Exercise Delegation of the plan making functions under section 59 of the Act in respect of the planning proposal.

carried: 8/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann and Turner

Against: Nil

Councillor Levido returned to the meeting, the time being 8:14pm.

13.06 Planning Controls Over Signage in Public Areas - Post-Exhibition Review

RESOLVED: Dixon/Cusato

That Council:

1. Take the necessary steps under sections 58 and 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 42), relating to signage in public areas.

2. In relation to the submission, advise that the matters raised will be considered in relation to the details of the Town and Village signage to be considered at a future Council meeting.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

13.07 Deed of Variation - Laurieton Residential Resort Planning Agreement

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Levido

That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to determine and execute the Laurieton Residential Resort Planning Agreement Deed of Variation.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

13.08 Sienna Grange Residential Aged Care Facility Planning Agreement

RESOLVED: Intemann/Dixon

That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into and execute the Sienna Grange Residential Aged Care Facility Planning Agreement on behalf of Council incorporating amendments referred to in the report.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Item - 13.09 Optimising Utilisation of Port Macquarie Sports Fields - has been moved to another part of the document.

14 QUESTIONS FOR NEXT MEETING

14.01 Quarries in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area

Question from Councillor Cusato:

1. Does Council undertake or is Council planning to undertake investigations into the availability of quarry material within the Local Government Area for use on our unsealed road network?

2. Does Council have plans to reopen, lease or acquire sites for the purpose of ensuring there is adequate supplies of quarry materials, like gravel and rock, for our road building and infrastructure needs into the future?

Comments by Councillor (if provided):

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RESOLVED: Levido/Turner

1. That pursuant to section 10A subsections 2 & 3 and 10B of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended), the press and public be excluded from the proceedings of the Council in Confidential Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) on the basis that items to be considered are of a confidential nature.

2. That Council move into Confidential Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) to receive and consider the following items:

Item 15.01 T-16-48 Wrights Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan

This item is considered confidential under Section 10A(2)(d(i)) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

Item 15.02 T-16-56 Flynns Beach Seawall Construction (Stage 1)

Item 15.03 T-16-59 Pavement Rejuvenation Services

Item 15.04 Sewer Main Construction - Links Crescent to Elkhorn Grove Cul-De-Sac

This item is considered confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Item 15.05 T-17-01 Design Services for Hastings Regional Sporting Complex - Stoney Creek Road, Wauchope

3. That the resolutions made by the Council in Confidential Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) be made public as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the Closed Session and such resolutions be recorded in the Minutes of the Council Meeting.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

Adjourn meeting

The Ordinary Council Meeting adjourned at 8:14pm.

Resume meeting

The Ordinary Council Meeting resumed at 8:18pm.

ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RESOLVED: Alley/Dixon

That the undermentioned recommendations from Confidential Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) be adopted:

Item 15.01 T-16-48 Wrights Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Accept the tender from WMA Water Pty Ltd for $114,060 (exclusive of GST) for the Wrights Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

2. Affix the seal of Council to the necessary documents.

3. Maintain the confidentiality of the documents and considerations in respect of Tender T-16-48.

Item 15.02 T-16-56 Flynns Beach Seawall Construction (Stage 1)

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. In accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 clause 178 (1) (b), decline to accept any of the tenders submitted for T-16-56 Flynns Beach Seawall Construction (Stage 1) as none of the tenders offered an appropriate functional outcome within the funding currently available for the project.

2. Consider a design criteria review of the current seawall solution and/or undertake further investigations into alternative technologies to achieve a more cost effective solution whilst attaining comparable functional outcomes.

3. Consider investigating alternative funding sources to achieve a minimum initial functional stage of the current seawall design.

4. Upon confirmation of a revised scope and/or an increase in project budget, invite fresh tenders based on the revised details.

5. Maintain the confidentiality of the documents and considerations in respect of Tender T-16-56.

Item 15.03 T-16-59 Pavement Rejuvenation Services

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Accept the quotations, through Local Government Procurement contract, Bitumen, Emulsions and Asphalt Materials and Services (LGP213) , from the following suppliers to be appointed to a panel of suppliers for Pavement Rejuvenation Services for the period 16 February 2017 to 27 February 2018. Noting no available extension.

a. Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

b. Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd

c. SRS Roads

2. Accept the Schedule of Rates from Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd and SRS Roads.

3. Maintain the confidentiality of the documents and considerations in respect of Tender T-16-59.

Item 15.04 Sewer Main Construction - Links Crescent to Elkhorn Grove Cul-De-Sac

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the information contained in the Sewer Main Construction - Links Crescent to Elkhorn Grove Cul-De-Sac report.

2. In accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act, 1993, due to the extenuating circumstances and unavailability of reliable and competitive tenders, as described in this report, does not invite tenders for the construction of a sewer main from Links Crescent to Elkhorn Grove cul-de-sac, as a satisfactory result would not be achieved.

3. Delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into an agreement for construction of the gravity sewer main, subject to the negotiated cost being generally in accordance with Council’s estimate.

Item 15.05 T-17-01 Design Services for Hastings Regional Sporting Complex - Stoney Creek Road, Wauchope

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. In accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 clause 178 (1) (b), decline to accept any of the tenders submitted for Tender T-17-01 Design Services for the Hastings Regional Sporting Complex at Stoney Creek Road, Wauchope due to the potential need to refine the scope of works;

2. Decline to invite fresh tenders and enter into negotiations with all tenderers that have submitted conforming tenders for Tender T-17-01, with a view to obtaining improved value for money submissions based on the refined scope of works; and

3. Maintain the confidentiality of the documents and considerations in respect of Tender T-17-01.

carried: 9/0

For: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

Against: Nil

The meeting closed at 8:18pm.

………………………………………..

Peter Besseling

Mayor

AGENDA Ordinary Council 15/03/2017

Item: 05

Subject: DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

RECOMMENDATION

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

Name of Meeting: ………………………………………………………………………..

Meeting Date: ………………………………………………………………………..

Item Number: ………………………………………………………………………..

Subject: ………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………….……………...…..

I, ..................................................................................... declare the following interest:

Pecuniary:

Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

Non-Pecuniary - Significant Interest:

Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

Non-Pecuniary - Less than Significant Interest:

May participate in consideration and voting.

For the reason that: ....................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................

Name: …………………………………………………….

Signed: ......................................................................... Date: ..................................

(Further explanation is provided on the next page)

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

A conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that a Council official could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out their public duty. Interests can be of two types: pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

All interests, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary are required to be fully disclosed and in writing.

Pecuniary Interest

A pecuniary interest is an interest that a Council official has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the Council official. (section 442)

A Council official will also be taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if that Council official’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the Council official or a partner or employer of the Council official, or a company or other body of which the Council official, or a nominee, partner or employer of the Council official is a member, has a pecuniary interest in the matter. (section 443)

The Council official must not take part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting. The Council official must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or at any time during which the council is voting on any question in relation to the matter. (section 451)

Non-Pecuniary

A non-pecuniary interest is an interest that is private or personal that the Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act.

Non-pecuniary interests commonly arise out of family, or personal relationships, or involvement in sporting, social or other cultural groups and associations and may include an interest of a financial nature.

The political views of a Councillor do not constitute a private interest.

The management of a non-pecuniary interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest, but it involves:

(a) A relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the Council official or of the Council official’s spouse, current or former spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household.

(b) Other relationships that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship.

(c) An affiliation between a Council official an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

If a Council official declares a non-pecuniary significant interest it must be managed in one of two ways:

1. Remove the source of the conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

2. Have no involvement in the matter, by taking no part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting, as if the provisions in section 451(2) apply.

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

If a Council official has declared a non-pecuniary less than significant interest and it does not require further action, they must provide an explanation of why they consider that the conflict does not require further action in the circumstances.

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

[insert full name of councillor]

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

PECUNIARY INTEREST

Address of land in which councillor or an associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified land)ⁱ

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 Councillor has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of a mortgage, lease trust, option or contract, or otherwise).

 Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 Associated company or body of councillor has interest in the land.

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject landⁱⁱⁱ

[Tick or cross one box]

 The identified land.

 Land that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.

Current zone/planning control

[Insert name of current planning instrument and identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

Proposed change of zone/planning control

[Insert name of proposed LEP and identify proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Tick or cross one box]

 Appreciable financial gain.

 Appreciable financial loss.

Councillor’s Name: …………………………………………

Councillor’s Signature: ………………………………. Date: ………………..

Important Information

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993. You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular. Complaints made about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal.

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in respect of which the special disclosure is being made. The completed form must be tabled at the meeting. Everyone is entitled to inspect it. The special disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

i. Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relative^iv or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

ii. Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448 of that Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge).

iii. A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest..

iv. Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.02

Subject: Status of Reports From Council Resolutions

Presented by: Corporate and Organisational Services, Rebecca Olsen

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.4.3 Build trust and improve Council’s public reputation through transparency and accountability.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the information in the Status of Reports from Council Resolutions report.

Discussion

Report	Status	Reporting Officer	Original Anticipated Date for Report	Current Anticipated Date for Report
Lake Cathie Coastal Management Development Control Plan - post exhibition (Item 12.04 - OC 14/12/16)	Refer to report titled: Lake Cathie Coastal Management Development Control Plan (DCP) Provisions - Public Exhibition Submissions Report	DDES		Mar 2017
Opportunities for Local Firms to do Business with Council (Item 11.01 - OC 16/11/16)	Refer to report titled: Opportunities for Local Firms to do Business with Council	DCOS		Mar 2017
ICT Strategy Implementation Status (Item 09.06 - OC 14/12/16)	Refer to report titled: ICT Strategy Implementation Status	DCOS		Mar 2017
Amendment to 2016-2017 Fees and Charges - post exhibition (Item 09.10 - OC 14/12/16)	Refer to report titled: Amendment to 2016-2017 Fees and Charges	DCOS		Mar 2017
Operational Land Classification - Lots 87 & 89 DP 1219489 Boltwood Way, Thrumster - post exhibition (Item 13.01 - OC 14/12/16)	Refer to report titled: Classification of Public Land - Lots 87 and 89 Deposited Plan 1219489, Boltwood Way, Thrumster	DCOS		Mar 2017
Draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan - post exhibition (Item 13.08 - OC 14/12/16)	Refer to report titled: Draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan - Consideration of Submissions and Adoption	DDES		Mar 2017
QFPM - Quarries in PMH LGA (Item 14.01 - OC 15/02/17)	Refer to report titled: Question From Previous Meeting - Quarries in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area	DIAM		Mar 2017
Cultural Plan 2016-2019 - Progress Report (Item 10.03 - OC 10/08/16)		DCEG		Apr 2017
Cultural Steering Group Membership EOI (Item 09.14 - OC 15/02/17)		DCEG		Apr 2017
Economic Development Steering Group - membership. (Item 09.15 - OC 15/02/17)		DCEG		Apr 2017
Commercial Activities on Council-managed Land Policy - post exhibition (Item 11.03 - OC 15/02/17)		DCEG		Apr 2017
Asset Management Policy - post exhibition (Item 11.02 - OC 15/02/17)		DIAM		Apr 2017
Town and Village Signage (Item 13.08 - OC 16/11/16)		DCEG		Apr 2017
Draft Structure Plan for the Greater Sancrox Area - consideration/investigations of potential urban capability/serviceability / capacity of lands between Oxley Highway to north, Pacific Highway to west and Houston Mitchell Drive to south and viability of rural residential development in the Greater Sancrox area. (Item 13.07 - OC 18/02/15)	Delayed to align with UGMS report.	DDES	Dec 2016	May 2017
Water Fluoridation - request for detailed information on studies and programs. (Item 10.01 - OC 15/07/15)	Awaiting further information from NSW Health.	DIAM	Nov 2016	May 2017
Sancrox Employment Land Environmental Lands and Services Planning Agreement - post public exhibition. (Item 12.04 - OC 10/08/16)	There are delays with the acquisition process	DDES	Feb 2017	May 2017
Contaminated Land Policy and Guidelines - post exhibition. (Item 10.01 - OC 15/02/17)		DDES		May 2017
Planning Proposal for Residential Infill and Environmental Purposes - Lincoln Road, Castle Court and Marian Drive, Port Macquarie - post exhibition (Item 13.08 - OC 20/07/16)	In negotiations with proponent regarding zone and off-set outcomes	DDES	Oct 2016	Jun 2017
Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter Review (Item 09.04 - OC 16/11/16)		DCOS	Mar 2016	Jun 2017
Impact of Road Openings and Closures on Private Property (Item 12.03 - OC 18/09/13)	To be included in overall review of roads policies. Information still being sought.	DIAM	Mar 2015	Jun 2017
a) Report on progress against the adopted Recreation Action Plan 2015-2025. b) Propose an updated implementation plan that incorporates additional priorities identified in the Optimising Utilisation of Port Macquarie Sports Fields report. (Item 13.09 - OC 15/02/17)		DCEG		Jul 2017
Planning Proposal - Homedale Road Kew - post exhibition (Item 13.07 - OC 14/12/16)		DDES		Oct 2017
Project Management Policy - implementation, operation and effectiveness to date incorporating the views of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. (Item 09.03 - OC 15/02/17)		DCOS		Nov 2017
Draft Biodiversity Certification Assessment and Strategy - Port Macquarie Airport and Surrounding Land - viability and implications of the options for securing the required Blackbutt Tallowwood dry grassy open forest and Koala habitat credits, prior to the clearing that creates the demand for those credits. (Item 12.01 - OC 10/08/16)		DDES		TBA
Classification of Land - Lot 5 DP774400 Stingray Creek Bridge Environmental Offset (Item 12.01 - OC 16/11/16)		DCOS		TBA
Planning Controls for Short Term Rental Accommodation Report on findings and recommendations arising from the Inquiry ‘Adequacy of the regulation of short-term holiday letting in NSW’. (Item 13.07 - OC 16/03/16)	Pending government response to the inquiry.	DDES		TBA
Tuffins Lane Sporting Fields - Terms of Agreement (Item 06.02 - OC 14/12/16)		GM		TBA
Short-Term Holiday Letting - post release of NSW Government response to Inquiry ‘Adequacy of the regulation of short-term holiday letting in NSW’. (Item 12.03 - OC 14/12/16)		DDES		TBA
Port Macquarie Town Centre Pedestrian Facility Investigations - post community engagement (Item 13.05 - OC 14/12/16)		DIAM		TBA
Reclassification Of Land For Hastings Regional Sports Complex - post exhibition. (Item 13.04 - OC 15/02/17)		DCOS		TBA

Cyclic Reports

Report	Reporting Officer	Reporting Cycle
Monthly Financial Update	DCOS	Monthly
Investments	DCOS	Monthly
Mayoral Discretionary Fund Allocations	GM	Monthly
Development Activity and Assessment System Performance	DDES	Quarterly (May, Aug, Nov, Feb)
Glasshouse Strategic Plan Update	DCOS	Biannual (Feb, Aug)
Delivery Program - Progress Report	DCEG	Biannual (Mar, Sept)
Operational Plan - Progress Report	DCEG	Biannual (May, Oct)
Economic Development Strategy - Progress Report (Item 10.03 - ORD 20/11/2013)	DCEG	Biannual (June, Dec)
Mayoral and Councillor Fees (Setting of)	GM	Annually (June)
MIDROC Strategic Plan 2013-2017 Outcomes (Item 08.03 - ORD 21/08/2013)	GM	Annually (July)
Council Policy - Status Report	DCOS	Annually (July)
Recreation Action Plan	DCEG	Annually (July)
Annual Report of the Activities of the Mayor’s Sporting Fund	DCEG	Annually (Aug)
Compliments and Complaints Annual Report	DCEG	Annually (Sep)
Council Meeting Dates	GM	Annually (Sept)
Creation of Office - Deputy Mayor	GM	Annually (Sept)
Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors Policy for Exhibition	DCOS	Annually (Sept)
Audit Committee Annual Report	DCOS	Annually (Sept)
Annual Report of Disability Discrimination Act Action Plan	DCEG	Annually (Sep)
Annual Disclosure of Interest Returns	GM	Annually (Oct)
Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors Policy for Adoption	DCOS	Annually (Nov)
Council’s Annual Report	DCEG	Annually (Nov)
Update Report - Impact of cost shifting for the previous financial year including any additional categories of cost-shifting that have been identified (Item 09.04 - OC 21/10/15)	DCOS	Annually (Nov)

Attachments

Nil

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.06

Subject: Monthly Financial Review for February 2017

Presented by: Corporate and Organisational Services, Rebecca Olsen

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.4.2 Manage Council’s financial assets, and provide accurate, timely and reliable financial information for management purposes and provide plain English community reporting.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the adjustments in the “Financial and Economic Implications” section of the Monthly Financial Review Report for February 2017.

Executive Summary

This report will detail the monthly budget adjustments to 28 February 2017.

The Council adopted budget position as at 1 July 2016 was a shortfall of $840,219.

Adjustments made up to 31 January 2017 have reduced the shortfall position to a shortfall of $382,836. The budget adjustments for February 2017 contained within this report will improve the budget result to a surplus of $178,894.

Discussion

Monthly Budget Adjustments for February 2017

Each month, Council’s budgets are reviewed by Managers and Directors with any required adjustments reported. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an up to date view of the current actual financial position in comparison to the original adopted 2016-2017 budget along with the proposed movement of funds to accommodate any changes.

Monthly Budget Review Summary

Original Budget as at 1 July 2016	Shortfall	($840,219)
Plus adjustments:
July Review	Shortfall	($156,268)
August Review	Balanced	0
September Review	Surplus	$7,725
October Review	Surplus	$94,718
November Review	Surplus	$505,761
January Review	Surplus	$5,447
February Review	Surplus	$561,730
Forecast budget position for 30 June 2017	Surplus	$178,894

February 2017 Adjustments

The following adjustments reflect the budget adjustments included in this report that impact Council’s budget position:

Item	Surplus/ Shortfall	Amount	Comment
Interest on Investments - General Fund	Surplus	$1,036,575	This adjustment is to reflect the expected general fund interest on investments (including S94 interest) to the end of the financial year. For a detailed breakup of the investments and interest income against benchmark see the investment report in this agenda.
Grants Operating - Pensioner Subsidy - General Fund	Shortfall	($14,945)	The general fund pensioner subsidy is a little less than expected. As this subsidy is applied for only once a year there are variations between the years due to timing.
Transfer to S94 Restricted Asset	Shortfall	($130,000)	The increased interest on investments shown above includes additional interest on S94 funds. This interest has to be transferred to the S94 restricted asset to be spent on projects within the S94 plans.
General Rates - Extra Charges	Shortfall	($154,900)	Increased debt recovery action has reduced the amount of interest and extra charges earned on outstanding rates.
Albert Street Bridge Replacement	Shortfall	($175,000)	Additional funding is required for this project due to unfavorable ground conditions being determined during the design phase of the project.
Total	Surplus	$561,730

The following adjustments reflect budget movements as a result of over-expenditure reviews, transfers between accounts, grant funding, transfer from reserves and additional receipts etc that have no impact on the budget position (for example additional income has an associated expenditure budget):

Description	Notes	Funding Source	Amount
Reserve Transfers	1	Reserves	$1,797,906
Transfers between accounts	2	Revenue/Reserve	$80,000
Total			$1,877,906

The following are included in the February 2017 adjustments:

1. Numerous reserve transfers have occurred due to additional restricted income and additional reserve expenditure.

General Fund

- $200,000 has been transferred from the property reserve and allocated to the Partridge Creek Residential Development at Thrumster - This budget is consistent with OP action 3.2.5.

- $173,682 transferred from S94 reserve and allocated to Hastings River Drive - Gordon to Aston, to cover additional drainage clearance work undertaken in conjunction with this project on the northern side of Findlay Park.

General fund transfers from reserves total $373,682.

Domestic Waste

- Domestic Waste Annual Charges - This budget has been increased by $570,948 to reflect the expected annual charges income to the end of the financial year. Adjustments to annual charges income are ongoing due to supplementary levies and growth.

- Interest on Investments - Waste Fund - Additional income from investments of $170,000 is expected within the waste fund to the end of the financial year.

All additional waste income is transferred to the waste reserves for future expenditure on waste projects. The additional transfer due to these adjustments is $740,948.

Sewer

- Sewer Annual Charges - This budget has increased by $386,432 to reflect the expected sewer annual charge income to the end of the financial year. As with waste, adjustments to annual charge income is ongoing due to supplementary levies and growth.

- Interest on Investments - Sewer Fund - Additional income from investments of $400,000 is expected within the sewer fund to the end of the financial year. This includes interest on S64 deposits.

- Sewer Extra Charges - Increased debt recovery action has reduced the amount of interest and extra charges earned on outstanding rates within the sewer fund by $19,000.

- Pensioner Rates Subsidy - This subsidy is applied for once a year only so timing can cause variations in the amount from year to year. For 2016-17 the actual subsidy received for sewer fund is lower than budget by $6,100.

All additional sewer income is transferred to the sewer fund reserves for future expenditure on sewer projects. The additional transfer due to these adjustments is $761,332.

Water

- Interest on Investments - Water Fund - Additional income from investments of $700,000 is expected within the water fund to the end of the financial year. This includes interest on S64 deposits.

- Pensioner Rates Subsidy - This subsidy is applied for once a year only so timing can cause variations in the amount from year to year. For 2016/17 the actual subsidy received for water fund is lower than budget by $30,692.

All additional water income is transferred to the water fund reserves for future expenditure on water projects. The additional transfer due to these adjustments is $669,308.

2. To better control the design funding budget it has been dissected into individual projects.

- Design of Carparking upgrade at Garden Crescent $20,000

- Preconstruction and design update of Albert St Bridge in Kendall $40,000

- Design of driveway and verge re-profiling - Verdal Place, King Creek $10,000

- Design of driveway and verge re-profiling - Morrish Street, Port Macquarie $10,000

The funding above has been transferred from;-

Additional Design Works $60,000

Stormwater Remediation Designs $20,000

It should also be noted that:

- Any overspends greater than $50,000 and 2% of the project budget are reviewed and approved by the Executive Group, being their function to oversee operational activities and approve operational actions.

- Any potential gains in interest income have not been taken into consideration into these calculations.

