final built cnl agenda - tweed shire · 2014 review and update . 499 . 43 [cnr-cm] nomination for...

Mayor: Cr B Longland Councillors: M Armstrong (Deputy Mayor)

G Bagnall C Byrne K Milne W Polglase P Youngblutt

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting Thursday 21 November 2013

held at Murwillumbah Cultural and Civic Centre

commencing at 4.45pm

Council Meeting Date: Thursday 21 November 2013

COUNCIL'S CHARTER

Tweed Shire Council's charter comprises a set of principles that are to guide Council in the carrying out of its functions, in accordance with Section 8 of the

Local Government Act, 1993.

Tweed Shire Council has the following charter:

• to provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively;

• to exercise community leadership;

• to exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with and actively promotes the principles of multiculturalism;

• to promote and to provide and plan for the needs of children;

• to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development;

• to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions;

• to bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible;

• to facilitate the involvement of councillors, members of the public, users of facilities and services and council staff in the development, improvement and co-ordination of local government;

• to raise funds for local purposes by the fair imposition of rates, charges and fees, by income earned from investments and, when appropriate, by borrowings and grants;

• to keep the local community and the State government (and through it, the wider community) informed about its activities;

• to ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, it acts consistently and without bias, particularly where an activity of the council is affected;

• to be a responsible employer.


Items for Consideration of Council: ITEM PRECIS PAGE

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 9

1 [CONMIN] Confirmation of Previous Minutes 9

SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING RESOLUTIONS 13

2 [SOR-CM] Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions 13

MAYORAL MINUTE 21

3 [MM-CM] Mayoral Minute for the month of October 2013 21

ORDERS OF THE DAY 25

4 [NOM-Cr B Longland] Tweed Coast Koalas 25

5 [NOM-Cr W Polglase] Jack Evans Boat Harbour 25

6 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Special Leave for Staff Experiencing Domestic Violence

26

7 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Water Conservation in Greenfield Developments 26

8 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Renew Australia - Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah

26

9 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Coal Seam Gas 26

10 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Chinderah Pontoon - Independent Advice 27

11 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Lillies Island Seagrass Bed 27

12 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Kings Forest EPBC Submission No Dogs Policy 27

RECEIPT OF PETITIONS 29

13 [ROP-CM] Receipt of Petitions 29

REPORTS THROUGH THE ACTING GENERAL MANAGER 31

REPORTS FROM THE ACTING GENERAL MANAGER 31

14 [GM-CM] SINC Solutions Report Recommendations - Implementation Update

31

15 [GM-CM] Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire (BEATS) 2014 39

16 [GM-CM] Festivals and Events Policy Version 1.1 43

17 [GM-CM] Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) CARnival Motorfest Event Report 2013

53

18 [GM-CM] Draft Economic Development Strategy 57


REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR PLANNING AND REGULATION 63

19 [PR-CM] Marine Rescue Point Danger (Training Facilities) Coral Street, Duranbah

65

20 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0132 - Change of Use (First Approved Use) to Surfboard Manufacturing, Extension of Mezzanine Level and Associated Signage at Lot 19 SP 80033, No. 19/23-25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads

69

21 [PR-CM] Review of Environmental Factors PTV12/0022 for Construction of Tennis Courts (Including Lighting) and Associated Car Parking, Pedestrian Access and Drainage at Lot 301 DP 1125090 Overall Drive, Pottsville

97

22 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0024 for a 44 Lot Subdivision, Construction of Internal Road and Associated Infrastructure at Lot 1 DP 407094 Cudgen Road, Cudgen and Lot 1 DP 598073 No. 17 Collier Street, Cudgen

115

23 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0189 for a 22 Lot Subdivision and Associated Intersection Upgrade to Creek Street and Tweed Coast Road at Lot 156 DP 628026 No. 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point

179

24 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0247 for a Dual Use of Existing Dwelling (Tourist Accommodation) at Lot 21 DP 1030322 No. 39 Collins Lane, Casuarina

237

25 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0221 for a Pontoon Boat and Water Sports Boat Operation on the Tweed River from Fingal Boat Ramp with Passenger Pick Up/Set Down from Beach at Old Barney's Point Bridge Jetty at Lot 403 DP 755740 Main Road Fingal Head;

261

26 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0397 for an Extension to Existing Car Park at Lot 2 DP 1059784 No. 16 Pearl Street, Kingscliff and Lot 100 DP 1071633 No. 24-26 Pearl Street, Kingscliff

309

27 [PR-CM] Development Application D90/0436.07 for an amendment to Development Consent D90/0436 for the Erection of a Tavern and Nine Shops at Lot 171 DP 629328 No. 28-40 Overall Drive, Pottsville

343

28 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0246 for a Three Storey Dwelling and In-Ground Swimming Pool at Lot 598 DP 1076975 No. 40 Marsupial Drive, Pottsville

361

29 [PR-CM] Section 82A Review of Development Application DA12/0498 for the Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of a Three Storey Dwelling at Lot 1 DP 214686 No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff

393

30 [PR-CM] Draft Tweed Development Control Plan - Section B15 Seabreeze Estate

421

31 [PR-CM] Planning Proposal PP10/0007 - Mooball Planning Proposal 429


32 [PR-CM] PP11/0002 Pottsville Employment Land - Wastewater Allocation

439

33 [PR-CM] Combined Planning Proposal (PP13/0003) and Development Application (DA13/0469) for a Highway Service Centre, Chinderah

447

34 [PR-CM] Strategic Planning - Murwillumbah Bowls and Sports Club site - Lot 1 DP 524512, Lot 1 DP 523131, Lot A DP 390347, and Lot 1 DP 250164 Condong Street, Brisbane Street and Commercial Road, Murwillumbah

461

35 [PR-CM] Application for a Site Compatibility Certificate for Seniors Housing Development Lot 13 DP 868620, Cudgen Road Cudgen

467

36 [PR-CM] Variations to Development Standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards

471

REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 475

37 [CNR-CM] Placemaking and Public Art Policy Review 475

38 [CNR-CM] Draft Access and Inclusion Policy 479

39 [CNR-CM] Youth Strategy and Action Plan 483

40 [CNR-CM] Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 489

41 [CNR-CM] Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper 493

42 [CNR-CM] Coastal Zone Management Plan for Kingscliff Beach - 2014 Review and Update

499

43 [CNR-CM] Nomination for Tweed River Committee 505

44 [CNR-CM] Stairs to Beach at Chinderah 507

45 [CNR-CM] River Health Grants 509

46 [CNR-CM] Grant for "Developing Natural Resource Management and Biological Farming Plans for Farmers on the Cudgen Plateau"

513

47 [CNR-CM] Biofund Koala Connections Project Status Update 517

48 [CNR-CM] Biofund Koala Connections Project Implementation 523

49 [CNR-CM] Pest Management Report - March to August 2013 527

50 [CNR-CM] Feasibility of Collection of Household Batteries within Various Commercial Business Districts

533

51 [CNR-CM] Approval of Program of Works for Environment Protection Authority Funded Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program

539

52 [CNR-CM] EC2013-139 Management of the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre

545


53 [CNR-CM] Consultation regarding Closure of Tyalgum Transfer Station with a view to providing a Scenic Lookout

551

54 [CNR-CM] North East Waste Annual Report for 2012-2013 557

55 [CNR-CM] Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Policy for the Tweed District Water Supply

559

56 [CNR-CM] Home and Community Care Centre, Tweed Heads South Tweed - Lease to Tweed Respite

563

REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS 565

57 [EO-CM] Regulation of Traffic - McDonalds Road, Terragon 565

58 [EO-CM] Road Closure Application - Bald Mountain Road, Limpinwood

569

59 [EO-CM] Classification of Land as Operational - Lot 1 in DP 783802 at Eviron

573

60 [EO-CM] Depot Road Sportsfields - Kings Forest 577

61 [EO-CM] Road Naming - Banora Point 581

62 [EO-CM] Disposal of Land 585

63 [EO-CM] Assignment of Licence to Use Road - Riverside Drive, Tumbulgum

589

64 [EO-CM] Disposal of Council Land at Burringbar 593

65 [EO-CM] Supply of Electricity Small Sites from 1 July 2014 597

66 [EO-CM] EC2013-214 Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads

599

67 [EO-CM] Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 603

68 [EO-CM] Naming of Public Parks and Sportsfields Policy 611

REPORTS FROM THE ACTING DIRECTOR TECHNOLOGY AND CORPORATE SERVICES

613

69 [TCS-CM] Council Meeting Frequency 613

70 [TCS-CM] Council Committees - Delegates to September 2016 619

71 [TCS-CM] Environmental Levy 2014/2015 623

72 [TCS-CM] Tweed Shire Council Annual Report 2012/2013 633

73 [TCS-CM] 2012/2013 Statutory Financial Reports/Audit Report 637

74 [TCS-CM] Councillors - Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy - Version 1.8

643

75 [TCS-CM] Transactional Banking Services Tender 647

76 [TCS-CM] Corporate Quarterly Report - 1 July to 30 September 2013 651


77 [TCS-CM] Quarterly Budget Review - September 2013 655

78 [TCS-CM] Budget Review - 2012/2013 Carry Over Works 676

79 [TCS-CM] In Kind and Real Donations - July to September 2013 683

80 [TCS-CM] Legal Services Register as at 30 September 2013 689

81 [TCS-CM] Monthly Investment and Section 94 Developer Contributions Report for the Period Ending 31 October 2013

695

REPORTS FROM SUB-COMMITTEES/WORKING GROUPS 707

82 [SUB-AAC] Minutes of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting held Monday 5 August 2013

707

83 [SUB-LTC] Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 3 October 2013

717

84 [SUB-TRC] Minutes of the Tweed River Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013

729

85 [SUB-TCC] Minutes of the Tweed Coastal Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013

737

86 [SUB-FMC] Minutes of the Floodplain Management Committee Meeting held Friday 11 October 2013

743

87 [SUB-TRMAC] Minutes of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013

751

88 [SUB-ADC] Minutes of the Australia Day Committee Meeting held Wednesday 23 October 2013

755

89 [SUB-LTC] Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013

759


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 [CONMIN] Confirmation of Previous Minutes SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.2 Improve decision making by engaging stakeholders and taking into account community input 1.2.2 Decisions made relating to the allocation of priorities will be in the long-term interests of the

community

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the: (a) Ordinary and Confidential Council Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013 (b) Extraordinary and Confidential Extraordinary Council Meetings held Monday

4 November 2013 (c) Extraordinary Council Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013 are attached for information and adoption by Council. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. The Minutes of the:

(a) Ordinary and Confidential Council Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013

(b) Extraordinary and Confidential Extraordinary Council Meetings held Monday 4 November 2013

(c) Extraordinary Council Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013

be adopted as a true and accurate record of proceedings of those meetings.


2 ATTACHMENTS 2 and 4 are CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:- (f) matters affecting the security of the council, councillors, council staff or council

property.


REPORT:

As per Summary. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

To view any "non confidential" attachments listed below, access the meetings link on Council's website www.tweed.nsw.gov.au or visit Council's offices at Tweed Heads or Murwillumbah (from Friday the week before the meeting) or Council's libraries (from Monday the week of the meeting). 1. Attachment 1 Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held Thursday

17 October 2013 (ECM 3197761). 2. Confidential Attachment 2 Minutes of the Confidential Council Meeting held

Thursday 17 October 2013 (ECM 3197778). 3. Attachment 3 Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held

Monday 4 November 2013 (ECM 3210537). 4. Confidential Attachment 4 Minutes of the Confidential Extraordinary Council

Meeting held Monday 4 November 2013 (ECM 3210538). 5. Attachment 5 Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held

Thursday 7 November 2013 (ECM 3213868).

http://www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/�


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING RESOLUTIONS

2 [SOR-CM] Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.2.1 Council will be underpinned by good governance and transparency in its decision making

processes CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE: Section 2.8 Outstanding Resolutions No debate is to be allowed on Outstanding Resolutions. Any changes to or debate on Outstanding Resolutions should only be by way of a Notice of Motion or a report to Council. 21 March 2013 ORDERS OF THE DAY 11 [NOM-Cr M Armstrong] Promotion of Sustainable Design NOTICE OF MOTION: 123 Cr M Armstrong Cr K Milne RESOLVED that Council: 1. Hosts a Community Summit, prior to 30 October 2013, to engage with the community to

develop policies to promote sustainable design, sustainable retrofitting of existing homes and sustainable community planning in the Tweed Shire.

2. Prepares a report to be brought forward to the December 2013 Council meeting encapsulating the findings of the Community Summit with a view to introducing policies to promote sustainable development throughout the Tweed Shire.

Current Status: Tentative date for the Community Summit is Saturday 16 November

2013.


18 April 2013 13 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Climate Change Priority NOTICE OF MOTION: 197 Cr K Milne Cr G Bagnall RESOLVED that Council prioritises climate change as an urgent and high priority in all relevant areas of Council policy and operations, and brings forward to a future Workshop, policy options to implement this approach. Current Status: Workshop conducted 12 September 2013 and report to be prepared.

16 MAY 2013 ORDERS OF THE DAY 6 [NOM-Cr G Bagnall] Assessment of Environmental Land 268 Cr G Bagnall Cr K Milne RESOLVED that Council undertakes a preliminary environmental assessment of the environmental land to the immediate north of the decommissioned Murwillumbah landfill to firstly determine the potential noise and dust impacts from the proposed development on this site and secondly, its ecological value, giving consideration to all fauna and flora on the site and the site's value in terms of the broader terrestrial environment, such as a nursery for endangered bats and bird species. Current Status: Environmental assessment commenced.

————————————— 8 [NOM-Cr G Bagnall] Policy - Animal Management Procedures 270 Cr G Bagnall Cr K Milne RESOLVED that a report be submitted to Council detailing Council's current Companion Animal Regulation functions, in order to determine the suitability of preparing a new Council Policy on animal management procedures, including a preferred process for handling barking dog complaints.


Current Status: Workshop was held on 29 August 2013. A further report will be submitted to Council detailing Council's current Companion Animal Regulation functions, in order to determine the suitability of preparing a new Council Policy on animal management procedures, including a preferred process for handling barking dog complaints.

—————————————

12 [NOM-Cr G Bagnall] Renewable Energy 276 Cr G Bagnall Cr K Milne RESOLVED that: 1. Council adopts the aspirational goal of becoming self sufficient in renewable energy

and that, as a first step in achieving this goal, that it become an additional topic to be considered in the Sustainable Design Community Summit formally endorsed in the Council meeting of 21 March 2013; and

2. A report is prepared for Council consideration. Current Status: Second "Think Tank" conducted 6 August 2013. The tentative date for

the Community Summit is Saturday 16 November 2013. Council report to be prepared.

20 June 2013 8 [NOM-Cr M Armstrong] Provision of Community and Cultural Services

NOTICE OF MOTION: 352 Cr M Armstrong Cr K Milne RESOLVED that: 1. A report be prepared for the December 2013 meeting of Council investigating potential

sites and/or locations that would be suitable for a:

(a) cultural precinct within Banora Point/Tweed Heads area to potentially include:

• Professional theatre/performance facility for an audience of more than 350 • Rehearsal/small performance spaces(s) • Museum • Exhibition space


• Library • Multipurpose community meeting and activity spaces.

(b) community centre within the Banora Point/Tweed Heads area to potentially

include:

• Multipurpose community meeting and activity spaces • Government offices/spaces • Services for the homeless, youth, and/or other designated groups.

2. The report should provide details on:

• Feasibility of the cultural precinct and community centre • Feasibility and costs for the potential sites • Feasibility and costs of staged development of the various facilities based on

priorities • Timeframe for acquisition (If necessary), planning, and construction • Timeframe for completion of the cultural precinct and community centre • Costs benefit analysis for the establishment of a cultural precinct and/or separate

community centre • Feasibility of repurposing existing council sites and facilities • Feasibility of either co-locating the precinct and community centre or separate sites

for each of the cultural precinct and community centre • Existing and potentially available sources of funding.

Current Status: Brief is being prepared with a report being proposed for December 2013

Council Meeting.

————————————— 9 [NOM - Cr Armstrong] Future Use of Murwillumbah Railway Station Building

NOTICE OF MOTION 356 Cr C Byrne C P Youngblutt RESOLVED that a report be prepared for the December 2013 meeting of Council regarding the future use of the Murwillumbah Railway Station building considering: 1. Retaining the building and part of the rail corridor between the Station and the closest

access point to the Tweed River Regional Art Gallery as a public community asset; 2. The capacity of the building and/or site for community uses including, but not limited to,

meeting space(s), exhibition space(s), performance space(s), rehearsal space(s), and terminus for Rail Trail activities and also the rail corridor to be used as a pedestrian access from the Station to the Tweed River Regional Art Gallery;


3. The feasibility of the building and/or site for use as a public community and/or cultural facility given the historical significance of the building; and

4. A cost benefits analysis for the use of the building and/or site as a public community

and/or cultural facility socially for the people of Murwillumbah and economically for the wider Tweed Community.

Current Status: Report to be prepared for the December 2013 Council Meeting.

————————————— 13 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Commercial Wakeboarding Operations

NOTICE OF MOTION: 367 Cr M Armstrong Cr K Milne RESOLVED that Council brings forward a report no later than the April 2014 Council meeting outlining a comprehensive planning proposal capable of adoption by Council to regulate commercial wakeboarding operations and events throughout the Tweed Shire. Current Status: Report to be prepared.

19 September 2013 ORDERS OF THE DAY 4 [NOM-Cr B Longland] Aboriginal Employment Strategy NOTICE OF MOTION: 532 Cr B Longland Cr K Milne RESOLVED that an Aboriginal Employment Strategy be developed as part of Council's Equal Employment Opportunity Management Plan which sets appropriate targets for aboriginal employment participation in the organisation and includes annual reporting against these targets. The Aboriginal Employment Strategy should also be included as an element of the yet to be developed Reconciliation Action Plan. Current Status: The Aboriginal Employment Strategy is currently under review.

—————————————


6 [NOM-Cr G Bagnall] Community Consultation NOTICE OF MOTION: 534 Cr G Bagnall Cr K Milne RESOLVED that Council holds a Workshop to explore the ways in which Council can improve its community consultation processes. Current Status: Workshop scheduled for 14 November 2013.

————————————— 9 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Tweed River System - Recreational Use Strategy NOTICE OF MOTION: 538 Cr M Armstrong Cr C Byrne RESOLVED that Council develops a 'Tweed River System - Recreational Strategy' to determine the Tweed community's desired future character for the river system in light of the current state of erosion of the River, and the desired level of recreational facilities.

This process to include:

1. Education of the community on the current issues affecting the Tweed River system from recreational use, including but not limited, to the cumulative impacts from boat wakes and wakeboarding on accelerating erosion and the 6kms of road along Tweed Valley Way, now subject to severe erosion, and the projected cost estimates of such works.

2. Consultation with the community and affected stakeholders, including but not limited to, a survey and public meetings, to determine:

a) The community's current use and engagement with the river,

b) The desired amenity, visual character and ecological aspirations for the River system,

c) Priorities eg revegetation, environmental facilities (walking trails, picnic tables, interpretive signs, bird hides, etc), boating facilities, rock revetment, etc

d) Support or objection to various recreational activities on the river in light of the erosion impacts and cost for revetment works,

e) Preference on whether the community would like to see waterway facilities increased, and if so, the types and sizes of recreational waterway facilities the community would prefer.


Current Status: Officers currently reviewing project scope, cost and resource

implications. Presentation made at Tweed River Committee Meeting on 9 October 2013.

17 OCTOBER 2013 ORDERS OF THE DAY 6 [NOM-Cr M Armstrong] Graffiti Management Plan 634 Cr M Armstrong Cr G Bagnall RESOLVED that, in addition to investigating the feasibility of specified locations for graffiti walls and/or street art, Council brings forward a report outlining: 1. Strategies to engage with local youth to educate them on the costs arising from the

damage caused by graffiti; and 2. The feasibility of developing a response team to assist local small businesses and

landowners to clean up graffiti. Current Status: This resolution will be addressed in the Graffiti Management Plan which

is scheduled for delivery in 2014/15.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


MAYORAL MINUTE

3 [MM-CM] Mayoral Minute for the month of October 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Cr B Longland, Mayor

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.2 Improve decision making by engaging stakeholders and taking into account community input 1.2.2 Decisions made relating to the allocation of priorities will be in the long-term interests of the

community

Councillors COMMITTEE MEETINGS Attended by the Mayor 1 October - Aboriginal Advisory Committee site visit of Eviron Road Quarry and

Landfill Project - Cnr Tweed Valley Way and Cudgen Road, Stotts Creek.

9 October - Tweed Coastal Committee - Canvas and Kettle Meeting Room, Murwillumbah Civic Centre, Tumbulgum Road, Murwillumbah.

11 October - Arts Northern Rivers Board Meeting - Arts Northern Rivers Offices, Old Tintenbar Chambers, 2/5 Bruxner Highway, Alstonville.

16 October - Destination Tweed Board Meeting and Special General Meeting - Murwillumbah Visitor Information Centre, Murwillumbah.

23 October - Australia Day Advisory Committee Meeting, Murwillumbah Civic Centre, Tumbulgum Road, Murwillumbah.

24 October - NOROC Meeting with Ministers - Parliament House, Sydney.

30 October - Tweed River Art Gallery Foundation Board Meeting (TRAG) - TRAG, Mistral Road, Murwillumbah (also attended by Warren Polglase as President of the TRAG Foundation).

—————————————


INVITATIONS: Attended by the Mayor 5 October - Centenary of Celebration of Tumbulgum Hall - Riverside Drive,

Tumbulgum.

8 October - Tweed Chamber Breakfast - Sails on Tweed, Tweed Heads Bowls Club, Wharf Street, Tweed Heads (also attended by Cr Polglase).

9 October - Tweed Foodie Fest Cocktail Party for Sponsors - Greenhills on Tweed, 131 River Street, Murwillumbah.

12 October - Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire Gala Awards Evening hosted by the Combined Chambers of the Tweed - Tweed Heads Civic Centre, Brett St Tweed Heads (also attended by Crs Armstrong, Polglase, Byrne).

14 October - St Vincent de Paul Society Community Event, "Home is ..." Exhibition - Fred's Place, 9 Boyd Street, Tweed Heads.

17 October - The Family Centre 25th Anniversary Community Information Session - The Family Centre, 15-17 Rivendell Drive, Tweed Heads South.

18 October - Official Opening of Seniors Information Hub by Mayor - Banora Point Community Centre, Leisure Drive, Banora Point (Crs Byrne and Polglase also advised their attendance).

18 October - Launch of CAMS Ignition Program with Mt St Patricks' students as part of the CARnival - Murwillumbah Showground, Queensland Road, Murwillumbah.

26 October - 18th Annual “Cudgen Classic” Ironperson Event - Cudgen Headland Surf Lifesaving Club.

26 October - Opening of Community Clubhouse “The Waterfront” at Palm Lake Resort Tweed River - 67 Winders Place, Banora Point.

Attended by other Councillor(s) on behalf of the Mayor 11 October - Margaret Olley Art Centre Steering Committee - Tweed River Art

Gallery, Mistral Road, Murwillumbah (attended by Warren Polglase as President of the TRAG Foundation).

30 October - Northern NSW Local Health District Board Meeting - The Tweed Hospital, Level 4 Tutorial Room, Florence Street, Tweed Heads (attended by Cr Youngblutt).


Inability to Attend by or on behalf of the Mayor 15 October - Launch of the Tweed Coast Rotary Club's Calendar Project - Beach

Hotel, Pandanus Parade, Cabarita Beach.

17 October - Murwillumbah Show Sponsors' Night - Function Room, Murwillumbah Showground.

29 October - National Final Dinner for the 2013 Science & Engineering Challenge - Zest Function Room, Southern Cross University, Lismore campus, Goonellabah.

31 October - Opening of COPS Regional Conference hosted by Tweed Community Options - South Tweed HACC Centre, Cnr Minjungbal Drive & Heffron Street, South Tweed.

————————————— REQUESTS FOR WORKSHOPS: Councillors did not request any new workshops during October 2013.

————————————— CONFERENCES: Conferences attended by the Mayor and/or Councillors 1-3 October - LG NSW Annual Conference - Sydney Town Hall, Sydney - Crs

Longland, Polglase and Milne attended.

Information on Conferences to be held There was no advice during October of pending conferences for Councillor attendance.

—————————————

SIGNING OF DOCUMENTS BY THE MAYOR: 8 October - Deed of Agreement to Grant an Easement to Essential Energy for

overhead powerlines within Lot 1 DP 397082 - Depot Road Kings Forest.

11 October - Licence Agreement - Cooloon Children's Centre - Recreation Street Tweed Heads.

15 October - Licence Agreement - Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary - Uki Wastewater Treatment Plant.

—————————————


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Appropriate expenditure is allowed for attendance by Councillors at nominated conferences, training sessions and workshops. c. Legal: Not applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Mayoral Minute for the month of October 2013 be received and noted.

————————————— UNDER SEPARATE COVER: Nil.


ORDERS OF THE DAY

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK:

1 Civic Leadership 1.2.1 Council will be underpinned by good governance and transparency in its decision making processes 1.2.2.1 Priority decision making 1.2.2.1.1 Council decisions will be in accordance with the Community Strategic Plan

4 [NOM-Cr B Longland] Tweed Coast Koalas NOTICE OF MOTION: The Federal and NSW State Governments have listed the Koala as 'vulnerable'. In May 2012, Council unanimously endorsed a submission to the NSW Scientific Committee of the Office of Environment and Heritage to list the Tweed/Brunswick koala population as 'endangered'. Councillor B Longland moves that Given the continuing pressures that impact on the precarious position of our Tweed Coast Koala, Council's submission to the Federal Government's assessment of the Kings Forest development as a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act includes a recommendation that consideration be given to a total ban on all dogs across the Kings Forest development site.

5 [NOM-Cr W Polglase] Jack Evans Boat Harbour NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor W Polglase moves that Council calls for Expressions of Interest for aquatic activities on the Jack Evans Boat Harbour with the Expressions of Interest to close on 1 March 2014.


6 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Special Leave for Staff Experiencing Domestic Violence NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that Council brings forward a report on the option of providing special leave for staff experiencing domestic violence which was recently endorsed by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce.

7 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Water Conservation in Greenfield Developments NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that Council mandates sustainable water conservation in Greenfield developments to minimise water use and achieve self sufficiency in water supply wherever possible, and brings forward a report with an estimate on when augmentation of the current water supply would be required under these new conditions.

8 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Renew Australia - Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that Council brings forward a report on engaging Renew Australia to assist in revitalising the Tweed and Murwillumbah Central Business Districts. Note: http://www.renewaustralia.org/

9 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Coal Seam Gas NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that Council seeks legal advice on what planning or legal options Council could implement to protect the Shire from Coal Seam Gas Mining, or the use of, or access to Council owned public land, public infrastructure or assets such as road or water resources etc for Coal Seam Gas or Coal Seam Gas infrastructure purposes, and ways that Council's policies could be enhanced so the community could be afforded better consultation, for example Moree Shire Council's Seismic Policy.

http://www.renewaustralia.org/�


10 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Chinderah Pontoon - Independent Advice NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that Council seeks advice from Australian Wetland Consulting on marine ecological impacts of the Chinderah Pontoon particularly on the Lillies Island and other seagrass beds.

11 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Lillies Island Seagrass Bed NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that Council commissions an independent marine expert to assess the state of the Lillies Island seagrass beds and recommend methods to monitor, protect and manage impacts on this seagrass bed, in light of its significant to the overall marine ecology of the Tweed River, recorded as comprising 40% of the seagrass in the Tweed River and in light of the increased pressures from boating activities and wakeboarding.

12 [NOM-Cr K Milne] Kings Forest EPBC Submission No Dogs Policy NOTICE OF MOTION: Councillor K Milne moves that: 1. Council prepares a submission to the Federal Government's public exhibition of the

Kings Forest development. 2. Council's submission to include a 'No Dogs' policy due to the continuing decline of the

Tweed Coast Koala below viable population levels, and the increase imperative of preserving Koalas in this area.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


RECEIPT OF PETITIONS

13 [ROP-CM] Receipt of Petitions SUBMITTED BY: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.2 Improve decision making by engaging stakeholders and taking into account community input 1.2.2 Decisions made relating to the allocation of priorities will be in the long-term interests of the community

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Under Section 1.5.4 Receipt of Petitions in the Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3, Petitions received by Councillors or forwarded to the (Acting) General Manager will be tabled as per the Order of Business, Item 11, Receipt of Petitions. Unless Council determines to consider it in conjunction with a report already listed on the agenda, no motion (other than a motion to receive the same) may be made on any petition until the next Ordinary Meeting after that at which it has been presented. RECOMMENDATION:

That the following tabled Petition(s) be received and noted:


REPORT:

As per Summary OPTIONS: That in accordance with Section 1.5.4 of the Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3: 1. The tabled Petition(s) be considered in conjunction with an Item on the Agenda. 2. The tabled Petition(s) be received and noted. CONCLUSION: Any Petition tabled should be considered under Section 1.5.4 of the Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


REPORTS THROUGH THE ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

REPORTS FROM THE ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

14 [GM-CM] SINC Solutions Report Recommendations - Implementation Update

SUBMITTED BY: Acting General Manager

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.2 Improve decision making by engaging stakeholders and taking into account community input 1.2.1 Council will be underpinned by good governance and transparency in its decision making process

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Further to Council's resolution of 17 October 2013:

"….. (b) Council notes management's intention to implement the SINC Solutions report recommendations and to provide advice to Council on the progress of the implementation on a regular basis……"

This report provides an update on the 19 recommendations of the SINC Solutions Final Report. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receives and notes the update on the 19 recommendations of the SINC Solutions Final Report.


REPORT:

Further to Council's resolution of 17 October 2013:

"….. (b) Council notes management's intention to implement the SINC Solutions report recommendations and to provide advice to Council on the progress of the implementation on a regular basis……"

This report provides an update on the 19 recommendations of the SINC Solutions Final Report.

Recommendation Action Implemented

Date Date Reported to

Council 1. The contents of the review report

(Review of Documents with Findings) into the issues raised by LEDA in their August 2011, October 2011 and January 2013 reports, be received and noted by Council.

Refer Council resolution to receive and note report.

17/10/2013 17/10/2013

2. The General Manager formally

advise LEDA Developments Pty Ltd in due course as to the outcomes of the review by SINC Solutions in relation to matters LEDA have raised with Council in their reports dated August 2011, October 2011 and January 2013.

Letter provided to LEDA Developments.

18/10/2013

3. That any future complaints received

by Council about Councillors relating to alleged inappropriate conduct that has occurred since the date of this report should be submitted in accordance with the Tweed Shire Council Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct and completed in accordance with those Procedural requirements.


18/10/2013




Council 4. That any future complaints received

by Council about Council staff relating to alleged inappropriate conduct that has occurred since the date of this report should be submitted in accordance with the Tweed Shire Council Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct and completed in accordance with the relevant Local Government Award provisions and best practice requirements for the conduct of staff investigations.


22/10/2013

5. That where appropriate, any future

significant complaints concerning the conduct of senior staff would be better investigated by an external party rather than investigated internally, to ensure procedural fairness to all parties and independence in the investigation.

6. That Council develop a

Communications Strategy which clearly details communications between LEDA and Council Officers; and LEDA and Councillors. The Strategy should include contact points for each party; contact method (verbal or written); and type of issues to be addressed. This strategy should be supported by an ‘Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy’ which should be developed by Council.




Council 7. That Council’s Communication

Devices Policy be amended to ensure that the use of Council's corporate systems (including email system), for any personal submissions made by Staff or Councillors relating to Council activities including development applications, be prohibited. This includes the use of the staff members Council email address to lodge any such submission. The Policy is to be amended to preclude personal storage of the submission on Council's electronic storage systems, noting that the only storage permissible is as an official record along with all other submissions retained by the Council in the corporate record management system (where the submission is made to Council)

8. That Council develop a Media

Strategy to respond, when required, to issues raised in the media by LEDA, and which have, or may have, a negative impact on Council.

9. That Council provide regular

briefings/training sessions with key development staff on dealing with Councillors; dealing with conflict of interests (including activities as a member of the public including activist groups or making submissions on developments); GIPA applications; and dealing with difficult persons.




Council 10. That Council should consider

reviewing its current practice of providing considerably voluminous Council business papers to Councillors on a regular basis through adopting any or all or the following:

1. Scheduling more regular

Council Meetings; 2. Scheduling complex matters

more effectively; 3. Undertaking a Delegations

Review; and/or 4. Adoption of a Planning

Committee (PC) or an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP).

Report prepared for consideration at the November Council meeting providing a number of meeting options.

21/11/2013 21/11/2013

11. That an in depth planning review

not be undertaken of Council’s assessment of any of LEDA’s submissions.

Not required. 17/10/2013 17/10/2013

12. That no formal facilitation process

be undertaken between Council staff and LEDA representatives. Instead, it is recommended that an experienced and highly skilled Independent Chair be engaged to facilitate regular scheduled meetings between LEDA representatives and Council staff and determine matters as required. Both parties should agree on the Independent Chair selected; costs should be divided equally and explicit agreement completed committing each party to the process.

Draft Major Development Committee Guidelines drafted for review. Engagement of independent Chair currently in progress.

28/10/2013 5/11/2013




Council 13. That in instances where there can

be no agreement or decision on matters of dispute in the development after being through the meeting held by the Independent Chair, and particularly in cases where Council and LEDA have opposing legal advice, it is recommended that consideration be given to seeking independent legal advice from a third party in an endeavour to resolve the issue.

14. That in order to ensure future

success of the regular scheduled meetings between LEDA and Council, and the operations of the Independent Chair, it is recommended that the first meeting between the parties be attended by Ms Kath Roach (author of this report) in order to confirm agreement from both parties as to the proposed system as detailed within this report. Council’s Acting General Manager and the Executive Chairman of LEDA should be in attendance at this initial meeting.

Initial meeting not yet scheduled.

15. That Council should make more

efficient use of its Policy and Procedures in any future dealings with LEDA including: the Compliments and Complaints Handling Policy and Procedure; Business Ethics Policy; Community Engagement Strategy and associated Integrated Planning and Reporting Policy documents; Correspondence – Response to Policy; Customer Service Charter; Dealing with Difficult People Policy; Vision Statement, Mission Statement, and Corporate Values.


25/10/2013




Council 16. That a more structured approach be

undertaken to the allocation of staff on all major projects such as the Kings Forest and Cobaki developments. That a set minimum core staff be allocated to work on the project with staff allocating a proportion of their weekly time to the project. The staff should not be required to be relocated within Council to work on the project. These core staff should be made known to the respective developer, and be used as a primary contact for the project (as part of the Communications Strategy), and be the focus of any required Department of Planning responses.

Letter provided to LEDA Developments advising of core staff allocated to each project.

7/11/2013

17. That Council streamline its internal

referral process and develop Service Level Agreements (SLA) between Assessment Services and other relevant sections of Council. The Service Level Agreements should detail expected service standards in terms of quality, timeframes and priorities amongst other things.

Initial Focus meeting of internal referees conducted 24/10/2013. Further meetings held on 31/10/2013 and 7/11/2013.

24/10/2013 31/10/2013 7/11/2013

18. That Council review internally the

greater involvement of strategic planners and an economic strategist, throughout the pre-lodgement and assessment phases of any future development proposal for major developments.

19. That given:

a) the length of time that has passed;

b) the format in which the allegations were made; and

c) the public knowledge of the allegations which denied procedural fairness to parties;

that Council take no action against any Council staff member or

Response provided to LEDA Developments. Further response provided to LEDA Developments in relation to

30/10/2013 5/11/2013




Council Councillor mentioned in this review report for any alleged Code of Conduct breaches that may have been alleged up to the date of this report. This includes code of conduct matters raised by LEDA in the August 2011, October 2011 and January 2013 reports. Council should formally write to LEDA and advise them of this recommendation.

Division of Local Government review of Code of Conduct matters.

OPTIONS: That Council receives and notes the update on the 19 recommendations of the SINC Solutions Final Report. CONCLUSION: That Council receives and notes the update on the 19 recommendations of the SINC Solutions Final Report. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


15 [GM-CM] Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire (BEATS) 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Business and Economic Development

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 3 Strengthening the Economy

3.1 Expand employment, tourism and education opportunities

3.1.5 Support innovative employment generating projects

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

In October Council resolved to become a Platinum Sponsor of the 2013 Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire (BEATS) which was run by the Combined Tweed Chambers. This proved to be a successful event which showcased the talents of the Tweed business community. Council has been approached by the Combined Tweed Chambers to again take out Platinum Sponsorship in the 2014 BEATS Awards. Early sponsorship by Council will allow the event organisers leverage to attract greater and wider sponsorship and to provide a degree of surety in planning/budgeting. This report recommends that Council become a Platinum sponsor of the 2014 BEATS Awards. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council become a Platinum Sponsor, to the 2014 Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire (BEATS) organised by the Murwillumbah District Business Chamber.


REPORT:

Tweed Shire Council has been approached by the Combined Tweed Business Chamber to become a sponsor of the 2014 Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire (BEATS). These awards are to be held later in 2014. Early sponsorship by larger sponsors will allow the event organisers leverage to attract greater and wider sponsorship and provide a degree of surety in planning/budgeting. The Chambers have developed the BEATS awards to encourage and recognise excellence in customer service. The Chamber also believes that the BEATS awards will contribute to the reputation and identity of Tweed business as well as fostering pride in the business community. Through these awards, Tweed businesses will gain a stronger and more prominent business reputation. The Vision of the awards is:

To showcase, promote and unite businesses within the Tweed Shire, by recognising excellence in innovation, productivity and customer service. Highlighting their ideals and aspirations while applauding their achievements and endeavour to succeed whether large, medium or small in any economic climate. Tweed Business is a diverse landscape that will strive, thrive and survive by recognition.

The Mission identifies that the;

Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire ( BEATS) will acknowledge businesses in the Tweed Shire that excel in their nominated industry and exceed customer expectations with a professional yearly awards programme.

The Gala Awards Event The BEATS Gala Award Event will take place in the latter part of 2014 at the Tweed Heads Civic Centre. Individual and corporate bookings will be available and the Chamber is expecting up to 500 local business representatives to attend. The night will be professionally formatted with special ongoing recognition of all their sponsors via speaker credits, ongoing audio / visual presentations and through printed credits in the official documentation. The Awards will be marketed to the whole of the Tweed Shire through newspaper, television and radio advertising, social media, emails and web marketing. Success of 2013 Awards The 2013 BEATS Awards was attended by over 200 people which was achieved by a multimedia marketing campaign involving TV, radio, newspaper, email word of mouth and social networking. Invitations to participate as sponsors or to nominate for categories were sent out through the Combined Chambers of the Tweed networks reaching approximately 4000 Tweed Shire businesses. Dozens of nominations were received from Tweed Heads, Murwillumbah and the coastal and hinterland villages.


A diverse representation of Tweed business were involved as finalists, from the A&R Boutique Kingscliff to the Billabong Swim School and very small home based businesses such as Emubeads from Uki to the SAE Group which has 50 employees. The innovative decision to have the creative industries as a category was a positive step with six businesses becoming finalists in that category. The nomination process was based on that of the State Chamber of Commerce, with all nominations being confidential and Southern Cross University acting as an independent judge. The gala evening itself was a great success with the food, beer, entertainment, staff, decor, trophies all sourced from within the Tweed Shire or Northern Rivers region. The businesses were honoured and rewarded with trophies, hampers, certificates and prizes. The finalists were encouraged to try again next year. The venue provided an interesting space with many rooms and areas that allowed for dancing, eating and quiet conversations. Award Categories: • 2013 Best Cafe & Restaurant Award • 2013 Colour In Your Life Creative Industries Award • 2013 Best Community & Social Service award • 2013 Destination Tweed Tourism & Accommodation Award • 2013 Best Tweed Event Award • 2013 Best Hair & Beauty Award • 2013 Best Health, Wellbeing & Fitness Award • 2013 Best Media Award • 2013 Best Professional Service, Education & Training Award • 2013 Best Pubs & Clubs Award • The Daily News Customer Service • 2013 Tweed Valley Weekly Best Retail Award • 2013 Best Trade, Construction & Primary Industries Award • 2013 Tweed Shire Council Best Environmentally Sustainable Business • 2013 Combined Chambers of the Tweed People's Choice Award • 2013 Best Business in the Tweed Award People’s Choice Votes: 2390 OPTIONS: The options available to Council are: 1. Support the Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire by becoming a sponsor.

Sponsorship options include Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, with the value of these levels still to be determined for the 2014 event.

2. Not proceed with any sponsorship of the Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire.


CONCLUSION: By becoming an early sponsor of the BEATS 2014, Council will be showing its support to the business community of the Tweed. This report recommends that Council become a Platinum Sponsor to the Business Excellence Awards Tweed Shire. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: This report recommends that Council sponsor the BEATS Awards as a Platinum Sponsor (it is noted that the value of this sponsorship for 2013 was $5,500). c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


16 [GM-CM] Festivals and Events Policy Version 1.1 SUBMITTED BY: Business and Economic Development


2 Supporting Community Life 2.1 Foster strong, cohesive, cooperative, healthy and safe communities 3 Strengthening the Economy 3.1 Expand employment, tourism and education opportunities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Festivals and Events Policy version 1.0 has been reviewed as requested. The Policy is largely the same as the earlier version with the amendments highlighted in the revised version 1.1. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Festivals and Events Policy version 1.1 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days and submissions received over a 42 day period.


REPORT:

Following discussions with Councillors the Festivals and Events Policy has been revised to assist them in determining the allocation of financial assistance to festivals and events held in the Tweed Shire.


CONCLUSION: Following the period on exhibition and the consideration of any feedback from the community, the Festivals and Events Policy will be presented for adoption at the January 2014 Council meeting. Applications under the Festivals and Events Policy will then be called for 2014-2015. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Festivals and Events Version 1.0 amended. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Budget allocated for 2014-2015. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


17 [GM-CM] Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) CARnival Motorfest Event Report 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Business and Economic Development


2 Supporting Community Life 2.1 Foster strong, cohesive, cooperative, healthy and safe communities 2.1.3 Provide opportunities for residents to enjoy access to the arts, festivals,

sporting activities, recreation, community and cultural facilities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) in accordance with its agreement with Council conducted three sessions of its Ignition Program over two days leading up to CARnival event. A total of 36 pre-licence aged students from three local high schools; Tweed River High School, Murwillumbah High School and Mount St Patricks College took part in the training. This CAMS supported initiative focuses on promoting road safety and driver education. Statistics have shown that P plate drivers are the most vulnerable on our roads so this program is intended to provide critical education on safe driving at a young age with the goal of making every participant a safer more responsible driver on the roads. The training provided by High performance driving instructors was held in the grounds of the Murwillumbah Showgrounds and local Rotary Clubs assisted with setting up the safety area. CAMS provides this opportunity at all its major events such as the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne and it is a very well thought out, professional presentation conducted by people that the students relate well to. Feedback from students and teachers was very positive. One teacher commented that the theory presentation by Samantha Reid was particularly good as the students responded well to her and were clearly engaged. The practical demonstration conducted by driver trainers from the Paul Morris Driving Centre on the Gold Coast was similarly a high quality presentation. Student's comments were very positive and many said they learnt a lot and could apply what they had learnt when working on getting their driver's licence and whenever they drove on the road. The first CARnival Motorfest at Murwillumbah Showgrounds was held on 19 October 2013 coordinated by CAMS and supported by local motorsport car clubs, Rotary Clubs, Destination Tweed and Murwillumbah Chamber of Commerce was a resounding success. There was a great atmosphere and everyone involved was enthusiastic about this kind of grass roots motoring event.


RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Congratulates the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) on

presenting the first CARnival Motorfest in Murwillumbah on 19 October 2013 and the Ignition Program, a safe driver program for pre-licence high school students.

2. Acknowledges the conduct of these events and the payment of $15,000 fulfils

the agreement with the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) of August 2012 as part of the settlement of the in kind debt from the Speed on Tweed track construction in 2010.

3. Invites the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) with their

associated car clubs and local supporters to consider holding similar events in the Shire in 2014 and ongoing.

4. Will consider financial assistance towards CARnival and the Ignition Program for

in kind and funding support in 2014 in accordance with a submitted application in accord with Council's Festival and Events Policy.


REPORT:

The CARnival event began at the Murwillumbah Showgrounds at dawn on Saturday 19 October with the final set up of the venue by Rotary and the Gold Coast Tweed Motor Sports Club. An official briefing for officials and volunteers at 8am formally acknowledged the support of Tweed Shire Council and others as well as basic rules for participating in the day's events. Gold Coast MG Club (50 entries) met at the Murwillumbah Showgrounds and set off on a tour of the Tweed hinterland. Many had not visited the Tweed area for several years but one driver recalled coming to the Murwillumbah Show as a child and sitting on the hill beside the pavilion to watch the events in the ring. They reported having a brilliant day and returned to take part in the "Show and Shine" in the centre of the showgounds around midday. Here they joined another 25 restored vehicles of various eras that locals displayed all day. These were augmented by marquees with displays by CAMS, Shannons Insurance, local suppliers and motoring enthusiasts. There was a lot of interest and presenters were kept busy all day with questions and comments from spectators. The CARnival Khanacross event (28 entries) was set up and coordinated by Gold Coast Tweed Motor Sport Club around the showgrounds on the internal road network and this was a highlight for many of the spectators. The Khanacross began planning in March 2013 with a site meeting at the Murwillumbah Showgrounds to plan the course and determine the ways in which drivers skills would be tested for skill and efficiency in manoeuvring their cars rather than speed. This is an exciting event and a large crowd of local and regional motorsports enthusiasts enjoyed watching the individual cars take on the track designed for stop starts and control in tight turns. Rotary Clubs set up the spectator parking at the rear of the showgounds and collected a gold coin donation for local charities raising $500. Total attendance throughout the day was around 1500 with a good spread throughout the day. The event finished in town in the evening with a presentation dinner at Murwillumbah RSL with approximately 60 in attendance. The event rather than having a speed focus on local roads is instead about laying the foundations for a broad community event attracting members of CAMS and the general public who enjoy motor sports while showcasing the beauty of the Tweed. The Sports and Club Development officer - NSW Ms Doreen Butchers organised the event and coordinated all the various aspects. The emphasis is on accessibility for everyone who wants to participate, costs are kept very reasonable with free entry for spectators and it is particularly designed for presentation in a regional rural setting. CAMS organisers were thrilled with the support they received and there was great feedback to them from participants and spectators liking the atmosphere and structure of the day. CAMS new CEO Mr Eugene Arocca and their National Media Officer attended the event in the afternoon and evening and were really happy with it. This is a new direction for CAMS and one that has the potential to be an annual, low cost event. To this end, it is suggested that Council liaise with CAMS, local car clubs and Rotary to seek opportunities for the event to be run again in 2014.


CONCLUSION: The first CARnival Motorfest at Murwillumbah Showgrounds on 19 October 2013 coordinated by CAMS and supported by local motorsport car clubs, Rotary Clubs, Destination Tweed and Murwillumbah Chamber of Commerce was a resounding success. There was a great atmosphere and everyone involved was enthusiastic about the kind of grass roots event presented. Feedback from students and teachers was very positive for the Ignition Program of safe driver training for pre-licence high school students, with many saying they definitely want more of that opportunity in the future. The event has the potential to be a recurring annual event. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Part of debt repayment for costs to Council of erecting track for last Speed on Tweed. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Media Clippings (ECM 3208968). Attachment 2. Letters of Support (ECM 3208954).


18 [GM-CM] Draft Economic Development Strategy SUBMITTED BY: Business and Economic Development

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 3 Strengthening the Economy

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

In December 2012 Council resolved to undertake the preparation of an Economic Development Strategy. Through discussions with Destination Tweed in early 2013 it was agreed to undertake this process in a partnership arrangement with both organisations equally sharing the costs of the project. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council places the draft Economic Development Strategy on public exhibition and invites submissions for a period of 60 days.


REPORT:

In December 2012 Council resolved to undertake the preparation of an Economic Development Strategy. Through discussions with Destination Tweed in early 2013 it was agreed to undertake this process in a partnership arrangement with both organisations equally sharing the costs of the project. A Steering Committee was organised to oversee the drafting of the strategy. The members of this Committee are:

• Mayor • Chair – Destination Tweed • Acting General Manager – Tweed Shire Council • CEO – Destination Tweed • Manager Business and Economic Development - Tweed Shire Council • Acting Coordinator Economic Development - Tweed Shire Council

The role of the Steering Committee:

• Be responsible for the drafting of the Strategy • Provide professional input into the drafting • Manage the consultant • Authorise payments to the consultant • Project administration

Since January 2013 the Steering Committee has formally met five times to oversee and manage the project. The Steering Committee engaged economic development and urban planning consultants Urban Enterprise to prepare the draft Strategy. A Reference Group was also formed to provide the consultant with professional and industry input from the Tweed business community. This Reference Group comprised 47 members with a broad range of industries/skills and experiences with representatives from:

• Tweed business chambers • Agriculture • Transport sector • Tourism operators • Educations sector • Health sector • Environmental sector • Land development industry • Reps from State and Federal Government

The Reference Group has met on two occasions, once to review Discussion Paper and a final time to review the Draft Strategy.


Tweed Economic Development Strategy – Objectives The Draft Economic Development Strategy has established the following objectives:

• Maintain a diverse industry and business base • Provide investment certainty • Support existing businesses • Increase job participation and inclusion • Grow jobs in the Tweed Shire • Promote and develop business sustainability (financial, environmental, social)

Economic Development Pillars and Key Projects The Draft Economic Development Strategy has been based around seven pillars with an associated vision and key projects as summarised below. 1. Tweed Heads economic revitalisation - Objective 3.1 Vision: Tweed Heads will continue to develop as a dynamic place for business and

investment, led by growth in health, retail, tourism and knowledge industries. Key Projects:

• Undertake a coordinated Masterplan for Tweed Heads Health Precinct. • Continue to implement the Tweed Heads Masterplan. • Develop a business case for attraction of Government offices. • Feasibility study and Masterplan to activate public and private land at the Jack Evans

Boat Harbour. 2. The creative cauldron - Objective 3.1 Vision: The Tweed Hinterland will become a place recognised nationally as a creative

region, allowing existing creative practitioners to prosper and continue to attract new creative businesses to the region.

Key Projects:

• Brand and promote Murwillumbah as a creative hub. • Investigate the opportunity for subsidised creative studios in Murwillumbah. • Grow a program of creative events in Murwillumbah to raise the profile and establish

the town as a national centre for creative arts. • Continue to promote the Tweed River Art Gallery and Margret Olley Centre. • Undertake masterplans for Tweeds Villages (Uki, Tyalgum) focusing on:

o Streetscape improvements o Creative arts retail o Arts and sculpture trails

• Brand the villages of the creative cauldron. • Undertake a Riverfront Masterplan for Murwillumbah.

3. Resilient and innovative agriculture - Objective 3.2 and Objective 3.3 Vision: Tweed Shire will continue to transition with innovative farming and non-traditional

farming practices supported by growth in downstream food processing.


Key Projects: • Investigate the potential to establish a food processing cluster in Tweed Shire. • Investigate opportunities into organic and non traditional agricultural production. • Educate rural land owners regarding the opportunities for non traditional agriculture. • Provide case studies of on-site value adding and direct to market opportunities to

farmers. 4. Tweed Shire: open for business - Objective 3.4 Vision: Tweed Shire to become regarded as an attractive and desirable place for

business and investment, where the balance between lifestyle and work is achieved.

Key Projects:

• Investigate the appointment of a business concierge and gateway website for business.

• Investigate the development of a tweed business centre and incubator, focused on providing advice and support to business, providing offices for start-up business and other business services.

• Investigate a business support levy and governance model. • In conjunction with NSW State Government improve the northern freeway gateway.

5. Tweed Shire destination development - Objective 3.1 Vision: Tweed Shire will become recognised for high quality tourism experiences in food,

well being and nature based tourism. Key Projects:

• Undertake a brand strategy for Tweed Shire. • Undertake a review of the existing events strategy in order to make recommendations

relating to existing operations, further opportunities and resources required to deliver events.

• Continue to develop the Tweed Fresh Project which promotes local produce in Tweed food outlets.

• Undertake a destination management plan focusing on product development. • Undertake a village plan which looks at the following:

o Touring links between villages o Streetscape improvements o Infrastructure needs o Product opportunities o Branding


6. Leveraging from Tweeds’ geographic location - Objective 3.1 Vision: Tweed Shire effectively leverages off its strategic location in proximity to the Gold

Coast Airport and South East Queensland through attraction of investment and growth in targeted sectors.

Key Projects:

• Undertake a feasibility study into the opportunity to develop a transport and freight hub. • Feasibility Study into Establishment of a Business and Research Park on sites in

proximity to Gold Coast Airport and Southern Cross University. 7. Plan for an economy of the future - Objective 3.4 Vision: Council will plan for the future growth and prosperity of the Shire, with

consideration to climate change, workforce participation, digital technology and continued diversification of the business base.

Key Projects:

• Council to promote and provide training programs to business to enhance businesses environmental performance.

• Continue to support and enhance existing primary industries in Tweed Shire. • Match localised and global climate change effects on the local business sector and

plan to mitigate these effects. • Work closely with education providers and employment organisations to identify

opportunities to strengthen workforce participation in Tweed Shire. • Promote opportunities for attracting digital related businesses. • Educate the existing business base on trends and opportunities to improve digital

presence. • Continue to investigate renewable energy in Tweed Shire. • Support Public Transport Initiatives highlighted in the Tweed Shire Public Transport

Initiative. Public Exhibition The draft strategy was presented to Council and the Board of Destination Tweed at a workshop held on 7 November 2013. The outcome of the workshop was that the Strategy should be placed on public exhibition through December 2013 and January 2014. This report recommends placing the Draft Economic Development Strategy on public exhibition for a period of 60 days from 4 December 2013. During this exhibition period the community will be able to make comment on the draft. OPTIONS: 1. Place the Draft Economic Development Strategy on public exhibition providing 60 days

for the public to make submissions. 2. Take no further action with the preparation of the Economic Development Strategy.


CONCLUSION: The Draft Economic Development Strategy seeks to encourage the development of a robust Tweed economy which is more resilient to fluctuations in the economic cycle, has a broader range of business activities and supports the growth and development of sustainable employment opportunities for Tweed Shire’s population. This report recommends placing the draft Economic Development Strategy for a period of 60 days. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: New policy for Council determination. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: There are no immediate budget implications from placing this draft strategy on public exhibition. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. [GM-CM] Draft Economic Development Strategy (ECM 3214373)


REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR PLANNING AND REGULATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 - SECT 79C 79C Evaluation (1) Matters for consideration-general In determining a development application, a consent

authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

(a) the provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument, and (ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public

consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

(iii) any development control plan, and (iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or

any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 ),

that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(c) the suitability of the site for the development, (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, (e) the public interest. Note: See section 75P (2) (a) for circumstances in which determination of development application to be generally consistent with approved concept plan for a project under Part 3A. The consent authority is not required to take into consideration the likely impact of the development on biodiversity values if:

(a) the development is to be carried out on biodiversity certified land (within the meaning of Part 7AA of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ), or

(b) a biobanking statement has been issued in respect of the development under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 .


(2) Compliance with non-discretionary development standards-development other than complying development If an environmental planning instrument or a regulation contains non-discretionary development standards and development, not being complying development, the subject of a development application complies with those standards, the consent authority:

(a) is not entitled to take those standards into further consideration in determining the

development application, and (b) must not refuse the application on the ground that the development does not

comply with those standards, and (c) must not impose a condition of consent that has the same, or substantially the

same, effect as those standards but is more onerous than those standards, and the discretion of the consent authority under this section and section 80 is limited accordingly.

(3) If an environmental planning instrument or a regulation contains non-discretionary

development standards and development the subject of a development application does not comply with those standards:

(a) subsection (2) does not apply and the discretion of the consent authority under

this section and section 80 is not limited as referred to in that subsection, and (b) a provision of an environmental planning instrument that allows flexibility in the

application of a development standard may be applied to the non-discretionary development standard.

Note: The application of non-discretionary development standards to complying development is dealt with in section 85A (3) and (4).

(4) Consent where an accreditation is in force A consent authority must not refuse to grant

consent to development on the ground that any building product or system relating to the development does not comply with a requirement of the Building Code of Australia if the building product or system is accredited in respect of that requirement in accordance with the regulations.

(5) A consent authority and an employee of a consent authority do not incur any liability as

a consequence of acting in accordance with subsection (4). (6) Definitions In this section:

(a) reference to development extends to include a reference to the building, work, use or land proposed to be erected, carried out, undertaken or subdivided, respectively, pursuant to the grant of consent to a development application, and

(b) "non-discretionary development standards" means development standards that are identified in an environmental planning instrument or a regulation as non-discretionary development standards.


19 [PR-CM] Marine Rescue Point Danger (Training Facilities) Coral Street, Duranbah

SUBMITTED BY: Building and Environmental Health

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The licence granted to Marine Rescue Point Danger for the use of the training facilities at Coral Street expired in July 2013 and the Tweed Coast Reserve Trust previously resolved to not extend the licence due to the dilapidated state of the building. Marine Rescue Point Danger has since obtained substantial funding through their insurance provisions with the Treasury Managed Fund to undertake all necessary repairs required to make the building habitable. A request has been received from Marine Rescue NSW for the Trust and NSW Trade and Investment Crown Lands Department to approve a three year conditional special licence and an interim licence to allow Marine Rescue Point Danger to begin remediation works at the site. It is recommended that Council support this request. A separate report dealing with this matter also needs to be determined in the November Tweed Coast Reserve Trust Meeting. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Supports the issue of a new conditional three year lease for the Marine Rescue

Point Danger Training Facilities at Coral Street, Duranbah to Marine Rescue Point Danger, noting that the conditions of the lease will include a termination of licence clause if the NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands determine that there is a higher level of community interest identified prior to the expiration date of the licence;

2. Supports the decision to relinquish responsibility to Marine Rescue Point

Danger for the day to day maintenance and future repairs required at the site during the three year tenure; and


3. Approves the request to NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands for in-principle support and interim licence to allow Marine Rescue Point Danger to begin remediation works to the Coral Street Training Rooms as per the approved Treasury Managed Fund claim.


REPORT:

Marine Rescue Point Danger (MRPD) Training Facilities are located at Coral Street, Duranbah on Crown Reserve 57974. The above building operates under a temporary Crown Land licence issued by the Tweed Coast Reserve Trust. The licence expired on 13 May 2013. As per the previous report to the Trust in April 2012, the building requires significant repair works to be carried out to extend the life of the building and ensure occupant safety. A report to the Trust was previously prepared in support of not renewing the licence and for MRPD to find an alternate training facility. The Trust resolved that: 1. The Tweed Coast Reserves Trust supports the position that the training facilities at

Coral Street, Duranbah are in a dilapidated state and unless further significant funds are made available to repair the facility the use of the building is to be limited to 30 June 2013; and

2. Marine Rescue NSW be advised to seek alternative training facilities. MRPD were advised of the Trust resolution to not renew the previous current licence. MRPD are currently not using the training rooms due to workplace health and safety concerns raised in the 2011 building audit undertaken by Council. A meeting was held in September 2013 with the Commissioner Marine Rescue NSW, NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands officers and Council officers to address the current situation. It was resolved at the meeting that the Commissioner would submit a claim through the Treasury Managed Fund (TMF) for the required repair works. The TMF have since accepted the claim and have approved $76,610 funds to repair the building and roof as per the previous maintenance issues raised by Council officers. A further meeting between Council officers, MRPD and NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands was held in October 2013 on the request of NSW Marine Rescue to investigate the potential for a future conditional licence agreement. During the meeting, MRPD requested a four year licence be issued once the repair works are complete. NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands have since agreed to approve a three year conditional licence, with a special condition of the lease to allow for the termination of the lease if the NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands determine that there is a higher level of community interest in the site prior to the expiration date of the licence. Council officers have advised Marine Rescue that the approval of the three year conditional licence will be based on the successful completion of the remediation works and approval that the building is safe for occupancy. Council officers have also advised Marine Rescue that no funds have been allocated for ongoing maintenance during the three year period. Therefore any approval to grant the licence will only be agreed to with the provision that the day to day maintenance and repairs required to the site and surrounding area required during the licence period are solely the responsibility of MRPD and will not be undertaken or funded through Council now or in the future. Council has prepared a letter to the NSW Trade and Investment, Crown Lands to request in-principle support and interim licence for works.


OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Support the recommendations in this report; or 2. Not support the recommendations in this report. CONCLUSION: The Marine Rescue Point Danger operations are considered to be an important community service, worthy of Council and State Government support. The additional State Government funding and future management proposal identified in this report, addresses a number of previous Council and Trust concerns. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


20 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0132 - Change of Use (First Approved Use) to Surfboard Manufacturing, Extension of Mezzanine Level and Associated Signage at Lot 19 SP 80033, No. 19/23-25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads

SUBMITTED BY: Development Assessment

FILE REFERENCE: DA13/0132 Pt1

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.1 Ensure actions taken and decisions reached are based on the principles of sustainability 1.1.1 Establish sustainability as a basis of shire planning and Council's own business operations

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

November Council Meeting Status Update At its meeting of 17 October 2013, Council voted as follows:

Cr M Armstrong Cr G Bagnall RESOLVED that Development Application DA13/0132 for a change of use (first approved use) to surfboard manufacturing, extension of mezzanine level and associated signage at Lot 19 SP 80033 No. 19/23-25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads be deferred to the November Council meeting. The Motion was Carried FOR VOTE - Cr P Youngblutt, Cr W Polglase, Cr M Armstrong, Cr G Bagnall, Cr B Longland AGAINST VOTE - Cr C Byrne ABSENT. DID NOT VOTE - Cr K Milne

Council received a draft Air Quality Assessment Report from the applicant on 25 October 2013. The draft has been reviewed by Council staff and additional information has been requested of the applicant. The final Air Quality Assessment Report was received on 5 November 2013, yet it still lacked sampling results undertaken by the NATA Accredited Laboratory. Upon receipt of this information, Council staff will review the findings and report this application back to Council for final determination. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be deferred to enable assessment of the submitted Air Quality Assessment Report. The previous report and previous status updates have been duplicated below for Council's information.


October Council Meeting Status Update At its meeting of 19 September 2013, Council voted the following:

563 Cr M Armstrong Cr G Bagnall It was Moved that this report be deferred for consideration at the October meeting.

564 AMENDMENT 1 to the motion Cr K Milne Cr G Bagnall PROPOSED that this report be deferred for consideration at the October meeting to allow the applicant to submit the information identified by Council staff. Amendment 1 was Lost FOR VOTE - Cr K Milne, Cr G Bagnall AGAINST VOTE - Cr P Youngblutt, Cr W Polglase, Cr C Byrne, Cr M Armstrong, Cr B Longland 565 AMENDMENT 2 to the motion Cr C Byrne Cr B Longland PROPOSED 1. Development Application DA13/0132 for a change of use (first approved use) to

surfboard manufacturing, extension of mezzanine level and associated signage at Lot 19 SP 80033 No. 19/23-25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads be refused for the following reasons: A. The development does not satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act, particularly Section (b) – “the likely impacts of that development including environmental impacts environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality” as the development has not provided sufficient information in regards to the air quality as a result of the proposed development.

B. The development does not satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, particularly Section (c) – “the suitability of the site for the development” as the development has not demonstrated the sites suitability given the developments potential impact on adjoining tenancies.


C. The development is not considered to be in the public interest as the application has failed to adequately address the issues raised in submissions received during the assessment of the application.

D. The application has not been supported by sufficient owners consent acknowledging that DA13/0132 also seeks approval for the use of premises and signage not just the mezzanine construction.

and: 2. Council instigate compliance action to have the business cease operating from

the subject site and rectify illegal works undertaken to the mezzanine level. Amendment 2 was Lost FOR VOTE - Cr C Byrne, Cr K Milne, Cr B Longland AGAINST VOTE - Cr P Youngblutt, Cr W Polglase, Cr M Armstrong, Cr G Bagnall The original Motion put by Armstrong and Bagnall was put and Carried (Minute No 563 refers) FOR VOTE - Cr P Youngblutt, Cr W Polglase, Cr M Armstrong, Cr K Milne, Cr G Bagnall, Cr B Longland AGAINST VOTE - Cr C Byrne

Since writing the initial report to Council on this matter Council has received the following e-mail from the applicant (17 September 2013):

“I realise the urgency and importance of this ! I will contact the director of superbrand PTY LTD today ! I am happy and completely understand that the test needs to be done to your satisfaction , but I have been informed by several air quality specialist that the test you require would be inconclusive and I would be open to continually having to conduct this test to satisfy the complaints . I have had one specialist ring 3 different councillors to request a more sufficient and conclusive test but was unsuccessful in his request ! I will speak to both specialists I have had quotes from today to confirm they both think the alternative test is a more conclusive. I am happy to move forward and have this done within the allocated 30 days stated in your email this morning!”

The previous report has been re-submitted to Council for its determination. Original Report In November 2012 Council received a complaint that Superbrand (a surf board manufacturing business) had started to occupy Unit 19, 23-25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads without development approval. In addition the complaints raised the issue of fumes associated with the business and that such fumes were having an impact on their health. These complaints have continued to date. The subject Development Application was lodged in April 2013 seeking approval for the ongoing use of the site for the surfboard manufacturing business, the ongoing use of the already constructed mezzanine level and the ongoing use of already installed signage. Since 19 April 2013 Council Officers have been requesting the applicant provide an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report prepared by a suitably qualified air quality investigation consultant in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales.


Council explained to the applicant that if the effects of air pollution originating from this operation are not examined by a suitably qualified air quality investigation consultant, Council is not undertaking due diligence in terms of legislative requirements and health, safety and welfare of those who could be put at risk from the works being carried out at this business. Since lodgement of the Development Application the applicant has been making amendments to the premises to try to improve the issue of odour and fumes escaping the premises. This has occurred following Work Cover Authority of NSW getting involved. However Council’s previous experience over many years in dealing with environment and health issues concerning industries where NSW WorkCover has also been involved, has revealed that WorkCover addresses issues that relate to the health and safety of employees in the work place only. Environment and health issues or impacts that are external to the operation of an industry such as noise, air pollution or offsite migration of contaminants for example are to be resolved by the Appropriate Regulatory Authority. Therefore as Council’s concerns relate to possible air pollution impacts that are external to the workplace operations of this particular industry, it cannot be assumed that by resolving any NSW WorkCover issues, the subject industry has complied or indeed negated Council’s requirement for the provision of an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report. To date the applicant has not provided the requested Air Quality Impact Assessment Report. As recently as 20 August 2013 the applicant made representations to the elected Councillors questioning the need for the requested Air Quality Impact Assessment. Accordingly it was considered prudent to report this matter to Council based on the information submitted within the application. Based on the information currently submitted by the applicant Council Officers are unable to recommend approval of the application as the applicant has not demonstrated that the business will not have an impact on adjoining businesses. Therefore the application is recommended for refusal and for the Council to resolve to instigate compliance action to have the business cease operating from the subject site and rectify illegal works undertaken to the mezzanine level. Alternatively the Council could allow the applicant an additional 30 days to produce an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report and reconsider the application after receipt of that Report. If the report is not received within 30 days refuse the Development Application (under staff delegation) based on the reasons as outlined in this report. Or Council could request that conditions of consent are brought forward to the next Council meeting to enable the application to be considered for approval. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0132 for a change of use (first approved use) to surfboard manufacturing, extension of mezzanine level and associated signage at Lot 19 SP 80033 No. 19/23-25 Ourimbah Road Tweed Heads be deferred to enable assessment of the submitted Air Quality Assessment Report.


REPORT:

Applicant: SuperBrand (Mr Adam Fletcher) Owner: Chashell Pty Ltd Location: Lot 19 SP 80033 No. 19/23-25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads Zoning: 4(a) Industrial and Uncoloured Land Cost: $15,000 Background: Council first received a complaint about SuperBrand (surfboard manufacturer) operating from Unit 19, 23 -25 Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads, without approval in November 2012. Following this complaint Council advised the applicant that a Development Application was required for the land use as Unit 19 had never received a first use approval as required by DA05/1332 which approved the industrial unit complex. The Development Application was then subsequently lodged on 2 April 2013. Between November 2012 and April 2013 when the application was lodged Council received numerous complaints about the business in regards to odour (toxic resin fumes), health implications (red itchy eyes, headaches etc), lack of filtration and air locks, and poor work practices. The subject application now seeks consent for: Change of Use (first use) of the premises for a surfboard manufacturing business

(SuperBrand). The business has been operating at the subject unit without consent since November 2012.

Extension of existing mezzanine by 112m2 for the purposes of manufacturing, storage and office space (this work has been done without approval and would require the lodgement of a Building Certificate to validate the construction standard).

Use of equipment such as air compressor (stored in room under stairs), a hand-operated sander, a cordless power drill and dust extraction unit.

Hours of operation – 8am to 5pm Mondays to Fridays excluding Public Holidays. Up to ten employees. Minimal signage consisting of one flush wall sign measuring 6m x 1m. The application was supported by a Statement of Environmental Effects, a Building Code of Australia report by a private certifier, a certificate from Naros Air Conditioning and Sheet Metal certifying that the mechanical ventilation has been installed in accordance with the Australian Standard and an engineering report certifying the construction standard of the mezzanine level. The subject site is located in an established industrial area, within the Ourimbah Road Industrial precinct. The subject site comprises of an industrial unit complex, which contains 24 actual units (Stage 1) and plans for 16 further individual units (Stage 2). It is a corner allotment and as such has dual site entry. The proposal is for the first approved use of Strata Unit 19 and has a total current Gross Floor Area of 213m2 (165 ground/48 mezzanine). The factory unit is of concrete tilt up construction with an insulated metal roof.


The adjoining property to the west of the site is a bus depot and the adjoining property to the east of the subject site is vacant, however was approved as stage two of DA05/1335 for factory units in conjunction with the approval for the subject site (stage 1). DA12/0552 also approved a different development over that part of the site previously allocated for Stage 2. The different use authorises a car rental facility in association with the Gold Coast Airport. Neither Stage 2 of DA05/1332 nor DA12/0552 have been acted upon to date. Residential development to the south is separated from the subject site by a 7m wide vegetated corridor. Internal of the site the adjoining businesses are a Summit Press Printing (Strata Unit 18) and a naturopathic business where essences are tested and mixed (Strata Unit 20). As soon as the development application was lodged the primary issue with the application was in relation to the emissions (smell) that the business was emitting that adjoining businesses were experiencing. Therefore on 19 April 2013 Council Officers specifically requested the applicant to undertake an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report prepared by a suitably qualified air quality investigation consultant in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales. The air quality investigation was required to incorporate the existing operations and include air sampling for odour causing substances external to the premises (with particular attention to neighbouring units in the immediate vicinity of the premises) that are associated with the surfboard manufacturing process (eg styrene etc) as well as investigating the adequacy of the existing mechanical ventilation system for removing odours/air impurities etc prior to discharge to the external environment, not purely in relation to the indoor air quality within the premises where the manufacturing is being carried out. The report was required to include appropriate recommendations necessary to demonstrate that the surfboard manufacturing process can be carried out without causing an odour nuisance to any adjoining premises. On 1 May 2013 the applicant provided Council with a copy of a quote for the required report from Air Noise Environment which came to a cost of $5,900. On 9 May 2013 the applicant questioned the need for the requested report due to the cost of the report and the extent of works that SuperBrand had done to try to mitigate impacts to neighbouring businesses (reviewed the roof cavity and filled obvious gaps between businesses, and installed whirly birds to ensure ventilation overnight). As a result of the applicant’s letter of 9 May 2013 Council Officers (from planning and environmental health) arranged a site visit to inspect both the subject property and the adjoining businesses affected by the smell. The site visit occurred on 21 May 2013. Council Officer’s first met with the adjoining business owners (on both sides of SuperBrand) who complained that the smell coming from the SuperBrand Surfboard Manufacturing business at times was unbearable. They complained that the smell was bad while the boards were being applied with resin but also first thing in the morning after the premises had been closed up over night. The complainants also were concerned that best practices were not being adopted and the protective clothing was not being worn by the staff at Superbrand.


After meeting with the complainants Council staff met with the applicant and had a tour of the premises and were shown what processes occurred within the premises. Generally upstairs was being used for office space, storage space and to shape and sand the boards, while downstairs the resin was being applied to the boards on a floor covered in sand. The sand would then get thrown in the bin when it got too clogged with spilt resin. During the inspection there was one staff member applying resin to a couple of boards. There was capacity for additional boards and additional staff in this area. Council Officers witnessed the front roller doors being left open which seemed to be contributing to the smell of the resin leaving the premises and affecting neighbouring businesses. On 23 May 2013 SuperBrand were reported to WorkCover Authority of NSW by an individual. WorkCover staff visited the site and issued the applicant with a list of Notices to ensure compliance with the WorkCover legislation. WorkCover have stated as follows:

“I write to confirm WorkCover NSW investigated a complaint in the name of Superbrand Pty Ltd at unit 19-25 Ourimbah Road Tweed Heads on 23/5/2013. As a result of this investigation directions were given to instigate remedial measures to ensure compliance with Work Health & Safety Legislation in particular Section 19 of the Work Health & Safety Act 2011. Subsequent visits were made to the premises to ensure compliance on two (2) occasions. In addressing the before mentioned matters the organisation fully cooperated with WorkCover to achieve the required outcome.”

Whilst Council is pleased that WorkCover are now satisfied with the premises from their legislative perspective Council Officers have stated that:

"Previous experience over many years in dealing with environment and health issues concerning industries where NSW WorkCover has also been involved, has revealed that WorkCover addresses issues that relate to the health and safety of employees in the work place only. Environment and health issues or impacts that are external to the operation of an industry such as noise, air pollution or offsite migration of contaminants for example are to be resolved by the Appropriate Regulatory Authority. Therefore as Council’s concerns relate to possible air pollution impacts that are external to the workplace operations of this particular industry, it cannot be assumed that by resolving any NSW WorkCover issues, the subject industry has complied or indeed negated Council’s requirement for the provision of an Air Quality Impact Report."

On 30 May 2013 Council receives a complaint that states: “These premises have been used to manufacture surfboards for approx 60 months and the fumes, being resin fumes, from these activities are unbearable. During this time, many of my employees have needed to leave work after inhaling the fumes, even as early as 10 minutes after commencing work. Symptoms being experienced include nausea, headache, eye irritation and blood shot eyes. There is also a constant white dust that has been released from the premises into the common property of the complex, i.e. car park. Clients which have visited our premises have also experienced eye irritation and noted the strong fumes that present in our premises. During this time, constant contact has been made with the tenants of the said premises and we had been advised that the appropriate actions were being taken to minimise any of these issues including appropriate extraction fans to be installed. We believe these fans have been installed, however the fumes are still prevalent.”

On 5 June 2013 Council staff wrote to the applicant reinforcing the need for the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report. Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider the likely impacts of the development and the site suitability. Council does not have a policy on air quality however there are many resources available that have guided Council in this matter including:


• Warringah Council - The Business of Air Quality guidelines

• Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities - National Pollutant Inventory

• NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Local Government Air Quality Toolkit

• NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales

• NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Environmental Information for the Composites Industry

These guidelines explain that Fibreglass Reinforced Products (FRP’s) create emissions of volatile organic compound (VOC’s) emissions and odours. The mains sources of such pollution are:

• Poor ventilation, filtration and discharge of particulates, dust, VOCs and odours. This is often caused by inappropriate stack and ventilation system configurations, fugitive emissions and inefficient air circulation and filtration.

• Poor housekeeping practices such as failure to place lids on containers and general poor storage and handling of containers.

• Poorly maintained equipment and equipment malfunction or failure. Maintenance of filtration systems and spray, sanding or polishing equipment contributes greatly to overspray, inefficient product use and emission of particulates, dust, VOCs and odours.

• The technical ability of personnel manufacturing FRPs can sometimes be low.

• Poor tool or equipment clean up. Commonly used cleaning products often contain solvent and are hazardous due to high flammability and chlorine content. Acetone, toluene, xylene and various alcohols are of particular concern. Emulsifiers and citrus based solvents may also be toxic.

Council explained to the applicant that if the effects of air pollution originating from this operation are not examined by a suitably qualified air quality investigation consultant, Council is not undertaking due diligence in terms of legislative requirements and health, safety and welfare of those who could be put at risk from the works being carried out at this business. On 9 July 2013 the applicant submitted a revised a copy of a quote for the required report from Air Noise Environment which came to a cost of $8,100. On 10 July 2013 Council agreed that the proposed methodology seemed sound provided recommendations were made to remove paths that would allow emissions between businesses and that the site audits occurred during worst case scenario conditions. On 12 July 2013 the applicant advised Council as follows:

“.. I have been advised by the directors of Superbrand Pty Ltd that they are prepared to meet the costs of the Impact Assessment Report if Council can provide a preliminary approval for the development application, subject to the outcome of the report. If Council is unable to provide preliminary development approval then Superbrand Pty Ltd requires some degree of comfort that Council will not allow its activities to be continually impinged by a vexatious complainant that has clearly driven the processes of Council in this development application”


On 8 August 2013 Council responded as follows: “Council cannot give any guarantee (or in principal approval) that by undertaking the requested Air Quality Impact Assessment Report you will be granted an approval. To do so would be unlawful and contrary to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Council’s Code of Conduct. Council has been requesting an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report since 19 April 2013. To date Council has been very lenient in allowing extra time for you to provide such a report. However such leniency cannot continue indefinitely. Please advise Council within 14 days of when the requested Air Quality Impact Assessment Report will be submitted to Council. Upon receipt of the requested report a determination of your application will be made. If an approval is issued you will be held to comply with the conditions of consent imposed on you in regards to air quality (probably as recommended within the air quality report), hours of operations and any other standard conditions. If you were to breech any such conditions Council would follow this up as a compliance matter. If an approval was issued and Council still received complaints about the business operations from neighbours each individual complaint would be assessed on its merits having regard to the conditions imposed on the consent. Council would act on complaints if they had merit. Your letter of 12 July 2013 also asks why Superbrand are being asked to provide the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report when other surfboard manufacturers have not been asked to do the same thing. Over recent years Council has been receiving more and more complaints about air pollution from various businesses including surfboard manufacturers and accordingly Council has been undertaking more vigorous assessments of potential air pollution causing activities against best practice guidelines. I can assure you that Council are requesting the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report to satisfy the legislative requirements and Council Officers concerns not just as a result of the complaints received in regards to your business. I can also advise that Council Officers have been to your site on numerous occasions and experienced a strong smell coming from the premises, thus necessitating the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report…”

On 20 August 2013 the applicant responded to the above with disappointment and an indication that further quotes are being sought for the work. On 28 August 2013 the applicant made representations to the elected Councillors again questioning the need for the requested Air Quality Impact Assessment. Accordingly it was considered prudent to report this matter to Council based on the information submitted within the application. Based on the information currently submitted by the applicant Council Officers are unable to recommend approval of the application as the applicant has not demonstrated that the business will not have an impact on adjoining businesses. Therefore the application is recommended for refusal and for the Council to resolve to instigate compliance action to have the business cease operating from the subject site and rectify illegal works undertaken to the mezzanine level.


SITE DIAGRAM:


DEVELOPMENT/ELEVATION PLANS: Unit 19 and its associated car parking spaces:


Considerations Under Section 79c Of The Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan Clause 4 illustrates that the aims of the TLEP 2000 are to give effect to the desired outcomes, strategic principles, policies and actions of the Tweed Shire 2000+ Strategic Plan. The vision of the plan is “the management of growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Shire is retained, and its economic vitality, ecological integrity and cultural fabric is enhanced”. Clause 4 further aims to provide a legal basis for the making of a DCP to provide guidance for future development and land management, to give effect to the Tweed Heads 2000+ Strategy and Pottsville Village Strategy and to encourage sustainable economic development of the area which is compatible with the Shire’s environmental and residential amenity qualities. The subject development application is capable of being considered suitable if the application were supported by an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report which demonstrates the business can operate without negatively affecting others within the Ourimbah Road, Industrial development area. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development The TLEP aims to promote development that is consistent with the four principles of ecologically sustainable development, being the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The subject proposal is considered consistent with the above criteria, as the development is not likely to have significant ramifications for ecologically sustainable development. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if:

(a) it is satisfied that the development is consistent with the primary objective of the zone within which it is located, and

(b) it has considered that those other aims and objectives of this plan (the TLEP) that are relevant to the development, and

(c) it is satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the community, locality or catchment that will be affected by its being carried out or on the area of Tweed as a whole.

In this instance, the subject site is zoned 4(a) Industrial, the primary objective of which is to provide land primarily used for industrial development and to facilitate economic activity and employment generation.


It is anticipated that developments such as this are located within Industrial Zones. However, the applicant needs to demonstrate that his business practices can occur without negatively affecting others particularly by way of smell. An Air Quality Impact Assessment Report would ensure the business operated in accordance with best practice guidelines and that all possible building modifications were undertaken to ensure no adjoining premises are negatively affected by the proposed business operations. Without the benefit of an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report Council staff are unable to ensure the development won’t impact negatively on other businesses within the vicinity of the site. Clause 11 - Zone Objectives The site is zoned 4(a) Industrial which has the following objective:

To provide land primarily used for industrial development and to facilitate economic activity and employment generation.

The secondary objective is to allow non industrial development which either provides a direct service to industrial activities and their workforce or which due to its type, nature or scale is inappropriate to be located in another area. The proposed development is considered capable of compliance with these objectives subject to the lodgement of an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report which can recommend the necessary building modifications and work practices to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed surfboard manufacturing business. The site also has a small slither of land unzoned. The original Development Application which approved the industrial sheds addressed this zoning and authorised the sites layout. No further assessment is considered necessary in this instance. Clause 15 - Essential Services All essential services are made available to the subject site. Clause 16 - Height of Building The subject site exhibits a 3 storey height limit. The proposal development is to occur within an existing 2 storey configuration and does not exceed the 3 storey limit. Clause 17 - Social Impact Assessment Having regard to Tweed DCP Section A13 the proposed development would not require the lodgement of a Socio Economic Impact Assessment. The proposal is not considered to generate any significant social impact. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is mapped on Councils GIS system as being affected by acid sulfate soils (Class 3). The application is for the first approved use of the tenancy and does not propose any excavation of the natural ground surface. Therefore no Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is required. Clause 47 – Advertising Signage Clause 47 relates to signage and aims to regulate the impact of signage throughout the Shire.


The proposal involves one flush wall signage panel associated with the factory unit tenancy which is consistent with that supplied for other tenancies within the complex. Total signage area equates to 6m2 which is acceptable. The signage is considered to be compatible with the existing signage at the industrial complex. It is moderate in scale and does not project above the top of the tilt-up panel concrete wall. The signage is not illuminated and is located entirely within the signage panel designated for the tenancy. Overall, signage is considered compliant with Clause 47 of the LEP. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 32B - Coastal Lands The subject site is located on lands to which the NSW Coastal Policy 1997 applies. This proposal is considered compliant with the provisions of the NSW Coastal Policy, the Coastline Management Manual and the North Coast Design Guidelines. The manufacturing unit will not obstruct public foreshore access or result in overshadowing of the nearby beach or open space areas. This has also been considered previously in the original development application approving the complex (DA05/1335). The proposal is considered to comply with Clause 32B of the SEPP NCREP 1988. Clause 47 – Principles for Commercial and Industrial Development The location of an industrial factory unit in an existing industrial zone in Tweed Heads is in accordance with the objectives of this clause in that it maintains the integrity of the main business area in this location, and provides for creation of an additional business on land which is zoned for such a purpose. It also strengthens the multi-functionality of the industrial area by its proximity to other industrial operations. All relevant services are available to the site and the site is located in proximity to existing local and regional road networks. However, the application has not adequately demonstrated that the business can function without having a negative impact on surrounding properties by way of smell. The proposal is considered capable of compliance with the strategic aims and objectives contained generally within the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1988 subject to the lodgement of Air Quality Impact Assessment Report which can recommend the necessary building modifications and work practices to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed surfboard manufacturing business. SEPP 64 – Advertising and Signage There are no specific provisions for ‘business identification signs’ within this SEPP. The SEPP deals with ‘Wall Advertisements’ and states that there should only be one per elevation of a building. However, this is not the definition of the proposed signage.


An assessment against Schedule 1 of the SEPP indicates that the proposed signage (flush wall sign) is compatible with the industrial/commercial character of the area, it does not detract from the amenity of any special areas, it does not jeopardise any views or vistas, and is of an appropriate form and scale for the streetscape and the subject building. There is no illumination and no safety hazards as such. Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of SEPP 64. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection The subject site is located on land to which the above policy applies. However, the site is not identified as a sensitive coastal location under the policy, and therefore a referral to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is not required. As the proposal is for the first approved use of an industrial unit, the matters for consideration under SEPP71 have already been considered as part of the approval for the existing factory building (DA05/1335). The proposal is considered to generally comply with the provisions of SEPP 71.

(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments The Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2012) was placed on re-exhibition in late 2012/early 2013. The post exhibition version of the Draft Tweed LEP 2012 with amendments as resolved by Council on 31 May 2013 has been forwarded to Parliamentary Counsel via the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. As such, the Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan is considered to be “certain and imminent” in terms of previous legal precedent and as such has determining weight. The Draft LEP proposes to re-zone the subject site to IN1: General Industrial. There is a 10m height limit and the minimum allotment size for this draft zone is 2000m2. The building has already been approved under a separate application and the proposal does not modify the building externally. The proposed factory for the use of surfboard manufacturing is described as ‘Industry’ which, within the draft IN1 zone is a permissible form of development under Item 3. Please note that the unzoned land portion of the site is draft zoned IN1 as well.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan Section A2 – Site Access and Parking code Tenancy 19 has a proposed GFA of 325m2 (165m2 at ground level + 160m2 at the increased mezzanine which is used for manufacturing, storage and office space). The tenancy was defined as “industrial” and allocated 2 spaces under SP80033 (one being a car space outside the tenancy and the second being a car port outside Lot 21). The tenancy increases the GFA from 213m2 (excluding car spaces) to 325m2 (excluding car spaces) and would require one additional car space for the increased GFA on the mezzanine level.


DA05/1335 used the “industry” rate under DCP A2 (1 space/100m2 GFA). The application approved 106 spaces based on a GFA of 7788m2 (28 surplus spaces). The Section 96 for this consent approved 91 spaces (based on a GFA of 8141sqm, resulting in a surplus of 10 spaces for the entire site). DA12/0552 approved a different development (car rental facility associated with gold coast airport) over the Stage 2 part of DA05/1335. Neither Stage 2 of DA05/1332 nor DA12/0552 has been built to date which means that Stage 1 of DA05/1332 may be a standalone development without the surplus spaces as indicated above. If Stage 1 of DA05/1332 becomes a standalone development the total approved GFA would be 5019m2 requiring 40 spaces on site (1 per 100m2 less 20% for ESD). There are 41 spaces shown on the Strata Plan for this section of the site (SP80033).Therefore 1 space credit. The following is a list of DA’s that have been approved over Stage 1:

• DA07/0832 – Strata Unit 11 - Salt Packaging – Warehouse (required less parking than allocated so +.92 spaces back into car parking pool). Therefore 1.92 spaces credit.

• DA08/0183 – Strata Unit 21 – Storage Equipment Tweed Byron Aboriginal Land Council – Industry (required the same parking as approved by DA05/1332). Therefore 1.92 spaces credit.

• DA08/0449 – Strata Unit 24 – Dance Studio (Recreational Facility) – car parking assessment deemed acceptable due to hours of operation. Therefore 1.92 spaces credit.

• DA11/0163 – Strata Unit 9 – Surfboard Manufacturing Business - (required the same parking as approved by DA05/1332 but one extra space given increased GFA). Therefore 0.92 spaces credit.

• DA12/0010 – Strata Unit 12 – Alcohol Distribution - (required the same parking as approved by DA05/1332). Therefore 0.92 spaces credit.

• DA12/0608 – Strata Unit 8 – Printing Company (required the same parking as approved by DA05/1332 but one extra space given increased GFA). Therefore 0.08 short.

As such, there is no carparking credit left on site if only Stage 1 proceeds. Each application would need to be addressed on its merits in regards to car parking. The applicant has stated as follows in regards to the shortfall of car parking:

• There are 7 unallocated car spaces located in the front of the subject premises;

• The development is of a low key nature;

• The demand for parking generated by the development is minor. The majority of the contact with the customer is made via e-mail, and the boards are sold out of surf shop contacts within the locality;

• The proposed mezzanine development is to be used for non traffic generating use being storage of surfboards. The need for storage of the surfboard is high, and additional room is needed away from the manufacturing machinery;


• The development would not generate any heavy vehicle traffic or create any demand for additional delivery vehicles;

• The industrial complex is well served with car parking spaces. Numerous site inspections have been undertaken at the complex and parking has been readily available on all site visits;

• The site contains two road frontages and ample on street parking in close proximity to the premises.

The above comments are not entirely concurred with. The mezzanine level is predominantly used for the manufacturing of the boards, sanding and shaping the boards. This use generates staff and is not just storage space. The complex does not appear well serviced with car parking spaces. Given the car spaces are allocated to businesses many of the spaces are taken up by employees and visitors coming to the site are often forced to find parking on the street which is not always readily available due to the busy nature of the area. In regards to this application the applicant has indicated that the business employees up to 10 employees (as detailed verbally at Council’s site visit in May 2013). The industry car parking rate of 1 space for every 100m2 is a combined staff and customer average. The subject site could not adequately cater for staff and customers if every business employed staff of those numbers. However as this is an average and the application triggers the extra parking for the additional mezzanine level there is an argument to support the development despite the technical short fall of the one on site car parking space. It should also be noted the majority of the units within the complex are still operating without first use development consent as required by DA05/1332 and if they were all made to lodge development applications Council may find additional mezzanines have been built without consideration for the additional parking that this would generate. DCP A4 – Advertising Signs Code The applicant has noted that signage will comprise of a single 6m2 signage panel above the factory unit tenancy. This is consistent with all of the other factory units within the complex. Signage on the above flush wall signage panel must not exceed the background dimensions of the panel. As the proposed signage does not exceed the background dimensions, and does not exceed the maximum number of five signs per premises, the proposed signage is considered to be consistent with the provisions of the DCP. A standard condition will apply to cater for any possible changes to signage that may occur in the future.


(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The proposed development will not negatively impact upon the Government Coastal Policy. Clause 92(b) Applications for demolition No demolition is proposed within this application, therefore Clause 92(b) is not applicable Clause 93 Fire Safety Considerations The application proposes a change of use (first approved use) and the construction of a mezzanine level. The mezzanine level has been constructed without approval and would require a Building Certificate to legitimise its construction. Clause 94 Buildings to be upgraded The building could comply with the Building Code of Australia subject to suitable conditions of consent if Council wanted to approve the development.

(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 The subject site is not located within an area that is affected by this management plan. Therefore, no further assessment is required. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 The subject site is not located within an area that is affected by this management plan. Therefore, no further assessment is required. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) The subject site is not located within an area that is affected by this management plan. Therefore, no further assessment is required.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Context and Setting The proposed development will be situated within an established industrial area in Ourimbah Road, Tweed Heads. The proposed development comprises of the use of an existing industrial unit for surfboard manufacturing and storage. The application is considered capable of support provided that a suitable Air Quality Impact Assessment report could be produced detailing valid recommendations and conditions. Odour To understand the issue surrounding odour below is the extract from Council’s letter to the applicant dated 5 June 2013:

Council has reviewed the Policy Documents which provide guidelines for the assessment of similar businesses. Below is a summary of that Policy Information

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1979%20AND%20no%3D13&nohits=y�



Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application: (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental

impacts on both the natural and build environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(c) the suitability of the site for the development, and (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations. Further, as per Section 4.7 of Council's Development Application Guide the applicant is required to show that the proposal will not cause or be affected by air or noise emissions. To date your application has not adequately addressed air pollution concerns. Although Council does not have a policy on air quality, there are many resources available including:

• Warringah Council - The Business of Air Quality guidelines

• Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities - National Pollutant Inventory

• NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Local Government Air Quality Toolkit

• NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales

• NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Environmental Information for the Composites Industry

Warringah Council has developed "The Business of Air Quality" guidelines that provide minimum standards of controls for air quality relevant to businesses. The program was a partnership between Warringah Council and the NSW State Government designed to educate local industrial and light manufacturing businesses on air quality pollution issues and details the best ways for individual businesses to undertake a wide range of manufacturing processes while minimising their air pollution emissions. The guidelines and other educational materials have been made available for use by all councils in NSW. In Section 5.5 - Fibreglass Reinforced Products (FRPs) and Composites Production, best practice guidelines have been outlined. The industry FRPs (note the use of this term includes composites production, structural products made of a combination of different types of materials where the performance of a finished composite is far stronger than that of any of the individual components) are used in the manufacture of a diverse range of products including boats, surfboards, bathroom fixtures, swimming pools, building materials, sporting equipment, appliances, storage tanks and piping, simulated marble products and motor vehicles. The versatility of FRPs in manufacturing has allowed for development of new applications for FRPs.


The guide explains that the FRP industry is experiencing significant growth. New products continue to be developed and produced for greater durability and strength. However this growth has triggered serious environmental and health concerns, particularly in businesses unwilling to upgrade to new more efficient technologies. The main emissions of concern in FRP manufacture are volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and odours. These can have adverse impacts offsite if a business is poorly managed or controlled. Odour is the most common cause of complaint for businesses producing FRPs. Particulate and dust emissions are also a concern particularly during the moulding and finishing processes. Activities such as grinding, polishing and sanding and the cutting of matting for use in the laminating process can create excessive particulate and dust emissions. The main sources of pollution in FRP manufacture include:

• Poor ventilation, filtration and discharge of particulates, dust, VOCs and odours. This is often caused by inappropriate stack and ventilation system configurations, fugitive emissions and inefficient air circulation and filtration.

• Poor housekeeping practices such as failure to place lids on containers and general poor storage and handling of containers.

• Poorly maintained equipment and equipment malfunction or failure. Maintenance of filtration systems and spray, sanding or polishing equipment contributes greatly to overspray, inefficient product use and emission of particulates, dust, VOCs and odours.

• The technical ability of personnel manufacturing FRPs can sometimes be low.

• Poor tool or equipment clean up. Commonly used cleaning products often contain solvent and are hazardous due to high flammability and chlorine content. Acetone, toluene, xylene and various alcohols are of particular concern. Emulsifiers and citrus based solvents may also be toxic.

The most common VOC used in the manufacture of FRPs is styrene (ethenylbenzene). Styrene is a highly volatile monomer which is used in polyester and vinyl resins. Most of the resins and catalysts used in the manufacture of FRPs are also highly flammable. The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Environmental Information for the Composites Industry advises that extraction systems that simply dilute the concentration of styrene in the exhaust by adding air do not reduce the total VOC emission. A significant reduction in styrene emissions can be achieved by reducing emissions at the source.


It is noted that the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities' National Pollutant Inventory advises that styrene affects the central nervous and respiratory systems, including depression, concentration problems, muscle weakness, fatigue, unsteadiness, narcosis, defatting dermatitis, and nausea. Exposure may also irritate the nose, throat, and eyes, including severe eye injuries. The International Association for Research into Cancer (IARC) classifies styrene as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)'. It enters the body by absorption into the blood through the lungs, stomach, skin or eyes. It is noted that the complainants have advised of headaches, nausea, and also skin, eye and throat irritations from pollutants exiting the subject site directly into their units and in common areas. As per Section 2.3 of the Local Government Air Quality Toolkit (Module 3: Guidance note—Composite structural products), a sense of smell cannot be used to judge whether the exposure is of concern with respect to toxicity. People complaining about chemical odours may well be seeking assurances that the level of exposure is not hazardous to their health. In situations where there is any doubt about possible health implications, an assessment of potential impacts should be carried out using the techniques described in the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Approved methods for the modelling and assessment of air pollutants in NSW (2005). The technical assessment described in this document will generally require specialist input. It's clear that you have spent considerable funds trying to rectify the problems experienced by occupants of the neighbouring units however the works undertaken to date by the applicant have been improvised. The complainants are still being affected by the operation of the unauthorised use. If the effects of air pollution originating from this operation are not examined by a suitably qualified air quality investigation consultant, Council is not undertaking due diligence in terms of legislative requirements and health, safety and welfare of those who could be put at risk from the works being carried out at this business. You are therefore required to submit the following information for review and approval prior to your application being determined. Failure to provide such information will likely result in a recommendation for refusal of the development application. 1. An Air Quality Impact Assessment Report prepared by a suitably

qualified air quality investigation consultant in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage's Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales shall be submitted to Council's Environmental Health Officer for consideration.


The air quality investigation shall incorporate the existing operations and include air sampling for odour causing substances external to the premises (with particular attention to neighbouring units in the immediate vicinity of the premises) that are associated with the surfboard manufacturing process (eg styrene etc) as well as investigating the adequacy of the existing mechanical ventilation system for removing odours/air impurities etc prior to discharge to the external environment, not purely in relation to the indoor air quality within the premises where the manufacturing is being carried out. The report shall include appropriate recommendations necessary to demonstrate that the surfboard manufacturing process can be carried out without causing an odour nuisance to any adjoining premises.

To date this report has still not been provided despite Council requesting this since 19 April 2013. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal. Waste Waste generated from the business is dust from sanding the surfboards which is collected in two dust extraction units located on the upper floor where the dust is collected in bags and disposed of in bins on the site. Standard conditions could be applied. Noise and Vibration A previous application for a surfboard manufacturing business (within a different unit) was supported by a Noise Impact Assessment Report. No such report has been provided for this application although noise has not appeared to be an issue for adjoining businesses.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development Surrounding Land Uses/Development The subject site is zoned 4(a) Industrial and is within an established industrial area. The subject site is zoned to facilitate industrial uses which includes surfboard manufacturing. The surrounding development is predominately Industrial and specialist developments that due to their type nature or scale are suited to an Industrial zoning, however this development needs to demonstrate that it will not have an unreasonable impact on adjoining businesses by way of odour (air quality).

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations Under Tweed DCP Section A11 – Public Notification of Development Proposals the proposal was not required to be advertised or notified for public comment. However, given the compliance history associated with this application Council Officers alerted the complainant about the development and invited comments based on the application as displayed on Council’s Online DA Tracker. Accordingly Council has received objections from two neighbouring businesses. The nature of the complaints are summarised below: Council has received written objections from the two adjoining businesses.


The first objection states as follows: "With reference to the above application number, please acknowledge this letter as an objection to this application. I am the director of the business located adjacent to the above premises and the owner of XXXX. At no time were we consulted in this application to commence a surfboard manufacturing business directly adjacent to us It should be noted that the owner’s consent provided with the application does not meet legal requirements in that the consent from the unit owner and the Body Corporate only relate to the construction of the mezzanine, whereas the application is clearly for the establishment of the Surfboard Manufacturing Use, The use of the premises is not addressed in the Owners Consent letters or Body Corporate minutes. These premises have been used to manufacture surfboards for approx 60 months and the fumes, being resin fumes, from these activities are unbearable. During this time, many of my employees have needed to leave work after inhaling the fumes, even as early as 10 minutes after commencing work. Symptoms being experienced include nausea, headache, eye irritation and blood shot eyes. There is also a constant white dust that has been released from the premises into the common property of the complex, ie carpark. Clients which have visited our premises have also experienced eye irritation and noted the strong fumes that present in our premises. During this time, constant contact has been made with the tenants of the said premises and we had been advised that the appropriate actions were being taken to minimise any of these issues including appropriate extraction fans to be installed. We believe these fans have been installed, however the fumes are still prevalent. We are a business that has been present in the local community for approximately 15 years and feel that our concerns should be heard."

Council Assessment: In regards to owners consent the owner’s consent letter stated:

“Chashell Pty Ltd Superannuation Fund is the owner of the above lot, and Chashell Pty Ltd as trustee for the fund, hereby gives consent to the current tenant Superbranded Pty Ltd to construct a mezzanine within Lot 19.”

If Council wants to approve this application the owner’s consent would need to be expanded authorising the lodgement of DA13/0132 detailing that the application seeks consent for the ongoing use of the premises, the mezzanine construction, and signage. In regards to the odour complaints this complaint reinforces Council’s assessment that an Air Quality Impact Assessment report is required. The second objection comprises multiple e-mails of complaint (dating back to November 2012) regarding the subject business and the issues raised are summarised as follows:


Comments dated 12 Feb 2012:

• There are toxic resin fumes leaching into our tenancy which are causing illness, red eyes and flushed skin.

• The adjoining tenant on the other side has advised that he experiences red eyes and can detect resin fumes when he attends his office in the morning.

• There is no filtration on the extraction unit that extracts resin fumes from the said premises...and these toxic fumes are just pumped into the atmosphere.

• There is no air lock between the "glassing room" and the outside car park...the door to the said room is left open at all times therefore allowing fumes to escape into the public area and be carried by the wind in any direction.

• Some staff do not seem to be wearing any protective clothing and/or breathing apparatus...I would think this would be a serious work cover issue

• The storage of "Highly Flammable" resin in just an open area adjacent to the roller door and can be viewed from the car park...if there was a spill there is no facility for containment and is a serious fire risk.

• The fumes from the resins used are highly toxic and are accumulative and are life threatening.

Comments dated 12 Feb 2013:

• Question..what filters are used and where? (when used)..how are these filters cleaned?..how are these filters disposed of when passed their use by?...what controls are in place with the disposal of toxic byproducts e.g. the sand from the floor (used in the glassing room) and other associated materials

• The emissions from the manufacturing process ie. blank shaping/sanding, fibreglass, resin and catalyst are all contributing to the carbon footprint and greenhouse gases.

• As a point of reference...James Hardy and the asbestos cover up was a sleeping giant!!...whilst a different business, the materials used in the manufacture and glassing of surfboards are toxic and a threat to human health.. this may well be another sleeping giant!?

Comments dated 16 April 2013:

• Their statement ... “the additional mezzanine area is solely for storage purposes” is not true and correct. Please refer to site plan “level one“ ...and as I would expect, councils physical inspection.

• I do not accept that the Mechanical Ventilation system installed is sufficient or adequate for the safe operation of the subject business.


• Site Access and Parking: The applicants statement is totally untrue, incorrect and farcical. The said business at any one time occupies up to 7 or more parking spaces depending on their work load on that day. The site does not provide excess car parking spaces. There are NOT “seven ‘unallocated’ car spaces located in front of the subject premises” The development is NOT of a low -key nature. The demand for parking generated by the development is greatly increased. Who conducted the numerous site inspections?...when and who by? Ask any owner or tenant regarding the parking problems created by the said business and the above will be confirmed.

• I draw your attention to the statement by Coastline Building Cert Div ...”Health and amenity” point three...Natural ventilation via a roller door is totally inadequate and there should be some form of air lock dividing the public and the operation. I do not accept their statement “the requirements applicable to the surfboard manufacturing industry having regard workplace health and safety etc etc” is at all adequate and within any accepted safety levels.

Comments dated 14 May 2013:

• We are having a very serious problem with resin fumes leaching into our premises from #19...I have also advised the landlord of the said premises...that the matter is now becoming critical...also the car parking is causing extreme stress with a number of unit holders...due to the staff of unit 19 occupying any spot they like!!.....

Comments dated 14 May 2013:

• We are having a very serious problem with resin fumes leaching into our premises from #19...I have also advised the landlord of the said premises...that the matter is now becoming critical...also the car parking is causing extreme stress with a number of unit holders...due to the staff of unit 19 occupying any spot they like!!.....

Council Assessment: The odour complaints reinforces Council’s assessment that an Air Quality Impact Assessment report is required. Many comments above also relate to possible Work Cover matters which Work Cover have now stated as being satisfactory for their legislation.

(e) Public interest The application as lodged (without an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report) is not considered in the public interest.

OPTIONS: 1. Refuse the Development Application in accordance with the reasons submitted in this

report and instigate compliance action to have the business cease operating from the subject site; or


2. Allow the applicant an additional 30 days to produce an Air Quality Impact Assessment Report and reconsider the application after receipt of that Report. If the report is not received within 30 days refuse the Development Application (under staff delegation) based on the reasons as outlined in this report; or

3. Request conditions of consent be brought forward to the next Council meeting to

enable the application to be considered for approval. CONCLUSION: Whilst the subject application could be considered a suitable development for the site the applicant has failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the business practices of the proposed surfboard manufacturing can operate without adversely affecting the adjoining properties. An Air Quality Impact Assessment Report is considered crucial to ensure that the building is modified to avoid vapours exiting the site and affecting adjoining properties. The Air Quality Impact Assessment Report would also need to make recommendations on the practices of the business to ensure best practice guidelines are being satisfied. Without this report Council Officers are not convinced that the proposed development is suitable for the subject site given the proximity to other premises. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: If Council were to refuse the development application the applicant would have a right of appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil


21 [PR-CM] Review of Environmental Factors PTV12/0022 for Construction of Tennis Courts (Including Lighting) and Associated Car Parking, Pedestrian Access and Drainage at Lot 301 DP 1125090 Overall Drive, Pottsville



SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council’s Engineering and Operations Division has made application for approval under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to undertake the construction of eight tennis courts (including lighting) and associated car parking, pedestrian access and drainage. The works are necessary to provide new facilities for the Pottsville Tennis Club who have been asked to move from their existing premises by the landowner (NSW Department of Lands). The site is zoned 7(l) Environmental Protection (Habitat) and the proposed development is permissible without consent under Part 3, Division 12 (Parks and other public reserves), Clause 65 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. Clause 65(3)(b) of the SEPP states that development for the purposes of outdoor recreational facilities, including single storey car parks may be carried out by or on behalf of a Council without consent on a public reserve under control of or vested in the Council. Tweed Shire Council is the consent authority for the application. In summary, the works would involve: Tennis courts: Construction of eight full size tennis courts and one half size court with hit up wall in the south western corner of the subject site. Note that the site is already used as a cricket ground. Courts would be constructed on a 300mm concrete slab with a synthetic grass surface. Black galvanised PVC coated chain wire fencing will be provided around each court to a height of 3.6m. Four courts are proposed to be constructed initially, with the remaining courts constructed depending on demand. Tennis court lighting: Six metal halide lights per court will be installed. The lights would have a minimum mounting height of 6.7m. Lamp types will be subject to final detailed design. Carparking A 25 space car park is proposed (24 spaces and one disabled space) covered with bitumen seal.


Footpaths A new concrete pedestrian footpath is proposed linking the existing path and proposed car park with the proposed tennis courts. Footpath would range in width from 1.2m – 2.5m. Fill 1760 cubic metres of fill is required for the sub-base/base of the tennis courts and road construction. Drainage Car park drainage will be directed to a grass swale which would be linked to an existing agricultural drain. Grass filter strips will be located between the tennis courts and the property boundary allowing infiltration of any surface water from the courts. The site is large and considerable permeable area will remain to assist with infiltration of water. Construction would be staged, with carparking, pedestrian access and drainage commencing in conjunction with the construction of four tennis courts with lighting. The additional four courts would be constructed at a later date, if demand existed. The proposed development is not considered to have a significant impact upon the environment including critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. Accordingly, an Environmental Impact Statement or a Species Impact Statement is not required. The application has been the subject of considerable community interest and is being reported to Council at the request of Councillor Milne, with a recommendation for approval. RECOMMENDATION:

That: A. Following assessment of the Review of Environmental Factors for the

Blackrocks Sports Field (tennis courts, including lighting and associated car parking, pedestrian access and drainage) it is determined that the activity is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment (including critical habitat) or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

B. PTV12/0022 application for the Blackrocks Sports Field at Lot 301 DP 1125090 Overall Drive, Pottsville be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be completed in general accordance with the Review

of Environmental Factors prepared by Tweed Shire Council dated December 2012 and additional information including the Draft Monitoring Plan submitted to Council 19 September 2013, except where varied by these conditions.

[PTV0010] 2. Prior to commencement of work all required sedimentation and siltation

control measures are to be installed and operational to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be installed in accordance with the publication, "Managing Urban Stormwater - Soil and Construction", prepared by the NSW Department of Housing. All erosion and sedimentation controls shall be maintained throughout the period of construction.

[PTV0020]


3. All work associated with this approval is to be carried out so as not to cause a nuisance to residents in the locality from noise, water or air pollution.

[PTV0030] 4. All necessary precautions shall be taken to minimise impact from dust

during filling operations from the site and also from construction vehicles. [PTV0040]

5. Construction and/or demolition site work including the entering and leaving of vehicles is limited to the following hours, unless otherwise permitted by Council: Monday to Saturday from 7.00am to 6.00pm No work to be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays The proponent is responsible to instruct and control subcontractors regarding hours of work.

[PTV0050] 6. All reasonable steps shall be taken to muffle and acoustically baffle all

plant and equipment. In the event of complaints from the neighbours, which Council deem to be reasonable, the noise from the construction site is not to exceed the following: A. Short Term Period - 4 weeks.

LAeq, 15 min noise level measured over a period of not less than 15 minutes when the construction site is in operation, must not exceed the background level by more than 20dB(A) at the boundary of the nearest likely affected residence.

B. Long term period - the duration. LAeq, 15 min noise level measured over a period of not less than 15 minutes when the construction site is in operation, must not exceed the background level by more than 15dB(A) at the boundary of the nearest affected residence.

[PTV0060]

7. Approval is given subject to location of, and / or any necessary modifications to any existing public utilities situated within or adjacent to the works.

8. Disturbed road and access pavement, verge or property accesses shall be re-instated as required, in accordance with Council’s Development Design and Construction Specifications.

9. Prior to commencement of works all actions prerequisite works required at that stage, as required by other conditions or approved Management Plans or the like, shall be installed/operated in accordance with those conditions or plans.

10. An assessment of the feasibility and design requirements of: a) a lockable dog and koala-proof gate; and


b) a grid to restrict koala movement into the residential area at the entrance to the sports field and in association with existing wildlife fencing is to be submitted and approved by the Director Planning and Regulation or his delegate, prior to commencement of work on the site.

11. Prior to the construction of tennis court lighting, an assessment of available lighting types and their insect-attracting properties is to be submitted to the Director Planning and Regulation or his delegate. Review of the available information at the time of installation and routine maintenance shall determine lamp selection. Should a non-insect-attracting lighting option be available, this type is to be installed.

12. Prior to use of the facility, a suitably qualified person is to submit to Council a certificate demonstrating the compliance of the operation of the tennis court lighting with AS4282 - The control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting, and AS2560 - Sports Field Lighting.

13. Hours of operation of the Tennis Courts are restricted to the following hours: * 6am to 10pm - Mondays to Saturdays * 7am to 10pm - Sundays and Public Holidays

14. All externally mounted artificial lighting, including security lighting, is to be shielded to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate where necessary or required so as to prevent the spill of light or glare creating a nuisance to neighbouring or adjacent premises.


REPORT:

Applicant: Tweed Shire Council Owner: Tweed Shire Council Location: Lot 301 DP 1125090 Overall Drive, Pottsville Zoning: 7(l) Environmental Protection (Habitat) Est Cost: Nil Background: The application was submitted to Council from Council’s Engineering and Operations Division on 24 December 2012. Since that time, though the application wasn’t notified development, there have been multiple submissions received from members of the public concerned about the potential impact of the development on fauna species which frequent the site and areas in close proximity to the site (including the koala and bush stone curlew). It is important to note that the site provides the only open space for the Blackrocks development, with the playing fields site identified in Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) Section B21 – Pottsville Locality Based Development Code as a ‘sports precinct’. The purpose of the application is to provide alternative facilities for the existing Pottsville Tennis Club who have been directed to leave their current premises by the Department of Lands. Detailed assessment of the ecological issues raised has been undertaken by Council’s Engineering and Operations Division (Environmental Scientists) in response to a further information request and Council’s Ecologists have also reviewed the matter and provided input into the proposed conditions of consent. Considering all matters, the application is now considered suitable for approval.


SITE DIAGRAM:


DEVELOPMENT/ELEVATION PLANS:


CONSIDERATIONS UNDER PART V OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979: The proposed activity constitutes an assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Section 111 of the Act states that the determining authority must take into account a range of matters prescribed in Clause 228(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, in its decision to proceed with an ‘activity’ which does not require development consent. The matters raised under Clause 228(2) are addressed below. Rating of Impact (for inclusion in Table below): 1 = Beneficial/Nil 2 = Minor 3 = Significant Factors taken into consideration Rating of

Impact Comments (if applicable)

a) Any environmental impact on a community

2 The proposal is considered to result in a minor impact on a community in the short term through disruption associated with construction. In the long term, subject to the proposed conditions of consent, the development will enable recreational use of the site which has been earmarked for such development. Subject to the recommended conditions, environmental impacts are expected to be negligible.

b) Any transformation of a locality

1 The tennis court development (inclusive of formalisation of car parking, drainage and pedestrian access) is considered to provide a beneficial long term impact to the locality as the proposed upgrades will improve recreational facilities within the locality.

c) Any environmental impact on the ecosystems of the locality

2 The proposed development would result in minor impacts upon the ecosystems on the site through disruption associated with construction. Notwithstanding, detailed ecological assessment has concluded that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on any ecosystem or fauna species. Further detail in this regard is provided further in this report.

d) Any reduction of the aesthetic, recreational, scientific, or other environmental quality or value of a locality

2 Some short term negative impacts associated with construction are anticipated in this regard. However, in the long term, there is considered to be a negligible impact as the facility will operate in a relatively benign manner and subject to the proposed conditions of consent, the development is not likely to adversely impact on the areas environmental qualities. Recreational values of the site will be improved by the activity as well as improved access and parking.


Factors taken into consideration Rating of Impact

Comments (if applicable)

e) Any effect on the locality, place or building having aesthetic, anthropological, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific or social significance or other special value for present or future generations

1 An AHIMS assessment and Due Diligence Assessment was carried out by the applicant and submitted as part of the application. No objects or areas of specific cultural heritage significance were identified within the site. As such the proposal is unlikely to impact on any locality, place or building having aesthetic, anthropological, archaeological, architectural, or historic value.

f) Any impact on the habitat of protected fauna (within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974)

2 Minimal impacts are expected in relation to protected (i.e. non-threatened native) fauna as a result of the activity, subject to the recommended conditions.

g) Any endangering of any species of animal, plant or other form of life, whether living on land, in water or in the air

2 The site contains vegetation indicative of the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest Endangered Ecological Community (EEC). However, no vegetation clearing is required to facilitate the proposed development. The proposal is unlikely to result in the extinction or endangering of any species. Council’s Ecologists are satisfied that the development would not adversely impact on any fauna, subject to conditions of approval.

h) Any long term effects on the environment

1 There is no loss of vegetation proposed. Conditions of approval will ensure that impacts to the environment (if any) will be minor. The proposed works will improve the drainage outcome at the site and during assessment of the application signs have already been erected on site detailing the prohibition of dogs from the area to reduce the likelihood of injury or fright to native fauna.

i) Any degradation of the quality of the environment

2 There is likely to be some minor short term impacts on the environment associated with the construction phase. Construction mitigation measures are proposed to minimise these impacts and prevent the further degradation of the quality of the environment at the site and these aspects have been conditioned. Following completion of works and compliance with the proposed conditions, it is considered that the overall quality of environment in the locality will not be degraded by virtue of this activity.

j) Any risk to the safety of the environment

2 There are some minor risks to the safety of the environment associated with the construction phase. A range of risk management measures would be used, including adherence to TSC Safe Operating Procedures.


Factors taken into consideration Rating of Impact

Comments (if applicable)

k) Any reduction in the range of beneficial uses of the environment

1 The proposed development is not considered to reduce the range of beneficial uses to the environment. Elements of the proposal such as the installation of stormwater quality control devices and pedestrian access would result in a beneficial use of the environment.

l) Any pollution of the environment

1 Construction management measures (i.e. erosion and sediment control, dust management and waste management) would ensure the risk of pollution to the environment is minimised during construction. Following construction, the tennis court project is not considered to result in any additional pollution within the environment.

m) Any environmental problems associated with the disposal of waste

1 Disposal of waste as a result of the activity is not expected to result in any environmental problems. There will be some excess spoil, general site rubbish and construction material created as a result of the activity. Where material cannot be reused or recycled, waste material would be transported to a Council landfill site. No contaminating activities are known from the site.

n) Any increase demands on resources (natural or otherwise) that are, or are likely to become in short supply

1 The proposed development requires fill which will be sourced in accordance with Council’s standard conditions for clean fill.

o) Any cumulative environmental effect with other existing or likely future activities

1 The proposal is not likely to result in a significant negative cumulative environmental effect with other existing or likely future activities. Overall, the proposed activity is considered to be acceptable having regard to the need for recreational facilities in this area, particularly in light of the growing population.

p) Any impact on coastal processes and coastal hazards, including those under projected climate change conditions

1 The proposal is not likely to impact negatively on coastal processes or hazards, having regard to its location outside the coastal hazard zone.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (EP&A ACT) Section 111(2) - A determining authority shall consider the effect of an activity on: a. any conservation agreement entered into under the National Parks and Wildlife Act

1974 and applying to the whole or part of the land to which the activity relates; b. any plan of management adopted under that Act for the conservation area to which the

agreement relates;


c. any joint management agreement entered into under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995;

d. any bio-banking agreement entered into under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 that applies to the whole or part of the land to which the activity relates.

A conservation agreement or plan of management (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) does not apply to the land on which the activity would be undertaken. There is no joint management agreement pursuant to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Furthermore no bio-banking agreement applies to the site. Section 111(3) - A determining authority shall consider the effect of an activity on any wilderness area (within the meaning of the Wilderness Act 1987) in the locality in which the activity is intended to be carried on.

There is no designated wilderness area, pursuant to the Wilderness Act 1987, in the locality of the proposed development. Section 111(4) - A determining authority must consider the effect of an activity on:

a. critical habitat; and

A review of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service critical habitat declarations register did not identify any critical habitat and occurring within the locality of the proposed activity area.

b. in the case of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, whether there is likely to be a significant effect on those species, populations or ecological communities, or those habitats; and

Assessment of Significances 7-part tests were undertaken by the applicant for the Endangered Ecological Community and each of the 15 threatened fauna species either recorded on, or adjacent to the subject site. The assessments have been reviewed by Council’s Ecological staff, the outcome of which is that Species Impact Statements are not required. The proposed conditions of approval are considered to appropriately mitigate any potential for impacts.

c. any other protected fauna or protected native plants within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

This matter has been considered in detail and discussed above. No significant impact is expected to arise subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions. GENERAL COMMENTS Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) A search of ASS planning maps indicates that the proposed works are being undertaken on Class 2 ASS land. Mitigation measures proposed are based on the application of agricultural lime to all excavated material. The proposed management of the ASS appears to be in general accordance with the Australian Acid Sulfate Soil Manual (Stone et. al. 1998) and is considered to be appropriate. Standard conditions have been applied.


Contaminated Land The REF includes a Contaminated Land Policy assessment and suggests that there is no evidence to indicate that the subject site is contaminated. A search of Council's GIS (Enlighten) indicates that there are no cattle tick dip sites within close proximity to the subject site. Topographical map and historic aerial photograph searches do not indicate that there has been a potentially contaminating land use within the vicinity of the subject site. It is thus not considered that further assessment of contaminated land matters is required. A standard condition has been applied which will ensure compliance with the proposed mitigation measures in regards to contaminated land, in the event that any contamination is uncovered. Ecological Matters and Submissions Though the application constitutes at Part V application and was not required to be notified, Council received a number of submissions from members of the public raising issues to do with potential impacts on the koala (found on the subject site), the osprey (nest found on adjacent site, approximately 50m from edge of tennis courts) and the bush stone curlew. One of the submissions was supported by photographic evidence of a koala on the site. The submissions were forwarded to Council’s Ecologist for review in conjunction with the submitted ecological assessment. Additionally, the same submitter forwarded information to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities in Canberra (Federal Environment Department). A compliance officer from that Department contacted planning staff to obtain details of the proposal prior to their review of the matter to determine if assessment by that Department was required. The Department has verbally advised that the proposed development does not appear to constitute a matter requiring their involvement. Issues raised by the submissions are considered to have been adequately addressed by mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Council’s Ecologists have finalised their assessment, which included review of further information from Council’s Design Unit to satisfy a range of matters including the provision of an ongoing monitoring program to monitor any impacts of the proposed development, and the use of non-insect-attracting lighting and a koala proof grid. The following final comments have been supplied:

“The draft monitoring program proposes to gather information on road strike, use of the site by threatened species and the influence of tennis court lighting on resident fauna. The results of the monitoring program will inform any modification to future management of traffic and provide detail on any impact of the development on threatened species including the Bush Stone-curlew, Koala, Osprey and White-bellied Sea-Eagle. NRM Unit will continue to provide feedback during the finalising and implementation of the monitoring program. Ongoing investigations are being carried out into the availability of non-insect-attracting tennis court lighting and the detailed design of a grid and gate mechanism to restrict entry to the sports field by dogs and exit by koalas. It is noted that design drawings for a grid have been submitted, however these require modification to incorporate round rails in order to restrict crossing by koalas. Any grid and gate design will also need to provide for safe and easy access to the sports field by pedestrians. Conditions of consent are provided below which require submission of this detail.


NRM Unit is satisfied that signage has been installed prohibiting dogs from the site. Additionally, a gate has been installed with the intent of restricting traffic access during times when the sports field is not in use. It is considered that the response provided by the Design Unit satisfactorily addresses the above request.

Recommended conditions An assessment of the feasibility and design requirements of:

a) a lockable dog and koala-proof gate; and b) a grid to restrict koala movement into the residential area

at the entrance to the sports field and in association with existing wildlife fencing is to be submitted and approved by the Director Planning and Regulation or his delegate, prior to commencement of work on the site. Prior to the construction of tennis court lighting, an assessment of available lighting types and their insect-attracting properties is to be submitted to the Director Planning and Regulation or his delegate. Review of the available information at the time of installation and routine maintenance shall determine lamp selection. Should a non-insect-attracting lighting option be available, this type is to be installed.”

OPTIONS: 1. Approve the Review of Environmental Factors as per the recommendation; or 2. Determine that an Environmental Impact Statement and/or Species Impact Statement

is required. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: The proposed activity is not considered likely to significantly affect the environment including critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. This development will improve the recreational infrastructure of the area as highlighted in DCP B21 – Pottsville Locality Based Development Code. Subject to the proposed conditions, the proposed development is considered to be in the public’s interest. Following a detailed assessment of the Part V application, it is concluded that the activity will not result in a significant impact on the environment. As such, neither an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Species Impact Statement (SIS) is required. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable.


d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


22 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0024 for a 44 Lot Subdivision, Construction of Internal Road and Associated Infrastructure at Lot 1 DP 407094 Cudgen Road, Cudgen and Lot 1 DP 598073 No. 17 Collier Street, Cudgen




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The proposal seeks approval for a forty lot residential subdivision of two parcels of land with multiple zonings. The subject application proposes a subdivision comprising 40 lots ranging from a proposed road and associated infrastructure.

• Lots 1 – 37 - Residential allotments varying in size from 450m2 to 1039m2 averaging 598.5m2.

• Lot 38 – 39 - Residual lots to remain for agricultural purposes.

• Lot 40 - Drainage reserve to be transferred to Council. The original application was for 44 lots however this was amended to be able to cater for a number of items requested throughout the assessment process. The existing area and each of the zones are configured as follows:

• 2(a) Low Density Residential zone of 2.8ha

• 5(a) Special Uses (School) zone of 1,353m2

• 1(b1) Agricultural Protection zone of 10.06ha

• 1(b2) Agricultural Protection zone of 5.7ha A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standard (SEPP No. 1) objection also accompanies the application. The objection is in respect of the planning standard identified within Clause 20(2)(a) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, specifically seeking variance to the 40 hectare minimum lot size development standard for the 1(b2) Agricultural Protection zone. Council can assume concurrence to vary the standard applying to the 1(b1) Agricultural Protection zone of 10 hectares, as the variation is less than 10%.


Proposed lots 38 and 39 will be conditioned to be consolidated into 1 allotment having a total area of 15.1454ha and will be split zoned 1(b1) and 1(b2) and will continue to be utilised for agricultural purposes such as the existing cropping/orchid pursuits. The SEPP No. 1 objection relates to the portion of the combined lots 38 and 39 which is located within the 1(b2) zone. This equates to a total area of approximately 5.2382ha within the proposed lot which is under the 40ha minimum. Lot 40 will not require a SEPP No. 1 objection as the lot will not be used for agricultural or residential purposes under Clause 20(3) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan as outlined in this report. The application was referred to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure requesting the Director-General’s Concurrence. Concurrence was granted to vary the 40ha minimum lot size development standard. The purpose of this report is to have the application determined by a full Council as Council Officers do not have the delegation to determine a development application with a SEPP No. 1 objection greater than 10% variation of the applicable development standard in accordance with the Department of Planning directive (circular PS 08-014). It is considered that the subject application is suitable for approval, subject to various conditions. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0024 for a 40 lot subdivision, construction of internal road and associated infrastructure at Lot 1 DP 407094 Cudgen Road, Cudgen and Lot 1 DP 598073 No. 17 Collier Street, Cudgen be approved subject to the following conditions: "DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT" This consent shall not operate until the applicant satisfies the consent authority by producing satisfactory evidence relating to the matters set out in Schedule "A". Such evidence is to be provided within twelve (12) months of the date of notification. Upon the consent authority being satisfied as to compliance with the matters set out in Schedule "A". The consent shall become operative and take effect from the date of notification under Section 95 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations subject to the conditions set out in Schedule "B". SCHEDULE "A" Conditions imposed pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Section 95 of the Regulations as amended. 1. The applicant is to provide an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified

acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of the General Manager or delegate. The acoustic report shall include but not be limited to: (i) A review of the Statement of Environmental Effects for NSW Planning Major

Project MP05_0103, conditions of the approval and the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

(ii) Informed comment, based on sound modelling, as to the noise impact of the defined PSNL nominated, on the basis of the methodology carried out, at each proposed residential lots, internal and external to any standard constructed dwelling.


(iii) Identification of each of the instances where the modelling predicts exceedance of determined background levels across each of the day, evening and night periods .

(iv) Identification of where exceedance are greater than 5 dB(a) above background and recommend reasonable measures that may be carried out to reduce noise impact. If the acoustic report demonstrates reasonable mitigation measures, where required, cannot be implemented and exceedance are not acceptable the application in its current form is unable to proceed.

2. A Contaminated Land Investigation Report shall be prepared, by a suitably qualified and experienced person, and submitted to the General Manager or delegate for approval. The report shall assess previous banana growing and potential termite treatment, and be prepared in accordance with relevant documents made or approved by the NSW Environment Protection Authority in accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. Where required, a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) shall be prepared and submitted. The report shall demonstrate that the site is suitable, or is able to be made suitable following remedial works, for the proposed land use.

SCHEDULE B NOTE: THIS PART OF THE CONSENT WILL NOT BECOME OPERABLE UNTIL COUNCIL ADVISES THAT THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE A ARE SATISFIED. GENERAL 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the Statement of

Environmental Effects and Plan Nos 1 revision O prepared by Bennett + Bennett Surveyors and Planners and dated 13/09/2013 and Project Number WLN01 prepared by Place Planning Design Group Pty Ltd dated 16/08/2013 and the Farm Management Practices prepared by Kevin Wilson’s Real Estate dated 7 August 2013 except where varied by the conditions of this consent.

[GEN0005]

2. The use of crushing plant machinery, mechanical screening or mechanical blending of materials is subject to separate development application.

[GEN0045]

3. The subdivision is to be carried out in accordance with Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan Part A5 - Subdivision Manual and Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications.

[GEN0125]

4. Approval is given subject to the location of, protection of, and/or any necessary approved modifications to any existing public utilities situated within or adjacent to the subject property.

[GEN0135]

5. A Sewer manhole is present on this site. This manhole is not to be covered with soil or other material. Should adjustments be required to the sewer manhole, then these changes are to be shown on the application for a Construction Certificate.

[GEN0155]


6. The area described as 'Proposed Environment Covenant B - 424m²' shown on Plan No 1 Rev. O Proposed Subdivision dated 13 September 2013 prepared by Bennett & Bennett must be the subject to an ecological restoration program (undertaken in accordance with an approved habitat restoration plan) and managed as a natural area for conservation purposes in perpetuity.

[GENNS01]

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 7. Prior to the issue of a Civil Construction Certificate for each stage of the project,

a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Principle Certifying Authority. A copy of the approved plan shall be submitted to Council. The Plan shall address, but not be limited to, the following matters where relevant: a) Hours of work; b) Contact details of site manager; c) Traffic and pedestrian management; d) Noise and vibration management; e) Construction waste management; f) Erosion and sediment control; and, g) Flora and fauna management. Where construction work is to be undertaken in stages, the Proponent may, subject to agreement with the Principle Certifying Authority, stage the submission of the Construction Management Plan consistent with the staging of activities relating to that work. The Proponent shall submit a copy of the approved plan to Council.

[PCC0125]

8. The Construction Certificate Application shall include a detailed Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for the occupational or use stage of the proposed development, prepared in accordance with Section D7.07 of Council's Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality. The plans are to include measures, monitoring and adaptive management actions to ensure appropriate stormwater quality outcomes are achieved. Permanent stormwater quality treatment shall comply with the Tweed Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Council's Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality. Variations to these standards shall only be accepted where they are supported by best practice water sensitive urban design principles entailed in the “Water By Design” guidelines (being a program of the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership). Treatment basins must be provided with a facility to bypass major stormwater flow events (greater than the Q3 month storm event), or otherwise cater for major storm flows without disturbing captured pollutants or damaging the structure. Proposed treatment measures other than "deemed to comply" measures as specified in Council's Development Design Specification D7, must be supported by engineering calculations, including MUSIC modelling, to confirm that acceptable capacity and efficiency is achieved.


An Operational Manual for all stormwater quality control devices must be provided as part of the SWMP. This manual must be updated as required during the Defects Liability ("On-Maintenance") Period for the device and the final version of the manual must be handed over to Council at the formal commissioning of the device, at the completion of the Defects Liability Period ("Off Maintenance").

[PCC0165]

9. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a cash bond or bank guarantee (unlimited in time) shall be lodged with Council for an amount based on 1% of the value of the (public infrastructure - insert / delete as applicable) works as set out in Council’s fees and charges at the time of payment. The bond may be called up at any time and the funds used to rectify any non-compliance with the conditions of this consent which are not being addressed to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. The bond will be refunded, if not expended, when the final Subdivision/Occupation Certificate is issued.

[PCC0275]

10. In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), a construction certificate for SUBDIVISION WORKS OR BUILDING WORKS shall NOT be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act, 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided.

[PCC0285]

11. Where earthworks result in the creation of embankments and/or cuttings greater than 1m high and/or slopes within allotments 17o or steeper, such slopes shall be densely planted in accordance with a detailed landscaping plan. Such plan to accompany the Construction Certificate application. Such plans shall generally incorporate the following and preferably be prepared by a landscape architect: (a) Contours and terraces where the height exceeds 1m. (b) Cover with topsoil and large rocks/dry stone walls in terraces as necessary. (c) Densely plant with appropriate native species to suit the aspect/micro

climate. Emphasis to be on trees and ground covers which require minimal maintenance. Undergrowth should be weed suppressant.

(d) Mulch heavily (minimum 300mm thick) preferably with unwanted growth cleared from the estate and chipped. All unwanted vegetation is to be chipped and retained on the subdivision.

[PCC0455]


12. All fill is to be graded at a minimum of 1% so that it drains to the street or other approved permanent drainage system and where necessary, perimeter drainage is to be provided. The construction of any retaining wall or cut/fill batter must at no time result in additional ponding occurring within neighbouring properties. All earthworks shall be contained wholly within the subject land. Detailed engineering plans of cut/fill levels and perimeter drainage shall be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

[PCC0485]

13. Site filling and associated drainage is to be designed to address drainage on the site as well as existing stormwater flows onto or through the site, and minimising the impact of filing on local drainage. Detailed engineering plans of fill levels and perimeter drainage shall be submitted for Council approval.

[PCC0675] 14. A Traffic Control Plan in accordance with AS1742 and the latest version of the

RTA publication "Traffic Control at Work Sites" shall be prepared by an RTA accredited person and shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Safe public access shall be provided at all times.

[PCC0865]

15. The proponent shall submit plans and specifications with an application for construction certificate for the following civil works and any associated subsurface overland flow and piped stormwater drainage structures designed in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction specifications; (a) Construction of an urban bitumen sealed road formation 7.5m between

kerbs. (b) Collier Street is to be reconstructed from the property boundary of Lot 71

DP 755701 into the subdivision as per drawing no. K2027 issue A titled ‘Preliminary Roadworks Plan’ prepared by Knobel Consulting dated 3 June 2013. The developer is to liaise with Council when the subdivision road works are expected to commence to allow for Council to program the Collier Street upgrade in conjunction with the developer.

(c) A reinforced concrete footpath 1.2 metres wide and 100 millimetres thick is to be constructed on a compacted base along the entire road frontage of the site and Collier Street up to the property boundary of Lot 71 DP 755701 in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications and Standard Drawing SD013.

(d) Traffic control devices are to be shown on the application for a Construction Certificate. A stop sign and associated line marking is to be placed at the intersection of Road 1 & 2 (northern intersection). A give way sign and associated line marking is required at the intersection of Road 2 and Crescent Street.

(e) The application for a Construction Certificate is to demonstrate that a gravity sewer connection for proposed consolidated Lots 38 and 39 is able to adequately service a future dwelling.

(f) The proposed piped drainage system is to be redesigned to mainly be located within the road reserve and not under the road pavement.


(g) The detailed design of the 2 inlet pits located prior to the Gross Pollutant Trap must demonstrate that they are capable of capturing Q100 flows from the major street system and directing it to the proposed detention basin.

[PCC0875]

16. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for civil works, the following detail in accordance with Council's Development Design and Construction Specifications shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval. (a) copies of compliance certificates relied upon (b) four copies of detailed engineering plans and specifications, prepared in

accordance with Development Design Specification D13 - particularly Section D13.09. The detailed plans shall include but are not limited to the following: • earthworks • roadworks/furnishings • stormwater drainage • water supply works • sewerage works • retaining walls • landscaping works • sedimentation and erosion management plans • location of all service conduits (water, sewer, electricity supply and

telecommunication infrastructure), as well as details and locations of any significant electrical servicing infrastructure - such as transformers and substations

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) makes no provision for works under the Water Management Act 2000 and Section 138 of the Roads Act to be certified by an Accredited Certifier.

[PCC0985]

17. Permanent stormwater quality treatment shall be provided in accordance with the following: (a) The Construction Certificate Application shall detail stormwater

management for the occupational or use stage of the development in accordance with Section D7.07 of Councils Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality.

(b) Permanent stormwater quality treatment shall comply with section 5.5.3 of the Tweed Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Councils Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality.

(c) The stormwater and site works shall incorporate water sensitive design principles and where practical, integrated water cycle management.


(d) Specific Requirements to be detailed within the Construction Certificate application include:

(e) Shake down area along the haul route immediately before the intersection with the road reserve.

[PCC1105] 18. A construction certificate application for works that involve any of the following:

• connection of a private stormwater drain to a public stormwater drain • installation of stormwater quality control devices • erosion and sediment control works will not be approved until prior separate approval to do so has been granted by Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act. a) Applications for these works must be submitted on Council's standard

Section 68 stormwater drainage application form accompanied by the required attachments and the prescribed fee.

b) Where Council is requested to issue a construction certificate for civil works associated with a subdivision consent, the abovementioned works can be incorporated as part of the construction certificate application, to enable one single approval to be issued. Separate approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act will then NOT be required.

[PCC1145] 19. Erosion and Sediment Control shall be provided in accordance with the

following: (a) The Construction Certificate Application must include a detailed erosion

and sediment control plan prepared in accordance with Section D7.07 of Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality.

(b) Construction phase erosion and sediment control shall be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with Tweed Shire Council Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality and its Annexure A - “Code of Practice for Soil and Water Management on Construction Works”.

[PCC1155]

20. Prior to issue of the construction certificate the applicant is to submit a landscape plan for the vegetated buffer on Lot 38, prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect. The vegetated buffer is to contain random plantings of a variety of tree and shrub species of differing growth habits, at spacings of four to five metres. The vegetated buffer is to include species that have long, thin and rough foliage that facilitate the more efficient capture of spray droplets. The vegetated buffer is to include at least 80% local native species. The landscape plan is to be to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate.

21. Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, a construction noise assessment is to be prepared in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC, 2009), to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. The construction noise assessment is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person.


22. Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, a dust management plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. The dust management plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person.

23. Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, a demolition plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. The demolition plan shall reference Australian Standard AS 2601 The Demolition of Structures, and the requirements of NSW WorkCover and the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. The demolition plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person.

[PCCNS02]

24. A landscape plan must be submitted that addresses the nature strip of all roads to be dedicated to Council. Such a plan should show only suitable street trees and turf, and must be approved by the Manager, Recreation Services, Tweed Shire Council. The landscape and civil drawings must be consistent in the space allowed for planting trees between the kerb and footpath, and must be consistent with TSC standard drawing SD-701. The street tree locations are also to be consistent with the Development Design Specification D14 and be planted no less than 7.5m from streetlights. The street tree species to be used is to be negotiated with Council, and it is preferable they be native to the local area.

[PCCNS03]

25. A Habitat Restoration Plan ('HRP') must be submitted for the following 'ecological restoration areas' as shown on Plan No 1 Rev. O Proposed Subdivision dated 13 September 2013 prepared by Bennett & Bennett: a. Proposed Environment Covenant B - 424m²; b. Remaining contiguous tract of significant vegetation occurring within the

Crescent Street road reserve (western side) for a length of approximately 73 metres immediately to the rear of Lots 33 and 34; and

c. An approximate five (5) metre wide buffer around the entire perimeter of the 'Water Catchment Lake' unless where restricted by the proposed northern access road.

The HRP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified professional in accordance with Council’s Draft Habitat Restoration Plan Preparation Guideline dated February 2012 (attached) for the identified 'ecological restoration areas' to include the following information (but may not limited to): a. An appraisal of the present condition of remnant vegetation; b. A plan overlaying an aerial photograph of the site which divides the area

into management zones where appropriate; c. A management strategy for each of the zones, including the adoption of an

'Assisted Natural Regeneration' approach; d. A schedule of local native plant species to be used for planting (if required

under offsetting arrangements pursuant to Condition 28); e. A program of works to be undertaken to remove invasive weed species

(noxious and environmental weeds);


f. A schedule of timing of proposed works that reflects both the short term (developer's responsibility) and long term (future landholder's responsibility) establishment and management of the identified ecological restoration areas;

g. A schedule of activities not permitted within the Proposed Environment Covenant B pursuant to Condition 77;

h. Requirement for 132C Licence under the National Parks and Wildlife Act i. Coordination of services such as irrigation repair or civil infrastructure

maintenance (such as stormwater) that may impact on the landscape establishment and maintenance periods;

j. Management of domestic farm/feral animals (if appropriate) and any fencing/signage requirements to restrict access and increase landholder/public awareness;

k. Nomination of key performance indicators/criteria for monitoring purposes; l. A maintenance, monitoring and reporting schedule with developer

commitment for a period not less than two (2) years; and m. An adaptive management statement detailing how potential problems

arising may be overcome and requiring approval of the General Manager or delegate for such changes.

To be clear the developer is responsible for a two (2) year establishment phase for all identified 'ecological restoration areas'. Following successful completion of works within this period the existing/future landowner/s of Lot 33 shall be responsible for the long term management of the 'Environment Covenant' in perpetuity. This management arrangement shall be reflected in the HRP. The HRP must be approved by the General Manager or delegate prior to issue of the first of any construction certificate. In this regard the establishment phase works proposed in the HRP must be completed prior to issue of the first subdivision certificate with a progress report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Bush Regenerator, submitted one year after commencement of the establishment phase works with a final report demonstrating compliance with the HRP prior to issue of the subdivision certificate.

[PCCNS04]

26. To evaluate and quantify the extent of vegetation removal necessary to facilitate installation of any external stormwater infrastructure within the Crescent Street road reserve the applicant shall provide a detailed survey plan with particulars of all native woody vegetation greater than 30cm circumference at 45cm above ground, or greater than three (3) metres or more in height occurring within and immediately adjacent to the construction footprint. The tree survey shall be overlaid on Dwg. No. P019 Issue A Outlet Arrangement Plan dated 13 September 2013 prepared by Knobel Consulting P/L or similar plans as amended in accordance with conditions of this consent. The survey information and any associated best practice vegetation management measures as required by Council shall be submitted as an addendum to the Flora and Fauna Management Plan Lot 1 DP407094 & Part Lot 1 DP598073 Version 2 dated June 2013 prepared by Habitat Environment Management Trading P/L.


The loss of any surveyed native vegetation shall be offset at a ratio of 2:1 (Replace : Loss) using suitable tube-stock species to be installed with an area additional to and adjoining the 'Water Catchment Lake' ecological restoration area. Offsetting arrangements shall be agreed upon prior to issue of the first of any construction certificate and details subsequently reflected in the 'Habitat Restoration Plan' prior to approval.

27. Conditions and recommendations imposed by the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) required by Schedule “A” of this consent shall be implemented prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

28. Proposed Lots 38 and 39 are to be consolidated into a single allotment to ensure the fragmentation of agricultural land does not occur. All other conditions relating to Lots 38 and 39 are to be implemented on a single allotment.

[PCCNS05]

PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK 29. The proponent shall accurately locate and identify any existing sewer main,

stormwater line or other underground infrastructure within or adjacent to the site and the Principal Certifying Authority advised of its location and depth prior to commencing works and ensure there shall be no conflict between the proposed development and existing infrastructure prior to start of any works.

[PCW0005]

30. Prior to the commencement of works, the applicant shall ensure that a Site-Specific Safety Management Plan and Safe Work Methods for the subject site have been prepared and put in place in accordance with either:- (a) Occupation Health and Safety and Rehabilitation Management Systems

Guidelines, 3rd Edition, NSW Government, or (b) AS4804 Occupation Health and Safety Management Systems - General

Guidelines on Principles Systems and Supporting Techniques. (c) WorkCover Regulations 2000

[PCW0025]

31. All imported fill material shall be from an approved source. Prior to commencement of filling operations details of the source of the fill, nature of material, proposed use of material and confirmation that further blending, crushing or processing is not to be undertaken shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. Once the approved haul route has been identified, payment of the Heavy Haulage Contribution calculated in accordance with Section 94 Plan No 4 will be required prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

[PCW0375]

32. Civil work in accordance with a development consent must not be commenced until: (a) a Construction Certificate for the civil work has been issued in accordance

with Councils Development Construction Specification C101 by: (i) the consent authority, or (ii) an accredited certifier, and

(b) the person having the benefit of the development consent:


(i) has appointed a principal certifying authority, (ii) has appointed a Subdivision Works Accredited Certifier (SWAC) to

certify the compliance of the completed works. The SWAC must be accredited in accordance with Tweed Shire Council DCP Part A5 - Subdivision Manual, Appendix C with accreditation in accordance with the Building Professionals Board Accreditation Scheme. As a minimum the SWAC shall possess accreditation in the following categories: C4: Accredited Certifier - Stormwater management facilities

construction compliance C6: Accredited Certifier - Subdivision road and drainage construction

compliance The SWAC shall provide documentary evidence to Council demonstrating current accreditation with the Building Professionals Board prior to commencement of works, and

(iii) has notified the consent authority and the council (if the council is not the consent authority) of the appointment,

(iv) a sign detailing the project and containing the names and contact numbers of the Developer, Contractor and Subdivision Works Accredited Certifier is erected and maintained in a prominent position at the entry to the site in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications. The sign is to remain in place until the Subdivision Certificate is issued, and

(c) the person having the benefit of the development consent has given at least 2 days' notice to the council of the person's intention to commence the civil work.

Note: For subdivisions creating 5 new allotments or less, OR the value of new public infrastructure is less than $30,000, then the SWAC may be substituted for an Institute of Engineers Australia Chartered Professional Engineer (Civil College) with National Professional Engineers Register (NPER) registration.

[PCW0815] 33. The proponent shall provide to the PCA copies of Public Risk Liability Insurance

to a minimum value of $10 Million for the period of commencement of works until the completion of the defects liability period.

[PCW0835]

34. Prior to commencement of work on the site all erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be installed and operational including the provision of a "shake down" area to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. These measures are to be in accordance with the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and adequately maintained throughout the duration of the development.

[PCW0985]

DURING CONSTRUCTION 35. All proposed works are to be carried out in accordance with the conditions of

development consent, approved management plans, approved construction certificate, drawings and specifications.

[DUR0005]



[DUR0205] 37. All reasonable steps shall be taken to muffle and acoustically baffle all plant and

equipment. In the event of complaints from the neighbours, which Council deem to be reasonable, the noise from the construction site is not to exceed the following: A. Short Term Period - 4 weeks.



[DUR0215] 38. Proposed earthworks shall be carried out in accordance with AS 3798,

"Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments". The earthworks shall be monitored by a Registered Geotechnical Testing Consultant to a level 1 standard in accordance with AS 3798. A certificate from a registered Geotechnical Engineer certifying that the filling operations comply with AS3798 shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority upon completion. In addition geotechnical certification is to be provided certifying that unsuitable material has been removed from the southern area of the existing dam and replaced with material adequate for the support and stability of the proposed road and embankment.

[DUR0795] 39. The use of vibratory compaction equipment (other than hand held devices)

within 100m of any dwelling house, building or structure is strictly prohibited. [DUR0815]

40. No soil, sand, gravel, clay or other material shall be disposed of off the site without the prior written approval of Tweed Shire Council General Manager or his delegate.

[DUR0985]

41. The surrounding road carriageways are to be kept clean of any material carried onto the roadway by construction vehicles. Any work carried out by Council to remove material from the roadway will be at the Developers expense and any such costs are payable prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

[DUR0995]


42. Where the construction work is on or adjacent to public roads, parks or drainage reserves the development shall provide and maintain all warning signs, lights, barriers and fences in accordance with AS 1742 (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices). The contractor or property owner shall be adequately insured against Public Risk Liability and shall be responsible for any claims arising from these works.

[DUR1795]

43. Before the commencement of the relevant stages of road construction, pavement design detail including reports from a Registered NATA Consultant shall be submitted to Council for approval and demonstrating. (a) That the pavement has been designed in accordance with Tweed Shire

Councils Development Design Specification, D2. (b) That the pavement materials to be used comply with the specifications

tabled in Tweed Shire Councils Construction Specifications, C242-C245, C247, C248 and C255.

(c) That site fill areas have been compacted to the specified standard. (d) That supervision of Bulk Earthworks has been to Level 1 and frequency of

field density testing has been completed in accordance with Table 8.1 of AS 3798-1996.

[DUR1805]

44. During the relevant stages of road construction, tests shall be undertaken by a Registered NATA Geotechnical firm. A report including copies of test results shall be submitted to the PCA prior to the placement of the wearing surface demonstrating: (a) That the pavement layers have been compacted in accordance with

Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications. (b) That pavement testing has been completed in accordance with Table 8.1 of

AS 3798 including the provision of a core profile for the full depth of the pavement.

[DUR1825] 45. Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer

mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

[DUR1875]

46. Tweed Shire Council shall be given a minimum 24 hours notice to carry out the following compulsory inspections in accordance with Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan, Part A5 - Subdivision Manual, Appendix D. Inspection fees are based on the rates contained in Council's current Fees and Charges: Roadworks (a) Pre-construction commencement erosion and sedimentation control

measures (b) Completion of earthworks (c) Excavation of subgrade


(d) Pavement - sub-base (e) Pavement - pre kerb (f) Pavement - pre seal (g) Pathways, footways, cycleways - formwork/reinforcement (h) Final Practical Inspection - on maintenance (i) Off Maintenance inspection Water Reticulation, Sewer Reticulation, Drainage (a) Excavation (b) Bedding (c) Laying/jointing (d) Manholes/pits (e) Backfilling (f) Permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures (g) Drainage channels (h) Final Practical Inspection - on maintenance (i) Off maintenance Stormwater Quality Control Devices (other than proprietary devices) For detail refer to Water By Design - Technical Guidelines (a) Earthworks and filter media (b) Structural components (c) Operational establishment (d) Mechanical/electrical (e) Commissioning - on maintenance (f) Off maintenance Council's role is limited to the above mandatory inspections and does NOT include supervision of the works, which is the responsibility of the Developers Supervising Consulting Engineer. The EP&A Act, 1979 (as amended) makes no provision for works under the Water Management Act 2000 to be certified by an "accredited certifier". The fee for the abovementioned inspections shall be invoiced upon completion of all civil works, and subject to the submission of an application for a 'Subdivision Works Compliance Certificate'.

[DUR1895]

47. All retaining walls in excess of 1.2 metres in height must be certified by a Qualified Structural Engineer verifying the structural integrity of the retaining wall after construction. Certification from a suitably qualified engineer experienced in structures is to be provided to the PCA prior to the issue of an Subdivision Certificate.

[DUR1955]


48. The developer/contractor is to maintain a copy of the development consent and Construction Certificate approval including plans and specifications on the site at all times.

[DUR2015]

49. The applicant shall obtain the written approval of Council to the proposed road/street names and be shown on the Plan of Subdivision accompanying the application for a Subdivision Certificate. Application for road naming shall be made on Councils Property Service Form and be accompanied by the prescribed fees as tabled in Councils current Revenue Policy - "Fees and Charges". The application shall also be supported by sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with Councils Road Naming Policy.

[DUR2035]

50. Inter allotment drainage shall be provided to all lots where roof water for dwellings cannot be conveyed to the street gutter by gravitational means.

[DUR2285]

51. Drainage Reserve (a) The proposed drainage reserve is to be dedicated to Council at no cost. (b) An accurate plan of the proposed drainage reserve shall be submitted to

Council 60 days prior to lodgment of Application for Subdivision Certificate to allow the land to be classified.

[DUR2295]

52. All stormwater gully lintels shall have the following notice cast into the top of the lintel: 'DUMP NO RUBBISH, FLOWS INTO CREEK' or similar wording in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications.

[DUR2355]

53. Regular inspections shall be carried out by the Supervising Engineer on site to ensure that adequate erosion control measures are in place and in good condition both during and after construction. Additional inspections are also required by the Supervising Engineer after each storm event to assess the adequacy of the erosion control measures, make good any erosion control devices and clean up any sediment that has left the site or is deposited on public land or in waterways. This inspection program is to be maintained until the maintenance bond is released or until Council is satisfied that the site is fully rehabilitated.

[DUR2375]

54. During construction, a “satisfactory inspection report” is required to be issued by Council for all s68h2 permanent stormwater quality control devices, prior to backfilling. The proponent shall liaise with Councils Engineering and Operations Division to arrange a suitable inspection.

[DUR2445]


55. Dust and Erosion Management (a) Site earthworks are to be limited to a 5ha maximum at any time to reduce

exposed areas. Completed area's are to be topsoiled and seeded immediately to protect them from water and wind erosion.

(b) All topsoil stockpiles are to be sprayed with dust suppression material such as "hydromulch", "dustex" or equivalent. All haul roads shall be regularly watered or treated with dust suppression material or as directed on site.

(c) All construction activities that generate dust shall cease when average wind speeds exceed 15m/s (54 km/h). The applicant shall be responsible for the monitoring of on-site wind speeds and be able to produce this data to Council on request.

[DUR2825]

56. The disturbance of rock boulders rolling down the steep sloping terrain during construction is to be mitigated by the inclusion of temporary fencing or earth bunds for ensure site safety and to ensure neighbouring properties are not affected.

[DURNS01]

57. Any disturbance of soil below 5 m AHD is to be carried out in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan prepared by Geotech Investigations Pty Ltd and dated 21 March 2013, except where as varied by this consent.

58. The implementation of the Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is to be the responsibility of the Site Manager.

59. Where a RAP is required in accordance with Schedule A of this consent, all works are to be carried out in accordance with the RAP, to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate.

60. During construction, all works are to be carried out in accordance the Council approved construction noise assessment, including recommendations of the construction noise assessment.

61. During construction, all works are to be carried out in accordance the Council approved dust management plan.

62. All demolition works are to be carried out in accordance with the Council approved demolition plan.

[DURNS02]

63. 60 days prior to lodgment of Application for Subdivision Certificate, an accurate plan of the subdivision is to be submitted to Council indicating all public land to be dedicated to Council (including Drainage Reserves, Sewer Pump Stations, Parks, Sports Fields, Conservation Areas and other lands as defined and excluding Roads, etc). The function of all such public land is to be indicated to allow classification of the land parcel by Council as either Operational or Community Land, as detailed in the Local Government Act 1993.

[DURNS03]


64. All operations must comply with the fauna and flora management measures as outlined in the Flora and Fauna Management Plan Lot 1 DP407094 & Part Lot 1 DP598073 Version 2 dated June 2013 prepared by Habitat Environment Management Trading P/L unless otherwise amended and approved by Council's General Manager or modified as a result of conditions of this approval. In the event that any threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats not addressed in the report are discovered during operations, appropriate Plans of Management for those species must be formulated to the satisfaction of the General Manager or delegate. No further operational works will take place until the Plan(s) of Management is/are approved.

[DURNS04]

USE 65. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the

acoustic report as per Schedule A of this consent, to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate.

[USENS01]

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE 66. Prior to issue of a subdivision certificate, all works/actions/inspections etc

required by other conditions or approved management plans or the like shall be completed in accordance with those conditions or plans.

[PSC0005]

67. A certificate of compliance (CC) under Sections 305, 306 and 307 of the Water Management Act 2000 is to be obtained from Council to verify that the necessary requirements for the supply of water and sewerage to the development have been made with the Tweed Shire Council. Pursuant to Section 109J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 a Subdivision Certificate shall NOT be issued by a Certifying Authority unless all Section 64 Contributions have been paid and the Certifying Authority has sighted Council's "Contribution Sheet" and a "Certificate of Compliance" signed by an authorised officer of Council. Annexed hereto is an information sheet indicating the procedure to follow to obtain a Certificate of Compliance: Water DSP5: 35 ET @ $12575 per ET $440125 Sewer Kingscliff: 35 ET @ $6042 per ET $211470 These charges to remain fixed for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this consent and thereafter in accordance with the rates applicable in Council's adopted Fees and Charges current at the time of payment. A CURRENT COPY OF THE CONTRIBUTION FEE SHEET ATTACHED TO THIS CONSENT MUST BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT. Note: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) makes no provision for works under the Water Management Act 2000 to be certified by an Accredited Certifier.

[POC0675/PSC0165]


68. Section 94 Contributions Payment of the following contributions pursuant to Section 94 of the Act and the relevant Section 94 Plan. Pursuant to Section 109J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 a Subdivision Certificate shall NOT be issued by a Certifying Authority unless all Section 94 Contributions have been paid and the Certifying Authority has sighted Council's "Contribution Sheet" signed by an authorised officer of Council. A CURRENT COPY OF THE CONTRIBUTION FEE SHEET ATTACHED TO THIS CONSENT MUST BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT. These charges include indexation provided for in the S94 Plan and will remain fixed for a period of 12 months from the date of this consent and thereafter in accordance with the rates applicable in the current version/edition of the relevant Section 94 Plan current at the time of the payment. A copy of the Section 94 contribution plans may be inspected at the Civic and Cultural Centres, Tumbulgum Road, Murwillumbah and Brett Street, Tweed Heads. (a) Tweed Road Contribution Plan:

227.5 Trips @ $1176 per Trips $267540 ($1137 base rate + $39 indexation) S94 Plan No. 4 Sector6_4

(b) Open Space (Casual): 35 ET @ $543 per ET $19005 ($502 base rate + $41 indexation) S94 Plan No. 5

(c) Open Space (Structured): 35 ET @ $622 per ET $21770 ($575 base rate + $47 indexation) S94 Plan No. 5

(d) Shirewide Library Facilities: 35 ET @ $838 per ET $29330 ($792 base rate + $46 indexation) S94 Plan No. 11

(e) Bus Shelters: 35 ET @ $64 per ET $2240 ($60 base rate + $4 indexation) S94 Plan No. 12


(f) Eviron Cemetery: 35 ET @ $123 per ET $4305 ($101 base rate + $22 indexation) S94 Plan No. 13

(g) Community Facilities (Tweed Coast - North) 35 ET @ $1389 per ET $48615 ($1305.6 base rate + $83.4 indexation) S94 Plan No. 15

(h) Extensions to Council Administration Offices & Technical Support Facilities 35 ET @ $1860.31 per ET $65110.85 ($1759.9 base rate + $100.41 indexation) S94 Plan No. 18

(i) Cycleways: 35 ET @ $473 per ET $16555 ($447 base rate + $26 indexation) S94 Plan No. 22

(j) Regional Open Space (Casual) 35 ET @ $1091 per ET $38185 ($1031 base rate + $60 indexation) S94 Plan No. 26

(k) Regional Open Space (Structured): 35 ET @ $3830 per ET $134050 ($3619 base rate + $211 indexation) S94 Plan No. 26

[POC0395/PSC0175]

69. Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate a defect liability bond (in cash or unlimited time Bank Guarantee) shall be lodged with Council. The bond shall be based on 5% of the value of the (public infrastructure) works (minimum as tabled in Council's fees and charges current at the time of payment) which will be held by Council for a period of 6 months from the date on which the plan of subdivision is registered. It is the responsibility of the proponent to apply for refund following the remedying of any defects arising within the 6 month period.

[PSC0215] 70. Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a performance bond equal to 25%

of the contract value of the footpath construction works shall be lodged for a period of 3 years or until 80% of the lots fronting paved footpaths are built on.


Alternatively, the developer may elect to pay a cash contribution to the value of the footpath construction works plus 25% in lieu of construction and Council will construct the footpath when the subdivision is substantially built out. The cost of these works shall be validated by a schedule of rates.

[PSC0225]

71. A bond to ensure acceptable plant establishment and landscaping performance at time of handover to Council shall be lodged by the Developer prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate. The bond shall be held by Council for a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the Subdivision Certificate and may be utilised by Council during this period to undertake essential plant establishment or related plant care works, should non compliance occur. Any balance remaining at the end of the 12 months establishment period will be refunded. The amount of the bond shall be 20% of the estimated cost of the landscaping or $3000 whichever is the greater.

[PSC0235]

72. Any damage to property (including pavement damage) is to be rectified to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate PRIOR to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. Any work carried out by Council to remove material from the roadway will be at the Developers expense and any such costs are payable prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

[PSC0725]

73. Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, Work as Executed Plans shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Tweed Shire Council's Development Control Plan Part A5 - Subdivision Manual and Council's Development Design Specification, D13 - Engineering Plans. The plans are to be endorsed by a Registered Surveyor OR a Consulting Engineer Certifying that: (a) all drainage lines, sewer lines, services and structures are wholly contained

within the relevant easement created by the subdivision; (b) the plans accurately reflect the Work as Executed. Note: Where works are carried out by Council on behalf of the developer it is the responsibility of the DEVELOPER to prepare and submit works-as-executed (WAX) plans.

[PSC0735]

74. A Subdivision Certificate will not be issued by the General Manager until such time as all conditions of this Development Consent have been complied with.

[PSC0825]

75. The creation of easements for services, rights of carriageway and restrictions as to user (including restrictions associated with planning for bushfire) as may be applicable under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act including (but not limited to) the following: (a) Easements for sewer, water supply and drainage over ALL public

services/infrastructure on private property.


(b) A restriction to user for a 30m wide separation buffer is required on proposed Lot 38 as per the Land Use Conflict Management Strategy prepared by Place Design Group Pty Ltd and dated 16 August 2013. The restriction to user is to state that no agricultural activities are to occur within the 30m wide buffer and is to be maintained in perpetuity, burdening proposed Lot 38 and benefiting proposed Lots 6 through to Lot 14.

(c) A positive covenant for a 10m wide vegetated buffer is required on proposed Lot 38 as per the Land Use Conflict Management Strategy prepared by Place Design Group Pty Ltd and dated 16 August 2013. The vegetated buffer is to be maintained in perpetuity, burdening proposed Lot 38 and benefiting proposed Lot 6 through to Lot 14 inclusive.

(d) A positive covenant is required to maintain a 1.8m acoustic fence constructed with lapped-style timber or equivalent in perpetuity on proposed Lot 38 as per the Land Use Conflict Management Strategy prepared by Place Design Group Pty Ltd and dated 16 August 2013. The covenant is to burden proposed Lot 38 and benefit proposed Lot 6 through to Lot 14 inclusive.

(e) A positive covenant is required for future dwellings on proposed Lot 6 through to Lot 14 inclusive requiring the design of future dwellings on these allotments to be air conditioned and capable of having all doors and windows fully closed.

(f) A positive covenant is required for agricultural activities conducted on proposed consolidated Lots 38 & 39. The positive covenant is to state that agricultural activities are to be carried out in accordance with the Farm Management Practices prepared by Wilson’s Commercial Real Estate and dated 7 August 2013. These agricultural activities may include pesticide spraying, which is regulated under the Pesticides Act 1999. Agricultural activities may only be carried out during daylight hours. The positive covenant is to burden proposed consolidated Lots 38 and 39.

(g) A restriction to user is required for a future dwelling on proposed Lot 33 stating that a residential dwelling may only be constructed on the southern half of proposed Lot 33.

(h) Restriction as to user regarding the 'Proposed Environment Covenant B - 424m²' shown on Plan No 1 Rev. O Proposed Subdivision dated 13 September 2013 prepared by Bennett & Bennett - this area must be subject to an approved ecological restoration program (undertaken in accordance with an approved habitat restoration plan) and managed as a natural area for conservation purposes in perpetuity.

(i) Restriction as to user regarding the 'Proposed Environment Covenant B - 424m²' shown on Plan No 1 Rev. O Proposed Subdivision dated 13 September 2013 prepared by Bennett & Bennett - The following activities are not permitted within this area: i. Clearing, lopping or removal of any native plants, whether existing at

the date of this approval or planted pursuant to conditions of this approval unless otherwise approved by Council's General Manager or delegate;

ii. Erection of any fixtures or improvements, including buildings or structures;


iii. Construction of any trails or paths; iv. Depositing of any fill, soil, rock, rubbish, ashes, garbage, waste or

other material foreign to the protected area; v. Keeping or permitting the entry of domestic animals or any other

animals that are not indigenous to the Covenant Area; and vi. Performance of any other acts which may have detrimental impact on

the values of the Covenant Area. The area must be managed in accordance with the approved habitat restoration plan for the life of the development and the use of the premises.

Pursuant to Section 88BA of the Conveyancing Act (as amended) the Instrument creating the right of carriageway/easement to drain water shall make provision for maintenance of the right of carriageway / easement by the owners from time to time of the land benefited and burdened and are to share costs equally or proportionally on an equitable basis. Any Section 88B Instrument creating restrictions as to user, rights of carriageway or easements which benefit Council shall contain a provision enabling such restrictions, easements or rights of way to be revoked, varied or modified only with the consent of Council. Privately owned infrastructure on community land may be subject to the creation of statutory restrictions, easements etc in accordance with the Community Land Development Act, Strata Titles Act, Conveyancing Act, or other applicable legislation.

[PSC0835]

76. Submit to Council's Property Officer for approval an appropriate plan indicating the street/road address number to both proposed and existing lots. In accordance with clause 60 of the Surveying and Spatial Information Regulation 2012 the Plan of Subdivision (Deposited Plan) shall show the approved street address for each new lot in the deposited plan.

[PSC0845]

77. Council's standard "Asset Creation Form" shall be completed (including all quantities and unit rates) and submitted to Council with the application for Subdivision Certificate.

[PSC0855]

78. Prior to registration of the plan of subdivision, a Subdivision Certificate shall be obtained. The following information must accompany an application: (a) original plan of subdivision prepared by a registered surveyor and 7 copies

of the original plan together with any applicable 88B Instrument and application fees in accordance with the current Fees and Charges applicable at the time of lodgement.

(b) all detail as tabled within Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan, Part A5 - Subdivision Manual, CL 5.7.6 and Councils Application for Subdivision Certificate including the attached notes.

Note: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) makes no provision for works under the Water Supplies Authorities Act, 1987 to be certified by an Accredited Certifier.


[PSC0885]

79. Prior to the application for a Subdivision Certificate a Compliance Certificate or Certificates shall be obtained from Council OR an accredited certifier for the following:- (a) Compliance Certificate - Roads (b) Compliance Certificate - Water Reticulation (c) Compliance Certificate - Sewerage Reticulation (d) Compliance Certificate - Drainage Note: 1. All compliance certificate applications must be accompanied by

documentary evidence from the developers Subdivision Works Accredited Certifier (SWAC) certifying that the specific work for which a certificate is sought has been completed in accordance with the terms of the development consent, the construction certificate, Tweed Shire Council’s Development Control Plan Part A5 - Subdivisions Manual and Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications.

2. The EP&A Act, 1979 (as amended) makes no provision for works under the Water Management Act 2000 to be certified by an "accredited certifier".

[PSC0915]

80. The six months Defects Liability Period commences upon the registration of the Plan of Subdivision.

[PSC0925]

81. A formal asset handover of all water quality control devices is to be implemented at the completion of the maintenance period ("Off Maintenance"), whereby all relevant stakeholders will inspect the device and be issued with a current operational manual for the device.

[PSC1025] 82. Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate and also prior to the end of defects

liability period, a CCTV inspection of any stormwater pipes and gravity sewerage systems installed and to be dedicated to Council including joints and junctions will be required to demonstrate that the standard of the infrastructure is acceptable to Council. Any defects identified by the inspection are to be repaired in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specification. All costs associated with the CCTV inspection and repairs shall be borne by the applicants.

[PSC1065] 83. Prior to the release of the subdivision certificate the proponent shall:

(a) Dedicate the proposed drainage reserve at no cost to Council. (b) Submit an accurate plan of the proposed drainage reserve to Council 60

days prior to lodgement of Application for Subdivision Certificate to allow the land to be classified.

[PSC1075]


84. Prior to issuing a Subdivision Certificate, reticulated water supply and outfall sewerage reticulation shall be provided to all lots within the subdivision in accordance with Tweed Shire Council’s Development Control Plan Part A5 - Subdivisions Manual, Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications and the Construction Certificate approval. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) makes no provision for works under the Water Management Act, 2000 to be certified by an Accredited Certifier.

[PSC1115]

85. The production of written evidence from the local telecommunications supply authority certifying that the provision and commissioning of underground telephone supply at the front boundary of the allotment has been completed.

[PSC1165]

86. Electricity (a) The production of written evidence from the local electricity supply

authority certifying that reticulation and energising of underground electricity (residential and rural residential) has been provided adjacent to the front boundary of each allotment; and

(b) The reticulation includes the provision of fully installed electric street lights to the relevant Australian standard. Such lights to be capable of being energised following a formal request by Council. Should any electrical supply authority infrastructure (sub-stations, switching stations, cabling etc) be required to be located on Council land (existing or future), then Council is to be included in all negotiations. Appropriate easements are to be created over all such infrastructure, whether on Council lands or private lands. Compensatory measures may be pursued by the General Manager or his delegate for any significant effect on Public Reserves or Drainage Reserves.

[PSC1185]

87. Where new state survey marks and/or permanent marks are placed a copy of the locality sketch relating to the marks shall be submitted to Council within three months of registration of the Subdivision Certificate in accordance with the Survey Practices Regulation.

[PSCNS01]

88. Documentary evidence is to be provided that the right of carriageway and footway plus any existing unnecessary easements no longer required are extinguished prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

[PSCNS02]

89. Prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate the vegetated buffer is to be established on Lot 38 in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

90. Prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate the acoustic fence is to be constructed on Lot 38 in accordance with the Land Use Conflict Management Strategy prepared by Place Design Group Pty Ltd and dated 16 August 2013. The acoustic fence is to be at least 1.8 m high, constructed with lapped-style timber or equivalent.

[PSCNS03]


91. The developer is to undertake care and maintenance operations on all streetscapes and public open space for a minimum of 12 months after the Subdivision is registered with the Land Titles Office. This is the establishment period for new plantings. Such maintenance will include all soft landscaping, particularly mowing and weed control. Any power and water consumption costs during this period must also be met by the developer.

[PSCNS04]

92. A bond to ensure acceptable plant establishment and landscaping performance at time of handover to Council shall be lodged by the Developer prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate. The bond shall be held by Council for a minimum period of 12 months from the date of issue of the Subdivision Certificate (or longer if required by the approved Landscaping Plan) and may be utilised by Council during this period to undertake essential plant establishment or related plant care works, should non compliance occur. Any balance remaining at the end of the 12 months establishment period will be refunded. The amount of the bond shall be 20% of the estimated cost of the landscaping or $3000 whichever is the greater.

93. Prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate, Work as Executed Plans (WAX) must be submitted for the streetscape. These must show all plantings, footpaths and underground services. The plans are to be certified by a registered surveyor or consulting engineer. Two categories of WAX plans are to be provided: a) The original approved plan with any variation to this indicated. b) Plan showing only the actual as constructed information. The plans are to be submitted in the following formats: a) 2 paper copies of the same scale and format as the approved plan. b) A PDF version on CD or an approved medium. c) An electronic copy in DWG or DXF format on CD or an approved medium.

94. Environmental restoration works shall be completed to a level specified in the approved Habitat Restoration Plan prior to the release of the subdivision certificate and shall be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved Plan.

95. The final Habitat Restoration Plan report is to be approved by the General Manager or delegate prior to release of the first subdivision certificate.


REPORT:

Applicant: Wilson's Commercial Real Estate Owner: Mr Ross A Julius Location: Lot 1 DP 407094 Cudgen Road, Cudgen and Lot 1 DP 598073 No. 17

Collier Street, Cudgen Zoning: 5(a) School, 1(b1) Agricultural Protection, 1(b2) Agricultural Protection,

2(a) Low Density Residential Cost: $2,000,000 Background: Council has received a development application for a residential subdivision comprising 40 lots at Cudgen Road and Collier Street, Cudgen. The site has an area of 18.69ha comprising of two allotments designated as: • Lot 1 on DP407094: Zone 5(a) Special Uses (School) of approximately 1,353m2. • Lot 1 on DP598073: Zone 2(a) Low Density Residential, Zone 1(b1), Zone 1(b2)

Agricultural Protection and Clause 38 TLEP 2000 of approximately 18.56ha. The subject application proposes a subdivision comprising 40 lots ranging from a proposed road and associated infrastructure.


• Lot 38 – 39 - Residual lots to remain for agricultural purposes.

• Lot 40 - Drainage reserve to be transferred to Council. The original application was for 44 lots however this was amended to be able to cater for a number of items requested throughout the assessment process. These will be detailed later in the report. Stormwater The proposal results in an increase in impervious area and therefore an increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff. The major stormwater issue was the lawful point of discharge. Throughout the assessment Council has maintained that the development’s only lawful point of discharge is the 'East-West drain' at Altona Drive. It was deemed unacceptable to discharge stormwater to the private agricultural drains to the North of the property as proposed. Some difficulty was encountered trying to discharge runoff from the development to this lawful point of discharge without mixing with stormwater from the existing private agricultural drains. After multiple iterations, the current concept of piping stormwater from the bio-retention/detention basin out to Crescent Street and to the northern side of the existing culvert located north of the proposed intersection and directed towards Altona Road via an open channel was agreed upon. Conditions of consent have been included within the recommendations relating to stormwater. Surrounding Development/Buffer issues The site is currently operating for agricultural purposes and contains an existing single unit dwelling and farming sheds which complement the agricultural/farming use. The site is positioned adjacent to a primary school (south) and residential dwelling (to the east). Agricultural uses continue to the east and north of the site. The site acts as the western edge of Cudgen Village urban area as shown in the following figure:


Figure 3 – Aerial photograph of subject site

There is an existing approved Sand Quarry located to the north of the subject site. NSW Industry and Investment was notified and responded with the following:

"Industry and Investment - Mineral Resource Branch is seriously concerned about the close proximity of the subject area to the Crescent Street sand resource (operated on a continuous basis by Hanson), the Cudgen Lakes sand resource (site of the proposed Gales-Kingscliff’s Cudgen Lakes Project) and the extensive, potential sand resource mapped to the west of these sites. The resources are all large and have, or will potentially have long operational lives, and council should consider possible environmental impacts from current and future operations on the subject area. Council should ensure that measures are put in place to mitigate potential impacts on the proposed development by the use of buffers between any operations and the proposed development. Proponents seeking to develop the site should also demonstrate that the presence of such development would not restrict sand operations. The resources adjoining the subject area were included in the Mineral Resource Audit which was recently completed for Tweed Shire Council (a data package was sent to council in May 2011). The audit was conducted in accordance to Section 117(2) Direction 1.3 – Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In reference to the Mineral Resource Audit, the proposed development is located within a transition zone (formerly referred to as buffer zones) of the Crescent Street and Cudgen Lakes resources."

This information was forwarded onto the applicant requesting further information in relation to the proposed development, particularly in regards to acoustic issues. The applicant responded with the following:


"Approved by the Minister for Planning in 2009, the Cudgen Lakes Sand Extraction Project adjoins the project site to the north. The Environmental Assessment failed to take into account the subject land which has been zoned residential since 1987. Of concern are the amenity impacts to the proposal site, most notably operational noise. The Environmental Assessment undertook predicted operational noise modelling that in the absence of mitigating measures, noise emissions would comply with criteria under most operating conditions. To avoid exceedence of levels above that allowed the following mitigation measures have been included in the quarry project:

• Acoustically treating the dredge to reduce the sound power level emitted to 97 dB(A) or lower;

• Increasing the height of the noise barrier on the southern side of the processing area by installing an acoustic fence on the bund; and

• Enclosing noisier components of the processing plant, designed in conjunction with the noise barrier, to achieve a noise reduction of 5 dB(A) at relevant receptors."

To the north east of the site there is a residential subdivision (S93/0076 - Development Application - 96 lot residential subdivision) which was approved 25/01/1994. Council’s Environmental Health Unit raised concerns in relation to the acoustic issues and has determined to put a number of items in place to ensure acoustic impacts are kept to a minimum. It is acknowledged that the sand extraction was approved after part of Lot 1 DP 598073 was zoned for residential purposes. However, the information provided by the applicant does not sufficiently demonstrate that there is a suitable separation between the sand extraction and residential land uses. The most appropriate option to progress the current application would be to recommend a deferred commencement condition requiring, that the applicant provide an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant. The acoustic report should predict noise impacts at residential lots as a result of sand extraction activities, and if required, recommend measures to reduce impacts. An appropriate deferred commencement condition is recommended. It is therefore considered appropriate to implement these items within the recommended conditions. Contaminated Land Information relating to land contamination was provided by Gilbert and Sutherland. The Statement of Environmental Effects (to be referred to as 'SEE') included a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (to be referred to as 'PCA'). The PCA stated that a land use history assessment, and soil sampling and analysis were carried out. The PCA concluded that minor contamination could be easily remediated to ensure that the residential component of the subdivision is suitable for residential use. However, Council’s Environmental Health Unit has advised that additional soil sampling and analysis is required. Information provided by Gilbert and Sutherland indicates that the subject site is capable of being remediated to ensure that the residential component of the subdivision is suitable for residential use. It is likely that only minor remediation would be required. An appropriate deferred commencement condition is recommended. Orientation and Lot Sizes The majority of the allotments are orientated in an east to west configuration. Wherever possible, north-facing slopes have been utilised in the design to improve the solar access.

http://tscdotnet/ConsentRegister/RegisterDetail.asp?ID=359140�


Lot sizes are generally rectangular in shape with over the minimum of 9m kerb frontage. The residential allotments range in size from 450m2 to 1039m2 with an average of 598.5m2. A review of the subdivision pattern of Cudgen has revealed that there are a number of allotments within Cudgen that are below the 450m2 with the majority of allotments being between 450m2 - 900m2 as shown on Figure 1 below. It can also be seen that the majority of the allotments for the proposed subdivision pattern are between 450m2 - 900m2 as shown on Figure 2.

Figure 1 - Existing subdivision pattern (Cudgen)

Figure 2 - Proposed subdivision pattern


Flora and Fauna A Flora and Fauna Report was submitted with the application and amended as a result of the information request. This report identified five significant trees of greater than 500mm diameter at base height (dbh). All trees identified on the plan are situated either within the road reserve or proposed covenant area encumbered to Lot 33 and therefore will not be removed. The remaining trees across the balance of the development site either comprise of orchard species or the declared weed Cinnamomum camphora (Camphour Laurel). Regardless of the limited extent of habitat available to native fauna, management measures shall be implemented during clearing operations to ensure that any native fauna utilising any of the remaining vegetation are not injured or harmed during construction and if necessary translocated to more suitable habitat in close proximity by a licensed spotter catcher. Road Network A traffic report prepared by CRG dated 27 May 2013 has been submitted with the application. The traffic report concludes that the subdivision will generate 37 peak hour vehicle trips and 396 daily trips and that the proposed 40 lot subdivision will not significantly affect the surrounding road network. The proposed road network details an internal loop road with two intersections into Cudgen Village, these being Collier Street and Crescent Street respectively. The layout plan shows the proposed road as having a 7.5m wide pavement within a 15m wide road reserve. Following advice from Council’s Design and Works units, it is noted that Collier Street is to be upgraded with the works programmed to be scheduled in this financial year’s budget. Community consultation and design plans have been completed by Council. The applicant was advised in a meeting held 31 July 2013 that Council will upgrade Collier Street although the developer will be required to reconstruct Collier Street from the property boundary of Lot 71 DP 755701 into the subdivision as per Drawing No. K2027 issue A titled ‘Preliminary Roadworks Plan’ prepared by Knobel Consulting dated 3 June 2013. No objections or issues to the traffic report and proposed subdivision have been raised by Council’s Traffic Engineer. Earthworks Existing levels and proposed levels as detailed on Knobel Consulting plans shows a maximum of 2.7m of cut in the north west of the site and maximum fill level of 2.6m in the north east of the site. The majority of cut and fill on the site ranges from 0.5m to 1m. This is considered to be minor in relation to the existing form of the site which generally preserves the natural landform. The earthworks sections show the boundary levels around the external perimeter have been preserved with the exception of fill up to 2.2m on the Crescent Street Road reserve (near proposed Lot 33). Three retaining walls are proposed, which generally average 1m in height. Slope The land slopes to the north east with gradients ranging from moderate (7% to 9%) to steep slopes (18% to 20% - middle of site) and again to moderate slopes (7% to 9%) near the existing dam to the north.


Council’s enlighten system details approximately half to two thirds of the 2(a) Low Density Residential zoned area where the development is proposed as being affected by slopes between 8 to 18 degrees. Earthworks have been kept to a minimum and the design of the subdivision has taken the slope of the land into consideration. Agricultural Land Residual Lot 38 is to remain for agricultural purposes. In order to limit the impact of these agricultural practices a number of mitigation measures are proposed as follows:

• A 30m buffer along the western part of the residential component of the subdivision and along a short section of the northern part.

• A 1.8 m high acoustic fence along the western part and along a short section of the northern part.

• Within the buffer, a vegetation buffer at least 10 m wide.

• Design restrictions applicable to Lot 6 through to Lot 14 inclusive.

• Restrictions on horticultural/agricultural activities on adjacent lots (Lots 38 and 39).

The proposed development was referred to Industry and Investment NSW (Division of Primary Industries) on 14 February 2013. Industry and Investment raised no concerns in regards to the Agricultural Land impact however raised issues in regards to the approved sand quarry located to the north of the subject site. This will be detailed later in this report. Department of Planning and Infrastructure The Development Application required concurrence from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure due to the minimum allotment size. Concurrence was granted on 13 February 2013 for the following reasons:

1. No issues of state or regional significance are raised; 2. Creation of the residue lot is an administrative matter; and 3. Creation of the small lot for bio-retention basin (Lot 39) is of minor significance.

The proposed development was amended during the assessment to reduce the number of allotments. Proposed lots 38 and 39 will be conditioned to be consolidated into 1 allotment having a total area of 15.1454ha and will be split zoned 1(b1) and 1(b2) and will continue to be utilised for agricultural purposes such as the existing cropping/orchid pursuits. The SEPP No. 1 objection relates to the portion of the combined lots 38 and 39 which is located within the 1(b2) zone. This equates to a total area of 5.2382ha within the proposed lot which is under the 40ha minimum. Lot 40 will not require a SEPP No. 1 objection as the lot will not be used for agricultural or residential purposes under Clause 20(3) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan as outlined in this report. Objections 16 submissions have been received which have raised concerns in relation to: The main points of the objections are as follows:

a. Lot sizes too small; b. Earthworks required for steep land;


c. Increased traffic congestion/safety issues; d. Acoustic issues between school and Lots 1-6; e. No recreation area; f. Inconsistent density with the rest of Cudgen Village; g. Collier Street already damaged; h. Increased crime and safety concerns; i. 7.5m too small for internal road; j. Infrastructure capacity already at maximum; k. No parking along Collier Street; l. No drainage along Collier Street; m. School enrolment currently at maximum; n. No provision or room for footpaths along Collier Street; o. Safety of students who attend Cudgen Primary as there are no pedestrian areas

along Collier Street; p. Reduced Amenity; q. Loss of valuable farmland; r. Impact upon Pine Trees (Heritage Listed) along Collier Street; s. Access to school becomes unsafe; t. Infrastructure being located outside of the land zoned for residential (i.e. road

infrastructure proposed in 1(b2) zone; u. Are retaining walls being used; v. Crime Prevention.

Each of these submissions will be addressed further in this report. Infrastructure Charges The proposed development is for 40 allotments however only 37 of these allotments are for residential purposes. Council’s Strategic and Assets Engineer has advised the following:

"Section 64 Development contributions should be calculated at the rate of 1 ET per lot for both Water Supply and Sewer with a credit of 2 ET each for existing allotments."

As there were two lots originally and there will be 37 allotments which will be subject to infrastructure charges being proposed Lots 1-37 it is expected that 35 new ET’s are chargeable to the proposal. Lots 38, 39 and 40 will not have any credit for ET’s as a result of this as they will not have dwelling entitlements. Council Referrals The current application before Council has been referred to the relevant Council officers for their consideration. Council’s Environmental Health Unit (EHU) has advised that the amended details in relation to amenity; land-use conflict (new residences with surrounding agricultural land uses) are acceptable provided the appropriate conditions of consent are included within the recommendations.


Council's Development Engineering Unit and Planning and Infrastructure Engineer have advised that the proposed development is supported subject to the recommended conditions of consent. Council’s Natural Resource Management (NRM) Unit has advised that they have no objections to the proposal provided the conditions provided are implemented into any recommendations. Council’s Open Space Officer has advised they have no objections subject to the proposed conditions of approval. Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised they have no objections subject to the proposed conditions of approval. It is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed all of the previous requests for further information and following an assessment of the additional information against the relevant heads of consideration, and provided a number of conditions are applied to any consent, the application is recommended for deferred commencement approval.


SITE DIAGRAM:


Considerations under Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan A principle aim of the Plan is to ensure:

The management of growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Shire is retained, and its economic vitality, ecological integrity and cultural fabric is enhanced [and] to encourage sustainable economic development of the area of Tweed compatible with the area’s environmental and residential amenity qualities.

In general it is considered that the proposed subdivision would accord with the aims of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (TLEP) 2000. The application has been referred to the relevant units in Council who have considered relevant details relating to flooding, land forming, and ecological impacts. It is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to impact on the area’s environmental or residential amenity qualities to such an extent to warrant refusal of the proposal. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development The intent of this clause is to provide for development which is compatible with principles of ecological sustainable development (ESD) including the precautionary principle, inter-generational equity, ecological and environmental factors. It is considered that the proposal would be consistent with the objectives of the zone, as detailed further within this report. It is also considered that, given the site does not comprise any protected or endangered vegetation communities, that the proposal would be unlikely to result in irreversible environmental damage and would accord with the principles of ecological sustainable development, provided the development is carried out in accordance with the recommended conditions of consent (in relation to vegetation clearance, as detailed further within this report). Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if:




The subject sites have multiple zones which are the 2(a) Low Density Residential zone, 5(a) Special Uses (School) zone and the 1(b1) and 1(b2) Agricultural Protection zone. The objectives each zone will be detailed further below. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the primary objective of the zones.


As detailed further within this report, it is also considered that the proposal would be consistent with the other aims and objectives of the TLEP 2000 that are relevant to the development. Further, it is considered that the proposal, provided it is carried out in accordance with the conditions of the consent, would be unlikely to impact on the locality or catchment to such an extent to warrant refusal of the proposal. The development would not have an unacceptable cumulative impact if managed in accordance with the recommended conditions. Clause 11 - Zone Objectives Zone 1(b) Agricultural Protection Primary objective • to protect identified prime agricultural land from fragmentation and the

economic pressure of competing land uses. Secondary objective • to allow other development that is compatible with agricultural activities.

The proposed subdivision is located within a portion of land which contains 1(b1) and 1(b2) Agricultural Protection. The site is located within a parcel of land which has multiple zones. The intent of the proposal is to subdivide off the 2(a) Low Density Residential zone and maintain the agricultural protection zone in three residue allotments being proposed lots 38, 39 and 40. A small section of the proposed road is to be located within the 1(b2) portion of the lot however it is considered that this is minor in nature and will not impact upon the rest of the prime agricultural land. The location of the road is identified as a future road under Clause 38 of the LEP. The road will not fragment any agricultural land, as the road is directly adjacent to residential land under Zone 2(a) and will separate residential land from agricultural land. A stormwater detention basin (defined as an ‘urban stormwater water quality management facility’ in the LEP) will be constructed in land under this Zone and be located within proposed lot 40. This detention basin is compatible with surrounding agricultural activities. The detention basin will be located adjacent to a road and residential development and so will not fragment agricultural land. The residue lots will continue to be utilised for agricultural purposes and is therefore considered to be consistent with the primary objective of the land. Zone 2(a) Low Density Residential Primary objective • to provide for and maintain a low density residential environment with a

predominantly detached housing character and amenity. Secondary objectives • to allow some diversity of housing types provided it achieves good urban

design outcomes and the density, scale and height is compatible with the primary objective.

• to allow for non-residential development that is domestically based, or services the local needs of the community, and does not detract from the primary objective of the zone.


The proposed development involves a 40 lot subdivision which is consistent with the primary objective of this zone. Primarily detached residential development is proposed, which will create a detached housing character and amenity on the land. Zone 5(a) Special Uses (School) zone Primary objective • to identify land which is developed or is proposed to be developed, generally

by public bodies, for community facilities and services, roads, railways, utilities and similar things.

Secondary objective • to provide flexibility in the development of the land, particularly if it is not yet

or is no longer required for the relevant special use.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with this zone, by virtue of the zones secondary objective. The primary objective of the zone states that land is to be developed for public or community facilities. However, the secondary objective provides “flexibility in the development of the land, particularly if it is not yet or is no longer required for the relevant special use.” In this instance, the land under Zone 5(a) is adjacent to a school, but the land itself contains a detached dwelling (house). It is therefore considered the subject land is not required for school purposes, but is appropriate for residential purposes. The proposed residential subdivision over this land would therefore be consistent with this objective and the zone generally. Clause 14 - Development near zone boundaries Objective

• To provide flexibility where detailed investigation of a site and its surroundings reveals that a use allowed on the other side of a zone boundary would enable more logical and appropriated development of a site.

This clause applies to land which is:

• Within 20 metres of a boundary between any two of Zones 1(c), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c),3(d),3(e), 4(a), 5(a),6(a) and 6 (b), or

• Within 50 metres of a boundary between Zones 1(a) and 1(b), or

• Within 50 metres of a boundary between any zone referred to in paragraph (a) and any zoned referred to in paragraph (b).

They proposed development involves the subdivision of 2(a) and 5(a) zoned land from the 1(b) and 1(b2) zoned land. The 5(a) land is no longer utilised for school purposes, but is appropriate for residential purposes. The 5(a) zoned land is within 20 metres of 2(a) zoned land. Clause 15 - Essential Services Clause 15 of the TLEP 2000 requires that available services are adequate and that development does not occur without adequate measures to protect the environment and community health prior to determining a development application.


The primary objective is to ensure that development does not occur without adequate measures to protect the environment and the community’s health. The subdivision development will provide reticulated water and sewerage services to all residential lots created, as well as stormwater drainage infrastructure. Clause 16 - Height of Building A 3 storey height limit applies to the site. No buildings are proposed as part of this application. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of Clause 16 of TLEP 2000. Clause 17 - Social Impact Assessment Clause 17 of the TLEP 2000 requires Council to consider whether a proposed development is likely to have a significant social or economic impact. It is considered that the proposed subdivision is not of a significant scale to have a social or economic impact on the broader community; the proposed development is consistent with the zoning controls. However, as detailed within this report, it is considered that the proposed subdivision would be unlikely to impact on the residential amenity or environmental qualities of the land to such an extent to warrant refusal of the proposal. Clause 19 - Subdivision This clause outlines that:

• A person must not subdivide land without consent

• Strata division is permissible in prescribed zones, and

• A person may, with consent, carry out a minor boundary adjustment, notwithstanding that the new lots may not comply with relevant development standards applicable to the subject site.

The subject proposal satisfies this clause as it does not result in lot sizes less than those allowable in the 2(a) zone (450m2). Clause 20 - Subdivision in Zones 1(a), 1(b), 7(a), 7(d), and 7(l) The proposed development will be subdividing the allotment to sizes less that 40ha which triggers a SEPP 1 objection. This has been outlined below. Proposed lots 38 and 39 will be conditioned to be consolidated into 1 allotment having a total area of 15.1454ha and will be split zoned 1(b1) and 1(b2) and will continue to be utilised for agricultural purposes such as the existing cropping/orchid pursuits. The SEPP No. 1 objection relates to the portion of the combined lots 38 and 39 which is located within the 1(b2) zone. This equates to a total area of 5.2382ha within the proposed lot which is under the 40ha minimum. Lot 40 will not require a SEPP No. 1 objection as the lot will not be used for agricultural or residential purposes under Clause 20(3) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan as outlined in this report.