Options

Council may adopt the recommendation as proposed or amend as required.

Planning & Policy Implications

There are no planning and policy implications.

Financial & Economic Implications

Attached to the report for information is each individual budget adjustment by Division and Section. The budget movements within this report have improved the budget result to a surplus position of $178,894.

Responsible Accounting Officer Statement

The approved budget shortfall for 2016-2017 after the January 2017 Council meeting was a shortfall of $382,836. The adjustments in this report have improved this position to a surplus of $178,894. The surplus position is considered a satisfactory result for the year.

Attachments

1 View. February 2017 Budget Review

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.07

Subject: Investments - February 2017

Presented by: Corporate and Organisational Services, Rebecca Olsen

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.4.2 Manage Council’s financial assets, and provide accurate, timely and reliable financial information for management purposes and provide plain English community reporting.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the Investment Report for the month of February 2017.

Executive Summary

· Total funds invested as at 28 February 2017 equals $238,938,571.

· Year-to-date investment income of $4,880,042 is 111.96% of the total annual investment income budget of $4,358,600.

· In line with Council’s Investment Policy, the total portfolio has performed above benchmark levels.

Discussion

Overview

Councils (including Port Macquarie-Hastings Council) provide a broad range of services and associated infrastructure to their communities.

These services include (but are not limited to) the following:

- Water and Sewer services;

- Waste services;

- Port Macquarie Regional Airport;

- Cemeteries;

- Roads and Bridges;

- Various Recreation and Cultural facilities.

The Port Macquarie-Hastings area is a high growth centre of the North Coast region and is expected to accommodate a significant proportion of regional growth over the next two decades. The population will grow from 79,114 in 2016 to 102,926 in 2036. As a consequence of this growth, Council must not only provide services to the existing community and maintain existing assets, but Council must also plan for future maintenance and capital expenditure on the infrastructure that will be needed to support the community, business and visitors to the area into the future.

Council holds cash reserves as an alternative to (or to supplement) borrowing. As at June 2016, Council held $214 million in cash and reserves. Predominantly, these reserves are all allocated for specific purposes, with 70% of these reserves legally only being able to be used for the purpose for which they were collected (for example for water and sewer). The remaining reserves are also predominantly held for specific purposes (for example, for the development of the Airport, or to fund projects which have already commenced). The balances of these reserves are audited annually and published in Council’s financial statements.

The level of reserves held by Port Macquarie-Hastings Council is not disproportionate to other similar Councils, noting that different Council’s provide different services. Not all Councils provide Water and Sewer services for example which require significant capital investment.

The balances of these reserves are invested until such time as they are required. This report details how Council invests these reserves to ensure the appropriate balance between risk and financial return (through interest).

Current Investments

Council is required to undertake investments in accordance with section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993. This report provides details of Council’s investments, and certifies that all funds that Council has invested as at 28 February 2017, comply with this Act.

All investments have been made in accordance with the Act and Regulations, and Council’s Investment Policy.

As at 28 February 2017, the investments held by Council totalled $238,937,571 were attributed to the following funds:

Whilst the current level of investments remain high, these largely relate to funds which have legal restrictions (for example water and sewer), or for funds held for specific purposes.

These funds may be spent in the shorter or longer term depending on the required timing of future works. The totals will fluctuate dependent on the status of individual projects.

Investments by Fund - as at 28 February 2017

Portfolio Performance

· Council’s total investment portfolio performance as at 28 February 2017 was 1.18% above the benchmark (3.13% against 1.95%). Benchmark being the Bank Bill reference rate as at 27 February 2017 in the Australian Financial Review published 1 March 2017.

· The total year-to-date investment income of $4,880,042 is 111.96% of the total annual budget of $4,358,600.

The year-to-date actual reflects total earning including both cash and accruals.

Investment Portfolio Mix

Council’s current portfolio is made up of cash and term deposits. The total term deposits represent 90.78% of the total investment portfolio. As at 28 February 2017, the total investment portfolio was $238,938,571 which is up from $231,510,481 as at the end of January 2017. This consists of term deposits of $216,900,000 and cash $22,038,571.

Term Deposits - Current month $216,900,000 - Prior month $215,900,000

Council’s Investment Policy identifies the maximum amounts that can be invested in term deposits within the various maturity constraints and the amounts which can be held with various institutions based on their respective credit ratings.

Council’s current term deposit portfolio mix as at 28 February 2017 is as follows:

Table 1 - Term to Maturity

This table shows the amounts invested by various maturity profiles. These are in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy:

Table 2 - Overall Portfolio Credit Framework

The institutions that Council invests with have credit ratings. Council policy specifies limits that can be invested within each rating band. These limits are to help avoid over exposure in any rating category. The table below groups the amounts held with various institutions based on their respective credit ratings, and compares the total to the maximum limit set for each credit rating category. Investments are within policy.

These tables show the total amount held for Council’s term deposits as at 28 February 2017.

Credit Unions are regarded as ADI’s (Authorised Deposit Taking Institutions) and generally do not have ratings. Under the regulation of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), all ADI’s have to meet the same requirements in terms of capital adequacy (how much capital they are required to hold), ensuring they don’t take on too much leverage and become insolvent. In addition, ADI’s are an eligible investment under the Minister’s Order.

Cash - Westpac Business Cash Reserve Account

Current month $22,038,571 - Prior month $15,610,481

This is not available unrestricted cash.

This is a maxi account which the Council uses as a cash management tool only. Funds are transferred in and out of this account daily prior to investment, given its higher rate of interest than the general payment account. Levels in this account vary dependent on the time of month and rate payer/creditor cycle. With a rate instalment due at the end of February, Council’s maxi account increased $10.8m in the final 5 days of the month.

Throughout the full month of February, $8 million in funds matured with $9 million in funds reinvested into term deposits.

It should be noted that funds currently within the Westpac Business Cash Reserve Account are attracting an interest rate of 2.2% being the current cash rate plus 0.7% (based on the cash rate drop on 3 August 2016), which performs better than the benchmark (1.95% 27 February 2017).

The largest sector of the portfolio is the term deposit allocation of $216,900,000 (last month $215,900,000) or 90.78% of the total.

Investment Portfolio by Maturity Date - as at 28 February 2017

*The investments highlighted in yellow in the table above are new investments for February 2017.

Options

This is an information report.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

Council uses the services of an independent financial advisor, on an as needs basis with investments. The investments placed this month were term deposits. At least three quotes were obtained from financial institutions in line with Council’s Investment Policy. The services of an independent financial advisor were not required. Council obtains regular updates regarding market activities positions from various institutions.

Planning & Policy Implications

There are no planning and policy implications.

Financial & Economic Implications

Benchmark and budget levels have been met on a year to date basis. On an annual basis, if benchmark levels are not reached, then this may result in budget cuts in other areas to fund the shortfall.

Council’s total investment portfolio performance for 28 February 2017 is 1.18% above the benchmark (3.13% against 1.95%) and year to-date income is 111.96% of the total annual budget.

It should be noted that investment income is noted as a gross amount. Section 97(5) of the Local Government Act 1993 indicates that any security deposit held with Council must be repaid with interest accrued. These security deposits will only relate to bonds held for security to make good damage done to works.

The overall investment income will be adjusted at financial year end by the total interest refunded on repayment of bonds. As Council constantly receives and refunds bonds, it is difficult to accurately determine the quantum of these refunds. This financial year to date Council has refunded bonds with an associated interest component of $33,541.94 which will be monitored and advised monthly.

Certification

I hereby certify that the investments listed within this report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Robyn Wilson

Responsible Accounting Officer

Attachments

Nil

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.09

Subject: ICT Strategy Implementation Status

Presented by: Corporate and Organisational Services, Rebecca Olsen

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.5.2 Provide and maintain efficient and effective information management systems that are accessible, user friendly and meet community and organisational requirements.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the information in the ICT Strategy Implementation Status report.

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held 14^th December 2016, Council resolved:

09.06 NOTICE OF MOTION – ICT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

RESOLVED: Hawkins/Levido

That the General Manager provide a report to the March 2017 Council Meeting on the status of the implementation of the ICT Strategy.

CARRIED: 9/0

FOR: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido, and Turner.

AGAINST: Nil

The following commentary was made by Councillor Hawkins:

Under the years Council functioned under an Administrator the ICT area of operations was severely cut back and, as a consequence, Council has long laboured under old systems, outdated infrastructure and software programs that did not efficiently and effectively interact with each other, much less seamlessly integrate. Furthermore, Council's ICT systems and architecture "hangover" has severely hampered the much needed move towards greater cloud based, mobile computing applications.

During 2015 - 2016 Council has progressed with this issue including an ongoing program of significant investment - both in terms of staff, dollars and organisational prioritisation.

The primary reason underlying the above is that ICT is - rightly - seen as one of the most critical enablers of Council's drive to achieving greater efficiency and return for the ratepayers buck.

In this context, I am seeking from the report:

1. A general overview of the critical issues identified.

2. Details of the steps taken to date to address those issues.

3. A summary of the current issues being addressed (and/or scheduled to be addressed) in the current financial year and in 2017/18.

4. A high level, strategic summary of the key anticipated issues likely to be addressed over the remaining term of the current Council.

5. Lastly, a summary of the anticipated key efficiencies and overall benefits that are expected to flow from these initiatives.

This report seeks to satisfy the recommendation of the December 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

Discussion

Critical Issues Identified

The Information & Communications Technology (ICT) department is responsible for designing, delivering and supporting unified communications, including integration of telecommunications (including wireless systems), computer hardware as well as necessary enterprise networks, software and applications, all of which enables Councils day to day business. The use of ICT should be seen by Council as a key strategic enabler, capable of achieving significant efficiency and productivity gains for our operations. Due to limited funding to support operating ICT at Council in previous years, equipment and software used to support the Council is largely outdated and unfit for modern business operations. This situation has developed over the past 8 years.

A review conducted in 2015 highlighted the situation and identified significant risks around Councils technology infrastructure, including network and server equipment, which is out of warranty, out of support, and considered end of asset life through the suppliers. The review also commented on critical issues around Council desktops, which continue to run outdated versions of software and old physical hardware.

Age of infrastructure and software has increased the risk around inability to support business continuity when/if required, reduced productivity of staff, and left Council unable to effectively move into modern computing environments, including field service mobility and Cloud technologies.

In 2015-2016, Council approved capital projects via the Operational Plan, which aimed to refresh all of Councils existing ICT infrastructure. This included expenditure of approx. $4.2 million over a number of years. This allocation of funding also requires some significant resource, focus and drive to transform ICT into the service that Council requires into the future.

In summary, the ICT review undertaken in 2015 found that:

- Current technology in use is no longer fit for purpose;

- There is significant risk around lack of investment within ICT;

- Capability to drive efficiencies and productivity is limited due to aged software and equipment;

- Security risks to data exists due to outdated security measures and firewalls;

- Network hardware is failing and has outdated architecture to support a large Council business.

- Software systems have not been upgraded for many years and don’t integrate to achieve critical data and business insights.

Current Issues Being Addressed and Steps Taken (FY17/18)

ICT Infrastructure:

To address the items within the 2015 report, Council has invested $4.2 million towards refreshing Councils ICT infrastructure. This refresh program has advanced considerably in late 2016 and a large proportion of work is completed which includes the following improvements:

- All of Councils Server and Storage infrastructure has been upgraded. This has included a reduction in physical servers to support modern “virtual” technologies. This will reduce future capital costs for new server hardware.

- Council’s core network, located at HQ and at the Sewer/Water Operations Centre (SWOC), has been upgraded. Significant bandwidth increases have been allowed for, which shall support future Cloud Computing initiatives.

- A new Disaster Recovery solution has been put in place, which allows for a complete recovery of Councils ICT systems between HQ and the SWOC.

- A new backup solution has been put in place to improve recoverability of Councils critical data and systems.

- Connected the new Council Lab located at the Port Macquarie CSU Campus.

- Upgrades to Councils microwave network have commenced, with a tender due to go to Council in April. This equipment supports connectivity of Councils buildings for staff access to IT systems and telephony.

- Upgrades to over 480 staff desktop and laptop computers has commenced. This will bring staff updated, modern, high performance desktops and productivity software.

- Access to the Internet is being upgraded from 50Mb to 400Mb. This supports greater access to future Cloud Computing initiatives, including improved access for Council WiFi systems, and allows for introduction of cost effective video conferencing solutions.

- Due to commence in April – Upgrade of all of Councils internal WiFi access points. These are located inside each of Councils staff facilities and will be an enabler for future staff mobile computing projects.

Corporate Applications

It is essential moving forward that the foundations for fit-for-purpose applications and software is implemented in 2017. Work has also commenced to support key productivity changes for staff and these include:

- Council has entered into a Microsoft Software Agreement to support introduction of enhanced cloud based productivity software. This includes future review of software which supports video conferencing, collaboration tools, and project management tools.

- An upgrade to Council’s financial, property & assets system, to the latest software release, has been scheduled for May 2017. This upgrade will support Councils effort to introduce modern mobile computing capability for staff, as well as allow Council to review options to automate business process and introduce improved workflows for common, human resource heavy, tasks.

- Upgrade to Councils document management system, to the latest software release. This action will allow Council to further its capability of managing its documents/records as well as introduce mobile (iPad, smart device) access to records in the field.

Future Items for remaining term of Council

ICT is currently working towards updating Councils ICT Strategy for 2017-2019. This is due to be drafted in April. It is expected that future strategic ICT initiatives require additional resources, as the shift from investment in infrastructure becomes an investment in corporate applications, cloud, data/analytics, and mobile computing. It should be noted that a Cloud approach for Council, requires a shift from a capital to an operating funding model.

So, while a number of future ICT projects to be undertaken over the remaining term of Council is not yet defined and resourced, a number of potential strategic initiatives over the next three (3) years may include a range of possible options. Potential initiatives for consideration could involve:-

- New approaches to systems integration;

- Review of current and potential systems;

- Increased automation and mobile solutions;

- Increased digital and “smart” solutions;

- Review of connectivity (for example using NBN) and

- Review of telephony systems.

Future Key Efficiencies and Benefits

While a number of potential future projects need to be fully funded and benefits realised over coming years, investment in future technology projects, aligned to business needs and customer requirements, will offer the Council a number of strategic and operational benefits. As technology will underpin most future Council initiatives, this list is not extensive, but highlights through the projects underway, and potential future projects, the very real benefits that may be realised by Council and investment in technology:

- Improvement in business performance and increase in staff productivity through improved system performance and availability of information;

- Reduction in back-office operational costs through introduction of system automation and digital workflows;

- Reduction in operational costs of items such as paper, mail and services associated with same;

- Reduction in future capital expense by moving ICT workloads and applications to the “Cloud”.

- Improve quality and speed of decision making through data/information analytics and real time reporting;

- Enhanced customer experience (in the front-office) with Council services through focused, customer-centric, digital and online services.

- Growth in collaboration and networking capabilities for staff, local business and state/federal governments;

- Enable the mobile workforce, reduce travel times, improve customer satisfaction with work completed;

- Reduction in infrastructure asset maintenance costs through digital and smart city technologies.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

Engagement with a range of Council business units has been undertaken over the delivery of outcomes to date. These include:

- General Managers Office

- Executive Management Team

- Group Managers

- Airport Staff

- Laboratory Staff

- Glasshouse Staff

- Crematorium Staff

- Operational Staff

Planning & Policy Implications

There are no planning and policy implications in relation to this report.

Financial & Economic Implications

There are no specific financial and economic implications in relation to this report. The current program is being delivered within existing allocated budgets and an allocation has been made to the draft 2017/2018 budget for continued works. Following development of the future ICT strategy, budget refinements may need to be made.

In support of delivering current ICT outcomes in FY16/17, the following tenders have been accepted via recent Council meetings.

- T-16-58 – Microsoft Enterprise Agreement - $723,591

- T-16-39 – Core Network Upgrade - $367,636

- T-16-41 – Network Switching Upgrade - $411,198

- T-16-40 – Upgrade of Servers and Storage - $612,507

- T-16-43 – Upgrade of Network Firewalls - $248,797

Attachments

Nil

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.10

Subject: Six Monthly Delivery Program 2013-2017 - Progress Report (July to December 2016)

Presented by: Corporate and Organisational Services, Rebecca Olsen

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.4.1 Engage with the community on impacts and changes of operations.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information in the six monthly Delivery Program 2013-2017 progress report (July to December 2016) be noted.

Executive Summary

Six monthly progress reports on the Delivery Program are a legislated requirement of the NSW Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.

The progress report lets Council and the community know the actions that have been taken relative to the objectives contained within the Delivery Program 2013-2017.

The Delivery Program progress report as attached is a reference document that can be used by Councillors and the community as an assessment of what is being delivered to the community. It provides information on achievements against set objectives and is a snapshot of Council’s progress in the final year of the 2013-2017 program.

Discussion

Delivery Program 2013-2017: six monthly progress report (July to December 2016)

The Delivery Program 2013-2017 was developed by Council within the legislated nine month timeframe, following elections in September 2012. It details objectives that are to be addressed over a four year period.

The document outlines the Councillors’ commitments to the Port Macquarie-Hastings community during their four year term of office. Objectives within the four year Delivery Program represent what the Council aims to deliver and they serve as a guide for Council executive and staff when developing the annual Operational Plan. The Operational Plan sets out the actions and activities that will be undertaken each financial year to deliver the overall objectives in the Delivery Program and ultimately contribute to achieving the vision and goals outlined in the long term Community Strategic Plan.

In a broad context, the Delivery Program represents the work Council is responsible for to meet the community’s aspirations for the future, as described in the long term Towards 2030 Community Strategic Plan.

By evaluating each six months the actions that have been carried out, Council and the community are able to see the progress made in achieving Delivery Program objectives.

The Delivery Program objectives are spread across five key areas:

· A Guiding Principle of Ensuring Good Governance

· Looking After Our People

· Helping Our Community Prosper

· Looking After Our Environment

· Planning and Providing Our Infrastructure

Each of the five themes in the current Delivery Program also contains a number of results statements describing the outcomes Council envisages will be achieved over the period.

This six monthly reporting phase relates to the four year Delivery Program 2013-2017 covering July to December 2016. It provides a snapshot of the fourth year of the Delivery Program implementation, assessing the 2016-2017 Operational Plan.

Snapshot of progress on key projects across the region

Wauchope/Rural

· Wauchope Pool upgrade construction nearing completion

· Designs complete for the replacement of Hyndmans Creek Bridge and Hartys Bridge on Comboyne Road

· Stage 2 Beechwood Road, reconstruction from Riverbreeze to Rosewood Road has project planning underway with design works commenced

· Stages 5 and 6 designs for Beechwood Road reconstruction (Riverbreeze to Waugh Street) is in progress

· Albert Street Bridge replacement has project planning underway

· O’Neills Bridge replacement on Batar Creek Road has project planning underway

· Bulli Creek Bridge replacement has project planning underway

· Tender documentation for provision of additional lighting at Lank Bain Sports Complex is currently being developed

Laurieton/Camden Haven

· Stingray Creek Bridge replacement is on target

· Southern Arm trunk main construction along Houston Mitchell Drive is ongoing

· Upgrades to the Kendall Booster Water Pump Station has the survey and design commenced

· Detailed designs complete for a ultra-violet system at the Bonny Hills Sewer Treatment Plant

· Detailed designs complete for upgrades at the Port Macquarie Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant

· Kew Transfer Station construction is underway

Port Macquarie

· Port Macquarie Indoor Stadium upgrade is nearing completion

· Wayne Richards Park Stage 3B detailed designs and approvals are underway with work commenced

· Lake and Blackbutt Road intersection upgrade is complete

· The environmental impact and concept study for Thrumster (Area 13) Sewerage Treatment Plant currently has the project plan under development

Progress Report Summary by Focus Area

Ensuring Good Governance

Results Statements

· The community actively participates in Council decision making.

· The community is experiencing benefits gained from Council working in alliance with all levels of Government.

· Effective and positive financial management is communicated to the community.

· The staff at Council enjoy a safe, inclusive and supportive environment.

Achievement Highlights

· Over 55 community engagement activities held including face to face and online interactions, encouraging the community to participate and provide input into Council decision making on a range of topics

· The Listening and Engaging with the Community and Taking the Council to the Community Programs have been delivered in Laurieton and Herons Creek

· Over 48,500 counter enquires and more than 53,000 calls were managed through Customer Services Offices with 92% handled at first point of contact

· There are over 2,950 registered users on Council’s engagement portal, PMHC Listening and over 5,360 social media followers, extending Council’s reach via online methods

· The annual Community Report Card was published providing an easy to read summary of Council’s achievements in 2015-2016

· Over 920 Development Applications, Constructions Certificates and Complying Development Certificates were determined within agreed processing times.

· Phase 3 of the Business Improvement Service Review Project is progressing and is on target.

Looking After Our People

Results Statements

· A range of activities, programs and events are supported or implemented for the multiple generations within our community.

· The community is empowered. It volunteers together to provide support, participates in community activities and uses facilities that are available.

· Community facilities, including sporting cultural and educational are maintained and improved.

Achievement Highlights

· Over 4,300 students participated in Beach Safety Education Programs

· Over 300 pool inspections completed exceeding the set target of 250

· NAIDOC Week supported

· A range of activities supported including Christmas on the Beach for socially isolated and disadvantaged people in the region

· Countdown to Christmas event held with over 8,000 people in attendance

· 9 Performing Arts events and thirteen Visual Arts events have been delivered at the Glasshouse

· Wayne Richards Sporting Talent Grant provided over $9,000 worth of financial assistance to young local athletes across a range of sports to further develop their sporting excellence

· The Imaginarium, a free-to-use studio featuring a wide range of recording equipment and software at Port Macquarie Library continues to be well used by people across the region

· Over 8,400 books have been added to Library resources across the region

Helping Our Community Prosper

Results Statements

· There is an increased opportunity to undertake tertiary study within the Port Macquarie-Hastings region.

· Airport usage is increasing.

· Business and industry sectors across the local government area are well supported and growing.

· Tourism visitation numbers are increasing.