Proposed Lot 40 does not require a SEPP No. 1 Objection as Clause 20(3) states: "Despite subclause (2), consent may be granted to the subdivision of land where an allotment to be created is less than 40 hectares, or 10 hectares in the case of Zone 1(b1), if the consent authority is satisfied that the allotment will be used for a purpose, other than for an agricultural or residential purpose, for which consent could be granted."

The proposed development was amended within the assessment timeframe and an additional allotment was created which will be undersized. The allotment will not be utilised for an agricultural or residential purpose and as such does not require a SEPP No. 1 objection. The allotment will be utilised for drainage purposes. Clause 34 - Flooding The actual development footprint is not shown as being flood affected on Council’s GIS enlighten system apart from a northern section of proposed Lot 39. The Q100 design flood level does affect the bio retention basin and the intersection of proposed Road 2 and Crescent Street. Evacuation for future residents in a flood event would be Collier Street, which is not affected by flood. It is considered that the proposal complies with this Clause. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils Council’s records lists the property as being Class 3 and 5 acid sulphate soils (ASS). However, the portion of the site to be subdivided is entirely within Class 5 mapped area. An acid sulfate soil management plan will be required for any works beyond 1m below the natural ground surface, or works likely to lower the water table by beyond 1m below the natural ground surface. Council’s Environmental Health Services has advised that the ASSMP provided was considered to have been prepared generally in accordance with the relevant NSW guideline, the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual. Provided that the ASSMP is complied with, adverse impacts associated with acid sulfate soils are not anticipated. Appropriate conditions are recommended. Clause 38 - Future road corridors The proposal objective of this Clause is to cater for the alignment of, and development in proximity to, future roads. The subdivision will allow this road to be established, and is designed to connect to this surrounding roads. Clause 39 - Contaminated Lands The site is existing residential land and is part of the greater Cudgen Village. Council Environmental Health Unit has advised that additional soil sampling and analysis is required. However, information provided by Gilbert and Sutherland indicates that the subject site is capable of being remediated to ensure that the residential component of the subdivision is suitable for residential use. It is likely that only minor remediation would be required. An appropriate deferred commencement condition is recommended. It is considered the proposal can comply with the requirements of Clause 39 of the TLEP 2000.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+153+2000+pt.7-cl.37+0+N?tocnav=y�


State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 12: Impact on agricultural activities Clause 12 states that the consent authority:

"Shall not consent to an application to carry out development on rural land unless it has first considered the likely impact of the proposed development on the use of adjoining or adjacent agricultural land and whether or not the development will cause a loss of prime crop or pasture land."

The subject site is not identified as prime crop or pasture land. The portion of the subject site that involves the residential development is located within the 2(a) Low Density Residential zone, with similar land uses located to the east. The proposed road is located on agricultural land (Zone 1(b2) under the Tweed LEP); however, this road is a designated road under Clause 38 of the LEP and therefore the road will not compromise the adjacent agricultural land. The land is not significant farmland, and given the proximity of other residential dwellings, that such a land use would not be appropriate in this location. It is considered unlikely that the proposed residential subdivision would impact on the use of adjacent agricultural land for such purposes. On this basis it is considered that the proposal would not contravene the intentions of Clause 12 of the NCREP 1988. Clause 32B: Coastal Lands Clause 32B applies as the NSW Coastal Policy applies to the subject land. The following has been noted:

• The proposal has addressed the relevant environmental planning instruments which implement the objectives of the Coastal Policy and related documents.

• The proposal does not impede public access to the foreshore in any way.

• The proposal is located on urban land in the Tweed Heads area; yet, the development will not give rise to any overshadowing of any foreshore land.

It is considered that the proposed development complies with this Clause. Clause 43: Residential development Clause 43 of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (NCREP) states that Council shall not grant consent to the development for residential purposes unless:

(a) it is satisfied that the density of the dwellings have been maximised without adversely affecting the environmental features of the land;

(b) it is satisfied that the proposed road widths are not excessive for the function of the road;

(c) it is satisfied that, where development involves the long term residential use of caravan parks, the normal criteria for the location of dwellings such as access to services and physical suitability of land have been met;


(d) it is satisfied that the road network has been designed so as to encourage the use of public transport and minimise the use of private motor vehicles; and

(e) it is satisfied that site erosion will be minimised in accordance with sedimentation and erosion management plans.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the above provisions of this clause in that: the proposed density is a reasonable response to the existing land use character of the area and will not result in the creation of any adverse physical impacts upon the locality. Further, the road widths are satisfactory for the proposal and a detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan will be applied in relation to the construction. SEPP No. 1 - Development Standards As discussed, a SEPP No. 1 objection also accompanies the application. The objection is in respect of the planning standard identified within Clause 20(2)(a) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, specifically seeking variance to the 40ha minimum lot size development standard for the 1(b2) zone. Clause 20(2)(b) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, specifically seeking variance to the 10ha minimum lot size development standard for the 1(b1) zone. The remainder of the site is zoned 2(a) Low Density Residential which has a minimum lot size of 450m² and 5(a) Special Uses which does not have a specific minimum lot size. A SEPP No. 1 submission may be supported where the applicant demonstrates that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and specifies the grounds of that objection. The applicant must also demonstrate the consistency with the aims of the SEPP. During the assessment a number of amendments were made and the allotment numbers have changed slightly. The new allotment numbers will be included within the applicant’s variation. In support of the proposed variation, sections of the applicant’s justification are as follows:

"The following application is provided in support of a variation to a development standard highlighted in the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000). The variation is to facilitate the highest and best use of the site (proposed residential development). The proposed development involves the subdivision of the land located at 17 Collier Street, Cudgen, into residential allotments to meet the current and future demands for low residential allotments in the area. The proposed subdivision involves two (2) parcels of land (Lot 1 on DP407094 and part of Lot 1 on DP598073) which are designated as Zone 2(a) – Low Density Residential, Zone 5(a) Special Uses (School), Zone 1(b1) and Zone 1(b2) Agricultural Protection – please refer to the following zoning map.


The proposed subdivision creates 40 allotments of which include low density residential lots, a rural lot, road and an allotment for the stormwater drainage. The component of the proposed development that is the subject of this variation is the rural lot, road and stormwater drainage which all fall within the Zone 1 (b1) and (b2) Agricultural Protection. As such, the Applicant wishes to provide the following grounds for variation to development standards in line with the Varying Development Standards: A guide document.

1. What is the name of the environmental planning instrument that applies to the land? Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000).

2. What is the zoning of the land? Zone 1 (b1) and (b2) Agricultural Protection.

3. What are the objectives of the zone? The primary objective of this zone is ‘to protect identified prime agricultural land from fragmentation and the economic pressure of competing land uses.’ The secondary objective is ‘to allow other development that is compatible with agricultural activities.’

4. What is the development standard being varied? e.g. FSR, height, lot size The development standard being varied is the Lot Size required for land identified within the Agricultural Protection zone.

5. Under what clause is the development standard listed in the environmental planning instrument? The relevant section of the TLEP 2000 is Part 2, Clause 11 (Provisions applying to particular zones – The zones).


6. What are the objectives of the development standard? We understand that the development standard objectives are as detailed in Part 4, Clause 20 [Subdivision – Subdivision in Zones 1 (a), 1 (b), 7 (a), 7 (b) and 7 (l)] of the TLEP 2000 and are as follows:

20 Subdivision in Zones 1(a), 1(b), 7(a), 7(d) and 7(l) (1) Objectives

• to prevent the potential for fragmentation of ownership of rural land that would: (i) adversely affect the continuance or aggregation of

sustainable agricultural units, or (ii) generate pressure to allow isolated residential

development, and provide public amenities and services, in an uncoordinated and unsustainable manner.

• to protect the ecological or scenic values of the land.

• to protect the area of Tweed’s water supply quality. (2) Consent may only be granted to the subdivision of land:

(a) within Zone 1 (a), 1 (b2), 7 (a), 7 (d) or 7 (l) if the area of each allotment created is at least 40 hectares, or

(b) within Zone 1 (b1) if the area of each allotment created is at least 10 hectares.

(3) Despite subclause (2), consent may be granted to the subdivision of land where an allotment to be created is less than 40 hectares, or 10 hectares in the case of Zone 1(b1), if the consent authority is satisfied that the allotment will be used for a purpose, other than for an agricultural or residential purpose, for which consent could be granted.

(4) For the purposes of subclauses (2) and (3): (a) land is taken to be within Zone 1 (b1) if it is shown on the

zone map by the marking “1(b1)”, and (b) land is taken to be in Zone 1 (b2) if it is shown on the zone

map by the marking “1(b2)”.

9. What is the percentage variation (between your proposal and the environmental planning instrument)? The proposed subdivision involves the creation of 40 allotments; however only two (2) of the proposed allotments are the subjects of this objection, which have been detailed below: Proposed Lot 38-39 (Combined via conditions) is to remain as a rural lot and is not intended to be further subdivided. Proposed Lot 40 is a stormwater drainage reserve to service the proposed development. The stormwater runoff from the proposed development shall discharge into the stormwater drainage reserve as described in the amended stormwater report.


The development standard requires the following for land located in: Zone 1 (b1) – minimum lot size of 10ha Zone 1 (b2) – minimum lot size of 40ha The original lot, Lot 1 on DP598073, prior to the proposed subdivision had a total site area of 18.56ha, which consists of approximately 9.89ha in Zone 1 (b1) and 5.9ha in Zone 1 (b2); therefore, already not complying with the above-mentioned minimum lot sizes. As part of the proposed subdivision, the balance of this allotment (proposed Lot 38-39) will have a total area of 15.521ha, which includes 9.908ha located within Zone 1 (b1) and 5.613ha within Zone 1 (b2). Based on the above, we believe that the proposed allotments located within Zone 1 (b1) and (b2) are acceptable in this instance as they do not detrimentally impact of the surrounding agricultural land uses nor the community.

10. How is strict compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case? As mentioned above, the original title area of Lot 1 on DP598073, already did not comply with the subject development standards. In addition, the surrounding land uses are predominantly low-density residential (to the east), whilst, agricultural land is located to the west. It is believed that the proposed development would not detract from those existing agricultural and rural uses in the area, and would instead provide a transition / buffer between the two (2) lands uses (i.e. between the agricultural and low-density residential uses).

11. How would strict compliance hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act? Compliance with the development standard cannot be achieved due to the original area of the site being less than what is required under the TLEP 2000. Therefore, the development of this site does not hinder the attainment of the object specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, due to its non-compliance with the development standard. The proposed development will encourage the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resource. The agricultural land component of the subject site is mainly being maintained with the exception of those areas being proposed as road and stormwater drainage reserve. The site does not contain any natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages; however, will promote and support the social and economic welfare of the community through providing a residential product that is in high demand in this location and will ensure to maintain, protect and remediate significant landscape (where possible) to promote a better environment.


Based on our Clients informal research we understand that there is demand in the current and future market for this type of residential product (low-density residential allotments). With respect to the rural lot (proposed combined Lot 38-39), this is to be retained by the current land owner and will continue to be used for agricultural / rural purposes. The proposed development will promote the coordination and economic use of the subject site through providing a residential development that has been undertaken in an appropriate manner (i.e. compliant construction methods) and results in a product that is acceptable to Council and the community.

12. Is the development standard a performance based control? Based on our interpretation of the objective for the Zone, we understand that the development standard is a performance based control.

13. Would strict compliance with the standard, in your particular case, would be unreasonable or unnecessary? Why? The compliance with the development standard, as mentioned above, cannot be achieved as the subject site does not achieve the minimum lot sizes prior to the proposed development. The proposed subdivision of the subject site does not take away from the character of the area and will instead encourage the further growth of this area through providing a residential product that is in demand. In addition, the proposed development complies with the objectives of Section 20 of the TLEP 2000, which have been detailed below: 1. Presently the subject site is owned by one (1) owner. The

proposed low-density-residential allotments will be sold to individual owners, whilst the ‘rural lot’ (proposed Lot 38-39) will continue to be owned by the current owner. The fragmentation of the rural land will not occur, with the exception of the portion of the agricultural protection land that will be utilised for road and the stormwater drainage reserve.

2. The proposed development does not adversely impact of the continuance or aggregation of sustainable agricultural units in the area as the subject site (where adjoining existing agricultural / rural land uses) is proposed to be utilised for agricultural / rural purposes.

3. The residential development involves the necessary services, including access to surrounding public amenities and services (i.e. shopping facilities located at Kingscliff approx. 4km from the site).

4. The ecological and scenic values of the area are not negatively impacted upon by the proposed development and instead enhance them through the positioning of the proposed allotments to take advantage the surrounding views and vistas.

5. Through the inclusion of the bio-retention basin, the runoff from the proposed development will be captured and treated to ensure that Tweed’s water supply quality is not impacted.


The proposed development does not comply with the development standard; however, the intent of the development still ensures that the objectives of the TLEP 2000 are meet and maintained.

14. Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard? We believe that the proposed development will result in an appropriate form of development that is consistent with the area and the expectations of the community. The objectives of the TLEP 2000 are also met through the proposed development, even if the minimum lots size is not achieved by those located within Zone 1 (b1) and (b2). The above-mentioned has demonstrated that the proposed development and the proposed varying of the development standard is appropriate in this instance and ask that this be considered and approved accordingly.

The proposed development was amended during the assessment which reduced the number of allotments from 44 to 40. As a result of this amendment the lot numbers have changed slightly and an additional allotment is created within the 1(b2) zoned land. The allotments within the rural zones are as follows:

• Combined Lots 38 & 39. Residual lots to remain for agricultural purposes being cropping/orchids.

• Lot 40 Drainage reserve to be transferred to Council. Lot 40 does not require a SEPP No. 1 objection as under Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 clause 20(3) subdivisions are able to occur which are under the minimum allotment size if they are not used for an agricultural or residential purpose. As the proposed is for a drainage reserve a SEPP No. 1 is not required. The Development Application required concurrence from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure due to the minimum allotment size. Concurrence was granted on 13 February 2013 for the following reasons:

1. No issues of state or regional significance are raised; 2. Creation of the residue lot is an administrative matter; and 3. Creation of the lot for stormwater drainage reserve is of minor

significance.

As a result of the concurrence from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure it is considered appropriate to accept the SEPP No. 1 Objection for the proposal including land under the minimum allotment size in this instance. SEPP No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection SEPP 44 is applicable to the subject site due to the combined area of the site being greater than 1ha. Council’s GIS identifies the vegetation on site as being predominantly highly modified/disturbed with some patches of vegetation present along the Crescent Street Road Reserve. The subject site is not identified as containing core koala habitat. The subject proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of SEPP 44.


SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Land The aim of SEPP 55 is to provide a State wide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land and to require that remediation works meet certain standards and conditions. A Preliminary Contamination Assessment has been undertaken that includes the findings of a preliminary investigation and addresses land concerns. Council Environmental Health Unit has advised that additional soil sampling and analysis is required. However, information provided by Gilbert and Sutherland indicates that the subject site is capable of being remediated to ensure that the residential component of the subdivision is suitable for residential use. It is likely that only minor remediation would be required. An appropriate deferred commencement condition is recommended. SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 The SEPP outlines the following ‘Rural Planning Principles’: (a) the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential

productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas; (b) recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the

changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State;

(c) recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development;

(d) in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community;

(e) the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land;

(f) the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities;

(g) the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing.

Despite the proposed subdivision incorporating rural land uses – no urban uses are being considered in the rural land area. Lot 38 and 39 is proposed for the purpose of rural production and will contain a buffer to ensure that any possible land use conflicts between rural and residential uses are minimised. In addition, Lot 38 will also contain the proposed new road (complying with Clause 38 TLEP). Proposed Lot 40 will contain a stormwater detention basin that is not an urban use. The proposed development is considered to fulfil the aims of the Policy and Clause 7 and 8 that talk about Rural Planning and Subdivision Principles.


(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 relates to the subject site. Within the Draft LEP the site is split zoned being RU1 - Primary Production and R2 - Low Density Residential. Within the LEP the minimum lot sizes applying to the site are 450m2 for the R2 zone and both 10ha and 40ha for the RU1 zone. These minimum lot sizes are consistent with the current minimum lot sizes and it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the Draft Local Environmental plan 2012.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A1 - Residential and Tourist Development Code Although the subject application relates to a subdivision development only it is considered that the proposed allotments should be able to accommodate a dwelling in accordance with DCP A1 requirements without the necessity for variations to this DCP. In this regard, the applicant has submitted information relating to some of the DCP A1 controls such as setbacks and deep soils zones which would apply to a subsequent development application for a dwelling on the proposed allotments. It is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that dwellings which would comply with the DCP could be placed on each allotment in terms of these controls. It is also accepted that the assessment of future applications for development on these sites would be subject to separate assessment process and in this regard the assessment of the application under this DCP was in order to establish generally that acceptable outcomes could be provided on site rather than a detailed assessment of the specific future design for each allotment. A2 - Site Access and Parking Code The subject development is to be accessed from Crescent Street and Collier Street. A new internal road will connect the two streets. All individual allotments accessed from an internal loop road to be created as part of this application. The application was referred to Councils Development Engineering Section and Traffic Engineer. In terms of access to the proposed development, Councils Development Engineer has advised that:

"Council’s Subdivision Manual specifies ‘a minimum of 9.0 metres of kerb frontage is required for each lot unless alternative provisions are made for parking.’ Council’s request for further information required that proposed Lot 6 had adequate road frontage and access to Road 1. The lot frontage was amended to 9m. All other allotments have an average road frontage of 16m."

Actual onsite parking requirements under this DCP would be considered under the future applications for development of each individual allotment, however it is considered that given the area of each allotment, there would be adequate space for parking facilities compliant with this DCP to be provided on each site, subject to an appropriate build design.


A3 - Flood Liable Land The actual development footprint is not shown as being flood affected on Council’s GIS enlighten system apart from a northern section of proposed Lot 39. The Q100 design flood level does affect the bio retention basin and the intersection of proposed Road 2 and Crescent Street. Evacuation for future residents in a flood event would be Collier Street, which is not affected by flood. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with this section of the DCP. A5 - Subdivision Manual Tweed Development Control Plan A5 -Subdivision Manual aims to:

• Present Council’s strategic plan objectives for the development of subdivisions.

• Achieve the highest quality and ‘best practice’ of subdivision development in the Shire

• Implement the policies and provisions of the NSW State Government in terms of seeking to achieve quality of subdivision planning and development.

• Provide guidelines and development standards for the development of subdivisions.

This DCP contains Council’s guidelines for the preparation of applications for subdivision and aims to facilitate Council’s assessment and consideration of such applications. A number of factors are required to be assessed including environmental constraints, land forming, design specifications, storm water runoff, drainage, waterways and flooding, setbacks and buffers (where appropriate). The subject application has been referred to Council's Development Engineer who has reviewed the subject application against the provisions of DCP A5 and indicated that the proposal would be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent. Where applicable these matters have been discussed below. Environmental Constraints – this section of the DCP relates to issues such as contamination, bushfire and access etc. These matters are discussed in detail elsewhere in this report with the conclusion being that the proposal is acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent. Landforming – Levels within the development footprint range from RL35.5m AHD in the south western corner (Lot 6) to RL2.5m AHD in the north eastern corner (Lot 39). The proposed drainage reserve is located at the lowest part of the site with levels ranging from RL0.5m to 1.5m AHD. Knobel Consulting have prepared a number of plans titled Preliminary Earthwork Plan and Preliminary Earthworks Sections dated 13 September 2013 to demonstrate proposed cut and fill on the site. Comparison of the existing levels and proposed levels as detailed on Knobel Consulting plans shows a maximum of 2.7m of cut in the north west of the site and maximum fill level of 2.6m in the north east of the site. The majority of cut and fill on the site ranges from 0.5m to 1m. Only minor regrading of the site is proposed, therefore generally preserving the natural landform.


The earthworks sections show the boundary levels around the external perimeter have been preserved with the exception of fill up to 2.2m on the Crescent Street Road reserve (near proposed Lot 36). Three retaining walls are proposed, which generally average 1m in height. Stormwater Runoff, Drainage, Waterways & Flooding – The proposed development was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineer who responded with the following:

"The major stormwater issue was the lawful point of discharge. Throughout the assessment Council has maintained that the developments only lawful point of discharge is the 'East-West drain' at Altona Drive. It was deemed unacceptable to discharge stormwater to the private agricultural drains to the North of the property. Some difficulty was encountered trying to discharge runoff from the development to this LPOD without mixing with stormwater from the existing private agricultural drains. After multiple iterations, the current concept of piping stormwater from the bio-retention/detention basin out to Crescent St and to the Northern side of the existing culvert was agreed upon. This appears to be the only solution available with no risk of nuisance to the adjoining properties. The other stormwater issue was concern regarding the major stormwater system. Due to the slope of the land, the gradient and inefficient alignment of the flow paths, a higher level of immunity was requested. The applicant was asked to re-design (in accordance with D5.12.3a) the major stormwater system with a factor of safety of 1.5 on the design rainfall and a free board of 500m. The recently submitted SWMP-P has met this request."

Urban Structure – The proposed subdivision is considered to provide appropriate access, orientation and configuration of lots which meets the provisions of this section of the DCP. Movement Network – The infill nature of the proposed development has resulted in an improved movement network through the design of an internal road connecting Crescent Street and Collier Street. Open Space Network – The applicant has agreed to pay Section 94 contributions for Casual Local Open rather than a land contribution. The application was referred to Council’s Open Space Officer who advised that this was an acceptable solution. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard. Lot Layout – The proposal is consistent with the minimum allotment area of 450m2 as all allotments are greater than this. The allotments can provide an area for a building envelope of 10m x 15m. The applicant has provided information which demonstrates that future dwelling units could be provided to each allotment in accordance with DCP Section A1. Infrastructure – Council’s Development Engineering Section and Water Unit have assessed the proposed development against the relevant standards pertaining to road ways, water and sewer provisions, electricity and flood protection. Appropriate conditions of consent have been applied with regard infrastructure requirements. In light of the above assessment, the proposed residential subdivision is considered to meet the provisions of Section A5 of Council’s Consolidated DCP.


A11 - Public Notification of Development Proposals Under the provisions of this DCP, the proposed development was required to be notified to surrounding properties as it comprises of a subdivision of 20 or more lots. As such, the subject application was notified for a period of 14 days from 7 February 2013 to 21 February 2013. During that period, a total of 16 submissions were received which have been addressed below. B9 - Tweed Coast Strategy DCP B9 relates to the northern end of the Tweed Coast, which includes Cudgen Village. The site has been identified as an existing urban area due to it’s residential zoning. The Plan sets objectives for future development concentrating on public services and design principals. The Vision Statement for this district identified at Clause B9.3.2 is:

To manage growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Coast is retained, and its economic vitality, tourism potential, ecological integrity and cultural fabric are enhanced.

As the site has been considered to be an existing urban area it is capable of integration with the rest of the Cudgen Village area. The proposed development is considered to represent an appropriate development in terms of the above objective as it provides for a low density residential option in the area, with the housing density assessed as being an appropriate response to site and development constraints in this instance. The proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the objectives or provisions of this DCP and the proposal is appropriate.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The proposed site is located within the area covered by the Government Coastal Policy, and has been assessed with regard to the objectives of this policy. The Government Coastal Policy contains a strategic approach to help, amongst other goals, protect, rehabilitate and improve the natural environment covered by the Coastal Policy. It is not considered that the proposed development contradicts the objectives of the Government Coastal Policy, given its permissible nature on a site identified for development works. Clause 92(b) Applications for demolition The proposal does not include any demolition as the application relates to subdivision of a cleared site only. Clause 93 Fire Safety Considerations Not applicable. No buildings are proposed. Clause 94 Buildings to be upgraded Not applicable. No buildings are proposed.


(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 The primary objectives of the Coastal Management Plan are to protect development; to secure persons and property; and to provide, maintain and replace infrastructure. Given the location of the development is approximately 2.3km from the coastal foreshore and is not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard zone it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Management Plan. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 This Management Plan applies to the estuaries of Cudgen, Cudgera and Mooball Creeks. The subject site is located well away from all creeks and therefore this Plan does not apply. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) The subject site is not located within an area that is affected by the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Context and Setting The subject proposal results in the subdivision of 2(a) and 5(a) portion of land with the remainder of the land remaining 1(b1) and 1(b2) zoned land. It is considered the low density residential subdivision of the 2(a) and 5(a) zoned land is consistent with the rest of Cudgen Village. It is envisaged that there will be no significant adverse impacts upon the surrounding locality as a result of the proposed application. Access, Transport and Traffic The proposed road network details an internal loop road with two intersections into Cudgen Village, these being Collier Street and Crescent Street respectively. The layout plan shows the proposed road as having a 7.5m wide pavement within a 15m wide road reserve. Council’s Subdivision Manual specifies ‘a minimum of 9.0 metres of kerb frontage is required for each lot unless alternative provisions are made for parking.’ Council’s request for further information required that proposed Lot 6 had adequate road frontage and access to Road 1. The lot frontage was amended to 9m. All other allotments have an average road frontage of 16m. It is considered that the access, transport and traffic have adequately been dealt with in the information provided. Flora and Fauna The applicant submitted a management plan titled Flora and Fauna Management Plan Lot 1 DP407094 & Part Lot 1 DP598073 Version 2 dated June 2013 prepared by Habitat Environment Management Trading P/L ('F&FMP').




Council’s Natural Resources Unit has assessed the provided information and recommended a number of conditions including an environmental covenant to be provided along the eastern boundary of Lot 33. This is as a result of a number of significant trees of greater than 500mm of diameter at base height which Council consider significant enough to protect with a covenant. This has been included in the recommendations.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development Surrounding Landuses/Development The proposed development is considered to be appropriate with the context and setting of the Cudgen Village being a low density residential development within a low density residential area. The proposal will result in a permissible use of the site. The property is/can be fully serviced by all necessary infrastructure (water, sewer, stormwater, electricity and telecommunications), and has easy access to main roads. The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character of surrounding development. Issues relating to density and allotment sizes have been addressed elsewhere in this report. It is therefore considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Access, Transport and Traffic The subject development was assessed in terms of access, transport and traffic by Councils Traffic Engineer and Development Engineering Section. The proposed subdivision is to be accessed from Crescent Street and Collier Street. Surfside Buslines currently operate within the vicinity of the subject site. The service runs between Pottsville and Tweed Heads. The service operates along Crescent Street adjacent to the subject site frontage. It is considered that the existing public transport within the locality is sufficient to cater for the proposed development. Availability of Utilities and Services The subject site is serviced by Council’s water and sewer services which are available to the proposal on advice from Councils Strategic and Asset Engineer. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard. Flora and Fauna The property features mostly modified grazing land with some areas of natural vegetation. A number of significant trees of greater than 500mm of diameter at base height are located along the eastern boundary of Lot 33 which Council consider significant enough to protect with a covenant. If approved, appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure minimal impact upon flora and fauna in the locality. Natural Hazards Whilst part of the site is constrained by flooding this can be adequately managed through conditions.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations Public Submissions Comment The application was on exhibition for a period of 14 days from Thursday 7 February 2013 to Thursday 21 February 2013. During that period, a total of 16 submissions were received that brought up issues in relation to the following:


Issue Assessment Lot sizes too small The residential lot sizes vary from 450m2 -

1039m2 with an average of 598.5m2. The minimum lot size allowable in the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 for a dwelling to be located on the land is 450m2 as per Clause 11 of the instrument. It is therefore considered that the proposed development meets the requirement and should not be refused based on this submission.

Earthworks required for steep land An engineering report prepared by Knobel Consulting dated 8 November 2012 (amended 31 May 2013 with Council’s further information request) was been lodged with the application. Council’s Development Assessment Engineer has provided the following:

Comparison of the existing levels and proposed levels as detailed on Knobel Consulting plans shows a maximum of 2.7m of cut in the north west of the site and maximum fill level of 2.6m in the north east of the site. The majority of cut and fill on the site ranges from 0.5m to 1m. Only minor regrading of the site is proposed, therefore generally preserving the natural landform.

Significant land reforming proposals where more than 10% gross site area or more than 1.0ha is to have surface levels changed by more than 5m or where earthworks exceed an average of 10,000m3 per ha must be justified in context of the Tweed Development Control Plan Section A5. As the proposed only has cut and fill to a maximum of 2.7m and 2.6m respectively the earthworks are considered minor in nature. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.


Issue Assessment Increased traffic congestion/safety issues A traffic report prepared by CRG dated 27

May 2013 has been submitted with the application. The traffic report concludes that the subdivision will generate 37 peak hour vehicle trips with 396 daily trips and that the proposed 40 lot subdivision will not significantly affect the surrounding road network. No objections or issues to the traffic report and proposed subdivision have been raised by Council’s Traffic Engineer. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

Acoustic issues between school and Lots 1-6

It is considered that residential uses and schools uses are compatible land uses as a result of the zoning within the Tweed Local Environmental Plan. The applicant has advised that appropriate fencing will be constructed between the school and the proposed allotments. The average lot size of Lots 1-6 being 692m2 is considered to provide adequate room for design of appropriate dwellings to consider the school. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

No recreation area The applicant has agreed to pay Section 94 contributions for Casual Local Open rather than a land contribution. The application was referred to Council’s Open Space Officer who advised that this was an acceptable solution. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

Inconsistent density with the rest of Cudgen Village

The residential allotments range in size from 450m2 to 1039m2 with an average of 598.5m2. A review of the subdivision pattern of Cudgen has revealed that there are a number of allotments within Cudgen that are below the 450m2 with the majority of allotments being between 450m2 - 900m2. It is considered that the proposed density is consistent with the village of Cudgen. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.


Issue Assessment Collier Street already damaged Collier Street does not form part of this

development. Additionally, following advice from Council’s Design and Works units, it is noted that Collier Street is to be upgraded with the works programmed to be scheduled in this financial year’s budget. Community consultation and design plans have been completed by Council. The applicant was advised in a meeting held 31 July 2013 that Council will upgrade Collier Street although the developer will be required to reconstruct Collier Street from the property boundary of Lot 71 DP 755701 into the subdivision as per Drawing No. K2027 issue A titled ‘Preliminary Roadworks Plan’ prepared by Knobel Consulting dated 3 June 2013.

Increased crime and safety concerns It is considered that new housing developments take into account crime prevention through environmental design, this will in some way increase casual surveillance to the neighbourhood. It is considered that natural surveillance and access control strategies limit the opportunity for crime. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

7.5m too small for internal road The proposed internal roads meet the requirements of Tweed Development Control Plan Section A5 - Development Design Specification D1. The road is considered to be an access street which is to accommodate shared pedestrian, bike and vehicular movements. Council’s Traffic Engineer has raised no objections to the proposed development. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

Infrastructure capacity already at maximum

The applicant has provided an Engineering Report prepared by Knobel Consulting which refers to the existing and proposed infrastructure in the area in order to meet the demands of the proposed development. It is considered that there is adequate capacity within the network to cater for the proposed development. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.


Issue Assessment No parking along Collier Street The proposed development will provide for

adequate off street parking. Each new dwelling that will be proposed as a result of this application will be required to meet the current standards for off street car parking. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

No drainage along Collier Street The proposed development was referred to Council Stormwater Engineer who concluded that the proposed development can adequately treat and disposed of stormwater directed into the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

School enrolment currently at maximum Local Council’s do not get involved within school enrolments as they are a matter for the State Government. The proposed subdivision is not of a size to warrant the creation of a new school.

No provision or room for footpaths along Collier Street

The proposed subdivision includes footpaths along one side of the new roads connecting to the existing road network. Collier Street is not within the proposed subdivision and therefore will not be expected to provide footpaths.

Safety of students who attend Cudgen Primary as there are no pedestrian areas along Collier Street

Collier Street is not within the proposed subdivision and therefore will not be expected to provide footpaths. Council’s Design and Works units advised that Collier Street is to be upgraded within the works programmed to be scheduled in this financial year’s budget. Community consultation and design plans have been completed by Council. It is also considered that traffic for the proposed development will not significantly alter safety of students. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

Reduced Amenity The proposed development is consistent with the low density residential configuration of Cudgen Village. It is considered that the proposal will not cause any undue impacts such as noise, odour, dust or visual and should not be refused based on this submission.


Issue Assessment Loss of valuable farmland The proposed development involves the

subdivision of residential zoned land for residential purposes. The portion of development within the agricultural zoned land will be utilised for a road to access the development. The majority of the road is within an area classified by Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 as a future road corridor. The small portion of road outside this road corridor has been placed in this area for safety reasons. Roads are permissible with consent within zone 1(b2) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000. It is therefore considered that the proposal should not be refused based on this objection in this instance.

Impact upon Pine Trees (Heritage Listed) along Collier Street

The proposed development will not impact upon the Pine Trees along Collier Street. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

Access to school becomes unsafe Collier Street is not within the proposed subdivision and therefore will not be expected to provide footpaths. Council’s Design and Works units, it is noted that Collier Street is to be upgraded with the works programmed to be scheduled in this financial year’s budget. Community consultation and design plans have been completed by Council. It is also considered that traffic for the proposed development will not significantly alter safety of students. Therefore the proposed should not be refused based on this submission in this instance.

Infrastructure being located outside of the land zoned for residential (i.e. road infrastructure proposed in 1(b2) zone

The portion of development within the agricultural zoned land will be utilised for a road to access the development. The majority of the road is within an area classified by Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 as a future road corridor. The small portion of road outside this road corridor has been placed in this area for safety reasons. It is therefore considered that the proposal should not be refused based on this objection in this instance.


Issue Assessment Are retaining walls being used Council’s Development Design

Specification – D6 Site Regrading specifies that retaining walls are to be 1.2m high at the perimeter boundary of the subdivision and 1.2m at side and rear boundaries. Three retaining walls are proposed on the boundaries of Lots 14, 37 & 39, all retaining walls are between 1m to 1.2m in height. The proposed development complies with Council’s D6 Site Regrading policy and should not be refused based on this submission.

Crime Prevention Crime prevention through good environmental design allows for residents to have a greater level of casual surveillance of public spaces. It is considered that the proposed has been designed in a way to improve casual surveillance for the area and should not be refused based on this submission.

Public Authority Submissions Comment Department of Planning and Infrastructure The subject application was referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in regards to concurrence for the proposed subdivision. Concurrence has been granted to vary the 40 hectare minimum lot size development standard, for the following reasons:

1. No issues of state or regional significance are raised; 2. Creation of the residue lot is an administrative matter; and 3. Creation of the small lot for bio-retention basin is of minor significance.

Department of Industry and Investment The proposed development was referred to the Department of Industry and Investment for comment in regards to the agricultural impacts as a result of the application. On 5 March 2013 the Department of Industry and Investment - Mineral Resources Branch responded with concerns relating to the approved sand quarry to the north of the subject site. This information was forwarded onto the applicant in an information request sent out on 9 April 2013. The applicant provided additional information in regards to the buffers from the approved sand quarry. Council’s Environmental Health Unit has requested a deferred commencement condition be placed within the recommendations to further assess the acoustic details of the sand quarry and any impacts upon the future residents.


(e) Public interest The creation of a residential subdivision within the residential zoned portion of the allotment is considered to be consistent with the surrounding subdivision pattern. There will be two residue allotments being utilised for agriculture and drainage purposes. As detailed within this report, the proposed subdivision would be unlikely to impact on the character or amenity of the subject site or surrounding area. A SEPP No. 1 Objection has been received that demonstrates that in this instance the proposal raises no matters of significance for State or Regional Planning and that no public benefit results from maintaining the development standard. Concurrence has been granted by the Director-General for the creation of the undersized allotment as it was considered that there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. It is considered that the proposed subdivision would be unlikely to set a harmful precedent for the creation of undersized allotments, given the circumstances of this application.

OPTIONS: 1. Approve the application with conditions of approval in accordance with the

recommendation of approval; or 2. Refuse the application for specified reasons. The Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: The development application proposes a subdivision that divides the subject allotments into lots as follows:


• Lot 38 – 39 - Residual lots to remain for agricultural (cropping/orchid) purposes.

• Lot 40 - Drainage reserve to be transferred to Council. Proposed Lots 38 and 39 would be below the minimum lot size and would be used for agricultural purposes (cropping and orchid). As such a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 - Planning Principles Objection has been received in relation to the variation of the development standard. The application has been referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration who have granted concurrence in respect to the variation of the 40 hectare development standard contained in clause 20(2)(a) of the Tweed LEP 2000 to permit the creation of proposed Lot 38 & 39 and Lot 40 for the following reasons:

1. No issues of state or regional significance are raised; 2. Creation of the residue lot is an administrative matter; and 3. Creation of the lot for a stormwater drainage reserve is of minor significance.

The proposed development is considered to not have a significant impact on flora and fauna, agricultural activities or the social, cultural and economic environment. The proposed lot sizes are considered to be consistent with existing allotments in the area and the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this instance. On this basis approval of the proposed development is recommended.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


23 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0189 for a 22 Lot Subdivision and Associated Intersection Upgrade to Creek Street and Tweed Coast Road at Lot 156 DP 628026 No. 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council is in receipt of a Development Application seeking approval for a 22 lot subdivision which incorporates 1.3 to 2m of fill over 2.324ha of land at Lot 156 Creek Street Hastings Point. The subject site has a long history of unlawful dredging, unlawful tree removal and a Major Project refusal from the NSW Planning and Assessment Commission for a proposed 45 lot subdivision over the subject site (the developable footprint was 3.66ha). This Major Project refusal was issued with the following reasons for refusal:

1. The scale and location of the development, together with the proposed flood mitigation measures would result in an unacceptable risk to life, health and property within this flood prone community;

2. The development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 - Coastal Wetlands and State Environmental Planning Policy 71 - Coastal Protection and is contrary to the objects of the EP&A Act including the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development particularly given that there is significant uncertainty as to whether ecological impacts can be avoided or minimised to acceptable levels;

3. The development is incompatible with both the adjoining natural and built environment; and

4. The proposal is not in the public interest.

The application as proposed does reduce the overall number of lots and the size of the filled development footprint (as previously proposed) yet still presents many of the same issues that resulted in the refusal of MP06_0153. This is largely due to the fact that the proposed allotments extend out beyond the 2.324ha filled portion of the site and extend within environmentally sensitive areas which Council Officers believe should be retained under one ownership to be effectively managed.


In addition this application has failed to adequately consider the sensitive nature of the site, has failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed fill on the local drainage network, incorporates too much fill that results in a development uncharacteristic of the area, and has failed to adequately consider all the applicable legislation applying to this site. Council staff strongly recommended that the applicant withdraw the subject application and possibly re-lodge a revised Development Application (at a later date) which addresses all of the issues that have been identified in the assessment of this application. However, the applicant did not wish to withdraw the application and has requested time to address the identified issues. The applicant requested 3 months from 29 September 2013 plus one additional month over Christmas to provide an amended application. Given the contents of this report Council Officers are of the view that any amended application would need to be substantially different to the application as lodged and accordingly that the best path is for the current application to be withdrawn or refused and a new revised application submitted when the applicant has adequately addressed all the matters raised in this report. The application is reported to Council given the extensive public submissions (131 objections) and the extensive history associated with this site. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0189 for a 22 lot subdivision and associated intersection upgrade to Creek Street and Tweed Coast Road at Lot 156 DP 628026 No. 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point be refused for the following reasons: 1. The application fails to satisfy the principal aim of the Tweed Local

Environmental Plan 2000 (Clause 4) which is to ensure “The management of growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Shire is retained, and its economic vitality, ecological integrity and cultural fabric is enhanced.” The proposed development fails to adequately consider the sites' sensitive ecological environment and would result in a development which does not respond to the existing character of the area.

2. The development as proposed is not considered to have adequate regard for the Ecologically Sustainable Development provisions as outlined in Clause 5 the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000.

3. The development as proposed does not satisfy Clause 8(1) or 8(2) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 as the development does not satisfy the 2(e) Residential Tourist zone objective (as there is no tourist component), does not satisfy the 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest) zone objectives (by fragmenting environmental land) does not satisfy the 7(l) Environmental Protection (Habitat) zone objectives (as a result of the entry road off Creek Street) and is considered to have an unacceptable cumulative impact in regards to local character, ecology and local drainage and flooding matters.

4. The development as proposed does not satisfy Clause 20(2) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 in regards to the minimum allotment size for land zoned 7(a) as Lot 14 has 7(a) land that has been unnecessarily fragmented from proposed Lot 7.


5. The development as proposed does not satisfy Clause 34 of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 in regards to flooding. Adequate information has not been received to ensure that the proposed fill will not have an unreasonable impact on the adjoining properties in the locality.

6. The development as proposed does not satisfy Clause 39 of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 in regards to contaminated land. Adequate information has not been received to ensure that the proposed site is free of contaminates. A Preliminary Soil Contamination Report would be required which specifically considered possible historic sand mining activities.

7. The development as proposed does not satisfy Clause 39A of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 in regards to bushfire protection. The subdivision as proposed in not capable of compliance with the NSW Rural Fire Service General Terms of Approval as the subdivision does not have 8m wide road pavement or 12 metre cul-de-sac areas and fails to satisfy the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2006.

8. The development as proposed does not satisfy the various environmental and ecological controls applicable to the subject site. The ecological assessment relies on outdated 2008 vegetation mapping and 2006-2008 fauna survey results. This leads to significant uncertainty as to the extent and level of cumulative impact on threatened species and Endangered Ecological Communities.

9. The development as not clearly articulated the impact of extensive site filling and subsequent modification to overland flow and groundwater conditions on sensitive and/or dependant floodplain communities of significant conservation value.

10. The size of the development footprint and resultant inadequate buffers to Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC), riparian vegetation and Christies Creek, results in an overdevelopment of such a sensitive and significant site.

11. The development does not satisfy the provisions of DCP Section A5 - Subdivision Manual having regard to environmental constraints, stormwater runoff, drainage, waterways, flooding, buffers, lot layout, landscape character and natural landform.

12. The development does not satisfy the provisions of Tweed Development Control Plan Section B23 Hastings Point having regard to local character, the sites ecological sensitivities and the visual implications of the development.

13. The proposed development is not in the public interest and has failed to adequately address the concerns raised in the public submissions received following public notification of the proposal.


REPORT:

Applicant: Walter Elliott Holdings Owner: Walter Elliott Holdings Pty Ltd Location: Lot 156 DP 628026 No. 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point Zoning: 2(e) Residential Tourist and 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands &

Littoral Rainforests) Cost: $1,450,000 The Site: The subject site is located within the Village of Hastings Point. Within the immediate vicinity, the following elements frame the context of the site:

• The North Star Holiday Resort is directly adjacent, located on the northern side of Creek Street. The holiday park contains both permanent and temporary sites and a three storey building to the front of the site facing onto the Tweed Coast Road.

• Medium Density Apartments and attached dwellings (Hastings Cove) are located to the north east of the site adjacent to Coast Road.

• Single Detached Dwellings adjoin the site, located between Creek Street and the northern boundary.

• Cudgen Nature Reserve adjoins the western boundary of the site. The southern boundary of the property adjoins the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) of Christies Creek that connects to Cudgera Creek and a section of State Environmental Planning Policy 14 (SEPP 14) Coastal Wetland in the south east and eastern areas of the property.

The site is largely a vacant allotment (17.77 ha) with the exception of a single house recently constructed in accordance with development consent DA07/0600 (issued by Tweed Shire Council). Construction of this dwelling has been completed and the dwelling is currently occupied. The site is currently zoned:

• 61.4% - 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands & Littoral Rainforest) with 10.9ha

• 38.6% - 2(e) Residential Tourist with 6.8ha The Creek Street road reserve is unzoned for 70m of the sites eastern frontage to Creek Street but this unzoned land category changes to 7(l) Environmental Protection (Habitat) where the applicant shows the entry to the proposed subdivision and where the applicant proposes a turning bay. The site could be described as relatively level with a gentle slope to Christies Creek/Cudgera Estuary. Levels range from 2.0m AHD within the central northern section of the site grading to approximate 0.5 AHD along the southern boundary. The site features a large water body covering an area of approximately 1.4ha (constructed during dredging operations) situated within the central western section of the property whilst a narrow drainage channel traverses the north-western section of the site conveying water from the Creek Street road reserve before discharging into the artificial lake.


The central area of the site appears to have been extensively modified currently dominated by regularly maintained pasture grass. However, several large trees (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and other isolated copses of native vegetation have been retained and interspersed throughout the area of pasture. Disturbance to remnant marine and terrestrial vegetation situated to the south (associated with Christies Creek) and west of the drainage channel site is evident, however the area outside the 2(e) Residential Tourist zone appears to be regenerating and expanding where regular maintenance has ceased (i.e. mowing and trimming). The 7(a) Environmental Protection zone supports high value marine and terrestrial EEC's, mangroves and is known habitat for threatened species. The following conservation values and habitats are identified on the site:

• Key Habitat - Office of Environment and Heritage mapping (most of site).

• Regional Fauna corridor: Cudgen Link (focussed on Blossom Bat and Long-eared bat) -Office of Environment and Heritage mapping (all of site).

• Key Fish Habitat (one-third of site) as mapped 2007, whilst DPI Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management 2013 recognises saltmarsh and SEPP 14 Wetland as 'Type 1 Highly sensitive key fish habitat' and seagrass beds adjacent to the site and Mangroves as 'Type 2 Moderately sensitive key fish habitat'.

• Primary Koala Habitat - Coastal Forest Red Gum Open Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 304/ Coastal Swamp Mahogany Open Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 305 Swamp Sclerophyll) to the south-west of the site (Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study 2011).

• Secondary A Habitat - Coastal Pink Bloodwood Open Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 301/Coastal Swamp Box TVMS Code 309 Broad-leaved Paperbark Closed Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 401/Broad-leaved Paperbark/Swamp Sheoak Closed Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 402/Broad-leaved Paperbark + Eucalyptus spp. ± Swamp Box Closed Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 403/Swamp She-oak Closed Forest to Woodland TVMS Code 601 Sub tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest) south-western corner and riparian zone (terrestrial) (Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study 2011).

• Mapped meta-population (source populations) – ‘Significant Activity’ area across the subject site capturing foreshore areas and remnant units to the west onsite and adjoining Cudgen Nature Reserve analogous with vegetation associations described above. (Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study 2011).

• Within 20m of mapped and gazetted SEPP 14 Wetland (eastern edge).

• Surrounded by Cudgen Nature Reserve to the south, west and north and Cudgera estuary to the east.

• Cudgen Nature Reserve contains sensitive estuarine riparian environments, Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC's) and threatened species and their habitats, as well as additional important habitat values including hollow-bearing trees, large active raptor nests (Brahminy Kite), nectar and fruiting resources including winter-flowering Eucalypts and Primary Koala Food trees.

• The site has a total of around 1km of creek frontage to Cudgera Creek and its tributary Christies Creek (site is located at their confluence), both of which are 'small barrier estuaries highly regarded by the local communities with substantial productivity and biodiversity values' (TCEMP 2005).


• All mapped vegetation identified under the Tweed Vegetation Management Strategy 2004 (TVMS 2004) is determined to be of 'Very High Ecological Value' and 'High Ecological Sensitivity' as shown on Map 4 of 7 Ecological values TVMS 2004.

• Ranked within the top 100 (No. 28 in W1 overall category) of some 500 wetland and riverine ecosystems in the Tweed studied as part of the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment process (DEC 2006).

• The site supports four candidate Endangered Ecological Communities offering known and potential habitat (high to moderate likelihood) to 23 state listed species (TSC Act) one of which is Critically Endangered (Beach Stone Curlew). Two species (Koala and Grey-headed Flying Fox) identified occurring onsite are listed as Vulnerable under the commonwealth EPBC Act.

• The site is located within the Coastal zone in a sensitive coastal location as defined by SEPP 71, Clause 3 Part (1)(a)(g)(iii-iv)), whilst also regarded as an environmentally sensitive area under the SEPP Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008 (Clause 1.5(c)(f)), due to proximity to SEPP 14 wetlands and/or land reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (Cudgen Nature Reserve).

Background: The subject site has a long history initially in regard to unauthorised work and more recently when a proposed subdivision for 45 allotments was declared a Major Project by the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure and ultimately refused (MP06_0153) by the Planning & Assessment Commission. The assessment of the current application has had regard to this history and taken into account the following summarised history as previously undertaken by the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure. The site was illegally dredged and filled in the early 1980’s by the previous owner. In 1982 the same owner obtained a Deposited Plan, which depicted a surveyed Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) to be the sites' southern boundary. It was initially unclear if the subject site was surveyed prior to unlawful dredging. Due to legal proceedings actioned by Council, the same owner in 1988 was restrained from further dredging. The site was not required to be remediated. The NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure concluded in their assessment of MP06_0153 that the southern boundary was surveyed when the site was in its natural state and accordingly the southern boundary should be maintained. For the purposes of this assessment Council Officer’s have accepted this assessment and have considered the current application on this basis. The current landowner (who purchased the site in 2001) sought approval from the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure for a 45 lot residential subdivision (incorporating tourist lots) in 2006. The MP06_0153 proposed lot layout was as follows:


MP06_0153 Proposed 45 Lot Subdivision

This proposal (MP06_0153) was declared a Major Project on 26 September 2006 under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 as is was development listed in SEPP (Major Projects) 2005 being subdivision of residential zoned land into more than 25 lots and tourist facilities in the coastal zone. The application was exhibited when the original Environmental Assessment report was lodged and again when the Preferred Project Report was lodged. The application generated 266 submissions all objecting to the proposal. Following the Department’s Assessment of the proposed application the Planning & Assessment Commission (on behalf of the Minister) refused the application in February 2012 for the following reasons: 1. The scale and location of the development, together with the proposed flood mitigation

measures would result in an unacceptable risk to life, health and property within this flood prone community;

2. The development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 - Coastal Wetlands and State Environmental Planning Policy 71 - Coastal Protection and is contrary to the objects of the EP&A Act including the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development particularly given that there is significant uncertainty as to whether ecological impacts can be avoided or minimised to acceptable levels;

3. The development is incompatible with both the adjoining natural and built environment; and

4. The proposal is not in the public interest.

Proposed Development: The application currently before Council (DA13/0189) seeks approval for a 22 lot subdivision with lots varying in size between 705m2 and 11.7ha as follows:


20 of the 22 allotments are wholly contained within the 2(e) Residential Tourist portion of the site, however Lots 7 and 14 incorporate land zoned 7(a) and these two lots require concurrence from the NSW Department of Planning as the 7(a) portions of these two sites are less than the required 40 ha. It should be noted that whilst the majority of lots (except Lot 7 and 14 as discussed above) are situated within the 2(e) Residential Tourist portion of the site lots 1 – 6 on the western component of the site incorporate land that is considered to have ecological significance and the fragmentation of this sensitive environment is not supported. The proposed subdivision specifically includes filling the developable footprint of the site (2.324ha) with between 1.3m and 2m of fill. This amount of fill equates to approximately 36,000m3 of fill material which would need to be brought into the site via approximately 2,160 truck movements. In addition the proposed subdivision specifically incorporates works to Creek Street itself and the intersection with Tweed Coast Road to facilitate the proposed development. The applicant re-submitted the Traffic Report used in MP06_0153 which stated that Creek Street would be upgraded for its full length to a 7.5m pavement width with a pedestrian footpath on the southern side of Creek Street. The proposed vehicular entry from Creek Street into the subdivision is located partly on land zoned 7(l) Environmental Protection and roads are only permissible in this zone if they meet the provisions of Clause 8(2) of the Tweed LEP 2000. This is assessed later in this report. Four stormwater bio-retention devices are proposed within the road reserve to collect and treat stormwater from roads and building envelopes of individual Lots. The four devices are connected discharging to the south of Road 1 to a single outlet point within environmental land for Lot 7. The applicant has advised that this application varies from the previous application as follows:

1. Deletion of any Endangered Ecological Communities removal; 2. Minimisation of the development footprint so as to address emergency

evacuation requirements (namely the removal of the need to provide a high level evacuation path that had previously created a number of objections relating to aesthetic, amenity, practicality and viability concerns);

3. Minimisation of the development footprint so as to achieve a substantially increased buffer separation between both future dwelling houses and the filled area associated with the proposed development;


4. Rationalisation of property boundaries to address Council's apparent refusal to accept future ownership of residue areas and to ensure that all lands outside of the 2(e) zone are retained in the single ownership (thereby assisting in attaining the environmental objectives of the zoning relative to the larger residue parcel);

5. Rationalisation of proposed regeneration and rehabilitation areas so as to achieve a balance between unrestricted residential areas, controlled open space and environmental regeneration areas; and

6. Reduction of the development footprint so as to minimise the visual impact of development upon existing Creek Street residents with a view to the adjacent estuary and beyond.

The proposed lot layout is shown diagrammatically below:

DA13/0189 Proposed 22 Lot Subdivision

The application is considered Integrated Development and has required referrals from the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Office of Water. Both of which raise some serious concerns with the application as proposed. Concurrence was required and granted from the NSW Department of Planning to authorise two undersized lots (Lot 7 and Lot 14) which incorporate land zoned 7(a). Courtesy referrals were sent to the NSW Fisheries Ecosystem Branch and the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (Biodiversity Management Unit). Both of which raise some serious concerns with the application as proposed.


The application was publically exhibited between 15 May 2013 and 14 June 2013. Council received 131 objections to the proposed development all of which raise serious concerns with the application as proposed specifically having regard to the level of compliance with the Tweed DCP Section B23 Hastings Point, the uncharacteristic nature of the filled subdivision in comparison to the existing low set Creek Street, the impact on ecology and the environment holistically, the impact of flooding on the existing drainage network and general amenity and safety issues. Council Officers completed their assessment of the application and met with the applicant on 28 August 2013 to advise that Council Officers had some serious issues with the suitability of the project for the site having regard to the level of compliance with the relevant legislation and the individual merits of the application. Specifically the application incorporates too much fill that results in a development uncharacteristic of the area, has not adequately addressed the sensitive ecological environment, has not adequately addressed localised flooding behaviour, and has failed to adequately consider all the applicable legislation applying to this site. Council staff strongly recommended that the applicant withdraw the subject application and possibly re-lodge a revised Development Application (at a later date) which addresses all of the issues that have been identified in the assessment of this application. The applicant did not wish to withdraw the application and has requested time to address the identified issues. The applicant requested 3 months from 29 September 2013 plus one additional month over Christmas to provide an amended application. A complete copy of the applicant’s letter of 25 September 2013 forms an attachment to this report. Given the contents of this report Council Officers are of the view that any amended application would need to be substantially different to the application as lodged and accordingly that the best path is for the current application to be withdrawn or refused and a new revised application submitted when the applicant has adequately addressed all the matters raised in this report. The application is reported to Council given the extensive public submissions and the extensive history associated with this site.


SITE DIAGRAM:


AERIAL IMAGE:


TWEED LEP 2000 ZONING MAP:


DRAFT TWEED LEP 2012 ZONING MAP:


LOT LAYOUT PLAN:


BUILDING ENVELOPE PLAN:


EARTHWORKS LAYOUT PLAN:


COUNCIL’s MAP OF THE SITE DEMONSTRATING CONSTRAINTS:


COUNCIL’s MAP OF THE SITE DEMONSTRATING SALTMARSH OVER AERIAL:


Considerations Under Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan A principle aim of the Plan is to ensure:

The management of growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Shire is retained, and its economic vitality, ecological integrity and cultural fabric is enhanced.

The development as proposed is not considered to have adequate regard for the sites sensitive environmental nature and adequately fails to have regard for the character of this existing area. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development The intent of this clause is to provide for development which is compatible with principles of ecological sustainable development (ESD) including the precautionary principle, inter-generational equity, ecological and environmental factors. The subject site forms an approximate one kilometre boundary to Cudgera Estuary and Christies Creek and is recognised to support high ecological value wetland (SEPP14), Endangered Ecological Communities (4), and is known to provide habitat for a suite of listed threatened species. Following review the primary ecological issues include: a. Lack of current (vegetation mapping and fauna survey effort), accurate and

detailed information in respect to key site values (Threatened Species and Endangered Ecological Communities), ecological processes and the cumulative impact on those ecological values that would be likely to occur if risks were inadequately/inappropriately managed during the construction and operational phase of the development.

b. Disregard for key policy documents and guidelines that should be used to inform/influence the layout and management of the development during the design phase. In this regard benchmark buffer dimensions of minimum 50metres have been compromised.

c. Long term management of the site under a private freehold arrangement as opposed to more secure long term protection and management of core habitat areas and buffer zones through the dedication of land to Council.

The development as proposed is not considered to have adequate regard for the ESD provisions as outlined in the Tweed LEP 2000. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if:





The proposed development is located over land zoned partly 2(e) Residential Tourist Zone, partly within the 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest) zone, partly 7(l) Environmental Protection (habitat) and partially unzoned land within the current Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. The 2(e) zone objectives state:

Primary Objective to encourage the provision of family-oriented tourist accommodation and related facilities and services in association with residential development including a variety of forms of low and medium density housing and associated tourist facilities such as hotels, motels, refreshment rooms, holiday cabins, camping grounds, caravan parks and compatible commercial services which will provide short-term accommodation and day tourist facilities. Secondary Objective to permit other development which has an association with a residential/tourist environment and is unlikely to adversely affect the residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for residential use.

The development does not contain any specific tourist component and is therefore not consistent with the zone objective. It is noted that Draft LEP 2013 proposes to re-zone part of the site to R1 General Residential which would enable the residential development to proceed, however, this presently comprises a reason for the application to be refused. The 7(a) zone objectives state

Primary objectives

• to identify, protect and conserve significant wetlands and littoral rainforests.

• to prohibit development which could destroy or damage a wetland or littoral rainforest ecosystem.

Secondary objectives

• to protect the scenic values of wetlands and littoral rainforests.

• to allow other development that is compatible with the primary function of the zone.

The allocation of 7(a) land within Lot 14 is considered unnecessary and to conflict with the 7(a) zone objectives by fragmenting land zone 7(a) between multiple land owners. That part of Lot 14 within the 7(a) land should be amalgamated with the remaining 7(a) land within Lot 7. This comprises a reason for the application to be refused.


The 7(l) zone objectives state Primary Objectives

• to protect areas or features which have been identified as being of particular habitat significance.

• to preserve the diversity of habitats for flora and fauna.

• to protect and enhance land that acts as a wildlife corridor. Secondary Objectives

• to protect areas of scenic value.

• to allow for other development that is compatible with the primary function of the zone.

The proposed entry road off Creek Street is partially located in land currently zoned 7(l). In addition Draft LEP 2013 proposes to re-zone the entire road frontage to Lot 156 to E3 Environmental Management. The proposed road within that part of the road reserve zoned 7(l) is not considered to comply with the zone objectives. In regards to Clause 8(1)(b) this report individually assesses all the applicable Clauses of the LEP and where there are non compliances these have been added to the recommendation for refusal. In regards to Clause 8(1)(c) Council Officers are concerned that the application as proposed would have an unacceptable cumulative impact in regards to local character, ecology and local drainage and flooding matters. These matters are discussed in more detail throughout this report. Non compliance with this clause has been added to the reasons for refusal. In addition the proposed vehicular entry from Creek Street into the subdivision is located partly on land zoned 7(l) Environmental Protection and roads are only permissible in this zone if they meet the provisions of Clause 8(2) of the Tweed LEP 2000. Clause 8(2) states that: (2) The consent authority may grant consent to development specified in Item 3

of the Table to clause 11 only if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the consent authority that: (a) the development is necessary for any one of the following reasons:

(i) it needs to be in the locality in which it is proposed to be carried out due to the nature, function or service catchment of the development,

(ii) it meets an identified urgent community need, (iii) it comprises a major employment generator, and

(b) there is no other appropriate site on which the development is permitted with consent development (other than as advertised development) in reasonable proximity, and

(c) the development will be generally consistent with the scale and character of existing and future lawful development in the immediate area, and


(d) the development would be consistent with the aims of this plan and at least one of the objectives of the zone within which it is proposed to be located.

The applicants Statement of Environmental Effects has failed to acknowledge the applicable 7(l) zone and failed to address Clause 8(2) in this regard. The proposed road could be located further to the east in that portion of the road reserve currently unzoned and therefore the entry road has failed to adequately satisfy Clause 8(2). Clause 11 - Zone Objectives As detailed above the development as proposed does not satisfy the zone objectives and this forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application. Clause 15 - Essential Services The application proposes to connect to Council’s Water & Sewer Infrastructure. The information contained within the applicants Statement of Environmental Effects is deficient as outlined to the applicant on 13 September 2013 (see Attachment 5). Clause 20 Subdivision in 7(a) land Clause 20 states that the minimum allotment size for land zoned 7(a) is 40ha. Twenty of the twenty two allotments are wholly contained within the 2(e) Residential Tourist portion of the site, however Lots 7 and 14 incorporate land zoned 7(a) as shown below:

Lot 7 is proposed to have a site area of 11.74 ha - 10.827ha of that is zoned 7(a). Lot 14 is proposed to have a site area of 5902m2 – 2117m2 of that is zoned 7(a). The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 20 of the Tweed LEP 2000 and argued that:


"Lot 7 will be created so as to encapsulate the majority of the 7(a) zoned land within its property boundary. This will serve to retain a large parcel to conserve the Endangered Ecological Communities on-site. It will also prevent the further subdivision of the 7(a) land. Lot 14 will include an elongated portion of 7(a) land which serves as a buffer and bushfire asset protection zone for the adjacent residential properties. The inclusion of this small parcel of 7(a) serves to increase the bushfire safety of the Creek St locality."

This SEPP 1 application required concurrence from the NSW Department of Planning as the 7(a) portions of these two sites are less than the required 40 ha. The NSW Department of Planning granted concurrence for these allotments and stated as follows:

"Following consideration of the application, concurrence has been granted to vary the 40 hectare development standard as prescribed under clause 20(2)(a) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000. It is suggested that Council include a condition of consent, if appropriate, which states:

• No residential, associated buildings or structures permitted on land zoned 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest).

Concurrence was granted in this instance for the following reasons:

• No issues of state or regional significance are raised;

• Any residential dwellings will be situated entirely within the 2(e) zone. No buildings or associated structures would be permitted in the 7(a) zone;

• The land identified for environmental protection will generally be encompassed within one single land title; and

• The creation of Lot 7 & 14 will no impact on any EEC or SEPP14 wetland species."

These comments are not entirely concurred with by Council Officers as the 7(a) land proposed with Lot 14 could easily form part of Lot 7 to avoid fragmentation and still achieve the buffer and asset protection objectives outlined by the applicant. Therefore non compliance with Clause 20(2) has been used as one of the reasons for refusal. Clause 25 Development in the 7(a) Environmental protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests) and on adjoining land The objective is to ‘ensure that wetlands and littoral rainforests are preserved and protected in the environmental and economic interests of the area of Tweed ‘As such Council must consider whether the proposal adequately addresses potential construction and post construction impacts (as stated in Clause 25(3)) and management arrangements that may negatively affect the long term health and viability of the adjoining significant wetland area supporting EEC, threatened species habitat and key fish habitat.


Conceptual stormwater/groundwater management plans have been provided that recognize the sensitivity of adjacent ecological areas and identify potential impacts that may result from changes in the current hydraulic regime. These plans and the applicants Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Assessment however fail to adequately consider the existing hydraulic conditions (through baseline investigation) influencing the adjoining wetland or water-quality of the receiving waterway. Detailed investigations would be expected to influence the design of the development (i.e. Lot layout) and form the basis of such management documents. Without comprehensive analysis of existing conditions it is difficult to determine the intensity and extent of likely cumulative impacts particularly where inadequate ecological buffer zones/separation distances between highly significant ecological features have been proposed. The applicant states that 50 metre buffers are to be provided between the EEC’s (including Saltmarsh EEC) and any development works (i.e. construction, earthworks and dwellings etc)(pp. 62), similarly the development layout plan depicts an area described as Environmental Open Space within the 50 metre buffer indicating ‘Nil built structures’ and ‘Nil fill and/or excavation works’. These statements and plans are in direct conflict with the engineering and stormwater management plans that clearly show filling and stormwater structures extending a substantial distance (up to 25 metres) within the buffer zones. In addition it is noted that the buffer zones shown on the layout plans have been applied to vegetation polygons identified on outdated and inaccurate mapping. With reference to more recent vegetation community mapping (based on 2009 aerial interpretation and 2013 field verified) buffers are further restricted and terrestrial EEC setbacks adjacent to Lots are negligible. In terms of compatible public access and long term management of the buffer zones the EIA states ‘no public open space will be created’ pp. 5, which is reflected on the Lot layout plan and consistent with statements in the SEE. The situation of Lots incorporating and bounding sensitive wetland habitat and EEC’s managed individually is not considered appropriate to ensure long term protection and coordinated, best management of these important values. A conceptual habitat restoration plan has been provided that identifies a fence to be installed along the footprint of the proposed fill platform, yet there is clear evidence this single management measure has not been effective in avoiding disturbance of native flora and fauna as a result of intrusion by humans and domestic and feral animals, increasing fire risk, rubbish dumping, weed invasion and vegetation clearing. The proposal is not supported without the establishment of adequate ecological buffers as shown on the below diagram (excluding all earthworks/structures/built form), identification of offset areas, extensive rehabilitation of buffer areas to a level and maintenance duration necessary to achieves site capture, and the dedication of buffer zones to Council to be managed (in accordance with an open space management plan prepared by the applicant) for conservation purposes. In any redesign a road should form the edge to the environmentally sensitive areas to avoid private land backing on to environmentally sensitive areas.


Clause 29 Development Adjoining 8(a) National Parks & Nature Reserves The site adjoins Cudgen Nature Reserve and Cudgera Estuary as such the application has been referred to Office of Environment & Heritage and NSW Trade & Investment Crown Lands for comment. In any redesign the applicant should consider dedicating all sensitive land to National Parks to minimize 'the potential for disturbance of native flora and fauna as a result of intrusion by humans and domestic and feral animals, increased fire risk, rubbish dumping, weed invasion and vegetation clearing”. Clause 31 Development adjoin waterbodies This clause requires that consent not be granted unless the development is compatible with any coastal, estuary or river plan of management; will not have a significant adverse effect on scenic quality, water quality, marine ecosystems or biodiversity of riverine and estuarine ecosystems and adequate arrangements for public access are provided where appropriate. The development footprint conflicts with the Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004-2008 and most recent Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Tweed Coast Estuaries in that 50m buffers are not consistently provided to wetlands and waterways, and that matters previously discussed under Clause 25 and issues raised by referral/advice agencies have been insufficiently considered and addressed to support the proposal in its current form. Council Officers are not confident that ‘the development will not have a significant adverse effect on scenic quality, water quality, marine ecosystems, or the bio-diversity of the riverine or estuarine area or its function as a wildlife corridor or habitat’, and that the applicant has failed to demonstrated that ‘adequate arrangements for public access to and use of foreshore areas have been made in those cases where the consent authority considers that public access to and use of foreshore areas are appropriate and desirable requirements’.


Clause 34 Flooding The information submitted in regards to flooding is inadequate. An engineering impact assessment would be required which details the impacts of the proposed filling for a range of design events up to the 100 year ARI storm for the local contributing catchment, to demonstrate no significant adverse impact on local catchment flows from development to the north of the site (North Star Caravan Park and Creek Street residences) to Christies Creek to the south. This should include hydraulic modelling, based on contemporary ground level survey, and calibrated to known floods such as the June 2005 event. In addition the applicant has been asked to provide a response from consultants (BMT WBM) to the MWA Environmental report attached to the public submission by O'Reilly Sever & Co. which opposes the applicants flooding analysis. The criticism specifically relates to the calibration of the modelling used for regional flood impact assessment for the June 2005 flood event, and the selection of design storm intensity and duration used in the assessment. Clause 34 has not adequately been satisfied. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils Appropriate conditions of consent could be imposed in regards to acid sulfate soils. Clause 39 – Contaminated Land An Engineering Impact Assessment (GC130001-C0703-C-R-EIA-001) prepared by VDM dated April 2013 (App D Pts 1-3 of SEE) has been submitted. The Assessment states a preliminary soil contamination report prepared by Opus International Consultants is attached as App D. No report is attached. A Preliminary Soil Contamination Report would be required which specifically considered possible historic sand mining activities. The lack of this report forms a reason for refusal of this application. Clause 39A – Bushfire Protection The proposed development is considered Integrated Development requiring concurrence form the NSW Rural Fire Service. The RFS have recommended conditions of consent which would render the proposed subdivision unviable in its current form (specifically in regard to the width of internal roads). Council Officers' questioned the RFS on these conditions as follows:

"Council has reviewed your recommended conditions and raises the following questions/comments on those conditions:

• The proposed roads in the application only have 6m wide sealed pavement within a 12m wide road reserve (i.e. grass verge and footpath either side of the 6m wide sealed pavement) not 8m as per your condition.

• Council is recommending the applicant use water sensitive urban road design in this location which require a 6m wide sealed pavement within a 17m wide road reserve (i.e 5.5m either side of the road pavement formed as a grass swale drain).

• Council's minimum pavement is 6m and it is considered onerous to make the applicant construct roads with an 8m pavement width for a small amount of allotments.


• Other major subdivisions in Tweed Shire have not had these onerous restrictions applied i.e. Kings Forest has approved roads of 6m (which is surrounded by environmentally sensitive land and bushfire prone lane). Other examples include Black Rocks and Casuarina subdivisions (urban subdivisions surrounded by bushfire prone land and approved after adoption of the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 document).

• A cul-de-sac width of 12m is usually required for an industrial subdivision for the turning of semi trailers, Council's standards for urban subdivisions is a 9m wide radius which is wide enough for a garbage truck or fire truck with a loading of 15 tonnes to turnaround.

These conditions are stock standard from the 'Planning for Bushfire Fire Protection 2006' document and the Hastings Point application does not comply with them, either do Council's road standards for an urban subdivision with local access streets. The RFS access conditions appear onerous for an urban subdivision (8m wide sealed road and 12m wide radius for cul-de-sac) and inconsistent with previous approvals issued by the DP&I and Council with RFS sign off. Could you please review your comments accordingly and advise Council of your final GTA’s."

The following response was received: "The RFS has reviewed your comments below and provides the following response. The proposed subdivision is for residential purposes. PBP 2006 requires perimeter roads where the residential lots interface with the mapped bush fire hazard. The proposed subdivision layout does not comply with this requirement and the application documents presented minimal discussion on the proposed internal road layout. The RFS assumed a reason for the proposed internal road layout was to reduce the environmental impact of a road system bordering riparian lands including EEC vegetation. Further the RFS was not presented with any reasoning for internal road design and formations to be below the RFS minimal design standards. The applicant, and/or Council, will need to demonstrate that the proposed road system will comply with the Performance Criteria of Section 4.1.3 (1) of PBP 2006 for the RFS to consider amending the issued BFSA."

The applicant has been provided with this advice from the RFS and any amended application will need to address this accordingly. Non compliance with this clause and the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines generally forms a reason for refusal of this application.


In addition the bushfire plan prescribes an Asset Protection Zone in the form of an Inner Protection Area of 10 metres around the periphery of the building envelopes. This area is to be managed in accordance with RFS guidelines (i.e clear of vegetation). Concerns are raised however that the assessment and subsequent calculation of asset protection has not adequately taken into account the extent of habitat restoration and the type of vegetation to be re-established. This could potentially have an impact on future rehabilitation/re-vegetation effort where for example vegetation that is afforded a high hazard rating is not accounted for in the calculations and as such may place restrictions on revegetation in the future if the current plan was to be endorsed without detailed assessment and in the absence of a habitat restoration plan. As such it is questioned whether site rehabilitation would be compromised and that further investigation is warranted to demonstrate that appropriate asset protection zones have been calculated based on future habitat conditions within buffers. Clause 54 - Tree preservation order The subject site is covered by the Tweed Shire Council 2011 (Koala Habitat) Tree Preservation Order as well as the 2004 Tree Preservation Order. Comments in this regard are provided under SEPP 44 and the general ecology comments later in this report. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 15: Wetlands or Fishery Habitats This Clause requires consideration of certain wetland areas and seeks to ensure the need to (amongst other things) maintain or improve the quality or quantity of flows of water to the wetland or habitat and ensure native vegetation surrounding the wetland or fishery habitat area is conserved. The proposed development does not adequately satisfy this provision. Clause 32B: Coastal Lands The subject land is designated coastal land and therefore this clause applies. The clause requires the consideration of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997 seeks to: protect, rehabilitate and improve the natural environment; protect and enhance aesthetic qualities and cultural heritage; and to provide for ecologically sustainable human development in the coastal zone. The proposed development does not satisfy this provision. Clause 43: Residential development Clause 43 states that Council shall not grant consent to development for residential purposes unless, amongst other things, it is satisfied that the density of the dwellings have been maximised without adversely affecting the environmental features of the land. Clause 43 also advises that the road network should be designed so as to encourage the use of public transport and minimise the use of private transport. The proposed development does not satisfy this provision.


Clause 81: Development adjacent to the ocean or a waterway This Clause states consent shall not be granted for development on land within 100 metres of the ocean or any substantial waterway unless it is satisfied that buildings to be erected as part of the development will not detract from the amenity of the waterway. The large extent of fill means that future dwellings could have a visual impact on existing sight lights from prominent locations. These are discussed in detail later in this report. SEPP No. 1 - Development Standards The applicant seeks consent to vary Clause 20(2) as discussed earlier in this report. Whilst the NSW Department of Planning granted concurrence for this SEPP 1 Council Officers are of the opinion that the 7(a) land within Lot 14 be reallocated to Lot 7 which holds the residue 7(a) land. SEPP No. 14 – Coastal Wetlands SEPP 14 requires that works involving draining, constructing a levee, filling or vegetation clearing are designated development. Whilst the development does not propose such action directly on the gazetted mapped wetland, such works are proposed (filling) within 100m of the mapped boundary. It is considered that buffers provided are inadequate. Council Officers cannot be confident that hydraulic impacts, nutrient loading would not have an adverse effect on SEPP14 and surrounding wetland associations in the absence of detailed investigations including the collecting and analyzing of baseline data which would be expected to inform management measures/lot layout and ultimately appropriate buffers. SEPP No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection SEPP 44 Koala Habitat requires a Koala Plan of Management to be produced for ‘core’ Koala habitat. Whilst the number of Primary Koala food trees may not represent 15% of the site, insufficient survey has been undertaken to exclude Koala usage of the site and Primary Koala food trees are proposed for removal. The Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study (Biolink 2011) has highlighted that Koala aggregations remaining on the Tweed Coast are already regarded as below the minimum viable populations size and are at real risk of extinction within the next three Koala generations in the absence of active intervention. An application to the Scientific Committee to list the Tweed Coast Koalas as an Endangered Population under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 has been forwarded to the committee for consideration whilst a Tweed Coast Koala Plan of Management is currently in preparation. The south western area of the site provides an essential connection between known populations at Koala Beach and Primary Habitat in Cudgen nature reserve, yet is not considered from a Koala habitat perspective. Further analysis is required in this regard.


The SEPP 44 stipulates that land containing “core Koala habitat” can only be developed in accordance with a management plan. Given the source population mapping of the Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study 2011 and the presence of Primary and Secondary A Koala habitat on the site, it is considered that insufficient survey has been undertaken to conclude that the site is not core Koala habitat. This is particularly the case given the duration between previous fauna survey effort and submission of the current application where there has been significant regeneration of preferred Koala feed tree species (listed under Schedule 2 titled 'Feed Tree Species' of the SEPP) (Eucalyptus robusta) within the west of the site. SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection The subject site occurs within the coastal zone recognized as a ‘sensitive coastal location’ (land 100 metres from Cudgera Estuary and area mapped as SEPP 14 Wetlands) that is offered frontage to the coastal foreshore. As a result Clause 8 applies and aims to, amongst other things, protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast; protect and improve existing public access to and along the coast; to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage; to ensure visual amenity of the coast is protected; to protect beach environments and beach amenity as well as coastal vegetation and the marine environment; to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; to ensure the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area; and encourages a strategic approach to coastal management. The development proposal does not adequately respond to these considerations to ensure that the development is compatible with adjoining significant habitat and that cumulative impacts are appropriately managed or avoided.

(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments Draft LEP 2013 proposes to rezone the site partially R1 General Residential and partially E2 Environmental Management. Most of the issues identified in this report remain valid when having regard to the Draft LEP 2013.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A3-Development of Flood Liable Land a) Compliance with Emergency Response Provisions for Subdivisions Whilst the subject site is 17.7ha the application only proposes 22 allotments within a filled developable land area of 2.324 ha.


There is a threshold in Development Control Plan Section A3 - Development of Flood Liable Land Clause A3.2.6 that requires subdivisions larger than 5ha to make provisions for high level evacuation access. Subdivisions smaller than 5ha are considered to be "infill" development, and are excluded from the evacuation requirements. While DCP-A3 specifies that the land area must account for residual parcels of urban zoned land, this particular case has been considered by Council’s Executive Management Team, and provided the residual land can be appropriately quarantined from further development, it has been deemed appropriate to deal with this application under the "infill" provisions. This removes the need to construct a road at or above the design flood level, which in the previous application caused issues with transverse drainage, flood impact, visual impact and buffer encroachment. It is also not practical to try and raise Creek Street to the required level given the relative level of adjoining residences, and lack of stormwater drainage in the street. As such, the subdivision design provides for external road access from Creek Street, filling of the developable portion of each allotment within the proposed 2.324ha area, and future construction of dwellings with freeboard (subject to future applications). Given the evacuation constraints for the site, the applicant has nominated to provide covenants on each allotment requiring the construction of dwellings with refuge areas above the probable maximum flood (PMF). While this is not mandated in the current version of DCP-A3, it is an acceptable flood risk management approach in this location given the expected frequency of Creek St being affected by flooding and drainage problems. b) Design Flood Levels The application is unclear on the adopted design flood levels (DFL) in this location, and there are discrepancies between the various reports in the appendices. In general the applicant proposes to fill each residential allotment to be above the climate change DFL. Council's mapping confirms a design flood level (current day 100 year ARI) of RL 2.6m AHD, and a climate change DFL of RL 2.9m AHD. DCP-A3 only requires adoption of the climate change DFL for "greenfield" subdivision greater than 5 ha, so is not mandated in this case. Minimum habitable floor level for residential development on the subject land is therefore RL 3.1m AHD under DCP-A3. PMF level at this location is RL 4.0m AHD, not RL 3.9m AHD as stated by the applicant. c) Fill Heights and Extents DCP-A3 mandates filling of land to a minimum of the design flood level (that is, RL 2.6m AHD) for residential subdivision purposes in this locality, subject to demonstrating that the development will not adversely affect the current flood patterns and levels in the area. DCP-A3 sets minimum fill levels only, and it is therefore satisfactory from a flood protection perspective to fill in excess of this, as proposed by the applicant (average fill level is approximately RL 3.6m AHD). This additional fill is required to some extent for engineering purposes, to achieve adequate grades on allotments and roadways for stormwater drainage, sewerage infrastructure etc.


An issue with the application is that it states that all development will be limited to the 2.324ha contained within the "Proposed Development Footprint", shown on plans in Appendix B. This however does not agree with the fill plans in Appendix D - Engineering Impact Assessment, where filling has been expanded beyond this boundary. This is best depicted in Figure 1.2 (below) from the Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix I), where the fill extent in pink extends beyond the purple development boundary, reducing the nominated "Environmental Open Space" areas between the purple and blue lines:

Should the filling be reduced back to the purple line, this would have consequences for lots 05, 06 and 13, as there is barely enough room for a standard 10x15m house pad required by DCP-A5. Lot 5 is further constrained by the current location of the biofiltration basin on the street frontage (shown in green). Reduction of filling on Lot 14 is also required, and given the difficulties associated with filling to the boundaries of the three established dwelling lots on Creek Street (No's 26-30) and the need for additional drainage in this area, any amended application, from an Engineering perspective should consolidate Lots 14 and 15. Further, ecologically Council Officers disagree with the purple development boundary, and this requires further amendments. This will impact further on the developable extent of the site, and therefore the fill extent.


d) Hydraulic Impacts of Filling - Regional Flood The importation of fill to the site creates the potential for adverse impacts on flooding behaviour in the locality. There are two flood mechanisms that must be explored - the regional flood and the local catchment flood. For the regional flood case, the impact of the fill must be tested hydraulically against flooding emanating from the wider Cudgera and Christies Creek catchments and interacting with ocean storm surges and tides. Appendix G contains a Flood Impact Assessment. This is not a new assessment based on the current subdivision and fill design, but the submission of the flood study completed for the previous proposal (dated May 2011 plus Addendum August 2011). The flood study was based on Council's regional Coastal Creeks Flood Model and was undertaken by the same consultants (BMT WBM) used by Council for the Coastal Creeks Flood Study. The flood study looked at potential impacts of the development for a range of flood intensities, from the 2 year ARI up to the PMF, and included examination of the June 2005 flood event, and a climate change scenario. The report provides mapping of "Developed Case Peak Flood Level Impacts" which shows for the range of events impacts across the floodplain are in the range of -0.03 to +0.03 (which generally defines the limit of reading of the model). The exception was the June 2005 flood event, which when modelled produced some isolated higher impacts at the western end of Creek Street, as shown in the following impact map:


The report addressed these modelled impacts as follows: "As can be seen in Figure 6, there is one area of peak flood level impact along the northern boundary of the site. The cause of this appears to be some modification to the flow characteristics across the site due to the development. Filling of the site slightly restricts the flowpath from north to south through the central/east portion of the site causing water to flow in a westerly direction, confined to the Creek St road reserve.. It is also possible that the flood impacts reported within the Creek St road reserve may be conservative (over estimated). This is due to the limitations associated with representing local stormwater features using a catchment wide flood model based on a coarser resolution model grid (15m). Specifically, catch drains not represented in the flood model are proposed flowing west along the Creek St road reserve (Swale = 0.35m deep, 0.5m base width, 1x4 side slopes and minimum longitudinal grade of 0.5%) and also south into Christies Creek (Concrete lined drain = 0.2m deep, 0.75m wide and minimum longitudinal grade of 0.5%). It is likely that these drains are of sufficient capacity to accommodate the floodwaters flowing along the Creek St road reserve (<0.2m3/s), as such reducing the flood impacts within this location. If it is identified that the above mentioned additional flowpath requires assessment in detail, it is recommended that this be undertaken at the detailed stormwater design stage."

The approach to require further examination of perimeter and road drainage to mitigate these predicted flood impacts with detailed design in a future construction certificate application was conditionally accepted in the previous assessment. While some submissions by Creek Street residents disputed the validity of the Flood Study, the following assessment was made previously:

"The additional model runs show little or no adverse flood impact. For catchment dominated events a marginal improvement in peak flood levels is even achieved. The consultants were questioned on these observations and it is apparently due to proposed drainage and reshaping works adjacent to the creek and environmental areas, which allow for increased flows around the development compared to pre-development conditions. Local residents have provided Council officers with a number of photographs of recent storm and flood events, which dispute the inundation patterns shown on the flood mapping, particularly for the June 2005 event. The residents believe that these photos provide evidence that the areas shown to be dry in the flood mapping were inundated to a significant level in the June 2005 flood. The consultants were questioned on these observations, and a comparison was made between the digital elevation model (DEM) used for the TSC model, based on 2007 airborne laser scanning (ALS) data, and the ground survey data provided by the applicant. These were shown to correlate well. The 2005 event was used as a calibration event for Council’s Coastal Creeks Flood Study. This calibration modelling was within 120mm of an observed point obtained by BMT WBM from a Creek Street resident adjoining the development site. While this discrepancy would affect the inundation extent given the flat nature of the site, the residents’ observations of flood depth do not correlate with the calibrated flood modelling...


The applicant’s consultants have utilised the best and most current flood model that is available for the Hastings Point area to demonstrate that the proposed filling and associated development will not adversely impact on local flood behaviour and neighbouring properties. This issue has been adequately addressed, subject to the Department of Planning’s consideration of resident submissions opposing the accuracy of the flood modelling."

It is noted that the regional flood impact assessment has been similarly challenged by objectors' submissions to the subject application. This includes a report prepared by an "independent expert" in the field of flood studies and modelling. These submissions are discussed in more detail below. It is generally difficult for Council to oppose the flood modelling as it is based on the best available data, and it is the same regional flood model upon which Council's own flood risk management in the area is based. The applicant's consultants have been requested to respond to the objectors' submissions where they relate to the validity of the flood modelling so that they can provide a technical response, as these matters are beyond the level of expertise of the assessing officers. It is therefore concluded that the limitations of regional flood modelling to represent minor drainage systems and local catchment flows are generally responsible for the discrepancies that are highlighted in the objectors' submissions, and that the applicant has reasonably demonstrated that the development will not have significant impacts on regional flood behaviour. e) Hydraulic Impacts of Filling - Local Flood In additional to regional flooding assessment, local flooding impacts must be investigated. The fill has the potential to block local drainage flow paths, to the possible detriment of urban development to the north (the North Star Caravan Park and Creek Street), as sheet flows make their way through the subject allotment to the receiving water body of Christies Creek. This has potential for impact, as has been demonstrated in the Flood Impact Assessment by the regional flood model. The Flood Impact Assessment described above does not consider in detail the local catchment flood, and the model used for the regional flood investigation is generally not suitable to do so without considerable refinement (currently the model has a 15m grid which is too coarse to properly identify local drainage features). While the applicant assumes that local drainage and ponding issues can be adequately dealt with by perimeter drainage around the fill footprint and enhanced road drainage in Creek Street, this has not been demonstrated technically, and no details have been provided in the Engineering Assessment (Appendix D). As detailed above, it is the local catchment flood behaviour that needs to be properly investigated in order to address the considerable concerns raised by objectors to the subject application. It is therefore appropriate that further information be provided in the form of detailed impact modelling results. f) Urban Design Impacts of Filling Concerns have been raised that the mandatory filling of the development for flooding purposes is contrary to the provisions of DCP-B23 Hastings Point Locality Based Development Code.


Control 8 in Section 4.2.3.3 states: 8. The filling of land to avoid flooding must be carefully considered to

avoid impacts on adjoining land and water resources and in particular:

• changing the existing quality of the landscape and visual setting to the settlement;

• removal of vegetation generally and within key visual settings;

• loss of visual privacy;

• unsightly retaining walls or unsightly embankments at boundaries;

• destruction of ecological systems and species, and

• destruction of the delicate composition of soil and water gradations from land to water.

While DCP-A3 requires consideration of hydraulic impacts as discussed above, the more subjective issues of local character, visual and landscape impacts must be considered under DCP-B23. As the proposal requires filling of between 1.3m - 2.0m in depth, and promotes PMF refuges which will require two storey dwellings on top of this fill, such impacts may be significant. While these aspects are discussed in more detail below this assessment has considered an alternate solution whereby the fill requirements of DCP-A3 could be varied while still addressing flood risk. g) Alternate Solution - Filling DCP-A3 mandates filling of land for residential subdivision purposes, and does not support variations to reduce fill levels and/or stilt housing construction on a scale beyond single dwelling applications. Please note that the infill exemptions which apply to the need for an emergency access road do not apply to the general filling requirements for residential land. Typically filling of urban subdivision land significantly reduces the risk to property, due to increased flood immunity, and facilitates improved evacuation access when it can incorporate rising road access. Unfortunately in the case of the subject land, which relies on Creek Street for evacuation, the filling of the site provides few benefits in terms of emergency response. Therefore, when weighing up the apparent conflicts between DCP-A3 and the locality specific DCP-B23, the relative flood risk benefits of alternate development types should be considered if they achieve superior urban design objectives. Firstly the filling proposal as put forward by the applicant is in excess of Council's minimum requirements, and could be reduced to lessen the impact on view corridors. However the proposed inclusion of PMF refuges necessitates two-storey dwellings on the fill pad, or further increases in the fill level. Neither appears desirable under DCP-B23.


An alternate option is to vary the DCP-A3 filling requirements to limit fill to the minimum height necessary to provide adequate grading on roads and allotments for services, and mandate stilt housing in order to provide adequate protection to habitable areas. In order to limit property risks, ground floor enclosures should be non-habitable and limited in area to 50m2 (as applies in other flood prone localities, such as Chinderah). Lower level access roads will reduce evacuation capability, so to offset this risk, a minimum habitable floor level of RL 4.0m AHD (PMF level) should then be applied. This works well with the prevailing site levels, and is a feasible compromise between the objectives of DCP-A3 and DCP-B23. Dwelling design requirements could be applied via s88B restrictions on each subdivision lot when an amended design is formulated. The reduction in fill height under this option does not necessarily overcome the potential local flood impacts discussed above. As the site is basically level, even minimal fill and regrading works necessary to provide the necessary infrastructure could block existing flow paths or divert sheet flows. Based on floor level survey data collected by Council as part of the Coastal Creeks Floodplain Risk Management Study, the lowest residential floor level in Creek Street is only RL 2.21m AHD, which is very low relative to the existing ground levels across the development site. Should the applicant wish to re-design the subdivision it would be strongly advised that the above alternative to filling be adopted. A5-Subdivision Manual The proposed subdivision has not adequately addressed the provisions as outlined in Section A5. The subdivision design has not had adequate regard to environmental constraints, stormwater runoff, drainage, waterways, flooding, buffers, lot layout, landscape character and natural landform. Accordingly, non-compliance with this section of the DCP forms a reason for refusal. A6-Biting Midge and Mosquito Control A Mosquito and Biting Midge Impact Assessment prepared by Mosquito Consulting Services PL dated 30 May 2008 (App N of SEE) was submitted with the DA. However, the assessment is based on a prior proposal and has not been amended to reflect the current proposal. It has not been informed by the stormwater management infrastructure plan nor consideration of the landscaping proposed both of which would influence biting midge impact. An amended site specific mosquito and biting midge assessment would be required having consideration of site layout, stormwater management infrastructure and the proposed landscaping plans. B23-Hastings Point Tweed DCP Section B23 was prepared following extensive public consultation. The DCP states that development of Lot 156 is problematic due to the sites' ecological sensitivity. The development as proposed has failed to adequately address the DCP and failed to respond to the site sensitive ecological status. The following specific comments are provided:


Fill Impacts on Streetscape The general design approach to import significant amounts of fill to build up the collective building envelope area is contrary to the character of Creek Street and its surrounds which will have a number of streetscape, interface and visual impacts. The Hastings Point Locality Based DCP states:

"Creek Street is a quiet coastal residential street that provides access solely to lots along Creek Street, it is not a through road. Large setbacks and unmade edges characterise the street. The setting is complemented by mature vegetation within many front gardens along the street. Low and open coastal style fencing gives an informal character to the street."

Filling of the site will introduce significant boundary and interface level changes, batters, retaining walls and elevated building pads which will disrupt the existing pattern of development along Creek Street as demonstrated by Council’s diagram below:

Figure 1 - Proposed level change and retaining wall between existing Creek Street allotments and proposed allotments.

As such the question of fill versus flood resilient design needs to be appraised in the context of what additional cumulative impact the proposed fill across the site will have on adjoining and existing dwellings, resultant building heights, visual character and view fields impacts from the broader locality. Fill Impact on Building Heights To accommodate 22 lots above the design flood level much of the site normally would need to be filled to 2.6m AHD which is the prescribed design flood level (as specified in Tweed DCP A3 Development of Flood Liable Land) with a further requirement for 500mm freeboard to a habitable floor level (3.1m AHD). However, the applicant has proposed additional fill beyond these minimal levels. It is further proposed that a restrictive covenant be placed on all building sites requiring a PMF refuge area, which would be above RL 4.0m AHD.


As each building will need to provide refuge area above AHD 4.0m RL, this effectively requires all buildings to either increase the site fill by an additional amount (300-700mm) to build a single storey dwelling, or design either a mezzanine level or second storey. The proposed design approach to fill much of the site may lead to potential building height and visual impact issues. The designated height limit across this area is 8.0m as prescribed by the locality specific Tweed DCP-B23 measured above existing ground level. The existing ground level across the site is for the most 1.5m AHD with a few smaller undulations up to 2.0m AHD. With the building height limit of 8.0m this would typically result in a maximum building height of between 9.5-10.0mAHD which would allow a two-storey building (2.7m + 0.5m + 2.7m + 2.1m = 8.0m) over a site which has not been filled. This is typically the existing condition along Creek Street. As the site is proposed to be filled to 3.3m, this would in effect become the 'existing ground level'. With an 8.0m building height limit, this would effectively result in an overall building height level of up to RL 11.3m AHD for a two-storey building. There is a compatibility issue of these potential new building heights with the existing Creek Street character. Creek Street dwellings are predominantly single and double storey. As such the existing building heights are between 4.0m and 8.0m in height. As these existing allotments have not been filled, the resultant allotments on Lot 156 will be in the order of 2-3m higher if built to two-storey's. On the interface of 30 Creek Street, the finished fill height of proposed Lot 22 will be at almost the same level as the fascia of the existing single storey dwelling. The filling and building height is therefore a particular issue for the proposed allotments Lots 19-22 where they adjoin existing allotments or front Creek Street. The level disparity between existing and proposed could give rise to significant overlooking and visual impact issues. Council Officers would be prepared to compromise on the Tweed DCP Section A3 flood levels to better address the requirements of the locality specific Tweed DCP-B23. However this would need to be subject to a new application. Fill Impact on defined view fields and visual character In the context of the site specific DCP Visual Settings 5.5 Bridge looking west, it is noted that there is currently little built form within the majority of the view and that existing buildings are visible at the northern end of the bridge. The defined key characteristics and objectives of this vantage are:

Key Characteristics:

• The layering of water, foreshore vegetation and the hills in the distance which met the sky.

• The view is predominantly natural.

• There are few manmade elements within this view except buildings on the northern end of the bridge.

Objectives i. Retain the predominance of nature within the view. ii. Carefully located buildings so as to be nestled within the landscape.


The relevant controls out of this same section are: Controls 1. Development applications for lots within the visual setting must be

accompanied by a photomontage demonstrating impacts and measures to mitigate impacts.

4. To the north-west and west built form may only be visible within the mid-layer. This is likely to constitute the roof of buildings only; refers to B in the control diagram.

5. Vegetation within the lower layer (including both depth/thickness and height) must be retained and reinstated where clearing has occurred.

A visual Impact assessment has been included as part of the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects and documents 13 vantage points analysing both inward and outward looking views. Of interest are a number of view field sections which have been prepared which documents view point, distance to site extents and location and height of vegetation which is purported to provide a visual buffer to the site. These view field sections assume a filled building pad of RL 3.3m AHD and document a maximum building height of 8.0m bringing the maximum building RL to 11.3m AHD. The visual impact statement seeks to justify that due to the presence of the existing vegetative screening, estimated to be between 12.5-15.5m high, the filled and elevated built form, even if built to the maximum building height of 8.0m will be predominantly screened from view from the key vantage points. It is however material to note that the existing two storey house and filled pad it is built on is below the proposed RL 3.3m AHD finished site fill level of the subdivision balance. Even though this house sits lower on the site than what is proposed, it is still clearly visible from the key viewpoints 01 and 02 and is particularly visible when driving north across the bridge where the building form and white finish clearly stands out amongst the surrounding vegetation. This house is visible as it sits within a 45m gap between middle stand of trees and a smaller grouping of trees to the south. This vegetative gap opens up a view cone into the site. If you were to overlay the indicative building envelopes layout over this view cone through the vegetative gap, you would clearly see up to 12 houses depending on your view angle. There is another wide gap in the existing vegetation to the north of the existing dwelling which also opens up a deep cone view into the site. The key issue is that in the context of the vantage point from the bridge, this part of the view would be foreshortened and each of these buildings and roofs would read as a larger built form grouping rather than individual houses (roofs), separated by landscape. Whilst this is generally consistent with the controls of being able to see roofs within the mid-layer, the grouping of the roofs which will be clearly read between the vegetative gaps which will form a visible and recognisable new element within the overall scene that affects and changes its overall character.