Achievement Highlights

· The combined operating revenue for Council’s business units including Port Macquarie Airport, Innes Gardens Crematorium and the Glasshouse is 7% higher than the YTD data from the prior year

· Port Macquarie Historic Cemetery upgrade was completed

· Implementation of the Major Events Strategic Action Plan and the Greater Port Macquarie Destination Management Plan is ongoing

· The destination website redevelopment was completed

· The International Karting Distributors Rotax Pro Tour event was secured for the region

· 17 Major events were supported during July to December 2016, contributing a combined total of $5.2 million to the local economy

· Tastings on Hastings event held with over 115 exhibitors and more than 20,000 people in attendance, generating an estimated $620,000 in direct visitor spending

· Over 2,600 aircraft movements and more than 115,000 passengers were recorded at the airport

· Airport Master Plan implementation commenced and is ongoing for the next key stages of development including the $7.5M upgrade of the passenger terminal building

Looking After Our Environment

Results Statements

· We have healthy functioning bushland ecosystems, clean waterways and beaches that are rich in biodiversity.

· There is increased recycling and waste reduction across the local government area.

· There is increased usage of reclaimed water across the local government area.

· Our sewerage system is efficient and environmentally compliant.

Achievement Highlights

· 20% of all plant nurseries in the local government area have been inspected for invasive weeds

· The Weed Management Program has seen over 1,350kms of weed dispersal routes treated, over 280ha of land treated for invasive weeds and more than 55 properties inspected for invasive weeds

· The Bushland Regeneration Program has resulted in 600ha of public bushland reserves regenerated across the region

· The Development Assessment Panel has provided a transparent and efficient legislative process with no reported successful legal appeals recorded

· Waste education programs targeting general waste reduction and increasing recycling and organic/full food waste recycling under development

· Construction of Kew Transfer Station is underway

· The Draft Biodiversity Strategy has been completed

Planning and Providing Our Infrastructure

Results Statements

· Open space and recreational facilities are well maintained.

· A focus is on improving transport assets through structured maintenance programs.

· Planning and design for future projects are completed a year ahead for transport, water, sewer, stormwater and parks and recreation assets.

Achievement Highlights

· Designs complete for the replacement of Hyndmans Creek Bridge and Hartys Bridge on Comboyne Road

· Walkway designs from Town Beach to Kooloonbung Creek complete

· Construction of Stingray Creek Bridge replacement on target

· Construction commenced on the shared pathway between Miala Street and Lake Cathie Medical Centre

· Over 500 meters of footpath has been construction in Port Macquarie, Kendall and Wauchope as part of the footpath/cycleway program

· Lake and Blackbutt Road intersection upgrade is complete

· Project planning underway for design and replacement of Bulli Creek Bridge

· Road resurfacing and rehabilitation works and the Unsealed Road Maintenance Program are on target

· Port Macquarie Indoor Stadium upgrade is nearing completion

· Stage 2 upgrade of the boat ramp at Westport Reserve is complete

· Construction of public toilets at Town Beach (north) is complete

· Park and playground upgrades across the region, along with park furniture replacements and the Walkway replacement program are in progress

· Planning amendments for neighbourhood planning at Thrumster (Area 13) has the detailed project plan prepared

· Wauchope Pool upgrade nearing completion

· Wayne Richards Park Stage 3B detailed designs and approvals are underway with work commenced

· Maintenance works for water and sewer plants were undertaken and continuously monitored in line with adopted programs

· Construction of the Southern Arm trunk main along Houston Mitchell Drive is ongoing

· Short Street drainage condition rating and investigations undertaken and complete

· Open drain reprofiling at Oleander Ave and Koala Street complete

Further details can be found in the attachment to this report providing information on the overall achievements against objectives detailed in the Delivery Program 2013-2017.

Options

It is a statutory requirement under the Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation to report on what has been delivered against the Delivery Program on a six monthly basis. Council could seek further information on the contents of this report or the attachment.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

· Planning and Reporting Officer

· Integrated Planning and Reporting Development Officer

· The General Manager, Directors, Group Managers and staff reporting against the 2016-2017 Operational Plan which provides data for the Delivery Program Progress Report.

Planning & Policy Implications

This report is aligned with legislative obligations under the Local Government Act and regulation and the requirements of the NSW Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.

Financial & Economic Implications

Monthly and quarterly financial reports to Council align with the reporting period referenced in this report.

Attachments

1 View. Six monthly Delivery Program 2013-2017 progress report (July to December 2016)

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.12

Subject: Opportunities for Local Firms to do Business with Council

Presented by: Corporate and Organisational Services, Rebecca Olsen

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.5.4 Use procurement, tendering and purchasing approaches that provide best value to the community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Request the General Manager develop a draft Local Preference Policy incorporating a 5% Notional Price Offset, to be presented to the April 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting.

2. Subject to Resolution 1 above, implement a 12 month trial of the Policy following adoption by Council.

3. Request the General Manager provide a further report to Council following the conclusion of the trial period detailing the results of the trial.

Executive Summary

This report is presented to Council in response to the Notice of Motion tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 November 2016, and the following resolution:

11.01 NOTICE OF MOTION - OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL FIRMS TO DO

BUSINESS WITH COUNCIL

RESOLVED: Turner/Hawkins

That Council:

1. Request the General Manager provide a briefing to Councillors in early 2017

outlining options and strategies to increase the opportunities for local firms to

do business with Council.

2. Request the General Manager provide a report to the Ordinary Council Meeting

on 15 March 2017 outlining options and strategies to increase the opportunities

for local firms to do business with Council that complement the current Council

adopted integrated strategy for local supply.

CARRIED: 9/0

FOR: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and

Turner

AGAINST: Nil

In response to Resolution 1 above, a briefing was provided to Councillors on 8 February 2017.

This report addresses Resolution 2, and outlines potential options and the corresponding risks associated with possible strategies to increase the opportunities for local firms to do business with Council that complement the current Council adopted integrated strategy for local supply.

This report should be considered in the context of legal advice received in relation to Local Preference Policies and Council’s legislative obligation under clause 178 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to “accept the tender that, having regard to all the circumstances, appears to it to be the most advantageous” (ie represents best value to Council).

Discussion

Council’s current integrated strategy to support local business through Council’s purchasing of goods and services was adopted by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 15 April 2015 (report attached). At that meeting, Council resolved as follows:

09.03 SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESS THROUGH COUNCIL'S PURCHASING

OF GOODS AND SERVICES

RESOLVED: Turner/Levido

That Council:

1. Note the Key Outcomes and Recommendations listed in the report being the

whole-of-Council integrated strategy designed to assist locally owned and

operated businesses to be more competitive and ultimately more successful in

winning a larger, growing share of Council’s procurement spend.

2. Note that ongoing reporting in relation to this strategy will be incorporated into

the Quarterly Procurement Strategy report to Council.

CARRIED: 8/0

FOR: Besseling, Cusato, Griffiths, Intemann, Levido, Roberts, Sargeant and Turner

AGAINST: Nil

Since that time Council staff have continued to implement the adopted strategy under the key areas of:

· Engagement and Collaboration

· Access to Information

· Council Staff Engagement.

Key actions implemented to date include:

Engagement and Collaboration

· Formal tender debriefs and constructive feedback provided to unsuccessful tenderers;

· Annual supplier / business forums held providing information regarding Council tender processes, upcoming opportunities, and generally how to do business with Council;

· The facilitation of tender writing workshops to assist suppliers to provide tender responses that meet specific tendering requirements.

Access to Information

· Enhanced content added to Council’s website to better inform suppliers of upcoming opportunities;

· Broader advertising of upcoming opportunities implemented, including via Council’s Economic Development Matters newsletter.

Council Staff Engagement

· Ongoing training and awareness provided to staff to promote purchasing from local suppliers.

In adopting the current strategy, as opposed to adopting a specific local preference policy (or similar), it was noted that legal advice received at the time highlighted that there are inherent legal risks associated with the implementation of a local preference policy, specifically in the areas of transparency, consistency, fairness, conflicts of interest and competition law.

In response to the Notice of Motion tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 November 2016, a review has been undertaken of the legal advice previously provided and further research has been undertaken to identify the strategies and policies adopted by other NSW Councils to support local firms to do business with Council.

Review of other NSW Council strategies and policies

As part of the review, 20 NSW Councils were contacted along with Local Government Procurement (LGP) to investigate the extent of local preference policies in place with other Councils.

A summary of other NSW Group 5 Councils is shown below:

Council	Local Preference Policy adopted
Coffs Harbour City Council	Yes - via Selection Criteria
Lake Macquarie City Council	No
Maitland City Council	No
Newcastle City Council	No
Shoalhaven City Council	Yes - via Price Offset*
Tweed Shire Council	Yes - via Selection Criteria
Wollongong City Council	Yes - via Selection Criteria

* Price or “Notional Offset” provides a set percentage discount to the pricing submitted by local (and in some cases regional) suppliers to be used in the tender evaluation process. It does not impact on the final price paid by the Council, but offers a price advantage to local / regional suppliers during the tender evaluation. For example, if a 5% Price Offset was applied to a local supplier that submitted a $500,000 tender, the price used in the evaluation / scoring process would be reduced by $25,000 to $475,000. If the tender was ultimately successful ie being the most advantageous to Council, a contract would be entered into for the full submitted price of $500,000.

Overall, of the 20 Councils sampled, 10 have a local preference policy in place and 10 do not. Of the 10 Councils that have a local preference policy in place, 8 included a specific weighted local preference / local content selection criteria in the evaluation criteria for tenders and quotations, while 2 provided a pricing discount (“notional offset”) for use in the evaluation process.

Local Government Procurement (LGP) advised that it discourages the adoption of local preference policies and regularly advises Councillors on the issue. LGP advised that the majority of NSW Councils do not mandate a specific local preference policy.

Review of legal advice in relation to Local Preference Policies (LPPs)

As part of the review, updated legal advice was sought from Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (LTL) in relation to:

· Local Preference Policies (LPPs) generally;

· LPPs based on a pricing discount (“notional offset”);

· LPPs based on a specific weighted local content criteria as part of the evaluation criteria.

In relation to Local Preference Policies generally, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers reiterated its previous advice that there are inherent legal risks associated with local preference policies, including the potential for:

· breaches of the obligation under clause 178 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to accept the most advantageous tender ie best value;

· breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 ie lessening of competition;

· challenges as a result of lack of transparency, consistency and fairness;

and, that these risks cannot be entirely excluded through the terms and management of a LPP and associated procurement documents.

This advice is consistent with the Office of Local Government Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government which states:

“1.6. Local Preference Policy

Councils often have a significant role in local and regional economic development. This may include consideration of local supply issues and Aboriginal and young people’s employment participation policies.

The implementation of local preference policies is not necessarily inconsistent with the principles of National Competition Policy. However, the use of local preference in the evaluation of tenders and awarding of contracts possesses inherent risks in terms of anti-competitiveness and the maintenance of defensibility, accountability and probity.

Where a council wants to consider local preference as a factor in the supply of goods and services or the disposal of property, it should develop and adopt a local preference policy. This policy should be based on sound reasoning and outline the circumstances in which the council would bring this policy into effect. For example, where an additional cost would be incurred by the council in implementing its local preference policy, the maximum amount or percentage of that additional cost should be specified and the particular circumstances in which the amount should also be acceptable to the local community.

The policy, as well as a statement indicating the basis for its use, should be provided to any potential tenderers prior to their decision to submit a tender. Such a policy should be included in the tender documents and identified in the evaluation criteria.

When reporting the result of a tender evaluation process, the application of the policy should be clearly referred to and details provided regarding any additional costs to be incurred by the council if it accepts a tender, other than the lowest tender, as a result of the implementation of the policy.

Councils should also consider seeking legal opinion regarding their proposed local preference policy to ensure the policy does not breach either the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), or various international trade agreements.”

In relation to LPPs based on a pricing discount (“notional offset”), Lindsay Taylor Lawyers provided the following advice:

· the general risks associated with LPPs remain, however the risks may be mitigated by ensuring that “the price offset should be set at a percentage which does not have too great an impact on the outcome of tenders, and will not, by its application, result in unreasonable disadvantage to Council in terms of price”; and

· that the price offset be capped to ensure that the successful tender can still be justified as the “most advantageous” and so that the impact on price “will not be sufficient to cause a substantial lessening of competition in a market”.

In relation to LPPs based on a specific weighted local preference / local content selection criteria, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers provided the following advice:

· such policies have the potential to provide “a significant competitive advantage to ‘local content’ in the procurement process” and “has the potential to distort the outcome of a procurement process”.

As such, LTL does not recommend that Council adopt a local preference policy which includes a specific weighted local preference / content criteria as part of the evaluation criteria.

Council’s current integrated strategy to support local business through Council’s purchasing of goods and services as adopted at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 15 April 2015, mitigates Council’s exposure to the risks associated with the implementation of a Local Preference Policy. The strategy aims to support local business by:

· improving capability and the quality of tenders submitted by local suppliers;

· providing greater access to information and awareness of Council’s upcoming tendering opportunities;

· engaging with Council staff to promote purchasing from local suppliers and reduce red tape in Council’s procurement processes.

Should Council wish to adopt a Local Preference Policy, it is recommended that a draft policy be developed based on a pricing discount (“notional offset”) for local suppliers rather than via the inclusion of a specific weighted local preference / content criteria as part of the evaluation criteria.

As an example, the LPP adopted by Blacktown City Council may represent a suitable model for Council’s consideration. The Blacktown City Council LPP provides for a “notional offset” against price for tenders submitted by local and regional suppliers. The price offset is set at 5% for local suppliers (being suppliers with a principal business address located within the Blacktown local government area) and 2.5% for regional suppliers (being suppliers with a principal business address located within an area covered by the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils). The price offset is capped at $25,000.

The definition of “local suppliers” and interpretation of “principal business address located within the local government area” require careful consideration.

It is also recommended that the initial implementation of a LPP be undertaken on a trial basis for a period of 12 months in order to monitor the results and benefits of the policy.

It is noted that a further report will need to be presented to Council for consideration of a draft Local Preference Policy that would subsequently need to be placed on public exhibition prior to formal adoption.

Further, the implementation of a Local Preference Policy (as advised by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers) would also result in the need for a comprehensive review and revision of Council’s current suite of procurement policies, procedures, tendering and request for quotation documentation etc to ensure that all relevant procurement documents refer to and explain the application of the LPP to ensure transparency, consistency of application, and to reduce challenges by unsuccessful tenderers.

It is also noted that the implementation of a LPP poses an additional administrative, and financial burden on Council with evaluation criteria, evaluation processes, and Council tender reports needing to specifically address how Council is satisfied that it will still select the most advantageous tender when the LPP is applied.

The implementation of a policy based on a pricing discount (“notional offset”) has the potential to add costs to goods and services, in that Council may pay more for a contract than it otherwise would due to the application of the LPP.

Options

Council has the option to:

· Maintain the status quo, and continue to implement the currently adopted integrated strategy to support local business through Council’s purchasing of goods and services which mitigates Council’s exposure to the risks associated with the implementation of a Local Preference Policy; or

· In addition to continuing to implement the currently adopted integrated strategy to support local business, develop a draft local preference policy in consideration of the legal advice and recommendations provided by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers to mitigate Council’s exposure to risk, based on a pricing discount (“notional offset”) for local suppliers, and implement on a 12-month trial basis to monitor the results and benefits of the policy.

· Council could also choose to implement a local preference policy that includes a weighted local preference / local content selection criteria, however as per legal advice received and referred to in the body of the report, this is not recommended due to the increased risks to Council.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken with:

· Councillors via the Councillor Briefing held on 8 February 2017;

· General Manager;

· Director, Corporate and Organisational Services;

· Group Manager, Commercial and Business Services;

· Strategic Procurement Manager;

· Procurement Operations Coordinator.

External consultation has been undertaken with:

· Ballina Shire Council

· Bellingen Shire Council

· Blacktown City Council

· Cessnock City Council

· Clarence Valley Council

· Coffs Harbour City Council

· Kyogle Council

· Lake Macquarie City Council

· Lismore City Council

· Maitland City Council

· Local Government Procurement

· Mid Coast Council

· Newcastle City Council

· Port Stephens Council

· Shell Harbour City Council

· Shoalhaven City Council

· Tamworth Regional Council

· Tweed Shire Council

· Wagga Wagga City Council

· Wollongong City Council

· Wyong Shire Council

Planning & Policy Implications

Should Council wish to adopt a Local Preference Policy, it is noted that a further report will need to be presented to Council for consideration of a draft Local Preference Policy that would subsequently need to be placed on public exhibition prior to formal adoption.

Financial & Economic Implications

The implementation of a LPP poses an additional administrative, process and financial burden on Council with evaluation criteria, evaluation processes, and Council tender reports needing to specifically address how Council is satisfied that it will still select the most advantageous tender when the LPP is applied.

Attachments

1 View. Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2015 Item 09.03 Report

2 View. Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2015 Item 09.03 Attachment

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 09.13

Subject: Submission on the NSW Planning Legislation Updates

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

1.3.1 Participate in active alliances with other agencies to make effective decisions that address the needs of our community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council request the General Manager make a submission to the NSW Government on the Planning Legislation Updates as outlined in the Submission on the NSW Planning Legislation Updates report.

Executive Summary

The NSW Government is seeking community views on its proposals to update the planning legislation. Staff have reviewed the planning update and support the majority of proposed amendments which seek to both clarify and simplify the current legislation. This report deals with a number of proposed changes that are of concern and recommends Council make a submission on the draft planning updates.

Discussion

The NSW Government is proposing to update the planning legislation and is consulting with the community about a number of amendments to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The consultation material includes a Summary of Proposals, a Bill Guide and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2017. The Summary of Proposals is an attachment to this report. The remaining documents are available on the NSW Planning website. Submissions on the proposed planning updates are invited up until 31 March 2017.

A number of amendment proposals have been developed, including:

- Enhancing community participation: establishing a new part of the Act that consolidates community consultation provisions, and requiring decision-makers to give reasons for their decisions

- Completing the strategic planning framework: through local strategic planning statements, up-to-date Local Environment Plans (LEPs) and more consistent Development Control Plans (DCPs)

- Development pathways: improvements to the various development pathways and preventing the misuse of modifications

- State significant development: through better environmental impact assessment and more effective conditions of consent

- Clearer building provisions: 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 object in the Act, and a Design-Led Planning Strategy

- Improving enforcement: with the introduction of enforceable undertakings in compliance actions.

Staff have reviewed the planning update and support the majority of proposed amendments which seek to both clarify and simplify the current legislation. However, there are a number of proposed changes that are of concern and these are outlined in the discussion below.

Enhancing Community Participation:

The proposal includes a requirement for Council to prepare a community participation plan for its planning functions but to allow for the integration of these plans within a community engagement strategy prepared under the Local Government Act 1993. The detail of the contents of these plans and how they will be established will be contained in the Regulation and proposed model plans. Given the lack of detail available at this time, ongoing consultation with local government should be sought to ensure that the requirements of these plans are both effective and practical.

It is proposed to mandate the notification of reasons for a development application decision for all local development. The value of this proposal is questioned when considered against the loss in efficiencies that will result in the development assessment process. It is noted that the S79C assessment report already contains sufficient information for an interested party to understand the reasons for a development application determination and the availability of this information on council websites and through the NSW Planning Portal provides sufficient transparency in Council officers’ view.

Strategic Planning:

The planning updates propose improved recognition of strategic landuse planning in the planning system. This is proposed via a Strategic Planning Statement that will accompany/compliment the Community Strategic Plan and the Local Environmental Plan. The concept of the legislation formally recognising strategic planning is supported. However, there is a potential for a level of duplication associated with the proposed Strategic Planning Statement given the strategic landuse planning that many Council already undertake. It is suggested that the provisions relating to these Statements should provide sufficient flexibility to enable Council to include statement of strategic intent into existing planning strategies such as urban growth management strategies.

It is proposed to formalise a process for keeping Local Environmental Plans (LEP’s) up to date. The need for LEP’s to be kept contemporary and up-to-date is supported. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council carries out regular reviews and updates to the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP as an outcome of both its urban growth management strategy planning and routine housekeeping LEP amendments. It is recommended that local councils be able to incorporate the proposed 5 yearly LEP check into urban growth management strategy review processes to reduce duplication.

The planning updates also propose a standard Development Control Plan (DCP). The benefit of more consistent DCP’s is acknowledged. However, it is likely that this is less of an issue in regional areas than in metropolitan areas. While standard format DCP’s are supported in principle, the proposed changes should not remove the ability for local councils to determine local provisions as appropriate. As noted in the Summary of Proposals, model provisions should be optional.

Local Development Assessment:

The proposed update raises the issue of pre-application consultation between developer and neighbours and seeks to somehow formalise this in the planning system. While the benefits of early consultation with neighbours are recognised, concerns are expressed about how the planning system can effectively facilitate early consultation without complicating the development assessment process. Whilst Council encourages proponents to consult with neighbours early in the design phase, it is considered that mandating this communication would be difficult to enforce and be too variable. Formal consultation with neighbours is best left to the relevant consent authority, for moderate to high impact proposals.

It is proposed to implement a process where the Secretary of the Department of Planning can step in to resolve blockages associated with agency referrals. While this should be supported in principle, it is suggested that the proposal does not go far enough and that the legislation should also enable the delegation of referral assessments to Council commensurate with their skill and experience in development assessment. This is a model that has worked successfully in the food safety partnership between local Councils and the NSW Food Authority.

Proposed changes relating to preventing the issue of Development Assessment (DA) modifications for unauthorised work and for introducing a compliance levy on Complying Development Certificates (CDC) are supported. It is noted that the introduction and expansion of exempt and complying development pathways have shifted resourcing demands from the approvals to the compliance process and additional revenue to enable Council to respond to compliance matters is essential.

The NSW Government’s intention to improve complying development pathway is noted. Proposals include a review of the way the Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) is drafted and the use of online planning to improve access and interpretation.

However, expansion of complying development to include dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing is of concern. These higher forms of residential densities often have more impacts than a single dwelling and it is considered reasonable to seek neighbour input on these proposals through the DA process.

Council’s experience indicates that the community generally accepts that a dwelling can be constructed on a vacant residential lot but there is an expectation that dual occupancies and multi dwelling proposals should be notified. Expanding complying development to include these forms of development is likely to erode community confidence in the system and lead to unnecessary angst. Should multi dwelling housing be included as a form of complying development, Council could be faced with a scenario such as the notification of a swimming pool proposal under a DA but not a dual occupancy under a CDC. This will not make sense to the broader community.