The site should retain all environmentally protected land, ecological and estuarine buffers including vegetative screening areas to be combined into a single separate title (either community title or preferably dedicated to Council) for ongoing management and rehabilitation. If this proposal progresses, it will also be a strong recommendation for further vegetative regeneration of these buffer areas to 'fill in the gaps', securing both an ecological and visual buffer, consistent with control 5 of the site specific DCP. It is noted that these areas are currently described as 'environmental open space' not subject to assisted or natural re-vegetation works which is unacceptable. Height poles should be used to obtain more accurate view analysis plans. Fill Envelope The proposed fill envelope is unacceptable and encroaches on significant vegetation buffer areas and has unreasonable impacts on adjoining residential properties. If amended plans are lodged they would need to show a significantly reduced amount of earthworks to reflect the ecological constraints. All earthworks (including batters and retaining walls) should be located within the development footprint and should not encroach in to the nominated buffer areas. In addition the fill batters/retaining from the rear boundary of the three existing residential allotments, No's 26, 28 and 30 Creek Street would need to be removed. Tweed DCP Section B23 has not been adequately considered in the design of the proposed subdivision and accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The subject site is nominated as Coastal Land and therefore this clause applies. The proposal is inconsistent with the Coastal Policy as it does adequately address the ecological constraints of the site. Clause 92(b) Applications for demolition The development application does not comprise any demolition works. Clause 93 Fire Safety Considerations Not applicable Clause 94 Buildings to be upgraded Not applicable

(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 The primary objectives of the Coastal Management Plan are to protect development; to secure persons and property; and to provide, maintain and replace infrastructure. Given the location of the subject site, a significant distance from the coastal foreshore, it is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the clause.




Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 The development footprint conflicts with the Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004-2008 and most recent Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Tweed Coast Estuaries in that 50m buffers are not consistently provided to wetlands and waterways. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) This Plan is not applicable to the proposed development as the subject site is not located in the vicinity of the Cobaki or Terranora Broadwater.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (1999) Two fauna species known to occur on site are assigned dual 'vulnerable' listing status under both the Commonwealth EPBC Act and the NSW State Threatened Species Conservation Act being the Grey headed Flying Fox and Koala. The DA acknowledges removal of preferred Grey headed Flying Fox fruiting and flowering resource and that adequate buffers would be provided to Primary and Secondary Koala habitat. However, the applicant has failed to consider direct impacts particularly on the Koala through the rejection of dog exclusion policy, whilst indirect impacts such as lighting/noise/human activity have the potential to influence Koala behaviour. Buffers proposed to sensitive ecological areas supporting existing/regenerating Koala habitat are considered inadequate. Dog exclusion is warranted. Whilst it is the applicants' responsibility to refer the application to the federal Government to determine whether the development is considered to be a ‘Controlled Activity’, the following ecological assessment indicates that the application as proposed has failed to adequately consider fauna having regard to the applicable legislation. Section 5A (significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats) Section 5A of the EP&A Act requires consideration of the potential for a significant impact on threatened species, populations and ecological communities. Impacts have been insufficiently considered to be confident that a significant impact can be avoided. One Critically Endangered (Beach Stone Curlew) and three Endangered fauna species (Black-necked Stork, Bush Stone Curlew and Pied Oystercatcher) listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act are known to occur on site. An additional 19 Vulnerable fauna species (including the Grey-Headed Flying Fox and Koala) are either known or have been determined to have a moderate to highly likelihood of occurring/utilising habitats on site based on review of updated mapping, recent Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife search, known reliable records, species profiles and ecological knowledge and expertise.


Seven Part tests were used to assess potential impact on 10 listed species and four candidate Endangered Ecological Communities. Due to lack of up to date survey results (2006) an additional 13 species should have been considered based on habitat and verified records. In response to test of significance proposed mitigation measures include:

• Buffer zones to sensitive ecological values/features

• EEC Offset at ratio of 10:1

• Installation Nest boxes

• Ecological Restoration

• Raptor Pole and Nesting Platform

• 40km speed limits

• Cat ban and restriction on dog movements

• Fauna spotter catcher during clearing In summary primary issues with the proposed mitigations measures are as follows:

• Inadequate buffers/setbacks to wetlands/EEC Communities/Threatened Species habitat. Minimum 50 metre buffers significantly encroached by way filling, stormwater infrastructure, and asset protection zones.

• No EEC offset area has been identified (outside of proposed buffer zones).

• Ecological restoration plans provide minimal detail with no commitment to performance criteria or duration of ongoing maintenance.

• Dog containment areas likely to be ineffective.

• Indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, altered hydraulic regimes have not been comprehensively evaluated or considered in determining final development footprint and constructional operational management measures.

• Long-term management of the buffer zones to be retained in private ownership would compromise coordinated management of sensitive habitats and likely result in degradation of buffers over a period of time.

The applicants' survey effort is considered outdated providing an inaccurate representation of current site values (i.e. extent of vegetation, recording of seasonal species). As such impacts have been insufficiently considered to be confident that a significant impact can be avoided.


Vegetation Mapping and currency of Terrestrial Flora & Fauna Assessment The applicants Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Assessment (TFFA) is considered to be inaccurate and outdated. It is not reflective of the current site values and does not show the true extent of vegetation. More current 2009 James mapping verified during field investigation shows broader coverage of woody and saltmarsh vegetation across the site. The additional mapped units represent a number of EEC's listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 not previously recognised in the applicants TFFA. Due to the currency of the 2009 James mapping it is considered that this mapping should be relied upon to apply buffers and consider impacts that may be associated with the development. When comparison is made to the Constraints Overlay Proposed Development Layout 2013 Sheet 5 dated January 2013 prepared by Planit Consulting that relies on the 2008 vegetation mapping line-work (ATT 2-2:Endangered Ecological Community Mapping) there are obvious differences. This is particularly evident (but not limited to) to the south-east of the footprint where using the 2009 James mapping negligible buffers are provided to terrestrial EEC. Of particular concern is that by adopting the applicants mapping the seven part test of significance for all EEC’s obviously contains incorrect information. An example is the reference to Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions and Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast bioregion where claims of respective 200metre and 180metre setbacks are made in concluding statements that the communities would not be negatively impacted. Similarly, the applicant relies on outdated information in assessing the impacts on threatened fauna species. Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife search results appear to have been obtained during 2006-2008, whilst it is understood that the majority of fauna survey effort was also completed during this time. Using both inaccurate vegetation mapping and outdated fauna survey results particularly to evaluate impacts on a site with recognised high ecological value is clearly unacceptable. Where the application were to be progressed Council would expect contemporary survey effort to be undertaken (flora and fauna) with the results used to influence the design of the development and to consider appropriate management measures in accordance with relevant planning instruments, policy and guidelines. Buffers The 50metre buffer widths have not been met particularly as the layout and buffers shown on the proposed plans rely on outdated and incorrect vegetation mapping. In the absence of comprehensive up to date survey effort (threatened species movement/refuge/food resource/roosting, nesting of fauna (under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), vegetation mapping and baseline information (hydrologic conditions) there is no evidence/justification to warrant consideration of a reduction in buffer width that is inconsistent with a suite of environmental and urban planning policy and best practice guidelines. In order to successfully mitigate direct and indirect impacts associated with the development in the long-term the lot layout should be re-designed to meet setbacks and management arrangements to meet the following minimum design specifications:


• Be maximised to a minimum width of 50 metres (except where indicated on the Council marked up plan as shown in this report).

• Ensure all permanent and temporary stormwater infrastructure including outlets flow dissipaters, scour protection and any necessary earthworks required to facilitate construction are situated outside the ecological buffer zone.

• Ensure all filling to construct the development platform, necessary services and other infrastructure remain clear of the ecological buffer zone.

• Achieve ecological site capture reflective of the pre-clear vegetation communities within a determined period (5 years) across all buffer zones and core habitat areas (i.e. wetlands and EEC communities adjacent to buffers zones across the entire site using an integrated and systematic approach to ecological restoration. The approach to restoration shall carefully consider natural processes of regeneration, dynamics of the estuarine system and potential long-term changes such as sea level rise and altered site hydrology.

• Verification should be provided in respect to bushfire management to ensure all Asset Protection Zones remain outside buffer zones, as future modification to vegetation within buffers will not be supported.

• Provide a clear statement and depict on an appropriate subdivision plan that all buffers and core habitat are to be dedicated and managed by Council to be transferred following a successful 5-year establishment/maintenance period. Alternatively, this land could be dedicated to National Parks.

Groundwater Management With reference to the NSW Groundwater Quality Protection Policy 1998 prepared by DL&WC (pp.20) groundwater assessment should be based on and consider (but not limited to) the vulnerability of the groundwater system and the beneficial use or environmental values of the groundwater system (e.g. groundwater dependent ecosystems). The applicants' report fails to adequately address the risks associated with altering the local hydrology and likely effects on significant conservation attributes of the Cudgen Nature Reserve and adjoining habitats sensitive to (i.e. saltmarsh) or reliant on groundwater flows. Similar to considering modified overland flow effects on the local ecology the SEE acknowledges potential impacts however relies on the submitted Amended Groundwater Investigation Lot 156 DP 628026 Creek Street Hastings Point dated 15 April 2013 prepared by HMC Environmental Consulting P/L to detail, evaluate and develop an appropriate management approach to minimising disturbance. It is acknowledged that the Groundwater Investigation considers loss of recharge area and indicates that changed groundwater elevation may have a negative influence on saltmarsh colonisation (previously proposed saltmarsh offset) yet neglects to consider the effects of filling on groundwater (barrier effect) and/or altered groundwater conditions on existing vegetation such as Swamp Oak EEC that is likely to rely on groundwater flows.


It would be considered that with limited excavation (i.e. for services only), a restricted fill platform, relative to the area of recharge locally and type of underlying soil (sand) it would not be considered that changes to groundwater conditions would be significant and unlikely to have a noticeable effect on vegetation that may be reliant on groundwater flows mentioned above. However this should be demonstrated by the applicant. A precautionary approach should be taken with adequate buffers being provided (i.e. minimum 50metres) to allow an area for the succession of more suitably adapted vegetation should changes result in decline of existing terrestrial vegetation and to filter groundwater in the case of pollutants prior to interception with the aquatic environment. Monitoring bores are expected to be installed and monitored generally in accordance with the program detailed in the Groundwater Investigation report. Listed Threatened Fauna Species and Other Significant Species

Two commonwealth listed Vulnerable fauna species have been recorded on site being Grey headed Flying Fox and Koala. Whilst One Critically Endangered fauna species, Beach Stone Curlew and Three Endangered species, Black-necked Stork, Bush Stone Curlew and Pied Oystercatcher are known to occur on site. A further 19 Vulnerable species are either known or have been determined to have a moderate to high likelihood occurring/utilising habitats on site based on review of updated mapping, recent Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife search, known reliable records, species profiles and ecological knowledge and expertise. The applicant conducted a suite of seven part tests of significance required under Part 5a of the EP&A Act on 10 listed species and four Endangered Ecological Communities however concern over the currency of fauna survey information, database searches (2006-2008) has been raised considering that the most comprehensive fauna survey appears to have occurred in April-June 2006. Habitat on site between 2006 and 2013 has undergone a significant degree of regeneration particularly since regular mowing/slashing of the 7(a) Environmental Protection zone has ceased or at least reduced in frequency. This is clearly evident from interpretation of aerial imagery particularly within saltmarsh areas and the area to the north-west that would now be considered to provide opportunity for browsing and refuge for species such as the Koala (extensive areas of Swamp Mahogany regrowth). It is considered unacceptable to rely on outdated search results and survey effort completed 5-7 years ago particularly given the sensitivities of the site and previous high number of threatened species (known or likely to occur onsite). Based on desktop and brief site assessment 13 additional species should have been considered as part of any current 7 part test informed by contemporary survey effort to locate fauna species and evaluate current habitat values. Removal of EEC Vegetation within Creek Street Road Reserve The remaining tract of vegetation (approximately 0.478ha) along the Creek Street road reserve is considered to be representative of an EEC community. This is substantiated in the applicants SEE, however difficulties are presented in determining the type of EEC due to overlap in representative species. As such the SEE has made an assessment based on the two like communities being Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions and Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast Bioregion.


To construct the proposed fill platform vegetation occurring along the northern boundary to Lots 1-4 and 22 and within the Creek Street road reserve immediately adjacent to the site would be expected to be negatively impacted both during the construction and longer term operational phase of the proposed development. As a default, in the absence of tree survey information a 10 metre setback from the common boundary with Creek Street (as shown on Attachment 1) is to be provided internal to the site to avoid root/canopy disturbance. However, in order to accurately and comprehensively assess the extent of vegetation removal/disturbance and to allow for consideration of management actions that may be necessary to protect EEC vegetation during construction, an appropriately scaled plan overlaid with the bulk earthworks plan showing all services and access points should be provided indicating structural root zones and tree protection zones calculated in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 Protection of trees on development sites. Characteristics (fauna value) and particulars (Species, height, dbh, spread of individual trees should be clearly detailed. It is acknowledged that the applicant proposed to offset the removal of any EEC community at a ratio of 10:1 (replace: remove), however calculations of 11 trees expected to be removed are considered inaccurate. As such with the abovementioned additional survey effort and assessment is required. Whilst an offset has been proposed the applicant has neglected to offer a receiving site. This offset area would be required to be provided on site in an area where suitable conditions exist to support equivalent EEC elements and that is outside the required buffer zones. Habitat Restoration The applicant has submitted a Statement of Landscape Intent Creek Street Hastings Point dated 2013 prepared by Planit Consulting. Whilst conceptual the plan does not provide enough detail to confidently determine whether proposed rehabilitation of ecologically sensitive areas would likely to be successful as, there are many anomalies/deficiencies in the plan. In order to address concerns relating to appropriate restoration the applicant would be required to submit prior to determination of any application a detailed habitat restoration plan prepared in accordance with the TSC Draft Habitat Restoration Plan Preparation Guideline 2012 for the area shown as 'Public Open Space - Conservation Purposes' shown on Attachment 1 capturing all ecological buffers and core habitat areas. Long-term management and access The applicant proposes to retain buffer areas and core habitat (terrestrial and marine) within Lot 7. This is in conflict with a suite of policy and management guidelines that promote the long-term protection of environmentally sensitive areas and associated buffers under a secure management arrangement such as transfer of land to Council or to the state to be managed for conservation purposes. This is considered to be warranted in this case given the type and value of habitat (i.e. SEPP 14, EEC’s threatened species habitat) to be protected, proximity to an existing reserve network (Cudgen Nature Reserve) and Cudgera Estuary.


Relevant policy guidelines and management plans advocating for dedication of land are as follows:

• Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004-2008 under Table 2 Cudgera Creek Catchment Actions 4, 6, 3, 2 dedication of buffer and biodiversity planting/weed control.

• DCP Subdivision Manual Section A5-4-5 Environmental Constraints- Coastal Wetlands stipulates 'A 50m buffer is to be provided between urban development and areas containing littoral rainforest. This buffer is to be managed in accordance with a management plan submitted by the applicant and approved by Council. Such areas should be dedicated to Council if public ownership is necessary to achieve the objectives of the management plan’.

• DCP Subdivision Manual Section A5.4.11 Open Space Network - indicates that 'Environmentally sensitive areas and visually significant topographical/landform features within the development site should be dedicated to the public unless their environmental/scenic/visual values and appropriate management can be guaranteed in perpetuity in private ownership' whilst 'Aquatic environments, natural watercourses, riparian buffers and foreshores within the development site must be dedicated to the public. Similarly, this is reiterated in Table A5-8 for aquatic environments (waterbodies, waterways), natural watercourses and riparian buffers and foreshores, areas impacted by threatened species/habitat issues and ecologically significant vegetation.

• The NSW Coastal Design Guidelines specify that setbacks should be retained in public ownership as private ownership reduces the level of environmental protection.

• Action 3.11. The DEC Bush stone Curlew Management Plan indicates at Action 3.11 that DEC are to acquire Bush Stone-curlew habitat when land acquisition opportunities arise. Land acquisition in these circumstances will assist in securing the long-term viability of a local population of Bush Stone- curlews in addition to benefiting a range of other threatened species or vegetation communities.

• The NSW Wetlands Policy 2010 (pp.24) indicates that 'for coastal wetlands threatened by sea-level rise, migration of coastal wetlands should be allowed to occur. This can be achieved by making provisions for landward expansion of coastal wetlands, which are often restricted by urban development. Areas identified for migration or expansion of wetlands will need to be integrated into local planning instrument or incorporated into the protected area network'.

The following State Agencies have provided the following comments in respect to long term management arrangement for buffers and core habitat on site:

NSW Trade and Investment Crown Lands (Ref. DOC 13/062804) dated 31 May 2013

• Encourages TSC to reconsider management of the environmental protection zone within the proposed Lots.

• To facilitate local community access to the foreshore.


• Ensure the development does not impact on Crown waterway of Christies Creek or compromise its recreation and aesthetic values.

NSW DPI - Fisheries NSW (Ref. DOC13/062804) dated 31 May 2013

• Recommend incorporating all land below highest astronomical tide to be dedicated to Council to avoid ongoing land management issues.

NSW OE&H (ref. DOC13/21493) dated 30 May 2013

• Uncertainty in long term management at a minimum environmental open space and associated regeneration area be dedicated to 'Community Land' classified and managed in perpetuity as a Natural Area under the LG Act.

By retaining buffers and core habitat in private ownership the prevention of the dumping of garden waste and refuse, general degradation of buffer areas and core habitat would be difficult to regulate under a common property scheme or freehold arrangement. This practice may still occur where Lots bound public open space yet the impact will be restricted to the periphery of the buffer area. Under a future public open space arrangement mitigation measures to prevent uncontrolled access to the creek and damage to riparian vegetation could include; erection of fauna friendly fencing on the interface between the rehabilitation area and development; signage denoting the extent of the rehabilitation area and stating that all riparian vegetation is protected; periodic inspections of the rehabilitation area during the applicants five year maintenance period. Future Open Space embellishment to be established in consultation with Council may include provision for:

• Access pathways and seating, enabling future residents and visitors opportunities to access the Public Open Space reserves in a manner that does not compromise their ecological values and functions;

• Fencing, to physically restrict public access into areas of particular environmentally sensitivity or where a public hazard may exist (e.g. water filed drainage channels); and

• Signage, to provide residents and visitors with information concerning the environmental values and functions of the SEPP 14 Wetland and EEC areas and the measures that are required to protect these areas.

The area shown as 'Public Open Space - Conservation Purposes' as shown on Council’s Plan capturing all ecological buffers and core habitat areas shall be dedicated to Council following a successful 5 year establishment/maintenance period. If the applicant were to amend their application this would need to be reflected in the proposal.


Ecology Input Regarding Road layout To avoid impact on buffer areas and core habitat the proposal should incorporate a section of road frontage to these sensitive areas limiting the number of properties adjoining any future public open space. The reasons for restricting interface with significant ecological areas has been detailed above however other aspects such as the discharge of common stormwater pollutants such as fertilisers and chlorinated water from swimming pools can also have an effect on areas such as sensitive saltmarsh as indicated Best Practice Guidelines for Coastal Saltmarsh DECC 2008. Other benefits include improved surveillance and visual amenity.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development As evidenced in this report the site is heavily constrained and requires a sensitive design approach to ensure any new development is sympathetic to the environmental attributes of the site while maintaining the existing character of the area. The proposed development has failed to achieve this and is recommended for refusal.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations Summary of State Agency Referral Comments

• Office of Water - Prepare Vegetation Management Plan, works schedule, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Soil and Water Management Plan. Maintenance period of 2 years after practical completion of controlled activities.

• NSW Trade and Investment Crown Lands - Encourages TSC to reconsider management of the environmental protection zone within the proposed Lots. Facilitate local community access to the foreshore. Ensure the development does not impact on Crown waterway of Christies Creek or compromise its recreation and aesthetic values. The proponent may not: remove any riparian vegetation on Crown waterway or allow any materials or soils from the site to enter Crown waterway or direct stormwater discharges into the Crown waterway.

• NSW DPI - Fisheries NSW - No role in issuing GTA's as not triggered under Integrated Development approval provisions of EP&A Regulation, however have elected to provide comment. Site located close proximity to large areas of Type 1 Class 1 Key Fish habitat. Buffer distances and future management of intertidal areas affecting Lots 1-7. Mapped marine vegetation (saltmarsh) Type 1 Class 1 Key Fish Habitats and EEC requires appropriate buffering and recommend incorporating some land dedication to Council to avoid ongoing land management issues.

• NSW OE&H - Compared to previous proposal refused by the DPI under Part 3A the following has been acknowledged: Increased buffering to EEC and revegetation/regeneration of buffer areas, reduced number of native trees to be removed from the Creek Street area, keeping domestic cats is prohibited, no formal open space or access to sensitive vegetation communities and estuarine areas has been proposed achieved by a perimeter fence.


Outstanding issues include:

o Issues associated with alteration of groundwater flow regimes and altered stormwater flows have been identified as an issue in the Flora and Fauna Assessment yet not directly addressed. Review the direct/indirect and cumulative negative impacts upon vegetation communities and habitats as a result of modified groundwater and surface runoff. Such as pollutant tolerance limits, and sediment limits, acid sulfate soil disturbance, potential lowering of groundwater recharge due to increased impermeability (hard stand).

o Lack of clear definition of Environmental Open Space, management objectives and arrangements and type/location of proposed fencing.

o Uncertainty into treatment/extent/performance requirements of EEC restoration works. Recommend that habitat management plan be prepared prior to DA approval detailing contingency planning and long-term management arrangements.

o Uncertainty in long term management at a minimum environmental open space and associated regeneration area be dedicated to 'Community Land' classified and managed in perpetuity as a Natural Area under the LG Act.

o Additional pressure on Cudgen Nature Reserve. Need to demonstrate the development would assist in limiting visitation to sensitive areas i.e. bollards and interpretive signage.

o No responsibility of NPWS to manage biting midge/insects.

o Recommend the prohibition of both dogs and cats (with the exception of assistance animals defined under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992) within the site and encumbrance to Lots with this effect under Section 88B instrument under the Conveyancing Act 1919.

In addition to the above government agency responses the application was publically exhibited between 15 May 2013 and 14 June 2013. Council received 131 objections to the proposed development all of which raise the following concerns with the application:

• To the level of compliance with the Tweed DCP Section B23 Hastings Point;

• The uncharacteristic nature of the filled subdivision in comparison to the existing low set Creek Street;

• The impact on ecology and the environment holistically;

• The impact of flooding on the existing drainage network;

• General amenity and safety issues; and

• The failure of the application to comply with the legislative framework. These issues have been thoroughly addressed in this report and form part of the reasons for refusal of the application. An extensive public submission prepared by O'Reilly Sever & Co. on behalf of various members of the Hastings Point Community includes a technical ecological report from Australian Wetlands (Attachment 3) and a technical flooding report by MWA Environmental.


The above report has considered the Australian Wetlands report and generally concurs with much of the technical aspects of the submission. In regards to the flooding report Council responses are as follows:

Issues TSC Response

O'Reilly Sever & Co.

a) Lot 156 was illegally filled which reduced the capacity of water to drain through and past the Creek Street precinct making flooding and drainage in the area worse. TSC had an opportunity to seek a Court order to have the owner remediate the site and did nothing. It has an obligation through these failures to improve the flooding/drainage conditions in the area and protect the community.

Activities that occurred prior to the subject application are outside the scope of this assessment. Council has limited grounds to request additional offset works unless adverse impacts are demonstrated.

Should a revised proposal be lodged it would be subject to further assessment of local flooding impacts.

b) TSC should not encourage extensive fill. As detailed above, DCP-A3 mandates filling for development subject to impact assessment, while DCP-B23 requires further consideration of impacts on the locality. Reduction of fill levels may not solve local flood/drainage impacts given the flat nature of the site and relatively low-set design of existing dwellings in parts of Creek Street.

The proposed development complies with Council's subdivision filling policies, however, as discussed in this report, a compromise in regard to the extent of fill to better comply with Tweed DCP - B23 should be considered by the applicant.

MWA Environmental

c) 36,000m3 of filling will have probable impacts by impeding flood and stormwater flows which would otherwise have flowed across the land proposed to be filled and increasing flood and stormwater flows down Creek Street to the detriment of existing development.

The applicant is required to demonstrate that the fill development will not adversely impact on the locality. It is considered on assessment that the regional flood impacts have generally been satisfied, however local catchment flooding and impacts on Creek Street properties have not been adequately investigated.

Council has requested additional modelling of local catchment flooding and the potential impacts of the filling of the development area on adjacent development.

d) Proposed filling in what is considered by residents to be an obvious overland flooding and overland flow path.

Site inspection and survey do not clearly depict a flow path in this area. However it is accepted that the area is flood prone and has been inundated in recent events.

Any amended application will need to address further local catchment flood impacts.


Issues TSC Response

e) Impacts of 0.2m in the 2005 modelled event at the western end of Creek Street are downplayed and attributed to the inadequacy of the 15m flood model grid.

It is agreed that the regional flood model is too coarse to properly represent local drainage features such as perimeter drains and road drainage.

Local impacts must be properly addressed in the local catchment flood impact assessment.

f) Local drainage provisions to overcome the above impacts are not detailed in the engineering assessment.

Local impacts must be properly addressed in the local catchment flood impact assessment, with mitigation measures to be included in the Engineering Assessment Report.

g) The Director General's Environmental Assessment Report raised concerns about the site's flash flood risk and potential for isolation in major flood events, as reliance on sheltering in buildings surrounded by water is not equivalent in risk management terms to evacuation, resulting in the NSW SES and Department of Planning considering the previous development proposal to be unacceptable.

There are a number of inaccurate statements in the EAR with regard to Council's existing policies. It is considered that there are options available for adequately addressing risk to life and property for this site, including refuge in place provisions, given the short duration and low velocity flood behaviour in the locality. While the SES is quoted as opposing isolation, they have shown conditional support in the past for refuge in place arrangements in flash flood environments with no existing warning systems. The submission states that both constraints apply to the subject development.

The proposed development complies with Council's flood risk management requirements. As discussed in this report, a compromise in regard to the extent of fill to better comply with Tweed DCP - B23 should be considered by the applicant.

h) Hydraulic modelling is flawed in a number of respects including:

(i) Modelling results for 100 year ARI design flood are significantly lower than Council's adopted design flood level and lower than the levels experienced in the locality during the 2005 event.

The submission refers to results of an additional model run requested by Council for Q100 catchment flows with a mean tide level as the tailwater assumption. The design flood level is calculated as an envelope of two events, a Q100 catchment flood with Q20 tide assumption, and a Q10 catchment flood with a Q100 tide assumption. Given the site's proximity to the creek mouth, storm surge/tides are the dominant flood mechanism for the site and provide the maximum design flood level. Hence the reduced levels predicted when a mean tide level is assumed. This model run was requested to try and identify the maximum impacts of filling on water coming down the creek, as opposed to storm surge which could have "drowned out" these impacts.


Issues TSC Response

(ii) The interaction of the upper Cudgera Creek and Christies Creek catchments is not adequately represented in the BMT WBM model.

Comments in Attachment 1 of the submission relate to previous hydraulic work undertaken by Opus for an earlier development proposal. This modelling has now been superseded by the BMT WBM model which accurately accounts for the majority of the Cudgera Creek catchment and has been calibrated against known events.

(iii) Calibration against the 2005 flood event, as evidenced by local observations.

Rainfall and river level data is limited for historic floods, due to lack of gauges in the catchment. The Coastal Creeks Flood Study provides good calibration against two observation points in the immediate area for the 2005 event, as noted in the submission. Discrepancies with levels observed in the caravan park and Creek Street are acknowledged, however such variations may have been attributed to local drainage failures during this storm event, that cannot be properly represented in the regional food model due to its limited resolution.

Discrepancies are acknowledged, however the regional flood model represents the best available data to model potential impacts of a regional flood event, and are fit for purpose, so are acceptable to Council.

Issues of impact need to be addressed by additional investigation of the local flood event using a more detailed flood model.

The consultants have been requested to provide clarification.

(iv) Selection of the design storm when representing the 2005 flood.

It is Council's understanding that the 2005 event was modelled with corresponding rainfall data for the actual event.


(v) Selection of the design duration duration when representing the 2005 flood.

It is Council's understanding that the 2005 event was modelled with corresponding rainfall duration for the actual event. The event was around 13 hours duration, not 6 hours as requested in the MWA submission.



Issues TSC Response

i) Consideration might be given to a flood management option which provides for resumption of the subject site to allow for fill to be removed from the site and for a flood channel/levee system to be constructed to improve the flood immunity of the existing Creek Street development and restore the ecological values of the estuary.

The provision of additional drainage to reduce flood impacts on Creek Street has been foreshadowed in the application, and requires further design detail. Provision of levees in this area are not generally supported due to the same potential for obstruction of flows and local drainage impacts cited in opposition to the subject application.

Potential flood mitigation measures are subject to determination of local flood impacts by additional modelling and design.

The extensive public opposition to this project is one of the reasons for the recommendation for refusal of the application in its current form.

(e) Public interest The proposed development is not considered to be in the general public interest and is accordingly recommended for refusal.

OPTIONS: 1. Refuse the application as recommended; or 2. Allow the applicant time to amend their application to address the issues identified in

this report. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: The application as proposed significantly departs from Council’s policies and controls. Any amendment to this application to address the concerns would result in an application that is considered substantially different to that as lodged. Accordingly it is strongly recommended that the subject application be refused and the applicant advised to re-lodge a new application when they have adequately addressed all the issues raised. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable.


UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Director General’s Environmental Assessment Report MP06_0153 dated January 2012 (ECM 3201792)

Attachment 2 Director General’s Instrument of refusal MP06_0153 dated January 2012 (ECM 3201794)

Attachment 3 Planning Assessment Commission Determination Report MP06_0153 dated February 2012 (ECM 3201795)

Attachment 4 Applicant’s letter of 25 September 2013 seeking time to address issues raised (ECM 3201815)

Attachment 5 Tweed Shire Council's letter to the applicant outlining the issues with the development dated 13 September 2013 (ECM 3206474)


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


24 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0247 for a Dual Use of Existing Dwelling (Tourist Accommodation) at Lot 21 DP 1030322 No. 39 Collins Lane, Casuarina




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Updated Information At its meeting of 17 October 2013, Council resolved the following in respect of this matter:

"RESOLVED that Development Application DA13/0247 for a dual use of existing dwelling (tourist accommodation) at Lot 21 DP 1030322 No. 39 Collins Lane, Casuarina be granted in-principle support and a report to be brought back to a further Council meeting with recommended conditions of consent for Council to determine."

If Council wishes to approve the development the following conditions of consent are recommended: GENERAL 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the Statement of

Environmental Effects and modified dwelling plans as follows:

• Sheet 1 of 5 (Ground Floor Plan) as amended in red, prepared by J J Dixon and dated May 2013

• Sheet 2 of 5 (Top Floor Plan) as amended in red, prepared by J J Dixon and dated May 2013

• Sheet 3 of 5 (Front & North Elevations/Sections B-B & C-C) as amended in red, prepared by J J Dixon and dated May 2013

• Sheet 4 of 5 (East & South Elevations) as amended in red, prepared by J J Dixon and dated May 2013

• Sheet 5 of 5 (Site Plan) as amended in red, prepared by J J Dixon and dated May 2013,

except where varied by the conditions of this consent. [GEN0005]


2. Advertising structures/signs to be the subject of a separate development application (where statutorily required).

[GEN0065]

3. The issue of this Development Consent does not certify compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

[GEN0115]

4. Use of the existing dwelling for short term tourist accommodation purposes shall be restricted to one single booking at any time which may consist of a maximum of four adults and six children.

[GENNS01]

5. The keeping of dogs, cats or other animals at the premises by tourist accommodation groups is strictly prohibited.

[GENNS02]

6. A visitor log book shall be maintained as a record of the tourist accommodation use specifying names of visitors with dates and duration of stay. This log book is to be presented to Council no later than 31 July of each year for inspection purposes.

[GENNS03]

7. All carparking associated with the tourist accommodation use is to be located within the property boundary of the subject site.

[GENNS04]

8. A building certificate application is to be lodged within 30 days of the date of the consent to cover alterations to the existing dwelling as highlighted in the approved plans.

[GENNS05]

9. A Plan of Management is to incorporate and convey a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of short term tourist accommodation use consistent with the conditions of this development consent and existing S88B restrictions on the use of the land. A copy of the Plan of Management shall be submitted to Council for approval by the General Manager or delegate prior to first use of the dwelling for the purposes of short term tourist accommodation and subsequent to any future amendments being made to the document.

[GENNS06]

10. This development consent authorises a change of use from 100% residential use to a flexible use for either short term tourist accommodation or residential use.

[GENNS07]

11. The keeping of dogs, cats or other animals on the property for residential purposes is to be in accordance with any relevant Section 88B Instrument requirements.

[GENNS08]

12. All landscaping is to comply with the S88B instrument pertaining to the site. [GENNS09]

13. A 24 hour contact (name and contact details) shall be made available to Council and to residences within a 100m radius of the subject site prior to the first use of the dwelling for the purposes of short term tourist accommodation to address issues that may arise as a result of tourist accommodation tenancies.

[GENNS10]


USE 14. The use to be conducted so as not to cause disruption to the amenity of the locality,

particularly by way of the emission of noise, dust and odours or the like. [USE0125]

15. Upon receipt of a noise complaint that Council deems to be reasonable, the operator/owner is to submit to Council a Noise Impact Study (NIS) carried out by a suitably qualified and practicing acoustic consultant. The NIS is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. It is to include recommendations for noise attenuation. The operator/owner is to implement the recommendations of the NIS within a timeframe specified by Council's authorised officer.

[USE0245]

16. The premises shall be maintained in a clean and tidy manner. [USE0965]

17. Four off street car parking spaces shall be provided to cater for the tourist accommodation use, including parking for the disabled where applicable.

[USENS01]

18. A current hard copy of the Council approved Plan of Management (Tenancy Agreement Management Policy) shall be kept at the premises at all times and be made available to tourist accommodation groups at the time of booking or upon request.

[USENS02]

GENERAL TERMS OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 100B OF THE RURAL FIRES ACT 1997 1. At the commencement of the development and in perpetuity the entire property shall

be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

2. An emergency and evacuation plan addressing section 4.2.7 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' shall be prepared for the subject site. A copy of the plan shall be provided to the consent authority prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

3. The existing building is required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. Where applicable, this includes any sub floor areas, openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.

4. Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Previous Report The proposed development is for dual use of an existing dwelling for tourist accommodation purposes. The dwelling would be leased to a maximum of 10 visitors at any one time as holiday accommodation. Intended clientele are predominantly family groups. The existing dwelling was approved on 23 May 2005 for single dwelling purposes only. Since that time, the dwelling has been utilised for tourist accommodation on a commercial basis. As a result, Conditions 44 and 45 of the development consent have been breached.


The site is currently zoned 2(e) Residential Tourist and 7(f) Environmental Protection and the development is defined as ‘tourist accommodation’ under the current Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000. Whilst the proposed tourist accommodation could be considered as permissible under the 2(e) Residential Tourist zone, it is prohibited under the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone of the Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012. In addition, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the draft plan. There are various legal precedents created under the NSW Land and Environment Court, which require consent authorities to give greater weighting to their draft environmental planning instruments which are ‘certain and imminent’. Previous case law suggests that this weighting has greater relevance once a draft LEP has been publically exhibited, adopted by Council, and forwarded to the Minister for final making and gazettal. Following an earlier public exhibition, Council at its meeting of 31 May 2013 resolved to adopt the exhibited Draft Tweed LEP 2012, subject to certain changes. The modified draft LEP has been referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and gazettal of the plan is expected within a number of months. On that basis, it is the officer’s view that the Draft Tweed LEP 2012 should be given increased weighting in the determination of the subject development application, and as a prohibited use, should therefore be refused. It is noted that lawful use of the dwelling for tourist accommodation purposes under the current LEP does not afford the applicant greater privilege than other land owners within the 2(e) zone at this point in time. However, once the draft LEP is in force and such use becomes prohibited within the R2 zone, other land owners will not have the same legal and financial right to operate their dwellings for the purposes of tourist and visitor accommodation, thus giving rise to equity issues. Although consistent with current objectives of the 2(e) zone, tourist and visitor accommodation is not consistent with the future desired character of the locality, reinforced by low density residential draft zoning and prohibition. The development application has been referred to Council to determine given the current legal status which does not preclude Council from granting consent to the Development Application. It should be noted that approval of the application would result in Existing Use Rights being relied upon once the Draft LEP 2012 is gazetted, which is not considered to be good planning practice and results in inconsistent use within the residential zone. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0247 for a dual use of existing dwelling (tourist accommodation) at Lot 21 DP 1030322 No. 39 Collins Lane, Casuarina be refused for the following reasons: 1. The development does not satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act, particularly Section (a)(ii) – the provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments in that the development is prohibited within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.


2. The development does not satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, particularly Section (a)(ii) – the provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments in that the development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

3. The development is not considered to be in the public interest.


REPORT:

Applicant: Mr JJ Dixon Owner: Mr John J Dixon Location: Lot 21 DP 1030322 No. 39 Collins Lane, Casuarina Zoning: 2(e) Residential Tourist and 7(f) Environmental Protection (Coastal

Lands) Cost: Not Applicable Background: Council is in receipt of a development application that seeks consent for dual use of an existing dwelling (tourist accommodation) on a parcel of land zoned 2(e) Residential Tourist and 7(f) Environmental Protection (Coastal Lands). History The single dwelling was constructed in 2005 following development consent in association with DA05/0311. Final occupation and compliance certificate was issued 24 February 2006 in the name of the current applicant. The existing dwelling has had little alteration externally or internally since its original construction. The owners have used the dwelling for residential purposes and leased the property for the purposes of tourist accommodation (without the benefit of development consent). As such, Conditions 44 and 45 of the development consent for DA05/0311 have been breached:

The Subject Site The site is regular and rectangular shaped with a 12m frontage to Collins Lane and rear access to community land at the rear that provides a buffer to the coastal reserve. The site has a total land area of 746m2. The site is generally flat and landscaped to the rear of the dwelling. On-site parking is located at the Collins Lane frontage by way of a double carport and driveway space.


Figure 1: Context of Site (No. 39)

The existing two-storey dwelling has four bedrooms with large living areas (internal and external) on both levels that are oriented to the east. Dwellings on either side of the subject site extend further to the east and exhaust the developable area available within the 2(e) zone. Vegetated areas are located within the 7(f) zone. The Proposed Development The application proposes flexibility in maintaining long-term residential use and legalisation of ongoing use of an existing four-bedroom single dwelling for the purposes of short-term tourist accommodation. No physical works are required in order to facilitate the proposal. On-site parking for up to four vehicles is proposed within the double carport and driveway area. The property is currently advertised as "White Haven Beach House" via an online accommodation profile which currently states it can comfortably sleep up to eight persons. However, it is intended that the dwelling be leased via single booking to one tourist group comprising a maximum of 10 persons at any one time. A typical group may be a small extended family consisting of parents, children, grandparents or the like or two small families (eg. two adults plus three children x 2). Groups of that size would only be approved upon application and a cap on the number of adults able to be accommodated would be applied. The proposal does not include use of the dwelling for events such as parties, weddings or end of school celebrations. The owner has taken responsibility for bookings and management of the site for the last three years and undertakes on-line research of prospective tenants. However, prior management of the property did allow event bookings to occur which were not monitored. Cleaning and maintenance contractors attend to the residence and grounds following tenants vacating the premises. The property has been advertised as 'dog-friendly' upon approval by the owner and a restriction to one (<10kg) dog only. This is problematic as a restriction on the use of the land pursuant to the Section 88B Conveyancing Act 1919 (registered 27 June 2001) applies to the property (eleventhly referred to) restricting the keeping of dogs (below) and specifically requires dog registration with Tweed Shire Council.

7.2 No person occupying a lot burdened shall have more than one dog upon any lot burdened and shall not have any such dog unless the boundaries of the subject lot are securely fenced.


7.3 No person occupying any lot burdened may have a dog unless it is registered with the Tweed Shire Council and the relevant fee paid by the applicant and a secure dog-proof compound has been constructed upon the lot and such compound has been approved by the Tweed Shire Council.

7.4 No person occupying any lot may retrieve a dog that has been impounded by the Tweed Shire Council unless that person can satisfy Tweed Shire Council that a secure dog-proof compound has been constructed on the subject lot.

The abovementioned restrictions have been put in place to enable careful management of environmentally sensitive land (zoned 7(f) Environmental Protection) located on and to the east of the Collins Lane properties and to mitigate the impacts of domestic animals such as dogs and cats upon native wildlife/habitat. Tweed Shire Council is empowered to release, vary or modify the restriction eleventhly referred to associated with Deposited Plan 1030322. Several minor constructed changes to approved dwelling plans are also proposed that rectify practical changes involve the following:

Ground level

• Internal shutters on all north and south elevation windows (as opposed to external timber screens); and

• Patio screening to both sides. Upper level

• Deletion of two windows on north elevation of family room;

• Internal shutters on all north and south elevation windows (as opposed to external timber screens); and

• Top deck privacy screening to both sides. The applicant has proposed that a plan of management be submitted to Council for approval (upon condition) which will regulate use of the property, consistent with development consent conditions and existing S88B restrictions on the use of the land. Additional wheelie bins are to be provided to ensure adequate waste management. Summary An assessment in accordance with current Tweed LEP 2000 controls indicates that the proposal may have merit in planning terms. However, the development is prohibited by and inconsistent with the Draft LEP 2012, specifically the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. It is therefore recommended that the development be refused.


SITE DIAGRAM:


Considerations Under Section 79c Of The Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan The proposed change of use is considered consistent with the aims of the plan. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development The development raises no specific concerns or implications in respect of ecologically sustainable development. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if:




In this instance, the subject site is zoned 2(e) Residential Tourist, the primary objective of which is to:

encourage the provision of family-oriented tourist accommodation and related facilities and services in association with residential development including a variety of forms of low and medium density housing and associated tourist facilities such as hotels, motels, refreshment rooms, holiday cabins, camping grounds, caravan parks and compatible commercial services which will provide short-term accommodation and day tourist facilities.

The proposed dual use of the existing dwelling (tourist accommodation) is considered consistent with the primary objective of the zone in that the proposal provides a form of family-oriented short-term accommodation. Other relevant clauses of the TLEP have been considered elsewhere in this report and it is considered that the proposed dual use of the existing dwelling (tourist accommodation) generally complies with the aims and objectives of each. Subject to the imposition of development consent conditions to regulate activity at the site and under current controls, the proposal is not considered to contribute to an unacceptable cumulative impact in the community. Clause 11 - Zone Objectives The subject site is located within the 2(e) Residential Tourist zone (pink) with the rear of the site being zoned 7(f) Environmental Protection (orange). All structures on site are located entirely within the 2(e) Residential Tourist zone.


Figure 2: Split Zoning of the Site

The primary objective of that zone and consistency of the proposal with that objective has been outlined above. The secondary objective permits other development which has an association with a residential/tourist environment and is unlikely to adversely affect the residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for residential use. It is submitted that the proposal, being a form of residential/tourist development within an established residential area is suitable in scale and form as the appearance of a single dwelling is maintained. Although there are few such developments that Council are aware of, it is not considered currently to have significant effects on the character of the area. Impacts upon amenity have been raised by objectors in submissions received during the exhibition period and are discussed elsewhere in this report. Clause 15 - Essential Services The subject site is located within an established residential area with all essential services available. Clause 16 - Height of Building The proposal does not contravene the imposed three storey height restriction on the subject site as there is no change to the two storey height of the existing dwelling. Clause 17 - Social Impact Assessment The proposal does not require a social impact assessment. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils Class 4 Acid Sulfate Soils are present on the site. There are no works proposed. As such, no further consideration is required and this clause is satisfied.


Other Specific Clauses Clause 39A – Bushfire Protection The site is bushfire prone. The application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service as integrated development for assessment as Tourist Accommodation is a special fire protection purpose. A bush fire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 was received from the service on 3 July 2013 inclusive of conditions regarding Asset Protection Zones, Evacuation and Emergency Management, Design and Construction and Landscaping. Clause 54 – Tree Preservation Order The 1990 and 2011 TPO (Koala Habitat) apply to the site. The proposal does not require any removal of vegetation. As such, this clause is satisfied. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 32B: Coastal Lands The proposal is considered consistent with Clause 32B as it is deemed unlikely that it will impede public foreshore access to the beach or result in significant overshadowing of adjacent open space. The proposal does not contradict the strategic aims of the NSW Coastal Policy, the Coastline Management Manual or the North Coast: Design Guidelines. Clause 33: Coastal hazard areas The rear of the site is subject to the 2100 coastal hazard projection line. The site is not impacted by either the immediate or the 2050 coastal hazard projection line. Clause 43: Residential development The application does not contradict the objectives of Clause 43. On-site density has been maximised without adversely affecting the environmental features of the land. Clause 75: Tourism development The plan generally refers to the location of large scale resort developments within prime tourism development area such as Kingscliff and Tweed Heads. The proposal does not meet the definition for small scale or low key tourism development as defined by the regional plan. SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection The subject land has frontage to community land that provides a buffer to the coastal foreshore reserve. The proposal will therefore not restrict public access to the foreshore. The development is generally consistent with the zone objectives of TLEP 2000, the requirements of relevant Council DCPs and consistent with ESD principles and objectives. It is therefore considered that the proposal satisfies the matters for consideration under SEPP 71.

(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments The Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) (2012) was placed on exhibition in late 2012/early 2013. The post exhibition version of the Draft Tweed LEP 2012 with amendments as resolved by Council on 31 May 2013 has been forwarded to Parliamentary Counsel via the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.


As such, the Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan is considered to be “certain and imminent” in terms of previous legal precedent and as such has determining weight. A recent article published in a Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) NSW Newsletter (June 2013) from Gadens Lawyers noted the following with respect to the determining weight of a draft LEP:

"Question: I would like to understand why a Draft LEP is highly relevant to the assessment of a DA when the draft LEP is 'certain and imminent', and what exactly that means? The starting point is that s.79C of the Act expressly requires a consent authority, when assessing any development application, to take into consideration the provisions of any draft planning instrument (for example, an LEP or SEPP) that "is or has been the subject of public consultation" and that has been notified. However taking something into account is one thing - the remaining question is how much weight or emphasis to place on that EPI's provisions when it is only a draft document, and may well be quite inconsistent with a current and in-force LEP. In that regard, the Courts have developed a body of caselaw to the effect that a Draft LEP will be given greater weight when it is "certain and imminent". Funnily enough, this phrase does not appear anywhere in the Act or Regulations, nor in any savings or transitional provisions that we are aware of, and although it is bandied about by judges, commissioners, lawyers, and government authorities, you'd have to search hard to find its source of origin. It actually dates back to a 1980 Judgment (Balgownie Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council (1980), which well and truly predates s.79C of the Act. In that matter, the Court had some limited regard to a draft proposal to rezone the site, but only because it was said to be "the latest and best informed expert opinion" relating to the site. It is therefore surprising that this has morphed into a general principle that any draft LEP that is 'certain or imminent' should be given considerable weight in the s.79C balancing act (in fact, the courts have used confusing terminology here too, referring variously to "significant weight", or "some weight", or "considerable weight" or "due force" or "determining weight" - see the discussion of this in Blackmore Design Group v North Sydney (2000)). Nevertheless, what is clear is that the weight to be attributed to a draft environmental planning instrument will be greater if there is a greater certainty that it will be adopted (Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (2003)). Where the LEP has been exhibited and sent by the council to the Minister for approval and gazettal, it will often be given great weight, even more than the existing and in force LEP.


But is that approach fair and correct? The answer is probably not. It can be very hard to predict when an LEP is 'certain' and 'imminent', because this depends on the future decision of the Minister and his staff at the Department. For example, our team at Gadens was involved in an appeal in the Warringah local government area in 2011 where the Court ruled that a change to the zoning of the site was certain and imminent and should be given 'determinative weight', and refused the DA. About a month later, the Minister made the LEP but carved out the site as a 'deferred' matter (its zoning did not change). The Court and Council's assessment that the proposed rezoning was 'certain' and 'imminent' had been dead wrong. But such a task is inherently uncertain because it relies on predictions as to a decision of the Minister that has not yet been made. Notwithstanding 'certainty and imminence', a consent authority may of course grant consent to a development application which does not comply with the draft instrument. As the Court said in the Blackmore Design Group v North Sydney Council matter:

"In giving the 2001 LEP the weight of being imminent and certain, that does not mean that there is no further inquiry. It is necessary to look at the aims and objectives of the later instrument and then see whether the proposed development is consistent therewith [or "antipathetic' thereto].""

In light of the above advice, it is considered that refusal of the proposed development is the appropriate course of action. The draft LEP has been exhibited and sent by Council to the Minister for approval and gazettal. Approval of the development would result in creating Existing Use Rights for the development, which is not considered to be good planning practice. The draft zone for the subject site is R2: Low Density Residential. The proposed dual use of the existing dwelling (tourist accommodation) is defined as Tourist and Visitor Accommodation:

tourist and visitor accommodation means a building or place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis, and includes any of the following: (a) backpackers' accommodation, (b) bed and breakfast accommodation, (c) farm stay accommodation, (d) hotel or motel accommodation, (e) serviced apartments, But does not include: (f) camping grounds, or (g) caravan parks, or (h) eco-tourist facilities.

which is a prohibited use in the draft zone by its inclusion in Item 4:


Objectives of the R2 zone include the following:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment; and

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

The proposal to utilise the dwelling for the purposes of tourist and visitor accommodation is not consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed use does not satisfy housing needs of the community, nor does it provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. Draft zoning for the locality has been informed by the LEP Practice note PN 09-006 Providing for tourism in Standard Instrument local environmental plans, circulated by the Department of Planning on 2 December 2009. These practice guidelines stipulate that tourist and visitor accommodation is not recommended in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. As such, the draft LEP has zoned the balance of the land (exclusive of parks/reserves and medium density residue allotments) as low density residential which is consistent with the as-built environment.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A1-Residential and Tourist Development Code The dwelling was approved on 23 May 2005 by way of development application DA05/0311 prior to DCP A1 coming into force in April 2008.


The current DCP A1 came into force on 21 May 2013. A minor variation to Control C13 (Side Setbacks) of the current DCP A1 has been identified. The 1.2m side setback of the 2.67m long stair well wall is 300mm short of the required 1.5m side setback for two storey dwellings. Otherwise, the dwelling generally complies with current controls adequately. A2-Site Access and Parking Code The existing dwelling provides for a total of four on-site car parking spaces. A variation has been requested to delete the requirement for staff and delivery vehicle parking as the nature of the proposal does not require it. It is considered that the existing on-site parking arrangements are sufficient for an extended family group. A11-Public Notification of Development Proposals The development proposal was advertised in accordance with this section. The proposal was notified to adjoining owners for 14 days from 19 June to 3 July 2013. Two submissions were received as a result of this process which are discussed elsewhere in this report. B5-Casuarina Beach This policy relates to the subdivision and release of land within Casuarina, most of which has already occurred. It does not offer guidance for change of use applications such as is being assessed. Development of the single dwelling accords with policy contained within DCP B5. B9-Tweed Coast Strategy The Plan sets objectives for future development concentrating on public services and design principals. This application does not contradict the objectives of this plan. B25-Coastal Hazards The rear of the site is subject to the 2100 coastal hazard projection line. The site is not impacted by either the immediate or the 2050 coastal hazard projection line.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The proposed site is located within the area covered by the Government Coastal Policy, and has been assessed with regard to the objectives of this policy. It is not considered that the proposed dual use of the existing dwelling for tourist accommodation contradicts the objectives of the Government Coastal Policy. This proposal does not require demolition or a change of BCA classification and no works are proposed. As such, Clause 92(b) (Applications for demolition), Clause 93 (Fire Safety Considerations) and Clause 94 (Buildings to be upgraded) of the Regulations do not apply.


(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), The proposal does not impact upon coastal zone management plans. Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 The proposal does not impact upon coastline management strategies. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 The proposal does not impact upon estuaries management strategies. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) The proposal does not impact upon coastal zone management strategies for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Amenity Adjacent properties may be impacted by the constant nature of short-term visitors. The applicant has proposed the use of a plan of management to monitor and regulate amenity impacts that may arise from the development inclusive of those raised in submissions below. Context and Setting The proposed development is located within an area dominated by large dwellings lawfully utilised for long-term residential purposes and large scale resort developments within the prime tourism development area of Kingscliff. It is intended that the large scale resorts provide tourist accommodation and flexible use options into the future, not single dwellings.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development as the future (imminent and certain) zoning under Draft LEP 2012 will prohibit the proposed use.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations The proposal was notified to adjoining properties in accordance with DCP A11 – Public Notification of Development Proposals for a period of 14 days from Wednesday 19 June to Wednesday 3 July 2013. During this time, two submissions were received. Issues raised include the following:

• Impact upon tranquil family residential lifestyle in quiet family cul-de-sac;

• Tourist accommodation is provided elsewhere in Casuarina: Beach Shacks, Pandanus Pocket etc;

• Residents purchased here specifically for the quiet beachside family lifestyle;

• People come to party in large groups: excessive noise during day and late at night;


• Parking congestion (off site and on road reserve areas) and blocking of driveways;

• Barking dogs, especially when dogs are in a new house in unfamiliar territory;

• TSC unregistered dogs – more than one at a time;

• Rubbish, littering and vandalism;

• Trespassing / opening gates of neighbouring property;

• Discharge of fireworks; and

• Request for neighbours to approach tenants directly to remedy matters. The applicant responded to the issues raised within the submissions as follows:

• Capacity will be capped at 10 persons. No party groups or groups exceeding this amount are permitted;

• It is not envisaged that more than two cars will be on-site at any time;

• Controls will apply to the inclusion of a family dog during tenancy inclusive of a non-refundable immediate ejection from the premises should the controls be breached;

• Additional waste and recycling wheelie bins are part of the proposal;

• Other issues to be addressed in the proposed plan of management;

• Tenants do not abide by agreements even though they are made aware of the policy;

• The property has been rented for 50 nights over the last 12 months by 8 families with an average stay of 6 nights per family; and

• Tenants have been harassed during their stay. Assessment It is clear that the way the tourist accommodation has been managed in the past is not consistent with how the applicant intends to manage it in the future. Many of the issues raised may be resolved by the implementation of a firm management plan and an available 24 hour contact should issues arise as a result of tenancy. The ability for tenants to lease the premises inclusive of the family dog as part of the tourist accommodation proposal is contrary to aforementioned restrictions on use of the land. There is no secure dog-proof compound on the site and fencing between properties is not intended to restrain dogs. Given the environmentally sensitive nature of the site and immediate locality, it is important that restrictions regarding keeping of domestic animals be retained. It is noted that the external (upper and lower) living area of the southern adjoining property extends further to the rear of the site, possibly for solar access purposes. There is no privacy screening in place and minimal building separation. There is an interface between the two dwellings (despite measures taken to screen the sides of the upper verandah on the subject site) which may or may not be able to be resolved.


It is Council's intention to maintain availability of flexible tourist and visitor accommodation within larger scale developments at Casuarina. This is reflected in the objectives of draft zoning and supported by State government policy. Referral to NSW Rural Fire Service The application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service as integrated development for assessment as Tourist Accommodation is a special fire protection purpose. A bush fire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 was received from the service on 3 July 2013 inclusive of conditions regarding Asset Protection Zones, Evacuation and Emergency Management, Design and Construction and Landscaping.

(e) Public interest Whilst the proposed development at present complies with the zoning controls under Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, it is certain and imminent that the Draft LEP 2012 will prohibit the development. As such, the development is not considered to be in the public interest.

OPTIONS: 1. Refuse the application for the reasons supplied; or 2. Approve subject to the recommended conditions. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: The development is prohibited by and inconsistent with the Draft LEP 2012, specifically the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. It is therefore recommended that the development be refused. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: The applicant may seek to lodge an appeal against a Council determination in the NSW Land and Environment Court. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


25 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0221 for a Pontoon Boat and Water Sports Boat Operation on the Tweed River from Fingal Boat Ramp with Passenger Pick Up/Set Down from Beach at Old Barney's Point Bridge Jetty at Lot 403 DP 755740 Main Road Fingal Head;




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Updated Information Council at its meeting of 17 October 2013 resolved as follows:

"RESOLVED that Development Application DA13/0221 for a Pontoon Boat and Water Sports Boat Operation on the Tweed River from Fingal Boat Ramp with Passenger Pick Up/Set Down from Beach at Old Barney's Point Bridge Jetty at Lot 403 DP 755740 Main Road Fingal Head; Lots 9 and 10 DP 24164; Lots 9-12 DP 830655 Nos. 2-12 Chinderah Bay Drive, Chinderah and Tweed River, Tweed Heads be deferred for a workshop with the applicant."

A workshop was held on 29 October 2013 to discuss the application with the applicant and their town planning consultant and a representative from Destination Tweed. The report is now submitted to Council for its further determination. Previous Report to Council The proposed development is for approval of a Water Sports Boat and a Barbeque Pontoon Boat operation on the Tweed River between Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah. The boats are to be launched from Fingal boat ramp with passenger pick up/set down from beach at old Barney's Point Bridge. Passenger car-parking is to be provided at the BP Chinderah nearby. The water sports boat is to engage in tow water sport activities including skiing, wakeboarding, wake skate, ski chair, tube and kneeboard in the Tweed River reach located between the Cane Road Bridge and Stotts Island. Outside of these areas the boat is to be operated without water ballast. This boat can seat up to 9 people. The Pontoon boat is to be available for 12 people in a self-drive arrangement or 22 people if skippered. The proposed development is considered to be generally deficient in terms of information submitted, however assessment of the proposal against the applicable planning policies has


demonstrated that the proposal is not considered to be able to comply with these and as such refusal of the application is recommended. Furthermore, the proposed development is considered to raise a number of environmental and social issues which have not being adequately addressed. As sufficient information has not been submitted to enable support of the application it is recommended that the proposal be refused on these reasons also. The application has been called up for determination through a full Council meeting by an elected member. Having regard to relevant statutory controls and an assessment against the relevant legislative policies, the proposed development is not considered suitable for the location and therefore the proposed development is recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0221 for a Pontoon Boat and Water Sports Boat Operation on the Tweed River from Fingal Boat Ramp with Passenger Pick Up/Set Down from Beach at Old Barney's Point Bridge Jetty at Lot 403 DP 755740 Main Road Fingal Head; Lots 9 and 10 DP 24164; Lots 9-12 DP 830655 Nos. 2-12 Chinderah Bay Drive, Chinderah and Tweed River, Tweed Heads be refused for the following reasons: 1. Pursuant to Section 5 Objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act

1979 (as amended), the proposed development cannot be determined to satisfy sub section (a)(ii), the orderly and economic use and development of the land. The proposal has the ability to impact negatively upon adjacent land; accordingly the proposal is not identified as satisfying the Objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

2. Pursuant to Section 5 Objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), the proposed development cannot be determined to satisfy sub section (a)(vi), the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats. The proposal has the ability to impact upon the protection and conservation of native animals and plants; accordingly the proposal is not identified as satisfying the Objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the proposed development is not considered to be compliant with Environmental Planning Instruments. The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims of: State Environmental Planning Policies: • SEPP 14: Coastal Wetlands • SEPP 64: Advertising and Signage (Clauses 10 and 27) • SEPP 71: Coastal Protection (Clause 8(a), (d), (g), (h), (k), (l), (n) and (p)(i)) • NCREP: Clauses 15, 32B, 75 and 76


The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions contained within: The Tweed LEP 2000: • Clause 4: Aims of this plan • Clause 5: Ecologically sustainable development • Clause 8(1): Consent Considerations • Clause 11: Zoning • Clause 13: Development of uncoloured land on the zone map • Clause 25: Development in Zone 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands

and Littoral Rainforests) and on adjacent land • Clause 29: Development adjacent to Zone 8(a) National Parks and Nature

Reserves • Clause 31: Development adjoining waterbodies

4. The proposal is inconsistent with the applicable management plans that highlight the need to protect ecology and reduce erosion within the vicinity of the Tweed River.

5. Pursuant to Section 79C (1) (c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the proposed site is not considered suitable for the proposed development. The use of unzoned land adjacent to environmental conservation areas of State significance for the purposes of water sports boat operation is considered unacceptable due to its possible impact on and loss of habitat, due to river erosion.

6. Pursuant to Section 79C (1) (b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) due to the likely impacts of the proposed development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact with respect to amenity and noise impacts on surrounding residents and other passive recreational river users as well as having an unacceptable negative impact on cumulative river erosion in the operational area.

7. In accordance with Section 79C (1) (e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest. It is in the broader general public interest to enforce the standards contained within the Tweed LEP 2000 specifically as it relates to the objectives of unzoned land and the 1(b2) Agricultural Protection, 2(a) Low Density Residential, 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise, 4(a) Industrial, 5(a) Special Uses, 6(a) Open Space, 6(b) Recreation, 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests), 7(d) Environmental Protection (Scenic/Escarpment) and 8(a) National Parks and Nature Reserves zones.

8. The development does not satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, particularly Section (a)(ii) - the provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments in that the development is prohibited within the RE1 Public Recreation, W3 Working Waterways, W2 Recreational Waterways


and SP2 Infrastructure zones. 9. The development does not satisfy Section 79C of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act, particularly Section (a)(ii) - the provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments in that the development is inconsistent with the objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation, W3 Working Waterways, W2 Recreational Waterways and SP2 Infrastructure zones.


REPORT:

Applicant: Tweed River Wake & Ski Pty Ltd Owner: Tweed Shire Council Location: Lot 403 DP 755740 Main Road Fingal Head; Lots 9 and 10 DP 24164; Lots

9-12 DP 830655 Nos. 2-12 Chinderah Bay Drive, Chinderah and Tweed River, Tweed Heads

Zoning: 6(a) Open Space, 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands & Littoral Rainforests), 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise

Cost: Nil Background: Subject Site The proposed development is to be undertaken over a number of different land parcels, summarised as follows: Fingal Head Boat Ramp- Lot 403 DP 755740 Main Road, Fingal Head It is proposed to launch the boats at the Fingal Heads Boat Ramp, which is situated in a recreational reserve with an area of 4.123 hectares. The eastern portion of the land is heavily vegetated and zoned 7(a) Environmental Protection. The remaining portion of the land (and perimeter - eastern and southern boundaries) is zoned 6(a) open space. The boat ramp is located in the north western section of the site.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Fingal Head Boat Ramp site

Lots 9 and 10 DP 24164 and Lots 9-12 DP 830655 Nos. 2-12 Chinderah Bay Drive, Chinderah These allotments are currently developed with a BP Chinderah service station. It is proposed to provide both customer and staff vehicles (and boat trailers) to a 300m2 area to the north of this site.


Figure 2: Aerial view of BP Chinderah Car parking area

Pick up/set down point adjacent to Barneys Point Bridge, Chinderah It is proposed to pick up and set down boat passengers at the sandy beach between Banora Point Bridge and the old Barneys Point Bridge (jetty).

Figure 3: Aerial view of Barney Point Bridge Pick up and Set-down point

Tweed River The pontoon and water sports boats are to operate on the Tweed River between Murwillumbah and Tweed Heads. It is stated that the water sports boat is to engage in tow water sport activities including skiing, wakeboarding, wake skate, ski chair, tube, kneeboard in the reach located between the Cane Road Bridge and Stotts Island only. The Tweed River adjoins a multitude of various land zones, including environmentally sensitive land which is detailed elsewhere in this report. Proposed Development Council is in receipt of an application for a commercial boating operation on the Tweed River between Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah. The proposal comprises of a Water Sports Boat and a Barbeque Pontoon Boat. The water sports boat is to engage in tow water sport activities including skiing, wakeboarding, wake skate, ski chair, tube, kneeboard in the reach located between the Cane Road Bridge and Stotts Island. Outside of these areas the boat is to be operated without water ballast or wake enhancing devices. This boat can seat up to 9 persons. The Pontoon boat is to be available for 12 people in a self-drive arrangement or 22 people if skippered.


The boats are to be launched from Fingal Head Boat Ramp, with passenger pick up and set down to be from the sandy beach between Banora Point Bridge and the old Barneys Point Bridge Jetty which is opposite BP Chinderah. Car parking of customer vehicles and staff vehicles (and boat trailers) is to be at the BP Chinderah site where an area of approximately 300m2 has been allocated for parking. The proposal seeks consent to operate between 8.00am and 4.00pm seven days per week. The proposal is defined as ‘tourist facilities’ under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LEP 2000). In order for this use to be permissible on unzoned land (the Tweed River), it must be compatible with surrounding development and zones. Due to the length of the Tweed River from Murwillumbah to Tweed Heads (a distance of approximately 30km) there are multiple adjoining zones including 1(a) Rural, 1(b2) Agricultural Protection, 2(a) Low Density Residential, 3(c) Commerce and Trade, 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise, 4(a) Industrial, 5(a) Special uses, 6(a) Open Space, 6(b) Recreation, 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests), 7(d) Environmental Protection (Scenic/Escarpment) and 8(a) National Parks and Nature Reserves. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of many of these zones, and would be prohibited in the 7(a), 7(d), 8(a) and 2(a) zones. The proposed development is also considered to raise a number of issues regarding river erosion, local amenity, impact upon the ecosystem and critical habitats, conflict with existing recreational river uses, proximity to residential development and suitability for the site given the environmental sensitivity of the area which are detailed elsewhere in this report. The applicant was advised that Council officers did not support the subject application and was advised to withdraw the development application. The applicant’s planning consultant has provided written advice stating that ‘our client will not be withdrawing the application’ and that a response was to be provided to the issues raised in Council’s correspondence. It was further stated that ‘It is not possible to give you a time frame for the response but it will be as soon as possible.’ Given that the applicant could not provide a timeframe for the submission of further information, it was determined that the application should be determined. The applicant has submitted a seven page submission in response to the issues raised in Council correspondence. This submission includes a request that a separate consideration of the low impact pontoon boat use be provided. It is considered that irrespective of how the application is to be modified in this way, sufficient information has not been provided in order for Council officers to determine that the proposal would result in an appropriate development proposal and in this regard the development application is not supported. Development History Council has received two applications in recent times which are of particular relevance with respect to the development history of the subject site. DA11/0356- Wakeboarding coaching clinic between Fingal and Chinderah along the Tweed River (operating from Fingal boat ramp). Refused 21 February 2012. The reasons for refusal included the following:

• The proposed development cannot be determined to satisfy the orderly and economic use and development of the land.

• The proposed development cannot be determined to satisfy the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats.


• The proposal has the ability to impact upon the protection and conservation of native animals and plants.

• The proposal is not considered to be compliant with relevant Environmental Planning Instruments.

• The proposal is inconsistent with management plans produced by Council and the Maritime authority that highlight the need to protect ecology and reduce erosion within the vicinity of the Tweed River.

• The proposed site is not considered suitable for the proposed development.

• The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest. DA11/0144- Commercial boat hire operations on the Tweed River from Fingal boat ramp. Withdrawn 25 May 2011. Public Submissions The proposal was advertised in accordance with DCP A11 – Public Notification of Development Proposals for a period of 14 days from Wednesday 29 May to Thursday 13 June 2013. During this time, 27 submissions were received, with a further three late submissions received. A full assessment of the submissions is provided in the body of this report. Summary Having regard to relevant statutory controls and an assessment against the relevant legislative policies, the proposed development is not considered suitable for the location and therefore the proposed development is recommended for refusal.


SITE DIAGRAM


Considerations under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan Clause 4 illustrates that the aims of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (TLEP 2000) are to give effect to the desired outcomes, strategic principles, policies and actions of the Tweed Shire 2000+ Strategic Plan. The vision of the plan is “the management of growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Shire is retained, and its economic vitality, ecological integrity and cultural fabric is enhanced”. Clause 4 further aims to provide a legal basis for the making of a DCP to provide guidance for future development and land management, to give effect to the Tweed Heads 2000+ Strategy and Pottsville Village Strategy and to encourage sustainable economic development of the area which is compatible with the Shire’s environmental and residential amenity qualities. The subject development application is not considered to be in accordance with the above in that it is likely to compromise the unique natural character of the Tweed River. The proposal has not demonstrated that it is compatible with the Shire’s environmental and residential amenity qualities and as such is considered to be in contravention of this Clause. Refusal of the application is recommended in this regard. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development The TLEP 2000 aims to promote development that is consistent with the four principles of ecologically sustainable development, being the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The subject proposal is not considered consistent with the above criteria in that the proposed activities on the Tweed River threaten biological diversity and ecological integrity. Approval of the proposal is considered likely to have negative ramifications for ecologically sustainable development principles on the Shire’s waterways and it is recommended that the application be refused in this regard. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if: (a) it is satisfied that the development is consistent with the primary objective of

the zone within which it is located, and (b) it has considered that those other aims and objectives of this plan (the

TLEP) that are relevant to the development, and (c) it is satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable

cumulative impact on the community, locality or catchment that will be affected by its being carried out or on the area of Tweed as a whole.


In this instance, the boats are to be launched on land zoned 6(a) Open Space at Fingal Boat Ramp, passengers are to be picked up at Barneys Point Bridge which is unzoned Road Reserve and passenger cars are to be parked on land zoned 3(d) at BP Chinderah. The boating operations are to be undertaken on unzoned waterway between Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah. Development on unzoned land is detailed further under Clause 13 below. The proposed development would be defined as ‘Tourist Facilities’ under the provisions of the TLEP 2000 which means:

‘An establishment principally used for the recreation or enjoyment of tourists and may include an amusement park, boat shed, boating facility, cruise craft dock, tavern, marina, playground, refreshment room, shop, theme park, water sport facilities or the like or a club used in conjunction with any such activities.’

Under the TLEP 2000, tourist facilities are permitted with consent in the 6(a) Open Space and 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise zones. The primary objectives of the abovementioned zones (and consistency of the proposal with the objectives) are as follows: 6(a) Open Space

• To identify existing public land and land that is proposed to be acquired for public ownership to satisfy the open space and recreational needs of local residents and visitors to the area of Tweed and to enable its development to encourage or assist their recreational use and enjoyment of the land.

The purpose of 6(a) zoned land is to ‘satisfy the open space and recreational needs of local residents and visitors to the area of Tweed’. Development should only be encouraged to assist this recreational use and enjoyment. The proposal represents a commercial use of the river which it is considered to compete with many of the recreational uses and enjoyment of the land by local residents and visitors to the area solely for recreational purposes. In this regard the proposal is not considered to be in accordance with the primary objective of the zone. 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise

• To encourage development related to waterfront and marine activities, recreation or tourism.

The purpose of 3(d) zoned land is to ‘encourage development related to waterfront and marine activities, recreation or tourism. In this regard the proposal is considered to encourage development for tourism purposes and therefore complies with the primary objective of the zone. Other aims and objectives of the TLEP 2000 that are relevant to the proposal have been considered and are discussed in the body of this report. The Tweed River is recognised as having a unique value within the Northern Rivers Region. The proposal has the potential to impact negatively and detrimentally upon the river system and existing recreational use of the river, as outlined elsewhere in this report. The development is considered to have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the community, the locality and on the area of Tweed as a whole which is detailed further elsewhere in this report.


Clause 11 - Zone Objectives Primary objectives of the relevant zones have been discussed under Clause 8 above in relation to the proposal. Secondary objectives for the relevant zones include the following: 6(a) Open Space

• To allow other development that is compatible with the recreational use of the land.

The proposal is not considered to be compatible with the recreational use of the land as it creates conflict with other passive river uses. 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise

• to allow for residential development in association with waterfront, tourist or recreational uses.


While subject application does not propose any residential development it has been advised under Clause 8 that the proposal is considered to be compatible with the primary objective of the 3(d) zone. In any event, it is considered that the development application as a whole is not compatible with the primary (as outlined above) or secondary objectives of the 6(a) Open Space zone and in this regard the proposal is therefore not in accordance with Clause 11 of the TLEP 2000. Clause 13 – Development of uncoloured land on the zone map The submitted application states that the proposed development is to operate on navigable parts of the Tweed River between Murwillumbah and Tweed Heads. The Tweed River is unzoned under the provisions of this TLEP and as such this clause applies to the development application. Furthermore, passenger pick-up and set-down is to be undertaken on unzoned Road Reserve at Barneys Point Bridge. The objectives of Clause 13 are as follows:

• To enable the control of development on unzoned land.

• To ensure that development of unzoned land is compatible with surrounding development and zones.

• To ensure that development of certain waters takes account of environmental impacts and other users of the waters.

In deciding whether to grant consent to development on unzoned land, the consent authority must consider:

a) whether the proposed development is compatible with development permissible in the adjoining zone and the character and use of existing development in the vicinity.

Due to the length of the Tweed River from Murwillumbah to Tweed Heads (a distance of approximately 30km) there are multiple adjoining zones and development characters in the vicinity of the development area as outlined below:


1(a) Rural Primary objectives • to enable the ecologically sustainable development of land that is suitable

primarily for agricultural or natural resource utilisation purposes and associated development.

• to protect rural character and amenity. Secondary objectives • to enable other types of development that rely on the rural or natural values

of the land such as agri- and eco-tourism. • to provide for development that is not suitable in or near urban areas. • to prevent the unnecessary fragmentation or development of land which

may be needed for long-term urban expansion. • to provide non-urban breaks between settlements to give a physical and

community identity to each settlement. Tweed River adjoins land zoned for 1(a) purposes, the objectives of which are outlined above. A tourist facility development is permissible in this zone. The 1(a) land is located adjacent to areas of the river which are not to be utilised for water sports activities which has been identified as contributing to river bank erosion to an unacceptable level. Having regard to this, and the permissibility of the tourist facility development in this zone, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. 1(b2) Agricultural Protection Primary objective • to protect identified prime agricultural land from fragmentation and the

economic pressure of competing land uses. Secondary objective • to allow other development that is compatible with agricultural activities. Tweed River adjoins vast tracts of land zoned 1(b2) between Chinderah and Murwillumbah. A tourist facility development is prohibited in this zone in this regard is considered to be incompatible with this land use. As outlined elsewhere in this report, Councils Natural Resource Management Unit have advised that the water sport activities component of the proposal ‘will add to the cumulative impact of wake waves on river bank erosion in the subject reach.’ As such it is considered that the proposed use would be in contravention of the objectives of the zone as erosion of the river bank at these locations would not protect the agricultural use of the land. 2(a) Low Density Residential Primary objective

• To provide for and maintain a low density residential environment with a predominantly detached housing character and amenity.


Secondary objective

• To allow some diversity of housing types provided it achieves good urban design outcomes and the density, scale and height is compatible with the primary objective.

• To allow for non-residential development that is domestically based, or services, the local needs of the community, and does not detract from the primary objective of the zone.

The Tweed River adjoins land zoned 2(a) under the TLEP 2000 to the southern bank of the river between Murwillumbah and Condong. Commercial use of the river of this nature and intensity adjacent to dwellings is likely to impact negatively on low density residential amenity and is not consistent with the primary objective for this zone within which tourist facilities are prohibited. With respect to the secondary objectives, the proposal is not domestically based nor does is it considered to service the local needs of the community. In this regard the proposal is not considered to be compatible with development permissible in the adjoining zone or the character and use of existing development in the vicinity of the river. 3(c) Commerce and Trade Primary objective • to provide for commercial, bulky goods retailing, light industrial and trade

activities which do not jeopardise the viability or function of the sub-regional or business centres.

Secondary objectives • to provide for those retailing activities which are not suited to, or desirable

in, the other business zones or which serve the needs of the other businesses in the zone.


Tweed River adjoins a section of land zoned 3(c) between 51 and 65 Tweed Valley Way. A tourist facility is a permissible use in this zone and it is considered that the proposal could be broadly identified as complying with the primary objective of the zone. In this regard, the proposal is considered acceptable. 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise The unzoned road reserve site at Barneys Point Bridge allocated for passenger pick-up and set-down adjoins land zoned 3(d). 3(d) Waterfront Enterprise objectives and development permissibility have been discussed under Clause 8 and Clause 11 above with it being determined that in this instance the tourist facilities development is considered to be compatible with the primary objective of the 3(d) zone and represents an allowable use at this location.


4(a) Industrial Primary objectives • to provide land primarily for industrial development. • to facilitate economic activity and employment generation. Secondary objective • to allow non-industrial development which either provides a direct service to

industrial activities and their work force, or which, due to its type, nature or scale, is inappropriate to be located in another zone.

The Tweed River adjoins land zoned for industrial purposes at Condong Sugar Mill. Tourist facilities are prohibited in this zone. Whilst it could be argued that the proposal would ‘facilitate economic activity and employment generation’ it is considered that the proposal does not comply with the other objectives of the zone. 5(a) Special Uses (Proposed Classified Road) Primary objective • to identify land which is developed or is proposed to be developed,

generally by public bodies, for community facilities and services, roads, railways, utilities and similar things.

Secondary objective • to provide flexibility in the development of the land, particularly if it is not yet

or is no longer required for the relevant special use. The Tweed River adjoins land zoned 5(a) Special Uses (Proposed Classified Road) at Barneys Point Bridge. The proposed tourist facilities are prohibited in this zone and in this regard is not considered to be compatible with development permissible in the adjoining zone. 6(a) Open Space

• To identify existing public land and land that is proposed to be acquired for public ownership to satisfy the open space and recreational needs of local residents and visitors to the area of Tweed and to enable its development to encourage or assist their recreational use and enjoyment of the land.

6(a) Open Space objectives and development permissibility have been discussed under Clause 8 and Clause 11 above with it being determined that in this instance the subject proposal would not be in accordance with the primary objective of the zone. Land zoned 6(a) is located on both sides of the Tweed River in close proximity to Fingal Boat ramp. 6(b) Recreation Primary Objective

• To designate land, whether in public or private ownership, which is or may be used primarily for recreational purposes.

Secondary objective

• To allow for other development that is compatible with the primary function of the zone.


Tourist facilities are permissible with consent (Item 2) in this zone which occurs on the northern side of the Pacific Motorway bridge at Barney’s Point. 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests) The objectives of this zone are: Primary

• To identify, protect and conserve significant wetlands and littoral rainforest.

• To prohibit development which could destroy or damage a wetland or littoral rainforest ecosystem.

Secondary

• To protect the scenic values of wetlands and littoral rainforests.

• To allow other development that is compatible with the primary function of the zone.

Land in this zone is represented along both sides of the river in the designated area of operation as islands or foreshore. The proposal is inconsistent with both primary objectives of this zone and the tourist facility development is prohibited in this zone. The commercial intensity of the proposal compromises protected areas and has the potential to impact negatively upon wetland and/or littoral rainforest ecosystems. 7(d) Environmental Protection (Scenic/Escarpment) The objectives of this zone are:

• To protect and enhance those areas of particular scenic value to the area of Tweed, minimise soil erosion from escarpment areas, prevent development in geologically hazardous areas, and maintain the visual amenity of prominent ridgelines and areas.

• To allow other development that is compatible with the primary function of the zone.

The proposal does not protect or enhance areas of particular scenic value to the Tweed and is inconsistent with the primary objective in this regard. Furthermore, the proposal is a prohibited form of development in this zone. As such the use of the Tweed River for tourist facility purposes adjacent to this 7(d) land is not considered to constitute a use that is compatible with adjoining zone. 8(a) National Parks and Nature Reserves The primary objectives of this zone are:

• To identify land which is reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

• To allow for the management and appropriate use of that land as provided by that Act.

Use of the Tweed River adjacent to this zone for the proposed tourist facilities is not compatible with development permissible in this adjoining zone as tourist facilities are prohibited under this zone and not considered to be consistent with the management and appropriate use of that land in accordance with the Act.


Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed area of operation (Tweed River) also adjoins land zoned under the Tweed City Centre LEP 2012. In this regard the unzoned land (Tweed River) adjoins land zoned RE1 Public Recreation, R3 Medium Density Residential and W2 Recreational Waterways under the provisions of this LEP. Under this LEP the proposed development would be defined as a ‘business premises’. RE1 Public Recreation The objectives of this zone are; • To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes. • To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible

land uses. • To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes. A business premises is prohibited in this zone. Furthermore, the proposal is a commercial use of the river which it is considered to compete with many of the potential recreational activities and uses. In this regard the proposal is not considered to be in accordance with the objective of the zone. R3 Medium Density Residential The objectives of this zone are: • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density

residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential

environment. • To enable other land uses that provides facilities or services to meet the day

to day needs of residents. A business premises is permitted with consent in this zone. Although quite a few submissions against the proposal have been received from local residents, it is considered reasonable in this regard to accept that an argument could be construed that the proposed development would provide a facility or service to meet the needs of residents. As such, the proposal is considered to be generally compatible with development permissible in the adjoining zone at this location.

W2 Recreational Waterways The objectives of this zone are: • To protect the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational

waterways. • To allow for water-based recreation and related uses. • To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing. A business premises is prohibited in this zone and the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with the objectives of the zone with respect to the ecological, scenic and recreational values of waterways or by providing for recreational fishing. The discussion under Clause 8 and Clause 11 concludes that the proposed development is incompatible with existing passive recreational uses of the river in accordance with the objectives of zones 6(a).


It is also concluded under this Clause that the proposed development is inconsistent with the desired development of the 1(b2), 2(a), 4(a), 5(a), 6(a), 7(a), 7(d) and 8(a) zones under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000. Furthermore under the provisions of the Tweed City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2012 the proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the desired development the RE1 and W2 zones. b) in the case of unzoned land that is below the mean high-water mark of the

ocean or an estuary, bay, lake or river: (i) whether or not the proposed development would alienate the use of

the waters of the ocean, estuary, bay, lake or river from recreational uses or from commercial fishing and, if so, whether there is sufficient area in the locality for those uses to mitigate the adverse effect of the proposed development on those uses, and

(ii) the provisions of any coastal, estuary or river plan of management in force from time to time that applies to the unzoned land or land in the vicinity, and

(iii) any impact the proposed development may have on the natural environment.

The proposed development is considered to conflict with passive recreational uses of the river including rowing, sailing, kayaking, canoeing, bird watching, recreational fishing, sightseeing and the mooring of vessels such as houseboats. The proposal is inconsistent with management plans produced by Council and the Maritime authority that regulate the use and formulate strategies to preserve and maintain the unique character of the Tweed River and environment. These are outlined elsewhere in this report. The impact that the proposal may have on the natural environment is discussed later in this report. A thorough assessment has been provided by Council’s Natural Resource Management Unit and refusal of the proposal is recommended in this regard. Conclusion The proposal is not considered to be in accordance with the provisions of this Clause and refusal of the application is recommended. Clause 15 - Essential Services Due to the nature of the proposal which is predominantly on the Tweed River it is considered that the provision of essential services is not required. Clause 17 - Social Impact Assessment In accordance with DCP A13 a socio-economic impact assessment is not required in association with this proposal. Clause 25 – Development in Zone 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests) and on adjacent land The uncoloured land upon which the proposal is to take place is located adjacent to land zoned 7(a).


The objective of this clause is:

• to ensure that wetlands and littoral rainforests are preserved and protected in the environmental and economic interests of the area of Tweed.

In relation to the proposal, the consent authority must take into account ‘the likely effects of the development on the flora and fauna found in the wetlands or littoral rainforest’. The proposal is at odds with the objective of this clause. It is not considered to be in the environmental interests of the subject area to support the proposal as it has not been demonstrated that it would not impact negatively and cumulatively on sensitive environmental areas of significance. Clause 29 – Development adjacent to Zone 8(a) National Parks and Nature Reserves The proposal extends to the river adjacent to Stotts Island and adjacent to Ukerebagh Nature Reserve. The objective of this clause is:

• to ensure that development of land adjacent to Zone 8(a) does not have a significant impact on wildlife habitat.

The proposal is not consistent with the management and appropriate use of the reserve in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The proposed development does not ensure a high level of protection for this area and resultant disturbance may lead to a significant and permanent impact on wildlife habitat. Council’s Natural Resource Management Unit have provided advice which states that the operation of the water sports activities (which operates to Stotts Island) ‘will add to the cumulative impact of wake waves on river bank erosion in the subject reach.’ In this regard it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to this Clause and it is recommended that the application be refused in this regard. Clause 31 – Development Adjoining Waterbodies The objectives of this clause are: • to protect and enhance scenic quality, water quality, aquatic ecosystems,

bio-diversity and wildlife habitat and corridors. • to provide adequate public access to waterways. • to minimise the impact on development from known biting midge and

mosquito breeding areas. The proposal does not impact upon the provision of adequate public access to waterways given that the Fingal Head boat ramp is available to the public. It is considered that with respect to this application the most relevant objective of this clause is: • to protect and enhance scenic quality, water quality, aquatic ecosystems,

bio-diversity and wildlife habitat and corridors. In the issue of consent, the following matters relevant to the application must be considered and the consent authority must be satisfied that:


a) the development will not have a significant adverse effect on scenic quality, water quality, marine ecosystems, or the bio-diversity of the riverine or estuarine area or its function as a wildlife corridor or habitat, and

c) the development is compatible with any coastal, estuary or river plan of management adopted by the Council under the Local Government Act 1993 that applies to the land or to land that may be affected by the development.

The development is not considered to be compatible with plans of management adopted by Council and as a result, it is recommended that the application be refused on this basis. Clause 34 - Flooding The subject development area is entirely flood prone to varying degrees, having regard to its location on or adjacent to the Tweed River. Whilst higher levels of the river resulting from flooding may increase the risk of impact upon river banks and habitat within the riverine/estuarine area it is noted that the subject application does not propose any building or development works which would be susceptible to flood damage. In this regard it is considered that the proposal would not represent an unacceptable development in terms of the provisions of this Clause. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils The proposed development is not considered to result in significant disturbance of acid sulfate soils due to its nature. No building work is required and as such there is considered to be minimal impact in this regard. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having regard to the provisions of this clause. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 15: Wetlands or Fishery Habitats The subject application relates to the operation of a pontoon and water sports boat on the Tweed River and as such this clause applies to the subject development. This clause states that council shall not consent to an application to carry out development for any purpose within, adjoining or upstream of a river or stream, coastal or inland wetland or fishery habitat area or within the drainage catchment of a river or stream, coastal or inland wetland or fishery habitat area unless it has considered the following matters: (a) the need to maintain or improve the quality or quantity of flows of water to

the wetland or habitat, The subject application is not considered to impact to a significant degree on the quality or quantity of water flow in to Tweed River.

(b) the need to conserve the existing amateur and commercial fisheries, The proposed development is considered to potentially impact on existing amateur fishing practices due to noise and the impact of the water sports proposed on the waterbody.

(c) any loss of habitat which will or is likely to be caused by the carrying out of the development,


This application has been forwarded to Councils Natural Resource Management Unit who have advised that the water sports element of this application is not supported as ‘This use will add to the cumulative impact of wake waves on river bank erosion in the subject reach. River bank erosion results in environmental degradation.’ Having regard to this, it is considered that the proposal is likely to cause a loss in habitat and the application should be refused in this regard. (d) whether an adequate public foreshore reserve is available and whether

there is adequate public access to that reserve, The proposal is considered to be generally acceptable in this regard.

(e) whether the development would result in pollution of the wetland or estuary and any measures to eliminate pollution,

The subject application is not considered to present an unacceptable application in this regard. Whilst noise pollution is a element of the proposal that is reviewed elsewhere in this report, this clause is considered to relate more so to physical contamination pollution which is not considered to be a likely impact from the proposal. (f) the proximity of aquatic reserves dedicated under the Fisheries

Management Act 1994 and the effect the development will have on these reserves,

The subject application is not considered to impact on any aquatic reserves as outlined above.

(g) whether the watercourse is an area of protected land as defined in section 21AB of the Soil Conservation Act 1938 and any measures to prevent soil erosion, and

Not applicable to the subject application.

(h) the need to ensure that native vegetation surrounding the wetland or fishery habitat area is conserved, and

As outlined under (c) above, the proposed development is considered likely to cause a loss in habitat due to a cumulative impact of wake waves on the river bank erosion and the application should be refused in this regard. This is also considered to be relevant to this clause as wetlands are located within the area identified for water sports use, including adjacent to Stotts island and to the north river bank at Tumbulgum and it is recommended that the application be refused in this regard.

(i) the recommendations of any environmental audit or water quality study prepared by the Department of Water Resources or the Environment Protection Authority and relating to the river, stream, wetland, area or catchment.

Not considered to be specifically applicable to the subject application.

From the above, it is considered that the primary concern in relation to this clause is the possible impact on and loss of habitat, including native vegetation due to river erosion arising from wake waves associated with the water sports boat. As outlined above, the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 15, in particular (c) and (h) above and refusal is recommended.





Clause 32B: Coastal Lands This clause applies to land (coastal river, estuaries and islands) within the region to which the NSW Coastal Policy 1997 applies. The 1997 Coastal Policy has as its central focus the ecologically sustainable development (ESD) of the NSW coastline and is based on the four principles of ESD contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) signed in 1992:

• conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

• inter-generational equity

• improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms, and

• the precautionary principle. ESD is particularly relevant to the coastal zone in view of the nature of the coastal environment and the varied and intense demands placed on its resources. Of these four principles, the proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with three. The nature and intensity of the proposed development is considered to threaten critical habitat and compromises the preservation of biological diversity through its impact on river erosion. It does not ensure that essential natural and cultural resources of the coastal zone are preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. The precautionary principle operates in this instance as locational considerations are critical and environmental impacts are uncertain but potentially significant. Clause 75: Tourism development Of particular relevance under this Clause is 75(1)(c) which states that Council must not grant consent to tourism development unless it is satisfied that the development will not be detrimental to the scenery or other significant features of the natural environment. It has been established that the nature and intensity of the proposal has the capacity to affect features of the natural environment through a cumulative impact on erosion. As such, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with this clause. Clause 76: Natural tourism areas The operational area proposed by the applicant is considered to be a natural tourism area as defined under this clause. It adjoins nature reserves, Crown land, protected areas and is, in the opinion of Council, considered to be a natural area with qualities which make it a major attraction. Assessment of the application must take into account the regional policy: ‘Tourism Development Near Natural Areas: Guidelines for the North Coast’. This policy was created to expand upon the basic concepts put forward in the NCREP and relates specifically to tourism developments the attraction of which depends on their proximity to major natural areas. The aim of the guidelines is to encourage the development of viable yet environmentally sensitive tourism developments. Specifically it aims to:

• Promote developments which enhance rather than erode the values of the adjacent natural areas.

• Encourage a broader awareness and understanding of the natural areas of the North Coast.


• Identify the potential markets for tourism developments adjacent to major natural areas and the type of facilities suited to those areas.

• Assist potential developers and landowners in developing appropriate tourism projects, taking into account location, scale, site, design, operations and feasibility.

• Provide guidance for local councils to assess applications for tourism developments of this type.

• Set out a feasibility assessment procedure to be followed in developing a proposal.

The policy states that any tourism development near a natural area needs to be compatible with the prime purpose of the natural area. In this case, the prime purpose of the natural area is conservation of critical habitat. Passive recreational activities within the locality are aimed at the enjoyment of the natural area and appreciation of conservation initiatives. The major issues of tourism in natural areas arise from the interaction between conservation, development and planning objectives. Essential conservation issues relate to maintenance of the natural and cultural resources of the area and their protection for the long term benefit of people and for the wildlife dependent on the area. Appropriate forms of development are encouraged with regard to the nature of the recreation use and should allow a greater number and wider cross-section of visitors to enjoy and appreciate the natural area. It is important that such developments respect natural character and not detract from the natural values of the area. Essential planning issues centre on achieving environmentally sensitive development – an environmentally sustainable development that can provide benefits but not decrease the natural values or options available to future generations. The policy advocates that any tourist development adjacent to a natural area must limit its proposed activities to those which will not threaten the value or integrity of the natural area and that activities which pose a threat should be excluded altogether. In addition, the tourist development should be sufficiently separated from the natural area so that the noise it generates does not cause nuisance to users of the natural area or distress its native fauna. Scale of development must be limited so that it does not dominate the natural area or cause use of it to exceed its environmental capacity. Recreation facilities recommended in coastal lake, estuary and beach areas include the provision of equipment such as canoes, sail boards and other unpowered craft which provide access to the area’s main waterways, beaches etc. Any educational facilities should be aimed at promoting an understanding of the values of the natural environment. It is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with this clause as it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will not cause a nuisance with respect to noise or impact negatively on the natural area in which it is proposed to operate due to erosion concerns.


Clause 81: Development adjacent to the ocean or a waterway Clause 81(1)(c) requires Council to be satisfied that the development is consistent with the principles of any foreshore management plan applying to the area. The subject application was referred to Councils Natural Resource Management Unit who have provided advice on the application with respect to the Tweed River Estuary Bank Management Plan 1998. From this is noted that ‘The above management plan provides advice on the mechanisms for river bank erosion, sites for priority stabilisation works, and design options for stabilisation. There is no advice or policy statement with respect to the operation of vessels which may cause wake wave erosion.’ In this regard, it is considered that the proposal would not necessarily contravene the provisions of this clause and consequently refusal is not recommended in this regard. SEPP No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands The aim of this policy is to ensure that coastal wetlands are preserved and protected in the environmental and economic interests of the State. SEPP 14 wetlands are located on the subject site (Fingal Head Boat Harbour) and on adjacent land to the north managed by the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council. They also cover most of Ukerebagh Nature Reserve, Tony’s Island and Tim’s Island to the north of the motorway bridge. To the south of the motorway bridge land on Lillie’s Island, Chinderah Bay, Chinderah Island, Dodds Island in close proximity to Chinderah display SEPP 14 Wetlands whilst further west a small amount of land adjacent to the Tweed Broadwater is identified as Coastal Wetland. In the area identified for water sports operation, there is a small unidentified island off Stotts Island which is mapped SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands also. Clause 4(2) states that ‘this policy does not apply to land dedicated or reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as an Aboriginal area, historic site, national park, nature reserve, state game reserve or state recreation area.’ This would include land zoned 8(a) under the TLEP 2000 (Ukerebagh Nature Reserve). Clause 7 outlines ‘restriction on development of certain land’ (clearing, constructing a levee, draining, filling) that require the concurrence of the Director-General. The proposal does include these actions. The proposed development is not consistent with the aim of this SEPP in that it does not preserve and protect coastal wetlands in the environmental and economic interests of the State, given the cumulative erosion impact arising from the proposed development, in particular on the Coastal Wetlands adjacent to Stotts Island. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of this SEPP. SEPP No. 26 - Littoral Rainforests The aim of this Policy is to provide a mechanism for the consideration of applications for development that is likely to damage or destroy littoral rainforest areas with a view to the preservation of those areas in their natural state. SEPP 26 areas are located on land within proximity of the Fingal Head boat ramp to the western side of the river at this location where the 100m buffer area extends into the river.


In accordance with Clause 7(1), the following acts are considered ‘designated development’ which require consent and concurrence from the Director-General: erect a building, carry out work, use land for any purpose, or subdivide it, disturb, change or alter any landform or disturb, remove, damage or destroy any native flora or other element of the landscape or dispose of or dump any liquid, gaseous or solid matter. Within the 100m buffer zone, the following acts require consent: erect a building, disturb or change or alter any landform or disturb, remove, damage or destroy any native flora, or dispose of or dump any liquid, gaseous or solid matter.

The applicant has submitted information stating: "The only SEPP 26 mapped areas along the river are located in the sand dunes of Fingal and on the Coolangatta Tweed Heads Golf Course, The proposed operation of the Pontoon Boat and Water Sports Boat will not be within 100m of the mapped areas. The actual towing area is located approximately 10km upstream, Council Officers could condition the consent such that the boats are not to be used within 100m of a mapped SEPP 26 area."

Council officers would have concerns with respect to the proposal meeting the provisions of this SEPP. As the buffer extends into the water adjacent to the proposed operational area, it is possible that there may be impact upon native flora within those areas. The applicants recommendation to condition the use of the boats within 100m of a mapped SEPP 26 area would present concerns with respect to policing such a condition and in substantiating compliance action in the event it were required. It is considered that the proposed development would have the potential to damage littoral rainforest areas as outlined above, however it is not considered that the application warrants refusal in this regard. SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection Aims of this policy are as follows:

a) to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast, and

b) to protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and

c) to ensure that new opportunities for public access to and along coastal foreshores are identified and realised to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and

d) to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge, and

e) to ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and f) to protect and preserve beach environments and beach amenity, and g) to protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and h) to protect and preserve the marine environment of New South Wales,

and i) to protect and preserve rock platforms, and


j) to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991), and

k) to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and

l) to encourage a strategic approach to coastal management. Land on the subject site and on either side of the river is described as a sensitive coastal location, in this instance primarily identified as land within 100m above mean high water mark of the sea, a bay or an estuary. Some of the operational area includes land to which SEPP 14 applies and land reserved/ edicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Assessment of the proposal involves consideration of the matters for consideration at Clause 8 of this policy, as follows:

a) the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2, The subject application is not considered to be in accordance with the aims of this policy, in particular with respect to aims a, d and g.

b) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved, The subject application is not considered to impact significantly on existing public accessways to the coastal foreshore.

c) opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability, The subject application is not considered to generate opportunities to provide new public access along the coastal foreshore.

d) the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area, The proposed development is not considered to represent a suitable development at this location due to its non-compliance with both the relevant planning policies and concerns with respect to river erosion and compatibility with the surrounding area due to noise etc.

e) any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore, The proposed development is not considered to impact on the coastal foreshore as outlined above with respect to loss of views or overshadowing.

f) the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities, The subject application is not considered to contravene the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast.


g) measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats, The subject development has the potential to impact on habitats as a consequence of cumulative erosion resulting from this proposal as outlined elsewhere in this report.

h) measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats The subject application is not considered to impact significantly on measures to conserve fish and marine vegetation as outlined above.

i) existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors, The subject application is not considered to impact significantly on wildlife corridors as outlined above.

j) the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards, The subject application is not considered to result in any specific impacts with respect to coastal processes or hazards in this instance.

k) measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities, The subject application is considered to demonstrate potential for conflict between land and water based coastal activities. As outlined elsewhere in this report, Council have received numerous objections to the proposed development, many of which objected to other recreational uses on and around the Tweed River. In this regard Councils Environmental Health Unit requested that a Noise Impact Assessment be submitted to Council to determine the impact from the proposed use in terms of noise and amenity. The applicant has declined to provide this, stating that ‘the boats are standard recreational boats that do not create excessive noise. Noise impact is not considered to be a significant issue.’ It is not considered that the proposed development has adequately demonstrated measures to reduce impact between land and water-based activities and as such the application is recommended for refusal in this regard.

l) measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals, The subject application was forwarded to NSW Government (Office of Environment & Heritage) and the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council (TBLALC) through the referral process. Council received correspondence from NSW Government (Office of Environment & Heritage) outlining the following:


‘Prior to determining the application, Council should also be satisfied that an appropriate level of Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment has been undertaken, and that the proposal is not likely to impact on areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community. Also, it is important that the views of Aboriginal community groups be sought in regard to the proposed development.’

In this regard, Council has received a submission from the TBLALC outlining concerns with the proposal and requesting that a full Cultural Heritage Assessment be undertaken. The applicant has provided information in response stating that the proposed use and associated impacts are identical to those of the numerous other similar boats on the river, and outlining that it would be impossible to distinguish the impacts of the proposed boats separately from other boating use. A full Cultural Heritage Assessment is not to be undertaken according to the applicant. In this regard it is not considered possible to fully assess the impact of the proposal with respect to the criteria outlined above. As such, the application is not supported in the absence of adequate supporting information to ensure the proposal won’t impact on measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals.

m) likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies, The proposed development is not considered likely to have a negative impact with respect to the water quality of coastal waterbodies.

n) the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance, As outlined under l) above the subject application was forwarded to NSW Government (Office of Environment & Heritage) and the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council (TBLALC) through the referral process. Council received correspondence from NSW Government (Office of Environment & Heritage) outlining the following:

‘Prior to determining the application, Council should also be satisfied that an appropriate level of Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment has been undertaken, and that the proposal is not likely to impact on areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community. Also, it is important that the views of Aboriginal community groups be sought in regard to the proposed development.’

In this regard, Council has received a submission from the TBLALC outlining concerns with the proposal and requesting that a full Cultural Heritage Assessment be undertaken.


The applicant has provided information in response stating that the proposed use and associated impacts are identical to those of the numerous other similar boats on the river, and outlining that it would be impossible to distinguish the impacts of the proposed boats separately from other boating use. A full Cultural Heritage Assessment is not to be undertaken according to the applicant. In this regard it is not considered possible to fully assess the impact of the proposal with respect to the criteria outlined above. As such, the application is not supported in the absence of adequate supporting information to ensure the proposal won’t impact on the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance.

o) only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities, Not applicable to the subject application.

p) only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is determined: i. the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the

environment, and The proposed development is considered to result in an unacceptable cumulative impact with respect to river erosion as detailed elsewhere in this report.

ii. measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

There is not considered to be specific measures applicable to this application with respect to water/ energy usage.

An assessment of the proposal against Clause 8 highlights that the proposal is not consistent with the aims of the policy as set out in Clause 2, specifically but not limited to, a), d), g), k), l), n) and p). The nature of the proposal is unsuitable for and incompatible with the surrounding area. It is considered to conflict with measures to conserve habitats and aboriginal heritage. The cumulative impact of the proposed development on the environment is not considered sustainable and the proposal is not supported with respect to this SEPP and refusal is recommended in this regard.

(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments The Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 which has been adopted by Council is applicable to the subject site. Part 1 Preliminary 1.2 Aims of Plan The aims of this plan as set out under Section 1.2 of this plan are as follows:

(1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Tweed in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act.

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:


(a) to give effect to the desired outcomes, strategic principles, policies and actions contained in the Council’s adopted strategic planning documents, including, but not limited to, consistency with local indigenous cultural values, and the national and international significance of the Tweed Caldera,

(b) to encourage a sustainable, local economy, small business, employment, agriculture, affordable housing, recreational, arts, social, cultural, tourism and sustainable industry opportunities appropriate to Tweed Shire,

(c) to promote the responsible sustainable management and conservation of Tweed’s natural and environmentally sensitive areas and waterways, visual amenity and scenic routes, the built environment, and cultural heritage,

(d) to promote development that is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and to implement appropriate action on climate change,

(e) to promote building design which considers food security, water conservation, energy efficiency and waste reduction,

(f) to promote the sustainable use of natural resources and facilitate the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy,

(g) to conserve or enhance the biological diversity, scenic quality, geological and ecological integrity of the Tweed,

(h) to promote the management and appropriate use of land that is contiguous to or interdependent on land declared a World Heritage site under the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and to protect or enhance the environmental significance of that land,

(i) to conserve or enhance areas of defined high ecological value, (j) to provide special protection and suitable habitat for the recovery

of the Tweed coastal Koala. The proposed development is considered to be in contravention of aims (c), (d) and (g) above due to concerns with respect to the impact the proposed development would have on river erosion on the Tweed River. 1.4 Definitions The proposed development is considered to be defined as a ‘business premises’ under the provisions of this plan. business premises means a building or place at or on which: (a) an occupation, profession or trade (other than an industry) is carried on for

the provision of services directly to members of the public on a regular basis, or


(b) a service is provided directly to members of the public on a regular basis, and includes a funeral home and, without limitation, premises such as banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies, internet access facilities, betting agencies and the like, but does not include an entertainment facility, home business, home occupation, home occupation (sex services), medical centre, restricted premises, sex services premises or veterinary hospital. Note. Business premises are a type of commercial premises - see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development 2.1 Land use zones As outlined under the TLEP 2000 assessment, the development area encompasses Fingal Boat Ramp, Barneys Point Bridge, the BP Chinderah site and the Tweed River between Murwillumbah and Tweed Heads. The proposed development area is zoned as the following: RE1 Public Recreation: Fingal Head Boat Ramp. W3 Working Waterways: Tweed River between Tweed Heads and Motorway Bridge. SP2 Infrastructure: Passenger pick up and set down point at Barneys Point Bridge. B4 Mixed Use: Vehicle parking area at BP Chinderah. W2 Recreational Waterways: Tweed River between M1 Motorway Bridge and Murwillumbah. A business premises is prohibited in the RE1, W3, SP2 and W2 zones. 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table The Draft TLEP 2012 zones the development area as RE1 Public Recreation, W3 Working Waterways, SP2 Infrastructure, B4 Mixed Use and W2 Recreational Waterways. The objectives of these zones are: RE1 Public Recreation Objectives of zone • To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes. • To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible

land uses. • To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes. The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of this zone as it does not enable land to be used for open space or recreational purposes, provide a range of recreational settings or protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.


W3 Working Waterways Objectives of zone • To enable the efficient movement and operation of commercial shipping,

water-based transport and maritime industries. • To promote the equitable use of waterways, including appropriate

recreational uses. • To minimise impacts on ecological values arising from the active use of

waterways. • To provide for sustainable fishing industries. The proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with any of the above objectives. The proposal does not enable commercial shipping, water based transport or maritime industries. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would not promote an equitable use of waterways as it is considered to be detrimental to various other recreational uses including rowing, canoeing and fishing. The proposal is not considered to minimise impacts on ecological values. SP2 Infrastructure Objectives of zone • To provide for infrastructure and related uses. • To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from

the provision of infrastructure. The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the above objectives. The area of land zoned SP2 is located at Barneys Point Bridge and is to be used for passenger pick up and set down. This is considered to be inconsistent in the event that this land is required for the provision of infrastructure in the future. B4 Mixed Use Objectives of zone • To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other

development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

The proposed use is permissible in this zone. W2 Recreational Waterways Objectives of zone • To protect the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational

waterways. • To allow for water-based recreation and related uses. • To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.


The proposed development is not considered to protect ecological, scenic or recreational values of the water through cumulative impacts on river erosion and potential impacts on the other recreational uses on the river. Furthermore, the proposal is not considered to encourage sustainable fishing industries or recreational fishing. As outlined under clause 2.1 above it is noted that a business premises is prohibited in the RE1, W3, SP2 and W2 zones. The applicant has not addressed the objectives of these zones or provided supporting information to demonstrate that the proposal meets these zone objectives despite being a prohibited use and it is considered that the proposed use does not meet the objectives above and the application warrants refusal in this regard. Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions 5.5 Development within the coastal zone This clause of the draft LEP states that development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered the following; (a) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians

(including persons with a disability) with a view to: (i) maintaining existing public access and, where possible, improving that

access, and (ii) identifying opportunities for new public access, and

The proposed development is not considered to impact upon access to coastal foreshore. (b) the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the

surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account: (i) the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or

activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii) the location, and (iii) the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building or

work involved, and

The proposed development is not considered to represent a suitable development at this location as potential cumulative river erosion impacts are likely to impact on the surrounding area. In this regard the application is not supported. (c) the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal

foreshore including: (i) any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and (ii) any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

The proposed development is considered to result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the coastal foreshore through the issues raised elsewhere in this report including noise and impact on other recreational users of the river.


(d) how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

The proposed development is not considered to protect the scenic qualities of the coast as it represents a commercial development which has been identified as having a cumulative impact on river erosion in the Tweed River. In this regard the proposal is considered to compromise the above provision. (e) how biodiversity and ecosystems, including:

(i) native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and (ii) rock platforms, and (iii) water quality of coastal waterbodies, and (iv) native fauna and native flora, and their habitats, can be conserved, and

The proposed development is considered to represent a risk with respect to existing biodiversity and ecosystems along the Tweed River due to concerns arising from cumulative erosion associated with the water sports boat. (f) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other

development on the coastal catchment.

The proposed development is not considered to result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the coastal catchment. This clause goes on to further state: (3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is

wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the proposed development will not impede or diminish, where

practicable, the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore, and

As outlined elsewhere in this report, the proposal is not considered to impede or diminish the right of access of the public either to or along the public foreshore.

(b) if effluent from the development is disposed of by a non-reticulated system, it will not have a negative effect on the water quality of the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

The effluent provisions identified by the applicant have been reviewed by Councils Environmental Health Unit and assessed as being acceptable in this instance.

(c) the proposed development will not discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

Not applicable to the subject application. (d) the proposed development will not:

(i) be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or (ii) have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or


(iii) increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land.

With respect to the submitted information it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on coastal hazards or increase the risk of coastal hazards to other lands due to identified impacts with respect to cumulative river erosion. 5.7 Development below mean high water mark This clause is applicable to the subject application and states the following: (1) The objective of this clause is to ensure appropriate environmental

assessment for development carried out on land covered by tidal waters. (2) Development consent is required to carry out development on any land

below the mean high water mark of any body of water subject to tidal influence (including the bed of any such water).

The subject application has been submitted in order to gain development consent as the proposal relates to an activity on the Tweed River. The subject application has been referred to Councils Environmental Health and Natural Resource Management Units and it has been considered that the proposal represents an unacceptable development with respect to environmental impact and refusal is recommended. Conclusion The proposed development does not meet the provision of the Draft LEP 2012 as outlined above. As this LEP is considered to be certain and imminent and the proposal is not in accordance with the aims and objectives of the instrument it is therefore recommended that the proposal be refused.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A2-Site Access and Parking Code The provisions of this DCP do not make specific reference to car parking requirements for commercial boating operations such as that proposed in this application. The proposed development is to provide customer car parking at a designated area adjacent to BP Chinderah. The application was referred to Councils Infrastructure Engineering Section with respect to traffic and parking who have advised the following:

"Traffic generation of the proposal is minimal and customers are expected to park in the adjacent service station. It is recommended that appropriate signage be conditioned directing those customers to the allocated parking. These signs would be installed and worded to the satisfaction of Council's Director of Engineering and Operations and located in Council's car park located adjacent to the old Barneys Point Bridge and in the proposed parking area at the Service Station."

As such the application is considered to be acceptable from a parking and traffic perspective subject to appropriate conditions of consent. The proposal is considered not to contravene the provisions of DCP A2.


A3-Development of Flood Liable Land The subject development area is entirely flood prone to varying degrees, having regard to its location on or adjacent to the Tweed River. It is noted that the subject application does not propose any building or development works which would be susceptible to flood damage. In this regard it is considered that the proposal would not represent an unacceptable development in terms of the provisions of this DCP. A11-Public Notification of Development Proposals The proposal was advertised in accordance with DCP A11 for a period of 14 days from Wednesday 29 May 2013 to Thursday 13 June 2013. During this time 27 public submissions were received with a further three late submissions received. Issues raised within the submissions are discussed elsewhere in this report. DCP B2- Tweed City Centre A portion of the Tweed River is mapped as being within the area that this DCP is applicable to and as such it is required to assess the proposal against the provisions of this DCP. In this regard it is noted that the Tweed River adjoins both the Southern Boat Harbour and the Tweed River Environment and Recreation Precinct, which relate to the subject application. In this regard the following is offered: Southern Boat Harbour An objective of this zone is to ‘promote the maritime theme of the boat harbour, and to encourage and facilitate tourism and boating on the Tweed River’. In this regard, the proposed development would be considered to be generally consistent with this objective. Tweed River Environment and Recreation Precinct The Tweed River Environment and Recreation Precinct is identified as the major natural area within Tweed Heads City and comprises significant wetland areas, watercourses and the golf course. It has significant biodiversity value and the DCP states that ‘development should be minimised to land uses that compliment the natural qualities of the precinct, and have tourist or recreational qualities’. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal would have tourist or recreational qualities, however Council officers would have concerns with respect to determining satisfactorily that the proposal would complement the natural qualities of the precinct. In this manner, the proposal is considered not to warrant a recommendation of refusal against this DCP, however Council officers would have concerns with respect to same. Waterways Policy The subject application has been reviewed by Councils Natural Resource Management Unit with respect to the applicable waterways policies relevant to this application. In this regard the following comment is provided: Impact of wake on river bank erosion Study (2012) The Impact of Wake on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study has established that wake wave energy is one of the primary causes of river bank erosion in the Tweed estuary. While it is recognised that floods and a lack of riparian vegetation are also significant issues contributing to erosion problems, it is accepted that wake is a significant contributing factor.


There is no method that can be used to quantify the contribution of wake from the proposed vessel use and its relative significance with respect to ongoing erosion in this river reach. Total wake impact created will depend on the intensity of use of the vessel, and variables associated with its operation. The former is directly linked to demand for the business product offered, and the latter to the actions of the vessel driver. Despite it not being possible to accurately quantify the amount of wake potentially generated, it can be assumed that wake generation by this individual vessel would create only a minor increased impact, over and above the total wake wave energy created by the existing sum of powered vessels already using this reach of the river for recreational towing activities. It is clear however, that the proposal would contribute cumulatively to wake wave energy, and as such, is an activity that will contribute cumulatively to river bank erosion. Upper Tweed Estuary Management Plan (1996) Council prepared a management plan for the Upper Tweed Estuary in 1996. The plan does not specifically address the issue of commercial operation of tow based water sports in the river. Relevant objectives of the management plan are to provide an integrated program of works that will:

• Identify, enhance and protect significant habitat, particularly tidal wetlands and riparian corridors

• Protect heritage

• Provide recreation facilities

• Encourage boating activities

• Increase awareness

• Address river bank erosion

• Improve water quality, particularly in Rous

• Minimise ASS impacts

• Conserve scenic qualities of the river The plan contains a comprehensive list of management constraints and opportunities. Most relevant to consideration in the assessment of this development proposal is the following:

• There is widespread bank erosion along the upper Tweed Estuary. Appropriate measures are required in areas where significant assets may be threatened and where waves from increased boating would exacerbate erosion.

While the plan does acknowledge and recognise the need to accommodate recreational boating in the Upper Tweed Estuary, it highlights that protection of wetland vegetation and riparian corridors and addressing river bank erosion is a high priority. It is considered that operation of a commercial water sport vessel engaging in towing activities is not consistent with the Upper Estuary Management Plan objectives of, "Identify, enhance and protect significant habitat, particularly tidal wetlands and riparian corridors."


NSW State Rivers and Estuary Policy (1993) The objective of the NSW Rivers and Estuary Policy is to manage the rivers and estuaries of NSW in ways which:

• Slow, halt or reverse the overall rate of degradation in their systems,

• Ensure the long-term sustainability of their essential biophysical functions, and

• Maintain the beneficial use of these resources. These objectives are to be achieved through application of the following management principles:

• Those uses of the rivers and estuaries that are non-degrading should be encouraged.

• Non-sustainable resource uses which are not essential should be progressively phased out.

• Environmentally degrading processes and practices should be replaced with more efficient and less degrading alternatives.

• Environmentally degraded areas should be rehabilitated and their biophysical functions restored.

• Remnant areas of significant environmental values should be accorded special protection.

• An ethos for the sustainable management of river and estuarine resources should be encouraged in all agencies and individuals who own, manage or use these resources, and its practical application enabled.

Operation of a commercial water sports vessel that includes towing activities in the subject reach is not in accordance with the first objective of the NSW Rivers and Estuaries Policy. The proposed activity will add to the cumulative impact of wake on river bank erosion, and as such, does not assist in slow, halt or reverse the overall rate of degradation (in this cases, river bank erosion) in the Tweed River. Operation of a commercial water sports vessel has the potential impact of reducing the amenity that the river provides for passive recreational use, in particular the established and important use by the Murwillumbah Rowing Club. As such, approval of the development would be inconsistent with the first management principal, that being to encourage uses of the estuary that are non-degrading. It is also noted that Stott's Island would qualify for special protection from any potential impact by wake creating activities under management principle five, as it is an area of significant environmental value.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The NSW Coastal Policy 1997 has as its central focus the ecologically sustainable development (ESD) of the NSW coastline and is based on the four principles of ESD contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) signed in 1992:


• Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity;

• Inter-generational equity;

• Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms, and

• The precautionary principle. ESD is particularly relevant to the coastal zone in view of the nature of the coastal environment and the varied and intense demands placed on its resources. Of these four principles, the proposed development is inconsistent with three. The nature and intensity of the proposed development threatens critical habitat and compromises the preservation of biological diversity. It does not assure that essential natural and cultural resources of the coastal zone are preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. The precautionary principle operates in this instance as locational considerations are critical and environmental impacts are uncertain but potentially significant.

(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 This Plan applies to the Shire’s 37 kilometre coastline and has a landward boundary that includes all lands likely to be impacted by coastline hazards plus relevant Crown lands. The subject application is to operate within the navigable waters of the Tweed River and does not include the coastal foreshore in this regard. As such the development area is not included in coastal hazards mapping and this management plan does not apply specifically to this Development Application. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 The proposed development is not within Cudgen, Cudgera or Mooball Creeks. This Plan is therefore not applicable to the application. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) The subject operation area does not extend to the Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater Catchment. The submitted application is for operation in the navigable water of the Tweed River only and as such does not extend into land covered by this plan. This Plan is therefore not relevant to the proposed development.




(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Amenity/Noise The proposed development is considered to warrant particular assessment with respect to potential amenity and noise impacts. Councils Environmental Health Unit have requested the applicant to provide a noise impact assessment however this has not been submitted, with the applicant stating in their response letter in regards to noise “It is considered unreasonable to require a Noise Impact Assessment, given that both boats are standard recreational boats and given the number of other similar boat activity on the river. We are not aware of any other Noise Assessment that has been undertaken for a commercial boat operation on the Tweed River.” The further information submitted by the applicant in regards to noise is considered insufficient to undertake an adequate assessment of the potential noise impacts arising from the proposed development. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to impact upon other users of the Tweed River, including low impact recreational and passive river uses such as fishing, walking, cycling, picnicking, sailing, paddling, snorkelling, bird-watching, rowing and kayaking. It is considered that commercial towing activities are inconsistent with these uses which should be protected. In this regard, the proposed development is not supported given Council concerns with the potential noise and amenity impacts on the surrounding area. River Erosion The subject application was referred to Councils Natural Resource Management (NRM) Unit for comment who have advised that the proposed water sport activities are not supported as this use will add to the cumulative impact of wake waves on river bank erosion. It is noted that the river reach in which the activity has been proposed is subject to serious ongoing erosion, and it is considered that for Council to approve an activity that will cumulatively add to the worsening of existing erosion is not in the public interest. There are a number of serious bank slumps adjacent to and within metres of the Tweed Valley Way within the river reach, and it would be prudent for Council to prioritise actions that slows, reverses or halts factors exacerbating this erosion. While it is recognised that the most serious bank erosion in this river reach will require engineered stabilisation, it is not appropriate to approve a use that will worsen erosion of areas that are not yet in a critically eroded condition. Refusal of the application is recommended in this regard.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development Surrounding Landuses/Development The nature of surrounding land uses is dealt with in detail earlier in this report under Clauses 8, 11 and 13 of the TLEP 2000. The nature and intensity of the proposal is inconsistent with surrounding land uses, passive recreational enjoyment of the natural area and the general lack of intensive development along the river foreshore.


(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations The proposal was advertised in accordance with DCP A11 – Public Notification of Development Proposals for a period of 14 days from Wednesday 29 May to Thursday 13 June 2013. During this time, 27 submissions were received, with a further three late submissions received. Issues raised within the submissions are many and varied. A summary of the issues is provided below along with any response provided by the applicant following receipt of submission copies. Summary of Submissions Response from applicant

• Wakeboarding unit would be too noisy in a populated area.

• A high intensity water sports operation would compromise low impact recreational and passive river uses such as fishing, walking, cycling, picnicking, sailing, paddling, snorkelling, bird-watching, rowing and kayaking.

• The Tweed Rivers natural amenity, ecosystems and critical habitats should be preserved and protected from the proposed use.

• Proposal would impact negatively on established business which are sustainable and low impact (eg surf/stand-up-paddle school)

• Public land should not be used for the ingress/ egress for a floating pontoon due to OH & S concerns.

• Tweed public have to pay for River upkeep/ maintenance and not the applicant. Tweed River should be protected and instead promote ecotourism rather than potentially damaging proposals.

• Existing recreational wakeboarding in ‘tow zone’ already causes disruption and disturbance to

• Wakeboarding does not have a legislated measuring system and in this way is ‘lawless’. Also impacts on other river users inclu7ding fishing, canoeing, houseboats and swimming.

• There are inadequate car parking and virtually no toilet/shower amenities provided at Barney’s Point Bridge. Clients are therefore likely to use the nearest facilities at Tweed Ski Lodge Caravan Park which is private property.

• Wakeboarding causes a huge amount of damage to the river bank and property of residents along the river. Furthermore this does not contribute to the local economy.

• Approval of this DA will increase bank

Most of the submissions received are from residents of Fingal Head. The proposal will have minimal impact upon Fingal Head. The Fingal Head boat ramp will be used to launch the boats but the parking of cars and trailers is on private property. Towing activities can only occur upstream of Tumbulgum some 10km away from Fingal Head.

The Pontoon Boat is proposed to be used in other areas including adjacent to Fingal but it is of very low impact and no different to other similar pontoon boats operated by other commercial boat hire businesses in the area.

Only 2 submissions were received from people that actually reside within the area intended for the towing activities.

The issues are summarised as follows:

Noise

Concerns have been raised relating to the noise of the boats. The boats are standard recreational boats that do not create excessive noise. Noise impact is not considered to be a significant issue.

Bank Erosion

This issue has been discussed previously. Refer to comments at Item 3 and 4 (reproduced below). Appropriate conditions may be applied to manage potential impacts of the Water Sports Boat. The Pontoon Boat is similar to other existing hire Pontoon Boats and should be considered separately.

3. Waterway Management Plans

Council submits that the proposal is inconsistent with "Waterway Management Plans" which highlight the need to reduce erosion within the vicinity of the Tweed River. In response to this, again, it is pointed out that the subject boats are already in use on the Tweed River most weekends and holidays (in a recreational capacity).

Demand for the operation by members of the public will be seasonal and the peak times will be on weekends and holidays. It is not proposed to use ballast in the commercial


Summary of Submissions Response from applicant

erosion and disrupt and endanger rowing and other low impact boating activities.

• The proposal is to be undertaken where there is minimal revetment wall, resulting in this proposal causing river erosion

• The proposed development would impact on safety of rowers on Tweed River one of Australia’s best rowing courses. Wake waves are typically 0.25m in height and would swamp a skull boat which has a freeboard of 0.1m.

• Stabilisation of riverbank cost in the wake boarding area would be $7.7 million upfront with an ongoing maintenance cost of $1.7 million. Council should not ignore these costs.

• It is premature to approve this application prior to a strategy for use of the river. If Council were to approve the current development application, it could be liable to compensate the operator if towing activity were to be restricted in the future.

• The statement of environmental effects is inadequate and the environmental impacts of the proposal are not properly addressed. In many instances the DA merely states that the impact of the proposal would be no different to recreational wakeboarding.

• Proposal does not address cumulative impact on the environment and is not considered to be in the public interest.

• A commercial pontoon and wakeboarding business operating between 8am and 4pm 7 days a week would raise noise issues and destroy peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the area.

• There are inadequate resources in place to monitor the activities of this type of business.

• Proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations of ‘The Boat Impact and Wake Study review of the Tweed Estuary River Bank Management Plan.

• Proposed development would also impact on roosting migratory bird sites and heritage sites.

• Stotts Island contains at least 8 endangered plants and 47 bird species. As such it is not appropriate to operate a commercial water sports operation in this vicinity.

• Commercial operation would set a

operation.

Therefore the impacts of the proposal are likely to be similar to the existing recreational use of the boats and would not significantly increase erosion impacts.

In order to further address the issue of erosion the proposal limits the area for tow sports to upstream of Stotts Island and downstream of the Cane Rood Bridge. This is consistent with the most logical and reasonable recommendation of the "Impact of Woke on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study" prepared by SMEC dated 18 January 2012, being Option 3, which is in the following terms:

"Option 3 represents an option involving restriction of towing activities to a purpose built section of estuary (with protected banks). For example the area from the Cane Rd (Condong) Bridge to upstream of Stotts Island Nature Reserve (east of Tumbulgum) has been considered for the purposes of this comparative assessment. This approximately 7km stretch of waterway is popular for towing activities as it has reaches that ore sheltered from the different prevailing wind directions providing a good flat water surface for water skiing and wakeboarding in most conditions. This option would aim to consolidate towing activities to on existing popular area with suitable facilities.

Subsequently, the remainder of the estuary would be relieved from the bank erosion potential of towing boat wakes."

It is noted that bank protection works have been undertaken in this area and the area is, and will continue to be popular for tow sport activities.

4. Suitability of the Site - Bank Erosion

The site (the Tweed River) is subject to on uncontrolled number of recreational boat users of any size craft. It is considered that it is a contradictory position to maintain that the controlled commercial use of a Pontoon Boat and a Water Sports Boat would have unreasonable bank erosion impact while many similar craft may use the same waterway.

As previously mentioned the intensity of the use would be similar to the existing recreational use of the same boats, but appropriate conditions may be applied to manage the potential impacts.



precedent for future similar applications.

• Concerns raised with respect to the proposals proximity to culturally sensitive areas including Ukerabagh Island.

• The proposed commercial operation is inconsistent with surrounding residential zones.

• Congestion at the Fingal Head boat ramp is a concern.

• The proposed development would create noise and air pollution.

Other River Users

Normal "distances off" and right of way to unpowered craft regulations apply. The river is large enough to cater for all different forms of watercraft and interests. The proposal seeks to limit the area of tow sports and the nominated towing area is large enough to allow avoidance of other users should they be present. It is on unreasonable position of any river user to expect exclusive use of the entire river.

Residential Development

May be controlled by operating hours.

Proximity to Culturally Sensitive Areas

The boats will use the same waterway as other similar boats.

Impacts of Flora and Fauna

Again the boats are standard recreational boats using parts of the river that are already frequented by similar boats. It is unlikely that the proposal would pose a significant effect on threatened species or their habitat.

The application is seeking to provide a business that would enable visitors to the area to partake in a range of water based activities. The support of a viable tourism industry by providing a range of activities is considered to be in the public interest.

• A further late submission has been received from Destination Tweed in support of the application.

Not applicable.

Council Assessment of Submissions Issues raised within the submissions have been dealt with in the body of the report where Council is the regulatory authority. It is considered that the submitted application and the applicant’s response to the issues raised does not provide a level of information which adequately addresses many of the concerns raised above, particularly with respect to river bank erosion, noise/amenity impacts, cultural heritage impacts and potential for impacts on protected habitats. In this regard refusal of the application is recommended. Public Authority Submissions Comment The application was referred to the following external agencies for consultation purposes (the proposal was not identified as integrated development):

• NSW Transport Roads & Maritime Services

• Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council (TBLALC)

• Office of Environment & Heritage (National Parks)


The application was forwarded to NSW Government Crown Lands Department. Advice was received on 16 May 2013 advising that ‘Crown Lands has no comment to make on DA13/0221 at this stage.’ TBLALC lodged a submission in June 2013 objecting to the proposed development due to cultural and environmental concerns. Concerns raised included the following:

• Activities outlined in the above described DA will threaten to harm and desecrate a possible eight (8) government registered Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.

• A full Cultural Heritage Assessment is expected to be completed as the proposed activity is within 200metres of a permanent water course where there is higher potential to find unregistered cultural sites/material.

• Impact on cultural fishing and gathering of resource material in the Tweed region along the Tweed River.

• The proposed development will have a negative effect on the ability of Aboriginal people to continue with cultural fishing practices.

• The proposal will have a negative impact on the river bank erosion, seagrasses and fish stock. Ukerebagh Island is a declared Aboriginal place and was recognised as such by the NSW Government, this activity may also cause further damage to the already severely eroded eastern bank of Ukerebagh Island. TBLALC is concerned that the Aboriginal cultural sites and practices must be considered and addressed by the applicant when considering this Development Application.

The Office of Environment & Heritage supplied the following comment on 13 June 2013:

"Council should consider the following matters in its assessment of the development application: Disturbance from noise and wake generated by power boats has potential to impact adversely on key shorebird roosting and feeding areas at Shallow Bay, Tony's Bar and Wommin Lake, all of which lie between the boat ramp and the bridge. Further, the western foreshore of the Tweed River is generally unprotected by revetments and includes dredge spoil that is used for high tide roosts that are highly prone to erosion from wave action. A number of threatened shorebirds subject to international conservation agreements such as the Japan and China Australia Migratory Bird Agreements inhabit the area. These include Terek Sandpiper, Greater Sand Plover, Pied and Sooty Oystercatchers, Black-tailed Godwit, Great Knot, Red-necked Stint, Sanderling, Beach Stone-curlew and several others. Little Tern are known to roost on Tony's Bar and Ospreys also nest and feed in the vicinity.


The 1999 Plan of Management for Ukerebagh Nature Reserve upstream from the boat ramp has identified foreshore erosion along the eastern shoreline to be of "particular concern" where the Coastal Saltmarsh Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) appears at risk from such erosion. Should the boat operation extend downstream from the boat ramp then the important conservation values at Kerosene Inlet on Fingal Spit may be similarly affected. It is unclear from the information provided whether the proposal will extend further upstream in future towards Condong and the Stotts Island Nature Reserve. If so, then although impacts on wading bird habitat are likely to be reduced due to the, steeper river banks and reduced tidal influence, erosion from boat wake in the vicinity of the nature reserve would remain a significant concern. In addition to the above matters, OEH recommends that Council should satisfy itself that this proposal will not result in any significant impacts upon threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or their habitats, as scheduled under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, including the Coastal Saltmarsh EEC. Should Council determine that significant impacts to threatened species populations, ecological communities, or their habitats are likely, the matter should be formally referred to OEH for issuing of Director-General's requirements for the preparation of a Species Impact Statement. Prior to determining the application, Council should also be satisfied that:

• The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997.

• The proposal is not likely to cause impacts on areas of native vegetation, with special reference to threatened or regionally significant flora and fauna species, populations and ecological communities.

• The proposed development is consistent with the threatened species provisions of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 71 – Coastal Protection and the Native Vegetation Act, 2003.

• An appropriate level of Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment has been undertaken, and that the proposal is not likely to impact on areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community. Also, it is important that the views of Aboriginal community groups be sought in regard to the proposed development.

• Potential direct and indirect impacts on OEH estate, wilderness areas, wild rivers and recognised areas of high conservation value have been adequately considered.

• The proposal is consistent with: i) The NSW Coastal Policy 1987, which has as its central focus the

ecologically sustainable development of the NSW coast;


ii) The Estuary Management Policy, with the general goal to achieve an integrated, balanced, responsible and ecologically sustainable use of the State's estuaries, which form a key component of coastal catchments;

iii) The Coastline Hazard Policy 1988, with the primary objective to reduce the impact of coastal hazards on individual owners and occupiers, and to reduce private and public losses resulting from natural coastal forces; and

iv) Relevant Coastal Zone and/or Estuary Management Plans. Your attention is also drawn to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. If the proposal affects any species requiring consideration under this legislation then approval may be required from the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities."

The proposed development is considered to raise a number of concerns with respect to its potential impacts regarding the above. The applicant has not submitted adequate information to enable Council officers to determine that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact and in this regard it is recommended that the proposed development be refused. NSW Transport Roads & Maritime Services were requested to provide any comment within a specified time period. No response has been received with respect to the proposed development.

(e) Public interest The proposed development is inconsistent with relevant environmental planning instruments, Council policy requirements and Tweed River management plans. The proposal is considered unsuitable and inappropriate for the subject site, given its proximity to environmentally sensitive land, where such a proposal is prohibited. The proposal is considered likely to impact significantly upon the amenity of the surrounding area and conflict with passive shore-based and water-based recreational activities undertaken by locals and tourists within this area. The application submitted is deficient in detail. However, sufficient information has been submitted to determine that the nature of the proposal is unsuitable for the site. This unsuitability is reflected in the proposal’s non compliance with the statutory and strategic framework applicable to the application. As such, the application is not considered to be in the public interest and is recommended for refusal.

OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Refuse the application for the recommended reasons; or 2. Grant in-principle support for the application and a report be submitted to the next

Council meeting with recommended conditions of consent. Council officers recommend Option 1.


CONCLUSION: Important operational and cumulative environmental issues have been identified during the assessment of the proposal that warrant its refusal. Further, management plans produced by Council and the Maritime Authority highlight the need to protect ecology and reduce erosion within the vicinity of the Tweed River. Accordingly, assessment of the proposal against the relevant statutory legislation and an internal comment from the Natural Resource Management Unit has resulted in a recommendation for the application to be refused. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: The applicant has a right of appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court if dissatisfied with the determination. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


26 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0397 for an Extension to Existing Car Park at Lot 2 DP 1059784 No. 16 Pearl Street, Kingscliff and Lot 100 DP 1071633 No. 24-26 Pearl Street, Kingscliff




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council is in receipt of an application for the development of a car park extension at the above address. The proposal covers a total area of approximately 410m2 and would result in an additional 25 spaces being provided to serve Kingscliff Shopping Centre. This car park extension is to be located on land associated with St Anthony’s Primary School and is currently utilised as an open, grassed play area. The subject development application has been notified to surrounding properties, with a total of 25 public submissions received. The application has been called up for determination to the Council meeting by Councillor Byrne. The proposed development is considered to demonstrate general compliance with the relevant planning instruments and is recommended for conditional approval. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0397 for an extension to existing car park at Lot 2 DP 1059784 No. 16 Pearl Street, Kingscliff and Lot 100 DP 1071633 No. 24-26 Pearl Street, Kingscliff be approved subject to the following conditions: GENERAL 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the Statement of

Environmental Effects and Plan Nos N-T0056.01 Car Park Layout Plan, Typical Cross Section and Details and N-T0056.01 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by Opus and dated June 2013, except where varied by the conditions of this consent.

[GEN0005]


2. Approval is given subject to the location of, protection of, and/or any necessary approved modifications to any existing public utilities situated within or adjacent to the subject property.

[GEN0135]

3. The development is to be carried out in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications.

[GEN0265]

4. An application shall be lodged together with any prescribed fees for the car park including inspection fees and approved by Tweed Shire Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act and should include any water, sewerage or drainage works (including connection of a private stormwater drain to a public stormwater drain or installation of erosion and sediment control works.)

[GENNS01]

PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK 5. The proponent shall accurately locate and identify any existing sewer main,

stormwater line or other underground infrastructure within or adjacent to the site and Council advised of its location and depth prior to commencing works and ensure there shall be no conflict between the proposed development and existing infrastructure prior to start of any works.

[PCW0005]

6. All imported fill material shall be from an approved source. Prior to commencement of filling operations details of the source of the fill, nature of material, proposed use of material and confirmation that further blending, crushing or processing is not to be undertaken shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate.

[PCW0375]

7. Prior to commencement of work on the site all erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be installed and operational including the provision of a "shake down" area, where required. These measures are to be in accordance with the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and adequately maintained throughout the duration of the development. In addition to these measures the core flute sign provided with the stormwater approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be clearly displayed on the most prominent position of the sediment fence or erosion control device which promotes awareness of the importance of the erosion and sediment controls provided. This sign is to remain in position for the duration of the project.

[PCW0985]

8. Prior to the commencement of works on the site an Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation and Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be submitted to Tweed Shire Council for approval by the General Manager or delegate. Note: The development is not considered minor works and therefore Tweed Shire Council’s Acid Sulfate Management Plan for Minor Works is not considered suitable for the management of Acid Sulfate Soil. An amended copy of the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan for development consent DA11/0085 for the previous extension of the car park on the same lots may be submitted for consideration.

[PCWNS01]


9. Prior to commencement of work, a certificate signed by a practicing NPER civil engineer is to be submitted to Council to certify compliance with consent conditions 10-14.

10. Any car parking floodlighting shall not spill beyond the boundaries of the site. Lighting shall comply with AS 4282 and other relevant Australian Standards. A plan of the lighting shall be approved by Council PRIOR to the commencement of works.

11. The developer shall provide 25 parking spaces including parking for the disabled in accordance with Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan Part A2 - Site Access and Parking Code. Full design detail of the proposed parking and manoeuvring areas including integrated landscaping shall be submitted to Tweed Shire Council and approved by the General Manager or his delegate.

12. All imported fill material shall be from an approved source. Details of the source of fill, description of material, proposed use of material, documentary evidence that the fill material is free of any contaminants and haul route shall be submitted to Tweed Shire Council for the approval of the General Manager or his delegate.

13. All fill is to be graded at a minimum of 1% so that it drains to the street or other approved permanent drainage system and where necessary, perimeter drainage is to be provided. The construction of any retaining wall or cut/fill batter must at no time result in additional ponding occurring within neighbouring properties. All earthworks shall be contained wholly within the subject land. Detailed engineering plans of cut/fill levels and perimeter drainage shall be submitted with a S68 stormwater application for Council approval.

14. Permanent stormwater quality treatment shall be provided in accordance with the following: (a) A detailed stormwater management plan (SWMP) for the occupational or

use stage of the development is to be prepared in accordance with Section D7.07 of Councils Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality.

(b) Permanent stormwater quality treatment shall comply with section 5.5.3 of the Tweed Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Councils Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality.

(c) The stormwater and site works shall incorporate water sensitive design principles and where practical, integrated water cycle management.

(d) Specific Requirements to be detailed within the stormwater management plan (SWMP): (i) Shake down area along the haul route immediately within the

proposed carpark.


(ii) Runoff from all hardstand areas, (including car parking and hardstand landscaping areas and excluding roof areas) must be treated to remove oil and sediment contaminants prior to discharge to the public realm. All permanent stormwater treatment devices must be sized according to Council’s Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality, Section D7.12. Engineering details of the proposed devices, including maintenance schedules, shall be submitted with a s68 Stormwater Application for approval.

(e) Roof water does not require treatment, and should be discharged downstream of treatment devices, or the treatment devices must be sized accordingly.

15. Erosion and Sediment Control shall be submitted to Tweed Shire Council for approval of the General Manager or his delegate in accordance with the following: (a) A detailed erosion and sediment control plan prepared in accordance with

Section D7.07 of Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality.

(b) Construction phase erosion and sediment control shall be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with Tweed Shire Council Development Design Specification D7 - Stormwater Quality and its Annexure A - “Code of Practice for Soil and Water Management on Construction Works”.

[PCWNS02]

16. Screen fencing detail and a landscaping plan for the interface between the proposed car park and the school site is to be submitted and approved by Council's General Manager or his delegate. The proposed landscaping is to contain no noxious or environmental weed species and with a minimum 80% of total plant numbers comprised of local native species. The proposed fencing design should screen the car park from the school and either allow the free passage of flood water or be of a light construction such as timber paling that will collapse as a result of any build up of floodwater or debris.

[PCWNS03]

DURING CONSTRUCTION 17. All proposed works are to be carried out in accordance with the conditions of

development consent, approved management plans, approved screen fencing design, approved landscaping plan, drawings and specifications.

[DUR0005]


[DUR0205]


19. All reasonable steps shall be taken to muffle and acoustically baffle all plant and equipment. In the event of complaints from the neighbours, which Council deem to be reasonable, the noise from the construction site is not to exceed the following: A. Short Term Period - 4 weeks.



[DUR0215] 20. The use of vibratory compaction equipment (other than hand held devices)

within 100m of any dwelling house, building or structure is strictly prohibited. [DUR0815]

21. No soil, sand, gravel, clay or other material shall be disposed of off the site without the prior written approval of Tweed Shire Council General Manager or his delegate.

[DUR0985]

22. The surrounding road carriageways are to be kept clean of any material carried onto the roadway by construction vehicles. Any work carried out by Council to remove material from the roadway will be at the Developers expense and any such costs are payable to Council.

[DUR0995]

23. All work associated with this approval is to be carried out so as not to impact on the neighbourhood, adjacent premises or the environment. All necessary precautions, covering and protection shall be taken to minimise impact from: • Noise, water or air pollution. • Dust during filling operations and also from construction vehicles. • Material removed from the site by wind.

[DUR1005] 24. The burning off of trees and associated vegetation felled by clearing operations

or builders waste is prohibited. Such materials shall either be recycled or disposed of in a manner acceptable to Councils General Manager or his delegate.

[DUR1015] 25. All practicable measures must be taken to prevent and minimise harm to the

environment as a result of the construction, operation and, where relevant, the decommissioning of the development.

[DUR1025]


26. Where the construction work is on or adjacent to public roads, parks or drainage reserves the development shall provide and maintain all warning signs, lights, barriers and fences in accordance with AS 1742 (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices). The contractor or property owner shall be adequately insured against Public Risk Liability and shall be responsible for any claims arising from these works.

[DUR1795]

27. Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications prior to the use of the car park.

[DUR1875]

28. All retaining walls in excess of 1.2 metres in height must be certified by a Qualified Structural Engineer verifying the structural integrity of the retaining wall after construction. Certification from a suitably qualified engineer experienced in structures is to be provided to Council prior to the use of the car park.

[DUR1955]

29. During construction, a “satisfactory inspection report” is required to be issued by Council for all s68h2 permanent stormwater quality control devices, prior to backfilling. The proponent shall liaise with Councils Engineering and Operations Division to arrange a suitable inspection.

[DUR2445]

USE 30. The use to be conducted so as not to cause disruption to the amenity of the

locality, particularly by way of the emission of noise, dust and odours or the like. [USE0125]

31. The LAeq, 15 min noise level emitted from the premises shall not exceed the background noise level (LAeq) in any Octave Band centre frequency (31.5 Hz - 8KHz inclusive) by more than 5dB(A) between 7am and 12 midnight, at the boundary of any affected residence. Notwithstanding the above, noise from the premises shall not be audible within any habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 12 midnight and 7am weekdays and 12 midnight and 8am weekends.

[USE0165]

32. All externally mounted artificial lighting, including security lighting, is to be shielded to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate where necessary or required so as to prevent the spill of light or glare creating a nuisance to neighbouring or adjacent premises.

[USE0225]

33. Upon receipt of a noise complaint that Council deems to be reasonable, the operator/owner is to submit to Council a Noise Impact Study (NIS) carried out by a suitably qualified and practicing acoustic consultant. The NIS is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate. It is to include recommendations for noise attenuation. The operator/owner is to implement the recommendations of the NIS within a timeframe specified by Council's authorised officer.

[USE0245]


34. On completion of work, a certificate signed by a practicing NPER civil engineer is to be submitted to Council to certify compliance with the consent and good engineering practice.

35. Prior to use of the car park, all works/actions/inspections etc required at that stage by other conditions or approved management plans or the like shall be completed in accordance with those conditions or plans.

36. Prior to use of the car park, the applicant shall produce a copy of the “satisfactory inspection report” issued by Council for any s68h2 permanent stormwater quality control devices.

[USENS01]


REPORT:

Applicant: Chen YU Pty Ltd Owner: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore.

Sacred Heart Parish Location: Lot 2 DP 1059784 No. 16 Pearl Street, Kingscliff and Lot 100 DP 1071633

No. 24-26 Pearl Street, Kingscliff Zoning: 3(b) General Business, 5(a) School Cost: $40,000 Background: Proposed Development Council is in receipt of an application for the development of an at-grade car park extension at the above address. The proposal covers a total area of approximately 410m2 and would result in an additional 25 spaces being provided to serve Kingscliff Shopping Centre. The development is to be undertaken on school land. The development area is grassed and used as open play area for the school. Under DA11/0085 approval was granted for the development of a 50 space car park, also on school land, to provide staff car parking for the Kingscliff Shopping Centre. The subject development area is to be utilised by Kingscliff Shopping Centre in a ‘right to occupy’ arrangement for a 20 year period with no actual changes to allotment configurations proposed as part of this application. Site Details The subject application has been submitted over two allotments as follows:

• Lot 2 DP 1059784 - This allotment is rectangular in shape and covers a total area of approximately 0.53ha with road frontage to Pearl Street. This allotment is presently developed with a residential property/church administration building to the roadside (northern) boundary and a 50 space car park which covers approximately 1,390m2 associated with and accessed from Kingscliff Shopping Centre to the north-west. This 50 space car park was approved under DA11/0085 (see below). The remainder of this allotment is grassed and forms part of an open area which, in addition to two other allotments to the south east, comprises of St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School and a Church. This allotment has a dual zoning, being 3(b) General Business and 5(a) Special Uses- School. The proposed development would be located over both zones.

• Lot 100 DP 1071633 - This lot covers a total area of approximately 1.8ha and is developed with the Kingscliff Shopping Centre building, associated car parking and a service station. No development works are proposed to this site, however the proposed car park development would be associated with the shopping centre on this site and accessed from this site.

History The Kingscliff Shopping Centre site, which forms part of the application lots but is not subject to any development works, has an extensive development history relating to alterations to the building and change of uses within individual tenancies. These are not considered to be specifically pertinent to the subject application. As advised above, Lot 2 DP 105784 forms part of the larger St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School site which demonstrates a development history related mainly to the development of school facilities. The following applications are considered to be of relevance to this development application:


DA11/0085 - Carpark extension to Kingscliff Shopping Centre. Approved 8 June 2011. This application relates to the development of 50 at-grade car parking spaces for the shopping centre. The proposed 25 spaces as part of the current application would represent an extension to this area. DA13/0548 - Construction of brick walls for the purpose of internment of ashes (Columbarium Garden) in association with the Catholic Church. Not yet determined.


SITE DIAGRAM:



Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan Clause 4 illustrates that the aims of the TLEP 2000 are to give effect to the desired outcomes, strategic principles, policies and actions of the Tweed Shire 2000+ Strategic Plan. The vision of the plan is “the management of growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Shire is retained, and its economic vitality, ecological integrity and cultural fabric is enhanced”. Clause 4 further aims to provide a legal basis for the making of a Development Control Plan (DCP) to provide guidance for future development and land management, to give effect to the Tweed Heads 2000+ Strategy and Pottsville Village Strategy and to encourage sustainable economic development of the area which is compatible with the Shire’s environmental and residential amenity qualities. The subject development application is considered generally in keeping with the above, and it is not considered likely to result in a reduction of amenity for nearby residential properties or the shire as a whole. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development Clause 5 aims to promote development that is consistent with the four principles of ecologically sustainable development, being the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of this clause. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if: (a) it is satisfied that the development is consistent with the primary objective of

the zone within which it is located, and (b) it has considered that those other aims and objectives of this plan (the

TLEP) that are relevant to the development, and (c) it is satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable


3(b) General Business zone The primary objectives of this zone are:

• to provide business centres in which the community’s shopping, business, welfare and social needs can be met.

• to provide business locations within residential areas, and to ensure that the scale and type of development is compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding residential areas.


The proposal is ancillary to the provision of a shopping centre and as such is consistent with the primary objectives of the zone by providing ancillary service to a business/shopping use in the area. 5(a) Special Uses The primary objective of this zone is:

• to identify land which is developed or is proposed to be developed, generally by public bodies, for community facilities and services, roads, railways, utilities and similar things.

The landowner, in granting owners consent for the proposed development, is considered to have identified this land as not being required for school development and as such the proposed car park would be generally consistent with the objective of the zone. It is noted that the proposal is permitted with consent in this zone. Other relevant clauses of the TLEP 2000 have been considered elsewhere in this report and it is considered that the proposed development generally complies with the aims and objectives of each. The proposal is not considered to contribute to any unacceptable cumulative impact in the community due to the permissible nature of the development at this location. The proposal is considered to meet the provisions of Clause 8(a). Clause 11 - Zone Objectives The subject development is partially located within both the 3(b) General Business and 5(a) Special Uses zone.

• to provide business centres in which the community’s shopping, business, welfare and social needs can be met.


The secondary objectives of the 3(b) zone are:

• to provide for tourist orientated development.

• to encourage upper floor residential or tourist accommodation. The proposed development is for a car park associated with Kingscliff Shopping Centre and as such is considered to be compliant with the above objectives. The primary objective of the 5(a) zone is:

• to identify land which is developed or is proposed to be developed, generally by public bodies, for community facilities and services, roads, railways, utilities and similar things.

The secondary objective of the 5(a) zone is:

• to provide flexibility in the development of the land, particularly if it is not yet or is no longer required for the relevant special use.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the secondary objective of this zone by virtue of its development for a use associated with the adjoining shopping centre site.


Clause 15 - Essential Services The primary objective of this Clause is to ensure that development does not occur without adequate measures to protect the environment and the community’s health. The subject site is adequately serviced with stormwater infrastructure. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the provisions of this clause. Clause 16 - Height of Building Clause 16 of the TLEP 2000 ensures development is undertaken in accordance with the building height plan. The subject land is identified as being in an area where development of up to three storeys is allowed. The proposed development is for a car park to be constructed on ground level and does not contravene the provisions of this Clause. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils The subject development allotment displays both Class 2 and Class 5 acid sulfate soils in accordance with this clause, with the majority of the proposed works being undertaken on Class 2 land as identified on Council’s GIS mapping system. This clause of the TLEP 2000 requires acid sulfate soils management in relation to development where such is likely to be impacted upon. The applicant has submitted a copy of Councils Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan for Minor Works as part of this application. The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Section who have indicated that the Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan submitted by the applicant is not sufficient as it is likely that the proposal would disturb more than 10 tonnes of soil (threshold for minor works management plan). It has however been considered that due to Council’s knowledge of the site (through previous DA11/0085), adequate management of acid sulfate soils can be implemented on the site. In particular, the following comment is provided from Councils Environmental Health Unit:

"This demonstrates that the proposed works can suitably manage acid sulphate soils issues as per the requirement of Clause 35 of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000. Given the above information, it is considered appropriate that prior to the commencement of works that the applicant is conditioned to provide to Council an ASS investigation and management plan prepared by a suitably qualified person."

It is considered that subject to the implementation of an adequate condition of consent as recommended, the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Other Specific Clauses Clause 34- Flooding The objectives of this clause are: • to minimise future potential flood damage by ensuring that only appropriate

compatible development occurs on flood liable land. • to minimise the adverse effect of flooding on the community The site is identified on Council’s mapping as being affected by the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level and as being susceptible to the 1 in 100 year flood level, with that level identified as 3.3 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD), requiring a minimum habitable floor level of 3.8 metres AHD.


The proposed development is for a ground level car park and will not generate any habitable area. It is therefore considered that there is no requirement for a flood refuge or high level evacuation route in this instance and that the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Under Part (2) of this Clause, Council must not grant consent to development of flood liable land unless it has considered the following: (a) the extent and nature of the flooding hazard affecting the land, and

The extent and nature of the flooding hazard affecting the subject site is identified on Council’s mapping as being affected by the PMF level and the 1 in 100 year flood level. Having regard to the proposed development of an at-grade car park extension, the proposal is considered to be an acceptable development given the flooding constraints on the site.

(b) whether or not the development would increase the risk or severity of flooding of other land in the vicinity, and

The proposal is not considered to result in an increased risk of flooding of other land in the area. The proposed development is for a ground level car park and as such would have a minimal impact in terms of impeding or displacing floodwaters in the area.

(c) whether the risk or severity of flooding affecting the development could be reasonably mitigated, and

It is not considered that the risk or severity of flood risk to this site, in conjunction with the nature of the proposed development, requires that mitigation measures be provided on the site.

(d) the impact of the development on emergency services, and

Councils emergency services provisions with respect to flooding are outlined under Section A3- Development of Flood Liable Land. Under this plan Emergency Response Provisions are not required on this development as it is not considered to represent a critical, sensitive or residential type of development.

(e) the provisions of Section A3—Development of Flood Liable Land of Tweed Development Control Plan.

The application has been assessed with respect to DCP A3 elsewhere in this report. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of this DCP. The subject application is considered to be acceptable having regard to the requirements of Clause 34.

Clause 39A Bushfire Prone The object of this Clause is “to minimise bushfire risk to assets and people and to reduce bushfire threat to ecological assets and environmental assets”. The proposed car park extension area is mapped as being located within the 30 to 100 metres vegetation buffer area.


The proposed development would not increase any buildings or structures aside from the asphalt surface, and on this basis is not considered to increase the threat of bushfire to the site or the locality. The use of the site itself does not include any storage of combustible fuels. On this basis the proposed development was considered to be acceptable with respect to the provisions of this clause and referral to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service was not considered to be necessary. Clause 54 – Tree Preservation Order Clause 54 of the TLEP 2000 relates to tree preservation order and aims to protect vegetation for reasons of amenity or ecology. The subject site is identified as being covered by the 2011 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) within the koala habitat study area. This TPO relates to the following species only: - Swamp Mahogany Eucalyptus Robusta, - Forest Red Gum E. Tereticornis, - Tallowwood E. Microcorys, - Grey Gum E. Propinqua

The subject application does not require the removal of any significant vegetation with the proposed development area, with this area being grassed only. As such, the provisions of this clause are not contravened by this application. The proposed development is considered to be generally acceptable having regard to the provisions of the Tweed LEP 2000 and is acceptable in this regard. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 32B: Coastal Lands Clause 32B of the NCREP is applicable to this proposal as the subject land falls under the jurisdiction of the NSW Coastal Policy. (a) Council is required to consider the NSW Coastal Policy 1997 when assessing

applications for development to which the policy applies. (b) Council is also required to consider the Coastline Management Manual. (c) A consideration of the North Coast: Design Guidelines is required. (d) Public access to the foreshore must not be impeded. This proposal does not

restrict access to any public foreshore area. (e&f) Council is required to consider whether the development would result in

overshadowing of beaches or adjacent open space. The proposal is considered consistent with Clause 32B as it is deemed unlikely that it will impede public foreshore access to the beach or result in significant overshadowing of adjacent open space, given its distance from the coastal foreshore. The proposal does not contradict the strategic aims of the NSW Coastal Policy, the Coastline Management Manual or the North Coast: Design Guidelines.


SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection The subject site is within the coastal zone (as per the NSW Government Coastal Policy 1997) and as a result is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.71. Council is required to consider the matters under Clause 8 and the following comments are made for Council’s consideration. Clause 8 – Matters for consideration (a) the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,

The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the aims of this policy. (b) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or

persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,

The subject application does not impact upon any public access way to the coastal foreshore. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal does not offer any opportunity for a formal access way to be created or improved. (c) opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal

foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

It is not considered that this application offers any opportunities to provide new public access to the foreshore. (d) the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its

relationship with the surrounding area,

The proposal is considered suitable, having regard to its nature, scale and permissibility in this area. (e) any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the

coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

The proposed development is located over 100 metres from the foreshore and it is considered that there will be no detrimental impact on the amenity of the foreshore, or significant overshadowing or the loss of any views from a public place to the foreshore. (f) the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect

and improve these qualities,

The proposed development is not considered to have a negative impact on the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast. (g) measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened

Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,

The proposal is not considered to impact negatively any animals or their habitats. The subject site has been previously developed and cleared of significant vegetation, with the development area currently grassed. (h) measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries

Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats


The proposal will not have an adverse impact upon marine environments or habitats. (i) existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,

It is considered that there are no wildlife corridors impacted by the proposed development given the sparse nature of the landscaping on the site. (j) the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development

and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,

The proposed development is not considered to have any significant impact of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards. (k) measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-

based coastal activities,

The proposal is not considered to cause any conflict between land-based and water-based activities. (l) measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and

traditional knowledge of Aboriginals,

The subject development is not considered to impact on any traditional Aboriginal cultural values. (m) likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal water bodies,

The subject application is not considered to have any significant impact upon the water quality of coastal waterbodies. (n) the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or

historic significance,

It is not considered that the proposal impacts upon the conservation or preservation of any of the above items. (o) only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan

that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,

Not applicable to the subject application. (p) only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed

development is determined: (i) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the

environment, and

This development is not considered to have a significant cumulative impact on the environment.

(ii) measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

Not applicable to the subject development application It is considered the proposed development does not compromise the intent or specific provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection.


(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments The Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 (DTLEP 2012) is applicable to the subject site. Part 1 Preliminary 1.2 Aims of Plan The aims of this plan as set out under Section 1.2 of this plan are as follows: (1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in

Tweed in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act.

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows: (a) to give effect to the desired outcomes, strategic principles, policies

and actions contained in the Council’s adopted strategic planning documents, including, but not limited to, consistency with local indigenous cultural values, and the national and international significance of the Tweed Caldera,

(b) to encourage a sustainable, local economy, small business, employment, agriculture, affordable housing, recreational, arts, social, cultural, tourism and sustainable industry opportunities appropriate to Tweed Shire,

(c) to promote the responsible sustainable management and conservation of Tweed’s natural and environmentally sensitive areas and waterways, visual amenity and scenic routes, the built environment, and cultural heritage,

(d) to promote development that is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and to implement appropriate action on climate change,

(e) to promote building design which considers food security, water conservation, energy efficiency and waste reduction,

(f) to promote the sustainable use of natural resources and facilitate the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy,

(g) to conserve or enhance the biological diversity, scenic quality, geological and ecological integrity of the Tweed,

(h) to promote the management and appropriate use of land that is contiguous to or interdependent on land declared a World Heritage site under the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and to protect or enhance the environmental significance of that land,

(i) to conserve or enhance areas of defined high ecological value, (j) to provide special protection and suitable habitat for the recovery of

the Tweed coastal Koala. The proposed development is considered to be generally in accordance with the aims of this plan having regard to its nature, permissible at this location.


1.4 Definitions Under this Plan, the proposed development would be defined as ‘car park’ defined as follows:

‘means a building or place primarily used for the purpose of parking motor vehicles, including any manoeuvring space and access thereto, whether operated for gain or not.’

This is permitted with consent in both the B4 and R1 zones. Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development 2.1 Land use zones The proposed development area is zoned as B4 Mixed Use and R1 General Residential under the provisions of this plan. 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table The objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone are: • To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other

development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone through the provision of a car park to service the needs of the adjacent shopping centre which provides facilities and services to meet the day to day needs of local residents. The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone are: • To provide for the housing needs of the community. • To provide for a variety of housing types and densities. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day

to day needs of residents. • To encourage the provision of tourist accommodation and related facilities

and services in association with residential development where it is unlikely to significantly impact on amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for residential use.

The proposed development is also considered to be consistent with the objectives of this zone through the provision of a car park to service the needs of the adjacent shopping centre which provides facilities and services to meet the day to day needs of local residents. Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions 5.5 Development within the coastal zone This clause of the draft LEP states that development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered the following: (a) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians

(including persons with a disability) with a view to:


(i) maintaining existing public access and, where possible, improving that access, and

(ii) identifying opportunities for new public access, and

The subject site is located away from the coastal foreshore and is not considered to either offer opportunities with respect to new public access or impact upon any existing public access at the coastal foreshore. (b) the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the

surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account: (i) the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or

activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii) the location, and (iii) the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building or

work involved, and

The proposed development is permissible on the subject site and meets the prescribed development requirements as outlined throughout this report. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable at this location. (c) the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal

foreshore including: (i) any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and (ii) any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

The proposed development will not result in any overshadowing or loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore. (d) how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal

headlands, can be protected, and

The proposed development is not considered to compromise the scenic qualities of the coast as it represents an acceptable development on appropriately zoned land. Beyond this, the subject development is not considered to generate any specific opportunities to protect the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast due to its nature, scale and distance from the coast and coastal headlands. (e) how biodiversity and ecosystems, including:

(i) native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and (ii) rock platforms, and (iii) water quality of coastal waterbodies, and (iv) native fauna and native flora, and their habitats, can be conserved, and

The proposal is to be undertaken on a site which has been previously cleared, with the development located on grassed land only. It is considered that the proposal will have a minimal impact on the local biodiversity or ecosystems in this regard. (f) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other

development on the coastal catchment.


The proposed development is not considered to result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the coastal catchment given the sites zoning and the permissibility of the development at this location. This clause goes on to further state: (3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is

wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the proposed development will not impede or diminish, where

practicable, the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore, and

As outlined elsewhere in this report, the proposal will not impede or diminish the right of access of the public either to or along the public foreshore.

(b) if effluent from the development is disposed of by a non-reticulated system, it will not have a negative effect on the water quality of the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

The proposed development does not require effluent provisions due to its nature as a car park. In any event, it is noted Councils reticulation sewer system is available in this area.

(c) the proposed development will not discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

The subject application has been reviewed by Councils Development Engineering Section with respect to stormwater drainage. It is advised that:

‘..the site will drain into an existing drain network located on 18 Pearl Street, the LPOD (Legal Point of Discharge) will remain as it is from the DA11/0085, for that site. The discharge points for these drains are located near the South of property boundary for 18 Pearl Street Kingscliff.’

In this regard, the proposal is considered not to contravene the above controls and satisfies the above clause.

(d) the proposed development will not: (i) be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or (ii) have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or (iii) increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land.

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having regard to coastal hazards as outlined above due to its nature, scale, and distance from coastal hazards. The subject application is considered to be generally in accordance with the provisions of the Draft LEP and would remain permissible were the draft to be adopted in its current form.


(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A2- Site Access and Parking Code The proposed development will result in the provision of an additional 25 car parking spaces to service the existing Kingscliff Shopping Centre development. These spaces are not to be assigned to any specific tenancy or use within the shopping centre but are instead to ‘serve the purpose of providing for overflow car parking.’ From this perspective the proposed development does not create a car-parking demand on the site but instead aims to provide additional car parking spaces. The proposed car parking area is to be accessed from the Kingscliff Shopping Centre site and does not propose any new access point to public road (Pearl St). The application has been reviewed by Councils Development Engineering Section with respect to access and parking with the proposed development considered to be acceptable. In particular it is noted that:

A turning circle assessment is not required because the dimensions of the driveway areas have not changed and the manoeuvrability assessment for those areas was conducted for DA11/0085, which approved the car park.

The proposal is considered acceptable as the development application seeks to provide additional spaces to the development and will be consistent with the aims of this DCP. A3-Development of Flood Liable Land As previously noted, the proposed development is located on land which is indicated as being flood liable and as such the provisions of DCP A3 apply to the site. The subject site has a flood level of 3.3m AHD with a design floor level of 3.8m AHD. In addition to this, the site is affected by the Probable Maximum Flood level (PMF). Having regard to the nature of the proposed development, which is not considered to be a critical, sensitive or residential development type, the provisions of this DCP allow development below the design flood level providing building materials and electrical equipment are flood compatible. The proposed development is for a ground level car park and will not generate any habitable area or electrical equipment provisions. The proposal is considered to be compliant with this DCP. A11-Public Notification of Development Proposals Under the provisions of this DCP, the proposed development was required to be notified to surrounding properties as it fell into the category of all development except for advertisements and exempt/complying development in the 5(a) zone. As such, the subject application was notified for a period of 14 days from 5 August 2013 to 19 August 2013. During this time approximately 25 submissions were received, of which the issues raised are detailed elsewhere in this report. DCP B4 – West Kingscliff The proposed development is located on land contained within the area covered by this Plan. The aim of this plan are as follows: • to set out objectives for the development of West Kingscliff;


• to provide detailed guidance to those wishing to develop within the West Kingscliff area and to indicate Council's policies with respect to that development;

• to provide guidelines for determination of the merits of developments within West Kingscliff as required by Section 90(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The proposal is considered to generally comply with the objectives of this plan, in particular with those regarding the provision of an efficient traffic network, by virtue of providing additional car parking to the existing shopping centre. DCP B9 – Tweed Coast Strategy DCP B9 relates to the northern end of the Tweed Coast. The Plan sets objectives for future development concentrating on public services and design principals. The Vision Statement for this district identified at Clause B9.3.2 is:

To manage growth so that the unique natural and developed character of the Tweed Coast is retained, and its economic vitality, tourism potential, ecological integrity and cultural fabric are enhanced.

Policy Principles are identified at Clause B9.3.3, with characteristics to be considered including the following which are of particular relevance to this application:

Business and Tourism: Major tourist developments will be encouraged to locate in the South Kingscliff locality. Other businesses will generally locate in designated town centres where mixed land use developments will be encouraged. The establishment of a regionally focussed business park adjacent to the Pacific Highway at the northern end of Kingscliff will be promoted.

The site is indicated as being in an Existing Urban Area under the provisions of this DCP (Map 2- Structure Plan). Under this map, the subject area is also indicated as forming part of a Local Centre, which is envisaged to service a population catchment of up to 10,000 people. When considered the future requirements of the facilities in this area, in particular the retail developments to serve this anticipated increase in demand, it is considered that the provision of additional car parking is permissible to facilitate this increase in demand on services in the area. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the policy principles of the DCP.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The proposed development is located within the area covered by the Government Coastal Policy, and has been assessed with regard to the objectives of this policy. The Government Coastal Policy contains a strategic approach to help, amongst other goals, protect, rehabilitate and improve the natural environment covered by the Coastal Policy. It is not considered that the proposed development contradicts the objectives of the Government Coastal Policy, given its permissible nature on a site identified for development works.


(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 This Plan applies to the Shire’s 37 kilometre coastline and has a landward boundary that includes all lands likely to be impacted by coastline hazards plus relevant Crown lands. The primary objectives of the Coastal Management Plan are to protect development; to secure persons and property; and to provide, maintain and replace infrastructure. The proposed development is not considered to impact upon that coastline with regard to demands and issues identified within the Plan for the whole of the Tweed coastline (Clause 2.4.1) including: recreation; water quality; heritage; land use and development potential; coastal ecology; and, social and economic demand. The subject site is located within the Kingscliff- South Kingscliff Area identified under the Plan at Clause 3.1.4. The subject site however is not directly impacted upon by the issues identified for that area. Under this plan, the subject site is not identified as having any key management actions or specific management strategies. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Management Plan. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 This Management Plan applies to the estuaries of Cudgen, Cudgera and Mooball Creeks. Cudgen Creek is located approximately 660m south-west of the subject development site, however the provisions of this plan are not considered to be impacted by the subject development. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) The subject site is not located within an area that is affected by the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Access, Transport and Traffic The proposed development is for a car park to serve an established shopping centre. The car park will be accessed via the existing internal site configuration which provides access to a public road at Pearl Street and Turnock Street. In this instance, it is considered that the existing access arrangements to these roads from the shopping centre are satisfactory to service the proposed development. Amenity The subject application has been reviewed by Councils Environmental Health Unit with respect to amenity with the following noted:

The proposed works have the potential to cause noise and dust impacts at adjacent premises during construction. However, it is considered that such potential impacts may be managed by applying appropriate standard conditions.




Having regard to the above, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable with respect to amenity. Free Play Area available to St Anthony’s Primary School Council has received a number of submissions from members of the public during the exhibition period for this Development Application. Many of these are from parent of school children who attend St Anthony’s Primary School who have concerns that the proposed development will reduce the open play space area available to students on the site. The need for open space for these students is highlighted in terms of its importance in promoting physical activity. In this regard, it is noted that Council does not have a specific policy regarding the provision of minimum play areas for school students. As such, the application was discussed with the Regional Asset Planner from NSW Government Education and Communities. ‘Primary School Facilities Standards’ were forwarded to Council officers, however it was noted that ‘these standards are design guides for new schools and upgrades’ and ‘our older schools may not comply.’ The landowner (Trustees of Roman Catholic Church for Diocese of Lismore) who are responsible for the school have demonstrated a degree of support for the application in granting landowners consent to this application and St Anthony’s School as a Catholic School and would not be subject to these standards. In any event, it is noted that a school of this size (360 students) is recommended to have a Free Play Area of 1ha (10,000m2). The applicants response to the submissions received has indicated that there is approximately 17,600m2 of children’s play area available on the school site after the proposed development is taken into account. From Council’s aerial imagery of the school site, it is considered that there would in actuality be approximately 11,000m2 of area which could be designated as free play area on the site, which would meet the NSW Government Education and Communities optimal standards. In this regard, the proposed development is not considered to reduce the amount of free play area on the site to an unacceptable level.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development Natural Hazards As identified in the report above, the subject site is identified as being on land prone to bush fire and flooding. The site is designated as bush fire prone buffer area however given the development does not propose any buildings or structures and does not increase fuel capacity it is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed car parking. In addition to this, the proposal, whilst located on land prone to flooding, does not contain any habitable area and as such is considered suitable for the proposed development.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations The proposal was advertised in accordance with DCP A11 – Public Notification of Development Proposals for a period of 14 days between 5 August 2013 and 19 August 2013. During this time, 24 submissions were received, with a late submission also received.


Issues raised within the submissions are varied. A summary of the issues is provided below along with any response provided by the applicant following receipt of submission copies. The majority of these submissions appear to be submitted by parents/guardians of school students with concerns associated with the reduction of play space at the school. Summary of Submissions Response from applicant

The strip of land proposed for the car park extension is currently utilised as an informal grassed school playground space.

Many submissions have raised concerns regarding the loss of play area for the school students, which it is submitted will impact on their development.

It is further advised through many submissions that the area to be developed represents the best quality play area on the site, with other areas experiencing drainage problems around wet periods (one submission states alternative area is ‘always unusable’).

Extracts from various research studies are provided which outline the importance of outdoor play areas.

The objections seek to have Council refuse the application on the grounds that the removal of the area associated with the proposed car parking will reduce the amount of the children's play area to unacceptable levels and that the area being taken is the best land for this purpose due to drainage.

The proposal will see the school retain 17,600m2 of children's 'play area'. A review by the school and Diocese indicates this area is ample to meet the play area requirements for the school.

Furthermore, drainage works are to be undertaken to enable those 'play areas' which currently become unusable after rain to be used without constraint.

The proposal will provide a net increase in usable open space for the school through the drainage works. The objections based on the loss of play area are inconsistent with the facts of the proposal and cannot be sustained.

Council Officer assessment

It is noted that the proposed development will result in the loss of approximately 410m2 of grassed area which forms part of the informal school play area at the development location.

As noted elsewhere in this report, it is considered that the subject development would maintain an acceptable amount of free play space given the number of students in attendance on the site.

In terms of play area quality, the applicant has advised that ‘it is the intention of the school to address the drainage issues on the 'play area' that is currently unusable after rain.’

Refusal of the development application is not considered to be warranted based on this issue. Any further applications which would erode play area available to the school would be assessed on their individual merits.

The continuing encroachment of the car park into prime playground space will be detrimental to the school students and will increase car park noise in the junior school classrooms.

The area of car parking currently located adjacent the school is predominately used for staff parking and sees a minimal amount of vehicle movements per day. The proposed additional parking is to be used for a similar purpose and will not alter the existing use patterns of the parking area. The proposal is



unlikely to result in an increase in noise. The objections received seeking to have Council refuse the proposal due to significant noise increases is not consistent with the facts of the proposal and cannot be sustained.


The proposed development will result in an encroachment of the existing car park for the length of a single car parking space (approx 5.6m) at the south-east of the shopping centre.

From Councils aerial imagery, it appears that the proposed spaces will be located approximately 50m from the main school buildings. At present there are car parking spaces located approximately40m from these school buildings. Furthermore, it is noted that Pearl St, a public road, is located adjacent to the school site which would generate greater vehicular noise.

In any event the school is located in an urban area which is subject to development works being undertaken and noise from the surrounding vehicular network. The proposed development does not warrant refusal in this regard.

Many of the submissions highlight a lack of consultation with the parents of students who attend the school.

The applicant has not provided a response to this issue.


The submissions do not identify if this lack of consultation is directed at Councils public exhibition process or to the landowners (Diocese of Lismore) consultation with parents of school children.

In any event, it is noted that the application was notified to surrounding properties as required by the provisions of DCP A11 and met all statutory requirements in this regard. Advertisement of the DA was not considered warranted.

Consultation between landowner and external parties is not a planning consideration. The proposed development does not warrant refusal in this regard.

Public safety concerns are raised with anecdotal reports from children of people loitering in the car parking area. This is stated as potentially exposing school children to inappropriate behaviour.

The applicant has not provided a response to this issue


This is considered to raise a public safety concern as opposed to a land-use planning issue and is a matter for the police.



Council is requested to reject this application based on social and economic impacts and the application not being in the public interest as well as its impact on the natural and built environment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Section 79C Assessment.

The objections seek to have Council refuse the application on the grounds that it is not in the public interest. The broad assertions made that the proposal is not in the public interest cannot be sustained when all facts and elements are reviewed.

As discussed above the proposal will maintain 17,600m' of play area for the school, will see a net increase in the play area which is unconstrained from water logging, will not limit or prevent ongoing development of the school and its facilities and the income generated will greatly assist the St Anthony's Parish community in its entire pastoral works.

It is for these reasons that the school and Diocese are in support of the proposal, refer attachment B for a copy of letter provided by the Most Rev. Geoffrey H. Jarrett the Bishop of Lismore. The proposal is in the public interest and is warranting of Councils support.


The proposed development has been subject to assessment under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as outlined throughout this report. It is considered that the proposal is generally acceptable and does not warrant refusal in this regard.

Reduction of the land area of the school may restrict development of the school.

The school has been discussing the development of a pre-school within the grounds; however the proposed development will result in there being insufficient space.

The school and Diocese are in support of the proposal. The school and Diocese are those best placed to judge what impact using the small area of land for car parking purposes will have on the future development of the school. The school and Diocese support the application and have made the determination that the proposal will not impact or prevent their ongoing development of the school and its facilities.

The objections submitted seeking that Council refuse the application because it will prevent the future development of the school are not founded on the full knowledge of the school and its operations (such information is only available to the school and Diocese) and cannot be sustained.


It is not considered appropriate to refuse this application with respect to notional future development of the site.

Any future development of the school site would need to be undertaken having regard to the applicable development standards.



Reduction of outdoor play area may impact on outside school hours care services that operate from the school.



The reduction of play area has been discussed in greater detail above, with it being determined that the proposal does not warrant refusal in this respect.

It is advised that recent federal funding changes has meant that the proposed development is no longer required by the school from a funding perspective.



This is not considered to raise a substantive planning issue which warrants the refusal of this application.

It is stated that a new supermarket development in the area (Cabarita/ Casuarina) means there is sufficient supermarket parking in the area.

It is further stated that by providing additional spaces, sustainable transport patterns are not being promoted.



Sustainable transport policies are contained within the relevant Council policies applicable to the site. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed development, as a stand-alone application is not in itself inconsistent with the relevant policies and does not warrant refusal in this regard.

Furthermore, car parking for other developments is not considered to raise a substantive planning issue which warrants the refusal of this application.

Concerns that the Church is trying to raise money to pay for a new school at Pottsville, at the expense of St Anthony’s School children wellbeing.



This is not considered to raise a substantive planning issue which warrants the refusal of this application.

It is stated that this is the second strip of land to be developed for the purpose of a car park extension at this location.



Under DA11/0085 a car park extension to Kingscliff Shopping Centre was approved on 8 June 2011 on the subject development allotment. This comprised of 50 spaces and covered a total area of approximately 1,390m2.

This application was assessed on its merits and notified to surrounding properties, similar to the application currently under assessment.

In this regard, the previous approval on the site of a car park development does not warrant the refusal of this DA.



The applicant has also provided the following comment with respect to the proposed development:

‘The proposed development has received twenty five (25) separate submissions objecting to the proposal. It is noted a number of the submissions indicated that the car parking is to be leased to Woolworths, this is incorrect and it is the owners of the Kingscliff shopping centre Chen Yu Pty Ltd that are seeking to occupy this area.

There are currently 360 students attending the school, the receipt of 25 objections from a school population of this size should be considered in the appropriate context. The submissions received represent a small proportion of the school community and the assertions that the 'school' does not support the proposal made within many of submissions cannot simply be taken as fact.

The school and Diocese are in support of the proposal. As outlined the school grounds currently provide 17,600m2 (after the removal of the 410m2 of area proposed for car parking) of land assigned as 'play area'.

As part of the car park construction works it is the intention of the school to address the drainage issues on the 'play area' that is currently unusable after rain, The proposal will provide a net increase in the usable 'play area' of the school.

The income generated by the proposal will greatly assist the St Anthony's Parish community in its entire pastoral works. This will provide for broader third party benefits to the local community.’

It is considered that the subject development is generally acceptable and in accordance with the relevant legislative framework. The issues raised in these submissions are not considered to warrant refusal of the application.

(e) Public interest The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant legislative policies as outlined in this report. Subject to appropriate conditions of consent, it is considered that the proposal is not considered to result in a significant negative impact on the public interest.


OPTIONS: 1. Approve the development application; or 2. Refuse the development application for specified reasons. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: The subject application seeks consent for the creation of an extension to the existing car park associated with Kingscliff Shopping Centre. The above assessment is considered to demonstrate that the proposal is generally acceptable with respect to the appropriate legislative considerations. It is therefore recommended that this development application be approved. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


27 [PR-CM] Development Application D90/0436.07 for an amendment to Development Consent D90/0436 for the Erection of a Tavern and Nine Shops at Lot 171 DP 629328 No. 28-40 Overall Drive, Pottsville


FILE REFERENCE: PF3975/145 Pt8


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Updated Information Council at its meeting of 17 October 2013 resolved as follows:

"RESOLVED that Development Application D90/0436.07 for an amendment to Development Consent D90/0436 for the erection of a tavern and nine shops at Lot 171 DP 629328 No. 28-40 Overall Drive, Pottsville be deferred to a Workshop."

A Councillors Workshop was held on 29 October 2013 to further discuss this application. The report is now submitted to Council for its further determination. Previous Report Council is in receipt of a S96(1A) modification application to extend the trading hours of the Pottsville Tavern. The existing hours for the Tavern are 10.00am to 10.00pm seven days a week. The applicant has requested the hours to be modified to:

• Sunday to Thursday – 10.00am to 10.00pm;

• Friday & Saturday – 10.00am to 12.00 Midnight; Variation of the above hours are permitted for a maximum of six (6) times per year with the written approval of the General Manager, or delegate, of Tweed Shire Council within the 12 month period.

Council have previously approved these hours of operation subject to appropriate ‘Plan of Management’ measures to mitigate impacts on the surrounding area for a 12 month trial period. This trial period has not been carried out as the tavern operator has as yet to gain a variation to the liquor licence to trade beyond 10pm. The applicant has proposed permanent ameliorative measures in order to allow these hours of operation on a permanent basis.


Council staff do not support the permanent extension of hours proposed by the applicant. However, an extension of hours to midnight for Friday and Saturday nights is considered acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions and mitigation measures, including the provision of a reviewable condition of consent which would be reviewed after 12 months or upon receipt of a valid complaint, after the extended trading hours commence. The proposal was advertised for a period of 14 days, during which time seven submissions and one petition (27 signatories) opposed to the proposal were received. One late submission has also been received. These are detailed later in this report. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application D90/0436.07 for an amendment to Development Consent D90/0436 for the erection of a tavern and nine shops at Lot 171 DP 629328 No. 28-40 Overall Drive, Pottsville be approved and the consent be amended as follows:

1. Condition No. 10A is to be deleted and replaced with Condition No. 10B which reads as follows:

10B. Hours of operation: Sunday to Thursday – 10.00am to 10.00pm Friday and Saturday – 10.00am to 10pm Variation of the above hours are permitted for a maximum of six times per year with the written approval of the General Manager, or delegate, of Tweed Shire Council.

Notwithstanding this condition, please see condition No 29 regarding the reviewable condition.

2. Condition No. 20 is to be deleted and replaced with Condition No. 20A which reads as follows:

20A. The Tavern shall operate in accordance with the Environmental Noise Impact Report prepared by CRG Acoustical Consultants dated 23 July 2013. All mitigation works shall be completed prior to commencement of extended trading hours.

3. The following new Conditions are to be added: 27. An updated Plan of Management shall be submitted and approved

to the satisfaction of the General Manager or delegate within three months of the date of this consent.

28. Notification shall be provided within seven days of the commencement of extended hours of trading accompanied by a compliance audit report against the operational conditions of the consent inclusive of the plan of management.


29. Reviewable Condition This consent is subject to a reviewable condition under Section 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act. The reviewable condition relates to a condition that permits extended hours of operation. The purpose of this condition is to enable Council to monitor potential impacts associated with extended hours of operation at this site on the surrounding area and, if appropriate, to revert the development consent to its previously approved hours of operation. Extended trading is permitted on Friday and Saturday until 12 Midnight subject to this condition being reviewed by Council after 12 months or upon receipt of a complaint that Council deems to be reasonable from the date the extended trading hours commence. Council is to provide not less than 14 days written notice to the operator of the development that a review is to be carried out under this condition. Where requested by Council, the proponent is to submit a compliance audit against the operational conditions of the development consent, including the plan of management and noise audit report. Council may notify such other persons as it thinks fit of the review, and must take into account any submissions received within 14 days after notice is given. Please note see Condition No 10B.


REPORT:

Applicant: Pottsville Tavern Owner: Premium Custody Services Pty Ltd Location: Lot 171 DP 629328 No. 28-40 Overall Drive, Pottsville Zoning: 3(b) General Business Cost: Not Applicable Background: Council records indicate that consent was granted for the construction of a tavern and nine shops on 21 January 1991. The approved hours of operation for the tavern were restricted to 10.00am to 10.00pm. Amended consents were issued on 14 February 1991, 24 May 1991 and 25 January 1994. These did not modify the approved trading hours for the tavern. A Hotel Liquor Licence was issued in November 1999. The licence limits the tavern’s trading hours to 10.00am - 10.00pm (as per the abovementioned approval), subject to conditions. An application to modify the hours of operation of the original consent was lodged in July 2001. The proposed hours of operation were:

• Mon – Sat 8.00am to 11.00pm;

• Sunday 10.00am to 10.00pm; and

• Christmas Day/ Good Friday 12 noon to 10.00pm. The modification to extend the approved trading hours was considered to result in an increase in adverse impacts on the surrounding residents and was subsequently refused by Council on 19 December 2001. An additional Section 96 application was lodged (D90/0436.04) in December 2005. The proposed trading hours were:

• Mon – Thurs and Sun 10.00am to 10.00pm; and

• Fri, Sat and public holidays 10.00am to 12 midnight. The proposed trading hours were for an initial 12 month time frame from the date of the approved amended consent. The modification to increase the trading hours was refused on 19 April 2007, as a result of potential for increased community disturbances by noise and activities of patrons leaving the premises. The applicant then lodged a Class One Appeal with the Land and Environment Court in June 2007. Council resolved to engage solicitors to act on Council’s behalf and defend the appeal. The applicant discontinued the appeal in July 2007. A further Section 96 application was received (D90/0436.05) in December 2009 with respect to extending the hours of operation of the Pottsville Tavern. Under this application, Council amended the consent to allow the following hours of operation for a maximum period of 12 months from the date of this amended consent (20 May 2010):

Sunday to Thursday – 10.00am to 10.00pm Friday and Saturday – 10.00am to 12.00 Midnight Variation of the above hours are permitted for a maximum of six (6) times per year with the written approval of the General Manager, or delegate, of Tweed Shire Council within the 12 month period.


Following the lapse of the 12 month period the hours of operation shall be restricted to 10.00am to 10.00pm. Any further application for the variation of hours of operation outside of 10.00am to 10.00pm shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and accompanied by a noise impact assessment in accordance with AS 1055 Acoustics – Description and measurement of environmental noise, the Noise Guide for Local Government June 2004 and any other relevant and accepted guideline.

Additional conditions of consent were also amended in order to provide mitigation measures for any potential noise impacts arising from the amended hours of operation. It is noted that this 12 month trial period was not completed, with NSW Police advising that NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR) denied an application to trade in line with the operating hours approved under D90/0436.05. On 22 November 2011, Council received an application to remove the 12 month trial period element of this condition, however Council received correspondence indicating that approval from the Casino, Liquor & Gaming Control was not obtained in relation to an extension of hours of operation on the liquor licence and as such the 12 month trial period had not taken place. This application was subsequently withdrawn as Council officers advised the applicant that the extended hours of operation would not be supported without a suitable trial period being undertaken. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Tweed Shire Council has received an application under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 proposing to modify the approved trading hours of the Pottsville Tavern at 28-40 Overall Drive, Pottsville (Lot 171 DP 629328). This application seeks to permanently implement the operating times outlined under the D90/0436.05 approval, with the exception of the 12 month limited period outlined in condition No.10A. It is proposed to provide ameliorative measures, including noise barriers adjacent to existing outdoor areas of the Tavern, which the applicant states will ensure there will not be adverse impacts on surrounding residents. The proposal is supported by an Environmental Noise Impact Report, which includes recommended noise mitigation measures. As such, revised condition 10A would outline the following hours of operation:

Sunday to Thursday – 10.00am to 10.00pm Friday and Saturday – 10.00am to 12.00 Midnight Variation of the above hours are permitted for a maximum of six (6) times per year with the written approval of the General Manager, or delegate, of Tweed Shire Council.

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days from Wednesday 10 April 2013 to Wednesday 24 April 2013. During this time, seven submissions and one petition (27 signatories) opposed to the proposal were received. The application was also forwarded to the NSW Police for comment. Councils Environmental Health Unit have reviewed the subject application and advised that the request to vary hours of operation is not supported as proposed as it has been insufficiently demonstrated that a trial period was conducted and therefore the impact on the surrounding community can not be adequately assessed. It is recommended that a reviewable condition of consent be applied to an approval to ensure the operators can adequately demonstrate that by adopting noise mitigation measures and satisfactory operational practices, impacts can be managed. Should this not occur the extended hours of operation would not be permitted to continue.


SITE DIAGRAM:


Considerations under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan Clause 4 illustrates that the aims of the TLEP 2000 are to give effect to the desired outcomes, strategic principles, policies and actions of the Tweed Shire 2000+ Strategic Plan. The proposed amendments are considered to meet the provisions of Clause 4. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Clause 5 of the LEP relates to ecologically sustainable development. The TLEP aims to promote development that is consistent with the four principles of ecologically sustainable development, being the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The proposed amendments are not considered to significantly impact upon the ESD principles of this development. It is considered that the proposal will therefore be in accordance with Clause 5 of the LEP. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations This clause specifies that the consent authority may grant consent to development (other than development specified in Item 3 of the table to clause 11) only if:




As noted above, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development which is consistent with the primary objective of the 3(b) zone, subject to conditions of consent. Other relevant clauses of the TLEP have been considered elsewhere in this report. Council’s Development Assessment Unit is satisfied that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the locality or the community as a whole, subject to appropriate mitigation measures being acted upon and the inclusion of a reviewable condition of consent with respect to the hours of operation. As such, the proposal is considered to meet the provisions of Clause 8 of the LEP. Clause 11 - Zone Objectives Clause 11 of the LEP relates to zone objectives. The subject land is zoned 3(b) General Business under the provisions of the LEP. The primary objective of the zone is to:


• to provide business centres in which the community’s shopping, business, welfare and social needs can be met; and


A tavern is defined as a Hotel, which is permissible with consent under the provisions of the Tweed LEP 2000. The proposed modifications are considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone, subject to conditions of consent. If all applicable mitigation measures included in the Environmental Noise Impact Report are acted upon and relevant conditions of consent are imposed, the proposal is considered to result in a development which is consistent with the objectives of the zone. Placing a reviewable condition on the consent is considered to be a reasonable method of allowing Council to determine if the proposal will impact upon surrounding residents over a period of time.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Hours of Operation The applicant has noted the following:

"This application is being prepared at the request of new owners and subsequent to the carrying out of a new acoustic assessment that attempts to address the matters previously raised by Council and the impacts that the Hotel operation has on adjoining residences. This application seeks to permanently implement the operating times with the exception of the 12 month limited period outlined in condition No.10A. In this regard, this application also seeks approval for permanent ameliorative measures that render a limited time period or trial period, unnecessary. These ameliorative measures, as recommended in the attached Acoustic report, will ensure that the increase in operating hours will only occur in the knowledge that doing so will not create any adverse impacts upon surrounding residents. We note that the ameliorative measures proposed do not seek to implement 3m high barriers on the boundary of the subject land, rather, it seeks to place them on areas immediately surrounding the existing outdoor areas, therefore again limiting impacts on adjoining residences."

Comment: As a result of Council officer concerns with respect to the impact of the proposed operating hours on the surrounding area, the applicant’s proposal to permanently implement the operating hours without a trial period is not supported. Councils Environmental Health Unit has provided the following advice in this regard:


"However proposed noise mitigation works include the construction of permanent barriers surrounding the external areas that may be cost prohibitive should a further 12 month restriction be placed upon the consent. To off-set the concerns raised by the surrounding community a reviewable could be imposed to ensure the operators can adequately demonstrate that by adopting noise mitigation measures and satisfactory operational practices impacts can be managed and should this not occur the extended hours of operation would not be permitted to continue."

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act provisions for reviewable conditions were introduced within Section 80A with the criteria specified within subsections (10B) to (10E). This outlines the following:

(10B) Review of extended hours of operation and number of persons permitted A development consent that is granted subject to a reviewable condition may be granted subject to a further condition that the consent authority may review that condition at any time or at intervals specified by the consent and that the reviewable condition may be changed on any such review.

(10C) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the kinds of development that may be subject to a further condition referred to in subsection (10B), the matters that must be included in such a condition and the procedures for a review under such a condition.

(10D) A decision by a consent authority to change a reviewable condition on a review is taken to be a determination of a development consent for the purposes of this Act.

Note. A review application or an appeal against a determination of a development consent may be made under this Division or Division 8.

(10E) For the purposes of subsections (10B)–(10D), a reviewable condition means any of the following: (a) a condition that permits extended hours of operation (in addition to other

specified hours of operation), (b) a condition that increases the maximum number of persons permitted in a

building (in addition to the maximum number otherwise permitted). The subject application has also been forwarded to NSW Police for comment, who have advised that the venue management had made application to the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing to change the trading hours of the venue to be able to trade in line with the operating hours approved under D90/0436.05. The application was denied, and therefore a trial of the above hours could not have been undertaken. NSW Police could therefore not comment on the venue’s affect on the community during the trial period. The Police had not opposed the variation however conditions had been sought, which have been taken into account in the amended conditions of this consent. Councils Environmental Health Units recommendations are considered to represent a reasonable outcome with respect to the proposed amendment as it allows the tavern to operate extended opening hours and it also protects the surrounding community from possible negative impacts associated with same by maintaining the potential to revert the hours of operation through a reviewable condition of consent.