The proposed update seeks to maintain the pre notification of complying development certificate applications for metropolitan areas. While this does not directly impact on rural and regional councils, it is not considered an appropriate process to be associated with complying development. It creates expectations that a neighbour can influence a development proposal, where in reality there is no legal mechanism for a submission to be taken into consideration by an accredited certifier dealing with the complying development certificate application. If complying development is for genuinely low impact proposals then these arrangements would not be necessary.

In recent years, there have been decisions of the courts in relation to the validity of non compliant complying development and construction certificates that have exposed weaknesses in the current legislation. The proposed updates allow a court to invalidate a CDC where it does not comply with the standards and to require a construction certificate to be consistent with a development consent. These proposals should be supported.

It is proposed to mandate the public exhibition of all development applications. This should not be supported. Council has a well established notification policy under its DCP that allows low impact proposals that are consistent with DCP building provisions, to not be exhibited.

There are many low impact proposals that fall outside the Codes SEPP provisions and requiring all development applications to be exhibited will significantly increase processing times and add to resourcing demands and costs. Prior to the introduction of a standard instrument LEP and the Codes SEPP, complying development certificates made up 50% of the application volume under Councils previous DCP. PMHC was seen as a leading Council across the state when it came to complying development .The introduction of an overly complicated SEPP has seen complying development drop to 25% of the application volume currently received at Council, pushing applicants to the DA process. Provisions should be made to allow community participation plans to exclude certain local developments from being exhibited e.g. dwellings and swimming pools that comply with the local DCP. Making CDCs easier by making DAs harder is counterproductive and will lead to avoidable inefficiencies in the development assessment process.

Confidence in decision making:

The proposals include reforms to the use of local planning panels such as Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP). Council has successfully operated a DAP for many years and supports the concept of local planning panels for determining development applications.

However, it should be noted that the proposed amendments to the legislation will require councils with existing panels to adopt a standard approach within 12 months of the legislation being enacted. The standard approach will include moving to a three independent member panel (2 with relevant expertise and one community member) as well as a formal voting system that sees all decisions made by the local panel (i.e. no call up provisions). The legislation proposes that councils will retain the ability to set the rules for which matters go to the panel, but that staff deal with the vast majority of applications, which is already the case for Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. Whilst it is acknowledged that consistency in the form of local panels has benefits, it is important that flexibility is provided so that local councils can tailor their panels to meet local requirements. The proposal to allow councils to set the delegations of a local panel is important and must be maintained.

The concept of increasing the threshold for regional development that is proposed by the updates should be supported. Most of the development proposals that have been dealt with by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) in this local government area could have comfortably been dealt with by Council given the experience and competence of its planning staff and the DAP.

Design Led Planning:

The proposed amendment seeks to include provisions that elevate the importance of design of the built environment in the planning process. The importance of good design for our built environment is certainly recognised and the elevation of design in the planning process should be supported as proposed by the draft Bill. The proposed updates do not provide much detail on how this will be achieved. It is suggested that local councils be further engaged on this aspect of the reforms to ensure that practical measures are pursued in this regard.

Enhancing the Enforcement Toolkit:

The proposals to enhance the range of enforcement tools provided by the legislation should be supported. The proposed Orders will provide practical and cost effective tools for enforcement.

It is suggested that the concept of enforcement undertakings that will be available to the Secretary be extended to local councils. Such a compliance tool would be a useful option for councils to be able to draw upon as an alternative to traditional compliance approaches as specific circumstance may warrant.

Planning Agreements:

The updates identify a proposal to clarify the use of planning agreements; however there is little detail available at this point to allow for meaningful consultation to take place. Planning agreements have been used by Council to facilitate development that would otherwise have taken years to progress given upfront infrastructure requirements and the need for the engagement and cooperation of disparate developers. Further consultation should be requested on the detail of any changes to the use of planning agreements.

The proposal to allow planning agreements in conjunction with complying development is supported and is a good example of providing for flexibility in the planning system.

Options

Council has a number of options in relation to this matter including:

1. Making a submission in the issues as outlined in this report.

2. Not making a submission

3. Making a modified submission.

Staff have carried out a detailed review of the proposed updates and recommend that Council raise the matters identified in the report.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

Internal consultation on this matter has been undertaken among planning staff within the Development and Environment Division.

Planning & Policy Implications

There are no immediate planning and policy implications in relation to this report. There may be implications should the planning updates be implemented as proposed. Examples include reformatting of the DCP, revision of the DAP Charter, changes to future Community Strategic Plans or Urban Growth Management Strategies to incorporate Strategic Planning statements. Such changes may necessitate further reports to Council and appropriate community engagement at the time of implementation etc.

Financial & Economic Implications

The proposed changes could see the following financial implications for Council:

- Increasing cost associated with operating a DAP with additional independent members.

- Increasing cost associated with operating the DAP resulting from changes to development application processing requirements e.g. if all local development is required to be notified then there could be an increase in the number of application being considered by DAP.

- Increasing costs / decreasing efficiency associated with mandatory notification of all local development application and any requirements to manage pre application consultation.

- Increased revenue from the proposed complying development compliance levy.

It is difficult to quantify financial implications given the variability in potential outcomes noted above. However, potential financial implications associated with the proposed planning updates should be raised in any submission.

It is not expected that the proposed planning updates will have any significant adverse economic impact.

Attachments

1 View. Summary of Proposals

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 12.01

Subject: Draft Waste Strategy 2017 - 2024

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

4.4.1 Reduce waste to landfill, utilising appropriate education, facilities and strategies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Place the draft Waste Strategy 2017-2024 on public exhibition between 16 March and 14 April 2017.

2. Note that a further report is planned to be tabled at the May 2017 meeting of Council, detailing the submissions received from the public during the exhibition period.

Executive Summary

Council’s previous Waste and Resource Management Strategy (2011-2015) provided the platform for substantial achievements in local waste management. In late 2015 Council engaged MRA Consulting Group, specialists in waste management planning, to review Council’s achievements, assess the key industry drivers and recommend a renewed vision and strategic direction for waste management in the local area. This included significant research and cost benefit analysis of options, which is detailed in the Background Options Report used to develop a new draft strategy.

The Port Macquarie-Hastings Waste Strategy 2017-2024 has now been developed and is ready for public exhibition.

Discussion

The Port Macquarie-Hastings Waste Strategy: 2017- 2024 (draft Waste Strategy) is designed to provide a framework and an informed and sustainable direction for all of Council’s waste management activities over the next eight (8) years. It has been developed to focus on specific and unique local issues and challenges, building upon the success and momentum gained through the implementation of the previous strategy.

A Background and Options Report reviewed the drivers relevant to current and future waste management in the Port Macquarie-Hastings area, assessed the implications with respect to Council’s strategic waste management position and developed a renewed vision for sustainable waste management. The Background and Options Report formed the basis of draft Waste Strategy.

The draft Waste Strategy will:

· Cover an eight (8) year period from 2017 until 2024;

· Ensure consistency with Council’s environmental, economic, and social policies and the 2030 Community Strategic Plan;

· Align with the objectives of the NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy: 2014- 2021 (the NSW WARR Strategy);

· Integrate with, and leverage off, the Midwaste Regional Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy: 2014-2021; and

· Focus on the delivery of safe, cost effective, innovative and convenient waste management services for Council’s customers and workers;

· Consider best available waste management technologies and delivery methods (wherever possible) appropriate to Council’s local circumstances, building upon successes to date;

· Embody flexibility as a key, providing Council with a tool to readily adapt by maximising opportunities and minimising risks associated with emerging technological, financial, social and legislative contexts;

· Acknowledge, and build upon, the success of a single landfill and central waste and resource management hub at the Cairncross Waste Management Facility (CWMF), facilitating:

o A continued high operational and maintenance standard; and

o Certainty with respect to the long term planning and delivery of Council’s future waste asset and infrastructure needs.

The draft Waste Strategy has identified a number of specific actions within strategic focus areas that have been identified as being important to Council’s strategic waste management future. It builds on the current waste management services that have encouraged waste minimisation and improvement in the recovery and reuse

of resources.

Strategic Focus Areas

The strategic focus areas are summarised below:

· Council to pursue planning approval for the expansion of the landfill at the Cairncross Waste Management Facility to ensure long term disposal capacity and security;

· Opportunities for the re-use, recycling and recovery of material from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Constriction & Demolition (C&D) and Commercial & Industrial (C&I) waste streams are of high priority prior to disposal to landfill;

· Waste management facilities and infrastructure are planned, designed and operated in accordance with industry best practice, to efficiently and sustainably manage current and future waste flows;

· Management of waste and resource recovery facilities, operations and activities complies with all statutory requirements and strives for improved environmental performance;

· Waste, resource and recycling collection services are efficient, provide value-for-money, and have minimal environmental impact;

· The community is engaged in sustainable waste management practices and activities facilitated by acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values;

· The natural environment is protected through the reduction of littering and illegal dumping;

· Regional collaboration and partnerships with other stakeholders and organisations is encouraged to foster sharing of resources and knowledge, development of innovative waste management solutions, and to take advantage of economies of scale;

· Sound governance is employed in all Council decisions relating to waste management; and

· The business of waste is managed systematically to ensure effective and efficient administration and improved customer service.

Recommended Strategy Actions

Whilst a substantial amount of work has been undertaken already there are a number of actions proposed to further enhance Council’s waste management. The actions and their focus areas are summarised below.

Waste actions

· Review and continue Kerbside Contamination Strategy for MSW and C&I

· Target C&I diversion

· Target Multi Unit Dwelling (MUD) recycling

· Finalise and implement Illegal Dumping Management Plan

· C&D Development Control Plans

· Streamlined waste data collection, management and reporting system

· Continue media campaigns and education initiatives

Waste Infrastructure and Landfill Options

· Develop long term landfill plan

· Secure approval of addition of three new cells at Cairncross landfill

· Increase C&I disposal fees to encourage source separation

· Explore Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) refurbishment to improve dry recycling

· Determine the true cost of landfill

· Explore regional C&D/C&I recycling facilities

· Determine future use of the disused transport depot at the Kingfisher Transfer Station

· Gauge interest in regional use of Organic Resource Recovery Facility (ORRF) and MRF

Grant Actions

· Pursue infrastructure funding opportunities

· Apply for Waste Less Recycle More Love Food Hate Waste funding to educate residents on food waste avoidance

Other Actions

· Investigate options to participate in the Emissions Reduction Fund

· Monitor emerging waste management technology for possible implementation

The development of the Waste Strategy has been a significant task and covers all of Council’s waste services. The Waste Strategy has also considered current federal and state legislation including the Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) expected to commence in 2017.

More detail can be found in the draft Port Macquarie-Hastings Waste Strategy: 2017‑2024 and Background Options Report (attached).

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

As part of the domestic waste collection contract changes a community survey was conducted in August 2013 to assess community behaviours, attitudes to waste management and the potential service change options to follow in 2014. The survey showed community support for the new systems and guided their successful implementation. A further community response survey was undertaken following the ‘Choose your bin’ campaign in April 2015. A large majority of residents were satisfied with Council’s waste services with 87% reporting no problems with changes to the new waste system. The information from these surveys has informed the development of the draft Waster Strategy.

Engagement has also occurred with the Council’s major waste collection contractor and organics processing contractor.

It is proposed that the draft Waste Strategy be placed on public exhibition to give the community opportunity to comment on specific proposed actions. A final Waste Strategy will be presented for consideration at a subsequent Council meeting.

Planning & Policy Implications

The Waste Strategy 2017 - 2024 will become the main policy and planning document for Waste Services operations during the strategy’s timeframe.

Financial & Economic Implications

The financial implications of action items contained in the waste strategy will be subject to Council’s normal budget processes.

It is not expected that the actions within the strategy will have any significant adverse economic impact. In general terms, waste minimisation and recycling initiatives can be associated with reduced costs to the community.

Attachments

1 View. PMHC Background and Options Report PMHC October 2016

2 View. PMHC Waste Strategy FINAL DRAFT 2017

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 12.03

Subject: Lake Cathie Coastal Management Development Control Plan (DCP) Provisions - Public Exhibition Submissions Report

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

4.8.1 Carry out relevant studies to determine the likely extent of natural events and the impact of climate change, develop relevant mitigation strategies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the additional provisions to Chapter 2.4 Hazard Management of Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013, as described in this report.

2. Repeal the Lake Cathie Interim Planning Controls (25 July 2012).

3. Publish a public notice of this decision and forward a copy of the approved Development Control Plan to the Director General of the Department of Planning within 28 days.

Executive Summary

This report deals with planning for the area of Lake Cathie mapped as at risk of Coastal Erosion under Clause 7.6 of the PMH LEP 2011. Planning controls for the Lake Cathie Coastal Erosion Area have been drafted for inclusion as a new chapter in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013. Once adopted, the DCP chapter will guide development within the Lake Cathie Coastal Erosion area.

On 14 December 2016, Council resolved to publicly exhibit the draft Coastal Management Development Control Plan provisions for Lake Cathie (draft coastal DCP).

The primary purpose of this report is to inform Council of the results of the subsequent community engagement and seek Council’s approval to adopt the draft coastal DCP.

Eleven (11) submissions were received during the exhibition period and details are provided later in this report. Several changes are proposed to the exhibited draft coastal DCP in response to points raised in the submission.

The proposed changes fall into three (3) main categories:

· General formatting - revision of the documents format to meet current DCP numbering and other editing requirements.

· Clarification - further reduction of duplication with other provisions.

· Removal of building specifications - the draft Development Control Plan chapter contained six (6) detailed building specifications that have been removed. A certificate from a structural engineer as to the adequacy of the relocatable structure is now included. The requirement for a relocation management plan has been further clarified.

After considering the submissions, Council may now decide whether or not to adopt

the draft coastal DCP chapter. Staff comments on the submissions have been included to provide certainty to Council that the issues raised in the submissions have been carefully considered and changes to the draft coastal DCP chapter have been incorporated where appropriate.

It is recommended that Council proceed to adopt the draft coastal DCP chapter as altered in response to the points raised in the submissions.

Discussion

One of the actions of the Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) 2016 is the implementation of ‘Interim Planning Controls pending construction of the Revetment’. These controls relate to development proposed in the immediate coastal erosion hazard zone (primarily along Illaroo Road) before a revetment wall is constructed. The planning controls seek to minimise future damage to private development, manage safety and limit the impacts on the environment from coastal storm events.

The current Interim Planning Controls that apply to the area of Lake Cathie subject to coastal erosion were adopted by Council at the meeting held on 25 July 2012. These development controls were used as the basis for the formulation of the new DCP chapter. The key difference of the draft coastal DCP Provisions from the current Interim Planning Guidelines relate to clarifying existing management provisions, setting development objectives, setting trigger points to initiate removal of relocatable dwellings and further guidance on appropriate development types within the coastal hazard area. The draft coastal DCP provisions provide clarity on coastal hazard related development requirements and provide a higher level of consistency when assessing development applications.

To date, there has been minimal development activity along Illaroo Road with only minor alterations/additions being proposed. Recent discussions with residents of Illaroo Road and local planning consultants have identified the need to update the planning controls to provide clarity and certainty to those wishing to undertake development.

Importantly, these coastal DCP provisions will apply to development undertaken prior to the construction of the proposed revetment wall. Upon construction of the revetment wall the coastal DCP provisions will be reviewed and modified or removed as necessary.

In June 2016, Council undertook consultation with residents to develop suitable trigger points that would be used to initiate the removal of relocatable buildings, a key part of the development control strategy to deal with risks associated with coastal erosion. This information was unclear in the original Interim Planning Controls.

Following resident feedback on the trigger points, Council staff prepared draft DCP provisions. These draft DCP provisions were broadly consistent with the original Interim Planning Controls with the main changes relating to the following:

· Setting trigger points to initiate moving of relocatable structures.

· Size of relocatable structures.

· A diagram has been developed to aid in the interpretation of trigger points and relocation removal routes.

· Floor Area Calculation method clarified to meet the intent of the CZMP which seeks to limit development to a 10% increase in the ‘ground floor footprint’ of the existing dwelling.

· Confirmation that development controls will be cumulative in its application, (i.e. a 10% increase floor area is only permitted once).

· Setting development objectives.

· Rationalising and simplifying the wording for development provisions relevant to each coastal hazard zone.

· Nominating development types which will require additional detailed assessment.

The draft coastal DCP provisions were reported to Council’s Coast, Estuary & Floodplain Advisory Sub-Committee on 24 November 2016. The draft coastal DCP was considered by Council at its meeting of 14 December 2016, at which Council resolved:

RESOLVED: Intemann/Griffiths

1. That the Lake Cathie Coastal Management Development Control Plan (DCP) provisions be placed on public exhibition from 15 December 2016 to 1 February 2017.

2. That a report on the outcome of public exhibition be presented to the February 2017 Council Meeting.

CARRIED: 9/0

FOR: Besseling, Alley, Cusato, Dixon, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Levido and Turner

AGAINST: Nil

On 21 December 2016, the draft coastal DCP was publicly exhibited with 1 February 2017 as the closing date for submissions. The closing date was extended to 20 February 2017 after it came to Council’s attention that some residents did not receive the original notification letter. The draft coastal DCP chapter and cover letter were available for viewing during the public exhibition period at Council’s online community engagement website, PMHC Listening, and also made available at Council offices in Laurieton, Port Macquarie and Wauchope.

Eleven (11) submission were received which are detailed later in this report. Several changes are proposed to the exhibited draft coastal DCP chapter in response to issues raised in the submissions. These changes are described in the Community Engagement & Internal Consultation section of this report.

Options

Council is the ‘Relevant Planning Authority’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the purpose of preparation and approval of DCPs such as the draft coastal DCP being considered here.

As described in Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, after considering any submissions about the draft coastal DCP that has been duly made, Council may:

1. approve the draft plan in the form in which it was publicly exhibited, or

2. approve the draft plan with such alterations as the Council thinks fit, or

3. decide not to proceed with the draft plan.

Council must give public notice of its decision in a local newspaper within 28 days after the decision is made. Notice of a decision not to proceed with the draft plan must include Council’s reasons for the decision.

After considering the submissions, Council may now decide whether or not to adopt the draft coastal DCP chapter. Staff comments on the submissions have been provided to give Council certainty that the issues raised in the submissions have been carefully considered and changes to the draft coastal DCP chapter have been incorporated where appropriate. It is recommended that Council proceed to adopt the draft coastal DCP chapter in accordance with option 2 above, as altered in response to the points raised in the submissions. Details on the suggested alterations are provided below.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

The primary purpose of this report is to inform Council of the results of the community engagement. Internal consultation was also undertaken during the public exhibition period. Comments on internal consultation are provided in addition to the results of the community engagement.

During the public exhibition period 145 people viewed the PMHC Listening site. The draft coastal DCP chapter was downloaded by 21 people, with two people making a submission via the website. At the close of the public exhibition period 107 people were aware, 29 were informed and two were engaged through using the PMHC Listening site.