Noise Impact The most recent Environmental Noise Impact Report (prepared by CRG Consultants, dated 23 July 2013) submitted as part of this application recommends that the following acoustic treatments and management principles be incorporated at the tavern to allow operation until midnight:

• The "Plan of Management" be updated to include the requirements of this acoustic report (refer to the previous "Plan of Management" in Appendix B) and be maintained for the Tavern.

• Recommended 3.0m high acoustic barriers around the perimeters of the outdoor areas of the tavern.

• The southern 1.8m high acoustic fence along the common boundary with the residential dwellings along Windsor Court should be upgraded (if required) and maintained as a 1.8m high acoustic barrier which is free of gaps and holes.

• The carpark gates along the western boundary (fronting Royal Drive) be closed at 10pm.

• No alcohol is to be consumed in the carpark area.

• Maintain a Neighbourhood Complaints Register.

• Amplified music and live entertainment be allowed inside the building up to midnight provided external windows and doors are kept closed. A maximum level of 91 dB(A) measured at 3m from any speaker would allow for a solo or duo act under moderate amplification.

• A sound limiter device be installed for amplified music and live entertainment to the levels presented below. The levels are measured at 3m from any speaker. All musical equipment should be connected to the sound limiter device. Amplified entertainment inside building with windows and doors closed

SPL Hz Octave Band Centre Frequencies dB(A)

31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AP

Predicted allowable noise source level until midnight (measured at 3m)

50 59 69 76 85 88 79 80 74 91

• Speakers for amplified music or live entertainment should be directed towards the north (i.e. towards the Bottle shop drive-through) away from the nearest dwellings to the south.

• The south-western and north-western car spaces should be designated staff spaces to minimise the number of car movement events from these spaces.

• Appropriate signage should be erected at the main entry/exit doors asking patrons to be considerate of surrounding neighbours.

• Staff of the tavern should be diligent in maintaining acceptable activities and noise levels at the outdoor areas of the tavern.

• Provide a security person in the carpark after 10pm to maintain acceptable activities in the carpark (i.e. noise boisterous activity or drinking or congregating of patrons).


• New mechanical equipment (if required) be designed and installed to comply with applicable noise criterion. If new mechanical plant is required it should be positioned as far from the nearest offsite dwellings as possible (i.e. the north-eastern comer of the building).

Comment: Council’s Environmental Health Unit has reviewed the Environmental Noise Impact Report prepared by CRG Acoustical Consultants dated 23 July 2013 and advised that the report appears to have been prepared in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy and has addressed outstanding concerns. In this regard, the proposed mitigation measures contained within the report are considered to be generally acceptable, however a trial period is to be undertaken through a reviewable condition of consent which would allow monitoring of the site for a minimum of a 12 month timeframe to determine noise impacts. CONSIDERATIONS UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979: Substantially the Same Development The proposed modification is essentially the same development as originally approved, with the proposed amendments relate to the hours of operation and are not considered likely to result in any significant changes to the originally approved development. Likely Environmental Impact The proposed amendments to the approved development are not likely to result in any significant impact upon the surrounding area, as noted in the section 79c assessment above. The proposed amendments are therefore not considered to result in any significant environmental impact, subject to appropriate conditions of consent. Consideration of Submissions The application was an exhibition for 14 days. During this time, seven written submissions were received and one petition with 27 signatories. One late submission was also received with respect to the proposal. The issues raised have been summarised below:

Issue Raised Council Officer Assessment When the Tavern previously applied for an extension to hours of operation there were many conditions with respect to noise amelioration measures. None of these have been undertaken.

From advice provided to Council by NSW Police it is considered that the amended hours of operation approved under a previous S96 application were not enabled as the tavern failed to obtain a licence from Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing (OLGR) to operate these times. As such, the amelioration measures would not have been required to be implemented.

Anti-social behaviour and noise from bands would be worse with exacerbated by extended hours of operation.

The issue of anti-social behaviour is a matter for NSW Police. This matter is a social issue, rather than planning consideration under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In any event amelioration measures have been provided by the applicant with respect to noise from bands. The proposal does not warrant refusal on this issue.


Issue Raised Council Officer Assessment The proposal will result in decreased property values.

This matter is not considered to constitute a planning consideration under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the proposal does not warrant refusal on this issue.

Lack of permanent local Police support in Pottsville means that there is a lack of protection to neighbouring properties from anti-social behaviour.

The lack of Police numbers in the Pottsville locality is not a matter of consideration under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The proposal does not warrant refusal on this issue.

Pottsville does not require extended hours for the consumption of alcohol as there are sufficient liquor retailers in the village. This leads to litter in the streets.

The subject site is appropriately zoned for the existing development on site. Liquor licences deal with the sale of alcohol and are policed by the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing (OLGR). Littering associated with the proposal is a behavioural issue and not a planning consideration under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The proposed acoustic treatment is not considered sufficient and the ability of the acoustic barrier to operate adequately is questioned.

The application has been reviewed by Councils Environmental Health Unit with respect to this matter, with it being assessed that the submitted Environmental Noise Impact Report is acceptable to relevant industry standards, subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

Tavern was approved as a small family tavern, as a quite place for people to rest, have a meal and go home safely.

The tavern is defined as a ‘hotel’ under the Tweed LEP 2000. The behaviour of patrons is a social issue which is not a planning consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act but rather an operational management/ NSW Police issue. Where this relates to a Plan of Management, the applicant is required to submit to Council for approval. Conditions have been attached to the consent in this regard.

Security should be undertaken by a reputable security firm.

The identity of the security officers is not a planning consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The proponent of a mixed residential/commercial development approved to the north of the site objects to the proposed hours of operation on the basis that increased trading hours would be detrimental to their properties development due to anti-social behaviour.

The subject site is zoned appropriately for the subject tavern development and the hours of operation are considered acceptable through a reviewable condition to determine if amelioration measures negate impacts on surrounding properties. The behaviour of patrons is a social issue which is not a planning consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act but rather an operational management/ Police issue. Where this relates to a Plan of Management, the applicant is required to submit to Council for approval. Conditions have been attached to the consent in this regard.


Issue Raised Council Officer Assessment When the original DA was approved and Liquor Licensing Court issued a licence, trading hours were determined in order to preserve the tranquillity of the area.

Liquor licences usually reflect the approved trading hours imposed on the development consent. An assessment of the trading hours has been undertaken with the potential impacts to residents taken into account. In this regard it is considered appropriate that a reviewable condition be provided which allows a trial period of extended hours of operation to determine any impacts on the surrounding area. If any extension of trading hours is approved, the liquor licence can be amended as a result. NSW Police and OLGR are responsible for the enforcement of licensing conditions. The proposal does not warrant refusal on this issue.

Anti-social behaviour (including littering, vandalism, cars/motorbikes with loud mufflers) and drink-driving are issues associated with the development at present will be exacerbated by additional hours of operation.

The issue of anti-social behaviour and drink driving is a matter for NSW Police. This is a social issue, rather than planning consideration under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The proposal does not warrant refusal on this issue.

The applicants argument for extended opening hours with respect to zoning objectives, community’s social needs etc is not supported.

The subject tavern is considered to be located on an appropriately zoned site for such a development and the hours of operation take into account surrounding properties. In this regard, the applicant has submitted an ‘Environmental Noise Impact Report’ which contains amelioration measures with respect to impacts on surrounding properties. It is recommended that these measures be implemented and a reviewable condition be attached to the consent in order to determine actual impacts arising from extended hours of operation.


Issue Raised Council Officer Assessment The submission states that some of the mitigation measures are inconsistent with the Liquor licence provisions, in particular with respect to the playing of live music. It is also noted that mitigation measures outlined in a 2009 Plan of Management have ‘escaped full-hearted implementation’.

The Liquor licence is assessed independently from the Development Application and the tavern would be required to comply with the provisions of same. The measures outlined in the Environmental Noise Impact Report are considered to mitigate noise impact in the event of music being played. The approval of an amended consent does not allow the playing of music on the site, but rather provide mitigation measures were it to be approved through the Liquor license. With respect to the 2009 Plan of Management, these measures were to be undertaken in order to allow extended hours of operation at that time. Council have been advised by NSW Police that Liquor license approval was not obtained for the extended operating hours at this time and as such it is reasonable to assume that the amended consent which required these management measures was effectively not acted upon.

Amenity of surrounding properties must be protected.

Mitigation measures and a trial period, by way of a reviewable condition, have been proposed in order to protect the amenity of the surrounding properties. The proposed amendment is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

The licence (assume this is liquor licence) restricted trading hours.

The applicant would be required to amend the liquor licence to amend trading hours in this regard. This is not a matter for Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing (OLGR) to consider and is not a planning matter.

The proposed change in hours of operation is not minor and it is requested that Council reject this application in the interests of the community.

The subject application has been reviewed by Councils Environmental Health Unit and it is advised that subject to the implementation of amelioration measures and a reviewable condition with respect to the hours of operation, the proposal was considered to be acceptable.

The recommended extension of hours through a reviewable condition of consent is considered to be a reasonable compromise to the applicant’s proposal and the issues raised by the submissions above. The extension of hours of operation is reliant upon the applicant applying the recommendations of the Environmental Noise Impact Report, as well as all additional conditions of consent. In terms of a negative impact on the community, surrounding residents are encouraged to use the proposed incident report at the Tavern, or lodge any valid complaints with Council or the Police. Without complaints being lodged, issues of non-compliance go unnoticed by the relevant authorities and cannot be substantiated at a later date.


Public interest The proposed modifications to Development Consent D90/0436 are considered to be acceptable in terms of public interest. The amended conditions of consent will give the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable of running the Tavern at the extended hours, with minimal impact on the local area, whilst the public will also have an opportunity to log any complaints with respect to the extended operating hours, should they occur. The proposed modifications are not considered to result in a significant negative impact upon the surrounding residential area, subject to the continual application amelioration measures as outlined in the Environmental Noise Impact Report and other recommended conditions of consent. Recommendation The request to vary Condition 10A as outlined by the applicant is not supported as proposed as it has been insufficiently demonstrated that a trial period was conducted and therefore the impact on the surrounding community has not be adequately assessed. However proposed noise mitigation works include the construction of permanent barriers surrounding the external areas that may be cost prohibitive should a further 12 month restriction be placed upon the consent. To off-set the concerns raised by the surrounding community a reviewable condition could be imposed to ensure the operators can adequately demonstrate that by adopting noise mitigation measures and satisfactory operational practices impacts can be managed and should this not occur the extended hours of operation would not be permitted to continue. Therefore the following alternative amendments and conditions are recommended: 1. Condition No. 10A is to be deleted and replaced with Condition No. 10B which reads

as follows: 10B. Hours of operation:

Sunday to Thursday – 10.00am to 10.00pm Friday and Saturday – 10.00am to 10pm Variation of the above hours are permitted for a maximum of six times per year with the written approval of the General Manager, or delegate, of Tweed Shire Council. Notwithstanding this condition, please see condition No 29 regarding the reviewable condition.

2. Condition No. 20 is to be deleted and replaced with Condition No. 20A which reads as follows: 20A. The Tavern shall operate in accordance with the Environmental Noise Impact

Report prepared by CRG Acoustical Consultants dated 23 July 2013. All mitigation works shall be completed prior to commencement of extended trading hours.

3. The following new Conditions are to be added: 27. An updated Plan of Management shall be submitted and approved to the

satisfaction of the General Manager or delegate within three months of the date of this consent.

28. Notification shall be provided within seven days of the commencement of extended hours of trading accompanied by a compliance audit report against the operational conditions of the consent inclusive of the plan of management.


29. Reviewable Condition This consent is subject to a reviewable condition under Section 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act. The reviewable condition relates to a condition that permits extended hours of operation. The purpose of this condition is to enable Council to monitor potential impacts associated with extended hours of operation at this site on the surrounding area and, if appropriate, to revert the development consent to its previously approved hours of operation. Extended trading is permitted on Friday and Saturday until 12 Midnight subject to this condition being reviewed by Council after 12 months or upon receipt of a complaint that Council deems to be reasonable from the date the extended trading hours commence. Council is to provide not less than 14 days written notice to the operator of the development that a review is to be carried out under this condition. Where requested by Council, the proponent is to submit a compliance audit against the operational conditions of the development consent, including the plan of management and noise audit report. Council may notify such other persons as it thinks fit of the review, and must take into account any submissions received within 14 days after notice is given. Please note see Condition No 10B.

OPTIONS: 1. Approve the amendment of the development consent as outlined above; or 2. Refuse the application for stated reasons. CONCLUSION: The assessment has had regard for the issues raised by the public submissions, the applicant’s Environmental Noise Impact Report, as well as advice from NSW Police and Councils Environmental Health unit. As a result, the proposed modification to the trading hours of the Tavern is considered to be acceptable, subject to the changes recommended by Council staff, including the provision of a reviewable condition. As such, it is considered that the proposal warrants approval, subject to the recommended amendments to Development Consent D90/0436. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable.


d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


28 [PR-CM] Development Application DA13/0246 for a Three Storey Dwelling and In-Ground Swimming Pool at Lot 598 DP 1076975 No. 40 Marsupial Drive, Pottsville




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council is in receipt of a development application seeking approval for the construction of a new three storey, four bedroom dwelling house with an attached double garage and swimming pool located at Lot 598 DP 1076975 No. 40 Marsupial Drive, Pottsville. The site is a battleaxe allotment which forms part of a residential subdivision and surrounding properties cater to a combination of existing dwelling houses, dwelling houses under construction and vacant land. The proposal presents potential amenity issues typical of in-fill development on a battle-axe allotment. The application was notified to immediately adjacent and surrounding property owners (8 letters) and exhibited for a period of 14 days from Tuesday 28 May to Tuesday 11 June 2013. Council received a total of seven submissions of objection to the proposal from five individuals and one submission of support. The main reasons for objection are loss of views, overshadowing, overlooking, and incompatible building height, bulk and scale. To address objector concerns the applicant submitted a revised design which is the subject of this report. The proposal is a largely compliant design with two departures from the design controls of Section A1 of the Tweed Development Control Plan. The proposal is otherwise consistent with the other matters of consideration including the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, the Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Tweed Development Control Plan 2008, amongst others. Whilst the application attracted a number of objections, the application was assessed on its merits and it is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA13/0246 for a three storey dwelling and in-ground swimming pool at Lot 598 DP 1076975 No. 40 Marsupial Drive, Pottsville be approved subject to the following conditions:


GENERAL 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the plans approved by

Council and the Statement of Environmental Effects, except where varied by conditions of this consent.

[GEN0015]


[GEN0115]

3. A Sewer manhole is present on this site. This manhole is not to be covered with soil or other material. Should adjustments be required to the sewer manhole, then application shall be made to Council's Community and Natural Resources Division for approval of such works.

[GEN0155]

4. In accordance with the Restrictions as to User applying to the land, the applicant/owner shall comply with the following. (a) All trees of the Banksia integrifolia species greater than 125mm diameter at

a height of 1.5 metres above ground level and those trees in the Koala Management Plan approved by the Council, and being koala home range trees, primary browse trees and other trees identified in the map detailing the location of koala usage trees which are utilised by koalas as a component of normal ranging patterns, are not to be removed from the lot.

(b) A minimum clearance of 300 mm shall be maintained between the underside of any fence and the natural ground level except for swimming pool fences which shall maintain a maximum ground clearance of 100 mm.

(c) All swimming pools installed on each lot burdened shall possess a stout rope (minimum fifty (50) mm diameter) and one end of the rope must be secured to a stable pool side fixture and the other end must trail in the pool at all times.

(d) This property is burdened as to the type of plant species that can be planted and those that cannot. The owner is directed to conform with the plant species list contained in Part 5.4 Koala Beach Landscape Species List of Tweed DCP Section B21 Pottsville Locality Based Development Code.

(e) No dogs or cats shall be kept either permanently or temporarily on each lot burdened or at the Koala Beach Estate.

[GEN0280]

5. The owner is to ensure that the proposed building is constructed in the position and at the levels as nominated on the approved plans or as stipulated by a condition of this consent, noting that all boundary setback measurements are taken from the real property boundary and not from such things as road bitumen or fence lines.

[GEN0300]

6. Bushfire Asset Protection Zones The intent of measures is to minimise the risk of bush fire attack and provide protection for emergency services personnel, residents and others assisting fire fighting activities.


Bushfire asset protections zones are to be maintained around the house site at all times to the satisfaction of the NSW Rural Fire Service.

[GEN0320]

7. Bushfire Water and Utilities The intent of measures is to minimise the risk of bush fire attack and provide protection for emergency services personnel, residents and others assisting fire fighting activities. The occupier of the property is to participate in the Static Water Supply Project initiative of NSW Fire Brigade and make available the water in the swimming pool for use as a static water supply for fire fighting purposes by NSW Fire Brigade or Rural Fire Service.

[GEN0325]

8. Bushfire Design and Construction The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply: Construction shall comply with Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in Bush Fire-prone areas', Bushfire attack Level (BAL) 12.5 for dwelling. All Class 10 structures as defined per the Building Code of Australia 2006 attached to or within 10 metres of the habitable building shall be constructed to the same level of construction required for the habitable building in accordance with the requirements of planning for bushfire protection 2006 and AS3959-2009 ' Construction of buildings in Bush Fire-prone areas'.

[GEN0335]

9. Any surface rainwater which is intercepted by retaining walls shall not be directed onto adjoining properties and shall be conveyed through the subject allotment to the street kerb and gutter.

[GENNS01]

10. The mature eucalyptus tree positioned on the south-east corner of the allotment shall not be removed by the development. Precautions are to be taken during construction to protect the tree including as appropriate barriers around the drip line of the tree and preventing the parking and storing of materials inside the barrier.

[GENNS02]

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 11. In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), a construction certificate for SUBDIVISION WORKS OR BUILDING WORKS shall NOT be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act, 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided.

[PCC0285]


12. If the development is likely to disturb or impact upon telecommunications infrastructure, written confirmation from the service provider that they have agreed to the proposed works must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or any works commencing, whichever occurs first. The arrangements and costs associated with any adjustment to telecommunications infrastructure shall be borne in full by the applicant/developer.

[PCC1325]

13. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate a plan of the swimming pool showing the proposed cut and fill levels including retaining walls and interface with the adjoining property boundaries is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan is to demonstrate no retaining walls or batters exceeding a slope of 1:2 (v:h) or height of 500mm within 900mm of the boundary for cut and 1.5m for fill. The plan must demonstrate suitable means for the drainage and disposal of overflow water to ensure it is not directed onto adjoining properties.

[PCCNS01]

PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK 14. The erection of a building in accordance with a development consent must not

be commenced until: (a) a construction certificate for the building work has been issued by the

consent authority, the council (if the council is not the consent authority) or an accredited certifier, and

(b) the person having the benefit of the development consent has: (i) appointed a principal certifying authority for the building work, and (ii) notified the principal certifying authority that the person will carry out

the building work as an owner-builder, if that is the case, and (c) the principal certifying authority has, no later than 2 days before the

building work commences: (i) notified the consent authority and the council (if the council is not the

consent authority) of his or her appointment, and (ii) notified the person having the benefit of the development consent of

any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work, and

(d) the person having the benefit of the development consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has: (i) appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the

holder of a contractor licence if any residential work is involved, and (ii) notified the principal certifying authority of any such appointment, and (iii) unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal

contractor of any critical stage inspection and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work.

[PCW0215]


15. Prior to work commencing, a "Notice of Commencement of Building or Subdivision Work and Appointment of Principal Certifying Authority" shall be submitted to Council at least 2 days prior to work commencing.

[PCW0225]

16. Residential building work: (a) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act

1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information: (i) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be

appointed: * in the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and * the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6

of that Act, (ii) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

* the name of the owner-builder, and * if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner builder permit

under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit. (b) If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while

the work is in progress so that the information notified under subclause (1) becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.

[PCW0235]

17. A temporary builder's toilet is to be provided prior to commencement of work at the rate of one (1) closet for every fifteen (15) persons or part of fifteen (15) persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be: (a) a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or (b) if that is not practicable, an accredited sewage management facility

approved by the council [PCW0245]

18. All roof waters are to be disposed of through properly jointed pipes to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. All PVC pipes to have adequate cover and installed in accordance with the provisions of AS/NZS3500.3.2.

[PCW1005]

DURING CONSTRUCTION 19. Construction and/or demolition site work including the entering and leaving of

vehicles is limited to the following hours, unless otherwise permitted by Council: Monday to Saturday from 7.00am to 6.00pm No work to be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays The proponent is responsible to instruct and control subcontractors regarding hours of work.

[DUR0205]


20. The wall and roof cladding is to have low reflectivity where they would otherwise cause nuisance to the occupants of buildings with direct line of sight to the proposed building.

[DUR0245] 21. All building work (other than work relating to the erection of a temporary

building) must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate was made).

[DUR0375]

22. Building materials used in the construction of the building are not to be deposited or stored on Council's footpath or road reserve, unless prior approval is obtained from Council.

[DUR0395]

23. The Principal Certifying Authority is to be given a minimum of 48 hours notice prior to any critical stage inspection or any other inspection nominated by the Principal Certifying Authority via the notice under Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

[DUR0405]

24. It is the responsibility of the applicant to restrict public access to the construction works site, construction works or materials or equipment on the site when construction work is not in progress or the site is otherwise unoccupied in accordance with WorkCover NSW requirements and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

[DUR0415]

25. The finished floor level of the building should finish not less than 225mm above finished ground level.

[DUR0445]

26. All cut or fill on the property is to be battered at an angle not greater than 1:2 (v:h) within the property boundary, stabilised and provided with a dish drain or similar at the base in accordance with Tweed Shire Councils Design and Construction Specifications, Development Control Plan Part A1 to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. Please note timber retaining walls are not permitted.

[DUR0835] 27. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the current BASIX

certificate and schedule of commitments approved in relation to this development consent.

[DUR0905] 28. All work associated with this approval is to be carried out so as not to impact on

the neighbourhood, adjacent premises or the environment. All necessary precautions, covering and protection shall be taken to minimise impact from: • Noise, water or air pollution. • Dust during filling operations and also from construction vehicles. • Material removed from the site by wind.

[DUR1005]


29. Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate and/or prior to any use or occupation of the buildings.

[DUR1875]

30. No portion of the structure may be erected over any existing sullage or stormwater disposal drains, easements, sewer mains, or proposed sewer mains.

[DUR1945]

31. Swimming Pools (Building) (a) The swimming pool is to be installed and access thereto restricted in

accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926.1 - 2012 & AS 1926.2 -2007, the Swimming Pool Act 1992 and the Swimming Pool Regulation 2008.

(b) Swimming pools shall have suitable means for the drainage and disposal of overflow water.

(c) The pool pump and filter is to be enclosed and located in a position so as not to cause a noise nuisance to adjoining properties.

(d) Warning notices are to be provided in accordance with Part 3 of the Swimming Pool Regulations 2008.

(e) Once your pool or spa is complete please register it at www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

[DUR2075]

32. Backwash from the swimming pool is to be connected to the sewer in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3500.2 Section 10.9.

[DUR2085]

33. The builder must provide an adequate trade waste service to ensure that all waste material is suitably contained and secured within an area on the site, and removed from the site at regular intervals for the period of construction/demolition to ensure no material is capable of being washed or blow from the site.

[DUR2185]

34. Council is to be given 24 hours notice for any of the following inspections prior to the next stage of construction: (a) internal drainage, prior to slab preparation; (b) water plumbing rough in, and/or stackwork prior to the erection of brick

work or any wall sheeting; (c) external drainage prior to backfilling. (d) completion of work and prior to occupation of the building.

[DUR2485]

35. Plumbing (a) A plumbing permit is to be obtained from Council prior to commencement

of any plumbing and drainage work.


(b) The whole of the plumbing and drainage work is to be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Plumbing Code of Australia and AS/NZS 3500.

[DUR2495]

36. Overflow relief gully is to be located clear of the building and at a level not less than 150mm below the lowest fixture within the building and 75mm above finished ground level.

[DUR2545] 37. All new hot water installations shall deliver hot water at the outlet of sanitary

fixtures used primarily for personal hygiene purposes at a temperature not exceeding:- * 45ºC for childhood centres, primary and secondary schools and nursing

homes or similar facilities for aged, sick or disabled persons; and * 50ºC in all other classes of buildings. A certificate certifying compliance with the above is to be submitted by the licensed plumber on completion of works.

[DUR2555]

38. No retaining walls or similar structures are to be constructed over or within the zone of influence of Council's sewer main.

[DUR2705]

39. Upon completion of the first floor joists a survey certificate is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority verifying the development has been constructed to the first floor levels as nominated on the approved plans.

[DURNS01]

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE 40. A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a

new building or structure (within the meaning of Section 109H(4)) unless an occupation certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part (maximum 25 penalty units).

[POC0205]

41. Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, (a) Certification of termite protection methods performed by the person

carrying out the works is to be submitted to the PCA; and (b) A durable notice must be permanently fixed to the building in a prominent

location, such as in the electrical meter box indicating: (i) the method of protection; and (ii) the date of installation of the system; and (iii) where a chemical barrier is used, its life expectancy as listed on the

National Registration Authority label; and (iv) the need to maintain and inspect the system on a regular basis.

[POC0235]


42. A final occupation certificate must be applied for and obtained within 6 months of any Interim Occupation Certificate being issued, and all conditions of this consent must be satisfied at the time of issue of a final occupation certificate (unless otherwise specified herein).

[POC0355]

43. Prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate adequate proof and/or documentation is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority to identify that all commitment on the BASIX "Schedule of Commitments" have been complied with.

[POC0435] 44. Upon completion of the pool the builder is to submit to the Principal Certifying

Authority a certificate stating that the “Water Recirculation System” has been installed in accordance with AS 1926.3-2010.

[POC0905]

45. Prior to the occupation or use of any building and prior to the issue of any occupation certificate, including an interim occupation certificate a final inspection report is to be obtained from Council in relation to the plumbing and drainage works.

[POC1045]

46. Prior to issue of an occupation certificate, a survey certificate is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority verifying the development has been constructed to the ridge height level as nominated on the approved plans.

[POCNS01]

USE 47. The use to be conducted so as not to cause disruption to the amenity of the

locality, particularly by way of the emission of noise, dust and odours or the like. [USE0125]

48. All externally mounted air conditioning units and other mechanical plant or equipment are to be located so that any noise impact due to their operation which may be or is likely to be experienced by any neighbouring premises is minimised. Notwithstanding this requirement all air conditioning units and other mechanical plant and or equipment is to be acoustically treated or shielded where considered necessary to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate such that the operation of any air conditioning unit, mechanical plant and or equipment does not result in the emission of offensive or intrusive noise.

[USE0175]

49. The building is to be used for single dwelling purposes only. [USE0505]

50. Swimming Pools (Building) (a) It is the responsibility of the pool owner to ensure that the pool fencing

continues to provide the level of protection required regardless of and in response to any activity or construction on the adjoining premises. Due regard must be given to the affect that landscaping will have on the future effectiveness of the security fencing. (Section 7 Swimming Pool Act 1992).

(b) The resuscitation poster must be permanently displayed in close proximity to the swimming pool. (Section 17 Swimming Pool Act 1992).


(c) Warning notices required under Part 3 of the Swimming Pool Regulations 2008 shall be maintained at all times.

[USE1295]

51. The swimming pool is not to be used for commercial purposes without prior Development Consent.

[USE1305]


REPORT:

Applicant: Parameter Designs Owner: Mr Andrew L Haywood Location: Lot 598 DP 1076975 No. 40 Marsupial Drive, Pottsville Zoning: 2(c) Urban Expansion Cost: $520,000 Background: The site The site is a battle-axe shaped allotment with an area of 1,080 square metres. The battle-axe site with the driveway handle excluded, or the actual building component of the site, falls from north-east (R.L. 44.99 metres AHD) to south-west (R.L. 41.09 metres AHD) over a distance of 37 metres with a resultant south-west aspect. The site is vacant and forms part of a 230 lot residential subdivision being Stages 5 and 6 of Koala Beach. The Koala Beach estate has undulating topography and the locality includes various residential designs including single, two and three storey buildings. The site being a battle-axe allotment is immediately surrounded by six properties. The proposal The application seeks approval for the construction of a three storey, 9 metre high dwelling house with attached double garage and in ground swimming pool. The dwelling house comprises a double garage and formal entry on the ground floor, three bedrooms, bathroom, laundry, kitchen and living spaces including a verandah and deck on the first floor, and the master bedroom and ensuite on the second floor. The proposal comprises a combination of cladding materials including timber, colorbond wall sheeting and roofing and rendered board. The proposal has been amended since the original submission of the development application to reduce the size of the proposed south facing verandah. Surrounding properties and development The following table outlines surrounding property locations in relation to the subject site and their development status. It details the other applications that have already been determined in the immediate area. The table assists Council to:

• Establish the context of surrounding development;

• Consider the proposal’s consistency with that development in light of all relevant development standards and controls applicable to the site and the proposal as outlined in this report; and

• Consider the cumulative impact of the proposal should it be duplicated in the immediate locality.


Lot No Address Location Development status 596 44 Marsupial Drive SW Site is vacant and Council recently approved

DA13/0407 for a two storey, 7.7m high dwelling with attached double garage.

597 42 Marsupial Drive W Site is vacant and Council is not in receipt of a development application.

599 38 Marsupial Drive S The site is currently subject to construction of a two storey, 9m high dwelling approved by Council under DA12/0466.

600 36 Marsupial Drive S Site improvements include a two storey, 8m high dwelling approved by Council under DA07/1315.

603 2 Melia Close E Site improvements include a two storey, 8.5m high dwelling approved by Council under DA08/0219.

605 4 Melia Close N Site improvements include a two storey, 8m high dwelling approved by Council under DA05/0517.

606 5 Melia Close N Site is vacant and Council is not in receipt of a development application.

* Storey as per the definition of the Tweed LEP 2000. ** Building height as per definition of Section A1 of Tweed DCP 2008. Public submissions The application was notified to adjacent and surrounding property owners (8 letters) and exhibited for a period of 14 days from Tuesday 28 May to Tuesday 11 June 2013. Council received a total of seven submissions of objection to the proposal from five individuals and one submission of support. The main reasons for objection are loss of views, overshadowing, overlooking, and incompatible building height, bulk and scale. Statutory consideration The proposal requires the lodgement and determination of a development application pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and has been considered by Council under Section 79C of the Act, including relevant planning and urban design matters and public submissions the subject of this report. The proposal is reasonable development having regard to the matters listed under Section 79C including the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, the Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Tweed Development Control Plan 2008, amongst others. Whilst the application attracted a number of objections, it is recommended for approval.


SITE DIAGRAM:



Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan The Aims of the TLEP 2000 are to give effect to strategic plans and principles that will shape the natural and built environment of the Tweed Shire into the future. The proposal is not contrary to these outcomes. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development An objective of the TLEP 2000 is to promote development that is consistent with four principles of ecologically sustainable development, namely the precautionary principle, inter-generational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The proposal has been considered against these four principles and is satisfactory. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations The TLEP 2000 sets out the consent considerations when determining a development application. 8(1) The consent authority may grant consent to development (other than

development specified in Item 3 of the Table to clause 11) only if: (a) It is satisfied that the development is consistent with the primary

objective of the zone within which it is located, and (b) It has considered those other aims and objectives of this plan that are

relevant to the development, and (c) It is satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable


To address Clause 8(1)(a) the primary objective of the 2(c) zone is: To identify land for urban expansion (which will comprise mainly residential development focused on multi-use neighbourhood centres) and to ensure its optimum utilisation consistent with environmental constraints and the need to minimise residential landtake.

The proposal is residential development and is an acceptable response in regard to the constraints of the site. The development is consistent with the primary objective of the zone. The secondary objectives of the 2(c) zone have also been considered and the development is satisfactory. To address Clause 8(1)(b) this report considers those other aims and objectives of the TLEP 2000 that are relevant to the development.


To address Clause 8(1)(c) this report in its entirety considers the cumulative impact of the proposal including its interaction with the built and natural environment, inclusive of existing site opportunities and constraints being views, proximity to neighbouring properties, orientation and topography, and bushfire. In response to the aims, objectives and controls of planning instruments and documents applicable to the site and these issues the proposal is acceptable development. In Hasting Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council and Anor; Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council and Ors [2008] NSWLEC 180 Justice Pain provided “Assessment of cumulative impact requires that the impact of similar developments to the one proposed and the accumulation of such development and successive developments of a similar type on the community or locality be conducted. The issue of whether a development establishes a precedent is also required. It follows that it is not sufficient to assess the impact of the single development on the locality and community...” [103]. Based on the proposal’s acceptableness under the TLEP 2000 and other planning provisions applicable to the site and proposal, if the proposal was accumulated successively in the community, locality or catchment or on the area of Tweed as a whole, the outcome would also be acceptable and any precedent that is set is also acceptable. The Tweed historically through the implementation of its planning instrument and controls has provided for three storey residential developments in the localities and communities of the Shire, including on sloping sites, the proposal being consistent with this approach should be supported. Clause 15 - Essential Services Essential services are available to the site. Clause 16 - Height of Building The site has a statutory height limit under the TLEP 2000 of three storeys and the proposal complies with this standard. The objective of Clause 16 has also been considered which is to ensure that the height and scale of development is appropriate to its location, surrounding development and the environmental characteristics of the land. To address this objective the proposal has also been considered against the Draft TLEP 2012 and Section A1 of the Tweed Development Control Plan – Part A as it relates to dwelling houses as a further measure to assess the appropriateness of the height and scale of the development. These considerations are detailed by this report and the proposal is considered acceptable. Therefore in addition to compliance with the three storey statutory height limit applicable to the site the height and scale of the proposal is also appropriate. Clause 39A - Bushfire protection Clause 39A of the TLEP 2000 requires Council to take into account matters with the objective to minimise bushfire risk to built assets and people and to reduce bushfire threat to ecological assets and environmental assets.


The site is bushfire prone land. In accordance with Clause 39A of the TLEP 2000 Council has had regard to provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. The proposed dwelling has been assessed as having a Bushfire Attack Level of 12.5. Conditions of consent are recommended to ensure the development complies with the provisions of PBP 2006. State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 – Coastal Protection Clause 8 of this Policy requires Council to consider various matters when considering development on land mapped as being located within the coastal zone. The proposal has been considered against the matters for consideration, including, amongst others:

• Retaining and improving existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability;

• Opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability;

• The suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area;

• Any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore.

The proposal is satisfactory in regard to the Clause 8 Matters for consideration of the policy. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 This policy requires development applications for certain development, including new dwelling houses, to be supported by a BASIX certificate and the imposition of a condition of consent requiring implementation of the statement of commitments listed in that certificate. The application is supported by a BASIX certificate and a condition of consent is recommended. SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 43: Residential development Clause 43 of the NCREP requires Council to not grant consent to development for residential purposes unless, amongst other things:

• It is satisfied that the density of the dwellings have been maximised without adversely affecting the environmental features of the land;

• It is satisfied that site erosion will be minimised in accordance with sedimentation and erosion management plans.

The proposal is satisfactory having regard to Clause 43. An erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented prior to, during and post construction.


(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the Draft TLEP as follows. 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table

Pursuant to the Draft LEP the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Dwelling houses are permitted with consent in the zone and the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone. 4.3 Height of buildings

The objectives of clause 4.3 include as are relevant to the proposal and site:

• To establish the maximum height for which a building can be designed;

• To ensure that building height relates to the land’s capability to provide and maintain an appropriate urban character and level of amenity;

• To limit the impact of the height of a building on the existing natural and built environment;

• To prevent gross overshadowing impacts on the natural and built environment.

The Draft LEP sets a maximum building height for the site of 9.0 metres. The proposal pursuant to the definition of building height included in the Draft TLEP is 9.0m. 4.4 Floor space ratio

The site has a FSR standard of 0.8. The FSR is calculated to be approximately 0.33 and complies.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A1-Residential and Tourist Development Code Part A of Section A1 of the Tweed DCP applies to dwelling houses and the proposal has been considered against the design themes within this Part. Each design theme is split into an explanation of the design criteria, where relevant the over-arching planning and design principles, a range of objectives and design controls. Where a proposal meets the design controls of the relevant design theme the proposal is deemed to comply. Nevertheless the design controls are a guideline and the DCP acknowledges there may be other acceptable solutions. A detailed assessment of the proposal against the relevant design themes is available on Council’s system and the proposal is largely compliant with the design controls. The proposal includes two departures from the design controls as follows. Non-compliance with Design theme-Preliminary for context and site analysis A site analysis plan was not provided with the development application. Despite this the application is acceptable for the following reasons:


• The development application was received by Council on the 20 May 2013. Version 1.6 of Section A1 of the Tweed DCP, which introduced the requirements for a site analysis as a design control, became effective on the 21 May 2013 and while it is noted there are no savings provisions for development applications lodged prior to the effective commencement of a DCP, Council officers have been encouraged to apply a pragmatic approach in the period of transition between the previous and new Section A1. This approach is consistent with application of new and amended DCP sections previously adopted by Council.

• It is apparent the design has considered the site’s opportunities and constraints and the submitted site plan addresses several of the requirements of a site analysis pursuant to the DCP.

Non-compliance with Design theme 3-Building envelope controls for rear setback

The design control for the rear setback is 12m as the proposal has a building height greater than 4.5m. The proposal incorporates a rear setback of 6m which does not comply. The variation to the rear setback design control has been considered against the relevant planning principle and objectives of the design theme related to rear setbacks. The proposed rear setback is acceptable for the following reasons:

• The proposed rear setback provides adequate space for landscaping and open space.

• It is noted the privacy of the proposal’s rear open space could be impacted from the second storey south facing balcony of the dwelling on the rear adjoining allotment. This is an expected outcome of developing a sloping battleaxe allotment on the low side of existing development and a 12m setback would not alter the outcome.

• There is sufficient space within the rear setback of the proposal site for landscaping and will allow visual screening to mitigate the privacy impact.

• It is reasonable to expect that the proposal’s western and south-eastern sides will be primarily utilised for private open space given they cater to the swimming pool and verandah/decks, hence the proposal will maintain suitable private open space.

• If Council pursued compliance with the design control it may lead to further detriment of the south adjoining allotments of the subject site by reducing the setback of the proposal from those lot boundaries.

• The proposed rear setback from the rear adjoining allotments will not impact sunlight access and ventilation.

• Shadow diagrams submitted in support of the application indicate compliance with the design controls for solar access of the DCP and therefore the shadow impact of the proposed rear setback is acceptable.

• The proposal complies with the applicable side setback design controls. In addition to the above two non-compliances the public submissions received by Council objecting to the proposal also raised a number of issues relating to Section A1 of the Tweed DCP. A report by exception having regard to those issues and the proposal’s compliance with the design themes is provided below.


Design theme-Preliminary for Views and Vistas

The proposal will impact the existing views from the adjacent eastern property Lot 603, namely the views of the mountain range north of Mount Warning. The Tweed DCP Section A1 states “building siting and height is, as far as is practical, to be designed to minimise the impact on views from surrounding properties, and follow the Planning Principles of view sharing between properties.” The Planning Principles reference Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 in which Senior Commissioner Roseth adopts a four step process to assess whether view sharing is reasonable. This process has been followed to assess the proposal. 1. Assessment of views to be affected: Lot 603 currently enjoys primary views to the south-east including the Pacific Ocean and adjoining coastal foreshore and Cape Byron in the distance from south and east facing decks part of the building. The house at Lot 603 also has views to the south-west over the western boundary including Mount Warning and nearby mountains. The view that would be affected is dependent on the vantage point as there a number of vantage points on Lot 603 including the side yard, middle of house deck, western end of the south facing deck and bedrooms. The view from these vantage points is assessed as valuable. 2. The part of the property the views are obtained: The views of these mountains is obtained from the side boundary including the yard, middle deck, western end of the south facing deck and bedrooms of Lot 603 from both a standing and sitting position. Lot 603 would maintain views of Mount Warning between the subject building on Lot 598 and the building under construction on Lot 599 from the western end of the south facing balcony. The views of the mountains north of Mount Warning would be lost from the other vantage points. Roseth SC states “The expectation to retain side views...is often unrealistic” [27]. 3. Assess the extent of impact Roseth SC states “this should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected” [28]. Lot 603, if the proposal proceeds, will maintain views of Mount Warning to the west via a view corridor between two houses and will continue to enjoy views of the Ocean, coastal foreshore and Cape Byron in the distance. The impact is therefore considered minor. 4. The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact The proposal has the potential to cause detrimental impacts because it is infill development on a battle-axe site. Nevertheless the proposal complies with the majority of design controls for dwellings and the aims and objectives of the Tweed LEP 2000. The proposal is therefore reasonable development. An amended design to fully mitigate the impacts i.e. single storey dwelling would not only fail in its ability to provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity but would not reduce the view loss to Lot 603. The proposal is therefore reasonable development that will have a minor impact on valuable views from the side boundary of Lot 603. The view sharing in this instance, in particular maintenance of views of Mount Warning, is reasonable.


Design Theme 1-Introduction (General)

Surrounding dwellings each consist of a variation of material finishes, articulated elevations and roof forms, and the proposal will contribute to this character. The subject allotment, as well as adjacent allotments, is burdened by a Section 88B restriction on use that dictates building materials and finishes. The proposal complies with the restrictions and will ensure consistency with the character of surrounding dwellings. Surrounding existing dwellings comprise single and two-storey split level residences as follows:

Lot No Height – storeys* Height – metres** 596 (proposed) 2 7.7m 597 Vacant 599 (u/c) 2 9m 600 2 8m 603 2 8.5m 605 2 8m 606 Vacant Average 2 8.24m * Definition of storey per Tweed LEP 2000

** Definition of building height per Tweed DCP Section A1. The proposal has a height of 3 storeys/9m. While the proposal includes an additional storey to the immediately surrounding dwellings, the overall height is not a significant inconsistency with the height of those dwellings (0.76m difference to the average). It is also noted that existing 3 storey dwellings occur within the wider Koala Beach locality. In consideration of these points the proposal is consistent with the scale of surrounding dwellings. Design theme 2-Site design for Landscaping, deep soil zones and external living areas The existing eucalyptus tree located on the SE corner of the allotment is to be retained by the proposal through the imposition of a recommended condition of consent.


Design theme 3-Building envelope controls for front and side setbacks

3.1 Setbacks The site is a battle-axe allotment. Section A1 of the Tweed DCP refers to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP-Exempt and Complying Development Codes) in order to define battle-axe. Section A1 does not define front, rear and side setbacks for battle-axe allotment purposes. Council’s assessing officer has therefore adopted the definition from SEPP-Exempt and Complying Development Codes for the purposes of this assessment which states under Cl3.20(4): “For the purpose of calculating setbacks for a battle-axe lot, the setback on the opposite side of the lot to the rear setback is taken to be a side setback.” The design control for side setbacks is 1.5m and the proposal includes a minimum setback of 3.8m from the nearest adjoining property boundary. Compliance with the design control would allow the proposal to encroach a further 2.3m toward the nearest adjoining boundary and therefore complies. Design Theme 4 – Building design

4.3 Solar Access and Natural Ventilation The shadow diagrams submitted in support of the application indicate the proposal will restrict sunlight to a principle area of private open space of the southern adjoining allotment by 100% at 9am, 30% at 12 noon and <5% at 3pm on June 21, therefore the proposal will not restrict sunlight to the principle area of private open space of the adjoining allotment by more than 50% between 12 noon and 3pm on June 21, or 3 hours. The proposal therefore complies with the DCP. Lot 600 has north facing solar panels. Shadow diagrams supporting the proposal do not indicate overshadowing of these therefore the proposal complies. 4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy The site and surrounding properties have south-east and south-west views which all surrounding existing development has been designed to capture by including internal and external living spaces on the south elevations, and the proposal is consistent. The Koala Beach locality varies in levels from R.L. 40 metres AHD to less than R.L. 10 metres AHD. The main component of the subject site itself falls at a grade of approximately 10%. In consideration of the localities and site’s topography and orientation, the potential for overlooking is unavoidable in this part of the Tweed. The design control states external private open space located within 4m of a property boundary may require visual screening. The proposal complies because:

• The setback between the proposed verandah and Lot 599 exceeds 4.0m.

• The setback between the proposed verandah and Lot 600 is 3.8m and includes an existing mature tree which will aid in visual privacy and precludes the requirement for additional visual screening.

• There is over 14m distance between the proposed verandah and the adjacent dwelling houses which provides a good opportunity for inter-allotment landscaping and visual screening to minimise the potential for overlooking.


• The site being a battle-axe has six neighbouring properties and there is a resultant potential for the proposal to impact the acoustic privacy of those properties. However ordinary residential use of the proposed external living areas is not expected to detrimentally impact the adjoining properties.

A2-Site Access and Parking Code The proposal provides access and car parking that satisfies the controls for dwelling houses pursuant to Section A2 of the Tweed DCP. A11-Public Notification of Development Proposals The development application was notified and exhibited for a period of 14 days from Tuesday 28 May to Tuesday 11 June 2013. Council received a total of seven submissions of objection to the proposal from five individuals and one submission of support. The objections focused on loss of views, overshadowing, overlooking and visual impacts related to the building’s bulk and scale. Copies of the objection letters were provided to the applicant who responded by amending the original design as well as outlining reasons why the proposal should proceed, which has been considered during assessment of the application. A response to the objections is included below in this report. B10-Koala Beach The proposal is consistent with the aims and environmental design elements of Section B10 of the Tweed DCP. A detailed assessment of the proposal against Section B10 of the Tweed DCP is available on Council’s system. B21-Pottsville Locality Based Development Code The proposal complies with Section B21 of the Tweed DCP, particularly the area specific strategy for Koala Beach. The DCP describes the existing condition of Koala Beach pictorially. An example is provided below and the proposal will contribute to this condition.


The proposal also meets the strategy and development control and implementation requirements in that:

• The proposal complies with the built form controls.

• The proposal provides adequate space for landscaping for shade and screening.

• The proposal minimises cut and fill by incorporating a hybrid slab / post and beam structure. The DCP provides the following reference for new development and the proposal complies.


(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The NSW Coastal Policy 1997 applies to land within one kilometre landward of the open coast high water mark and one kilometre of coastal rivers, lakes, lagoons, estuaries and islands. The subject site’s proximity to the coast and Mooball Creek means the policy applies to the land. The policy requires that the environment including water quality, habitat and conservation values are assessed and mitigation measures put in place to protect them. The proposal is not contrary to the policy’s requirements and no specific mitigation measures are warranted. No other matter prescribed by the EP&A Regulation is applicable to the proposal.

(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), The subject site is located approximately 990 metres from Mooball Creek and 1.5 kilometres from the ocean and the aims and objectives of the Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 and Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 have been considered. The proposal is not detrimental to these Plans.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Context and Setting/Building Height and Scale Existing immediately surrounding development to the subject site comprises two storey dwellings. There are examples of single, two and three storey development in the Koala Beach locality. While the height in storeys as defined by the Tweed LEP 2000 of the proposal differs to immediately surrounding development the proposal has been assessed as having a consistent overall actual height to those developments. In consideration of the proposal’s general compliance with the controls in force in Tweed Shire the difference in storey height between the proposal and surrounding houses is not considered to hinder the application proceeding. Overshadowing The proposal will cause overshadowing of the immediately adjacent properties located to the south of the subject site. This is a result of the site and locality’s topography and orientation. The design response of the proposal meets the objectives and relevant controls related to this issue and the proposal should therefore proceed. Overlooking The site is a battle-axe allotment surrounded by several existing dwelling houses. Infill development of the site presents typical issues related to visual privacy including the potential for overlooking. The proposal has been assessed as being largely compliant with the relevant development controls aimed at mitigating privacy impacts. There are also opportunities to provide visual screening between allotments to further protect privacy. The proposal is therefore supported.




(c) Suitability of the site for the development Topography The proposal has addressed Council’s requirements for a sloping site by designing a hybrid slab and post and beam structure that maintains the natural topography of the land.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations Public notification 28 May 2013 to 11 June 2013 Following notification of the development application to surrounding properties Council received seven objections to the development from five individuals and one submission of support. A summary of the submissions and responses are provided below. Council has provided extensive opportunities for objectors to address Council regarding the development application including the ability to review the amended design drawings submitted by the applicant following receipt of the original objections. The individual who submitted the majority of objections has maintained through correspondence that the current design does not comply with Council’s adopted DCP and conditions should be included to mitigate impacts. Summary of submission Response Overlooking and significant visual and acoustic privacy issues emanating from the proposed elevated deck and southern elevation of bifold doors and windows which look directly into rear yard and living space (Refer DCP A1 4.5 Visual and acoustic privacy P1, P3, O3, C1, C2, C3, C4).

The site and surrounding properties have south-east and south-west views which all surrounding existing development has been designed to capture by including internal and external living spaces on the south elevations, and the proposal is consistent. In conjunction with the site’s slope and orientation, there is potential for overlooking. In order to mitigate the visual privacy impact from potential overlooking, and the acoustic privacy impact, the applicant has revised the original design which has increased the setback between the verandah and Lot 599 to 4.0m and Lot 600 to 3.8m. This increase has resultantly reduced the narrowest portion of the verandah adjacent to Lot 599 to 1.2m which the applicant maintains will reduce usage of this side of the verandah and the Eastern portion of the verandah will incur primary external usage. The revised setback means the distance between the verandah and the southern houses is 14.8m to Lot 600’s dwelling and 16m to Lot 599’s dwelling. This distance allows for inter-allotment landscaping and visual screening to minimise the potential for overlooking.


Summary of submission Response An existing mature eucalyptus tree on the SE portion of the site should be retained through the imposition of a condition of consent which will assist with minimising amenity impacts between the proposal and Lot 600.

Inappropriate building setback to rear boundary of adjacent properties considering the overall height, bulk and mass of the proposed building (3.1 Setbacks P2, O3, O4, O5, C1, C2, C19).

The site is a battleaxe allotment and pursuant to the definition adopted by Council contained within SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) the boundaries between the site and adjacent eastern, southern and western properties are side boundaries. The proposed design complies with the side setback controls. A variation to the rear setback control between the site and the northern property is required for the design, and has been assessed as being acceptable. In response to the objectives mentioned by the objector, the proposal provides appropriate separation between dwellings, minimises the potential for overlooking and overshadowing, and allows landscaping between the buildings and maintenance of the adjoining southern properties’ rear yard landscape zone.

Incompatible building height, scale and mass and visual bulk in compatible with adjoining development which would result in significant amenity impacts (Refer DCP A1 3.2 Building Height P1, P5, O1, O2 and Building Form O1, C1).

The proposal has an overall height of 9.0m which is acceptable under the DCP. The proposal includes articulated elevations, a combination of material finishes and a low roof pitch. The proposal’s resultant height, scale, mass and visual bulk is acceptable and compatible with adjoining development.

Overshadowing impacts particularly during winter months (Refer DCP A1 4.3 Solar Access and Natural Ventilation P1, O2).

The shadow diagrams submitted in support of the application indicate the proposal complies with the controls for solar access and natural ventilation of Section A1 of the DCP.

Non-compliance with requirements of DCP A1 to prepare and lodge a site analysis which documents the opportunities and constraints, and demonstrates how the proposal has been designed to mitigate potential amenity impacts (Refer DCP A1 – 3.0 - Context and Site

The application was not supported by a site analysis that met all of the relevant details suggested by the DCP. The revised design nevertheless has given consideration to the opportunities and constraints of the site.


Summary of submission Response Analysis C1).

Noncompliance with passive design principles and controls (Refer DCP A1 4.2 Passive Design P1, P10, O1, C1).

It is noted primary living spaces are located where they will maximise access to the south-east and south-west vistas on the southern elevation of the building. All habitable rooms will be provided access to fresh air and living spaces maintain access to prevalent winds. The design incorporates 600mm eaves and will aid shading of western and eastern walls. While a site analysis did not accompany the application the opportunities and constraints of the site have been balanced by the design.

It is unclear whether the existing eucalyptus tree (Koala Food tree) located close to the southern boundary will be retained.

The subject tree has been identified as a Grey Ironbark (Eucalyptus siderophloia) by Council’s Natural Resource Management Unit. While the tree is not a preferred Koala Food tree it’s retention is recommended through the imposition of a condition of consent because the tree is likely to assist potential amenity impacts between allotments as well as providing food and shelter for other fauna species.

The building would cause loss of views from neighbouring properties.

The view loss and view sharing from the proposal has been assessed as being reasonable.

Three storey development breaches the Koala Beach covenant requirements.

The Section 88B Instrument burdening the allotment restricts dwelling house development to a maximum height of 10m between the natural ground level and the ridge line, and the proposal complies with this restriction.

Three storey dwelling would create a larger and wider projection of shade and fall from the sun on surrounding residences.

Shadow diagrams submitted in support of the application indicate the overshadowing of adjacent properties meets the design controls for residential development.

The proposal is supported as changes to the setback of house or the third storey would impact rear development views and cause additional overshadowing.

The proposal currently complies with the side setback, view sharing and overshadowing controls. The impacts from the departure from the rear setback control are able to be mitigated and are acceptable.


Summary of submission Response As the applicant has failed to justify how overlooking and visual impacts will be mitigated as demonstrated on a site analysis, and given part of the deck will be within 4.0m of the southern boundary, privacy screening along this elevation would be required.

Privacy screening is not warranted as the side setback distances comply with the design controls of the DCP and there is adequate space for inter-allotment landscaping and screening within the subject properties to ameliorate potential visual privacy impacts. In addition privacy screening would be an unreasonable obstruction of the primary view direction of the subject site.

To mitigate privacy impacts, the balustrade should be made of solid material.

This is not warranted given the proposal complies with the side setback controls and opportunities are available to ameliorate visual privacy impacts between allotments.

To mitigate privacy impacts, the amount of glazing along this elevation should be reduced.

There will remain adequate opportunities for visual screening between allotments and this is not warranted.

The third storey should be redesigned to be further north to reduce the overshadowing impacts to south adjoining allotments.

The predicted overshadowing impacts are acceptable under the Tweed DCP.

The third storey should be redesigned to be further north to reduce the impacts of height and visual bulk to south adjoining allotments.

The proposal complies with the design controls for building height and form of the Tweed DCP.

(e) Public interest

There are two opposing views regarding the development application. The first is the applicant’s interest in maintaining their right to develop a dwelling house that maximises the opportunities of the site including the statutory height limit of three storeys. The second is that of five surrounding property owners who maintain the proposal will have detrimental impacts to their amenity. Despite these different views the development application has been assessed on its merits. The proposal sought is acceptable in consideration of the primary standards and controls applicable to the site and type of development, namely the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000, Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Tweed Development Control Plan 2008. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.


OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Approves the development application, subject to conditions; or 2. Refuses the development application, providing appropriate reasons. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: The site has constraints related to its configuration, topography and proximity to neighbours and opportunities in terms of its orientation toward views. The assessment of the application indicates the proposed design has maximised the opportunities while satisfactorily addressing the constraints which is demonstrated by its compliance with the Tweed LEP, Draft Tweed LEP and Tweed DCP. The proposal and surrounding property development is located on the side of a hill and there are predicted amenity impacts that could be reasonably anticipated given the topography of the Koala Beach locality and these have the opportunity to be mitigated. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Should the applicant be dissatisfied with the determination they have the right to appeal the decision in the Land and Environment Court which would incur financial costs to Council in defence. Should the applications be approved there is potential for the objector to lodge an appeal against the adequacy of the processing of the application which would incur financial costs to Council in defence. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


29 [PR-CM] Section 82A Review of Development Application DA12/0498 for the Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of a Three Storey Dwelling at Lot 1 DP 214686 No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Updated Information At its meeting of 17 October 2013, Council resolved the following in respect of this matter:

"RESOLVED that Council supports in-principle approval and conditions be brought forward to the November Council meeting."

On this basis this Development Application is being reported back to this Council meeting with an option to approve with conditions. Draft conditions are in the Options section of this report. Previous Report On 27 August 2013 Council received an application for a Section 82A Review of Determination for DA12/0498 which was determined by refusal at Council’s meeting of 20 June 2013. The refused application sought approval to demolish an existing two storey dwelling house at No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff and construct a new three storey dwelling house with a total floor area of 325m2. The decision to refuse the application stemmed primarily from the noise nuisance that would be likely to result from the proposed third storey roof top terrace that would only be made possible on this site by exceeding the 9.0m height limit of the Development Control Plan and the two storey limit in the Local Environmental Plan. The applicant has included amended plans with the Section 82A application which show an overall reduction of the usable roof terrace area of generally 30% and have reduced the spa area from 15m2 to 11.5m2, lowered the sunlounge deck and added some addition potted trees and planter boxes. The smaller size of the area is acknowledged but the smaller size does not necessarily equate to less impact. The Review of Determination was formally re-notified to the surrounding landowners and resulted in Council receiving one submission of objection who had also objected to the previously determined application.


The applicant’s Section 82A submission in relation to the reasons for refusal including the amendments to the plans is not considered sufficient to alter the substance of the previous report or the recommendation. On review of the application taking into account the submission of the applicant, the amended roof terrace plan, the submission of the objector and on the balance of the relevant planning matters, it is considered that the proposed development is not suitable for approval and should be refused. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. ATTACHMENT 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the

Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:- (a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

2. The Section 82A Review of Development Application DA12/0498 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a three-storey dwelling at Lot 1 DP 214686 No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff be refused for the following reasons: 1. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) the development proposal has not

demonstrated that compliance with the development standard as being unreasonable or unnecessary in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards: • The impact of the additional storey incorporating a roof top deck has

not been adequately justified. 2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) the development proposal has not

demonstrated acceptable impacts on the built environment: • The development is considered to have negative impact on the

amenity of the adjoining property to the southwest. 3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) the development has not demonstrated

compliance with Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan 2008 Section A1 in particular: • The development proposal exceeds the nine (9) metre height limit.


REPORT:

Applicant: Mrs K Carter and Mr R Carter Owner: Ms Kristine A Carter Location: Lot 1 DP 214686 No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff Zoning: 2(b) Medium Density Residential Cost: $1,225,000 Background: On the 27 August 2013 Council received an application for a Review of Determination for DA12/0498, which originally sought approval for the demolition of an existing two storey dwelling house at No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff and construct a new three storey dwelling house with a total floor area of 325m2. At the Council meeting of 20 June 2013, Councillors resolved to refuse development application DA12/0498 for the following reasons:

"1. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) the development proposal has not demonstrated that compliance with the development standard as being unreasonable or unnecessary in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards:

• The impact of the additional storey incorporating a roof top deck has not been adequately justified.

2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) the development proposal has not demonstrated acceptable impacts on the built environment:

• The development is considered to have negative impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the southwest.

3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) the development has not demonstrated compliance with Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan 2008 Section A1 in particular:

• The development proposal exceeds the nine (9) metre height limit." The decision to refuse the application stemmed primarily from the noise nuisance that would be likely to result from the proposed third storey roof top terrace that would only be made possible on this site by exceeding the 9.0m height limit of the Development Control Plan and the two storey limit in the Local Environmental Plan. The applicant has now included amended plans with the Section 82A application which show a reduction of the spa area from 15m2 to 11.5m2, lowered the sunlounge deck added some addition potted trees and planter boxes and deleted the 23m2 artificial turf area. This equates generally to a 30% reduction of the usable area from 118m2 to 84m2 and this has been achieved largely by deleting an artificial turf area. It is estimated that the 118m2 may comfortably accommodate 20 people and the 84m2 may accommodate 13 people. These numbers are derived by allowing 3m2 per person over the tiled and turfed zones. It is considered that he potential noise nuisance from the occupancy of the smaller space would be potentially similar to the larger area. Loud conversation, laughing, music etc are the likely noises to emanate from the roof terrace and the proximity of those noises is what would be a disturbance to the amenity of the neighbours at the rear brought about by a design that does not comply with height controls.


The visual privacy afforded to and between adjoining properties by the design is considered to be reasonable. It is considered that the amended proposal is ‘substantially the same development as the development described within the original development’ therefore satisfies Section 82A (4)(c). The smaller size of the area is acknowledged but the smaller size in this instance does not necessarily equate to less impact. The Section 82A review application has been notified to the same properties as the original proposal and one objection has been received. The objector maintains that there will be no change to the impact on their amenity from the reduced size and that the applicant’s argument referring to a similar amenity issue from 32 Hungerford Lane is unfounded. The following is an extract of the applicant's justification for the Section 82A application dated 26 August 2013:

"……

4.0 Justification

Pursuant to Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this document forms a request for a review of the determination for DA12/0498. Pursuant to Clause (3)(A), 'in requesting a review, the applicant may make amendment to the development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4)(c)'. Subsection (4)(c) states that 'in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described within the original application'. It is considered that minor amendments have been made to the proposed development to further address the refusal items noted by Tweed Shire Council. These amendments do not substantially change the proposed development.

The development application was refused by Tweed Shire Council based on the items raised within Table 1. Comment and justification has been provided for each of the refusal items as below;

TABLE 1

Refusal Item

Justification Provided

1. Pursuant to Section 79C( 1)( a)(i) the development proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the development standard as being unreasonable or unnecessary in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards: • The impact of the additional storey

incorporating a rooftop deck has not been adequately justified.

• As part of the initial development application, Council was provided with a SEPP No.1 Objection to address the proposed developments non-compliance with the building height controls of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP2000). The proposed dwelling exceeds the 9m physical building height limit by 1.2m. This 1.2m exceedance is formed by the balustrade located on the trafficable rooftop deck area.

• The application was notified to the adjoining property owners for comment during the application period. Correspondence was received from Tweed Shire Council noting that the rooftop deck was considered to have the potential for a negative impact upon surrounding landowners and further information and justification was requested.

• In response to Council's request, a detail survey was undertaken to locate surrounding outdoor living areas and vegetation so as to relate to the proposed location of the rooftop deck. Height and distance detail was used and the results of this survey are illustrated within


TABLE 1

Refusal Item


Drawings 01.10-01.13 of Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans. As detailed, the outdoor living areas of the surrounding properties are located a significant distance away from the rooftop deck area. Appendix B - Supporting Photographs shows the outdoor living areas of the properties elevated above No. 4 Marine Parade.

• Direct views are also obstructed by the vegetation located between No. 4 Marine Parade and the properties elevated above (See Appendix B - Supporting Photographs). To further lessen the potential visual impact of the rooftop deck on surrounding properties, visual and acoustic screening has now been proposed (Drawing No. 08 of Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans). This will serve to create additional privacy for the proponent as well as retaining the existing level of amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents.

2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) the development proposal has not demonstrated acceptable impacts upon the built environment: • The development is considered to

have negative impact upon the amenity of adjoining property to the southwest.

• The adjoining property to the southwest is commonly known as No. 34 Hungerford Lane, Kingscliff and is elevated from the subject site. The outdoor living area of this dwelling has been picked up as part of the detail survey that was undertaken (Balcony 3 Drawing No. 01.10 and 01 .12 See Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans).

• The outdoor living area of No. 34 Hungerford Lane (Balcony 3 Drawing No. 01.10 and 01.12 See Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans) is located immediately adjacent to the outdoor living area of No. 32 Hungerford Lane. No attempt has been made by the owner of No. 34 Hungerford Lane to protect their privacy when using their outdoor area from this direct overlooking. As such, any potential privacy issues as a result of the proposed development (located substantially lower and therefore much less invasive) pale in comparison to the existing privacy issue. The owner has made no attempt to retain their privacy through the use of screening or shutters and therefore it is considered that the proposed rooftop deck located some 8.5m below will not create any unreasonable impact.

• As demonstrated, the view of Kingscliff Beach, Cudgen Creek estuary and the Kingscliff Beach Reserve will not be impeded by the proposed development. No loss of visual amenity can be attributed to the proposed development. The vegetation that is located between No. 34 Hungerford Lane and the subject site will obstruct direct view from No. 34 Hungerford Lane onto the rooftop deck area. To further lessen any potential visual impact of the rooftop deck on No. 34 Hungerford Lane, visual screening has been proposed (Drawing No. 08 of Appendix A - Proposed Development


TABLE 1

Refusal Item


Plans). This will serve to create additional privacy for the proponent as well as retaining the existing level of amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents.

• It is noted that the outdoor living area of No. 34 Hungerford Lane in its current state is subject to noise reception from No. 32 Hungerford Lane, Marine Parade road traffic as well as public use of the Kingscliff Beach Reserve. The outdoor living area of No. 32 Hungerford Lane is located 5m from the edge of No. 34 Hungerford Lane's outdoor living area (See Drawing No. 01.10 of Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans). It is considered that noise generated from this living area would be much greater than any potential noise that the rooftop deck of the proposed dwelling could generate. Both Marine Parade and the Kingscliff Beach Reserve are at their highest use during the summer months when Kingscliff has a high level of tourist activity. The rooftop deck will also be at its highest use during the summer months and will not substantially increase the level of noise generated by the current arrangement.

• To allay any fears Council may have related to noise generation, the screening to be located on the rear elevation of the dwelling is to be acoustically treated to ensure that the acoustic amenity of the surrounding properties is maintained (See Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans).

3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) the development has not demonstrated compliance with Tweed Shire Council Development Control Plan 2008 Section A 1 in particular: • The development proposal

exceeds the nine (9) metre height limit.

• As part of the initial development application, Council were provided with a SEPP No.1 Objection to address the proposed developments non-compliance with the building height controls of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP2000). The proposed dwelling exceeds the 9m physical building height limit by 1.2m. This 1.2m exceedance is the balustrade located on the trafficable rooftop deck area.

• The proposed dwelling is compliant with the 9m physical height limit as prescribed by Tweed Shire Council. The exceedance of the height limit comes from the trafficable rooftop deck and associated 1.2m high balustrade. The proposed layout of the rooftop deck has been reduced in trafficable area to ensure that the useable portion is set back from the edges of the dwelling (See Drawing 04 Appendix A - Proposed Development Plans). This ensures that any potential overlooking onto the private open space of the adjoining properties is negated.

• The additional acoustic and visual screening proposed within Appendix A is to be measured from the finished ground level directly below the built element. As such, this results in a total


TABLE 1

Refusal Item


height of 8.5m which is compliant with the 8m physical height control.

• The trafficable rooftop deck has been proposed on-site due to the limited lot size (417.3m2). The site does not allow for a suitable amount of outdoor private open space due to the steep escarpment of Kingscliff Hill. As such, the proposed dwelling and building height variation is considered to be a well designed and acceptable solution worthy of Council's support.

5.0 Conclusion

Having reviewed the applicable legislation, it is submitted that the proposed development is generally consistent with the relevant policy and statutory requirements and demonstrates an appropriate development of the land. In terms of the built and natural environment, no adverse impacts are likely to result in relation to the proposed development. The variations requested to Council's development controls are considered to be justified by the location and constraints applying to the site. The dwelling will integrate with the existing built character of the Marine Parade and Kingscliff Hill area. Council's support for the proposed development is respectfully requested.

Should you have any further questions relating to this information it is requested that you contact the under signed at our office on (02) 6674 5001."

Response to applicant's justification for the Section 82A Review Table 1 - Refusal item 1 The above document appears not to address the fact that the first reason for refusal was that the proposed building exceeds the two storey height limit set by the current Local Environmental Plan. It is in fact the additional storey and the consequence of the roof terrace on that storey that exacerbates the likely noise impacts on the neighbour at 34 Hungerford Lane and potentially to the occupants of 36 Hungerford although they have not made any formal submission. Table 1 - Refusal item 2 The comparison to the outdoor living area of 32 Hungerford Lane is acknowledged but is incorrect in part in that the owner of 34 Hungerford Lane does have a substantial privacy screen on the edge of their verandah that does not adversely obstruct their view and screens them from the adjacent outdoor verandah at 32 Hungerford Lane. Also they advise that they have the potential of enclosing that side of their house with a solid wall for acoustic treatment if they need to in the future without compromising their outlook. The applicants suggestion that the proposed 2.5m high acoustic wall will ‘ensure that the acoustic amenity of the surrounding properties is maintained’ is misleading as the acoustic advice by CRG Acoustic Consultants provided by the applicant, is noted as conservative but suggests that to be fully effective an acoustic screen would need to be 4.5m high and return half way along the sides of the building. Table 1 - Refusal item 3 The proposal does exceed the 9m height limit contained in the current Development Control Plan and the Draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 by 1.2m.


The applicant has included amended plans with the Section 82A application which show a reduction of the spa area from 15m2 to 11.5m2, lowered the sunlounge deck added some addition potted trees and planter boxes and deleted the 23m2 artificial turf area. This equates generally to a 30% reduction of the usable area from 118m2 to 84m2 and this has been achieved largely by deleting an artificial turf area. It is estimated that the 118m2 may comfortably accommodate 20 people and the 84m2 may accommodate 13 people. The smaller size of the area is acknowledged but the smaller size in this instance does not necessarily equate to less impact. It is difficult to evaluate the likely intensity and frequency of use of the proposed roof terrace and therefore how often nuisance impacts may occur. However what is known is that the designed variation to the height limit and number of storeys is what has facilitated the potential nuisance of a roof terrace in this position. The letter of objection is a confidential attachment.


PREVIOUS ROOF TERRACE PLAN:


SITE DIAGRAM:



Example provided by applicant of a 'green screen'


Assessment under Section 82A: On 27 August 2013 Council received a Section 82A application for a Review of Determination for DA12/0498, which originally sought approval for the demolition of an existing two storey dwelling house at No. 4 Marine Parade, Kingscliff and construct a new three storey dwelling house with a total floor area of 325m2. At the Council meeting of 20 June 2013, Councillors resolved to refuse development application DA12/0498. The Section 82A application will be evaluated using the relevant terms of Section 79C of the Act. As a part of the assessment process numerous site visits by Council’s assessing officer have been undertaken to all of the surrounding properties and involving many hours. Impacts have been discussed by phone with the objectors and concerns raised have been discussed in meetings with the applicant planning consultant. A further site inspection from the objectors property was also carried since the Section 82A application was lodged particularly to assess the position of the external entertaining areas of the property at 32 Hungerford Lane. The previously determined application assessment also utilised the expertise of Council Senior Urban Design Planner who gave assistance in gauging the impact of the development in the context of streetscape and design merit of the building relative to the adjoining buildings and constraints of the site. This Section 82A review will include reassessment of the impact of the amended roof terrace. Considerations Under Section 79C Of The Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 (TLEP 2000) Clause 4 - Aims of the Plan The aims or objectives of the plan are not compromised by the proposed development. Clause 5 - Ecologically Sustainable Development For the scale of this development compliance with the submitted BASIX certificate achieves the objective of this clause. Clause 8 - Consent Considerations Zone Objectives The subject site is zoned 2(b) Medium Density Residential. The primary objective of the zone is to encourage development for the purpose of medium density housing that achieves good urban design outcomes. The secondary objectives relate to allowance for non residential and tourist development and to discourage the under-utilization of the land for residential purposes, particularly close to the Tweed Heads sub region area.


The proposed development is not consistent with the primary objective of the zone but it has been argued by the applicant that there are a number of constraints to the site that justify the single dwelling being proposed. The allotment is small, with an area of 417 m2, and is only 17m in depth from front to rear making the potential for medium density difficult. Also, the applicant points out that this could be categorised as small lot housing being on a lot less than 450m2 which is an alternative form of medium density. Cumulative Impacts The proposed building at three storey's is consistent with other buildings in the area and is unlikely to be dominant amongst the Kingscliff hill. There is an argument for cumulative impact on the locality in that the building does not comply with the two storey height limits of current Local Environmental Plan (LEP). This is somewhat countered by the existing three storey development along Marine Parade. In addition, the draft Tweed LEP 2012 seeks to remove the reference to number of storey and instead limit the height in this area to 9 metres. The proposed development will have a total height of 10.2m (RL 14550) measured to the top of the roof top deck balustrade. Clause 11 - Zone Objectives As discussed above. Clause 15 - Essential Services All essential services are available within the area. Clause 16 - Height of Building In this case a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection to the number of permissible storey's has been included in the application. The proposed dwelling exceeds the two storey's permissible and exceeds the total height of 9m contained in the current DCP part A1 by 1.2m. It should be noted however that the proposed ‘acoustic green screen’ complies with the height provisions of the LEP and DCP because the site rises steeply at the rear and therefore measuring from existing ground level at that point shows compliance. The proposed building at three storey's is consistent with other buildings in the area and is unlikely to be dominant amongst the Kingscliff hill. The roof top deck associated with the extra storey will result in an adverse impact on the amenity of residence of at least one rear adjoining property. Clause 17 - Social Impact Assessment A social impact assessment is not required given the relatively minor nature of the proposal being satisfied that it is unlikely to have a significant social or economic impact in the locality. Clause 35 - Acid Sulfate Soils The site is classified as having the potential for Class 5 soils under the Acid Sulphate Soils mapping. The works proposed are not likely to impact on the affected soils zone.


Clause 39A – Bushfire protection The site is mapped as bushfire prone however the vegetation resulting in the mapping no longer exists and therefore no further consideration is required. Other Specific Clauses None apparent. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP (North Coast Regional Environmental Plan) 1988 Clause 32B: Coastal Lands This clause controls development which could impede public access to a foreshore or overshadow the foreshore before 3pm midwinter (standard time) or 6.30pm midsummer (daylight saving time). It is recognised throughout all coastal areas that existing urban areas will have some impact in regards to the shadow of the foreshore. In this case a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection has been included in the application and the facts and argument presented are acceptable. The extent of the shadow is minor and is in fact intercepted by the shadow cast by the hillside and vegetation behind. The applicant describes the shadow as ‘invisible’ because of the hillside at the rear and there is no significant adverse impact resulting on the foreshore parkland to the east of Marine Parade. Clause 43: Residential development The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1988 Division 2 for Urban Housing requiring broader consideration of roads, access to services, transport, site erosion and of maximising density. Clause 81: Development adjacent to the ocean or a waterway Extract (1) The council shall not consent to a development application for development

on land within 100 metres of the ocean or any substantial waterway unless it is satisfied that: (a) there is a sufficient foreshore open space which is accessible and

open to the public within the vicinity of the proposed development, (b) buildings to be erected as part of the development will not detract from

the amenity of the waterway, and (c) the development is consistent with the principles of any foreshore

management plan applying to the area. (2) Nothing in subclause (1) affects privately owned rural land where the

development is for the purpose of agriculture.

The proposed development does not impact on the available foreshore open space, accessibility or amenity of the waterway.


SEPP No. 1 - Development Standards An objection to development standard contained in the Council’s LEP regarding number of storeys and the standard contained in Clause 32B of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan have been lodged with the development application and have been addressed under separate headings. SEPP No 55 – Remediation of land There is no evidence or past land use activity that would suggest that the land is contaminated. SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection The development is generally consistent with the specific provisions and intent of Clause 8 of SEPP 71. SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 The applicant has provided a BASIX certificate for the proposal which is consistent with the required energy target. NSW Coastal Policy, 1997 The proposed dwelling is not inconsistent with the Coastal Policy.

(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments The Draft Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2012 proposes similar controls to the site as currently exist with the exception of one significant variation. The Draft Plan proposes to remove the two storey height limit and instead apply a maximum building height of 9m. The proposed building has a height of 9m to the floor level of the roof top deck and has balustrading, spa, decking and planter boxes up to a further 1.2m higher again. The proposed development would not comply with the height controls of the draft plan unless the roof top deck use was removed and therefore not require the balustrading and spa pool etc. The Draft Local Environmental Plan is now considered imminent. The implications are the same in that the 9m maximum height of the building would form part of the Local Environmental Plan and carry more weight than the current 9m control in the Development Control Plan and therefore not support the proposed building.

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A1-Residential and Tourist Development Code Variation to A1 have been sought for the height of the building, wall plate height, rear deep soil zone, front building line, rear setback and the floor space ratio requirement. Council’s recently adopted amendment to DCP part A1 version 1.5 has effectively removed or minimised some of the non-compliant aspects of this development. Wall plate height and floor space ratio have been removed. Deep soil zone requirements a relaxed and setbacks are also reduced and the consequence is that there are fewer variations to the DCP applicable to the development.


A2-Site Access and Parking Code Complies generally. If approved, a condition requiring separate approval for front fencing incorporating driveway sight clearances has been included. A11-Public Notification of Development Proposals The application was notified in accordance with policy. Please refer to a further section in the report to view a summary of the submissions and the officer’s response to those submissions. B9-Tweed Coast Strategy The proposal does not contradict any parts of the Tweed Coast Strategy.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(a) Government Coastal Policy The proposed dwelling is not inconsistent with the Coastal Policy. Clause 92(b) Applications for demolition Australian Standard 2601 is referred to in the demolition work plan and will be reinforced by conditions should the application be approved. Clause 93 Fire Safety Considerations Not applicable. Clause 94 Buildings to be upgraded Not applicable.

(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) The proposed building is outside the 2100 erosion escarpment line and no specific development controls need to be applied. Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 This plan does not apply to the subject site. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 The proposed development will not adversely impact on the Cudgen Creek water quality as the proposal will discharge roofwater only into the existing street stormwater system. Coastal zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater This plan does not apply to the subject site.




(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Context and Setting An infill development is proposed, within an established residential subdivision which has been specifically created for residential development. The proposed development is of a design generally in keeping with the architectural style and residential character of the area taking into account the redevelopment occurring overall in the area, with the exception that the roof top deck which has 118 square metres of usable recreation area may result in an undesirable precedent for development on the lower part of a hillside where higher level dwellings can be affected. Access, Transport and Traffic Minimal impact is envisaged, the proposal is a single residence within an approved residential subdivision. Flora and Fauna Minimal impact is envisaged; the site has no significant plantings and is part of an existing urban environment. Site design and Internal design The roof top deck will have adverse impact on the amenity of the residents of the property to the rear No. 34 Hungerford Lane. The inclusion of the roof top deck on the proposed three storey building is the primary concern in this development. It raises the level of outdoor living area to a level and position that will impact on the residents of at least one property above. Noise and potential evening illumination will impact of on their amenity. The design now incorporates a 2.5m high ‘acoustic green screen’ on the back edge of the deck which is likely to reduce a little of the noise impact and provide for some greater visual privacy particularly in relation to the position of the spa/pool. It is to be noted that the total height of the building measured from natural ground level at the point of the ‘acoustic green screen’ does comply with the 9m maximum height requirements of the DCP. Acoustic advice by CRG Acoustic Consultants has been provided and is noted as conservative but suggests that to be fully effective an acoustic screen would need to be 4.5m high and return half way along the sides of the building. That would be unsightly and contribute further to the non compliant height of the building. It is difficult to evaluate the frequency of use of the proposed roof top deck which needs to be taken into account when considering what is reasonable. The design of this deck at 118 square metres of usable floor area and a spa/pool would suggest frequent use. Other than the concern about the roof top deck the building is considered to be of reasonable design taking into account the relationship with the adjacent buildings on either side. The external finishing is mixed and provides good architectural merit. The design provides four off street car parking spaces and includes privacy screening to the second floor balconies to minimise impact on adjoining residences either side.


(c) Suitability of the site for the development Surrounding Landuses/Development The proposal is consistent with the surrounding land use and the site is suitable for the proposed development. The property is located within an existing residential area and utilities including reticulated water, public sewer and power are provided to the site. A mixture of old and new dwellings with varying architectural styles exist within the area, the design of the dwelling is considered to be in keeping with the existing residential character of the area. Flora and Fauna Minimal impact is envisaged; the site has no significant plantings and is part of an existing urban environment. Topography The site rises steeply at the rear of the allotment and the geotechnical reports submitted state that the development could proceed without destabilisation of the adjoining properties. Site Orientation The living areas of the dwelling have been mainly orientated to the north and northeast to optimise ocean views and breezes and solar access to the north.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations The objector has reiterated concerns regarding the loss of amenity and these concerns are considered justified.

(e) Public interest The development will not have an adverse impact or compromise public interest.

OPTIONS: 1. Uphold the decision to refuse the application based on the three reasons for refusal

previously determined; or 2. Resolve to approve the application subject to the following conditions:

GENERAL 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the Statement of

Environmental Effects as amended, Demolition Work plan prepared by Planit Consulting dated 24th October 2012 and Plan Nos 12656 dwg no 01-15 prepared by RAUNIC design group and dated 14th August 2013, except where varied by the conditions of this consent.

[GEN0005]


[GEN0115]


3. The owner is to ensure that the proposed building is constructed in the position and at the levels as nominated on the approved plans or as stipulated by a condition of this consent, noting that all boundary setback measurements are taken from the real property boundary and not from such things as road bitumen or fence lines.

[GEN0300]

4. The proposed front fence is not to obscure a 2.0m x 2.0m splay adjacent to the driveway in accordance with clause 4.1.2 of Council's 'Driveway Access to Property- Design Specification'.

[GENNS01]

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 5. In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), a construction certificate for SUBDIVISION WORKS OR BUILDING WORKS shall NOT be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act, 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided.

[PCC0285]

6. A construction certificate application for works that involve any of the following: • connection of a private stormwater drain to a public stormwater drain • installation of stormwater quality control devices • erosion and sediment control works will not be approved until prior separate approval to do so has been granted by Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act. a) Applications for these works must be submitted on Council's standard

Section 68 stormwater drainage application form accompanied by the required attachments and the prescribed fee.

b) Where Council is requested to issue a construction certificate for civil works associated with a subdivision consent, the abovementioned works can be incorporated as part of the construction certificate application, to enable one single approval to be issued. Separate approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act will then NOT be required.

[PCC1145] 7. If the development is likely to disturb or impact upon telecommunications

infrastructure, written confirmation from the service provider that they have agreed to the proposed works must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or any works commencing, whichever occurs first. The arrangements and costs associated with any adjustment to telecommunications infrastructure shall be borne in full by the applicant/developer.

[PCC1325]


PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK 8. An application is to be made to Council to disconnect the existing building from

Council's sewerage system, prior to any demolition work commencing. [PCW0045]

9. The erection of a building in accordance with a development consent must not be commenced until: (a) a construction certificate for the building work has been issued by the

consent authority, the council (if the council is not the consent authority) or an accredited certifier, and

(b) the person having the benefit of the development consent has: (i) appointed a principal certifying authority for the building work, and (ii) notified the principal certifying authority that the person will carry out

the building work as an owner-builder, if that is the case, and (c) the principal certifying authority has, no later than 2 days before the building

work commences: (i) notified the consent authority and the council (if the council is not the

consent authority) of his or her appointment, and (ii) notified the person having the benefit of the development consent of

any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work, and

(d) the person having the benefit of the development consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has: (i) appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the

holder of a contractor licence if any residential work is involved, and (ii) notified the principal certifying authority of any such appointment, and (iii) unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal

contractor of any critical stage inspection and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work.

[PCW0215]

10. Prior to work commencing, a "Notice of Commencement of Building or Subdivision Work and Appointment of Principal Certifying Authority" shall be submitted to Council at least 2 days prior to work commencing.

[PCW0225]

11. Residential building work: (a) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989

must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information: (i) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be

appointed: * in the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and * the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6

of that Act,


(ii) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder: * the name of the owner-builder, and * if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner builder permit

under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit. (b) If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while

the work is in progress so that the information notified under subclause (1) becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.

[PCW0235]

12. A temporary builder's toilet is to be provided prior to commencement of work at the rate of one (1) closet for every fifteen (15) persons or part of fifteen (15) persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be: (a) a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or (b) if that is not practicable, an accredited sewage management facility

approved by the council [PCW0245]

13. Where prescribed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, a sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out: (a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying

authority for the work, and (b) showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work

and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

(c) stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited. Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

[PCW0255]

14. It is a condition of this approval that, if an excavation extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land or is likely to effect the integrity of the adjoining land, the person causing the excavation to be made must comply with the following: (a) The person must, at the person's own expense:

(i) preserve and protect the building/property from damage; and (ii) if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner.

(b) The person must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars to the owner of the proposed work.

[PCW0765]


15. Dilapidation reports detailing the current general condition including the structural condition of the adjoining buildings/sites, infrastructure and driveway are to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified and experienced structural engineer. The reports are to be submitted to Council prior to commencement of ANY works on the site.

[PCW0775]

16. The proponent shall provide to the PCA copies of Public Risk Liability Insurance to a minimum value of $10 Million for the period of commencement of works until the completion of the defects liability period.

[PCW0835]

17. Prior to commencement of work on the site all erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be installed and operational including the provision of a "shake down" area, where required. These measures are to be in accordance with the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and adequately maintained throughout the duration of the development. In addition to these measures the core flute sign provided with the stormwater approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be clearly displayed on the most prominent position of the sediment fence or erosion control device which promotes awareness of the importance of the erosion and sediment controls provided. This sign is to remain in position for the duration of the project.

[PCW0985]

18. All roof waters are to be disposed of through properly jointed pipes to the street gutter, interallotment drainage or to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. All PVC pipes to have adequate cover and installed in accordance with the provisions of AS/NZS3500.3.2. Note All roof water must be connected to an interallotment drainage system where available. A detailed stormwater and drainage plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of building works.

[PCW1005]

19. An application to connect to Council's sewer or carry out plumbing and drainage works, together with any prescribed fees including inspection fees, is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of any building works on the site.

[PCW1065]

DURING CONSTRUCTION 20. Construction and/or demolition site work including the entering and leaving of

vehicles is limited to the following hours, unless otherwise permitted by Council: - Monday to Saturday from 7.00am to 6.00pm No work to be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays The proponent is responsible to instruct and control subcontractors regarding hours of work.

[DUR0205] 21. The wall and roof cladding is to have low reflectivity where they would otherwise

cause nuisance to the occupants of buildings with direct line of sight to the proposed building.

[DUR0245]


22. All building work (other than work relating to the erection of a temporary building) must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate was made).

[DUR0375]


[DUR0395]


[DUR0395]

25. The Principal Certifying Authority is to be given a minimum of 48 hours notice prior to any critical stage inspection or any other inspection nominated by the Principal Certifying Authority via the notice under Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

[DUR0405]

26. It is the responsibility of the applicant to restrict public access to the construction works site, construction works or materials or equipment on the site when construction work is not in progress or the site is otherwise unoccupied in accordance with WorkCover NSW requirements and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

[DUR0415]

27. Excavation (a) All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of

a building must be executed safely and in accordance with WorkCover 2000 Regulations.

(b) All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

[DUR0425]

28. If the work involved in the erection or demolition or a building: (a) is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be

obstructed or rendered inconvenient; or (b) building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place in accordance with the WorkCover Authority of NSW Code of Practice and relevant Australian Standards. Where necessary the provision for lighting in accordance with AS 1158 - Road lighting and provision for vehicular and pedestrian traffic in accordance with AS 1742 shall be provided. Any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed prior to the issue of an occupation certificate/subdivision certificate.


Application shall be made to Tweed Shire Council including associated fees for approval prior to any structure being erected within Councils road reserve.

[DUR0435]

29. The finished floor level of the building should finish not less than 225mm above finished ground level.

[DUR0445]

30. All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601 "The Demolition of Structures" and to the relevant requirements of the WorkCover NSW, Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. The proponent shall also observe the guidelines set down under the Department of Environment and Climate Change publication, “A Renovators Guide to the Dangers of Lead” and the Workcover Guidelines on working with asbestos.

[DUR0645] 31. Minimum notice of 48 hours shall be given to Tweed Shire Council for the

capping of any disused sewer junctions. Tweed Shire Council staff in accordance with the application lodged and upon excavation of the service by the developer shall undertake the works.

[DUR0675] 32. All cut or fill on the property is to be battered at an angle not greater than 45º

within the property boundary, stabilised and provided with a dish drain or similar at the base in accordance with Tweed Shire Councils Design and Construction Specifications, Development Control Plan Part A1 to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. Please note timber retaining walls are not permitted.

[DUR0835] 33. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the current BASIX

certificate and schedule of commitments approved in relation to this development consent.

[DUR0905] 34. All work associated with this approval is to be carried out so as not to impact on

the neighbourhood, adjacent premises or the environment. All necessary precautions, covering and protection shall be taken to minimise impact from:

• Noise, water or air pollution.

• Dust during filling operations and also from construction vehicles.

• Material removed from the site by wind. [DUR1005]

35. All works shall be carried out in accordance with Councils Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan for Minor Works. A signed copy of this Management Plan shall be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works.

[DUR1075] 36. Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer

mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate and/or prior to any use or occupation of the buildings.

[DUR1875]


37. Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired in accordance with Councils Development Design and Construction Specifications prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate and/or prior to any use or occupation of the buildings.

[DUR1875]

38. No portion of the structure may be erected over any existing sullage or stormwater disposal drains, easements, sewer mains, or proposed sewer mains.

[DUR1945]

39. A certificate from a suitably qualified practicing structural engineer shall be submitted to Council and the Principle Certifying Authority within seven (7) days of the site being excavated certifying the adequacy of the sheet piling or other retaining method used to support adjoining properties.

[DUR1965]

40. The builder must provide an adequate trade waste service to ensure that all waste material is suitably contained and secured within an area on the site, and removed from the site at regular intervals for the period of construction/demolition to ensure no material is capable of being washed or blow from the site.

[DUR2185]

41. Council is to be given 24 hours notice for any of the following inspections prior to the next stage of construction: (a) internal drainage, prior to slab preparation; (b) water plumbing rough in, and/or stackwork prior to the erection of brick work

or any wall sheeting; (c) external drainage prior to backfilling. (d) completion of work and prior to occupation of the building.

[DUR2485]

42. Plumbing (a) A plumbing permit is to be obtained from Council prior to commencement of

any plumbing and drainage work. (b) The whole of the plumbing and drainage work is to be completed in

accordance with the requirements of the Plumbing Code of Australia and AS/NZS 3500.

[DUR2495]

43. Dual flush water closet suites are to be installed in accordance with Local Government Water and Sewerage and Drainage Regulations 1993.

[DUR2515]

44. Overflow relief gully is to be located clear of the building and at a level not less than 150mm below the lowest fixture within the building and 75mm above finished ground level.

[DUR2545] 45. All new hot water installations shall deliver hot water at the outlet of sanitary

fixtures used primarily for personal hygiene purposes at a temperature not exceeding:-


* 45ºC for childhood centres, primary and secondary schools and nursing homes or similar facilities for aged, sick or disabled persons; and

* 50ºC in all other classes of buildings. A certificate certifying compliance with the above is to be submitted by the licensed plumber on completion of works.

[DUR2555]

46. No retaining walls or similar structures are to be constructed over or within the zone of influence of Council's sewer main.

[DUR2705]

47. The excavation and retaining work on the site are to be carried out under engineers' direction and supervision as appropriate to ensure that the integrity of adjacent properties and surrounding structures are maintained.

[DURNS01]

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE 48. A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a

new building or structure (within the meaning of Section 109H(4)) unless an occupation certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part (maximum 25 penalty units).

[POC0205]

49. Prior to occupation of the building the property street number is to be clearly identified on the site by way of painted numbering on the street gutter within 1 metre of the access point to the property. The street number is to be on a white reflective background professionally painted in black numbers 100mm high. On rural properties or where street guttering is not provided the street number is to be readily identifiable on or near the front entrance to the site. For multiple allotments having single access points, or other difficult to identify properties, specific arrangements should first be made with Council and emergency services before street number identification is provided. The above requirement is to assist in property identification by emergency services and the like. Any variations to the above are to be approved by Council prior to the carrying out of the work.

[POC0265] 50. A final occupation certificate must be applied for and obtained within 6 months of

any Interim Occupation Certificate being issued, and all conditions of this consent must be satisfied at the time of issue of a final occupation certificate (unless otherwise specified herein).

[POC0355]

51. Prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate adequate proof and/or documentation is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority to identify that all commitment on the BASIX "Schedule of Commitments" have been complied with.

[POC0435]


52. Upon completion of all works on the site and prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate (including interim) , a further dilapidation report is to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified and experienced structural engineer detailing the current general condition including the structural condition of the adjoining buildings/sites, infrastructure and roads. The dilapidation reports shall take into consideration the findings of the original reports and shall be provided to Council.

[POC0825]

53. As the development subject of this consent has been identified as having the potential to cause nuisance from the use of the roof terrace this consent is subject to the owner of the subject land creating a positive covenant under section 88E of the (Conveyancing Act 1919) on the following terms PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE.

• Large gatherings on the roof terrace must occur between the hours of 7.00am and 10.00pm.

• Social gatherings will occur at a frequency that is reasonably limited taking into account the impact on adjacent premises.

• The provision of music for the social gatherings on the roof terrace will not be amplified.

• The landowner shall install planter boxes on the roof terrace and such planter boxes are to be maintained to ensure that a thick vegetative visual screen is established to a level of up to 3.0 metres.

• All externally mounted artificial lighting on the roof terrace, including security lighting, is to be shielded to prevent the spill of light or glare onto neighbouring premises.

• All external lighting on the roof terrace shall be limited between the hours of 7.00am and 10.00pm.

• The times referred to above will refer to the relevant time zone at any given date.

[POCNS01]

USE 54. All externally mounted air conditioning units and other mechanical plant or

equipment are to be located so that any noise impact due to their operation which may be or is likely to be experienced by any neighbouring premises is minimised. Notwithstanding this requirement all air conditioning units and other mechanical plant and or equipment is to be acoustically treated or shielded where considered necessary to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate such that the operation of any air conditioning unit, mechanical plant and or equipment does not result in the emission of offensive or intrusive noise.

[USE0175]

55. All externally mounted artificial lighting on the roof to terrace, including security lighting, is to be shielded to the satisfaction of the General Manager or his delegate where necessary or required so as to prevent the spill of light or glare creating a nuisance to neighbouring or adjacent premises. The illumination of the roof terrace shall not be permitted before 7am or after 10pm.

[USE0225]


56. The building is to be used for single dwelling purposes only. [USE0505]

57. No large gatherings are permitted on the roof terrace before 7am or after 10pm. Such events shall be at a frequency that is reasonably limited taking into account the impacts on adjacent premises.

[USENS01]

58. No amplified music is permitted on the roof terrace. [USENS02]

59. All planter boxes shown on the approved plans are to be maintained so as to promote growth and a thick visual screen. The height of this planter vegetation is to be restricted at 3.0m.

[USENS03]

CONCLUSION: No substantive additional information has been lodged to cause a different recommendation. The amended plans providing reduction of the usable area of the roof terrace are not considered likely to remove the potential impact on the amenity of the occupants of 34 Hungerford Lane. The proposed development exceeds the number of storeys permitted by the current Local Environmental Plan, exceed the 9m height limit in the DCP and the Draft LEP. The use of the roof as a deck necessitates the provision of a balustrade which then creates non-compliance in the height of the building of 1.2m. It is these two variations that will result in the adverse impact on the amenity of the residents behind and although there is uncertainty in the likely frequency and intensity of use of the deck it is considered that these variations are not justified and the proposal should be refused. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Should the applicant be dissatisfied with the determination they have the right to appeal the decision in the Land and Environment Court which would incur financial costs to Council in defence. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

(Confidential) Attachment 1. Letter from objector dated 12 September 2013 (ECM 3179353)


30 [PR-CM] Draft Tweed Development Control Plan - Section B15 Seabreeze Estate

SUBMITTED BY: Planning Reforms

FILE REFERENCE: GT1/DCP/B15 pt2 Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.5 Manage and plan for a balance between population growth, urban development and environmental protection and the retention of

economical viable agriculture land 1.5.2 Land use plans and development controls will be applied and regulated rigorously and consistently and consider the requirements of

development proponents, the natural environment and those in the community affected by the proposed development

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report seeks Council's endorsement to proceed with making of amendments to the Tweed Development Control Plan - Section B15 Seabreeze Estate (draft Seabreeze DCP), which became effective in January 2000. Post public exhibition of the draft Seabreeze DCP, Council considered a report recommending adoption at its meeting of 19 September 2013. At this meeting, Council resolved 'that this report be deferred to a Workshop which includes the community'. The public workshop was held on 21 October 2013. The report identifies the main items of discussion from the public workshop, which primarily included concerns regarding site size and location between the current 'Town Centre A' site and the alternate 'Town Centre B' site, which the Proponent now seeks. This report concludes that the alternate Town Centre site B is acceptable and that the DCP should be amended to allow the rezoning of this site and subsequent commercial development to occur. However, in the absence of the rezoning occurring, and which would allow a broader range of commercial business uses to better service the needs of the local community, Town Centre site A is to be retained and is not to be developed for a purpose other than for a shop or other permissible commercial development unless the rezoning of site B has occurred. The report also concludes that there is no preference from a strategic planning perspective regarding either the suitability of location A or B, as they are equally suitable. The implementation of the draft Seabreeze DCP will enable the development of the final stages of the Seabreeze Estate, which is consistent with the Council's strategic vision for the area. The proposed amendments will provide an opportunity for an alternate Town


Centre site, but with certainty that the Estate will have a commercial site of a restricted size, and for these reasons the report recommends that the draft Seabreeze DCP be adopted. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Receives and notes the summary of the public workshop.

2. Endorses the Tweed Development Control Plan - Section B15 Seabreeze Estate,

as provided as Attachment 2 to this report. 3. Endorses the public notice of the adoption of the Tweed Development Control

Plan in accordance with Clause 21(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, satisfying the provision of Clauses 53E(5) and 53E(6) of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 – Specific Provisions for Seabreeze Estate – Stage 2.

4. Forwards a copy of the Development Control Plan Section B15 – Seabreeze

Estate to the Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with Clause 25AB of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.


REPORT:

On 19 September 2013, Council considered a report regarding draft Tweed Development Control Plan - Section B15 Seabreeze Estate (draft Seabreeze DCP), resolving 'that this report be deferred to a workshop which includes the community'. A copy of the Council report from 19 September 2013 is provided in Attachment 1 of this report. The public workshop was conducted on 21 October 2013, at the Pottsville Environment Centre and included speakers from the Pottsville Community Association and the landowner Newland Pty Ltd. Tweed Shire Councillors' Longland and Armstrong were in attendance, as well as approximately 30 members of the general public. During the public workshop presentations primarily focussed on the landowners request to shift the Town Centre site from Town Centre A to Town Centre B, as identified within Map 1 below. Of particular concern for some participants was the size and site location of the proposed Town Centre B, however secondary issues relating to the established 'vision' for Seabreeze Estate were also raised. These matters are discussed further below.

Map 1 - The Location of Town Centre A and Town Centre B

Issue - Site Size A number of workshop participants raised concern that Town Centre B comprised a significantly larger site area, than Town Centre A (4,432m2 as opposed to 2,305m2 for Town Centre A). Concerns were conveyed that the increase in site area could result in an increase in floor space for shops and the like, which could in-turn threaten the primacy of the Pottsville Village Centre, contradict Council's established Retail Principles and was not adequately justified in the material submitted to Council.


Representatives of Newland (landowners) conveyed that whilst the site area of Town Centre B is larger, it was their intention to subdivide the land to create two (2) allotments, including a 1,080m2 lot which will be marketed for use as a shop, and secondly a 3,352m2 lot which will be marketed for child care use. To this extent, Newland has lodged with Council a Development Application (DA13/0577) for a 89-lot subdivision, which includes this subdivision arrangement for the Town Centre B area. There appeared to be a level of acceptance from the community at the workshop that should the Town Centre B site be developed as per the scenario described by Newlands (One small general store/shop and a child care centre) that this would be a satisfactory outcome. Notwithstanding the above, DA13/0577 is subject to its own submission period and assessment process; separate to the draft Seabreeze DCP process. In addition, DA13/0577 seeks approval to create allotments, not to construct the shop and/or child care centre; these activities would be pursued through a separate development application process. This information was detailed to the workshop attendees. Post the public workshop, further correspondence was received on behalf of the Pottsville Community Association, maintaining their opposition to the change in site size from 2,300m2 to 4,400m2. The submission detailed that there is no perceived public interest in the proposed change and the proposed childcare and shop development/s could be catered for on the Town Centre A site. Issue - Site Location Concern was raised that based upon anecdotal evidence, the Town Centre B site could be subject to flood inundation. Further concern was raised regarding potential flooding as the Town Centre B site immediately adjoins an overland flow path to the east and wetlands to the immediate north. Concern was also expressed that the use of the site for non-residential purposes could increase the extent of non-permeable surface area on the site, potentially impacting upon adjoining land. Newlands representatives confirmed that the site has previously been filled to Council's adopted design flood level, as identified within Council's report of 19 September 2013. Map 2, below, identifies the relationship between the Town Centre B site and Council's adopted flood prone land mapping.


Map 2 - Flood Prone Land


As shown within Map 2, the Town Centre B site is primarily flood free, except for a minor portion of the south-eastern corner. Finally, the ultimate development form of the site will be subject to a separate development application process, which will investigate flooding and site permeability attributes to a greater level of detail. Notwithstanding, flooding does not represent a barrier to the adoption of the draft Seabreeze DCP. A further issue was raised in relation to the Town Centre B site being along the primary movement corridor for students attending the potential future school and utilising the existing sportsfields on both Seabreeze Boulevard and Tom Merchant Drive. Concern was raised that the positioning of the Town Centre along this route may result in social issues and impacts. The final concern in relation to the site location of Town Centre B related to the expectations of the existing Seabreeze community. Several workshop participants commented that they had purchased within the Seabreeze Estate based upon the current masterplan, which identifies the Town Centre A site as the location of the proposed shops. Participants voiced their concern that relocating the Town Centre to site B could result negatively on their properties and that it appeared unfair to make such a big change now that the first stages of the Estate are almost fully developed. The concerns articulated at the community workshop were reaffirmed through a further submission received from the Pottsville Community Association.

Although not directly relevant to the draft Seabreeze DCP, a number of issues regarding changes to the Seabreeze Estate and perceived lack of upkeep were raised, with several participants conveying that the movement of the Town Centre site would be another change from the masterplan and the vision of the area established, a vision they invested in. In response, Newland representatives stated that it was their opinion that the Town Centre B site was better suited to the proposed use than the existing Town Centre A site and that the change was being pursued as a result of Council suggestions. Despite this, Newland representatives stated that they would revert back to the Town Centre A site if that was the consensus of the community. Council offices clarified that the intent for the Town Centre B site, as detailed within Map 7A of the draft Seabreeze DCP, is to encourage a development of design excellence through the subdivision and built form to reflect and reinforce the landmark location of the corner site. The use of the site specifically for a Town Centre was not requested or suggested by Council officers; however, the use of the corner site should be of higher order than a single dwelling house and represents a positive opportunity. Other matters Several other, general matters were raised during a formal question and answer period, however these matters were not considered directly relevant to the draft Seabreeze DCP, for example to quality of street lighting.


Summary Despite the subsequent lodgement of DA13/0577, which seeks approval for a 1,080m2 'retail lot' and a 3,352m2 'child care lot' on the Town Centre B, community concern is still present that the Town Centre B site is not located as well as Town Centre A, which has been earmarked for over 12 years. In addition, several participants commented that Town Centre B should not be supported without the certainty of the size and location of the discussed Shop and Child Care development being approved, which is beyond the current DA lodged with Council. Of note, this level of certainty (i.e. single shop and child care development only) cannot reasonably be embodied within the draft Seabreeze DCP, particularly as the Tweed Local Environmental Plan provides a wider spectrum of uses that are permissible with consent within the low density residential zone. Throughout the public workshop, Council planning officers re-enforced the position established within the Council reports of 19 September and 20 June 2013, being that despite Town Centre A and Town Centre B being similarly unconstrained by environmental factors, Town Centre A is the preferred Town Centre location. As detailed previously, Town Centre A is zoned more appropriately (2(c) Urban Expansion as opposed to 2(a) Low Density Residential) to fulfil the longstanding vision embodied within the draft Seabreeze DCP. As detailed within the draft Seabreeze DCP, unless this zoning constraint is rectified, the Town Centre is to be located on the Town Centre A site. OPTIONS: 1. That the amendments to the Tweed DCP, Section B15 - Seabreaze Estate, which

includes an alternate town centre site location, be approved in accordance with the recommendations of this report, or

2. Council approves the Tweed DCP, Section B15 - Seabreaze Estate in accordance with

the recommendations of this report, except in so far that all references to the alternate site location for the Town Centre (site B) are removed.

Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: In accordance with the Council resolution of 19 September 2013 a public workshop was held on 21 October 2013 at the Pottsville Environmental Centre. A number of issues were raised by workshop participants, which have been detailed within this report. Following an assessment of the Proponent's request to amend the DCP and the issues raised both at the workshop and subsequently by correspondence it is concluded that the amendments are justified and the DCP should be amended. The draft Seabreeze DCP is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.


In regard to the proposed alternate town centre site the key issues that arose relate to the potential size of any future commercial development and the ability of the present low density zoning to accommodate a reasonable mix of commercial / retail land-uses. It was concluded that the current 2(a) low density zone is not adequate because commercial development would be restricted to a neighbourhood shop or medical centre. It does not allow for other reasonable uses that may otherwise be sought in the longer-term and that would better secure the sustainability of the commercial function of the site, e.g. cafe, takeaway food and drink premises, shop (other than neighbourhood), and the like. Likewise, the size of any future commercial development needs to relate to the site's service function and catchment. The proposed alternate site B has an area of about 4,400m2 and provisions will need to be made to limit or regulate the floor area of any future development. To provide the security that the alternate site is commercially sustainable in the longer-term and that new development does not exceed the demand of the local catchment it is a proposed requirement within the draft DCP that a rezoning first occur. This means that the current Town Centre site A cannot be used for non commercial development purposes until such time that the rezoning of site B has been completed. This also provides the added benefit of a strategic process that will provide opportunity for the local community to have further input should the Proponent wish to proceed with relocating the Town Centre site. The adoption of the draft Seabreeze DCP will enable the development of the final stages of the Seabreeze Estate, facilitating an outcome that is consistent with the current vision for the area and that is in keeping with the broader locality. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Nil c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Council Meeting Report of 19 September 2013 (ECM

3212555) Attachment 2 Tweed Development Control Plan – Section B15 – Seabreeze

Estate, Pottsville (ECM 3212556)


31 [PR-CM] Planning Proposal PP10/0007 - Mooball Planning Proposal SUBMITTED BY: Planning Reforms

FILE REFERENCE: PP10/0007 Pt2 Valid


economical viable agriculture land 1.5.3 The Tweed Local Environmental Plan will be reviewed and updated as required to ensure it provides an effective statutory framework

to meet the needs of the Tweed community

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the status of the 'Mooball Planning Proposal' (the Proposal), detail the ongoing actions following Council's resolution of 19 September 2013 and provide an approach for advancing the Proposal. The report advises that on 9 October 2013, a meeting between the relevant parties was facilitated by Council officers in an attempt to resolve a mutually acceptable buffer treatment between the proposed future development and Lot B DP 419641 (Lot B). At this meeting an amended Concept Plan was tabled by the proponent, which included the deletion of a further two conceptual development lots (with that area of land to be retained within a rural zone). Subsequent correspondence from the Proponent has confirmed this offer and is reflected in the current concept plan. The Proponent has also made about nine other commitments relating to the ongoing land management and it is understood that if the parties reach agreement on those that they are be made enforceable at law. These commitments and agreements are of a private nature and collateral to the planning proposal. Following a review of the Proponent's tabled proposal representatives of Lot B have since advised Council staff of their objection to the planning proposal and rejection of the commitments offered. This position remains unchanged since the owner's of Lot B first raised their issues with Council in December 2012. From the information submitted to Council officers it appears that establishing a mutually acceptable buffer treatment is not presently achievable. In light of the parties entrenched views on the issues deferring a decision on the planning proposal is not likely to result in a mediated outcome. The planning proposal should be considered on its merit.


Despite several other matters being raised in objection, the Proposal is considered to be adequately justified and on merit warrants its public exhibition. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Proposal be referred to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. The Planning Proposal PP10/0007 relating Lot 2 in DP 534493 and Lot 7 in DP

593200 be updated to align with the preliminary subdivision layout illustrated in the Concept Master plan detailed within Figure 1 of this report;

2. The Planning Proposal, as amended in accordance with Resolution 1 above, be

referred to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure requesting a Gateway Determination under Section 56(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

3. On receiving an affirmative Determination Notice all outstanding studies and

works be prepared and the Planning Proposal finalised, following which it is to be exhibited in accordance with the Determination or where there is no condition or a condition requiring a public notification less than 28 days, for a period not less than 28 days; and,

4. Following public exhibition of the Planning Proposal a report is to be submitted

to Council at the earliest time detailing the content of submissions received and how those, if any, issues have been addressed.

5 Prior to any public exhibition of the Planning Proposal a Site Contamination

Report demonstrating compliance with the provisions and requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land, Clause 6, is to be prepared to Council's satisfaction.


REPORT:

At its meeting of 19 September 2013, Council considered a report relating to PP10/0007 - Mooball Planning Proposal (the Proposal) which provided an approach for advancing both the Proposal and focussed investigations between Lot B DP 419641 (Lot B) and the surrounding subject site. Council resolved that the applicant, Jefferson Lane Pty Ltd, be requested to meet with owners of Lot B to seek a mutually acceptable buffer treatment between Lot B and the eastern edge of the proposed residential redevelopment area. Post the Council resolution, a meeting was organised by Council officers and further correspondence was received from both parties. The details of these further actions are outlined below. Buffer Treatment to Lot B On 9 October 2013 a meeting in relation to the above was held at Council's Murwillumbah office between the proponent and their representatives, the landowners of Lot B and their representatives, as well as the Tweed Mayor Councillor Longland and Council's Director Planning and Regulation. Minutes of this meeting and supporting material have been distributed to Councillors under separate cover, however the primary amendment from previous reporting and discussions was the proposed deletion of a further two (2) development lots, to form rural zoned land and assist with the qualitative retention of Lot B's rural amenity. The referred lots are displayed within Figure 1.


Figure 1 - Proposed Concept Plan (Lots to be deleted annotated by asterisk)


Subsequent to the meeting, the proponent submitted further correspondence outlining a total of nine (9) commitments, which they were willing to make legally binding between the parties. Representatives on behalf of Lot B have submitted to Council a response regarding the commitments stated, as well as other concerns regarding the Proposal. These advices have been forwarded to the Councillors, as well as the proponent, under separate cover, however its content can be surmised as follows:

• Preamble - Concerns were raised regarding the validity and ability to bind the key parties to the stated commitments.

• The Commitments - A variety of concerns are raised regarding clarity, means of delivering commitments and inadequacy of the proposed development buffer.

• Environmental Pollution Issues - Concerns are raised regarding the level of assessment undertaken to-date in relation to previous banana plantations on the site, the Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines for Assessing Banana Plantations and potential health risks as a result of disturbing this land.

• The LUCRA - Concerns are raised in relation to the validity of the submitted Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA).

• The LEP - Concerns are raised that the 'LEP' does not give adequate consideration to the impacts of flooding, geotechnical challenges including mass movement, erosion and land slip hazard and land contamination.

The advices conclude that the landowners of Lot B maintain their objection and reject the commitments offered. The advices also surmise that the Proposal lacks significant and substantial detail necessary to progress the project. In addition to above, further concerns regarding the merits of the Proposal have been raised by representatives of Lot B, (forwarded to Councillors under separate cover) including:

• Compliance with applicable strategic planning policies (subject land is not identified as a State Significant Development, a State Significant Site, or within the Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS) and only part of the subject land was identified within the ‘Tweed Urban Land Release Strategy’).

• Bushfire Hazard. Planning Comment In relation to issues raised relating to the Preamble and The Commitments, Council officers are not in a position to provide direct commentary as the matters contained therein arise between the parties not for consideration by Council, as these do not bear directly on the strategic investigation of the site. In response to The LUCRA, this matter was reported in detail within the Council report of 19 September 2013 (a copy of which is included as Attachment 1 of this report). To-date, no additional information of significance has been sighted by Council officers that alter the findings previously reported. Based on the information submitted to Council officers, it appears that the establishment of a mutually acceptable buffer treatment between Lot B and the eastern edge of the proposed residential development area has not been achieved between the parties. In light of the established positions of both parties, further deferring a decision on the Proposal is not likely to result in a mediated outcome and the proposal should be considered on its merits.


A formal resolution either to support the proposal being forwarded for a Gateway Determination, or alternatively, the Proposal being refused, provides the clearest path for both parties and the Council. It should be acknowledged that further discussions and investigations between the two (2) parties can occur should they choose and should the proposal proceed to the next stage a formal public exhibition will provide additional opportunity for broader public comment and input. In response to the remaining issues raised, the following planning comments are provided. Environmental Pollution Issues Contamination reporting submitted with the Proposal request identifies past intensive agricultural pursuits of the subject site, including banana cultivation and associated activities. Council's Planning Consultant has advised the contamination assessment submitted by the Proponent concludes that no residential criteria for contaminants were exceeded. However, Council's Environment and Health Unit have provided advice that the submitted report is limited and further more detail contamination assessment is required. Clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) applies. Council must be satisfied for the purposes of a rezoning, where the use of the land will change, that the site is suitable for that purpose. Given the past intensive agricultural use of the land, identified in the Proponent's report, it is essential that the site be validated as suitable for residential use or in the case of land requiring remediation that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose. The extent of land contamination and or need for remedial works has not be ascertained on the current level of investigation and enquiry undertaken. Further investigation and reporting is required and is the basis for a recommendation to this report. SEPP 55 does not permit the planning authority to duly consider land contamination as a deferred matter, such as leaving it to the DA stage, as it must be considered prior to the rezoning being made. The LEP Flooding - an area of the subject site is identified as flood prone land on Council's Design Flood Level Map. The Proposal has responded to this constraint by negating the development of some of this area through an environmental protection zoning, however the residue is proposed to be filled and developed for urban purposes. The submitted documentation concludes that "Q100 flood modelling will therefore be required to ensure that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed filling". The site is also identified as affected by the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), however the majority of the site is above, or has immediate access to land above the PMF. Comments have been received from Council's Planning and Infrastructure Unit as well as Council's assessing planning consultant, whom have not raised any significant concerns. Council's planning consultant has concluded that the impacts of filling and excavation work can be assessed at the development application stage. Geotechnical Challenges - As previously reported, a significant portion of the elevated land within subject site contains slopes greater than 18 degrees (33%). This land is contiguous and highly constrained, accordingly traditional an ‘urban’ zoning or lot sizes are not considered appropriate. In order to reflect the constraint the Proposal seeks to zone this land 1(c) Rural Living and require a minimum lot size of 1ha.


Likewise, where land is between 12 – 18 degrees, or greater than 18 degrees but not in a contiguous form, the Proposal responds to the site attributes by seeking a minimum lot size of 700m2. By allowing a larger ‘urban’ lot, the built form can more appropriately respond to the slope through building citing and construction type. The increased minimum lot size should assist with reducing potential impacts at the property interface and is a conservative approach for managing site issues. Engineering reports supporting the Proposal acknowledge that “no significant geotechnical issues were noted that would preclude the site from being developed for its proposed usage. However, it must be noted that this assessment is based on very limited work over a large area and as such should be considered preliminary only and should be confirmed by a more detailed geotechnical investigation and assessment”. The minimum lot sizes prescribed within the Proposal restrict the intensity of development on the parts of the site with steeper slopes and reduce the level of landslide risk. Beyond the Planning Proposal process, separate applications are required to subdivide and develop the land, this represents the appropriate time to pursue further investigations as these applications will include the final development forms (i.e. precise locations of roads, housing lots and pads). Compliance with applicable strategic planning policies The Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS) identifies that any development proposed for greenfield sites in the non-coastal area is either to be within the Town and Village Growth Boundary, or will be subject to satisfying the Sustainability Criteria specified in Appendix 1 of that Strategy. The Proposal is not located within the Town and Village Growth Boundary, however is considered to satisfy the established Sustainability Criteria. The Proposal has been pursued following the longstanding identification for growth and expansion of Mooball, most recently through Council's urban release strategy, the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy 2009 (TUELRS). The TUELRS provides a co-ordinated strategy and assists in establishing planning controls that balance the need for urban growth against the protection of agriculture, village character and the environment. The Proposal provides a site specific investigation and implementation of the TUELRS, as it relates to Mooball. The TUELRS identifies that where a property is partly identified and partly not, that the entire property should be considered in any detailed analysis to ensure that the best land is ultimately identified for future urban use. The extent of 'Area 9' does not follow cadastral boundaries; rather predominately traces the extent of land with less than 14 degrees slope. Accordingly the whole of Lot 2 DP 534493 and Lot 7 DP 5932000 have been investigated within the Proposal, resulting in an amended 'urban footprint'. Within the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure's 'Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans', it is stated that delegation of plan making functions can be exercised by local councils and provides a list of types of amendments routinely delegated to Council's. The list includes LEP amendments of a 'minor' nature, i.e. mapping corrections, Section 73A matters e.g. amending references to documents/agencies, minor errors and anomalies, spot rezonings consistent with a Regional Strategy or a local strategy endorsed by the Director-General or spot rezonings that will result in an up-zoning of land in existing areas zoned for residential, business, and industrial purposes.


As has been detailed to Council previously, it is considered appropriate to request plan-making delegations remain with the DP&I as the Proposal is not considered a minor amendment and comprises a number of complex elements, including:

• Subject site is located outside of the established Town and Village Growth Boundary for urban growth established within the DP&Is Far North Coast Regional Strategy;

• Servicing by way of a future, private, stand-alone sewerage system; and • Proposes to rezone portions of Rural land to Environmental Protection, an

outcome the DP&I have recently been investigating (E-Zone Review). Bushfire Hazard The southern edge of the site, on the escarpment, is identified as being part of the 100 metre buffer zone, with an area of Vegetation Category 1 bushfire hazard identified in the south-western corner of the site. The Proposal has responded to these constraints by including much of this land within an Environmental Protection zone, or the Rural Living zone. Land on the fringe of this hazard, whereby suitable buffering can feasibly be provided, are proposed to be zoned Village. An application for a Bush Fire Safety Authority, under the Rural Fires Act 1997, will be required within any future development application, which will include further site specific measures in response to the hazard. Planning Comment Summary In light of the information submitted to Council officers since Council's meeting of 19 September 2013, establishing a mutually acceptable buffer treatment appears unachievable between the parties and further deferring a decision on the Proposal is seen to be unnecessary. A formal resolution either to support the proposal being forwarded for a Gateway Determination, or alternatively being refused, provides the clearest path for both parties. The concerns raised by the owner's and their representative of Lot B have not introduced anything more into the assessment that might otherwise persuade Council officers' to form an opinion on the merit of the proposal different to that previously reported. Without intending to diminish the impact of the proposal as perceived by the landowner's of Lot B, on that property, the level of technical evaluation has led to a conclusion that the proposal has merit and that the proposed buffer zone (see figure 1) is adequate. The Planning Proposal has now reached a stage were a decision must be made on whether to progress the Proposal to the Gateway. This is critical for several reasons. Firstly, the DP&I must consider whether a draft LEP should be made. Secondly, the commercial decisions about whether to continue the level of expenditure required to complete the Proposal require a level of certainty that is only likely to be gained by way of a Determination Notice, and lastly, the broader public notification, which is a statutory process, is essential for gaining a broader view on what the general public think about the Proposal. Strategic Compliance and Considerations At its meeting of 19 September 2013, Council also resolved that a report be submitted addressing the strategic compliance with the aims of the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Strategy 2009.


The expansion of Mooball has been identified within a number of Council's residential and urban release strategies continuously over the past 26 years. The Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy 2009 (TUELRS) provides the most recent strategic guidance for potential expansion in Mooball. The TUELRS identifies 'Area 9' within Mooball for future investigation in the short-term (0-10 years), with a target growth range of 259 – 481 dwellings (7 - 13 dwellings per hectare). In addition, the TUELRS identifies that 'all investigation areas identified in this Strategy need to designed to maximise the density yield of the land'. Whilst it is difficult at this stage to quantify with accuracy the population yield of the previous concept plans it is estimated on the most recent iteration that there is an anticipated yield of about 271 lots, which is about 67 lots less than the concept plan reported in December 2012. This later plan while within the TUELRS predicted yield is tracking more heavily toward the lower yield rates and is likely to be approaching the commercial viability threshold. OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Proceed with the recommendations within this report and refer PP10/0007 to the NSW

Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination; or 2. Reject the planning proposal. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: Subsequent to previous Council reporting, negotiations between the landowners of Lot B DP 419641 (Lot B) and the proponent have occurred, however without advancement towards a mutually acceptable outcome. The proponent has prepared a Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA) which establishes that the proposed 50 metre development buffer from Lot B meets the quantitative needs to mitigate land use conflict between future urban development and the rural pursuits of Lot B. The Proponent has also stated that the 50m buffer zone is inclusive of a qualitative buffer. Previously Council officers had identified concerns regarding the qualitative measures of the rural amenity currently afforded to Lot B. In response the proponent has deleted a further two of the conceptual development lots to provide greater setback to Lot B, however and notwithstanding their offer the Proponent is of the view that increasing this area of buffer will have minimal benefit to Lot B over and above the area already earmarked. The landowners of Lot B maintain that this buffer is insufficient and should be extended to 100 metres. Council officers are satisfied that the merit of the Proposal and level of technical detail submitted is sufficient and warrants progression of the proposal to the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal is suitable for a Gateway Determination.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1 - Council report of 19 September 2013 (ECM 3212905)


32 [PR-CM] PP11/0002 Pottsville Employment Land - Wastewater Allocation SUBMITTED BY: Planning Reform

FILE REFERENCE: PP11/0002 Valid


economical viable agriculture land 1.5.2 Land use plans and development controls will be applied and regulated rigorously and consistently and consider the requirements of

development proponents, the natural environment and those in the community affected by the proposed development

3 Strengthening the Economy 3.4 Provide land and infrastructure to underpin economic development and employment

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report is in response to three requests from the Proponent of the Pottsville Employment Lands Planning Proposal. The first seeks Council's endorsement for the allocation of 100 Equivalent Tenements (ETs) (approximately 3.0 litres per second) of waste water per second within the trunk conveyance system to accommodate waste water disposal from a proposed future industrial development of the site, to the Hastings Point Waste Water Treatment Plant, and the corresponding connection of Lot 12 DP 1015369, 39 Kudgeree Avenue, Cudgera Creek (the site) to the council’s system. This is to be at no cost to the Council. The second seeks to change the focus of the planning request back to a 4(a) Industrial zoning, based on a recent market analysis, in preference to the business park zoning that was sought in early 2013. This raises no significant issues for the current process and is consistent with the Gateway Determination, which is presently based on a 4(a) Industrial and 7(d) Environmental Protection (scenic/escarpment) zoning scheme. Thirdly, based on the findings of their needs analysis the Proponent is requesting the inclusion of additional land-use definitions for 'hardware & building supplies', 'landscape supplies', and 'garden centres', as these are not permissible in the IN1 Industrial zone under the standard instrument LEP (Draft Tweed LEP 2012). The issues associated with the Proponent's requests are addressed within the report and it concludes that the each request is satisfactory, subject to limited qualification.


RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorses the following in respect of the current Planning Proposal (PP11/0002) over Lot 12 DP 1015369, 39 Kudgeree Avenue, Cudgera Creek: 1. The allocation of 4.0 litres per second of waste water within Council's sewer

conveyance infrastructure to the Hastings Point Waste Water Treatment Plant and the connection of Lot 12 DP 1015369, 39 Kudgeree Avenue, Cudgera Creek to that system is conditionally supported;

2. The allocation (and connection) of waste water disposal capacity within the

Council's system, referred to in Point 1 above, is limited to a period of five years from the making of the amendment to the Tweed Local Environmental Plan within which time a development application for the subdivision of the land for an industrial-based business park must be lodged with the Council;

3. The cost of establishing a connection and any required additional infrastructure

to the Council's satisfaction, including the creation of any easement, is to be at no cost to Council;

4. The Planning Proposal (PP11/0002) over Lot 12 DP 1015369, 39 Kudgeree

Avenue, Cudgera Creek be prepared on the basis of an appropriate industrial and environmental protection zoning scheme;

5. The additional permitted uses of "Hardware and Building Supplies" and "Garden

Centres" be included within the Planning Proposal for the purposes of amending the "Additional Permitted Uses" Schedule of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan; and

6. In accordance with the recommendations of this report the floor area of

development falling within the land-use definitions described in Resolution 5 above, be limited to 4000 square metres in the aggregate.


REPORT:

Waste Water Allocation The ownership of Lot 12 DP 1015369, 39 Kudgeree Avenue, Cudgera Creek ("the site") has changed since Council last resolved to proceed with a planning proposal in respect of this land. This has brought about fresh concepts for the site and additional requests from the Proponent. In particular is a request for a connection of the site into Council’s reticulated waste water system for the disposal of waste water to the Hastings Point Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) located on Round Mountain Road. The Proponent's request is for the allocation of 100 Equivalent Tenements (ETs), equating to a maximum discharge of about 3.5 litres per second, to accommodate the future development of the site for industrial purposes. The property is currently not connected to Council’s WWTP. Until recently the planning proposal was proceeding on the basis that a privately operated system, relying on the licensing scheme provided by the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 (WIC Act), would be provided. This system was reliant on disposing treated effluent on floodplain to the north of Cudgera Creek Road and formed the basis of a Voluntary Planning Agreement that was to embody the Proponent's commitments. The Hastings Point WWTP services the mainly urban areas of Cabarita, Bogangar, Hastings Point, Koala Beach, Pottsville Beach, Pottsville Waters, Black Rocks and Seabreeze estates. A provisional allocation had also been set aside for the potential future development of the urban zoned areas of Tanglewood. In 2012, the Tweed Coast Wastewater Strategy recommended that any future development at Tanglewood could make use of the WIC Act to secure a licence for a private treatment plant rather than tying up a provisional allocation currently not utilised at the Hastings Point WWTP, making it available for reallocation to development with the ability or intent to proceed in the near future. Since that time, Council’s Water Unit has undertaken a feasibility investigation into the capability of the Hastings Point sewerage system to accommodate future development in the catchment, including the potential for the property to connect to the existing system, and provided an estimate of the flow capacity that may be available. The Water Unit has concluded that it may be possible to connect the property to Council’s sewer, with the volume of discharge and therefore the amount and type of development to be restricted by the capacity of the system. Any such development would be subject to payment of charges and contributions under s64 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any upgrades that may be required as a result of this connection. The Council sewer assets located between the property and the Hastings Point WWTP includes a total of seven existing pump stations. The Coast Road North Pottsville pumping station (SPS5028) is considered to be operating at capacity and is not planned for any future upgrades by Council. The remaining surplus flow capacity at this pumping station is estimated to be seven (7) litres per second, which limits any future developments upstream to this capacity. Therefore, a nominal flow capacity of seven (7) litres per second has been identified as the potential available surplus capacity that could be allocated to development in the catchment.


Because of the potential diversity of landuses that could be developed in an industrial estate, no attempt has been made to convert this flow rate to an ET or Equivalent Population (EP) figure, but will be undertaken by the Water Unit once details of the future mix and extent of landuses is available; however the Water Unit has advised that a large wet industry, an industry which requires large volumes of water and discharges similar volumes, could not be accommodated on the property. Notwithstanding the uncertainty associated with developing estimates of potential discharge volumes without knowledge of the mix and extent of landuses proposed for the property, the Water Unit has advised that for approximation purposes, if the sewer connection were to be developed as a pressure system, that the flow for a 100 ET development could be estimated to be around 2.5 to 3.0 litres per second. It is understood that the landowner is considering development of the connection as a pressure system. Due the demand for development of land in the west Pottsville and Seabreeze localities and therefore opportunity to connect to Council’s reticulated wastewater network, not all of the available capacity should be allocated to an individual development. As such, it is proposed that 4.0 litres per second be allocated to the property on the basis that a pressure system will be constructed, the remainder being available to support other future development in the catchment. All infrastructure required to facilitate connection of the property to one of Council’s existing pump stations in Seabreeze, most likely to be the Urunga Drive (SPS5023) pumping station approximately 2.5 kilometres away (refer to Figure 1), including any pumping station(s), rising main(s) and odour/septicity controls necessary to connect to the existing system, would be provided by the landowner at no cost to Council. It is also recommended that to avoid provisional allocation of scarce capacity being held over lands that are not being development in the short-term that a time limitation be placed on the allocation. Based on the Proponent's stated intentions about bring the development of the site to the market place in a very short timeframe, it is reasonable to place a limitation of 5 years from the date the LEP amendment is made. This will provide the Proponent or any successor a clear 5 year opportunity to lodge a development application for an industrial-based business park. Within that timeframe the Proponent will have the certainty of access to the Council's WWTP and that beyond that timeframe either a fresh request must be made, assuming that it is not reallocated in the meantime, or that a private scheme under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 will need to be secured.


Figure 1 Locality Plan


Amendment to Proposed Landuse The initial request for Council to prepare a planning proposal was made by a previous proponent and was on the basis that the site be rezoned for industrial purposes. This request formed the basis upon which the Gateway Determination, dated 13 September 2011, was issued. It was premised on a change in zoning from 1(a) Rural to 4(a) Industrial and 7(d) Environmental Protection (scenic/escarpment). In the proceeding period the new landowner sought to change the landuse based on a market needs assessment. A report was presented to the May 2013 Council meeting seeking support for a request from the landowner to change the landuse to a business park style of development, which was endorsed by Council. In correspondence received on 17 September 2013, advice was received that the landowner now wished to proceed with the original 4(a) Industrial zoning under Tweed LEP 2000, or the IN1 Industrial zone under Draft LEP 2012, reflecting the findings of a more recent market analysis. This request is consistent with the original Gateway Determination and will not impact progress of the planning proposal. The request also seeks to have the following land-use definitions under the standard instrument LEP (Draft Tweed LEP 2012) included with the LEP's "Additional Permitted Uses" Schedule for the land:

* "Hardware & Building Supplies"; * "Landscape Supplies", and * "Garden Centres".

Draft Tweed LEP 2012 proposes that Landscape Supplies are to be permissible with consent, but Hardware & Building Supplies and Garden Centres will be prohibited. While not generally inconsistent with Landscape Supplies and the ability of an industrial estate to integrate Hardware & Building Supplies and Garden Centres as part of any industrial development of the site, the addition of these landuses may be seen as setting a precedent for other industrial zoned land in the Shire. However, as they are regulated by the LEP zoning a site specific rezoning (planning proposal) to permit those uses would be required. The inclusion of the additional permitted uses is not therefore viewed as likely to give rise to any claim of precedence in other areas. By definition under Draft Tweed LEP 2012, Hardware & Building Supplies are a type of retail premises, which has the potential to generate high volumes of vehicle traffic which may conflict with heavy vehicle traffic associated with general industrial activity. In addition, Council has seven adopted Retail Principles which, in part, does not support the establishment of another district retail shopping centre, or development which may threaten or fracture existing centres, points to the need to limit the scale of new large scale retail centres in the coastal zone, and reinforces Tweed Heads south as the major district retail centre. The Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy 2009 identifies land immediately to the north of Kudgeree Avenue as potential Employment Generating Land. While no masterplan has been developed for this land, a range of landuses which may include some degree of retail development could be possible, but until such time as a Masterplan is


prepared, it will not be possible to determine if any proposed landuse on the property will be in conflict with landuses proposed on this potential Employment Generating Land. In light of the above, two options exist, the first, to refuse consideration of the two additional uses, or secondly, to permit them, but with a qualification on the scale of those uses. In light of the above it is recommended that Hardware & Building Supplies and Garden Centres be permitted but with the following controls applying:

• The scale of development be restricted to not more than 4000 square metres Gross Floor Area in the aggregate.

The ability of development on the site to present synergies between adjoining landuses will be an important consideration at the DA stage when details of specific land-uses, their location and relationship to other land-uses on this and future adjoining sites is considered in detail. OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Endorse the recommendations provided within this report relating to proposed

amendments to Planning Proposal (PP11/0002); or

2. Resolve not to support the recommended amendments to PP11/0002. Council officers recommend Option 1.

CONCLUSION: A request has been received from the owner of the Pottsville Employment Land site, Lot 12 DP 1015369, 39 Kudgeree Avenue Cudgera Creek, the subject of a current planning proposal for rezoning for predominantly industrial purposes, for connection of the property to Council’s reticulated waste water system and for the allocation of 100 ETs to be made available for development of the property. Investigations by Council’s Water Unit has supported this request; conditional upon advice that the capacity of any connection would be restricted to a flow rate of not more than seven (7) litres per second, and that provision of infrastructure be undertaken at no cost to Council. The provision of a suitable waste water disposal system had been one of the last and most significant constraints prohibiting the finalisation of the planning proposal prior to placing the proposal on public exhibition. Endorsement by Council of an allocation of 3.5 litres per second is recommended for the support of Council. The landowner has also requested that the planning proposal be amended to revert back to the original landuse zones of 4(a) Industrial and 7(d) Environmental Protection (scenic/escarpment)under Tweed LEP 2000.


This request is consistent with the original Gateway Determination for the property and is recommended for endorsement of Council. In addition, the landowner has sought to have Hardware & Building Supplies and Garden Centres added as permissible landuses for the property. This request is conditionally supported under the provision that the scale and location of development be strictly managed to prevent the creation of a new retail centre and compete with existing retails centres in the Shire. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


33 [PR-CM] Combined Planning Proposal (PP13/0003) and Development Application (DA13/0469) for a Highway Service Centre, Chinderah

SUBMITTED BY: Planning Reform

FILE REFERENCE: PP13/0003 Valid




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council received a combined Planning Proposal and Development Application on 28 August 2013 for a Highway Service Centre. This report deals exclusively with the planning proposal. This report has been prepared following a preliminary review of the planning proposal request and is responding to the 90 day administrative review process established and managed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Joint Regional Planning Panel. The review procedure is enlivened for an applicant when the consent authority either fails to make a determination within 90 days or resolves not to proceed with making a planning proposal. The land on which the service centre and associated facilities is to be located is presently zoned 1(b2) Agricultural Protection, a zoning that prohibits the proposed use. The planning proposal request seeks an amendment to the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2000 by way of inclusion within Schedule 3 "Additional Permitted Uses" the land-use definition for a Highway Service Station as prescribed by the Standard-Instrument - Principle Local Environmental Plan for the purposes of the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. The detailed assessment of and any additional studies relating to the preparation of the planning proposal will commence should Council resolve to prepare one. This report does not relate to the assessment or determination of the Development Application (DA) and cannot be construed in any way as approving or implying an approval, acceptance or support for any aspect of it; the DA will be assessed and reported under a separate process. On the limited assessment of the planning proposal request to-date this report recommends that Council should proceed with preparing a planning proposal, conditional on additional studies and work being undertaken post Gateway and prior to public exhibition.


It is intended that an external consultant will be engaged to assist in the process and procurement has been commenced to establish a shortlist of available / suitable consultancies in anticipation of Council resolving to proceed. This will assist in minimising delay. A Costs Agreement has been executed between Council and the Applicant. This ensures all costs arising in association with preparing the planning proposal and making of the amended LEP are those of the Applicant. Demonstrating their genuineness and commitment to the proposal the first funding instalment under the Agreement has been paid. This report concludes that while there are several significant engineering and planning issues to be overcome there is presently no evidence suggesting that an appropriate solution cannot be found for each. On that basis, and given the need for a northbound service station on the Pacific Highway within the Tweed region, it is recommended that a planning proposal be prepared. RECOMMENDATION:

That 1. A Planning Proposal to facilitate a "Highway Service Centre" on Lot 11 DP

1134229, Lot 1 DP 116567 and Lot 1 DP 210674 be prepared and submitted to the 'Gateway', as administered by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, for a determination.

2. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure or his Delegate be advised that

Tweed Council is NOT seeking plan making delegations for this planning proposal.

3. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure or his Delegate be advised that the

minimum exhibition period for joint exhibition of the Planning Proposal and Corresponding Development Application (DA13/0469) should be for a period not less than 28 days and should be concurrent.

4. Upon receiving an affirmative Determination Notice from the NSW Department of

Planning and Infrastructure any additional studies or work required in satisfaction of demonstrating the suitability of the proposed Highway Service Centre is to be completed.

5. On satisfactory completion of the Planning Proposal it is to be publicly exhibited

in accordance with the Determination Notice or where there is no such condition or the condition prescribes a period less than 28 days, for a period not less than 28 days.

6. Following public exhibition of the Planning Proposal a report is to be submitted

to Council at the earliest time detailing the content of submissions received and how those, if any, issues have been addressed.


REPORT:

The Applicant's proposal is being managed and assessed by the Planning Reform Unit (Planning Proposal) and the Development Assessment Unit (Development Application) concurrently. Documentation for both aspects is to be publicly exhibited concurrently and is subject to both a resolution of the Council to proceed with preparing a Planning Proposal as well as receiving an affirmative Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I). The proposal, as a whole, comprises:

A boundary adjustment is proposed between three existing allotments (Lot 11 DP1134229, Lot 1 DP 1165676 and Lot 1 DP 210674 Tweed Valley Way, Chinderah) into three new allotments and the dedication of two areas of land as road widening to enable the construction of a roundabout on Tweed Valley Way.

• LEP amendment to include the land-use definition of "Highway Service Station"

within the "Additional Permitted Uses" Schedule of the Tweed LEP. • Stage 1 • Stage 2

A highway service centre (Shell is described as the main tenant). The centre comprises of the following; Service centre single story building with a GFA (Gross Floor Area) of

approximately 1270m2. The building also contains the service centre control centre and five other tenancies to provide food outlets and a dining area. Two of the food outlets are proposed to have drive through facilities.

97 public car spaces, 20 staff car spaces, 5 caravan / bus spaces and 25 truck parking spaces

Outdoor dining area and playground Truckers lounge and public amenities Landscaped area of 12,334m2 Two lane arterial roundabout at Tweed Valley Way to provide ingress and

egress into and out of the service centre. Construction of an off ramp from the Pacific Highway to provide ingress to the

proposed service centre for northbound traffic Filling of the site to RL3.5m AHD to enable the building and refuelling areas to

be above Council’s design flood level.

The proposed highway service centre planning proposal request and statement of environmental effects document, prepared by Jim Glazebrook & Associates Pty Ltd, is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. Figure 1 - Locality Plan


Figure 2 - Site (development) Plan

KEY MATTERS ASSESSED WITH PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST Stormwater Drainage The site is relatively flat and flood prone, with ground levels varying between -0.6m AHD to 1.1m AHD. The site drains via sheet flow and minor surface drains and then to an open drain to the west, which then discharges through a series of culverts and drainage channels and into the Tweed River via a flood-gated outlet.


Stormwater Quality Standard erosion and sediment control measures are proposed for the construction phase, and this is considered acceptable given the existing flat grades. Operational phase water quality requirements will need to be addressed through the provision of proprietary treatment devices (Humeceptors), and roof water may need to be separated from the treatable hardstand catchment. An oil separator facility located within the runoff area of the fuel pumps will need to be assessed for its adequacy, as it proposes to discharge to the site's effluent management system rather than the stormwater drainage system. This will occur as part of the DA assessment process. Stormwater Quantity Potential impacts on peak stormwater runoff have been taken into account owing to the increase in the site's impervious fraction from 1% to 45%, and associated reduction in time of concentration. Council's Engineering Services have identified the potential underestimation of peak runoff based on the scale of development proposed and assumptions made, and have identified the potential need for additional drainage facilities in the vicinity of the proposed roundabout. This will be required to address road drainage and runoff from Melaleuca Station. There is no apparent impediment to engineering an appropriate stormwater drainage regime for the site from a strategic planning perspective. Council's Engineering Services have identified that further assessment is required and that there will likely be a requirement for Proponent to acquire or create easements for drainage as part of their subdivision DA and works. This will be assessed as part of the DA requirement and requires no further consideration with the planning proposal. Land Filling Filling of the site is required and it is proposed to raise the service centre building and refuelling areas above Council's adopted the design flood level of RL 3.5m AHD. The remaining areas of the site incorporating the carparking and access areas will be graded accordingly to an internal drainage system. Current fill levels range from RL 1.8m AHD to RL 3.675m AHD and will require approximately 62,000m3 of fill to be imported. Filling of the site is integral to the development and the proposed level of fill is considered within the context of other supporting engineering reports. There is no apparent impediment to engineering an appropriate fill regime for the site that works in with other engineered outcomes for the site. Council's Engineering Services have identified that further work is required as part of the DA assessment, but from a strategic planning perspective no further assessment is required; in other words there is a high probability that the site can be suitably engineered and it remains only as to how that will be best achieved. Flooding Most of the site is mapped as "low flow", however some areas around the extremities are affected by "high flow" classification.


Modelling was performed by BMT WBM using Council's Tweed Valley Flood Model as the basis. As this base model has a course 40m grid resolution, the consultants refined the model to provide a 10m grid in the locality. The development was then tested against the 100 year ARI flood event. Results predict peak flood level increases of 0.01m, which is considered negligible. These results are not unexpected, given the site is surrounded by filled development, particularly the Pacific Highway formation. While the area may provide some flood storage at present, this volume is not significant in the scheme of the wider floodplain. Council's Engineering Services have advised that for completeness the DA assessment should also confirm impacts for smaller floods (the 20% and 5% AEP events), and verify whether there are any significant impacts on the duration of inundation for the 20%, 5% and 1% AEP floods, as this is most critical to crop losses, particularly sugar cane. There is no apparent impediment to flood engineering the site and managing other related engineering and on-site waste management regimes. Minimum floor levels for the building have been designed to ensure that the building is above the design flood level. No further assessment is required from a strategic planning perspective. Water Supply Section 5.7 of the Statement of Environmental Effects states that: Reticulated water supply would be via an existing connection on Lot 11 DP 1134229 and Section 9 of Appendix H provides further details on how they shall meet peak demands. Lot 11 DP 1134229 is currently connected to water supply off an existing 500mm trunk main in Tweed Valley Way, which was installed in 2003. Section 9.2.5 of Appendix H states subject to approval by Tweed Shire Council, upgrading of the existing connection is proposed to provide a higher level of supply security. Council policy, implemented since the connection in 2003, is that no new connections to Trunk water mains shall be allowed, which includes the upgrading of the existing service connections. Therefore, upgrading of the existing connection will not be approved. Water supply to the development is only available via an existing 20mm water meter 350 metres south of the proposed service centre site and an upgrade of the existing service connection is supported. Approval from the relevant roads authority will be required (i.e: Roads and Maritime Services and/ or Council) to run the service along the road easement from the water meter to the development site. The existing water meter cannot be moved from Lot 11 DP 1134229, however it must be transferred in ownership to the new subdivided lot. Connection of Lot 11 DP 1134229 this meter is not supported and is contrary to Council's policy, which permits only one meter per property. Council's Engineering Services advises that a detailed hydraulic report and detail on an alternate power supply for booster pumps will be required, along with the relevant approvals. From an engineering perspective the details of water supply remain to be fully addressed and assessed. From a strategic planning perspective the advice received is that there is no impediment to the planning proposal, and the detailed design is to be managed as part of the DA assessment and construction application stages.


Wastewater Council's Engineering Services have advised that there is no nearby Council wastewater system for the development (subdivision) to connect to and an onsite sewerage system is required. The proponents documentation includes an On-site Sewage Management Report (2013.034) prepared by HMC Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd, dated June 2013. Council's Environmental Health Services has advised that the information provided is not sufficient and a further more detailed report is required. The terms of reference for a further study have been provided. At this stage there is no evidence to suggest that an on-site sewage management system cannot be designed for the proposed use of the site. From a strategic planning perspective this indicates that the planning proposal can proceed, but conditional on the further study and investigation occurring post Gateway Determination and prior to public exhibition. This report would be provided to the Department of Planning and infrastructure (DP&I) as part of the request for the Gateway consideration. The Proponent will be required to either provide or fund the additional studies and the terms of reference for it will be included within a memorandum of understanding. This will ensure that the information specifically required is provided. Traffic Management The proposal includes a comprehensive traffic study and engineered road design, which includes a proposal for a new roundabout installation on Tweed Valley Way. Council's Engineering Services have identified with the proponent several issues of concern; these relate to the location and size of the roundabout and the impact on current traffic flows. Maintaining the efficiency of Tweed Valley Way is essential and requires that access to it from traffic exiting the highway service station can do so without the need to unreasonably reduce the current traffic speed. This is of particular concern given the close proximity to the Pacific Highway intersection and the need for vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles, to accelerate to safe speeds prior to entering the 110 Kph. The ultimate design of the traffic management must be determined as part of the DA assessment, but from a strategic planning perspective there is no impediment to proceeding with the planning proposal. It is not a question of whether traffic management can be achieved but instead how it should best be achieved. Contaminated Land The proponent's documentation includes a Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation (HMC2011.066CL) prepared by HMC Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd dated July 2013, which concluded the site is suitable for the proposed land use. Council's Environmental Health Services has advised that the planning proposal is suitable to proceed on the information provided with regards to its contaminated land assessment.


Flora and fauna The subject site consists of a slashed paddock previously used for sugar cane and tea tree plantation. Vegetation consists of introduced grasses and scattered Camphor Laurel and Swamp Oak. A dam and a series of drainage lines occur on the site. No significant vegetation or wetlands are mapped on the site, and it does not form part of a regional or subregional corridor. Any local corridor value is precluded by the site's proximity to the highway and existing surrounding land-uses. Vegetation in the vicinity of the site is limited to very small remnant patches in surrounding agricultural lands. Council's Natural Resource Management Unit has assessed Proponent's report. It is stated that the likelihood of impact on threatened flora, fauna and ecological communities has been assessed though limited on-ground survey and database searches in the Flora and Fauna Assessment (JWA 2013). The flora and fauna assessment considered that due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, the site was unlikely to provide habitat for any threatened fauna species. No threatened flora was recorded on the site. Recommendations have been made in the Flora and Fauna Assessment, relating to the inclusion of native species in landscaping species selection, which are supported and can be conditioned at DA stage. Given the above, it appears that there are no significant ecological constraints to the proposed development. Bushfire The majority of the land subject to the proposal is not mapped as bushfire prone, with the exception of a small area on the eastern and northern boundary of the site that falls within the 100 metre buffer to vegetation patches located to the north (an isolated planting of eucalypts, presumably for screening purposes) and east (a linear patch of Casuarina forest) adjacent to the Pacific Highway. A Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BushfireSafe 2013) has been submitted which demonstrates that all proposed buildings are located greater than 100m from the above vegetation, and thus the proposal complies with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection (NSW Rural Fire Service 2006). Agricultural Assessment Pertaining to the 1(b2) Agricultural Protection Zone The site is zoned 1(b2) Agricultural Protection and is mapped as Regionally Significant Farmland. An Agricultural Assessment prepared by Allen & Associates, dated June 2013, was submitted with the proponent's documentation and a planning assessment of the relevant Planning s 117 Directions was provided in the planning proposal request and statement of environmental effects document, prepared by Jim Glazebrook & Associates Pty Ltd, which is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. In summary, the agricultural assessment concludes that the area of land required for the highway service station has a low agricultural value or rating and that this is due to inherent physical site characteristics. It is noted in particular that the site (the area designated for the service centre and associated parking) is of an inconvenient shape, size and location to allow for purposeful and practical agricultural land use/s to occur, and that the removal of this area of land from agricultural use is not believed that this will have a significant effect on the long-term agricultural production potential of the wider region.


The proposal request and statement of environmental effects document provides a compliance assessment for the planning proposal against relevant local and State Government Policies. In particular, the report (page 38) responds to the compliance matters with s 117 Direction 5.3 - Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast, as follows: The objectives of this Direction are: “(a) to ensure that the best agricultural land will be available for current and future

generations to grow food and fibre; (b) to provide more certainty on the status of the best agricultural land, thereby assisting

councils with their local strategic settlement planning; and (c) to reduce land use conflict arising between agricultural use and non-agricultural use of

farmland as caused by urban encroachment into farming areas.” This Direction applies when a planning authority prepares a planning proposal for land mapped as ‘state significant farmland’, ‘regionally significant farmland’ or ‘significant non-contiguous farmland’ on the “Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project, Final Map 2005”. The proposed development site is part of a broader land area mapped as Regionally Significant Farmland. According to clause 4(b) of the Direction, a planning proposal must not “rezone land identified as ‘Regionally Significant Farmland’ for urban or rural residential purposes”. Further, clause 5 states that: “A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if council can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning or (an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the planning proposal is consistent with: (a) the Far North Coast Regional Strategy; and (b) Section 4 of the report titled Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project- Final

Recommendations, February 2005, held by the Department of Planning.” With respect to clause 4(b), the application does not seek to ‘rezone’ the land, rather it is proposed that a site specific clause be inserted into the shire-wide Tweed LEP to enable the development of a highway service centre on the land. Notwithstanding the fact that a rezoning is not proposed, the intent of the clause is to ensure that the objectives of the Direction are met and further discussion follows in that regard. The agricultural assessment at Appendix F (Agricultural Assessment prepared by Allen & Associates, dated June 2013) specifically addresses: • The agricultural land classification according to the guidelines contained in the Rural

Land Evaluation Manual; • The Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Mapping and its methodology; • The value of the land for agricultural purposes; and • The objectives of the 1(b2) Agricultural Protection Zone pursuant to the Tweed LEP

2000. Relevant observations and conclusions from the assessment are:


“• This report has shown that the 3.9 hectares of land is classified as Class 4 land; that is land that is a low agricultural value. Issues of practical and economic land use management were major considerations in this classification. The parcel of land is of an inconvenient shape, is in an inconvenient location and is of insufficient size to enable its purposeful and long term agricultural use. The Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project has previously mapped the land as regionally significant farmland. However, this mapping project was done at a scale of 1:100,000 as opposed to an individual property scale, and also during the mapping process gave considerable weight to soil landscape data in contrast to the major agricultural limiting factors that are inherent to this instance;

• The existing and previous owners of the studied land have since 1992 utilised the

majority of the land (with the exception of the 3.9 hectare study area and also land for housing, farm roads and infrastructure) for commercial tea tree and sugar cane production. More recently the 3.9 hectares of land (study area) has been removed from agricultural operation due to issues of low productivity and practical land use management and is currently maintained (slashing) purely for aesthetic purposes and weed control only;

• Development of 3.9 hectares of land to a non-agricultural use will not therefore detract

in any significant way from the existing agricultural production potential of the remainder of the land involved with this subdivision and nor of the wider region. Furthermore approval of the development will take pressure off surrounding lands that are of a higher agricultural value for developments of a similar nature; and

• From an agricultural perspective therefore, it is considered that there should be no

reason why Council and the State Government should not approve the application.” The agricultural assessment demonstrates the limited agricultural value of the land. Consequently, objectives (a) and (b) of the Direction are met. With respect to objective (c), the service centre site is remote from the balance of farming land being surrounded on three (3) sides by the motorway interchange and on the fourth side by a crematorium, farm dam and tea tree distillery. Land use conflicts between agricultural and non agricultural land uses are therefore unlikely to arise and consequently, it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with objective (c) of the Direction. Moreover, it is noted that planning principle 9 of section 4 of the Northern Rivers Farmland Project identifies that public infrastructure is permitted on land mapped as state or regionally significant where no feasible alternatives are available. While a highway service centre is not provided by a Council or state agency it is effectively “public infrastructure” as it provides infrastructure used by the travelling public in accordance with RMS planning for state highways. The planning process for establishing a highway service centre for northbound highway traffic at Chinderah undertaken by Tweed Shire Council did not result in any feasible alternative sites for such a facility. The site nominated in Section 117(2) Direction 5.4 – Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast, within Chinderah owned by the RMS is not suitable for a highway service centre for traffic and amenity reasons. It has now been abandoned for that use (refer Section 4.5.2). Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with planning principle 9 of section 4 of the Northern Rivers Farmland Project.


As a result of the detailed agricultural suitability analysis it can be concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Far North Coast Regional Strategy and Section 4 of the Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project – Final Recommendations, February 2005. Therefore, if the Department considers that the proposal is a ‘rezoning’ and consequently inconsistent with clause 4(b) of the Direction, the inconsistency is justified under the provisions of clause (5) and the Direction is not an impediment to the proposal proceeding. [Emphasis added]. From a strategic planning point of view the Proponent's Planning Consultant has provided a comprehensive response to the matters for which consideration is required under the s 117 Directions, and is underpinned by a suitably qualified agricultural report. Whether the DP&I themselves agree with the assessment and consequently agree to any inconsistency remains to be tested at the Gateway Determination stage. There is nothing raised in either report or in the preliminary assessment undertaken that would otherwise indicate that the planning proposal should not proceed. Cultural Heritage A Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment has been prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd and submitted in support of the proposal. The report details the methodology of site investigation and consultation undertaken. In summary it states that no further cultural assessment is recommended and provides four precautionary recommendations. These relate to actions that should be observed in the event that cultural heritage is found through site disturbance during construction activities. The recommendation can be incorporated into conditions of consent and will need to be assessed at the DA stage. From a strategic planning perspective the report is satisfactory at this stage, except in so far as the responses (comments) from the Tweed Aboriginal Advisory Committee and the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council are omitted from the report. This is noted within the report and will be required post Gateway Determination and prior to public exhibition. OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Proceed with preparation of a planning proposal in accordance with the

recommendations of this report or 2. Reject the proposal (noting that this will prevent an affirmative determination of the DA)

and provide reasons for doing so, as these will be required to inform the DP&I and JRPP should an administrative appeal be sought.

Council officers recommend Option 1.


CONCLUSION: The Proponent has lodged a combined planning proposal request and development application for a highway service centre to service the Pacific Highway at Chinderah. The development is currently prohibited and requires a prior amendment to the Tweed LEP. The amendment is based on a change to the "Additional Permitted Uses" Schedule of the LEP to include the land-use definition of a "Highway Service Station". That definition is the following terms:

"highway service centre" means a building or place used to provide refreshments and vehicle services to highway users. It may include any one or more of the following:

(a) a restaurant or cafe, (b) take away food and drink premises, (c) service stations and facilities for emergency vehicle towing and repairs, (d) parking for vehicles, (e) rest areas and public amenities.

The Proponent's planning proposal request and statement of environmental effects document, prepared by Jim Glazebrook & Associates Pty Ltd, as provided as Attachment 1 to this report, details the background to this proposal at Section 1 (pages 1-2). In summary, there is an argument advanced that there is limited opportunity for locating a northbound service centre within the Tweed region and which is presently only serviced by the current southbound service centre, also at Chinderah. The history of this site is said to include the Council's previous support for a service station on this site and that planning studies and an LEP amendment were previously commenced. This occurred prior to the opening of the Pacific Highway and/or when it was under construction and notably at a time when the Tweed Valley Way was servicing that function. Consequently, the Roads and Maritime Services were not supportive of the then proposal and it did not proceed further. Circumstances have since changed and with the opening of the new highway the service function of Tweed Valley Way also changed. It remains a crucially important arterial road connecting the south/southwestern areas of the Tweed to the north /northeast, but is now more amenable to new access and greater variability in its design speed. Preliminary assessment has indicated that whilst there are significant site engineering matters to be addressed and finalised the site appears capable of accommodating the service centre, without significant adverse impacts to the broader community. It is also noted that many Tweed residents and tourists alike rely on the Pacific Highway to travel routinely around the Tweed. The proposed service centre is likely to have a community net benefit in several ways and noticeably by providing convenience to Tweed commuters, the possibility of competitive fuel prices, and access to other related conveniences stores. In concluding, the preliminary assessment has not identified any matters that might otherwise present as a prohibition to proceeding with a planning proposal and as such it is recommended that a planning proposal be prepared. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Community Engagement Strategy Version 1.1.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Planning Proposal Request and Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Jim Glazebrook & Associates Pty Ltd (ECM 3212655)


34 [PR-CM] Strategic Planning - Murwillumbah Bowls and Sports Club site - Lot 1 DP 524512, Lot 1 DP 523131, Lot A DP 390347, and Lot 1 DP 250164 Condong Street, Brisbane Street and Commercial Road, Murwillumbah

SUBMITTED BY: Planning Reforms alid




SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Planning Reform Unit has been approached by representatives of the landowners of the former Murwillumbah Bowls Club. The Club became financially unviable and ceased trading in June 2012, with the Club's bowler's accommodated at Condong Bowls Club, as well as others in the district. This report has been prepared in response to the Club's representations and seeks to provide guidance on how the Club and Council can capitalise on a suitable planning outcome for the site. It is arguably one of the Township's most significant remaining redevelopment opportunities with the land capacity to accommodate a new major supermarket retailer. Strategic investigations therefore present the opportunity to resolve outstanding disconnections between community demand for increased chore-based retail competition and services and the market's ability to meet those needs. Strategic investigations through a planning proposal will provide the best means for assessing opportunity and suitability in consultation with the Tweed community. This is particularly important as any policy change will be required to both the Tweed Local Environmental Plan and the Tweed Development Control Plan (Section B22 -Murwillumbah Town Centre). The redevelopment of this site could act as a local catalyst for further consolidation and continued economic and social sustainability of the Murwillumbah Town Centre. It is recommended that a planning proposal should be prepared as a priority and the Murwillumbah Services Memorial Club Limited be advised to submit a formal planning proposal request.


RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, in respect of Murwillumbah Bowls and Sports Club site - Lot 1 DP 524512, Lot 1 DP 523131, Lot A DP 390347, and Lot 1 DP 250164 Condong Street, Brisbane Street and Commercial Road, Murwillumbah, endorse the following: 1. The preparation of a planning proposal: 2. The landowner be advised of the need to prepare and submit a formal

request for a planning proposal; and 3. That any amendments needing to be made to the Tweed Development

Control Plan, Section B22 - Murwillumbah Town Centre, are to be carried out concurrently with the planning proposal and community consultation undertaken.

4. ATTACHMENT 1 is Confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if

disclosed: (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it,

or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or (iii) reveal a trade secret


REPORT:

Investigations have been undertaken in the pursuit of establishing additional retail services for Murwillumbah Town Centre and in particular a second 'full-line' supermarket, over many years. The major supermarket retailers have made regular contact with Council staff during this period, seeking advice on a wide range of sites and localities, but none that have materialised with a development. Following the adoption of the Tweed Development Control Plan 2008 - Section B22 - Murwillumbah Town Centre (the DCP) in 2008, the search for a suitable site intensified and many 'potential' opportunities were assessed. Importantly, the DCP was very clear about the need to consolidate retail activities within the Town Centre. Despite best endeavours for the DCP to identify potential sites none of those listed have yielded a realistic opportunity. The predominate constraints which have to-date delayed the provision of a new major retailer include fragmented land tenure and the need for lot amalgamation, and those few sites that have been looked at in detail have presented other barriers such as inadequate site area, flooding and access issues. When considering these primary factors, the number of opportunities within the Town Centre is limited to only a few select sites. The difficulty in locating within the Town Centre is evidenced by the recent approval for an IGA Supermarket on Tweed Valley Way. One of the few sites that could potentially fulfil the site requirements for a 'full-line' supermarket is the Murwillumbah Bowls Club (the Site). The Site is located on the Southern fringe of the Murwillumbah CBD with frontage to the South-western corner of Knox Park, comprises 4 lots, combining to total 11,406m2 of site area, which is zoned a mix of 6(b) Recreation and 2(a) Low Density Residential. The Site is displayed within Figure 1.


Figure 1 - Locality Plan


In August 2013, Council's Planning Reform Unit (PRU) was approached by representatives of the landowner to discuss strategic options for the site. As discussed above it ceased trading as a bowls club in June 2012 and has since been vacant, with only limited and sporadic leased occupation. Any strategic investigations into the Site would be an addition to the tasks currently tabled within the PRUs adopted Work Program, which is currently at resource capacity. Despite the resource implications upon the PRU, these strategic investigations hold the potential to achieve a significant net community benefit: this Site and the potential opportunity to consolidate a further major supermarket retailer could be significant for the Town and the surrounding local communities, and as such the risk of delaying other current projects as resources are readjusted far outweighs the risk of the development opportunities being lost to a less beneficial albeit permitted form of development. A formal strategic process presents a significant opportunity to provide for and guide the redevelopment of the Site, as well as harness the numerous positive spin-offs for the Town Centre and the wider public. Accordingly, it considered appropriate to enable the collaborative investigation of the Site. It is important to acknowledge that any strategic investigations into the Site may result in a variety of potential outcomes, not confined just to the suitability of supermarkets or retail based outcomes. Likewise, the strategic processes could also require the reconsideration of the Murwillumbah DCP to provide a coordinated suite of visions and development controls. OPTIONS: That Council: 1. Proceed in accordance with the recommendations in this report; or 2. Inform the landowner that any Request for a Planning Proposal will need to be

submitted and considered within future Council reporting of the Planning Reform Unit Work Program.

Council officers recommend option 1. CONCLUSION: Despite repeated investigations seeking to provide a second 'full-line' supermarket within Murwillumbah Town Centre, to-date a suitable site to facilitate the short-term provision of these services has not been identified. Council's established planning framework identifies the significant benefits towards Murwillumbah's place-making and sustainability by continuing to consolidate the Town Centre as the core activity space. Potentially the most significant short-term development site to contribute to the established vision is the 'Murwillumbah Bowls Club' site, which is currently vacant.


An opportunity exists to collaborate with the landowner and undertake a strategic planning process to unlock development potential of the site, provide a catalyst for the consolidation and continued economic sustainability of the Murwillumbah Town Centre as well as meet the needs of the wider community. It is recommended that the landowner be advised to lodge a Request for a Planning Proposal to commence these investigations with Council. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

(Confidential) Attachment 1. Letter from the Murwillumbah Services Club (ECM 3212711)


35 [PR-CM] Application for a Site Compatibility Certificate for Seniors Housing Development Lot 13 DP 868620, Cudgen Road Cudgen



SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) have requested comments from Council regarding an application for a site compatibility certificate (SCC) for a senior’s housing development at Cudgen. Council considered a report for the SCC at the October meeting and resolved to request additional time to review the SCC proposal. The DP&I have granted Council until 22 November 2013 to provide further comment. As discussed in the October report the key issues for determination are considered to be the State significant Farmland mapping and the impact on adjacent agricultural/activities. It is considered a wider strategic planning assessment for the area should be undertaken prior to providing support for individual site redevelopment that is contrary to current zonings and proposed zonings under the draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The ad hoc nature of strategic compatibility certificates for Seniors Living Development at this key location is not conducive to sound long term planning. On this basis it is recommended that the DP&I be advised that Council does not support the SCC due to its conflict with current strategic planning objectives. The proposal is for 261 dwellings. Two dwelling types are proposed being 90m2 apartments and 155m2 town houses. The development site would be split into a northern sector and a southern sector. The proposal includes an internal road network, on site ancillary facilities, bus and ambulance. Each dwelling will have one undercover car park and one driveway parking space. The development falls under the provision of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. Under the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) a senior is defined as any of the following: (a) people aged 55 or more years, (b) people who are resident at a facility at which residential care (within the meaning of the

Aged Care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) is provided, (c) people who have been assessed as being eligible to occupy housing for aged persons

provided by a social housing provider.


Under the SEPP, development proponents have to firstly gain an approved Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) from the DP&I as a form of "gateway" to enable a development application to be lodged with Council. Council’s water and sewer infrastructure is available in the vicinity and will need extending to service the site the whole site. For example the sewer may need to be pumped to Council’s pump station located on Tweed Coast Road to the north of the site rather than utilising the sewer rising main that is located in Cudgen Road. The Seniors Living SEPP permits residential development for Senior’s on rural land provided the site adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes. As the site is part zoned rural and part agricultural protection and part environmental protection, the applicant is relying on the site’s proximity to the residentially zoned land at Cudgen to pass this threshold test. There has been judicial review of this test and the DP&I will be required to make a legal interpretation of this issue. It should be noted that the land immediately to the east of this site failed this threshold test recently. It should also be noted that DP&I previously refused to grant concurrence to a development application for a subdivision for the subject site to enable a new police station facility to be built, for the following reasons:

1. The application raises issues of State and regional significance for the preservation and protection of significant agricultural resources;

2. The application is inconsistent with the objectives of the 1(a) Rural and 1(b) Agricultural Protection zones in that it will not result in ecologically sustainable development of land primarily suited and strategically identified for agricultural purposes and does not protect identified prime agricultural land from fragmentation; and

3. Approval of the application will undermine the commitment of the Tweed Shire Council and the State government to protect the remaining land of high agricultural value from urban uses in this locality.

The proposed creation of a new aged residential community in this location poses some concern for Council officers, in the absence of any broader strategic planning investigation and justification, particularly in terms of the Council's long held support of retaining the State Significant Farmland areas of Cudgen. If the site compatibility certificate is issued a development application can be submitted to Council for assessment and determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel as the capital investment value would exceed 20 million dollars. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, in respect of the Application for a Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) for Seniors Housing Development on premises Lot 13 DP 868620 Cudgen Road, Cudgen, writes to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure advising that Council does not support the site compatibility certificate application due to its conflict with current strategic planning objectives.


REPORT:

Applicant: Kingscliff Land Unit Trust C/- Planit Consulting Pty Ltd Owner: Donald Beck (Director) and Maroun Stephen (Director) Location: Lot 13 DP 868620 Cudgen Road, Cudgen Zoning: 1(a) Rural, 1(b1) Agricultural Protection and 7a Environmental Protection Cost: > $20 million BACKGROUND: The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has requested Council’s comments on the site compatibility certificate for a Senior’s Living Development at Cudgen. The application has identified the following constraints:

• Zoned a combination of Rural, Agricultural Protection and Environmental Protection;

• Mapped as State Significant Farm Land;

• Located immediately adjacent to existing agricultural operations;

• Mapped as containing Melaleuca and Swamp She–oak Forest; and

• Mapped as being partially subject to flooding. Other issues are town water and sewer services and direct access off Tweed Coast Road for the southern sector however there are likely to be engineering solutions for these items. The key issues for determination are considered to be the State Significant Farmland mapping and the impact on adjacent agricultural land/activities. It is considered a wider strategic planning assessment for the area should be undertaken prior to providing support for individual site redevelopment that is contrary to current zonings and proposed zonings under the draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The ad hoc nature of strategic compatibility certificates for Seniors Living Development at this key location is not conducive to sound long term planning. OPTIONS: Option 1:

• Writes to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure declining to support the SCC application due to its conflict with current strategic planning objectives

Option 2:

• Writes to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure providing its support to the SCC application.

Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: Urbanising one parcel of land at this location is considered poor planning and if a move from rural and agricultural use is envisaged a wider planning exercise should be undertaken.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Council's Rural Lands Strategy process and broader rural land use and LEP approach to the Cudgen State Significant Farmland area. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Development Concept Plans (ECM 3181967).


36 [PR-CM] Variations to Development Standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards

SUBMITTED BY: Director

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.4 Strengthen coordination among Commonwealth and State Governments, their agencies and other service providers and Statutory

Authorities to avoid duplication, synchronise service delivery and seek economies of scale 1.4.1 Council will perform its functions as required by law and form effective partnerships with State and Commonwealth governments and

their agencies to advance the welfare of the Tweed community

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

In accordance with the Department of Planning's Planning Circular PS 08-014 issued on 14 November 2008, the following information is provided with regards to development applications where a variation in standards under SEPP1 has been supported/refused. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the October 2013 Variations to Development Standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards.


REPORT:

On 14 November 2008 the Department of Planning issued Planning Circular PS 08-014 relating to reporting on variations to development standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1). In accordance with that Planning Circular, the following Development Applications have been supported/refused where a variation in standards under SEPP1 has occurred. DA No. DA13/0096

Description of Development:

alterations and use of existing structure as an attached secondary dwelling

Property Address:

Lot 249 DP 31042 72 Lakeview Terrace Bilambil Heights

Date Granted: 14/10/2013

Development Standard to be Varied:

Clause 51A - Multi Dwelling Housing Densities in Zone 2a

Zoning: 2(a) Low Density Residential

Justification: The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP overrides the inconsistency with Clause 51A.

Extent: Development standard requires one dwelling per 450m2. Proposal is for one dwelling per 306.7m2. 31.8% variation.

Authority: Tweed Shire Council under assumed concurrence

DA No. DA13/0115

Description of Development:

two lot leasehold subdivision

Property Address:

Lot 17 DP 833570 26-74 Chinderah Bay Drive Chinderah

Date Granted: 21/10/2013

Development Standard to be Varied:

Clause 20(2)(a) - Minimum lot size 40ha

Zoning: 1(a) Rural, 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands & Littoral Rainforests)

Justification: This application aims to create two allotments comprising 10.48ha (proposed lot 1) and 0.87ha (proposed lot 2) in the 1(a) Rural and 7(a) Environmental Protection zone. Clause 20(2)(a) of the Tweed LEP 2000 requires each allotment in the 1(a) and 7(a) zone to be at least 40ha in size.

Extent: The development standard is varied by approximately 74% in the case of Proposed Lot 1 and 98% in the case of Proposed Lot 2.

Authority: Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure

COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

37 [CNR-CM] Placemaking and Public Art Policy Review SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.1 Foster strong, cohesive, cooperative, healthy and safe communities 2.1.3 Provide opportunities for residents to enjoy access to the arts, festivals, sporting activities, recreation, community and cultural facilities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council’s Placemaking and Public Art Policy was last reviewed in November 2007 at which time the commissioning and/or purchasing of new art works for public places was processed via a Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) and an overarching Community Cultural Development Advisory Committee (CCDAC) prior to consideration and approval, or not, by Council. In the absence of the PAAC and the CCDAC, the Policy has been minimally reviewed to allow for an interim process by which proposals for public artworks can effectively be assessed until such time as a new Cultural Development Officer is appointed and the Policy can be reconsidered within the broader context of a new Cultural Policy, which is also due for review. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council exhibits the revised Draft Version 1.3 of the Placemaking and Public Art Policy for a period of 28 days and accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days as per Section 160 of the Local Government.


REPORT:

Council’s Placemaking and Public Art Policy was last reviewed in November 2007 at which time the commissioning and/or purchasing of new art works for public places was processed via a Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) and an overarching Community Cultural Development Advisory Committee (CCDAC) prior to consideration and approval, or not, by Council. In the absence of the PAAC and the CCDAC, the policy has been minimally reviewed to allow for an interim process by which proposals for public artworks can effectively be assessed until such time as a new Cultural Development Officer is appointed and the Policy can be reconsidered within the broader context of a new Cultural Policy, which is also due for review. While the major focus and intent of the Placemaking and Public Art Policy has been retained from previous versions, changes have been made to reflect the objectives and strategies of Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2013/2023 and Delivery Plan 2013/2017 as well as related actions in our Operational Plan 2013/14. Provision has been made for progressing proposals for new works via a Public Art Reference Group (PARG). The proposed Public Art initiation/acquisition process continues to require a detailed application based on an Integrated Cultural Opportunities Survey (ICOS) form to be assessed by the PARG. This Group will be convened in the longer term by the Cultural Development Officer and in the intermediate period by the Manager Community and Cultural Services. The PARG will include Council’s Art Gallery Director, Landscape Architect, Civil Design Engineer and a representative of Arts Northern Rivers as well as specialists relevant to specific proposals. These specialists may include representatives from the community as well as staff. Due to be developed during next calendar year in accord with Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2013/2023 and Delivery Program 2013/2017, the new Cultural Policy will need to reflect the significant achievements of Council’s previous cultural development plan and activities as well as identifying the role of placemaking and public art as significant contributors to the area’s recognition as a major cultural destination and home to a rich, active and diverse cultural community. As such, the new Cultural Policy will require extensive community engagement, unlike this review of the Placemaking and Public Art Policy which has sought to propose interim administrative processes to ensure due consideration of any Public Art proposals. OPTIONS: Option 1: The Placemaking and Public Art Policy Version 1.3 is placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and Council accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days. Option 2: The Placemaking and Public Art Policy Version 1.3 is not placed on public exhibition.


CONCLUSION: Council’s Placemaking and Public Art Policy was last reviewed in November 2007 at which time the commissioning and/or purchasing of new art works for public places was processed via a Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) and an overarching Community Cultural Development Advisory Committee (CCDAC) prior to consideration and approval, or not, by Council. In the absence of the PAAC and the CCDAC, the policy has been minimally reviewed to allow for an interim process by which proposals for public artworks can effectively be assessed until such time as a new Cultural Development Officer is appointed and the Policy can be reconsidered within the broader context of a new Cultural Policy, which is also due for review. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Placemaking and Public Art Policy Version 1.2. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Placemaking and Public Art Policy Draft Version 1.3 (ECM3212295)

Attachment 2. Revised Integrated Opportunities Survey (reformatted only) (ECM3212328)

Attachment 3. Public Art Commissioning Structure (ECM3212306)


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


38 [CNR-CM] Draft Access and Inclusion Policy SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.1 Foster strong, cohesive, cooperative, healthy and safe communities 2.1.1 Work closely with government and community organisations to improve services to children and families, youth, elderly, Indigenous

people, disadvantaged and minority groups and to build stronger and more cohesive communities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report presents the Tweed Shire Issues Paper and Profile of People with Disability and draft Access and Inclusion Policy that will provide a framework to guide the development and implementation of the Access and Inclusion Plan. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council exhibits the draft Access and Inclusion Policy for a period of 28 days and accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days as per Section 160 of the Local Government Act 1993


REPORT:

Council’s Delivery Program 2012/2013 included the following action: 2.1.1.1.3 Update People with Disabilities Issues Paper to inform development of Disability Access Policy Community consultation to inform development of an Access and Inclusion Policy and Plan occurred between November 2011 and March 2012. Three Issues Papers: (1) Consultation Summary; (2) Infrastructure and Community Access; and (3) Locations, were adopted by Council on 13 December 2012. The Tweed Shire Issues Paper and Profile of People with Disability includes the findings of the previously approved Issues Papers with a demographic profile of people with disability. The purpose of the profile is to inform planning decisions for the diverse localities of the Tweed, taking into consideration the needs of people with disability based on geographical and socio-economic differences. The intention of the draft Access and Inclusion Policy is twofold. Firstly, the policy makes a formal statement on Council's commitment to state and federal legislative requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Access to Premises Standards (Buildings) 2010. The policy also makes a commitment to follow best practice guidelines on universal access and design through planning decisions. Secondly the policy provides a sound framework for the implementation of the Access and Inclusion Plan currently being developed. OPTIONS: Option 1 The draft Access and Inclusion Policy is placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and Council accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days. Option 2 The draft Access and Inclusion Policy is not placed on public exhibition and Council seeks further information. Council officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: Approval for the draft Access and Inclusion Policy and Tweed Shire Issues Paper and Profile of People with Disability is an important step in Council meeting its responsibilities and obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It also demonstrates Council's leadership through a policy statement, to the principles of universal access and social inclusion that promote the wellbeing of the whole community. This policy is the framework that will guide the implementation of the Access and Inclusion Plan which is a safeguard for Council against claims to the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: The Access and Inclusion Policy document has nil budget implications. The subsequent Access and Inclusion Plan will identify actions with budget implications. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Tweed Shire Issues Paper and Profile of People with Disability

(ECM 3211682) Attachment 2. Draft Access and Inclusion Policy (ECM 3211581)


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


39 [CNR-CM] Youth Strategy and Action Plan SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.1 Foster strong, cohesive, cooperative, healthy and safe communities 2.1.1 Work closely with government and community organisations to improve services to children and families, youth, elderly, Indigenous

people, disadvantaged and minority groups and to build stronger and more cohesive communities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The need for a Youth Strategy was first identified as a key priority of the community during the consultation that informed the development of Council's 7 Year Infrastructure and Services Plan. Preparation of a Youth Strategy was also included as an action in the Operational Plan from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. The draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan and supporting documentation was placed on public exhibition from 9 April to 7 May 2013; a total of six submissions were received. The draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2017 and complementary documentation has been amended to reflect submissions received where appropriate and is now ready for adoption. The Youth Strategy and Action Plan will inform the way Council engages with and responds to the expressed and researched needs young people. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Notes the submissions made to the draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan and

thanks contributors for their comments 2. Adopts the Youth Strategy and Action Plan, Youth Profile, Youth Facilities Plan,

Youth Case Studies and Community Engagement Report.


REPORT:

Background and Strategic Context Early in 2006 Council conducted a major consultation activity to better understand community needs and expectations in relation to young people and to determine Council's ability to deliver programs and projects consistent with those expectations. 'Improved Services for Shire Youth' emerged as a key theme and funding was allocated in Council's 7 Year Infrastructure and Services Plan for the preparation and implementation of a Youth Strategy. The Division of Local Government introduced the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IPRF) to ensure local government operations and strategic planning meets the needs of the community. The Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual (page 35) notes there are "particular groups who may have special needs or issues. These groups were formerly referred to as ‘target groups’ in the social planning process and include: • children • young people • people with disabilities • older people • women • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people • people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds • people from diverse sexualities" The Youth Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2017 addresses specific issues of young people and identifies key actions to be integrated into Council's four year Delivery Program and one year Operational Plan. Additionally it identifies various sections of Council responsible for the implementation of the strategy and plan to ensure a whole-of-Council response to identified needs. The IPRF specifically indicates Council's Community Strategic Plan must be based on the social justice principles including equity, access, participation and rights. Central to the Youth Strategy and Action Plan are the principles of social justice, economic resilience and sustainability. For young people this means ensuring that: • there is fair distribution of economic resources and access to essential services to meet

basic needs and to improve their quality of life • their rights are recognised and promoted by Council and the community • they have better opportunities for genuine participation and consultation about decisions

affecting their lives • their views are valued and listened to in Council deliberations • there is balanced decision making in Council based on social, economic and

environmental goals Information The draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan and suite of complementary documents was reported to Council to be adopted for public exhibition on 21 March 2013. It was resolved that Council:


1. Places the draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan suite of documents on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

2. Notes that the Youth Opportunities Grant was submitted to Office of Communities in

the Department of Education and Communities on 4 March 2013. The draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan was available for public comment from 9 April to 7 May 2013 and a total of six submissions were received, as detailed in Attachment 1. As a result of submissions, the following amendments have been made to the draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan documentation: 1. Youth Strategy and Action Plan (Attachment 6) The Youth Strategy and Action Plan is based on the concepts of capacity building, partnership and empowerment to ensure that young people can feel more connected to where they live and will be able to be involved in the planning and delivery of decisions that affect them. It contains six strategic outcomes to address the issues raised during the engagement campaign. Amendments made to the draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan have: • updated census data not available at the time of preparing the draft strategy and plan • clarified funding sources in the Community Strategic Plan 2013-2023 to implement

strategic actions over the coming four years • recognised some actions as ongoing over the life of the plan • shifted implementation year(s) in some cases to better align with other priorities of

Council • responded to submissions as summarised in Attachment 1 2. Youth Profile (Attachment 2) The draft Youth Profile was amended to update census data not available at the time of preparing the draft profile and to include demographic information on young people that have a disability. 3. Youth Facilities Plan (Attachment 3) The Youth Facilities Plan provides an analysis of the current and forecast (to 2031) youth facility needs for young people aged 12-24 years. Amendments made to draft Youth Facilities Plan include: • update of census data not available at the time of preparing the draft plan • update of the youth profile to include demographic information on young people that have

a disability • adding Tweed Regional Museum to the audit of community facilities that may be

accessed by young people • updating the art gallery title to Tweed Regional Gallery and Margaret Olley Art Centre • updating benchmarks and standards to include an indicator for regional museum facilities 4. Case Studies (Attachment 4) No amendments made.


5. Community Engagement Report (Attachment 5) The draft Community Engagement Report provides full details of the extensive engagement activities undertaken with young people, service providers, parents and carers to develop the Youth Strategy and Action Plan. Amendments were made to the table detailing methods of engagement to include: • consultations conducted internally across Council during the development of the Youth

Strategy and Action Plan • public exhibition period and number of submissions received OPTIONS: 1. Council adopts the Youth Strategy and Action Plan suite of documents. 2. Council does not adopt the Youth Strategy and Action Plan suite of documents and

seeks further information. CONCLUSION: The requirement to prepare a Youth Strategy was first identified as a key priority of the community during the consultation that informed the development of Council's 7 Year Infrastructure and Services Plan. Preparation of a Youth Strategy was also included as an action in the Operational Plan from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. The Youth Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2017 will inform the way Council engages with and responds to young people. It is recommended the Youth Strategy and Action Plan and supporting documentation be adopted. Officers have nominated the Youth Strategy and Action Plan for the 2013 Planning Institute Australia Awards for Excellence Program. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Youth Version 1.0. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Youth Strategy and Action Plan funding sources identified in the Strategic Action Tables are drawn from the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) which provides the budget for the Community Strategic Plan 2013-2023 (CSP) and includes: • Youth Strategy Funding - initially funded from Council’s 7 Year Infrastructure and

Services Plan (up to June 2013), the Long Term Financial Plan now allocates $36,477 in 2013-2014, with an annual CPI increase of 3%

• Improved Services for Shire Youth - Originally funded from Council’s 7 Year Infrastructure and Services Plan (up to June 2013), the Long Term Financial Plan allocates an annual salary for the Community Development Officer - Youth, responsible for the implementation of the Youth Strategy and Action Plan across Council

• Section 94 Contribution Plans - various contribution plans provide funding for public open spaces and community facilities that will be accessed by young people

• External funding - to be sought via application as grants become available, is another potential source of funding

The following table summarises the allocation of the $50,000 Youth Strategy Funding over the life of the Youth Strategy and Action Plan:


YOUTH STRATEGY BUDGET 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Income Youth Strategy Funding 36,477 37,571 38,698 39,858 Total Income 36,477 37,571 38,698 39,858 Expenditure Youth Council (Training/ Development, Travel, Catering, Venue Hire, Excursions, Promotional Material)

0 15,000 15,500 16,500

Youth Council Initiatives 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 Activities Funding (activation of Council and community facilities) 9,100 7,171 7,498 7,458

Sponsorship of Youth Leadership Programs 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300

Support for CoolHeads Program 4,200 4,300 4,500 4,600 Tweed Link monthly column for young people 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Tyalgum informal youth recreation space seed funds (additional grant funding to be sourced)

17,177 0 0 0

Total Expenditure 36,477 37,571 38,698 39,858 Budget Shortfall 0 0 0 0 c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Empower-We will give the community greater opportunity to participate in a transparent flow of information and feedback to Councillors who have been empowered as the Community representatives to make decisions in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Table Summarising Draft Youth Strategy and Action Plan Submissions (ECM 3185309)

Attachment 2. Youth Profile (ECM 3185220) Attachment 3. Youth Facilities Plan (ECM 3185280) Attachment 4. Case Studies (ECM 3185193) Attachment 5. Community Engagement Report (ECM 3185178) Attachment 6. Youth Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2017 (ECM 3185432)


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


40 [CNR-CM] Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council’s Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy was last reviewed in April 2008. As discussed at a workshop with Councillors on 24 October 2013, this review makes minor amendments to the Policy, clarifying eligibility, funding guidelines and includes relevant excerpt of legislation from the Local Government Act 1993. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council exhibits the Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 for a period of 28 days and accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days as per Section 160 of the Local Government Act 1993.


REPORT:

Council’s Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy was last reviewed in April 2008. As discussed at a workshop with Councillors on 24 October 2013, this review makes minor amendments to the Policy, clarifying eligibility, funding guidelines and includes the relevant excerpt of legislation from the Local Government Act 1993. Changes made to the Policy are summarised as follows: 1. Definitions: Definitions have been added to the Policy in accordance with the new policy template: Community Benefit: groups or organisations must operate from within the Tweed Shire local government area (LGA) or the funds must be used towards an activity, program or project that has a focus on community needs with a social benefit for Tweed Shire residents in the majority. Financial Assistance: is a payment made to a group or organisation towards an activity, program or project where a reciprocal benefit is not received by Council. Requests for financial assistance from service clubs such as Lions, Rotary, Apex etc are excluded. Not For Profit: is a non-government group or organisation that is not operating for the profit or gain of its individual members, whether these gains would be direct or indirect. 2. Policy: Additional points have been included in the body of the Policy. There is no longer a provision to reserve 25% of the overall budget available for determination by Council as historically the budget has been fully allocated in each of the funding rounds. 3. Related Legislation: Excerpt of legislation from Local Government Act 1993 has been included. 4. Compliance: Compliance measures have been moved from the body of the Policy to

the Compliance section of the template and include guidelines required to meet Not-for-Profit status.

The Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 is submitted for public exhibition. OPTIONS: Option 1 The Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 is placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and Council accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days. Option 2 The Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 is not placed on public exhibition and Council seeks further information.


CONCLUSION: Tweed Shire Council recognises the importance of assisting not-for-profit community groups and organisations that are interested in and working towards the enhancement and the well being of its residents. The Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 ensures this objective is met in an equitable and transparent manner. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Donations (Financial Assistance) v1.1. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Council's Community Strategic Plan 2013/2023 provides for an annual budget to be allocated for donations made in accordance with this Policy. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1 Donations (Financial Assistance) Policy Version 1.2 (ECM

3211719).


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


41 [CNR-CM] Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.2 Improve opportunities for housing choice 2.2.2 Support the supply of affordable housing, to reduce housing stress and homelessness

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper has been prepared by Thao Ashford Planning in consultation with Council officers and service providers to provide an analysis of issues contributing to homelessness in the Tweed, the geographic concentration and demographic profile of homeless populations in the Shire and a review of opportunities for enhancing service provision to the homeless. It is proposed that the findings of this issues paper inform development of a Homelessness Policy and a Protocol (based on Housing NSW Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places) to guide Council's activities in responding to homelessness in the Shire. For the Tweed Shire Housing and Homelessness Network, this research will assist with preparation of a strategic plan for the network's activities and applications made by Tweed service providers for continuing and enhanced funding for local services. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorses the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper and opportunities identified in that paper for investigation by Council.


REPORT:

Background Council’s Delivery Program 2012-2013 included the following action: 2.2.2.4.3 Develop Homelessness Policy and Protocol To inform the preparation of the Homelessness Policy, an Issues Paper has been prepared. The Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper Consultancy was advertised for a period of three weeks and closed on 17 April 2013. The aim of the consultancy was to conduct research into Homelessness in the Tweed Shire and identify issues, including an analysis of: i. geographic concentration and demographic profile of homeless populations in the

Tweed ii. issues contributing to homelessness in the Tweed including but not limited to:

• family breakdown/domestic violence • unemployment • mental health, HIV-Aids and other chronic health problems • ageing, neglect and dementia • youth leaving home and youth at risk • alcohol and other drugs • exiting from corrective service systems • children leaving State care • lack of affordable private market housing and government subsidised housing • tenancy issues/TICA and real estate practices

iii. Homeless Service Provision in the Tweed including but not limited to:

• service system gaps i.e. Prevention, Early Intervention, and Long-term support • role of outreach services in providing continuity of care • inequitable funding allocation and location of homelessness services both within

the Tweed Shire and Northern Rivers region servicing the Tweed community Thao Ashford Planning was engaged on 24 May 2013 to prepare the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper. Consultation Consultations held with internal and external stakeholders to inform preparation of the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper are detailed in the table below.


Stakeholder Method of Consultation

Purpose Timing

Council departments

• Tweed Shire Council

• Gold Coast City Council

• Targeted discussions (face to face and telephone)

To establish issues, challenges, opportunities and needs for the homelessness population in the Tweed Shire.

15/7/13-29/7/13

Service Providers

• Police • Mental Health • NSW Housing • Women's Service • St Joseph's Youth

Service


To identify the range of services and models of service provision for homelessness services in the Tweed Shire Council area. To ascertain the extent to which service providers share information, resources and planning and provision of homelessness services. Identify gaps in services and any ideas about ways to fill those gaps.

15/7/13-29/7/13

Community Organisations and Networks


• Workshop

• Follow-up workshop to review study findings, terms of reference and strategic plan

A three hour workshop facilitated with the Tweed Housing and Homelessness Network. The purpose of this workshop was to:

• Present and validate information from Stage 2;

• Discuss trends and issues affecting homelessness in the Tweed Shire;

• Identify and verify areas of need and service gaps;

• Present and explore potential delivery models and opportunities;

• Provide advice and feedback on consultation with service providers, homeless people and other stakeholders.

• 15/7/13-29/7/13 (targeted discussions)

• 1/8/13 (workshop)

• 5/9/13 (workshop)


Stakeholder Method of Consultation

Purpose Timing

Meal and Food Distribution Services

• Workshop A one-two hour workshop facilitated with the meal and food distribution services.

The purpose of this workshop was to:

• Discuss trends and issues affecting homelessness in the Tweed Shire;

• Identify and verify areas of need and service gaps;

• Identify referral pathways for homeless people and links to other homelessness services;

• Provide advice and feedback on consultation with service providers, homeless people and other stakeholders.

• 1/8/13 workshop

Homeless People • Targeted discussions (face to face)

Undertaken in pairs with service provider/case worker

To identify homelessness issues in the Council area including key locations for homeless people and current service utilisation and gaps.

29/7/13-12/8/13

Councillors and Executive Management Team

• Presentation of Information

To inform Councillors of the key findings of the research and consultations and the content of the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper and seek feedback.

• EMT 9/10/2013

• Councillors 24/10/2013

Council Officers currently engage with people who are homeless and people who provide homelessness support services in the course of their work. These include, but are not limited to, rangers and other officers operating in public space and community development officers supporting local homelessness services. The study found there are opportunities to strengthen these activities. Appendix A of the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper provides a complete list of stakeholders and services consulted.


Findings The study identifies opportunities for Council and the Tweed Shire Housing and Homelessness Network (TSHHN) to enhance local services and responses to homelessness. Section 4.2.1 of the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper provides a complete list of Council opportunities and Section 4.3.1 lists opportunities for the TSHHN. Section 5 of the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper provides a summary of the service gaps and challenges including barriers identified over the life of the project, and related opportunities. Key opportunities for Council are outlined below: • Prepare a Homelessness Policy and a Protocol (based on Housing NSW Protocol for

Homeless People in Public Places) to guide Council's activities in responding to homelessness in the Shire.

• Continue to advocate for resources for local housing options and homelessness support services, particularly supported crisis accommodation.

• Invite the NSW Police Service to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Council and other local agencies to enhance local responses to homelessness in public space.

• Source training to build the capacity of Council officers who engage with people who are homeless, including but not limited to appropriate referral to local support services. Investigate opportunities for joint training with police, real estate staff and other local agencies.