Submission		Issues (summarised)
1.	Matthew & Ellen McKell	PMHC should have had direct consultation with affected landowners due to the small number of landowners directly affected.
1.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Extensive consultation has occurred through the development of the Lake Cathie CZMP that included interim planning controls. PMHC contacted all affected residents directly via mail outs seeking comment on trigger points following contact from residents seeking clarification to the interim planning controls. Further direct contact via mail outs was made to affected residents during the exhibition period. Contact details for key staff was provided on all correspondence which provided opportunity for detailed discussion on any aspects of the exhibited material during the consultation period.
2.	Matthew & Ellen McKell	The revetment wall has been approved which should result in less development restrictions. The draft coastal DCP chapter does not consider the revetment wall.
2.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions aim to guide development until the revetment wall is constructed. DCP documents only contain provisions currently relevant. DCP’s do not cover future events (i.e. construction of the wall). Wording to reference future construction of the revetment wall and revision of the coastal DCP chapter is not supported. Nevertheless, should a revetment wall be constructed it is intended to review the need for the coastal DCP provisions.
3.	Matthew & Ellen McKell	The draft coastal DCP objectives should have been formulated by residents rather than Council.
3.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Formulation of planning policy is the role of the planning authority, in consultation with stakeholders. The draft coastal DCP objectives are taken from clause 7.6 of the PMH LEP and the NSW draft Coastal Management Bill (2016). The objectives are considered appropriate for the coastal DCP chapter as they stem from recognised sources that provide the best guidance on planning in areas subject to coastal hazards. No change recommended.
4.	Matthew & Ellen McKell	Development provision are excessive and restrictive in allowing owners to improve and value add to their properties.
4.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions are intended to allow landowners to undertake improvement and allow for a level of value adding whilst noting the coastal erosion risk. The draft coastal DCP provisions are considered flexible to allow for the this to occur. The six (6) specific development provisions (restricting development by width, length, height, weight etc) listed in the exhibited draft have been removed. The draft coastal DCP provisions now requires the structures to be modular in construction and installation and that each structure (module) must be single storey. A certification from a structural engineer as to the adequacy of the relocatable structure is now included.
5.	Matthew & Ellen McKell	The use of relocatable structures will not reduce reliance on emergency services.
5.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions will ensure that appropriate development is undertaken and that landowners are responsible for the removal and relocation of structure from the site. The requirement for a detailed relocation management plan will ensure that the landowner is aware of the risk associated with a coastal erosion event and the steps that should be followed should a storm event impact on the area. Preparation for, and awareness of, the risks will ensure that preventative measures are undertaken so that emergency service requirements are reduced.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
6.	Bob Jolly	Maximum building height requirements are restrictive.
6.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
7.	Mary Rule	The draft coastal DCP provisions should be withdrawn as the existing guidelines are not permitted to be changed/amended as a result of the Council resolution of 25 July 2012. The existing guidelines are reasonable and adequate.
7.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The process to updated the planning provisions originated from discussions with residents of Illaroo Road and local planning consultants who identified the need to provide clarity and certainty to those wishing to undertake development (i.e. the trigger point to initiate removal of relocatable structures). The 2012 resolution does not restrict Councils ability to make changes to development control provisions.
8.	Mary Rule	Many existing buildings contain asbestos and need replacing due to risk of collapse.
8.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Repair and maintenance of existing structures can be undertaken at any time without the need to reference or consider coastal management provisions. SEPP (Exempt & Complying Development Codes )2008 contains provisions that allow (minor) works to be carried out that do not require consideration of coastal hazards.
9.	Mary Rule	The relocatable building specification will prevent anyone building anything other than shipping container developments.
9.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
10.	Mary Rule	Many existing properties are an eyesore and are an embarrassment to the community.
10.	*Response/* *Comment*:	This observation is noted. See response to submission No. 8 above.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
11.	Stephen Hunt	The development provisions are overly onerous, prescriptive and unjust and will preclude any future development within the area.
11.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
12.	Stephen Hunt	The development provisions will result in shipping container type development.
12.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
13.	Stephen Hunt	The development provisions will allow Council to easily reject any DA that does not fit neatly within the parameters.
13.	*Response/* *Comment*:	DA’s are a merit based assessment that allows applicants to propose development that may be outside DCP provisions, and then fully justify the reasons for approval in the context of the objectives of the DCP.
14.	Stephen Hunt	Requiring relocatable structures where there are existing non-relocatable structures is not common sense. Requiring relocatable structures to be removed upon the erosion escarpment reaching the trigger point whilst existing development can be retained is not common sense.
14.	*Response/* *Comment*:	PMHC notes there are numerous existing buildings located on Illaroo Road that are reaching the end of their usable life. Allowing relocatable development to occur will ensure that new development, that has the potential to have a 50+ year lifespan, and has the capacity to be removed/relocated during this time, provides an adaptable and resilient approach to the coastal hazard risk. Setting a trigger point ensures that relocatable structures are capable of being removed prior to dangerous/hazardous site conditions occurring (eg. subsidence or slumping).
Submission		Issues (summarised)
15.	Beth Delamotte	The revetment wall needs to be constructed.
15.	*Response/* *Comment*:	A design for the revetment wall has been undertaken however construction can only occur when sufficient funding is secured.
16.	Beth Delamotte	Illaroo Road needs to be converted into a one-way street.
16.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Aqua Crescent/ Bundella Avenue and Illaroo Road are intended to become a one-way loop in the event that damage to the road occurs as a result of erosion events and the road pavement width needs to be reduced to maintain safe access, prior to the construction of a revetment. This is detailed in the Emergency Action Plan which forms part of the certified Lake Cathie CZMP.
17.	Beth Delamotte	The current section 149 certificates on properties in Illaroo Road need to be removed.
17.	*Response/* *Comment*:	There is an obligation to provide s149 certificate notifications. The section 149 notifications are advisory in nature and the draft coastal DCP provisions do not affect the applicability of the coastal erosion notifications. No change to the section 149 certificate notifications are proposed.
18.	Beth Delamotte	Funding for the works should come from State Government and Local Government. Local residents should not be required to fund the wall as they have not caused the problem.
18.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Council’s position is that the NSW and Federal governments should fund the revetment wall. However, the NSW Government has recently instructed Council to prepare a Distributional Analysis to ensure that funding for the wall is appropriately apportioned between all those receiving a benefit.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
19.	Robert Smith	Concerned that if an existing house needs to be replaced prior to construction of the revetment wall that it must be with a relocatable home.
19.	*Response/* *Comment*:	There are numerous existing buildings located on Illaroo Road that are reaching the end of their usable life. Allowing relocatable development to occur will ensure that new development, that has the potential to have a 50+ year lifespan, and has the capacity to be removed/relocated during this time, provides an adaptable and resilient approach to the coastal hazard risk. Setting a trigger point ensures that relocatable structures are capable of being removed prior to dangerous/hazardous site conditions occurring (eg. subsidence or slumping).
20.	Robert Smith	The 2012 Interim Planning Guidelines are acceptable as they allow for landowners and structural engineers to design relocatable dwellings. The 6 specific development provisions are an overreaction. If a development can be dismantled and removed quickly but does not meet the development provisions, why should this not be permitted.
20.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
21.	Robert Smith	The new provisions are not the result of a resident survey. The previous correspondence was in relation to trigger points, not building changes.
21.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The previous correspondence (July 2016) was preliminary work regarding a specific component of the planning controls. Resolving the trigger point was a precursor to the broader DCP review following contact from residents seeking clarification to the interim planning controls.
22.	Robert Smith	The new draft coastal DCP should be withdrawn as the 2012 minutes mandated that a review could only occur once the wall was built.
22.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 7 above.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
23.	Brian Tobin	Objection to the proposed maximum height provision. Noted that a recent development approval has been granted for a garage with a height of 4.6m.
23.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
24.	Brian Tobin	As engineering certification will be required, all aspects of construction and removal will be covered. The height of each component will not affect the way it is removed should engineering be provided that confirms that the buildings can be removed in stages.
24.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
25.	Brian Tobin	Some properties have two (2) street access points, further enabling relocation, additional consideration should be provided for these sites.
25.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP chapter provides consideration for properties that have two (2) road frontages. The trigger point and the evacuation route requirements have been tailored to suit the four (4) properties on Illaroo road that have alternative road access.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
26.	Sandra Tobin	Objection to the proposed maximum height provision. Noted that a recent development approval has been granted for a garage with a height of 4.6m.
26.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
27.	Sandra Tobin	As engineering certification will be required, all aspects of construction and removal will be covered. The height of each component will not affect the way it is removed should engineering be provided that confirms that the buildings can be removed in stages.
27.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
28.	Sandra Tobin	Some properties have two (2) street access points, further enabling relocation, additional consideration should be provided for these sites.
28.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 25 above.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
29.	Malcolm & Heather McDonald	The six (6) specific development provisions should be general guidelines. The wording is too prescriptive. The responsibility showing ease of removal should rest with the proponent through a qualified structural engineer. This approach allows for lateral and constructive thinking and enables new methods of relocatable housing to be incorporated in the future.
29.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
30.	Malcolm & Heather McDonald	If is unclear if the proposed restrictions apply to the whole or part of the proposed development.
30.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Additional clarification has been provided in the draft coastal DCP provisions outlining that structures must be modular in construction and installation and that each structure (module) must be single storey. A certification from a structural engineer as to the adequacy of the relocatable structure is now included. Multiple relocatable structures are permitted.
31.	Malcolm & Heather McDonald	The maximum weight and height is too restrictive. It should be proponents responsibly to show that removal is feasible.
31.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
32.	Malcolm & Heather McDonald	It should be noted in the draft coastal DCP chapter that the provisions will terminate upon completion of the revetment wall.
32.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions aim to guide development until the revetment wall is constructed. DCP documents only contain provisions currently relevant. DCP’s do not cover future events (i.e. construction of the wall). Wording to reference future construction of the revetment wall and revision of the coastal DCP chapter is not supported. Nevertheless, should a revetment wall be constructed it is intened to review the need for the coastal DCP provisions.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
33.	Greg Smith	In July 2016 landholders were requested by council to consider trigger points for removal of relocatable homes. The trigger points and the 10% rule are the only items which should be discussed in this draft.
33.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 21 above.
34.	Greg Smith	Building guidelines were set on 25 July 2012 by Council which clearly states a review of the building guidelines is only to take place after the CZMP is passed and the revetment is built. The CZMP was certified in November 2016, however, the revetment is not built and thus the guidelines should not yet be reviewed.
34.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 22 above.
35.	Greg Smith	Council should amend the draft trigger points for removal of the properties on the corners of Illaroo Rd and Kalang and Kywong St. The current draft requires relocation when the erosion escarpment is 10m from our building. Given we can exit via Kalang St, please adjust our time of exit to when the erosion escarpment is at our eastern property boundary. The 10m rule will require removal of the relocatable structure (if it has a 5m setback) some 50 years before the asset is at the erosion escarpment. We consider this to be grossly premature. This calculation is derived from the SMEC Hazard Study of 2007 where it determined the recession of the dunes was 20cm per year. Therefore we will have to relocate the asset possibly 50 years earlier than necessary (i.e. 20cm per year x 10metres equals 50 years). We request council reconsider this trigger point for our home on the corner of Illaroo Rd and Kalang St to be our eastern property boundary.
35.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Not supported. Allowing a relocatable structure as proposed (i.e. with a setback of 4.5m from Illaroo Road - permissible under the general residential provision of DCP 2013) would result in the erosion escarpment being a minimum of 4.5m from the building before relocation is commenced. In addition, the Immediate Zone of Slope Adjustment is already located approx 10m inside the eastern boundary of properties on Illaroo Road, and therefore landward of any structure located in Illaroo Road. This proposal would result in the relocatable building subject to subsidence and removal could be unsafe. See response to submission No. 25 above.
36.	Greg Smith	It is reasonable to pass the amending paragraph relating to 10% of “ground floor space” for extensions on assets forward of the 2050 zone.
36.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Support for this item is noted.
37.	Greg Smith	Disagree with the six (6) dot point building specifications. The 3m height restriction for a home is realistically unachievable and are too restrictive and not conducive to a basic standard of living. Even a garage in the council area can be built to over 4m. There are many ways to dismantle/ relocate buildings over 3m high safely, easily and readily. Consider deleting these six (6) dot points as it is our responsibility with a qualified structural engineer to ensure the building is easily and readily removable (just as the present 2012 guidelines require).
37.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
38.	Greg Smith	Need to encourage residents of the older homes to replace them with attractive ones which will enhance the street. The road is heavily travelled by tourists and unsightly derelict old houses will not enhance the community and magnificent beach and foreshore. It is unlikely residents will build a home the size of a shipping container and we need a more balanced approach to these building provisions.
38.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
Submission		Issues (summarised)
39.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The 2012 guidelines are satisfactory and need no updating.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 22 above.
40.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The relocatable housing market including the method of relocation is an area of rapid growth and change. A flexible approach is needed.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
41.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The six (6) specific development provisions are overly rigid. There are many transport options that would allow for removal of relocatable buildings from the site.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
42.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	3.0m maximum building height does not support a reasonable living arrangement as low ceilings do not allow for cross ventilation and solar energy. Ventilation is best served by higher room sizes. This reduces power usage and CO² emissions. Development should not be restricted to single storey.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
43.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The DCP provisions are only about intended new relocatable buildings on Illaroo Road. There are only 6-7 homes that would be considering/needing a rebuild.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions apply to any property on Illaroo Road that would like to undertake additions that exceed 10%. All property owners on Illaroo Road have the potential to use the relocatable development draft coastal DCP provisions regardless of the age/condition of the current structures.
44.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The following objectives (2.4.3.8) need to be removed: · To adopt coastal management strategies that reduce exposure to coastal hazards. · To improve the resilience of coastal development and communities by improving adaptive capacity and reducing reliance on emergency responses. 1. No explanation is given as to what these objectives mean to the landowner who wants to be able to use land as long as practicable and do the right thing for our environment.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 3 above.
45.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The following needs to be amended to take destination out of the equation. This is the owners concern and will be a changing destination depending on circumstances. · The proposed removal route and destination must be identified and detailed via submission of a detailed plan.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	While it is noted that the final destination may not be known at the time of lodgement of a DA, this requirement encourages applicants to consider this aspect of the relocation process.
46.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	What plans have been made for present homes when the trigger point is reached?
46.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP chapter covers future development. Existing dwellings are not a matter for the draft coastal DCP.
47.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The original building guidelines were issued in 2012. The minutes specify the guidelines are only able to be reviewed when the revetment is built.
47.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 22 above.
48.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Sky cranes are available for emergencies. Relocatable buildings being “able to be removed quickly and easily” is the key point. The trucks/cranes/sky cranes available today hardly existed 10 years ago when the revetment procedure started.
48.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions are considered flexible to allow for the changes to relocatable housing technology. A certification from a structural engineer as to the adequacy of the relocatable structure is now included. Relocation options would be included in the relocation management plan.
49.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Council surveyed the street for responses on the trigger point. There was no hint that council was going to change all the building guidelines.
49.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 21 above.
50.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Council’s intention to “clarify existing management provisions”, “set development objectives” & “Guidance on appropriate development” is not correct. The 2012 guidelines that required “a certificate to be provided by a structural engineer as to the adequacy of the building to be easily dismantled and readily removed” is sufficient clarification.
50.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 7 above.
51.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The only objective council should have is the same as the Taree Council CZMP in relation to Old Bar. “allow residents the use of their land for as long as possible”.
51.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The Greater Taree (now Mid Coast Council) CZMP includes an objective, 'people want the ability to use their land for as long as practicable'. The draft coastal DCP provisions are considered flexible to allow for the above to occur whilst noting the coastal erosion rick.
52.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The objective “To adopt coastal management strategies that reduce exposure to coastal hazards”. This gives council unprecedented power to initiate a new management strategy at any time that can disallow any DA including relocatable homes if it believes the asset might one day be exposed to coastal hazards no matter if it considers the threat to be in the next 100 or in 500 years. The clause can be interpreted by council to allow it to prohibit any building on Illaroo Rd regardless of the applicant satisfying every Development Provision mentioned and there are 25 of them listed already in the exhibited document.
52.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 3 above.
53.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Development provision 2.4.3.7a) of the exhibited draft is supposedly the authority under which council believes it can review Development Provisions. It is not only in the wrong place it is also invalid in respect of this review being contrary to the 2012 Council Resolution.
53.	*Response/* *Comment*:	Agree with the first point. This information has been relocated to a more appropriate location within the draft coastal DCP chapter. The 2012 resolution does not restrict Councils ability to make changes to development control provisions.
54.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Development provision 2.4.3.7e) of the exhibited draft prevents two (2) storey homes though modular design allows easy dismantling of such structures. Power poles and wires are of no consequence in relocating dismantled homes. The owner of that infrastructure (i.e. energy companies) will demand guarantees from the removalists. Council has no place inserting itself in this debate when it has no knowledge of either what removalists can do or what the Energy company might demand of them.
54.	*Response/* *Comment*:	The draft coastal DCP provisions do not preclude two (2) storey developments. However, further clarification has been included to confirms that each modular component must be single storey. This does not restrict modules being ‘stacked’ provided the maximum ‘height of building’ included in the PMH LEP is not exceeded.
55.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Development provision 2.4.3.7i) of the exhibited draft is indecipherable and thus not able to be understood and is thus pointless.
55.	*Response/* *Comment*:	This draft coastal DCP provisions relates to the capacity of Council to impose development consent conditions under its function as a development assessment and approval authority. This is a typical planning clause and is proposed to be retained.
56.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The six (6) specific development criteria is a most extraordinary position for council to take. Under the present building guidelines there is no responsibility taken by council for any relocatable home as it is left to the structural engineer to verify the easy removal of the asset. Should that asset be lost it is the engineer and owner who are responsible. The moment council specifies any building measurements, e.g. tonnage and it is adhered to by the engineer, then in the event the asset is lost, I believe council would be equally responsible. By Council specifying the building sizes in the first place the engineer could quite reasonably argue was the reason the asset was lost.
56.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
57.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	These six (6) specific development criteria will result in relocatable caravan park/shipping container type cabins and granny flats being the only new relocatable homes that can be bought in kit form to be removed by Tilt Tray vehicles. This will dissuade owners from replacing 60 year old homes and just allowing them to fall into disrepair making the street, the suburb and the Shire look very poor in the eyes of local residents, the rest of the state and tourists. It will also set neighbour against neighbour as the old homes disintegrate next to those with newer ones.
57.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
58.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Many modern modular homes can be dismantled and don’t require cranes and heavy vehicles. Roofs and trusses and walls can be easily dismantled in a short period of time and taken away in small trucks. Regardless, there are many ways of removal and vehicles are available to take wider, longer, higher, heavier loads.
58.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
59.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	The six (6) specific development criteria should be amended to read in total “A certificate is to be provided from a structural engineer and as to the adequacy of the relocatable structure and its capacity to be easily dismantled and readily removed within a 30 day period of being advised by council that the trigger point has been reached. It is also a requirement of a removalist company to certify the home can be relocated safely from its present position and the method of doing so.”
59.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 4 above.
60.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Development provision 2.4.3.8g) of the exhibited draft should be amended as it is very feasible that helicopters can easily and readily relocate modules that cannot be dismantled piece by piece. Therefore I respectfully request “or helicopter” be added after the word “road”.
60.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 48 above.
61.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	Development provision 2.4.3.8h) of the exhibited draft requires a route and destination for relocation which is more problematic than any other provision. Assuming the DA is applied for and the applicant has no other land holding to which he can relocate at the time of applying for the DA (a likely scenario) then this section is impossible to satisfy. Therefore I respectfully request the following be added after the present one. “If, at the time of applying for a DA there is no destination known for relocation at a future time when council determines a trigger point is reached, then the owner agrees at the time of submitting the DA that he/she will (at such time as council requires the removal of the home in the future) nominate a destination to which he will relocate and submit evidence from the owner (if not himself) that the relocation is acceptable to that owner. In the situation where such evidence is not received then council will require the module/s concerned be dumped at the council waste depot at the owner’s expense”.
61.	*Response/* *Comment*:	While it is noted that the final destination may not be known at the time of lodgement of a DA, this requirement encourages applicants to consider this aspect of the relocation process. No change proposed.
62.	Margaret Fraser-Martin	There are midsized cranes that will arch over existing homes and pick up heavy objects on the other side. Therefore it is possible for these land locked home modules to be picked up by a crane situated in Chepana St to the west of their homes. Therefore Illaroo Rd would not be necessarily be the road of departure. The trigger point could then move well and truly landward (to the west) of Illaroo Rd giving many extra years to the owner to enjoy his/her home. In fact this change would give an extra 50 years residency than otherwise would be the case in relocating via Illaroo Rd.
62.	*Response/* *Comment*:	See response to submission No. 60 above. See response to submission No. 25 above.

Internal consultation

Internal consultation was undertaken that included a detailed technical review of the exhibited draft coastal DCP chapter. A number of comments and suggestions in relation to formatting and technical planning matters were incorporated.

Due to these formatting and technical changes the final DCP document layout is slightly different to that of the exhibited draft.

Planning & Policy Implications

The relevant Community Strategic Plan actions are:

· 4.8 Plan and take action to minimise impact of natural events and climate change, and

· 4.9 Manage development outcomes to minimise the impact on the natural environment.

Associated outcome are to have:

· “Development outcomes that are ecologically sustainable and complement with our natural environment”,

· “Residents that are environmentally aware” and

· “A community that is prepared for natural events and climate change”.

The draft coastal DCP chapter contributes to these outcomes by guiding new development located within the Coastal Erosion area of Lake Cathie.

The draft coastal DCP chapter is intended to improve the current situation by consolidating planning controls for the area subject to Coastal Erosion under the LEP into Development Control Plan 2013. The draft coastal DCP provisions have been developed to provide clarity on coastal hazard related development requirements and a higher level of consistency when assessing development applications. The draft coastal DCP provisions are considered to reduce the risk of confusion and make the controls easier to use and understand.

The proposed controls remain consistent with Council’s strategic land use planning framework, notably the Local Environmental Plan and state based coastal management planning provisions, specifically the draft NSW Coastal Management guidelines.

Financial & Economic Implications

There are no significant financial implications that result from this report.

The proposed DCP provisions are not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact. The controls allow development consistent with the nature of the coastal risk at Lake Cathie and have the potential for a positive impact associated with future development, while mitigating costs to the broader community in relation to damages from coastal events.

Attachments

1 View. Final Draft Lake Cathie Coastal Hazard DCP 2017

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 12.04

Subject: Site Specific LEP Amendments

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

5.4.2 Review planning instruments and strategies to ensure currency and facilitate sustainable development outcomes whilst acknowledging the impact on community affordability.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Invite the proponents for site specific LEP amemdments at:

a. Lots 1 and 2 DP 1091253, Beach St Bonny Hills,

b. Lot 2 DP 771931, Mission Terrace Lakewood,

c. Lot 435 DP 1222921, Crestwood Dr Port Macquarie, and

d. Lots 37 & 39 DP 1191701, Frogs Rd Sancrox,

to submit fees and information to support the preparation of Planning Proposals for each site.

2. Commence investigations of a. to d. above as part of Council’s strategic land use planning program.

3. Consider a further report following the initial investigations and determine whether to proceed with Planning Proposals to rezone the lands in each case.

4. Consider a further report on the status of all proposed site specific LEP amendments following adoption of the revised Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Management Strategy and determine priorities in Council’s strategic land use planning program.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Provide an update on the status of site-specific LEP amendments.

2. Provide a summary of new requests for site specific LEP amendments.

3. Determine whether to progress the new requests in the context of Council’s strategic planning program.

The report provides a summary of the strategic planning projects that are currently being prioritised by Council in accordance with the 2011 Urban Growth Management Strategy. This includes large scale, high priority strategic planning projects, such as:

· Yippin Creek Urban Release Area: Structure Plan, LEP, DCP;

· Review of the Urban Growth Management Strategy (UGMS);

· Airport Business Park Precinct: Biocertification, LEP, DCP;

· Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management; and

· Innes Peninsula Strategy (Health and University Precinct);

In addition, there are currently 7 site specific amendments being progressed by Council and 4 other requests for site specific amendments that have not yet been considered, as described in this report.

Council is considering each of these site specific proposals in more detail. However, in some instances, there has been little progress due to a need for detailed studies to support the proposed rezoning. These studies are needed in order that Council can put forward a justification for the proposed LEP amendment. In each case, the proponent has advised that they wish to continue with the LEP amendment process. However, the protracted review and re-review of information has significant implications on staff resources and there needs to be some timeframe for consideration of these site specific matters.

There is a need to balance the amount of time taken to progress site specific matters against the need to prioritise larger scale strategic planning matters. This includes projects that will stem from the current review of the UGMS, as these larger scale projects are of greater significance to the community.

It is proposed that Council continue investigations in relation to all current site specific matters (i.e. those that Council has resolved to consider) pending a further report following adoption of the revised UGMS, at which time the status of the proposed amendments will be re-considered. If there has been no substantial progress in the interim, then it will be recommended to Council that such matters be discontinued.

It is recommended that Council also commence investigation of the four additional requests for Planning Proposals but that any further requests for site specific LEP amendments be deferred until after completion of the UGMS review, in order that the priority of these matters can be considered as part of Council’s broader strategic landuse planning program.

Discussion

Council’s Strategic Planning Program

Council’s Strategic Land Use Planning Program is based on priorities in the Port Macquarie Urban Growth Management Strategy.

At present, the projects being prioritised include:

· Review of the Urban Growth Management Strategy (UGMS);

· Ongoing review and update of Port Macquarie - Hastings LEP 2011;

· Yippin Creek Urban Release Area: Structure Plan, LEP, DCP;

· Airport Business Park Precinct: Biocertification, LEP, DCP;

· Rainbow Beach “Precinct C” LEP;

· Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management;

· South Lindfield LEP;

· Housing and Land Monitor;

· Innes Peninsula Strategy (Health and University Precinct);

· Input into Regional Plan;

· Comprehensive DCP Review;

· Area 14 Industrial Land LEP (Houston Mitchell Drive).

Current Planning Proposals in Process

In addition to the above projects, the assessment and processing of rezoning requests is undertaken by Council’s staff. The following table provides a list of current site specific matters currently being progressed. The stage indicated is based on the simplified process shown below.

	File No.	Stage	Property	Summary
1	PP2011-9.3	4	Ruins Way, Port Macquarie	Residential zone
2	PP2014-8.1	9	37 Lincoln Rd Port Macquarie	Residential zone
3	PP2014-9.1	4	14 Pioneer St North Haven	Residential zone
4	PP2014-10.1	4	11 Mumford St Port Macquarie	Commercial zone
5	PP2014-12.1	6	Lot 202 Homedale Rd Kew	Residential zone
6	PP2016-3.1	9	Reading St Port Macquarie	Residential zone
7	PP2009-1.1	2	304 & 340 Ocean Drive,10 Mission Tce Lakewood	Residential zone

The stages in the Planning Proposal Process can be summarised as follows:

1. Written request received

2. Initial internal review and discussions with applicant

3. Report to Council for a decision whether to include in program for coming year

4. If included, pre-lodgement meeting held: additional information or amended proposal requirements.

5. Information received, Proposal assessed, negotiations with proponent.

6. Report to Council - decision to proceed to Gateway (or not).

7. Submitted for Gateway determination.

8. Gateway determination.

9. Preparation for exhibition

10. Exhibition

11. Report to Council for finalisation.

12. Submitted - waiting for LEP to be made.

A brief description of the status of each proposal is provided below:

1. 2011-9.3 Ruins Way Port Macquarie

Summary: Rezone land from RU1 Primary production to R1 General Residential.

This request was originally lodged in 2011. The proposal was reported to the Council meeting of 27 July 2011 and was supported subject to submission of a Koala Plan of Management and subject to modifications to ensure satisfactory urban design and conservation outcomes.

Further meetings were held and correspondence was exchanged in 2011 and 2012. However, the required Koala Plan of Management has not yet been submitted.

The applicant was requested in December 2016 to advise of their intentions to proceed with the proposal and has advised that they intend to proceed, with an intention to submit required information in June 2017.

It is proposed that a report will be presented to Council to discontinue this matter if the necessary information to enable Council to satisfactorily progress a Planning Proposal has not been received by the end of June 2017.

2. PP2014-8.1 37 Lincoln Rd Port Macquarie

Summary: Rezone land from RU1 Primary production to R1 General Residential.

The proposal has received a Gateway Determination and is being prepared for exhibition.

3. 2014: 9.1: Pioneer St North Haven

Summary: Rezone land from RU1 Primary production to R1 General Residential.

This request was originally lodged in 2014, and reported to a Council meeting in August 2014 where it was resolved to commence investigations for rezoning of the land.

The applicant lodged the required information in January 2017 and the project appears ready to proceed. It is anticipated that a report will be presented to Council’s April 2017 Ordinary Council meeting with a recommendation to prepare a Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination.

4. PP2014-10.1 11 Mumford St Port Macquarie

Summary: Rezone land from R1 General Residential to Business Zone (Possibly B5).

Council resolved in August 2014 to commence investigations for a site specific amendment. However, progress on this proposal has stalled due to a delay in purchase of the site by the proponent.

The applicant was requested in December 2016 to advise of their intentions to proceed with the proposal. They have advised that the purchase of the land was only finalised in October 2016 and that they do intend to proceed. Their intention is to submit the required information in June 2017.

5. PP2014-12.1 Lot 202 Homedale Rd Kew

Summary: Rezone land from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential.

The proposal was reported to Council in December 2016 with a decision to proceed to a Gateway Determination.

6. PP2016-3.1 Reading St Port Macquarie

Summary: Rezone land from part RU6 Transition, part E2 Environmental Conservation and part R1 General Residential to part E2 Environmental Conservation and part R1 General Residential.

This proposal has been supported at Gateway Determination. The proposal will be prepared for exhibition following preparation of an Aboriginal Archaeology survey and assessment report.

7. 2009-1.1: 304, 340 Ocean Drive, 10 Mission Terrace Lakewood: Lot 2 DP827937 and Lots 2 & 3 DP1114325

Request Summary: rezone land from RU1 Primary Production to part R1 General Residential, part E2 Environmental Conservation and part E3 Environmental Management.

Locality	Existing Zones

This request was originally lodged in 2009. In February 2010, the applicant was advised to provide a modified development footprint and to provide advice as to how offsets for the proposed vegetation clearing would be achieved. The applicant sought to negotiate Council’s requirements for the reduced development footprint, with on-going discussions until mid 2013.

The Rezoning Request stalled in 2013 because the applicant did not agree to reduce the development footprint or agreed to the provision of vegetation clearing offsets. Consequently, the request was never formally reported to Council for inclusion in the strategic landuse planning program.

The applicant was requested in December 2016 to advise of his intentions to proceed with the proposal. The applicant has advised they wish to proceed, and has requested to recommence discussions with Council regarding the development footprint and vegetation offsets.

The proposal is consistent with the UGMS and has merit, subject to satisfying ecological outcomes.

Current Requests for Planning Proposals

The following table lists current requests for preparation of planning proposals in chronological order, based on when the formal requests to amend the LEP were first received by Council.

	File No.	Stage	Property	Summary
8	PP2016-10.1	2	Beach St Bonny Hills	Residential zone
9		2	Mission Terrace Lakewood	Residential zone
10		2	Crestwood Dr Port Macquarie	Residential zone
11		1	Frogs Rd Sancrox	Industrial zone

A brief description of each proposal is provided below.

8. Beach St Bonny Hills, Lots 1 and 2 DP 1091253

Request Summary: rezone land from part RU1 Primary Production and part R1 General Residential to part E2 Environmental Conservation and part General Residential.

Locality	Existing Zones

This land has been the subject of rezoning requests since the late 1990s. The previous most recent rezoning request lapsed in 2010 due to the refusal of the Department of Planning & Environment to issue a gateway determination to enable a planning proposal to proceed. Refusal was based on impacts of the proposal on threatened species and Koala habitat.

A pre-lodgement meeting was held in January 2016 and the applicant was provided with advice on the format of rezoning proposal Council would be prepared to support. The current request is not consistent with that advice.

Key issues include the conservation and management of key ecological areas on the site, including koala habitat, an endangered ecological community and a squirrel glider population.

At the time of writing this report, staff are scheduled to meet with the proponent on 13 March 2017, and a follow up report is proposed to Council’s ordinary meeting on 19 April 2017 to discontinue the rezoning if there remains no mutually agreed basis to progress a Planning Proposal at that time.

9. Mission Terrace Lakewood Lot 2 DP 771931

Request summary: rezone the approved educational establishment on the site from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential to permit normal residential use of ancillary dwellings.

Locality	Existing Zones

The site has consent under DA 1999/752 as a Mission Training Facility (educational establishment) with on-site accommodation for 27 dwellings. At present, there are 21 dwellings on the site for student accommodation, ancillary to the training facility, together with a conference/activity building, equipment shed and covered games area.

Due to a change in operation of the facility in recent years where training is now mostly provided over the internet, there is a declining need for the onsite student accommodation. To generate an income stream, the landowners propose to convert the ancillary dwellings, to dwellings for normal residential use.

Being located on the fringe of an existing urban area, a rezoning of the existing development footprint to permit normal residential use would represent a minor adjustment to the growth area boundary.

Therefore from a planning perspective, there may be some merit in determining a more appropriate zone for the site. Based on preliminary investigations, resolution of water and sewerage infrastructure, bushfire hazard and stormwater management issues would need to be resolved to progress Planning Proposal.

Having regard to the circumstances, it is recommended that investigations commence. This matter will need to be reported back to Council before a decision is made to progress the preparation of a Planning Proposal.

10. Crestwood Dr Port Macquarie Lot 435 DP 1222921

Request Summary: Rezone land from RU1 Primary production to R1 General Residential.

Locality	Existing Zones

The site would be regarded as infill development. Initial analysis indicates the site is cleared and mostly flood free.

Based on preliminary investigations, resolution of water and sewerage infrastructure, bushfire hazard and stormwater management issues would need to be resolved to progress planning proposal.

It is recommended that investigations commence. This matter will need to be reported back to Council before a decision is made to progress the preparation of a Planning Proposal.

11. Frogs Rd Sancrox Lots 37 & 39 DP 1191701

Request Summary: rezone land from RU1 Primary Production to IN1 General Industrial.

Locality	Existing Zones

The site is located between existing industrial zoned land and the new highway overpass and access road to the Sancrox Employment Lands, and would be regarded as infill development. Initial analysis indicates the site is partially cleared and lightly timbered.

It is recommended that investigations commence. This matter will need to be reported back to Council before a decision is made to progress the preparation of a Planning Proposal.

Options

Council could opt to defer or not progress the site specific amendments at the present time.

It is recommended that the rezoning requests be included in the strategic land use planning program for the coming year, but that any further requests for site specific LEP amendments be deferred until after completion of the UGMS review, in order that the priority of these matters can be considered as part of Council’s strategic landuse planning program.

Following completion of the Urban Growth Strategy review, it is recommended that a further report be submitted to Council on priorities for the strategic land use planning program, including priorities for all current rezoning requests.

Consultation

Preliminary consultation has been undertaken with relevant Council staff and with the proponent in each matter. Community consultation is undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, where a planning proposal proceeds.

Planning & Policy Implications

The process for the preparation of Planning Proposals is governed by Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and by the Gateway Determination for each proposal.

In 2012, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) introduced a policy approach (i.e. non-legislative) to the review of Council responses to requests for preparation of a Planning Proposal. All “eligible” requests for a review of Council refusal or delay are to be considered by an independent third party. For the Port Macquarie Hastings Council area, the independent authority is the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP).

In September 2016, the Department introduced further changes to the Rezoning Review Process. These changes impose timeframes on Council to consider Rezoning Requests and to submit a Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination. If the JRPP supports a rezoning request, that Council has not supported, or has delayed, the JRPP may be appointed to process the Planning Proposal.

All the timelines are policy based and there are no legislative requirements imposed on Council. It remains a Council responsibility to determine resource allocation to rezoning requests. Land owners/proponents may seek a review by the JRPP.

Financial & Economic Implications

Council fees for the preparation of planning proposals will apply to each of the site specific amendments covered by this report.

There are no specific economic implications associated with this report.

Attachments

Nil

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 13.04

Subject: South Lindfield Urban Release Area - Update [PP2002-6.1]

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

5.4.1 Plan settlements to accommodate a range of compatible land uses that meets projected population growth for new and existing developments.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Amend the South Lindfield Urban Release Area Planning Proposal by omitting the Vilro land and resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a revised Gateway Determination.

2. Amend the draft Koala Plan of Management for the revised Urban Release Area detailed in the report.

3. Amend the Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) for the South Lindfield Urban Release Area by:

a. Omitting the Vilro land,

b. Providing that the road contributions will be quarantined for the construction costs of the northern 50 metres (measures along the common boundary) of the proposed road between Nos 171 and 175 John Oxley Drive and the intersection at John Oxley Drive,

c. Omitting the requirement for payment of environmental management land contributions.

4. Proceed with exhibition of the South Lindfield Urban Release Area Planning Proposal subject to a revised Gateway Determination and satisfactory resolution of the above matters.

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Council meeting in November 2015, Council considered a report on the proposed rezoning for urban development of land located south of Lindfield Park Road, Port Macquarie. Council resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal for the South Lindfield area and forward the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Council has since undertaken consultation with key State government agencies prior to exhibition, in accordance with the Gateway Determination. The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) has raised concerns regarding the environmental impact of the proposal, which has necessitated further consultation with South Lindfield land owners.

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the outcomes of this consultation and of proposed changes to the Planning Proposal and Voluntary Planning Agreements for South Lindfield, in response to the OEH concerns.

The report also provides a for consideration of objections from three landowners in relation to:

a) The impact of Council's preferred road connections on their land.

b) The proposal that all landowners contribute towards the future maintenance of environmental lands.

c) The area of land proposed to be set aside for environmental purposes on one property.

Subject to resolution of issues a) and b) above, as proposed in this report, it is possible that Council can proceed with the amendment of the current draft Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) for the area and with the exhibition of a Planning Proposal, revised KPoM, draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and Voluntary Planning Agreements.

It is currently not possible to address item c) above as this involves ongoing investigation of environmental areas on the Vilro land. In addition to delays to the planning of the investigation area as a whole, there is a risk that a Planning Proposal may be refused by the State Government, if these environmental issues are not satisfactorily addressed.

It is therefore proposed that Council exclude the Vilro land due to uncertainty surrounding these issues and that rezoning of this property be considered separately if the environmental issues can be satisfactorily resolved.

Discussion

Background

The urban land release area is outlined on the map below. Excluding NSW Roads and Maritime Services and Council land there are 11 properties in the investigation area.

Land covered by South Lindfield Planning Proposal. Imagery; Nov 2012

Planning for this study area has been complicated due to factors including:

· coordination of multiple small holdings

· the need for separation of koala habitat from urban development, and protection of koala movement corridors

· management of endangered ecological communities

· the need to offset proposed vegetation loss

· coordination of collector roads and access to future development

· design of utility services, across 2 drainage catchments, with difficulties with sewerage linkages and stormwater management in the northern catchment.

Following extensive investigations and consultation with landowners, staff prepared a Planning Proposal concept that sought to achieve a balance that could provide for development potential, while providing appropriate environmental outcomes and coordinated provision of infrastructure across the 11 properties.

The Proposal was reported to Council at its meeting on 18 November 2015 - a copy of that report and the resolution is in Attachment 1. The resolution can be summarised as:

· A Planning Proposal, draft Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) were endorsed for submission for a Gateway Determination commence the formal rezoning process.

· Voluntary Planning Agreements were to be prepared in consultation with the landowners.

· A draft Local Developer Servicing Plan for sewage services was to be prepared.

· For the 4 western lots Council would require a coordinated development application to support LEP amendments for more intense development.

Following receipt of the Gateway determination from the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E), the Planning Proposal documentation was referred for review to:

· Civil Aviation Authority of the Commonwealth

· Environmental Protection Authority

· Essential Energy

· Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

· Roads and Maritime Services

· Rural Fire Service.

The responses from most of these agencies did not raise any significant concerns. However, the OEH response raised several matters as discussed below.

Office of Environment and Heritage recommendations

The OEH has responded with 17 recommendations in relation to the draft Planning Proposal, including concerns regarding the need for buffers to National Parks and Wildlife Service land and the assessment for biodiversity and Aboriginal cultural heritage. The OEH submissions are included as Attachment 2.

Council staff have considered the issues raised by OEH and most have been resolved through modification of the Planning Proposal in consultation with South Lindfield owners. The proposed response to the OEH concerns is summarised in Attachment 4.

It has not been possible, however, to resolve the OEH concerns and recommendations regarding the Vilro land in the South Lindfield area, as detailed later in this report. It is therefore proposed that this property be considered for rezoning in a separate process.

At this stage delegation to finalise the LEP has not been granted to Council - the DP&E have made this conditional on the KPoM being approved. It is assumed that the views of OEH will be considered by DP&E in relation to approval of the KPoM or the LEP.

Revised development concept

The proposed changes to the development concept plan for the South Lindfield area that take account of issued raised during consultation to date are shown below. At this stage, the environmental buffers on the Vilro land are still shown to meet OEH requirements, noting that the owners of that land dispute the OEH recommendations.

The zone labels represent:

R1 General Residential

E2 Environmental Conservation

E3 Environmental Management

E4 Environmental Living

IN2 Light Industrial

Key differences between the development concept reported to Council in November 2015 and that show above are:

· Consolidation of the conservation of the vegetation within the southern parts of the lots numbered 3, 4 and 5, including enhancement as koala habitat, in lieu of scattered koala food trees lost elsewhere in those lots.

· Slight realignment of the proposed extension of Annabella Drive to the north to allow for compensatory offsets to the south of the Annabella Drive.

· Retention and enhancement of the vegetation within the lot numbered 7, to protect a 'swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast Endangered Ecological Community' (SSF EEC) and to improve habitat linkages both north-south and east-west. Note that OEH recommendation 3 requires a 35 m wide vegetated east-west buffer.

The blue numbers distinguish the properties as follows:

Property	Address	Ownership
1	Lot 2 Holland Close	Busways & others
2	1 Philip Charley Drive	Geoff Priest (for Scribbly Gum Holdings and others)
3	175 John Oxley Drive	Geoff Priest (for Lake Innes Residential Pty Ltd)
4	171 John Oxley Drive	BaptistCare NSW & ACT
5	165 John Oxley Drive	Mann and others
6	153 John Oxley Drive	R & J Ramm
7	Lot 171 Blackwood Street	Vilro Pty Ltd
8	Lot 2 Oxley Highway	H & D Durant
9	211 John Oxley Drive	H & D Durant
10	209 John Oxley Drive	D Xiao
11	12 Philip Charley Drive	G Byrne
12	1 Lindfield Park Road (included only to apply E3 Environmental Management over 5 m fronting Oxley Highway - this is also included in a separate Planning Proposal reported to Council in February, and its inclusion in South Lindfield will be reviewed in the future.)	D Fanning

Voluntary Planning Agreements

Based on the development concept plan, an amended Voluntary Planning Agreement was drafted for consultation with the landowners of the lots numbered 1 to 7. This covered:

· Roads

· Stormwater catchments

· Sewerage services

· Open space

· Environmental management lands, including management contribution

· Administration contribution.

The initial approach was that each landowner carried the costs for relevant matters applying to their land. However, late last year this was changed in relation to environmental management contributions, with the contributions to be shared on a yield basis. This approach has been used elsewhere, including at Thrumster.

Four signed VPAs have been received. Below is discussion of the issues relating to the 3 properties for which VPAs have not been signed.

Vilro land (Property 7)

Recommendation 3 (as modified) from OEH is:

The Planning Proposal should include a 35 metre wide vegetated buffer in or adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the planning area to protect the Lake Innes Nature Reserve from the indirect impacts associated with future residential development in the planning area.

OEH emphasise the importance of this buffer:

· protecting native vegetation within Lake Innes Nature Reserve [LINR] from "edge effects"

· discouraging access into LINR by residents and domestic animals

· increasing habitat availability for native wildlife, particularly koalas

· enhancing habitat links between the planning area and LINR

· providing space for compensatory koala food tree plantings required as part of the Planning Proposal and Koala Plan of Management [as some loss of koala food trees within this property is proposed].

The 35 m width is consistent with the requirements in Council's DCP 2013, and is roughly the same as a 50 m width including the existing trees.

Applying this width, plus a north-south corridor along the western boundary provides an area proposed to be zoned R1 General Residential of 1.8 ha. The owners are not prepared to sign the VPA because the developable area is less than they expected.

They have disputed the identification of the EEC, but to date have not supplied information sufficient to disprove the classification. Note that should the landowner be able to disprove the EEC classification, this does not remove the case for provision of land for the ecological link because of the importance of this part of the landscape for koala habitat connectivity.

The urban land release can proceed without this property, although this will require alternate solutions for stormwater and sewer management for those parts of Properties 5 and 6 which drain to the south.

This effects only a small part of properties 5 and 6 and does not mean that the affected parts of properties 5 and 6 need to be excluded from the Planning Proposal. Satisfactory arrangements will be required for stormwater and sewer can be required at the development application stage.

It is therefore proposed that Planning Proposal proceed without the Vilro land. This would also include removal of the land from the associated KPoM, which identifies movement linkages across this property.

171 John Oxley Drive (Property 4)

A significant portion of this property contains koala food trees that are proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation.

The initial roads concept had Annabella Drive extending to Philip Charley Drive, but it is difficult to provide an affordable safe intersection at Philip Charley Drive. Council's Traffic Engineers have required Annabella Drive to be connected to John Oxley Drive, at Holland Close - this will require construction of a roundabout.

The landowner has made a revised VPA offer (refer Attachment 5), based on the cost of the additional 50 m of road link to John Oxley Drive and of the roundabout being covered by the collective contributions from the South Lindfield area. The additional road link cost commences from where the road no longer provides direct access to future lots within this property - indicated by the yellow shading on the map below. (Note the lot layout is conceptual, and is yet to receive Council approval.)

The offer from the owners of Property 4 states:

• BaptistCare seek inclusion in the Planning Agreement provision for a Roads Contribution Reduction in the amount equal to:

o The cost of the survey, design & construction of the additional roadworks (shaded yellow) associated with the construction of the Link Road which is considered to be beyond that required for the development of the BaptistCare Land.

o The cost of the survey, design and construction of the John Oxley Drive Intersection.

• BaptistCare seek provisions in the Planning Agreement to require PMHC to set aside Section 94 Contributions paid in conjunction with the Development of the South Lindfield Urban Release Area to be used by the Developer (in this case the owner of the BaptistCare Land) towards the funding of the survey, design and construction of the additional extent of the roadworks associated with the Link Road (shaded yellow) and the John Oxley Drive Intersection (shaded green).

It is considered reasonable to include the net additional road link and the intersection in works to be funded from contributions received for roads from South Lindfield area.

This change will also apply to Property 3 in relation to the additional road link.

It is proposed that Council agree to modified provisions in the VPA for these two properties to address this concern. There is no impact on the other properties, so this does not require revisions for the other VPAs.

153 John Oxley Drive (Property 6)

This property has existing access to Annabella Drive, and no environmental management lands. The owner objects to being asked to make an environmental management contribution because there is no environmental management land on his property.

The environmental lands contribution is designed to cover the maintenance of the environmental land following its initial establishment by the relevant property owners and totals $82,738 (or $163,820 if the Vilro land is included in the Planning Proposal).

The contribution is in the order of $17,193 for this landowner (or $30,497 if the Vilro land is included). All other landowners have environmental management land in their ownership and have accepted the principle of shared management contributions.

Given that all landowners have not agreed to paying the environmental lands contribution and the already high infrastructure costs on a per property basis, it is proposed that the environmental lands contribution provisions be removed from the VPAs and that Council cover the costs of the maintenance of the environmental lands beyond the initial establishment phase.

The alternatives to this approach are:

1. That the rezoning of Property 6 is contingent on a commitment to contribute to environmental land management costs.

2. That the Planning Proposal proceed on the basis that other landowners have committed to sharing environmental management costs and that the owner of Property 6 not be required to make a ontribution given there is no environmental lands on that property.

Koala Plan of Management Revisions

A number of amendments to the draft KPoM are proposed as a result of review by staff and OEH as summarised below:

OEH recommendation

1. Remove the key habitat areas on the northern and middle parts of Nos 165 & 171 John Oxley Drive.

2. Remove the Vilro land.

3. Include koala-friendly stiles along the Crematorium fence where it adjoins the Planning Proposal area.

4. Offset planting is not to remove other native trees.

5. Clarifying that all proposed bushfire asset protection zones and other bushfire hazard reduction measures are to be outside of proposed E2 zones.

Council staff assessment

6. Offset planting ratio of 1:4 for land remaining in private ownership.

7. Reposition proposed location of house on western Lot 2.

8. Remove the key area shown on 1 Philip Charley Drive (as it has always been cleared).

9. Reposition the key area in south-eastern corner of 165 John Oxley Drive .

10. Clarify that there are to be no koala food trees within residential lots and that fencing should not enable koalas to enter residential properties.

11. Remove requirement for dog prohibition - separation provided by design.

12. Address any Vegetation Management Plan requirements within the KPoM - to minimise duplication in separate documentation.

Outcomes and next steps

The proposed outcomes of this review are:

1. LEP amendments: removal of the proposed R1 General Residential and E3 Environmental Management and related mapping changes on the Vilro land (property 7).

2. DCP provisions: removal of associated provisions for the Vilro land, including stormwater and sewer concepts.

3. Voluntary Planning Agreements:

a) omit reference to the Vilro land.

b) omit provisions relating to environmental management contribution for land

c) changes for Properties 3 and 4 in relation to part of the northern extension of Annabella Drive and the proposed roundabout on John Oxley Drive - providing that these works are to be funded from contributions.

4. Koala Plan of Management: make revisions are required in relation to the changes arising from the OEH recommendations, assessment by staff and consultation with landowners.

These steps will require revision of the relevant documents, and obtaining signatures on revised VPAs.

Subject to the above, the Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition, with a subsequent report to Council outlining the outcomes of that exhibition process.

Options

Council can opt to defer the progress of a Planning Proposal, for example, to await the outcome of the additional investigations on the Vilro land in relation to EEC classification.

Council can also opt to further amend the Planning Proposal and associated documents or to proceed as recommended in this report.

It is recommended that Council proceed with an amended Planning Proposal, as described in this report.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

There has been ongoing internal consultation with relevant staff.

This report details the outcomes of landowner and state agency consultation carried out in relation to the Planning Proposal.

Resolution of the matters discussed in this report will enable this to move to wider community engagement.

Planning & Policy Implications

The process of preparing and exhibiting a Planning Proposal is specified by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The process is also governed by the requirements of the Department of Planning’s Gateway determination, including timeframes for completion.

In this case, given the changes that have been necessary to respond to the OEH concerns, it is necessary that Council refer the changes to the Planning Proposal to the Department in order that a revised Gateway Determination can be obtained.

Financial & Economic Implications

Work on this Planning Proposal has largely sought to have the landowners meet the costs of development. Council has funded a minor component of the investigation and staff time associated with managing the planning process.

Removing the environmental lands contribution requirement from the VPAs will see Council taking earlier responsibility for the cost of environmental lands following the initial establishment by landowners. This cost equates to $82,738 (or $163,820 if the Vilro land is included in the Planning Proposal) over the first 17 years of maintenance of the land. Note that Council would be responsible for the maintenance of this land in the long-term in any case.

As noted above, it is proposed that the relevant regional road contributions from this release area be 'quarantined' for the costs associated with the proposed Annabella Drive / John Oxley Drive roundabout. However, a funding shortfall may remain for the proposed roundabout at the intersection of John Oxley Drive and Holland Close. Should a shortfall occur, funding of this work would need to be prioritised by Council as part a future Operation Plan/budget process.

Attachments

1 View. Council Report and Minutes 18/11/2015

2 View. Office of Environment & Heritage 22/06/2016

3 View. Office of Environment & Heritage 21/09/2016

4 View. Response to OEH recommendations

5 View. BaptistCare - revised VPA offer

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 13.05

Subject: Draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan - Consideration of Submissions and Adoption

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

5.4.1 Plan settlements to accommodate a range of compatible land uses that meets projected population growth for new and existing developments.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan, subject to the recommended changes detailed in this report.

2. Write to all residents, individuals and State agencies who lodged submissions advising of Council’s decision and thanking them for their contribution to the draft Structure Plan for Yippin Creek.

3. Commence implementation of the Yippin Creek Structure Plan, including:

3.1 Discussions with landowners to gauge the level of interest in and agree a process for implementation of amendments to the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 to rezone land in the Structure Plan Area.

3.2 Consideration of the outcomes of 3.1 above in determining strategic planning priorities in the context of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Management Strategy, which is currently under review.

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 14 December 2016 Council resolved to re-exhibit the draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan in response to issues raised in submissions. The revised draft Plan was re-exhibited for public comment between 30 January and 28 February 2017. A total of eight submissions were received.

Following re-exhibition, Council’s strategic land use planning staff in collaboration with staff of other relevant sections of Council, have reviewed the issues raised in submissions and prepared a final draft Structure Plan, with changes where appropriate, to address issues of concern. The recommended changes to the draft Plan arising from the consideration of submissions relate to the location of the proposed neighbourhood park and amendment to the concept road and environmental corridor in the south-east.

This report documents the public consultation process, summarises the issues raised in submissions and in further discussions with stakeholders, and reports on how these issues have been addressed in a final draft Structure Plan for Yippin Creek.

In preparing the draft Structure Plan there has been extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders. The final draft Structure Plan presented with this report, provides a co-ordinated framework for future development of the Yippin Creek area as a valued addition to Wauchope, including:

· areas for potential rezoning for a range of residential development including residential, rural-residential and environmental living

· retention and enhancement of high value vegetation and habitat to protect the area’s important biodiversity and waterways

· provision for new public open space, improved connections for pedestrians and cyclists and opportunities for public transport, and

· infrastructure works to support the forecast population growth (approx 2,300 people).

It is recommended that Council adopt the draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan (with changes) and continue working with landowners to implement the Plan.

Background

On 15 June 2016, Council endorsed the draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan for public consultation. The draft Plan was exhibited and 15 submissions were received. On 14 December 2016, Council considered a planning report on the submissions to the draft Plan exhibition and resolved as follows:

RESOLVED: Intemann/Hawkins

That Council:

1. Note the submissions to the draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan as discussed in this report and contained in Attachment 2.

2. Place the revised draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan, as described in this report, on public exhibition between 30 January 2017 and 28 February 2017.

3. Advise all persons who have previously made submissions and who own land within or adjoining the Yippin Creek Structure Plan Area regarding the public exhibition of the revised draft Plan.

4. Note that a further report will be presented to the March 2017 meeting of Council, detailing the submissions received as a result of the re-exhibition period.

A revised draft Structure Plan, identifying an additional 6 hectares of land in the north-east as potentially suitable for residential development, was exhibited from 30 January to 28 February 2017. A total of seven submissions were received.

Some of the issues raised in submissions were of a similar nature to those raised during the first exhibition. Others raised some specific issues and suggestions including:

· landowner concerns about the identification of their land for a future neighbourhood park

· request for additional residential potential in the central north of the Structure Plan Area

· request to amend the concept road layout and environmental corridor shown on the draft Structure Plan map for land in the south-east

· the possibility of expanding the Structure Plan Area to include land immediately adjacent to the north-eastern boundary

· the urgency required in rezoning the Structure Plan Area to meet future demand.

All submissions have been reviewed and where appropriate, changes to the draft Structure Plan are recommended to address issues of concern. A summary of the submissions and a planning response to the issues raised is provided in the Community Engagement & Internal Consultation section of this report. A copy of the submissions is at Attachment 1. The key issues raised in the submissions are discussed below.

Discussion

Neighbourhood Park

The draft Structure Plan identifies a potential site adjacent to Yippin Creek Road for a neighbourhood park of up to 5,000sqm generally over Nos 92 and 98 Yippin Creek Road. These properties have an area of approximately 1 hectare each and contain housing and outbuildings. Consultation has occurred with the owners during the re-exhibition and both have advised that they have no interest in rezoning or developing their properties for residential purposes in the foreseeable future.

The owners of No 98 Yippin Creek Road have also lodged a submission confirming their objection to the siting of a neighbourhood park on their land. Highlighted is the considerable investment that has occurred in establishing their property overtime and the desire to retain their existing lifestyle. The submission requests that Council consider alternative sites for a neighbourhood park in the Structure Plan Area.

The Yippin Creek Issues Paper 2015 notes that the preferred location for a neighbourhood park is generally in the north-west of the Structure Plan Area, taking into account existing/future open space in the surrounding locality and allowing for a maximum 500m walking distance to open space for residents.

The key characteristics of neighbourhood parks mean that the parks are easily accessible and that they are perceived to be safe because they are generally visible. They are valued in urban areas because they provide a place for socialising (particularly with neighbours), a place with nature and a place for exercise.

In consultation with Council’s Group Manager Recreation & Buildings it has been determined that an alternative preferred option for the neighbourhood park use is in the north-eastern corner of Gwynvill’s land, Lot 2 DP 1036844. This area is centrally located in the surrounding residential catchment and has potential to incorporate some existing native vegetation and hollow bearing trees. This matter will need to be investigated in more detail at the time of rezoning the land and implementing development control provisions.

If at the time of detailed rezoning investigations it is found to be possible to locate a neighbourhood park and provide a stormwater detention function on the Yippin Creek Road properties as initially exhibited, this option may be pursued instead of the above alternative.

When a neighbourhood park is identified in an adopted Structure Plan and subsequently rezoned for the use, the Contributions Plan for open space will make an allowance for future acquisition and construction of the park.

Acquisition would occur at the time that the land is developed, or sooner if the park is required before development of the property in question. The value of the land for the park is normally negotiated with the landowner, at highest and best value at the time of acquisition. If there’s no agreement, then the acquisition is based on the Just Terms Compensation Act. A developer can also propose to construct the park in accordance with Council standards as Works in Kind and have the cost of construction reimbursed through contributions offsets.

Additional residential potential in the central north

A submission received on behalf of the owners of Lot 27 in the central north of the Structure Plan Area, seeks further consideration to the extent of residential potential identified for the land. This matter was initially considered in response to the first exhibition where it was determined, based on the environmental values on the site that the extent of residential potential shown for this land should remain as exhibited.

The current submission includes a concept map which provides for approximately 4.8ha of residential potential on the site and retention of approximately 5.2ha of environmental lands. The concept map and extract of the ecological assessment report summary map, prepared to assist in informing the draft Structure Plan preparation, are shown below.


Proponent Concept	Ecological Assesment Map

As illustrated above and discussed in the December 2016 report to Council, the ecological assessment found that Lot 27 contains remnant native vegetation in good condition, numerous hollow-bearing trees, riparian areas and a potential occurrence of Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest, which is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

The majority of Lot 27 is identified in the draft Structure Plan as environmental conservation area, reflective of its biodiversity values. A small area of potential residential land is identified for the site in conjunction with two adjoining properties, subject to further detailed environmental investigations and suitable vegetation offset arrangements prior to rezoning. It is proposed to continue to show this area as having potential for future residential development, however, extension to include additional residential as suggested is not supported.

Amendment to concept road and environmental corridor in the south-east

A submission received from the developer of the adjoining Glenview Estate seeks an amendment to the draft Structure Plan map to align the environmental corridor boundary in the south-east to permit an extension of the existing perimeter road from the east. The aim is to permit future residential development to be located north of the proposed road and environmental areas to the south, consistent with the adjoining Glenview Estate.

The extent of the environmental corridor shown for this part of the Structure Plan Area includes buffers to Yippin Creek and to a potential occurrence of Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest which as noted above, is an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC). Extract maps from the draft Structure Plan and ecological assessment report are shown below.


Draft Structure Plan	Ecologocal Assessment Map

Having regard to the approved alignment of the adjoining Glenview road access, a minor adjustment has been made to the conceptual boundary of the Yippin Creek corridor, to the minimum extent necessary, to provide for connectivity but retain buffers as much as possible. Further on-ground investigations will be required to confirm the precise location of these areas on the land prior to any rezoning.

An amended draft Structure Plan summary map showing this change, in addition to the revised neighbourhood park location, is at Attachment 2 to this report.

Options

After considering submissions to the draft Structure Plan, four options are available to Council:

1. Adopt the draft Structure Plan in its current form.

2. Adopt the draft Structure Plan with changes, as proposed in this report.

3. Proceed with adoption of the draft Structure Plan in an amended form to that proposed in this report.

4. Discontinue or defer the Structure Planning process.

Option 2 is the preferred option, as recommended in this report.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

The revised draft Structure Plan was publicly exhibited for 28 days from Monday 30 January to Tuesday 28 February 2017.

Consultation included notification in the local press and letters to all 42 landowners in the Structure Plan Area advising of the re-exhibition. An additional 70 landowners adjoining the area also received a letter advising of the re-exhibition. These letters provided details of the re-exhibition and invited submissions to the revised draft Plan.

Council also wrote to other stakeholders advising of the re-exhibition and inviting submissions. These stakeholders included all other persons and State government agencies who lodged submissions in response to the initial exhibition period.

The re-exhibition material was published on Council’s website, hard copies made available at Council’s Administration Buildings and computer access available at the Wauchope, Laurieton and Port Macquarie Libraries for the duration.

Submissions summary

A total of eight submissions were received in response to the re-exhibition. All submissions are summarised and responded to below.

Received From			Issue
1.	Andrew Briscoe		Request that the Structure Plan Area be extended in the north-east to include land across to Steelsville Rd to incorporate three dwellings on small Rural zoned lots as potential residential so as to provide an ability to connect to sewer in the future. In lieu of this, it is requested that the Structure Plan Area include all of No 84 Beechwood Rd on the north-eastern boundary (rather than half the property as currently shown) to avoid the need for a spot rezoning or boundary adjustment if this owner were to develop or sell in the future.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	The Structure Plan Area is irregular in shape as it takes into consideration a number of existing constraints and conditions in the locality. It also accounts for various strategic decisions already committed to in previous planning strategies including the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy 2009 and the Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Management Strategy 2011. Extension of the Structure Plan boundary across to Steelsville Rd is not proposed because the small flood-free part of the property in question is separated from the potential residential area of the Structure Plan by part of the Hastings River floodplain and local catchment flows from the south, as shown below.
2.	Andrew Briscoe		a) New land supply is struggling to keep pace with demand in the area and a rapid rezoning of Yippin Creek is requested to provide for future growth. It is noted that of the 230 lots approved for the adjoining Glenview Estate, 184 have been sold since 2014 and it is predicted that all lots will be sold by 2019. b) Request that the draft Structure Plan map be amended to show the environmental corridor in the south-east limited to the southern side of the road to permit future development to the north and environmental areas to the south, consistent with the adjoining Glenview Estate.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	a) Supply and demand is a factor in determining the amount of land to rezone for residential purposes at any given time. Wauchope currently has 12 years residential land supply assuming a forecast take-up rate of 45 dwellings per year. The timing of land release will be determined in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Management Strategy, following initial consultation with landowners regarding the rezoning process. The aim is to maintain a minimum 15 year supply at any given time. b) This matter is addressed in the ‘Discussion’ section of this report.
3.	Max Thompson Rural Centre		Interest expressed in including No 82 Yippin Creek Rd in the first phase of detailed planning to rezone land in the Structure Plan Area having regard to the importance of co-ordinating infrastructure delivery. A preference is stated for lower density residential development to retain the existing rural residential character of the land.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	If Council adopts the draft Structure Plan, staff will continue working with landowners to implement the Plan. The first step will involve liaison with landowners to confirm the level of interest in and agree a process for detailed investigations to support planning proposals to rezone land. The need to provide service infrastructure in an incremental and cost effective way will have a significant impact on the likely staging and rate of development in the area.
4.	Graham Morgan		Object to the proposed location of a neighbourhood park on No 98 Yippin Creek Road. No desire exists now or in the foreseeable future to develop the land for residential purposes. Council is encouraged to consider other options for the location of a neighbourhood park in the Structure Plan Area.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	This matter is addressed in the ‘Discussion’ section of this report.
5.	Stephen Duck for Raymond & Marjorie Duck		a) Request consideration to an additional 4.8ha of residential potential for Lot 27 in the central north of the Structure Plan Area. b) Council needs to note that the forest on Lot 27 has had a chance to regrow from timber cutters/logging activities in the 1940s/50s and the present environmental qualities reflect the fact that the site has been proactively managed and maintained as a private native forest over many years. This has been made possible by the vision and sound management practices of the current landowners. It was always the owners’ intent to eventually clear the land for housing. c) Why hasn’t Council investigated how sustainable it would be to use timber from the area to build houses in the area? d) Why doesn’t Council have a protocol for tree tagging to prevent injury for e.g. in the event that a chainsaw operator inadvertently cuts into a tag? How can a safe work method and risk assessment be implemented for the activity? This is a workplace health and safety issue that should have already been resolved. e) Why hasn’t fluoride in the water supply and its impact on water quality and native fauna in the area been considered in the draft Structure Plan? f) As Lot 27 is identified as having a high conservation value, Council could purchase the land so as to ensure that these values remain intact. At present Lot 27 is rural land and therefore subject to rural land rules/regulations.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	a) This matter is addressed in the ‘Discussion' section of this report. b) Noted. Council commissioned the preparation of an ecological report to help inform the Structure Plan. This report was based on the ecological values present at the time. c) As noted in the December 2016 report to Council, the use of sustainable timber from the area to build new houses in the area has not been considered because this topic is beyond the scope of the draft Structure Plan. d) It is standard practice for tree tagging to occur when ecological consultants undertake survey work and therefore, it is not considered necessary that Council introduce a specific protocol for tagging. The small aluminium tags used by Council’s consultant are easily identifiable and able to be removed if necessary. e) As noted in the December 2016 report to Council, fluoride in the water supply has not been considered because this issue is beyond the scope of the draft Structure Plan. f) The landowner has an opportunity to biobank environmental lands, or to offset vegetation loss, and/or to dedicate environmental lands to Council for ongoing protection to the long term benefit of the community at the time of rezoning.
6.	Tony Thorne, King & Campbell Consultants for Gwynvill Trading Pty Ltd		The submission indicates general support to the draft exhibited Structure Plan and reiterates Gwynvill’s prior offer to work collaboratively with Council during implementation of the draft Structure Plan. Agreement is sought to modify the Sewerage Services Strategy contained in the draft Structure Plan to provide for the connection of the Oxley Club site to the existing sewerage infrastructure in Glenview Park rather than, as currently stated, a direct connection to the Wauchope Sewer Treatment Plant.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	It will be possible to service the Oxley Club development with the extra capacity in the Glenview sewer pump station (SPS) given that land in the north-east of the Structure Plan Area is to be retained as rural residential. These changes will be incorporated in a planning agreement amendment which has been offered by King and Campbell on behalf of the landowner. With respect to additional development in the Structure Plan Area (beyond the Oxley Club development), no information has been provided to demonstrate that development will be able to be serviced by the Glenview SPS. Council will continue to monitor the existing capacity of sewerage infrastructure to service development in the Structure Plan Area as part of subsequent detailed planning. At this stage however, it is not considered necessary to amend the Sewerage Services Strategy in the implementation section of the Draft Plan.
7.	Department of Primary Industries - Agriculture		No additional comments provided over and above previous correspondence on this matter (letters dated 23 Nov 2015 & 4 Jul 2016).
	*Response/* *Comment*:	For notation.
8.	Department of Primary Industries - Fisheries		Initial comments reiterated about the need to incorporate buffers to Yippin Creek consistent with DPI Fisheries policy and guidelines.
	*Response/* *Comment*:	For notation.

Should Council resolve to adopt the final draft Structure Plan at Attachment 3 to this report, further correspondence will be sent to all landowners and all those who made submissions to advise of Council’s decision and to confirm in general terms how matters raised have been responded to.

Planning & Policy Implications

The Yippin Creek Structure Plan Area is identified in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Management Strategy 2011 as an investigation area to provide for projected urban growth around Wauchope to 2031.

The draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan was developed over a period of two years following input from technical reports, community and stakeholder feedback and the assistance of specialist sections of Council. It is not a rezoning document. The Structure Plan will provide a policy framework to inform rezoning and infrastructure planning for future development of the Yippin Creek Structure Plan area, subject to detailed investigations.

If adopted by Council, implementation will commence with discussions with landowners to gauge the level of interest in rezoning land in the Structure Plan Area and to agree on a process and timeframe to progress detailed planning proposals to amend the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Financial & Economic Implications

Future development of the Yippin Creek Structure Plan Area is expected to accommodate forecast population growth in Wauchope and have a positive economic impact on the Wauchope economy. The priority of ongoing rezoning investigations will be determined in the context of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Management Strategy which is currently under review.

Adoption of the draft Yippin Creek Structure Plan will necessitate Section 94 Contributions Planning prior to any rezoning in the Structure Plan Area to specify development contributions required towards the cost of the facilities required by the community due to development (e.g. new open space, road upgrades, intersection upgrades, pedestrian/cycleway links).

In principle, all roadworks, water supply, sewer extensions and establishment of environmental lands in conjunction with new development and detailed studies to support rezoning proposals, will be funded by the developer. Maintenance and regulatory costs to Council in the long term will need to be assessed as part of any ongoing detailed investigations.

Attachments

1 View. Submissions

2 View. Amended draft Structure Plan summary map

3 View. Final Draft Structure Plan

AGENDA Ordinary Council

15/03/2017

Item: 13.07

Subject: Proposed Changes to the PMH Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Development Control Plan 2013 To Accommodate Urban Growth at Rainbow Beach

Presented by: Development and Environment Services, Matt Rogers

Alignment with Delivery Program

5.4.2 Review planning instruments and strategies to ensure currency and facilitate sustainable development outcomes whilst acknowledging the impact on community affordability.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. As result of the consideration of submissions, make the changes set out in the attached planning proposal to the draft LEP as described in the report.

2. Take the necessary steps under sections 58 and 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 36) as described in the attached planning proposal.

3. Adopt the attached draft development control plan provisions for Rainbow Beach and incorporate as part of the area-based provisions of Development Control Plan 2013, to commence on or about the date of commencement of LEP 2011 (Amendment No 36).

4. Thank in writing all those who made a submission for their contribution and provide information on Council’s decision on the matter.

Executive Summary

The Lake Cathie Bonny Hills Urban Growth Area is identified in Council’s Urban Growth Management Strategy 2011-2031.

In 2012, the State Government approved concept and project plans for the area as a major project. These State approvals bind the landowner to delivering specific land use outcomes and a site layout for zoning and development control purposes. As part of this process, the proponent committed to support Council in carrying out the necessary LEP changes arising from the major project approval.

At its meeting of 10 August 2016, Council resolved to exhibit proposed changes to the local environmental plan and development control plan to facilitate future development of the Urban Growth Area.

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the actions taken by staff resulting from the previous resolution and the results of the State agency consultation and two periods of public consultation.

After consideration of the issues raised by State agencies and the matters raised in public submissions, staff recommend approving the proposed changes to the local environmental plan maps with alterations as requested by the landowner, and the proposed changes to the development control plan as exhibited.

Discussion

The subject land is part of the Lake Cathie Bonny Hills Urban Growth Area identified in both the State Government’s Mid North Coast Regional Strategy 2006-2031 and Council’s Urban Growth Management Strategy 2011-2031.

The land is zoned R1 General Residential and RU1 Rural.

Part 3A major project approvals

In 2012, the State Government approved concept and project plans for the land as a major project under the now repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). These approvals bind the landowner to delivering specific land use outcomes and a site layout for zoning and development control purposes. As a condition of approval, the landowner committed to supporting Council to facilitate changes to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) so that the planning controls relating to the land are consistent with the Part 3A approvals.

Council resolution to proceed

At its meeting of 10 August 2016, Council resolved as follows:

RESOLVED: Turner/Griffiths

That Council:

1. Note the attached draft planning proposal, prepared pursuant to section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for the amendment of the provisions of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 in relation to zoning and other related development controls for land identified as Precinct C at Rainbow Beach (Area 14).

3. Request that the Director General of the Department of Planning and Environment issue a Written Authorisation to Council to exercise delegation of the plan making functions under Section 59 of the Act in respect of the planning proposal.

4. Publicly exhibit the draft Development Control Plan provisions as attached to the report, incorporating guidance to the above planning proposal, for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

CARRIED: 8/0

FOR: Besseling, Cusato, Griffiths, Hawkins, Intemann, Roberts, Sargeant and

Turner

AGAINST: Nil

Gateway determination and first public exhibition

On 15 August 2016, staff forwarded the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway Determination and authorisation to exercise delegation of the plan making functions under Section 59 of the Act.

On 2 September 2016, the Department issued the Gateway Determination and authorisation to exercise delegation (Attachment 1). The determination included a number of conditions relating to minor mapping changes for consistency, as well as the public authority and community consultation requirements for the proposal.

staff made the necessary mapping changes and on 9 September 2016 forwarded the planning proposal to the nominated State agencies for comment. Further details on this consultation are included in the Community Engagement and Internal Consultation section below.

On 16 September 2016, public exhibition started with publication of a notice in the local papers for each main centre of Port Macquarie, Wauchope and Camden Haven. Public exhibition concluded on Friday 14 October 2016 with one public submission received from the landowner requesting several changes to the mapping. Further details on this consultation are included in the Community Engagement and Internal Consultation section below.

The planning proposal is inconsistent with Ministerial Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection as it does is unable to include details on technical matters such as asset protection zones as required by the direction at this strategic planning stage. On receiving comments from RFS, raising no concerns, the Department of Planning and Environment issued their agreement that the inconsistency is justified in this instance (Attachment 2).

Revised gateway determination and second public exhibition

On making the changes requested by the landowner, staff consulted with the Department of Planning and Environment on whether the amended proposal would need further Gateway review in accordance with the relevant guideline.

On 3 November 2016, staff submitted the revised planning proposal for a further Gateway review as advised by the Department. The Department issued a revised Gateway Determination on 14 December 2016, with a condition to publicly exhibit the revised planning proposal for a period of 14 days (Attachment 3).

In accordance with Council policy, the second public exhibition was deferred until after the 2016 Christmas break. A public notice was published in local newspapers on 18 January 2017, starting the public exhibition, with a closing date for comments by Thursday 2 February 2017. Four submissions were received during the public exhibition. The issues raised by the community and staff response are set out in the Community Engagement section further below.

Note that the second public exhibition only related to the proposed LEP changes, not the proposed DCP changes.

Options

Pursuant to Section 58 of the Act, after consideration of all submissions made on the proposed changes as outlined below and attached, Council may determine to proceed with the proposed changes to the LEP as outlined in the revised planning proposal (Attachment 4).

Council may also make any necessary changes to the proposal as it sees fit. However, this is likely to require further consultation with the Department of Planning and public consultation.

Pursuant to Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, after consideration of any submissions made about the draft DCP provisions, Council may now determine to approve the draft changes as exhibited (Attachment 5) or with any necessary changes as Council sees fit.

Should Council decide to approve the proposed changes, with or without changes, staff will take the necessary steps to finalise the process to make the LEP and DCP. Note that the Department of Planning and Environment has authorised Council to exercise delegation to approve the LEP changes.

Community Engagement & Internal Consultation

In accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination, on 9 September 2016 the planning proposal was forwarded to the following public authorities for comment:

· Office of Environment and Heritage

· NSW Rural Fire Service

· NSW Roads and Maritime Service

· Department of Industry - Lands

· Department of Education and Training

Comments were received from each authority other than Department of Education and Training. The issues raised in these comments and staff responses are detailed in the following table.

Public authority submissions

Issue summary

Office of Environment and Heritage

(Attachment 6)

OEH is satisfied that the previous recommendations made by the OEH have been adequately addressed by the suggested amendments.

Further recommendations:

1. The plant communities verified as threatened ecological communities and verified habitat for threatened flora and fauna should be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation, including areas for restoration of these communities.

2. These recommendations will ensure the planning proposal is consistent with the State’s Practice Note PN 09-002 for the application of environmental protection zones.

Response/

Comment:

Endangered ecological communities (EEC) are predominantly identified within either the E2 Environmental Conservation or E3 Environmental Management zones. The EEC of Swamp Oak Coastal Floodplain Wetland Forest associated with Duchess Creek is in the proposed E3 zone in order to allow a broader range of compatible uses within the Duchess Creek corridor. This zoning approach is consistent with Practice Note PN 09-002.

The risk to the EEC from this approach is low given the obligations on the landowner to maintain and improve the environmental values within the corridor resulting from the Part 3A approval conditions, and associated vegetation management plan and planning agreement.

All threatened flora and fauna habitat has been incorporated into the central environmental corridor as determined with the Part 3A approval and proposed to be zoned variously E2 and E3. E3 has been applied over part of the corridor in order to allow flexibility for a broader range of uses consistent with the PN 09-002. This corridor is subject to a Part 3A project approval with associated conditions. Again, management of these areas is detailed in associated approval conditions, vegetation management plans and planning agreements.

NSW Rural Fire Service

(Attachment 7)

No concerns or issues in relation to bush fire.

Response/

Comment:

Noted.

The RFS response was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment as justification for the planning proposal’s inconsistency with section 117 Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection. The Department agreed with this justification by letter dated 5 December 2016 (Attachment 2)

NSW Roads and Maritime Service

(Attachment 8)

1. The Planning Proposal states under Section D.10 that ‘any requirements for a State Infrastructure Levy would be considered at the future subdivision stage’.

2. Road and Maritime recently provided comment to Council in response to a development application (DA2016/465) for a 702 lot subdivision of the subject land. A review of the supporting Traffic Impact Assessment has identified the potential for increased demand on the intersection of Houston Mitchell Drive and the Pacific Highway.

3. It is understood that the forthcoming Port Macquarie Hastings LGA wide Traffic Study will investigate future demand on the intersection of Houston Mitchell and the Pacific Highway. It is requested that the Planning Proposal be updated to identify an appropriate funding mechanism for the delivery of any future upgrade to the Pacific Highway that would be required to safely accommodate the increased demand generated by the future development of the subject area.

4. Any Development Control Plan for the subject area should include appropriate measures to assist in maintaining the safety and efficiency of Ocean Drive. Consideration should be given to access management, the impact of advertising and connectivity for both active and public transport facilities along the corridor.

Response/

Comment:

1. The subject land has been zoned for residential use since the mid-1980s. As such, the land was not included in the Urban Release Area mapping in the local environmental plan and the provisions relating to designated State infrastructure do not apply to the site.

The proposed changes to the LEP are intended to reflect the State Government’s concept approval for the area under the now repealed Part 3A of the Act. The reference to the State Infrastructure Levy is taken from the Department of Planning’s approval report on the concept application.

It is noted the then RTA made similar comments on the Part 3A concept application. Given the Part 3A process was an alternative assessment process for major projects with the Planning Minister or their delegate given the power to determine the application, the Part 3A approval is taken to be a coordinated, whole of government response to the issue and is not a matter for Council to pursue.

It is staff’s view that safety improvements to the intersection of Pacific Highway and Houston Mitchell Drive are warranted now and are the responsibility of RMS. Funding of any upgrade should not be the sole responsibility of development occurring within the Rainbow Beach Precinct, about six kilometres away.

Nevertheless, as requested by RMS, a change has been made to the wording of the planning proposal on page 10 as follows:

Remove

The department was satisfied that any requirements for a State infrastructure levy would be considered at the future subdivision stage.

Insert

The department was satisfied that suitable funding arrangements were in place for State infrastructure.

2. Noted. The general DCP provisions relating to the area came into effect in December 2013 and include an Ocean Drive Corridor Plan, taking into account the matters referred to in the comment above.

Department of Industry - Lands

(Attachment 9)

Lands acknowledges there is no proposed rezoning of Crown land, however adjoining land uses can significantly impact Crown land. The subsequent advice is in accord with principles of Crown land management:

1. Authorisations - for any works or activities proposed for, or impacting upon Crown land, factors requiring consideration include land status, accurate boundary identification, potential environmental impacts, requirements for authorisations and consistency with any legislation and plans of management. Formal consent from DoI - Lands, as the landowner & manager, is required for any activity on Crown land, including weed control, bush regeneration and access works. Vegetation Management Plans (or any other plan) relating to Crown land, requires endorsement by the land manager, being DoI – Lands in this instance.

2. Bush Fire – compliance with Planning for Bush Fire Protection must be achieved. Bush fire protection measures, or any other requirements, must be confined solely within the development and must not impact Crown land.

3. Views – there must be no expectation to provide or enhance views across Crown land.

4. Any LEP amendment must be consistent with relevant coastal planning instruments, such as the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Response/

Comment:

1. Noted

2. Noted. See also RFS referral comments and Council response.

3. Noted.

4. Noted. See OEH comments.

Community Submission - first public exhibition 16 September - 14 October 2016			Issue summary
1.	King & Campbell on behalf of Saint Vincent’s Foundation Pty Ltd (the landowner of the subject site) (Attachment 10)		1. Land zoning map - request removal of 10 metre E3 strip along part of Ocean Drive for consistency with rest of the area. If changed, adjustments to the lot size map and floor space ratio map will also be necessary. 2. Lot size map - request to have no minimum lot size over environmental lands to be dedicated to Council. 3. Height of buildings map - request to increase height limit of R3 medium density residential zones from 11.5 (about 3 storeys) metres to 14.5 metres (about 4 storeys).
	*Response/* *Comment*:	1. Agreed. Strip was inconsistent with zoning on adjoining sites. Vegetated buffer can be achieved without prescriptive zoning. Changes to the zoning map, lot size map and floor space ratio map made as requested. The required setback from Ocean Drive for a 10 metre vegetated buffer is clearly shown in the associated development control plan provisions and the Ocean Drive Corridor Plan. 2. Agreed. The minimum lot sizes have been changed to facilitate dedication of environmental land to Council in an efficient manner as development progresses in stages. 3. Agreed. The relatively minor addition of a storey in an as yet undeveloped area has no significant negative impact. The additional yield available may encourage timely development of the area. Also, the change provides additional flexibility to provide types that may be achieved is also consistent with Council’s goal to provide housing choice around centres such as this. Change made to the height of buildings map as requested.

Community Submissions - second public exhibition

18 January - 2 February 2017

Issue summary

William R Howell

Bonny Hills

(Attachment 11)

Proposed height change is not warranted as:

1. The already developed areas (southern Lake Cathie) adjacent to the (similar adjoining areas) listed above, could also be developed in the future up to 14.50mts sought. This would need to be put before the residents of the possibly affected areas of Lake Cathie and Bonny Hills.

2. A better solution would be to wait until those future market conditions can be tested against what already exists at that future time, when and if it arises...let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Response/

Comment:

1. The proposed change only relates to the specific area in question and is not proposed more broadly with the same zone across the LGA. Development controls like height and floor space ratio are applied with consideration of local context. The reference in the planning proposal to consistency with similar zones adjoining the site, related only to the undeveloped business and medium density zones in the adjoining Precinct B and the ‘hilltop village’. Allowing the proposed change will not automatically allow other such zones to use this height as a default development standard.

2. This approach is not current practice at PMHC. Using the proposed approach would see a Council approved structure plan or master plan used to assess site rezoning proposals put forward by proponents. The current Council approach is to rezone accordingly once a structure plan or master plan is finalised to allow development to occur in accordance with demand. While the first approach provides some flexibility in terms of development controls, the latter approach provides certainty for landowners as to the future potential of their land.

Bonny Hills Progress Association

(Attachment 12)

1. Regarding the minimum lot size in the environmental corridor, this appears to be a sensible change for the reasons that have been outlined.

2. Regarding the adjusted maximum height of residential buildings, we understand that this change was made on the basis of a ‘fairness test’ given that an adjacent development had already been given approval to take structures to this height in R3 medium density zone(s). Our main concern here is that such a response could now be used to justify future requests for the same treatment in other adjacent developments of an ‘undeveloped nature’, and possibly even in or around adjacent villages.

An assurance that this will not be the case would be appreciated.

Response/

Comment:

1. Support noted.

2. Please see response on the same issue above.

Lake Cathie Progress Association

(Attachment 13)

The LCPA concurs with the BHPA submission described above

Response/

Comment:

Noted. Please see responses above.

Peter Geronimi

(Attachment 14)

1. Building height

The amendment of allowing building heights to 4 storey, I strongly disagree with. How do 4 story buildings fit in to small sea side towns?

2. Regarding the general development of area 14

Given that the area will have a significant increase of its population it is extremely disappointing that no consideration for land dedicated to emergency services (Police, Ambulance, Fire) has been made.

Lake Cathie lake over the recent holidays was very crowded, PMHC were fast to act on illegal parking. When we have 1000s more people on top of what we have now, are they not going to the lake? Where will they park?

Any development submission approval that says these developments will not impact on current residents is laughable.

With developing every square inch of the mid north coast it demonstrates we haven't learnt anything from places that have already made mistakes. Byron bay, The central coast, South West Rocks. Do we really want to be a sea of colourbond fences and houses so close they can touch each other? It doesn’t end up looking like the ads with Mr and Mrs perfect in white linen playing on the beach with 2 perfect kids ....

If people move to a small seaside village, it’s because it’s a small seaside village.

3. Forest Parkway

Residents in Forest parkway will soon have dozens of extra cars and trucks going past as there is no other way into the new development on that side.

Up to 500 homes with all their cars going out onto Houston Mitchell drive T intersection. Let’s hope that T never gets blocked when a fire comes roaring through the forest from the west and everyone needs to get out at once.

I was informed at a local meeting by a PMHC rep that there is no green space /parks for kids in the forest parkway development and the nearest will be near the school. Families will have to cross Ocean drive to find a park. Well done.

4. Industrial proposal at Houston Mitchell Drive

There is talk of a light industrial area on the corner of Ocean drive and Houston Mitchell (South side). What sort of industry is going to set up opposite a school and 500 new homes? Very quiet, dustless, smokeless, fumeless ones I suppose.

Let’s hope access to that isn’t opposite Forest parkway in its present form. Lets dig up the road again....

Every single acreage site for sale is being touted by the real estates as a potential development site. So the 2500 homes we are being told about is really a lot more if they all get approved as well.

5. Community engagement

Putting a small paragraph on the council page hidden away in the Camden Haven courier is hardly a fair way to let the public know what is happening. I’m sure if a large notice was placed at Woolworths in Lake Cathie announcing we are having 2500+homes and 4 story apartments you may get a different, more significant public response.

Thanks

Response/

Comment:

1. The Rainbow Beach village centre is intended to be the primary focus of the area, containing the highest intensity retail, commercial and community uses such as supermarkets, community facilities and local convenience shopping and food outlets.

In the original 2003 master plan, a maximum building height of 3 storeys was envisaged. Building heights were tested for visual impact on the higher land at Precinct B (the Hilltop Village) and found to be suitable. Visual impact assessment was therefore not considered necessary on the lower lying site of the village centre.

In the 14 years since the master plan, development feasibility has changed significantly, particularly as a result of the tight financing environment since the global financial crisis in the late 2000s.

Allowing additional maximum height provides flexibility for developers to achieve sufficient yield to encourage quality development. It should be noted that this is a maximum building height and that there is no obligation to develop to this height if not justified by the market.

2. Council must plan for anticipated population increases in order to maintain economic growth, not only in Port Macquarie but in the surrounding towns and villages. The Rainbow Beach area was identified as an Urban Release Area by the State Government and is within the Port Macquarie-Hastings Urban Growth Area boundary as an area that could accommodate more than 5,000 additional residents. Both of these boundaries help to limit urban development so that valuable environmental areas are retained. They also help to minimise the urban footprint to achieve efficient use of land as well as planning for better community outcomes including how people get around and local parks.

The ‘Area 14’ Urban Release Area has been through a comprehensive planning process involving the community, PMHC and various State Government agencies, including the Department of Education, NSW Health and the Rural Fire Service. staff are confident these agencies understand the future intent of the area and population estimates and are ultimately responsible for the provision of services to meet demand. The recent development of the Lake Cathie Public School is a good example.

The area aims to provide a range of housing choices for a variety of individual needs rather than catering to a specific housing or household profile.

3. There are several development applications or modifications relating to Forest Parkway. Unless required by the Development Control Plan, there is no need for such developments to provide features like ‘pocket parks’ for example. Open space and recreation opportunities in the area are provided for in a coordinated way with a range of solutions including future environmental reserves and public playing fields, with pedestrian and bike connections to each. Development of these features usually occurs in conjunction with or following development of the residential areas, when land is dedicated to council and works commence to establish them.

4. Light industrial uses are envisaged for the southern side of Houston Mitchell Drive near the intersection with Ocean Drive. The main purpose of light industrial areas in these locations is to provide the local community with convenient access to a range of businesses that are otherwise unsuitable for the village centre, for example car mechanics, as well as providing local business and employment opportunities. There is a range of State Government and council policies and development controls that serve to ensure inappropriate businesses do not have adverse impacts on their neighbours.

5. Council consolidates its public notices in a weekly full page Council Matters section of each of the local papers, combined in some cases with media releases and always with information available on Council’s website.

The planning process for this area has been underway for more than 15 years including several instances of community engagement, ranging from the Hastings Urban Growth Strategy 2001, to the master plan process in 2003, the early rezonings of Precinct A in the mid-2000s, the Part 3A major project applications for Precincts B and C and the subsequent rezoning for Precinct B in the late 2000s, the Urban Growth Management Strategy 2011, to the proposed rezoning of Precinct C the subject of this planning proposal. The planning proposal has been subject to two periods of public exhibition and featured in local news stories on each occasion, providing broad exposure. In addition, Council wrote directly to all landowners adjoining the subject site seeking their views.

staff aim to achieve value for money with regard to community engagement on such proposals, having regard to potentially diminishing returns in terms of community comments from an additional advertising spend.

Planning & Policy Implications

There are no planning and policy implications in relation to this report. The proposed changes are consistent with Council’s Urban Growth Management Strategy.

Financial & Economic Implications

There are no financial and economic implications in relation to this report.

Attachments

1 View. Gateway Determinaton and authorisation to exercise delegation

2 View. DPE agreement to inconsistency with Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection

3 View. Alteration of Gateway Determination

4 View. Revised Planning Proposal

5 View. Draft Development Control Plan provisions - Rainbow Beach

6 View. Office of Environment and Heritage comments

7 View. Rural Fire Service comments

8 View. Roads and Maritime Services comments

9 View. Crown Lands comments

10 View. Submission: King & Campbell on behalf of Saint Vincent's Foundation Pty Ltd

11 View. Submission: William Howell

12 View. Submission: Bonny Hills Progress Association

13 View. Submission: Lake Cathie Progress Association

14 View. Submission: Peter Geronimi

Wreath for National Servicemen’s Day	$65.00
Donation to Friends of Mrs York’s Garden	$750.00

	$815.00

Proposed Name	Road Extent
Alban Place	Road formation leading off Stewart Street, Port Macquarie to the south wall of the Hastings River breakwall.
Elliot Way	Road formation leading off Stewart Street, Port Macquarie to the Marine Rescue Building and Town Beach Kiosk and then rejoining at William Street.