• Continue to participate as an active member of the Tweed Shire Housing and Homelessness Network, including:

- supporting community education events and activities in collaboration with the network

- assisting with strategic planning to support the network to respond to opportunities for enhancing local services.

- facilitating better collaboration and cooperation with other agencies operating in Tweed Shire

Tweed Shire Housing and Homelessness Network is proposing a planning day in early 2014 to be facilitated by Council's Community Development Officer - Social Planning. The planning day will assist the network to develop a business plan and refine its strategic direction and take action on opportunities identified in the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper. Key issues the Tweed Shire Housing and Homelessness Network may consider in its planning activities include: • developing a clear strategy or project to advocate for local resources, including crisis

accommodation • coordination of food services in Tweed Shire • options for delivering outreach services in public spaces to offer support to people who

are homeless • multi-agency learning and development activities to increase collaboration and shared

local practice in regards to providing homelessness services • engaging more directly with real estate agents to identify appropriate private housing

options


• community education about homelessness and related issues, including engaging schools.

The Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper is attached for public exhibition. OPTIONS: Option 1 The Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper is placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. Option 2 The Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper is not placed on public exhibition and Council seeks further information. CONCLUSION: The Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper has been prepared with input from key Council staff and service providers. Members of the TSHHN have lobbied NSW Government on a number of occasions (unsuccessfully) for temporary emergency accommodation in Tweed Shire. As required in the scope of work, the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper contains a profile of Homelessness in the Tweed and an analysis of service delivery that will assist applications made by Tweed service providers for continuing and enhanced funding and/or requests to government for funding to provide additional services. It is proposed that the research will also inform preparation of a Homelessness Policy and Protocol for Council. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Endorsing the Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper for public exhibition has no financial implications. Any financial obligations that arise through development of the proposed Homelessness Policy to support implementation will be outlined when the Policy is presented to Council for consideration. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION: Attachment 1. Tweed Shire Homelessness Issues Paper (ECM 3211948)


42 [CNR-CM] Coastal Zone Management Plan for Kingscliff Beach - 2014 Review and Update

SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.4 Manage the Tweed coastline to ensure a balance between utilisation and conservation 4.4.1 Recognise and accommodate natural processes and climate change

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Following severe erosion at Kingscliff Beach between 2010 to 2012 which impacted on public assets and infrastructure, Council needs to reconfirm the long term management strategy for Kingscliff Beach foreshore. A Coastal Risk Management Strategy had been adopted by Council in 2005, amended in 2008 and should now be reconsidered in light of the following: • updated information from the Tweed Shire Coastline Hazards Assessment 2013, • the request from the Minister for the Environment, and • the extent of vulnerability of Council assets to coastal erosion risk conditions as

highlighted since 2010. A Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Kingscliff Dreamtime Beach has received 50% funding from the NSW Government and will proceed following finalisation of the updated Tweed Coastline Hazard Assessment. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorses proceeding with the development of a Coastal Zone Management Plan for Kingscliff - Dreamtime Beach based on further investigation of the two preferred options of: a) terminal protection through seawall, sand nourishment and land use planning. b) planned retreat.


REPORT:

Following severe erosion at Kingscliff Beach between 2010 to 2012 which impacted on public assets and infrastructure, Council needs to reconfirm the long term management strategy for Kingscliff Beach foreshore. A Coastal Risk Management Strategy had been adopted by Council in 2005, amended in 2008 and should now be reconsidered in light of the following: • updated information from the Tweed Shire Coastline Hazards Assessment 2013, • the request from the Minister for the Environment, and • the extent of vulnerability of Council assets to coastal erosion risk conditions as

highlighted since 2010. Background In 1999 Council commenced development of a coastline management plan in accordance with the NSW Government's Coastline Management Manual (1990). The Tweed Coastline Hazard Definition Study was completed and adopted by Council in 2001. This study identified the individual coastline hazards including short and long term erosion, shoreline recession oceanic inundation and coastal entrance instability. The Study defined the Immediate, 2050 and 2100 coastal erosion hazard areas. The coastal infrastructure identified as being at most risk from Immediate coastal erosion hazard along Tweed's 37 kilometres of coastline were public and community assets at Kingscliff. These include the Cudgen Headland Surf Lifesaving Clubhouse (CHSLSC), community hall and Kingscliff Beach Holiday Park. The Tweed Shire Coastline Management Options Discussion Paper (2003) considered erosion hazard management options for Kingscliff including: • Seawall with sand nourishment, • groyne with sand nourishment (at Bowls Club or Murphys Road), • breakwater with sand nourishment, • submerged reef with sand nourishment (one large or two smaller), and • planned retreat. For the purposes of detailed exploration and costing of feasible options, the Tweed Coastline Management Study Stage 2 (2003) further considered five of the options - ‘do nothing’ is added as the baseline: • do nothing, • seawall with sand nourishment, • bowls club groyne with sand nourishment, • Murphys Road groyne with sand nourishment, and • planned retreat. These options were costed and presented to the community for consideration with the two highest ranked options, based predominantly on capital and maintenance costs, being planned retreat and seawall with sand nourishment. The Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan (2005) notes that, based on the costs calculated at the time, the capital cost of the two preferred management options, seawall or planned retreat, were comparable. The social and amenity costs were far more difficult to measure. The key factors in the decision making process to recommend the seawall option included:


• Planned retreat costing did not include removal of the Kingscliff Bowls Club due to the existence of the engineer designed terminal structure (seawall) and noting that the Club building would become more ‘proud’ of the retreating foreshore alignment (effectively becoming a headland but requiring further works on the extremities of the existing wall).

• Availability of a potential substantial sand nourishment source in the Tweed River. • Community feedback provided through public workshops and direct correspondence

demonstrated a general acceptance of the protection option. This general acceptance relied heavily on the proviso that beach amenity.

Council adopted the Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan with the management action for Kingscliff Beach being a protection strategy of flexible rock seawall and sand nourishment. Subsequently, based on consultant's advice, Council adopted a strategy of sand nourishment only (ie no rock seawall), creation of a buffer to future development, dune restoration works and a piled seawall to protect the asset at most immediate risk, Cudgen Headland Surf Life Saving Clubhouse (CHSLSC). Council commenced implementing this strategy. In August 2010, Council constructed the vertical piled seawall in front of the CHSLSC. Financial assistance of $200,000 (50% of the capital cost) was received from the NSW Government's Coastline Management Program. This wall was designed to have a volume of sand in front of it to maintain structural integrity. An investigative licence for Area 5 in the Tweed River was awarded to Council by the NSW Department of Lands. This licence allowed for Council to commence feasibility and environmental studies for a potential sand supply of about 700,000 cubic metres that had been identified in the sand shoals between Barneys Point Bridge and Rocky Point. The vulnerability of Kingscliff Beach foreshore to coastal erosion was highlighted during 2010-2012 when several Council assets were destroyed (Faulks Park access road and car park), were removed (cabins at Kingscliff Beach Holiday Park) or were at high risk of destruction (Kingscliff Beach Holiday Park amenities block). The premise of using sand nourishment alone as a protection option for public assets was brought into question given the volume of sand that was moved out of the southern Kingscliff Beach compartment during these non-storm related erosion events. In addition there was concern about the ability to replace the sand through nourishment within a short period of time and in the volumes required to be effective in protection of foreshore assets. As a result of this erosion, Council constructed a series of temporary protection works between the north training wall of Cudgen Creek and the rock seawall at the Kingscliff Bowls Club which have maintained the foreshore line in the most recent period of beach accretion. Current Assessment of Kingscliff Beach Hazard and Risk Of the options considered previously, the most feasible management options should receive more detailed assessment in development of an updated CZMP for Kingscliff - Dreamtime Beach. In December 2011 the Minister for the Environment, following advice from the NSW Coastal Panel, requested that Council update the Coastline Hazard Study and reconsider options for coastal erosion hazard management at Kingscliff including, specifically, a permeable groyne field and planned retreat.


The updated Tweed Shire Coastline Hazard Assessment 2013 is in preparation and will be presented to Council at the December meeting. The Water Research Laboratory (WRL) was commissioned to undertake a study of permeable groyne field options. This report found that permeable groynes are in general not suited to installation on the open coast such as Kingscliff where they will be subject to high energy wave conditions that can destroy the groyne in part or whole. In addition, these structures are very expensive to construct and a very high level of sand nourishment is required to maintain beach amenity down drift of the structures. Groynes are also very intrusive on the beach, reducing beach amenity further, particularly in the case of Kingscliff - Dreamtime Beach that is a long, crescent shaped beach of several kilometres. This management option should not be considered further. WRL was also commissioned by Council to consider a range of design options for a terminal wall including consideration of alignment, height, construction material and type and level of sand nourishment required for both maintenance of structural integrity and beach amenity. The findings of this report will inform the development of a preferred seawall design option. The coastal erosion hazard management options have been considered at length by the Kingscliff Foreshore Master Plan Steering Group (an internal committee of all stakeholders). This group endorsed proceeding with further consideration of a terminal seawall structure and sand nourishment. It is prepared to undertake more detailed design of the seawall to provide a greater understanding of scope and cost of this proposal. For the purposes of ensuring preferred options are reconsidered, it is recommended that planned retreat also be further considered in development of the CZMP. OPTIONS: 1. That Council endorses proceeding with the development of a Coastal Zone

Management Plan for Kingscliff – Dreamtime Beach based on further investigation of the two preferred options of a) combined terminal protection through seawall, sand nourishment and land use planning, including the more detailed design of the seawall from the Bowls Club to the Surf Life Saving club and b) planned retreat.

2. That Council commences a full study of all available management options for Kingscliff

- Dreamtime Beach in the development of a Coastal Zone Management Plan. 3. That Council does not commence development of a Coastal Zone Management Plan

for Kingscliff - Dreamtime Beach. CONCLUSION: Council is well advanced in the process of considering erosion hazard management options for Kingscliff Beach foreshore following previous adoption of the Tweed Shire Coastline Management Study and Plan (2005), numerous subsequent studies and provision of advice from the NSW State Government and others. It is important that the community be given a high level of awareness about the preferred hazard management options to enable an informed decision making process. It is envisaged that the development of the CZMP for Kingscliff - Dreamtime Beach will include a high level of community consultation and engagement.


It is important to note that any management actions taken now should not limit future management options. Land use planning controls need to be considered in any management decision, including terminal protection options, acknowledging that maintaining a seawall may be an onerous task under a scenario of a receding coastline and sea level rise. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. Coastal Protection Act 1979; Guidelines for preparing coastal zone management plans. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: The budget for development of a Coastal Zone Management Plan for Kingscliff Beach has been allocated from the existing Coastline Management Plan budget and financial assistance has been received from the NSW Government’s Coastal Management Program for 50% of the expenditure. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Involve/Collaborate-We will work with you on an ongoing basis to ensure your ideas, concerns and aspirations are considered. We will provide feedback on Council's decisions. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


43 [CNR-CM] Nomination for Tweed River Committee SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.1 Protect the environment and natural beauty of the Tweed 4.1.2 Protect, regulate and maintain natural assets (the coastline, coastal and inland waterways, biodiversity, bushland and scenic

landscapes) for current and future generations

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At its meeting of 19 September 2013, Council resolved as follows: "that, as stated in the terms of reference that Council appoints a new member of the Tweed River Committee and a position has become available, and that this community position be advertised inviting expressions of interest." The position was advertised and two nominations were received by the closing date. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council appoints Robert Modystack as a community member of the Tweed River

Committee for the remainder of the current term of this Committee. 2 ATTACHMENTS 1 and 2 are CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2)

of the Local Government Act 1993, because they contain: (a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).


REPORT:

Following the resignation of a community representative on the Tweed River Committee, Council resolved at its meeting of 19 September 2013 as follows: "that, as stated in the terms of reference that Council appoints a new member of the Tweed River Committee and a position has become available, and that this community position be advertised inviting expressions of interest." An advertisement was placed in the Tweed Link on 1 October 2013 and two nominations were received. Copies of the nominations and letters of reference are included as a confidential attachment to this report. Following consideration of the nominations, it is recommended that Robert Modystack be invited to become a member of the Tweed River Committee until the end of its current term. OPTIONS: 1. That Council accepts the nomination of Robert Modystack. 2. That Council does not accept the nomination of Robert Modystack. CONCLUSION: That Robert Modystack be invited to become a member of the Tweed River Committee until the end of its current term. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

(Confidential) Attachment 1. Nomination 1 (ECM 3197036). (Confidential) Attachment 2. Nomination 2 (ECM 3189712).


44 [CNR-CM] Stairs to Beach at Chinderah SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK:

4 Caring for the Environment 4.1 Protect the environment and natural beauty of the Tweed 4.1.3 Manage and regulate the natural and built environments

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council at its meeting of 15 August 2013 resolved: "that Council bring forward a brief report outlining options to improve access to the small beach near the Chinderah Hotel." Council officers have inspected the beach adjacent to Chinderah Bay Drive and have determined that it will be possible to build a set of hardwood timber (or recycled plastic) stairs from the park down to the beach. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council proceeds with detailed design and construction of a set of stairs to the beach at Chinderah.


REPORT:

Council officers have inspected the beach adjacent to Chinderah Bay Drive and have determined that it will be possible to build a set of hardwood timber (or recycled plastic) stairs from the park down to the beach and would be anchored top and bottom with concrete footings. The stairs will be designed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards. OPTIONS: 1. Council proceeds as per the recommendation. 2. Council does not proceed with the project. CONCLUSION: This project can be accomplished within existing resources of the Waterways Program. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: It is estimated that the materials and labour cost of this project would be approximately $3000. The project can be funded from the Waterways Asset Maintenance budget. c. Legal: Not applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


45 [CNR-CM] River Health Grants SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.1 Protect the environment and natural beauty of the Tweed 4.1.2 Protect, regulate and maintain natural assets (the coastline, coastal and inland waterways, biodiversity, bushland and scenic

landscapes) for current and future generations

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report provides Council with details of proposed investments in river and riparian management, through implementation of the River Health Grants Program. The goal of this project is to improve the quality of Tweed Waterways by subsidising works on private properties, for example by revegetation, weed control and provision of off stream water for cattle. The source of funding for this program is the Water Unit mandatory dividend for water and sewerage. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council approves the proposed River Health Grants included within this report.


REPORT:

Since June 2006 Council has worked with riparian landowners to initiate projects which protect and improve water quality and stream bank condition. The goal of this program is to enhance the environmental condition of Tweed waterways, improve the water quality of raw water extracted for treatment at Bray Park. At the March 2013 meeting, Council approved to amend the Water Supply Catchment Stream Bank Protection Version 1.2 to include subsidisation of riparian rehabilitation works in all natural waterways of the Shire, and renamed the River Health Grants policy. The amended policy was on exhibition for 28 days up to 28 May 2013. The River Health Grants Program has been successful in attracting a diverse range of landholders, from traditional farmers to rural lifestyle property owners and has made an immediate improvement in the riparian conditions of treated areas. In each case of funding, an agreement with land holders will be signed that details Council's contribution to the project and the commitments and responsibilities of the land holder. There are three projects included in this report. All projects build upon work already undertaken by the landowners. The project at Chillingham includes weed control amongst riparian plantings and targets Madeira vine (a weed of national significance), devils fig and lantana and includes a small riparian planting of 200 trees. The landowner will maintain the site after the works are completed. The second project includes providing 250 trees and two days contractor labour to plant a recently prepared site along the Tweed River near Uki which was completely smothered by lantana, barna grass and Madeira vine. In both cases, the landowners will be trained in bush regeneration techniques as part of the project to ensure the sites are well maintained. The third project recommended is river bank stabilisation on Burringbar Creek. The site has been subject to severe erosion during flood events. Works will reduce the input of sediment to the waterway and improve waterway condition by increasing native vegetation cover. The owner of the land where the work is proposed to be undertaken will be contributing significant cash resources to the project, in excess of that requested from Council.

Property Owner Locality

Stream frontage (m)

Objective of works Council contribution

Gillieat Chillingham 100 Control environmental weeds and restore native riparian vegetation to reduce bank erosion.

$2,500

Wooley Uki 100 Revegetate Tweed river bank where weeds have been removed.

$1,850

Michael Burringbar 70 Stabilisation of bank erosion and revegetation $13,000

CONCLUSION: The projects nominated for approval in this round of river health grant agreements includes significant in-kind contributions from the property owners. The projects will achieve the aims of the River Health Grants Scheme, and are in accord with the Water Supply Catchment Stream Bank Protection Policy.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Water Supply Catchment Stream Bank Protection Version 1.2. River Health Grants b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Funding is provided through the Catchment Water Quality program. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


46 [CNR-CM] Grant for "Developing Natural Resource Management and Biological Farming Plans for Farmers on the Cudgen Plateau"

SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.5 Improve the environmental capacity of the Tweed agriculture lands 4.5.3 Provide information and support on sustainable land use practices to the agricultural community

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council has been offered financial assistance through the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority to assist farmers on the Cudgen Plateau to develop biological farming and natural resource management farm plans. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Accepts the grant funding of $17,150 for 'Developing natural resource

management and biological farming plans for farmers on the Cudgen plateau' offered through the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.

2. Votes the expenditure.


REPORT:

Council has been offered financial assistance through the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority to assist farmers on the Cudgen Plateau to develop biological farming and natural resource management farm plans. This project will assist 15 commercial farmers on the Cudgen Plateau to: • identify the natural resource management issues on their land; • develop natural resource management and biological farming plans; • reduce chemical usage and improve sustainable farming practises; and • promote a 'clean and green' production system image that contributes to the commercial

viability of local farming enterprises. Following is a copy of the letter received from Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.


OPTIONS: 1. Council accepts the grant. 2. Council does not accept the grant. CONCLUSION: This project will assist farmers to review their current management practices and identify opportunities to improve farm productivity, viability and environmental management outcomes. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Council’s River Health Grants program will provide $1875 for the soil testing component of the project. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


47 [CNR-CM] Biofund Koala Connections Project Status Update SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.2 Conserve native flora and fauna and their habitats 4.2.2 Encourage and promote rehabilitation and management of native vegetation and wildlife habitat in Tweed Shire

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council resolved at the June 2012 Council meeting to accept a Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Biodiversity Fund of $2,017,000 awarded to Tweed and Byron Shire Councils to implement Linking Koala Habitat and Endangered Ecological Communities. The project, known as Koala Connections is managed and administered by Tweed Shire Council. In accordance with the application, a further $100,000 over three years will be contributed to the project from Council’s Biodiversity Grant Program. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an information update on project outcomes to date and identify priorities for the next six months. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the current status of the Koala Connections project including the planned priorities for the remainder of the current project period.


REPORT:

Council resolved at the June 2012 Council meeting to accept a Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Biodiversity Fund of $2,017,000 awarded to Tweed and Byron Shire Councils to implement Linking Koala Habitat and Endangered Ecological Communities. The project, known as Koala Connections is managed and administered by Tweed Shire Council. In accordance with the application, a further $100,000 over three years will be contributed to the project from Council’s Biodiversity Grant Program. The project will implement critical on-ground and educational actions arising from the Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study (TCKHS), the Byron Coast Koala Habitat Study, the Tweed Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (TCKPOM) and the Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management, which are currently in preparation. Specific actions will include: • restoration of existing koala habitat • connecting fragmented habitats through revegetation on private and public land • installation of strategic fencing to restrict stock and prevent koala road strikes • connecting landholders, community groups and individuals through educational media

releases, training workshops and community tree planting working bees. Together, these actions will help to provide a secure future for koalas on the Tweed Coast and the Byron Coast and foster a sense of stewardship with landholders and the broader community. The project is now in the second year of implementation and the purpose of this report is to provide an information update on project outcomes to date and identify priorities for the next six months. The project commenced in July 2012 in both shires and will be continue to be implemented through the four year period until June 2016. An official launch held in June 2013 attracted significant media coverage and there has been a high level of community interest in the project, including from landowners keen to participate. A Steering Committee comprising representatives from each council, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Friends of the Koala, Tweed Landcare, Byron Landcare, Aboriginal Land Council and the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority has been established. The Committee meets bi-monthly and their role is to: • assume responsibility for the project's feasibility, project plan and achievement of

outcomes • ensure the project's scope aligns with the requirements of key stakeholders • provide those directly involved in the project with guidance on project business issues • ensure effort and expenditure is appropriate to stakeholder expectations • address any issue that has major implications for the project • keep the project scope under control as emergent issues force changes to be considered • reconcile differences in opinion and approach, and resolve disputes arising from them • report on project progress to project sponsor and steering committee parent

organisations • assume responsibility for any whole-of-government issues associated with the project.


Key deliverables The project is monitored and reported against key deliverables including the timely completion and number of: • landholders engaged • trees planted • workshops held • sites with bush regeneration activities implemented • invasive species action plans developed and implemented • fire management plan developed and implemented • monitoring and evaluation of works undertaken. Sites Sites for undertaking revegetation and restoration activities are selected subject to a selection and prioritisation protocol based on property location and landholder interest. Key location factors include known koala populations and key linkages, proximity to Pacific Highway connectivity measures, adjacency to national parks, council community land or other landholders involved in the program. Sixty property assessments with 28 progressing to site action planning and works have been undertaken to date in Byron Shire. Twenty-two property assessments, with five progressing to site action planning and works have been completed in Tweed Shire. An invitation to participate has been sent to 600 landholders within the project area with 160 positive responses received. Sites where more than 50 plants are being established require the landholder to enter into a landholder agreement with the relevant Council. These agreements establish both parties’ responsibilities with respect to supply of materials, labour and maintenance of the revegetated or restored area. Works on properties has resulted in the establishment of 7580 trees in the first project year (to June 2013). This is less than 50% of the targeted 21,000 trees to be planted during this period due to delays associated with negotiating and confirming landholder agreements in the early part of the year and dry conditions in the latter. Invasive species management Each property for which a site action plan is prepared is also assessed for invasive species issues. Measures to address these issues are incorporated to the site action plan and support provided to landholders to implement the recommended actions. An extensive monitoring program is underway using remote motion activated cameras to identify invasive species activity. This program is being undertaken in conjunction with a cross border regional project facilitated by Biosecurity Queensland which aims to improve wild dog management in peri-urban areas. Data from the program has confirmed a high level of wild dog activity in the project area including significant overlap in the occurrence of wild dogs and koalas at monitored sites.


Fire management Managing the impact of wildfire on koalas is also an integral element of the project and works to address this are underway in conjunction with the Northern Rivers Fire and Biodiversity Consortium. This work will facilitate a cross tenure management strategy that reconciles hazard management and koala conservation. Working with partners including the NSW Rural Fire Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Nature Conservation Council and landholders, a management approach that can be transferred to other locations will be developed and implemented. Community engagement Extensive community engagement has been undertaken and will continue throughout the project. In addition to direct contact to secure landholder involvement, the broader community are a key audience with regard to seeking to improve knowledge and behaviour in relation to koala habitat protection, domestic animal management, fire management, vehicle strike and reporting koala sightings. The community engagement plan incorporates working with key partners to deliver targeted workshops on relevant issues including seed collection and propagation, koala survey techniques and habitat protection. General promotion and engagement activities including displays, media articles and tree planting events will continue to be delivered throughout the project. Priorities for current project period (to June 2014, comprising Stage 3 and Stage 4) The project is currently in Stage 3 of 8 and preliminary works undertaken to date to establish protocols, engage with the community and key stakeholders will ensure that required outcomes to meet deliverables will be successfully undertaken during this project period. The focus areas for site assessment and engagement for the current period include Sleepy Hollow, Fernvale and Farrants Hill. Desktop assessment of all expressions of interest received have prioritised these focus areas for the current period due to significance of location in relation to koala habitat and key linkages, together with the opportunity to work with clusters of sites to enhance landscape scale outcomes. Works will also continue in Round Mountain, Duranbah and Forest Hill where existing sites will be further developed and new sites in key locations engaged. Planning and implementation of works on public lands is also intended to occur. Sites including Cudgen Nature Reserve, Pottsville Environment Park and council managed Crown land at Wooyung will all be included to the project. Standardised implementation of monitoring and evaluation is an important aspect of works for the current project period. Evidence based records of on ground outcomes are collected by contractors implementing works or by project officers, dependent on the nature and scale of the works. This includes basic photo monitoring, record of species planted and/or treatment area and methods for bush regeneration. CONCLUSION: The Koala Connections project is a highly significant opportunity to work with the community and key stakeholders to address critical threats to the Tweed Coast koala population. Works to date have established a solid foundation from which to continue delivery of intended outcomes, including addressing some shortfalls in regards to number of trees planted to date. There has been significant interest from the community, both in regards to general engagement and interest in establishing koala habitat on private land.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: $2,017,000 from Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Biodiversity fund LSP-947456-1336, which is augmented with a further $100,000 over four years from Council's Biodiversity Grant Program. The expenditure to date on the project is $204,591, including project partner contributions. This project demonstrates significant leveraging of Council investment in the area of Natural Resource Management, representing a significant financial contribution to the local economy that would otherwise not occur in the Shire. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


48 [CNR-CM] Biofund Koala Connections Project Implementation SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.2 Conserve native flora and fauna and their habitats 4.2.2 Encourage and promote rehabilitation and management of native vegetation and wildlife habitat in Tweed Shire

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council resolved at the June 2012 Council meeting to accept a Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Biodiversity Fund of $2,017,000 awarded to Tweed and Byron Shire Councils to implement Linking Koala Habitat and Endangered Ecological Communities. The project, known as Koala Connections, is managed and administered by Tweed Shire Council. In accordance with the application, a further $100,000 over three years will be contributed to the project from Council’s Biodiversity Grant Program. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to fund two private properties as listed within the report, in accordance with the provisions of the grant. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council approves the proposed funding to assist private landowners to undertake the projects listed in the table contained within the report.


REPORT:

Council resolved at the June 2012 Council meeting to accept a Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Biodiversity Fund of $2,017,000 awarded to Tweed and Byron Shire Councils to implement Linking Koala Habitat and Endangered Ecological Communities. The project, known as Koala Connections is managed and administered by Tweed Shire Council. In accordance with the application, a further $100,000 over three years will be contributed to the project from Council’s Biodiversity Grant Program. The project will implement critical on-ground and educational actions arising from the Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study (TCKHS) and the Tweed Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (TCKPOM), which is currently in preparation. Specific actions will include: • Restoration of existing Koala habitat. • Connecting fragmented habitats through revegetation on private and public land. • Installation of strategic fencing to restrict stock and prevent Koala road strikes. • Connecting landholders, community groups and individuals through educational media

releases, training workshops and community tree planting working bees. Together, these actions will help to provide a secure future for Koalas on the Tweed Coast and foster a sense of stewardship with landholders and the broader community. The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to fund two private landowners, as listed below, in accordance with the provisions of the Grant. The proposed works involve the provision of services by professional bushland regenerators and fencing contractors to undertake fencing, weed control, tree planting, monitoring and evaluation and to assist the landholders to more effectively manage environmental weeds and ensure survival of the trees.

Name Area Details Cost Estimate ($excl. GST)

Kellalea Pottsville

Planting up to 790 trees with guards Follow-up weed control in planting areas over 3 years. Monitoring and evaluation

$16,980

Spencer Sleepy Hollow

Planting up to 100 trees Supply and install 300m length of fencing to protect trees from cattle and horses Follow-up weed control in planting areas over 3 years. Monitoring and evaluation

$7,950

TOTAL $24,930


OPTIONS: 1. That Council approves the proposed funding to assist private landholders to undertake

the projects listed in the table contained within this report.

2. That Council does not approve the proposed funding to assist private landholders to undertake the projects listed in the table contained within this report.

CONCLUSION: The proposed works will significantly enhance koala habitat, Endangered Ecological Communities and fauna corridors in the Round Mountain/Bogangar area and will contribute to implementation of recommendations in the Draft Comprehensive Tweed Coast Koala Plan of Management. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: $2,017,000 from Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Biodiversity fund LSP-947456-1336, which is augmented with a further $100,000 over four years from Council's Biodiversity Grant Program. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


49 [CNR-CM] Pest Management Report - March to August 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Natural Resource Management

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.1 Protect the environment and natural beauty of the Tweed SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report outlines the works undertaken by the Tweed Shire Council Pest Management Program Area to control the impacts of nuisance biting insects and vermin in the Tweed Shire for the period from March 2013 to August 2013 (inclusive). RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes this report and that scheduled works continue.


REPORT:

MOSQUITOES There were 7 enquires relating to mosquitoes during the reporting period, which were spread across the shire. Seasonal abundance The most frequently caught Mosquitoes in carbon dioxide baited mosquito traps were Culex annulirostris, Verrallina funerea, and Aedes notoscriptus. Table 1 below shows that there were above long-term average numbers of mosquitoes trapped in carbon dioxide baited mosquito traps for most of the report period. This is believed to be due to the extreme wet weather patterns received in the Tweed Shire. Table 1 – Numbers of Mosquitoes trapped at Piggabeen and Terranora, 2013

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

Piggabeen

Terranora

LTA Pigg

LTA Terra.

Piggabeen and Terranora


Table 2 shows the numbers of Mosquitoes trapped from Koala Beach Estate from November 2012 – August 2013. This year is the first year that data has been collected on Mosquito populations at Koala Beach. As such, no comparison with long term average is available. Table 2- Mosquito umbers trapped at Koala Beach Estate, 2013.

Control There was no control works required during the report period. Arbovirus There were 42 arbovirus notifications in the Tweed Shire during the report period. As shown in the chart below, there were 15 Ross River and 27 Barmah Forest virus cases. Notifications during this reporting period have increased when compared to the previous period when 20 arbovirus notifications were reported. Both Barmah Forest and Ross River Virus notifications are higher than the long-term average. Live mosquito catches are being sent to Westmead Hospital Medical Entomology Department. On the 25th of March the virus Stratford was recorded from Aedes vigilax caught at one of our light trap sites at Beltana Drive Terranora. Aedes vigilax is a Mosquito

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

Piggabeen

Terranora

LTA Pigg

LTA Terra.

Piggabeen and Terranora


species that is accepted as the major vector of Ross River and Barmah Forest virus in coastal areas of NSW. It is also known to carry dog heartworm. Table 3: Arbovirus notification 2013

Terranora Mangrove breeding mosquito research project Monitoring of the Mahers Lane site has been ongoing during the reporting period. Further habitat modification works are being planned for the site in the near future. BITING MIDGE Seasonal activity As shown in Table 4, canal breeding midge larval numbers at test sites were below the seasonal average for most of the report period, reaching the long term average in the month of June. Table 4: Results of canal breeding midge larval sampling.

Complaints and Enquiries There were 5 enquiries relating to biting midges during the reporting period.


Control Control works are implemented by Gold Coast City Council during the month of July. OTHER PESTS Enquiries from Community There were 36 miscellaneous enquiries/service requests during the report period. The most common enquiries related to Ants, Rabbits and Pandanus. Council Rodent control Rodent baiting was carried out over the report period around coastal holiday parks, sewer treatment plants, adjacent to several drainage reserves and infested sections of Tweed River rock walls. Pandanus Plant-hoppers Monitoring of Pandanus trees in coastal areas for planthopper related dieback is continuing with some Pandanus Plant-hopper activity in the Fingal dune area behind Lagoon road. Termites Inspection of 311 in-ground termite bait stations was carried out around Council owned buildings. Two active Termites stations were found. CONCLUSION: Overall, on-ground works undertaken achieved their objectives of controlling the impacts of nuisance invertebrate species and vermin to an acceptable level within known areas of occurrence within Tweed Shire. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Consistent with expectations, 66% of the 2013/2014 budget has been expended. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


50 [CNR-CM] Feasibility of Collection of Household Batteries within Various Commercial Business Districts

SUBMITTED BY: Waste Management

FILE REFERENCE: Valid

2 Supporting Community Life

2.3 Provide well serviced neighbourhoods

2.3.4 Provision of high quality, best practice, solid waste disposal with energy recovery, and improving resource recovery

practices and infrastructure which meets health and environmental requirements and projected demand

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At its meeting of 16 May 2013, Council resolved as follows: "that Council Officers bring forward a report on the feasibility of establishing a business partnership model for the collection and recycling of household batteries within various commercial business districts." Officers have investigated options to support household battery recycling. In preparation to undertake such activities, approval was sought from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for an allocation of funds from within the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program (WaSIP) to allow funding for the program. Approval was received from the EPA in September with the EPA approved WaSIP program to be considered by Council at the November 2013 meeting. A budget of $25,000 has been provided for the program. Quotes have been sought from firms able to process batteries, the details of which are included in the body of this report. Council has investigated opportunities that currently exist for battery drop off and has proposed a number of options that may allow the expansion and support of this network. The recommendations of this report revolve around Council remaining as the primary means of contact for the processing of batteries through free disposal at the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre. It is also recommended that Council does not enter the market for collection of batteries as this will upset current arrangements and there are discussions from a Federal perspective on the establishment of a scheme under an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme similar to that currently offered for electronic waste.


RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Continues to provide battery recycling at Stotts Creek Resource Recovery

Centre as a fee free service. 2. Supports small businesses within the Shire who wish to accept batteries at their

place of business by allowing the drop off of batteries as a fee free service at the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre.

3. Includes information on the Council website of places where people can drop off

batteries.


REPORT:

Background Council, through the Stott’s Creek Resource Recovery Centre, currently manages a range of waste streams which have been identified by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority as having potential to cause environmental harm if managed inappropriately. These waste streams include, but are not limited to, paints, pesticides, fuels, electronic waste (E-waste), compact florescent light bulbs, oil, batteries (car and household), smoke alarms, gas bottles and fire extinguishers. The Stott’s Creek Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) manages these waste streams under an approved Environmental Protection Licence in accordance with NSW Environmental Guidelines and Work Health Safety requirements. Funding for the processing of these waste streams has historically been provided by Tweed Shire Council through waste management charges at Stotts Creek RRC and Council’s Domestic Waste Management charge which is levied against the rates. There are significant costs associated with receiving, handling, transporting and processing these waste streams to ensure environmental and safety requirements are adhered to. Cost and funding Council has allocated $25,000 for 2013/14 financial year for the processing of household batteries at Stotts Creek RRC using EPA funding. In November 2012 Council requested quotations from a number of reputable battery recycling providers and received prices of between $1000 and $7000 per tonne based on the type of battery being recycled (ie. non-ULAB, NiCad Vented, Lithium prima). This allows for approximately 4-6 tonnes of batteries to be processed in total. Should Council elect to run a collection program throughout the shire the cost would increase drastically and we would need to adjust the amount of processing available. There is also the issue of ongoing funding for the program as the EPA funding that was previously available is not ongoing. As such any ongoing program would need to be funded by Council and the program will be more sustainable if only the prime cost of disposal is borne by Council. NSW Government funding opportunities Recently battery recycling has been identified as a potential waste stream that will be funded under a “Waste Less, Recycle More”(WLRM) program outlined in the NSW draft Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) strategy. Funding for battery recycling will be delivered through a state-wide network of permanent drop off points for household waste streams which will include household batteries. Currently Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre is an identified permanent drop off point for E-Waste under the product stewardship program where all processing costs are paid for by the State Government. Thus it is possible to offer the drop off of E-waste at no significant cost to Tweed Council residents. It should be noted that the “Waste Less, Recycle More” program is being directly funded by the NSW waste levy which Tweed Council has been paying for the NSW waste levy which currently sits at $53.70 per tonne of waste landfilled at Stotts. Current Battery recycling opportunities in Tweed Currently at the Stott’s Creek Resource Recovery Centre, household and larger batteries are collected, stored and then transported off site for processing where salvageable materials are recovered and non-reusable materials are appropriately landfilled. Over the


past 12 months approximately 20 tonnes of larger car type batteries have been collected at the Stotts RRC and whilst household battery recycling has only been established at Stotts in the past six months approximately only 10kg of small household batteries have been dropped off. Batteries in Wheelie Bins At the start of May 2013 a waste characterisation study was conducted throughout the Shire using 220 randomly selected domestic waste wheelie bins. Waste from individual bins was separated and weighed into various waste streams which included household batteries. A relatively small quantity of household batteries (1.5 kg of the total 1826 kg) was recorded in these bins. It can be concluded from the study that household batteries are still being landfilled through the domestic waste stream in spite of the current collection/drop off points. Economic Advantage Council funding of battery collection points at private businesses has the potential to disrupt the current market which is slowly being established. There are already a number of small businesses that are offering the service as well as some larger establish names such as Battery World and ALDI. Officers can continue to work with these and other businesses to establish more drop-off locations and advertise these to improve awareness of the service. Cost Council has a current service agreement with MRI (Aust) Pty Ltd to process household batteries which is based on the type of battery ranging between $1980 and $7000 per tonne. OPTIONS: 1. Council can opt to support the market for battery recycling by allowing free disposal of

household batteries at the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre and by providing information on the Council web site of where residents can drop batteries off.

2. Council may wish to take a more active role or less active role. CONCLUSION: With limited funding currently available Council can best support the market for household battery recycling by providing free disposal at the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre and by ensuring information as to where residents can drop off household batteries is readily available through the website and on the corporate knowledge base. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: There is currently an allocation of $25,000 to cover this service. If no Federal Extended Producer Responsibility scheme is established by the time these funds are exhausted Council will need to consider how it proposes to fund this in future years. c. Legal: Not applicable.


d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


51 [CNR-CM] Approval of Program of Works for Environment Protection Authority Funded Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program


Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.3 Provide well serviced neighbourhoods 2.3.4 Provision of high quality, best practice, solid waste disposal with energy recovery, and improving resource recovery practices and

infrastructure which meets health and environmental requirements and projected demand

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Councils that are in waste levy paying areas of NSW have the ability to submit programs of work for consideration that will be funded by the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Scheme (WaSIP). Council submitted a program of works for consideration for 2012/13. Advice has now been provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) that the 2012/13 program will be the last program to receive funding under the WaSIP program. The funding submission has now been endorsed by the OEH for $500,190. Council has $281,868.09 to roll over from previous years with which to undertake the proposed program of works. The attached action table outlines the program of work as approved by the OEH. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Endorses the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Scheme (WaSIP) projects

as detailed in the report and as approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage.

2. Votes the expenditure.


REPORT:

In 2009 the waste levy that was charged by the NSW State Government under Section 88 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 was extended to cover all coastal areas of NSW and the Blue Mountains. The levy was introduced on 1 July 2009 and $10 per tonne and is due to increase by $10 plus CPI per year until 2015/16. In 2013/14 the levy is currently $53.10 per tonne. Prior to this only the Sydney, Wollongong and Hunter Region had attracted the levy. Under the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 there is provision to apply for a Waste and Sustainability Payment in relation to the compliance with conditioning in the Waste and Sustainability guidelines. The standards that are required to be met as a prerequisite to payment of the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment include: • Council to have in place a Waste Not Development Control Plan (DCP) or a program of a

similar nature by 31 May 2012.

• Council to develop and adopt a Strategic Waste Action Plan that contains performance milestones that will contribute to Council reaching the 2014 municipal waste target.

• Submit the audit report and raw data sheets from the household residual waste

composition audit completed November 2010 and November 2011 (Council has been exempted from this requirement).

A number of ongoing standards must also be adopted including:

• All residential dwellings, other than Multi Unit Dwellings, within the local government area

are to have access to a dry recycling collection service. As a minimum this will involve kerbside collection in towns and population centres, and drop off facilities for non urban areas.

• Provide the OEH with the information required under the National Environmental

Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure by 31 August each year. • Collect and provide OEH with baseline data where known on tonnages of dry recyclables

and garden organics collected for recycling, including contamination levels, and residual domestic waste by 31 August each year.

• A baseline household residual waste audit is to be completed. Council has successfully

received an exemption from this based on submitting a previous audit competed in 2009. • Any new collection and or MGB replacement contracts to require bin bodied and bin lids

to conform to Australian Standards. • The requirement to replace damaged or lost MGBs with bin lids that conform to the

Australian Standards. Tweed Shire has made the commitment to the standards and is therefore eligible to receive the WaSIP funding for 2012/13 of $500,190.07.


As part of the conditioning for receiving the WaSIP payment, Council needs to submit an action table for approval that will outline how Council proposes to allocate the grant funding. The tables have been approved by the OEH and will assist Council to achieve its objective in relation to recycling and sustainability. The first table outlines the total program including allocations left over from previous years. The second table shows the 2012/13 program. Description Allocation Expenditure Balance Public place recycling 18,181.82 7320.43 10,861.39 Sustainable action plan 90,909.09 90,909.09 Waste Strategy 109,181.85 90,187.20 18,994.65 Plastic bag free townships 30,653.73 30,653.73 0 Tyre recycling 36,363.77 23,961.80 12,401.97 Back to basics recycling education 40,909.10 34,389.57 6,519.53 Electronic waste recycling 69,720.55 69,720.55 0 Landfill lids 227,272.73 218,880.48 8,392.25 Future waste reduction programs 217,123.34 217,123.34 Festivals and events 4545.45 1293.96 3251.49 Retrofit MRF 45,454.55 29,900.00 15,554.55 SLC solar panels 18,181.82 18,181.82 0 Banner poles 13,636.36 7494.21 6142.15 Household battery recycling 22,727.27 22,727.27 Hazardous waste recycling 45,454.55 45,454.55 Public place bin enclosure signage 5545.45 5245.45 TRAG – Energy efficient lighting 118,181.82 118,181.82 TRAG – Energy efficient chiller 136,363.64 136,363.64 Total 1,250,406.89 531,983.75 718,423.14 The current program includes: 2012/13 Program works Sustainable action plan 90,909.09 Waste Strategy 36,454.55 Plastic bag free townships 7926.43 Electronic waste recycling 28,811.45 Future waste reduction programs 7815.82 Household battery recycling 22,727.27 Hazardous waste recycling 45,454.55 Public place bin enclosure signage 5545.45 TRAG – Energy efficient lighting 118,181.82 TRAG – Energy efficient chiller 136,363.64 Total 500,190.07 Nominated Projects Sustainable action plan This project is a continuation of the 2009/10 and 2010/11 WaSIP project that scoped a Sustainability action plan and undertook a gaps analysis. This project will now create an overarching Sustainability Action Plan using the work completed to date to assist Council by providing a clear position, strategy and actions to guide environmental sustainability for the


organisation in terms of waste reduction, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and the natural environment. Waste Strategy Provision of an integrated waste strategy that will provide Council with guidance on meeting the State Government Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) targets in relation to resource recovery. Plastic bag free townships This allocation is to meet commitments from prior years. Electronic waste recycling This is an allocation of funding toward the cost of recycling and processing electronic waste including computers, monitors, peripherals and televisions. Future waste reduction programs The new Waste Strategy will identify programs that will require significant investment. These funds will be quarantined to assist in meeting these objectives. Household battery recycling This is an allocation of funding toward the processing cost of household batteries that are to be collected over the next two years. Hazardous waste recycling Council has constructed a household hazardous waste drop off facility at the Stotts Creek Landfill facility, and this allocation will allow Council to service the facility by disposing of the product presented. Public place bin enclosure signage This allocation is for the replacement of the old signage with larger long lasting educational signs. TRAG energy efficient lighting and upgrade of the chiller This will allow the fitting of energy efficient long life LED lighting and the replacement of the existing chiller with a highly efficient static control temperature and humidity chiller at the Tweed River Art Gallery. This required approval under a separate cover and this has now been received. OPTIONS: Council has the option of approving the program and accepting the funds as provided under the proposed program of works. There is also the option to refuse the funding and return it to the EPA or of alternatively seeking approval to modify the program of works and quarantining the funds until such approval is forthcoming, should the EPA endorse the request. CONCLUSION: Council should endorse the program of work as submitted and proceed to implement the works as outlined in the action plan utilising the WaSIP funding. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: As per the body of the report. c. Legal: WaSIP funds are used to subsidise environmental projects that Council has not previously set aside funding for. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


52 [CNR-CM] EC2013-139 Management of the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre


Valid



SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report outlines the options that Council may wish to consider in awarding a contract to manage the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre. Council’s Stotts Creek Landfill is currently managed under Contract EC2011-049 by Solo Resource Recovery. This contract is due to expire on 30 November 2013. Tenders were advertised to renew this contract (EC2013-139) and only one submission was received which was from Solo Resource Recovery. This submission was not seen as being in the best interest of Council as there has been a substantial change in the way the site is being managed with the focus changing from land filling of waste to the loading and transport of waste for processing and disposal at an alternate site, and the tender and proposal as presented did not adequately represent the changed operations. This would have lead to a significant cost advantage to the contractor should Council continue to focus on exporting waste, without there being any saving to Council that would reflect the reduced cost of operating the contract. A recommendation was put to Council at the September meeting to decline all tenders as per Section 178(1)(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, and to enter into negotiations with Solo Resource Recovery to determine an arrangement to manage the site. This recommendation was adopted by Council and an alternate offer has now been received, the details of which are included in the body of this report. The alternate proposal places an element of risk back on Council by providing works to be undertaken under schedules of rates for the processing of green waste and the disposal of leachate. The increase risk is potentially offset by significant savings on the overall cost of the contract. The revised offer as proposed by Solo Resource Recovery would appear to provide value for money to Council.


RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council accepts the alternate proposal for EC2013-139 Management of the Stotts

Creek Resource Recovery Centre as submitted by Solo Resource Recovery and awards a contract for the lump sum amount of $833,674 (GST exclusive) for the management of the Bulk Haul and landfill operations, and schedule of rates amounts for the transport and disposal of leachate, and processing of green waste with a total value of the contract based on an upper fee limit of $2,000,000 and prepares contract documentation for signature with a duration of one year with a possible extension of a further one year at Council's discretion.

2. The General Manager be given delegated authority to approve variations up to

10% of the initial contract sum to a maximum of $150,000 and those variations be reported to Council.


REPORT:

Contract EC2011-049 to manage the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre is currently held by Solo Resource Recovery. The works include managing the landfill operations, managing the recycling and transfer station, monitoring and managing environmental controls, salvaging reusable and recyclable materials, processing and disposing of green waste, running the tip shop, and other ancillary activities at the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Facility. The Contract is due to expire on 20 November 2013. Tender Number EC2013-139 was advertised in July 2013 with the intent of replacing the current contract at the end of its term. Previously, a variation to Contract EC2011-049 had been negotiated and the contract was amended to materially change the way waste was handled on the site to include the loading of waste into large transport vehicles for disposal on an alternate site, and the processing and removal of green waste. These negotiations were brought about due to the failure of the prior green waste processing contractor, and as a result of Council entering a contract with Veolia to transport and dispose of waste at their best practice landfills in South East Queensland. The advantages of transferring waste include the avoidance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) levy payment whilst prolonging the life of the Stotts Island landfill which will allow Council to complete the new Eviron Road Quarry and Landfill project. The facility where the waste is being taken for disposal is a best practice landfill with state of the art environmental controls and full gas recovery. The tender advertised in July (EC2013-139) consolidated these amendments into a revised working document and was for a period of one year with the ability to extend for a further year at Councils discretion. Solo Resource Recovery was the only tenderer and their tender was found to be conforming, however the submission as received was not believed to be in the best interest of Council as the contract disadvantaged Council if they chose to focus on transport and disposal of waste rather than disposing of waste at the site. The Contractor would have been financially rewarded in this circumstance however through a significant reduction in operational cost and risk. As a result of this anomaly a report was put to Council meeting of 16 September recommending that Council resolve to decline all tenders as per Section 178(1)(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, and that the Director Community and Natural Resources be authorised to negotiate with Solo Resource Recovery as the only tenderer to establish a contract acceptable to Council to Manage those elements of the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Facility included in EC2013-139. A further report was to be put back to Council outlining the results of those negotiations. This recommendation was adopted by Council and this report outlines the results of the negotiations between Council officers and Solo Resource Recovery. Meetings were held with Solo and Council officers and a revised offer has now been received. The revised offer includes both fixed cost components and a schedule of rates for the various activities that Council is asking the contractor to undertake at the site. These


rates have been compiled into a cost model on the basis of the 2012/13 years tonnages to determine the likely cost of the contract should Council choose to accept this alternate offer. Tendered rate as offered in original tender submission: These rates have been put together to allow a comparison with the tendered amount. Management of the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Facility: $1,828,600 GST exclusive. Alternate tender submitted: Bulk Haul operation $536,171 Landfill operations $297,503 Leachate transport $0.012c per litre Green Waste $55.00 per tonne As both the bulk haul and landfill components in the new offer are not variable only the leachate and green waste quantities are relevant as having a potential impact on the overall cast of the contract. In 2012/13 Council removed from site 21.18 megalitres of leachate, and processed 8,000 tonnes of green waste. Accordingly this would mean that if similar quantities are processed under this new contract the cost for leachate transport would be $254,160 (plus GST) and the cost for the processing and removal of green waste would be $440,000 (plus GST). Council also need to pay for the disposal of leachate at the Waste Water Treatment Plant and this would cost $222,390 based on the previous wet year disposal quantity at current disposal rates. This gives a total estimated cost for this contract based on last year’s waste figures of $1,750,224 plus GST. Considerations for Council The alternate option as presented provides a higher level of risk and reward to Council. The 2012/13 year that the costs have been modelled on was a particularly wet year and the cost of processing leachate made up approximately 27% of the overall cost. This could be significantly reduced by either less rain or through modified practices at the site. Leachate management was included in the fixed price tender to operate the site, and Council would have paid this as pseudo insurance as the tenderer would have needed to be conservative when putting the tender together. If however the calendar year 2014 is wetter than 2012/13 the cost could possibly increase however this is less likely as the new operations focusing on transport means there will be less tip face to allow the ingress of surface water. The cost of processing green waste is also based on last financial year’s tonnages. Should this tonnage increase there should be a similar increase in income for material coming over the weighbridge. As such this is a more equitable way of compensating the contractor for actual work undertaken with the cost to be directly reflective of the income generated, albeit one where the overall cost of the contract is less certain at start up. OPTIONS: 1. Council may elect to accept the alternate bid as submitted by Solo Resource Recovery

and prepare a document for signatures based on this offer. 2. Council can decline to accept the alternate tender as submitted and choose an

alternate means to undertake the works. This will involve either going back out to the market or electing to undertake the work ourselves. Either way Council will need to negotiate an extension of the current contract to allow this to occur.


CONCLUSION: Council officers have negotiated the terms of a revised contract with Solo Resource Recovery for the provision of management services at the Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre on the basis of the original specification included in tender document EC2013-139 to reflect the change in focus of Council toward transferring waste off site rather than purely focusing on land filling waste. This offer would result in a saving to Council of approximately $75,000 relative to the tendered fixed cost amount should similar quantities of material be presented for disposal during the term of the contract as in 2012/13, however the new arrangement does offer the potential to save substantially more should less leachate be generated requiring disposal or if processing of leachate on site is optimised. With a stronger focus on transporting of waste there is also an opportunity to minimise the size of the tip face which will further reduce the potential ingress of water which is the primary cause of leachate generation. The contract also provides for a schedule of rates for green waste processing. This is a more equitable means of operation as Council will only pay for tonnes processed and removed that we have received tip fees for. The revised offer as proposed by Solo Resource Recovery appears to offer value for money whilst providing potential savings to Council over the offer received previously. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Proposed contractual arrangement is provided for in the 2013/14 and 2014/15 budgets. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


53 [CNR-CM] Consultation regarding Closure of Tyalgum Transfer Station with a view to providing a Scenic Lookout


Valid



SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At its meeting of 19 September 2013, Council resolved as follows:

1. Recognises that the Tyalgum Transfer Station has a very low usage due to the expansion of domestic bin collection to rural areas.

2. Initiates a process of consultation with the community with a view to closing the Tyalgum Transfer Station with the view of providing a scenic lookout.

3. Undertakes an assessment of the operation of the transfer station to confirm the cost benefit and impact of closing the facility.

4. Officers report back to the Council in November 2013 on the outcomes for 2 and 3 above.

This report provides feedback on the public consultation process and the outcomes of the financial evaluation of the transfer station. In brief the consultation process highlighted polarised opinions in the community with residents being either strongly in support or opposed to the closure. The local Community Association ran a very active campaign which led to the submission of over 100 form letters objecting to the proposed closure. There were also a number of articles in local media, again representing both sides of the discussion. The financial evaluation shows a return of only 12.6% of the cash cost of operating the site, and that this is falling. Patronage of paying customers runs at between three and ten on most weekends, with the site averaging less than $175 per weekend in tip fees collected. The majority of customers using the site were taking advantage of the free drop-off for recycling and metal, with both services currently available to residents with waste services for free. Anecdotally, many of these customers were commercial and there are commercial recycling services available in the area.


RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council considers the information in this report in determining an outcome for

the Tyalgum Transfer Station and scenic lookout. 2. ATTACHMENT 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the

Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:- (a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).


REPORT:

At its meeting of 19 September 2013, Council resolved as follows:

1. Recognises that the Tyalgum Transfer Station has a very low usage due to the expansion of domestic bin collection to rural areas.

2. Initiates a process of consultation with the community with a view to closing the Tyalgum Transfer Station with the view of providing a scenic lookout.

3. Undertakes an assessment of the operation of the transfer station to confirm the cost benefit and impact of closing the facility.

4. Officers report back to the Council in November 2013 on the outcomes for 2 and 3 above.

As a result a program of consultation was put together involving advertising through print and radio and the provision of opportunities for residents to provide feedback via either the website or through correspondence. Council also provided a contact person to allow people to ring in to clarify their concerns and to ask questions. A financial evaluation was also compiled which considered the cost of running the site as against the income received. Consultation The communication message comprised of the opportunity to provide a tourism product for the Tyalgum area in recognition of the difficulties experienced following the closure of the Mount Warning walk. The viability of the site and the falling patronage was also communicated. The following articles featured in the various print media: • Article in Tweed Border Mail Wednesday 30 October • Article in Tweed Sun Thursday 31 October • Your Say letter in Tweed Sun Thursday 31 October • Article in Tweed Valley Weekly Thursday 31 October • Your say letter in Tweed Valley Weekly Thursday 31 October Council also placed a notice in the Tweed Link which is distributed to every property in the shire as well as being published on line. Council officers also discussed the proposal in interviews with ABC radio and with NBN in an interview conducted on site. During the two weeks of advertised consultation only five general inquiries were received. There was a common theme running through most of this relating to whether there was any guarantee that the site would become a lookout if closed as a transfer station. Whilst the Council Resolution was very clear in requesting consultation on closure of the Transfer Station with a view to the site becoming a scenic lookout officers lacked detail on the likely timeframes and this led to frustration with some callers. Most callers indicated that whilst supportive they were distrustful of Councils intentions. Had officers been able to provide more details on timeframes and on a firm commitment relating to the proposed lookout, the response from callers would have likely been more accepting of the proposal. All callers were supportive of a scenic lookout.


A list of the written correspondence received is attached as a confidential attachment in tabular form. The advertising that was placed as well as any articles on the topic that were published is also attached. Representations received Council received well over 100 submissions with the majority of these made up of a form letter that was prepared by the Tyalgum District Community Association Incorporated. This letter outlines a number of issues with the process relating to the timeframes proposed for consultation, the method of consultation and the cost benefit of the proposed closure. Despite these concerns the Tyalgum District Association did not contact the notified contact person during the consultation period to discuss any of these concerns. The Association also sent a number of formal letters to the General Manager challenging the process and the intent of Council. Two (2) letters were received from people that did not have a bin based waste service and who relied on the transfer station to allow them to periodically drop off waste. These people would be directly impacted by this closure. There was also a number of letters and emails received from people and organisations that were supportive of the closure and that highlighted the benefit a lookout would provide to the community by way of tourism and as an attraction for the shire in general. Within these there were a few that would like both waste services and the scenic lookout to co-exist. Finally there were a few emails and letters that expressed concern about the likelihood of illegal dumping and potential hooliganism related to the establishment of a site where young people are likely to congregate. These concerns also highlighted that locals may revert to the previous practices of dumping or burial on their properties rather than going all the way back into Stotts Creek Resource Recovery Centre. The correspondence receive is attached to this report as a separate confidential attachment. Financial evaluation The site is currently operating at a substantial deficit when cash flows are considered. If you include implied rentals the cost deficit is considerable. The following table shows the last four years of income and expenditure, and highlights the fall in demand for the site. Income 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Disposal fees 11,030 9,762 9,642 9,087 Expenditure Salaries 26,675 32,536 29,385 29,982 Waste bins servicing 48,224 46,620 40,050 38,411 Printing & Stationary 983 364 405 160 Electricity 1,686 630 Site Maintenance 2,712 1,875 2,920 2,780 Total 78,594 81,395 74,446 71,963 Income as a % of expenditure 14% 12% 13% 12.6%


Whilst the cost of operating the facility is falling due largely to the decrease in waste that needs to be removed from the site, the overall income received from operating the site is also falling as a percentage of the overall cost with the return only equating to 12.6% of the operating cost in 2012/13. If a lease were implied for the site the position is much worse. OPTIONS: 1. Council may wish to note the contents of this report and proceed to determine a

proposed course of action in relation to the closure of the Tyalgum Transfer Station and the establishment of a scenic lookout at the site.

2. Council may wish to seek further consultation on the proposal in relation to the options

regarding the closure of the transfer station and the proposed scenic lookout. 3. Council also has the option of continuing to operate the site as a transfer station. CONCLUSION: The Tyalgum Transfer Station is currently operating at a significant deficit. Patronage at the site has fallen consistently over the last four years. It would appear that with the introduction of bin based services to residents in the Tyalgum area and with the provision of the Biannual bulky goods collection service the calling for the transfer station has declined to an unsustainable level. An evaluation of the recent patronage of the site over the preceding three months shows that the site has consistently had between 3 and 10 customers per weekend. The majority of customers using the site are either commercial operators dropping off excess recycling and or residents taking advantage of the free drop off of scrap metal and recycling. These services are both available commercially with the pickup of scrap metal currently a free service to residents. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Closure of the site will reduce the expenditure of Council and make the waste unit more viable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Confidential Attachment 1 Summary and submissions (ECM 3213278) Attachment 1 Media clippings (ECM 3213322)


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


54 [CNR-CM] North East Waste Annual Report for 2012-2013 SUBMITTED BY: Waste Management

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life

2.3 Provide well serviced neighbourhoods

2.3.4 Provision of high quality, best practice, solid waste disposal with energy recovery, and improving resource recovery

practices and infrastructure which meets health and environmental requirements and projected demand

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The North East Waste (NEWaste) annual report outlines key activities and outcomes from NEWaste for 2012-2013 and is presented to Council for information purposes. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the activities and outcomes identified in the North East Waste Annual Report for 2012-2013.


REPORT:

North East Waste represents the voluntary group of northern rivers councils working together on regional waste management solutions. Member Councils include Tweed Shire, Ballina Shire, Byron Shire, Clarence Valley, Kyogle Shire, Lismore City and Richmond Valley Councils. The annual report summarises key waste management activities and outcomes achieved across the northern rivers member councils for the 2012-2013 financial year. CONCLUSION: That Council acknowledges key achievements of NEWaste for the 2012-2013 financial year. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. North East Waste Annual Report 2012-2013 (ECM 3211362)


55 [CNR-CM] Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Policy for the Tweed District Water Supply

SUBMITTED BY: Water

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.3 Provide well serviced neighbourhoods 2.3.2 Provision of a secure, high quality and reliable drinking water supply services which meets health and environmental requirements and

projected demand

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Since May 2002 Council has utilised a non-Corporate policy to manage backflow prevention and cross connections. The policy has been completely rewritten and updated using the Water Directorate’s Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Guidelines (July 2013) and the Plumbing Code of Australia as the main references. It is proposed that the draft Policy be exhibition and formally adopted as a Corporate Policy of Council. The draft Policy: • defines the key terms “backflow prevention” and “cross connection” • identifies relevant legislation, standards and codes • explains the risks associated with backflow, back siphonage and cross connections • outlines the responsibilities of Council, property owners and plumbers with respect to the

installation, testing, maintenance and certification of backflow prevention devices • outlines the responsibilities of Council, property owners and plumbers with regards to the

costs associated with compliance The draft Policy deals with the protection of Council’s reticulated water supply by reducing the risk of contamination by backflow, back siphonage and cross connections. Such contamination can affect not only the wider water distribution but also individual properties. The Policy outlines Council’s duty of care for the protection of the drinking water supply to safeguard public health. It also outlines the duty of care of property owners to prevent such an occurrence, as well as their responsibilities to ensure a safe water supply within their own property boundaries. Since Council’s previous policy was not formally adopted and this draft Policy has been significantly amended, it is recommended that it be placed on public exhibition prior to finalisation and adoption by Council.


RECOMMENDATION:

That Council exhibits the draft Policy entitled “Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control" Version 2.0 for a period of 28 days and accepts public submissions for a period of 42 days as per Section 160 of the Local Government Act 1993.


REPORT:

Council has previously applied a non-Corporate policy which was prepared in May 2002 to manage the installation, and maintenance of backflow prevention in the shire. The informal policy defined the obligations on Council, property owners and plumbers to protect the public water supply by providing adequate backflow prevention. The informal policy has been completely rewritten and updated using the Water Directorate’s Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Guidelines (July 2013) and a key reference. The draft Policy is consistent with relevant legislation, standards and codes, namely: • Local Government Act 1993 • Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 • Plumbing Code of Australia 2012 • Australia Standard AS/NZS 3500.1:2003 Water Services The objective of the draft Policy is to protect Council’s reticulated water supply by reducing the risk of contamination by backflow, back siphonage and cross connections. Such contamination can affect not only the wider water distribution but also individual properties. The draft Policy outlines Council’s duty of care in relation to protecting the drinking water supply to safeguard public health. It also outlines the duty of care of property owners to prevent such an occurrence, as well as their responsibilities to ensure a safe water supply within their own property boundaries. The draft Policy: • defines the key terms “backflow prevention” and “cross connection” • identifies relevant legislation, standards and codes • explains the risks associated with backflow, back siphonage and cross connections • outlines the responsibilities of Council, property owners and plumbers with respect to the

installation, testing, maintenance and certification of backflow prevention devices • outlines the responsibilities of Council, property owners and plumbers with regards to the

costs associated with compliance All properties connected to Council’s drinking water supply would be required to comply with the requirements of this Policy. This means that all properties with a water connection would be required to install appropriate backflow prevention at the boundary for containment protection purposes. In addition, some properties would require individual or zone protection at water connections to individual water installations. The Policy, once adopted by Council, would be implemented immediately on all new installations and progressively on existing services in accordance with the degree of risk identified. The draft Policy identifies that there are different backflow prevention devices which can be installed depending on the hazard rating of the property concerned. Consistent with Australian Standard AS3500, the draft Policy defines three degrees of hazard associated with cross-connection and backflow, namely: • High Hazard • Medium Hazard


• Low Hazard Properties with high and medium hazard ratings would be required to install devices that are testable and would need to be inspected, tested and maintained at intervals not exceeding 12 months to ensure continued reliable operation. Properties with low hazard ratings would be required to install non-testable devices (as a minimum) that are usually built into the water meter assembly. If the hazard rating of a particular installation varies due to multiple processes within the property, the highest hazard rating would be applied in the selection of an appropriate backflow prevention device. Since the draft Policy is significantly different from the existing informal policy and the latter was not formally adopted by Council, it is proposed that the draft Policy be placed on public exhibition prior to finalisation and adoption by Council as a Corporate Policy. OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION: The draft Policy is intended to be clear and easy for property owners and plumbers to understand. The Policy, once formally adopted by Council, is intended to ensure that Council officers, property owners and plumbers all understand their responsibilities relating to backflow prevention and cross connection control in the Tweed Shire. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Existing non-Corporate policy drafted 1 May 2002. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Council responsibilities covered by this Policy are funded from existing budgets. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Draft Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Policy for the Tweed District Water Supply Scheme (Version 2.0) (ECM 3179654)


56 [CNR-CM] Home and Community Care Centre, Tweed Heads South Tweed - Lease to Tweed Respite

SUBMITTED BY: Design

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.3 Delivering the objectives of this plan 1.3.1 Council's organisation will be resourced to provide the essential services and support functions to deliver the objectives of this Plan

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Tweed Respite Services Inc. has been successfully operating from the Home and Community Care Centre at Tweed Heads South for over 10 years. The current lease will expire on 31 December 2013 and a request has been made for a further lease. A lease of 12 months is recommended as there is no surety of relevant funding after 2015, and the lease term will provide a period of assessment of future community needs in Tweed Heads South. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council approves entering into a lease with Tweed Respite Services Inc for a

term of 12 months at the Home and Community Care Centre, Minjungbal Drive, Tweed Heads South commencing on 1 January 2014 with a rental of $3597.24 being a CPI increase from the current rental.

2. All documentation be executed under the Common Seal of Council.


REPORT:

Tweed Respite Services Inc. ("Tweed Respite") has been successfully operating from the Home and Community Care (HACC) Centre at South Tweed for over 10 years. The current lease will expire on 31 December 2013 and a request has been made for a further lease. Tweed Respite, during the period of its tenure, has provided a valuable service to the Tweed Heads South community. A lease of 12 months is recommended as there is no surety of relevant funding after 2015, and the lease term will provide a period of assessment by the Community Options Program of future community needs for the Tweed Heads South community. The current annual rental is $3524.76 and it is recommended that the commencing rental will be $3597.24 being CPI increase from the last term. OPTIONS: 1. To approve entering into a further lease of 12 months with Tweed Respite Services Inc

for premises at the HACC Centre at Tweed Heads South. 2. To not approve entering into a further lease of 12 months with Tweed Respite Services

Inc for premises at the HACC Centre at Tweed Heads South CONCLUSION: The occupation of Tweed Respite Services Inc. at the HACC Centre generates a benefit to the Tweed Heads South area and it is recommended that Council approves entering into a further lease of 12 months, with the current annual rental being increased by the latest quarterly CPI increase for the new lease. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Rental income to be attributed to community services and maintenance of HACC centre. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS

57 [EO-CM] Regulation of Traffic - McDonalds Road, Terragon SUBMITTED BY: Design

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

A complaint was received by Council from a land owner regarding inter alia the anti social activities occurring along McDonalds Road at Terragon. Over the past twelve (12) months there has been a significant rise in both anti social and illegal activities including drug use, dumping of rubbish including stolen vehicles and deliberate vandalism of property. The road is occupied primarily by young families with children and this heightened activity is posing a serious concern for the security of all property owners, their families and their right to quiet enjoyment of the area. One of the property owners has requested that they be permitted to erect a lockable gate at their own cost to ensure the safety of those living along this road and to deter the activities which are currently posing such a threat. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council 1. Under Section 122 of the Roads Act, 1993 consents to the regulation of the

traffic on McDonalds Road Terragon by means of a lockable gated structure. 2. Advertises the regulation of traffic on McDonalds Road Terragon allowing one

month for submissions to be received from the public.


REPORT:

A complaint was received by Council from a land owner regarding inter alia the anti social activities occurring along McDonalds Road at Terragon. Over the past twelve (12) months there has been a significant rise in both anti social and illegal activities including drug use, dumping of rubbish including stolen vehicles and deliberate vandalism of property. The Police and Fire Brigade were required to attend two separate incidents recently one where an 80 foot train carriage was vandalised and set alight, completely destroying it and the other where a stolen car was dumped and set alight with the same result. The road is occupied primarily by young families with children and this heightened activity is posing a serious concern for the security of all property owners, their families and their right to quiet enjoyment of the area. One of the property owners has requested that they be permitted to erect a lockable gate at their own cost to ensure the safety of those living along this road and to deter the activities which are currently posing such a threat. Council may approve the regulation of the road by way of a lockable gate under Section 122 of the Roads Act, 1993 which provides; (1) A roads authority may regulate traffic on a specified public road or on all public roads

for which it is the roads authority:

(a) in relation to a classified road, by means of an order published in a daily newspaper circulating generally throughout the State, or

(b) in relation to any other public road, by means of an order published in one or more local newspapers or in a daily newspaper circulating generally throughout the State.

(5) A roads authority must revoke any order under this section as soon as the

circumstances giving rise to its making cease to exist. (6) Unless sooner revoked, an order under this section ceases to have effect at the

expiration of 12 months after it was made. (7) Subsection (6) does not prevent an order being remade. This section of the Act enables Council to regulate the use of McDonalds Road by the general public by way of a locked gate on the condition that keys to the locks be provided to all land owners that use the road and other recognised users such as emergency services providers and Council. The recognised users of the road have been contacted and no objections to the use of a locked gate have been received.


The plan below shows the proposed location of the gate on McDonalds Road

OPTIONS: 1. Council provides it consent to the applicant Under Section 122 of the Roads Act, 1993,

for the erection of a lockable gate on McDonalds Road, Terragon on the proviso that Council, all property owners and emergency services are provided with a key.

2. Council does not approve the erection of a lockable gate on McDonalds Road, Terragon.

CONCLUSION: To limit the amount of anti social behaviour and illegal activities that are currently causing a threat to the safety of the residents along McDonalds Road, it would be prudent to allow the erection of a lockable gate thus regulating the use of the road to members of the public. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: No financial impact on Council - All costs relating to the erection of the gate are to be borne by the applicant. c. Legal: Not Applicable.

Kyogle Road McDonalds Road

Approximate location of gate

245//822837

7301//1163096

189//755730

188//755730

186//755730

246//823645

187//755730


d. Communication/Engagement: Empower-We will give the community greater opportunity to participate in a transparent flow of information and feedback to Councillors who have been empowered as the Community representatives to make decisions in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


58 [EO-CM] Road Closure Application - Bald Mountain Road, Limpinwood SUBMITTED BY: Design

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council has received an application for the closure and purchase of a section of Bald Mountain Road, Limpinwood, adjacent to Lot 7 in DP788500. The purpose of the closure and purchase is for the applicant to extend an established windbreak along the western boundary against the seasonal high westerly winds. This will also provide a security buffer between the residence and the road frontage should it ever be formally formed. The section of road proposed to be closed is approximately 523.8m² and is positioned along a ridge which would prohibit the construction of a road within this area. There are no services or infrastructures present within the proposed area and closure would not affect access to any adjoining properties. The application complies with Councils Policy, Road Closure and Private Purchase as the topographical constraints relating to any future construction argue strongly for a more logical boundary definition for the purposes of road verge maintenance, safety, fencing and private property access. It is recommended that Council consents to the closure and purchase of approximately 523.8m² of road reserve adjacent to Lot 12 in DP788500, Bald Mountain Road, Limpinwood.


RECOMMENDATION:

That Council 1. Approves the closure and private purchase of the section of Bald Mountain Road

being approximately 523.8m² adjacent to Lot 12 in DP788500 at Limpinwood; 2. The applicants bears all the survey and legal costs and purchases the subject

land as determined in value by a local registered valuer; 3. The title of the closed road be consolidated with the adjacent land; 4. Easements be created over public authority reticulation services, if any; and 5. All necessary documentation be executed under Common Seal of Council.


REPORT:

Council has received an application for the closure and purchase of a section of Bald Mountain Road, Limpinwood, adjacent to Lot 7 in DP788500. The purpose of the closure and purchase is for the applicant to extend an established windbreak along the western boundary against the seasonal high westerly winds. This will also provide a security buffer between the residence and the road frontage should it ever be formally formed. The section of road proposed to be closed is approximately 523.8m² and is positioned along a ridge which would prohibit the construction of a road within this area. There are no services or infrastructures present within the proposed area and closure would not affect access to any adjoining properties. Below is a plan of the proposed area of road closure.

OPTIONS: 1. Council consents to the closure and private purchase of the section of Bald Mountain

Road being approximately 523.8m² adjacent to Lot 12 in DP788500 at Limpinwood. 2. Council does not consent to the closure and private purchase of the section of Bald

Mountain Road being approximately 523.8m² adjacent to Lot 12 in DP788500 at Limpinwood.

CONCLUSION: The application complies with Councils Policy, Road Closure and Private Purchase as the topographical constraints relating to any future construction argue strongly for a more logical boundary definition for the purposes of road verge maintenance, safety, fencing and private property access.

Bald Mountain Road

7676767676

8282828282

11//788500

12//788500


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Road Closures and Private Purchase Version 1.3. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: No Budgetary or Future financial implications c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


59 [EO-CM] Classification of Land as Operational - Lot 1 in DP 783802 at Eviron


Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Lot 1 in DP 783802 at 657 Eviron Road, Eviron was recently purchased by Council to secure a buffer around landfill and quarry operations at Stotts Creek. It is necessary to classify the land as operational pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993. A notice was published in the Tweed Link on 24 September 2013 allowing a period of 28 days for any member of the public to provide a written submission to the proposed classification of this land as operational. No submissions were received. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council approves the classification as “Operational Land” to Lot 1 in DP 783802

at Eviron, pursuant to Section 31 of the Local Government Act, 1993; and 2. All necessary documentation be executed under the Common Seal of Council.


REPORT:

Lot 1 in DP 783802 at 657 Eviron Road, Eviron was recently purchased by Council to secure a buffer around landfill and quarry operations at Stotts Creek. It is necessary to classify the land as operational pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993. A notice was published in the Tweed Link on 24 September 2013 allowing a period of 28 days for any member of the public to provide a written submission to the proposed classification of this land as operational. No submissions were received. Copy of DP 783802 showing Lot 1 is below.


OPTIONS: As the requirement to classify land is a statutory obligation, it is necessary to classify the land as operational to reflect the purpose of the purchase, as a buffer to the landfill and quarry operations at Stotts Creek. CONCLUSION: In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, it is necessary to classify Lot 1 in DP 783802 as Operational Land.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: No Budgetary or Long Term Financial impact. c. Legal: The classification of land is required under the Local Government Act 1993. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


60 [EO-CM] Depot Road Sportsfields - Kings Forest SUBMITTED BY: Design

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

A plan of Redefinition of the Depot Road Sportsfields site has been completed to confirm the property boundaries and title dimensions. The underlying plan of the parcel being DP397082 dates back to 1956 and unfortunately does not provide adequate information. Given the value of the infrastructure proposed for the site by Council, it is imperative that the land dimensions are correct and beyond dispute by the registration of a new plan. It is recommended that Council, as landowner, provides its consent on the plan of redefinition of Lot 1 in DP397082 to allow registration of same. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council provides its consent on the plan of Redefinition of Lot 1 in DP 397082;

and 2. All necessary documents be executed under the Common Seal of Council.


REPORT:

A plan of Redefinition of the Depot Road Sportsfields site has been completed to confirm the property boundaries and title dimensions. A copy of the plan is shown below.


The underlying plan of the parcel being DP397082 dates back to 1956 and unfortunately does not provide adequate information. Given the value of the infrastructure proposed for the site by Council, it is imperative that the land dimensions are correct and beyond dispute by the registration of a new plan. A copy of DP397082 is shown below.


OPTIONS: 1. Council provides its consent to the plan of Redefinition of Lot 1 in DP397082; or 2. Council does not provide its consent to the plan of Redefinition of Lot 1 in DP397082. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that Council provides its consent, as landowner, on the plan of Redefinition of Lot 1 in DP397082 to allow registration of same. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Depot Road Sportsfields Budget. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


61 [EO-CM] Road Naming - Banora Point SUBMITTED BY: Design

FILE REFERENCE: GS5/1 Part 7 Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council recently advertised its intention to name the section of road running south then north from the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point, seeking submissions for suitable names. The following suitable names, in compliance with Council's Policy on Naming of Streets and Roads were submitted; 1. Barneys Point Drive 2. Tweed River Esplanade Several Aboriginal names were also submitted and consideration of these names was sought through the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council. Unfortunately no response was received from them consenting to their use. The local area is historically known as "Barneys Point" and in keeping with the historical significance of the name it would be appropriate to call the road "Barneys Point Drive". It is recommended that Council advertise its intention to name the road running south then north from the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point as "Barneys Point Drive" allowing one month for submissions or objections to the proposal.


RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. ATTACHMENT 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the

Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:- (a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than

councillors). 2. Council publicises its intention to name the road running south then north from

the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point as "Barneys Point Drive" allowing one month for submissions or objections to the proposal; and

3. Council notifies the relevant authorities under the provisions of the Roads and

Council (General) Regulation 2008.


REPORT:

Council recently advertised its intention to name the section of road running south then north from the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point, seeking submissions for suitable names. Below is a plan showing the location of the road reserve to be named. It is located off the Pacific Highway at the Barneys Point exit.

The following suitable names, in compliance with Council's Policy on Naming of Streets and Roads, were submitted; 1. Barneys Point Drive 2. Tweed River Esplanade Several Aboriginal names were also submitted as follows; Coweolonga - Kaurna word meaning 'water' Akuna - Aboriginal word meaning 'flowing water' Banyandah - Aboriginal word meaning 'beautiful view' Omaroo - Aboriginal word meaning 'home on the water' Warrunga - Aboriginal word meaning 'good view' Yaringa - Aboriginal word meaning 'near the sea' These names were submitted to the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council for consideration however no response was received from them consenting to their use. The local area is historically known as 'Barneys Point' and in keeping with the historical significance of the name, it would be appropriate to call the road "Barneys Point Drive". It is recommended that Council advertise its intention to name the road running south then north from the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point as "Barneys Point Drive" allowing one month for submissions or objections to the proposal.

acific Hwy

Barneys Point Bridge

Pacific Highway

New development - Palm Lake Resort

5151515151

4747474747

4545454545

4343434343

4141414141

3939393939

3535353535

3333333333

3131313131

2929292929

2727272727

25252525252323232323

6A6A6A6A6A

66666

19191919192121212121

1414141414

22222

11111

33333

55555

11111

3333355555

22222

44444

66666

1515151515

77777

11111111111313131313

99999

1212121212

2020202020

3434343434

3232323232

3030303030

2828282828

2626262626

2424242424

2222222222

2020202020

1818181818

1616161616

1414141414

1212121212

55555

44444

33333

22222

11111

1A1A1A1A1A

4444488888

10101010101212121212 1414141414

33333

11111

22222

44444

6666688888

10101010101212121212

1212121212

1010101010

88888

22222

44444

55555

2121212121

1919191919

1717171717

13-1513-1513-1513-1513-15

1111111111

99999

77777

5A5A5A5A5A

1010101010121212121214141414141616161616

4242424242

1818181818

4646464646

77777 55555

4444444444

4242424242

4040404040

3838383838

3434343434

3232323232

3030303030

2828282828

2626262626

2424242424

20202020202222222222

18181818181818181818

22222

44444

888881010101010

77777

111111111111111

99999

2626262626

66666

1717171717

111111111133333

44444

55555

66666

77777

88888 99999

1010101010

99999

1111111111

1313131313

16161616161414141414

1212121212

1010101010

88888

22222

44444

66666

88888

101010101022222444446666688888 2323232323

77777

99999

8888866666

44444

22222

1111111111

1313131313

1515151515

1717171717

1919191919

2121212121

4040404040

3838383838

3636363636

1313131313

1111133333

111111414141414

1313131313

1212121212

1111111111 9999977777

22222

63-7163-7163-7163-7163-71

66666

4949494949

66666

2424242424

13-1513-1513-1513-1513-15

55555

1010101010

3737373737

363636363622222James Cook Dr

Barellan Dr

Summ

it Dr

Uniack

e Dr

Somerset Ave

Bimbadeen Ave

Mib

bin

Pde

Echu

ca C

res

Noarlu

nga S

t


OPTIONS: 1. Council advertise its intention to name the road running south then north from the

Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point; a) as Barneys Point Drive, or b) as Tweed River Esplanade, or

2. Council re-advertises its intention to name the road running south then north from the

Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point seeking further submissions for acceptable names.

CONCLUSION: It is recommended that Council advertise its intention to name the road running south then north from the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point as "Barneys Point Drive" allowing one month for submissions or objections to the proposal. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Naming of Streets and Roads - Version 1.2. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: To be included in the budget for Road Naming - A5637.0749. Tweed Link advertising and street signage costs only. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

(Confidential) Attachment 1. Submissions to name the section of road running south then north from the Noarlunga Street intersection at Banora Point (ECM 3192363).


62 [EO-CM] Disposal of Land SUBMITTED BY: Design

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At its meeting held on 21 March 2013, Council resolved to dispose of various properties, and on 20 June 2013, Council resolved to engage P Smith & Son to advertise the sale of the properties by public tender. The public tender was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Gold Coast Bulletin and the Tweed Link, placed by Council in accordance with its obligations under the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and General Regulation. P Smith & Son placed advertisements in local real estate inserts into local printed media, as well as on the internet, on realestate.com, domain.com.au and its own web site. Tenders closed on 9 October, 2013 and it is recommended that Council approve the recommendations made in the Tender Evaluation Reports which are confidential attachments to this report. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. (a) ATTACHMENT 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the

Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:-

(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

(b) The attachments are confidential in accordance with the Probity Report for

the Disposal of Council Land adopted by Council on 21 March 2013.

2. Council approves the recommendations as made in the Tender Evaluation Reports; and


3. All necessary documentation be executed under the Common Seal of Council. 4. Proceeds of Sale of:

1 Bakers Road be allocated to Plant Reserve. 19 Piggabeen Road be allocated to Land Development Fund. 165 Darlington Drive be allocated to General Fund.


REPORT:

At its meeting held on 21 March 2013, Council resolved to dispose of various properties, and on 20 June 2013, Council resolved to engage P Smith & Son to advertise the sale of the properties by public tender. The public tender was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Gold Coast Bulletin and the Tweed Link, placed by Council in accordance with its obligations under the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and General Regulation. P Smith & Son placed advertisements in local real estate inserts into local printed media, as well as on the internet, on realestate.com, domain.com.au and its own web site. Tenders closed on 9 October, 2013 and it is recommended that Council approve the recommendations made in the Tender Evaluation Reports which are confidential attachments to this report. OPTIONS: 1. Adopt the recommendations made in the Tender Evaluation Reports for each property: 2. Not adopt the recommendations made in the Tender Evaluation Reports for each

property. CONCLUSION: The public tender process has demonstrated that there are interested buyers in the marketplace and the recommendations made in the Tender Evaluation Reports reflect the current market. It is recommended that the Tender Evaluation Reports' recommendations are approved and adopted by Council. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Disposal of Land Version 1.1. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: 1. Proceeds of Sale of 1 Bakers Road to be allocated to Plant Reserve. 2. Proceeds of Sale of 19 Piggabeen Road to be allocated to Land Development Fund. 3. Proceeds of Sale of 165 Darlington Drive property to be allocated to General Fund. c. Legal: Not applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not applicable, the disposal of land by public tender has proceeded in a public and transparent manner and requires no further public engagement.



(Confidential) Attachment 1. Tender Evaluation Reports for EC2013-195 Sale of 19 Piggabeen Road, Tweed Heads West EC2013-196 Sale of 21 Piggabeen Road, Tweed Heads West EC2013-197 Sale of 165 Darlington Drive, Banora Point EC2013-198 Sale of Lot 1 Bakers Road, Byangum (ECM 3205490).


63 [EO-CM] Assignment of Licence to Use Road - Riverside Drive, Tumbulgum SUBMITTED BY: Design

FILE REFERENCE: PF4240/480 Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council granted a licence for the use of road reserve for the purpose of operating a boat hire business, adjacent to a lease with the Crown for part of the Tweed River, in Riverside Drive, Tumbulgum. The Licensees operate the general store in Tumbulgum and have sub-licensed the road reserve licence to the operators of the boat hire business. They are also currently transferring the lease with the Crown for the structures on the river. The Licensees are in the process of selling their property and have requested Council to assign the Licence to the purchasers of their property. The sub-licensees have issued a letter of acknowledgment and non-objection to the transfer and it is recommended that Council approve the assignment of the Licence Agreement to the purchasers of the property. It is further recommended that Council approve entering in the Deed of Assignment under the Common Seal of Council. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Approves entering into a Deed of Assignment with Karen and Abdul-Amir Akbari

and Frisson Pty Ltd subject to the approval of Crown Lands to the transfer of Lease AA217393Q;

2. Executes all necessary documentation under the Common Seal of Council.


REPORT:

Council granted a licence for the use of road reserve for the purpose of operating a boat hire business, adjacent to a lease with the Crown for part of the Tweed River, in Riverside Drive, Tumbulgum. The Licensees operate the general store and have sub-licensed the road reserve licence to the operators of the boat hire business. They are also currently transferring the lease with the Crown for the structures on the river. The Licensees are in the process of selling their property and have requested Council to assign the Licence to the purchasers of their property. The sub-licensees have issued a letter of acknowledgment and non-objection to the transfer and it is recommended that Council approve the assignment of the Licence Agreement to the purchasers of the property. Crown Lands have provided their concurrence to the transfer of the Lease to the purchasers, Frisson Pty Ltd. The Licence Agreement commenced on 1 April 2011 and will expire on 31 March 2017, with an option for a further term of six years, to expire on 31 October 2023. The Licence Agreement runs concurrently with Lease AA217393Q with Crown Lands. There have been no issues or problems occurring during the term of the Licence to date, all payments for the Licence fee are currently up to date. A Deed of Assignment has been prepared which provides that all obligations and benefits arising from the Licence Agreement are to be transferred to Frisson Pty Ltd. It is further recommended that Council approve entering in the Deed of Assignment under the Common Seal of Council. OPTIONS: 1. To approve the assignment of the licence to Frisson Pty Ltd; or 2. To not approve the assignment of the licence to Frisson Pty Ltd. CONCLUSION: As Mr and Mrs Akbari have entered contracts for the sale of the property, it will be necessary for the Licence to be assigned to the purchasers, Frisson Pty Ltd, to enable them to hold the Licence for the road reserve adjacent to the subject property. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: There is no relevant policy or protocol applying to this action. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: No financial implications as the current licence fee will not be altered, except in accordance with the Licence Agreement.


c. Legal: There are no legal implications. d. Communication/Engagement: This is not a matter requiring community engagement. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


64 [EO-CM] Disposal of Council Land at Burringbar SUBMITTED BY: Works

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At its meeting held on 21 March 2013, Council received a report reviewing Council's quarry operations. The report recommended a list of preferred options, which included a recommendation that the Burringbar Quarry be offered for sale. The first step in implementing the sale is for Council to resolve the process of disposal, that is, private treaty, auction or public tender, and whether the land is to be advertised with a local real estate agent. It is recommended that Council proceed with the disposal of the land in accordance with Council's Disposal of Land Policy. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council resolve to dispose of Lot 6 in DP 868345 at Burringbar by public tender.


REPORT:

At its meeting held on 21 March 2013, Council received a report reviewing Council's quarry operations. The report recommended a list of preferred options, which included a recommendation that the Burringbar Quarry be offered for sale. The first step in implementing the sale is for Council to resolve the process of disposal, that is, private treaty, auction or public tender, and whether the land is to be advertised with a local real estate agent. Recent reports regarding the disposal of Council land have recommended the sale of properties by public tender due mostly to the state of the property market and the nature of the properties Council wanted to dispose of. The property market appears to have shifted since that report. Real estate sales have increased, perhaps in response to the low interest rate there are more buyers in the market. Discussions with a valuer indicate that there are many properties which have been marketed for long periods, are now starting to be purchased, at lower than advertised prices and this can also be linked in with a greater number of buyers entering the market. A usual response for a vendor is to place a property up for auction to facilitate a quick sale, but this strategy is more appropriate for a residential building or land. The quarry is a rural parcel which, if sold, will attract developmental costs, including telephone and electricity connection, as well as water and sewage infrastructure construction costs. It is recommended that Council dispose of the land by public tender in accordance with Council's Disposal of Land Policy. OPTIONS: 1. To resolve to dispose of the subject land by public tender, in accordance with the

Disposal of Land Policy, or; 2. To resolve to dispose of the subject land by public auction, in accordance with the

Disposal of Land Policy. CONCLUSION: As the movement in the real estate market is only starting to move, it is recommended that Council resolve to dispose of the property by public tender. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Disposal of Land Version 1.1. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Sale proceeds are to be transferred to Plant Reserve.


c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


65 [EO-CM] Supply of Electricity Small Sites from 1 July 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Contracts

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.3 Delivering the objectives of this plan 1.3.1 Council's organisation will be resourced to provide the essential services and support

functions to deliver the objectives of this Plan

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council's operational properties and infrastructure that are classed as Small Electricity Sites (Water/Sewer Pump Stations, BBQ facilities, Public Toilets) are currently powered under Contract EC2011-005 Supply of Retail Electricity to Small Sites 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014. The contract provider is Powerdirect Pty Ltd. Contract EC2011-005 was prepared using the procurement services provided by Local Government Procurement (LGP). This process was undertaken in accordance with Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 163(1A) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. LGP have issued Council a General Manager Authorisation Form to enter a new agreement to be involved in a new tender process that will provide an option to enter contract for small site electricity after 30 June 2014. This form has been signed by Council's General Manager and faxed back to LGP on 3 October 2013. Note that signing of the form does not commit to an actual contract for electricity supply. LGP have advised that they intend to approach the market on behalf of Council by the end of October 2013. Once the tender process has been completed, Council will have the ability to review the LGP tender recommendation and the Retail Electricity Supply Agreement (RESA) offered by the recommended tenderer. A subsequent report to Council will be prepared for Council's consideration. This subsequent report will include the LGP recommendations, RESA and Council's assessment of the offer/s. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, in accordance with Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 163(1A) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, endorses participation in the Local Government Procurement tender process for Electricity for Small Sites and Green Power (contract prior to 1 July 2014).


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Procurement Version 1.5. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Nil. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Email and Attachment issued on 3 October 2013 by Ashley Tewes (TSC Contract Engineer) to Nom Trajkoski (TTEG Senior Energy Market Consultant) and Bob Lewis (LGP Business Manager). (ECM 3187673)


66 [EO-CM] EC2013-214 Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads

SUBMITTED BY: Works

FILE REFERENCE: Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.3 Delivering the objectives of this plan 1.3.2 Council will seek the best value in delivering services

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report outlines the tender for EC2013-214 Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road Tweed Heads. Recommendations have been formulated based on the Selection Criteria which is contained in the Tender Evaluation Report included in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1. A summary of the Selection Criteria is also included in the body of this report. It is recommended that Council accepts the tender of East Coast Asphalt and Concrete Edging Pty Ltd for the Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road Tweed Heads. Attachment 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993, because it contains commercial information in relation to the tenders, the disclosure of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial position of the tenderers if it was provided. The information identifies the tenderers in relation to the tender price and the evaluation of the products offered by each tenderer. If disclosed, the information would be likely to prejudice the commercial position of the tenderers in terms of market competitiveness, by giving their competitors an advantage. Accordingly, disclosure of the information is not in the public interest.


RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. ATTACHMENT 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2(d) of the

Local Government Act 1993, because it contains:- (d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

2. The tender from East Coast Asphalt and Concrete Edging Pty Ltd be accepted at

a unit rate of $213.40/T making a notional value of $257,131.40 inclusive of GST, for tender EC2013-214 Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road Tweed Heads.

3. The General Manager is given delegated authority to approve variations up to

10% of the initial contract sum to a maximum of $150,000 and those variations be reported to Council following completion of the tendered works/services.


REPORT:

Background Council Tender EC2013-214 invited schedule of rates responses for the asphalt overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road Tweed Heads. The work limits are from the Pacific Motorway to the entry of the Harvey Norman complex within Greenway Drive, and from the Pacific Motorway to Sullivan Street within Dry Dock Road. Following the advertising of tenders, a review of the road segment length and standard of the road pavement within Dry Dock Road was carried out, and it has been determined that an additional length of rehabilitation of 223 metres should be undertaken. This shall result in a variation to the advertised quantity of material by approximately 25%. The additional cost remains within the allocated budget for project. Funding for the works is made up from allocations in Council's 2012/2013 Infrastructure Program rolled over into 2013/2014. Tenders Received Hard copy and electronic tender submissions closed at 4.00pm on 16 October 2013 in the Tender Box located in the foyer at the Tweed Shire Council Civic and Cultural Centre, Murwillumbah NSW 2484 and within the Tweed Shire Council E Tender Box. Nine (9) copies of the tender documents were downloaded from Council's web site. A total of two (2) responses were submitted and recorded for EC2013-214 at the tender opening on 16 October 2013 from the following contractors: East Coast Asphalt and Concrete Edging Pty Ltd (Burringbar) Boral Resources (QLD) Pty Ltd Tender Evaluation The Tender Evaluation was conducted by Council's Tender Evaluation Panel, consisting of the Senior Contracts Engineer, Manager Works and Maintenance Engineer. A copy of the Tender Evaluation Report is included in ATTACHMENT 1 which is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, because it contains commercial information in relation to the tenders, the disclosure of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial position of the tenderers if it was provided. The information identifies the tenderers in relation to the tender price and the evaluation of non-price criteria. If disclosed, the information would be likely to prejudice the commercial position of the tenderer in terms of market competitiveness by giving their competitors an advantage. Accordingly, disclosure of the information is not in the public interest. Recommendations appear below for the Tender.


The following selection criteria and weightings were determined prior to the issuing of the Tender.

OPTIONS: Not applicable. CONCLUSION: Based on the Tender Evaluation, it is recommended that East Coast Asphalt and Concrete Edging Pty Ltd be awarded the contract for EC2013-214 Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road Tweed Heads. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Asset Management Version 1.0. Procurement Version 13. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: The works are included in the 2012/2013 Infrastructure Program. Funding is provided within the 2012/2013 Budget rolled over into the current financial year for these works. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

(Confidential) Attachment 1. EC2013-214 Asphalt Overlays on Greenway Drive and Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads for Road Rehabilitation Program 2012/2013 - Tender Evaluation Report (ECM 3204032).

Tender Price 60% Time Performance 5% Quality Assurance 10% Environmental Management 5% Sustainability 5% WHS and Risk Management 5% Local Content 10%


67 [EO-CM] Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 SUBMITTED BY: Design

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.4 An integrated transport system that services local and regional needs 2.4.1 Provide a safe and efficient network of arterial roads connecting neighbourhoods to town centres, employment, shopping, health,

commercial and education facilities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council undertook an extensive community consultation process whilst the Concept Plan for Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 was on exhibition, from 23 September to 25 October 2013. The consultation included presentations to the Tweed Chamber of Commerce and Industry and members of the executive of the Tweed Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a meeting with Bay Street traders and property owners, face to face meetings with affected businesses, direct mail to all property owners and the Tweed Residents and Ratepayers Association, as well as displays at Council’s Offices and on Council’s web page. Some concerns were expressed regarding minor losses of on street parking in Wharf Street between Frances and Florence Streets. However, in order to economically stimulate and increase the "green" appeal of the Tweed Heads CBD it is proposed to adopt the Concept Plan as exhibited. The plans were generally well received by the business community in the areas where the works would be implemented. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Adopts the Concept Plan as exhibited for the Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage

2.

2. Proceeds to detailed design of the various elements of the Concept Plans.


REPORT:

BACKGROUND A detailed Master Plan titled "Tweed Heads Streetscape Master Plan" (THSMP) was adopted by Council at its meeting on 6 August 1997 which:

"RESOLVED that:- 1. The concept master plan as exhibited in the Tweed Mall in July 1997, together

with the explanatory report, be adopted for detailed design preparation, with minor amendments to accommodate budgetary constraints and traders' concerns as determined by Council's Streetscape Working Party.

2. The detailed design and documentation of improvements shown in the concept master plan be prepared in stages - in accordance with the staging plan in this report, and a development application for the total work in all stages be lodged.

3. NorthPower be instructed to perform immediate undergrounding of all existing overhead power (with minor exceptions) as detailed in their quotation for approximately $300,000.

4. NorthPower be appointed as designer and installer of the conventional street lighting component of the project area for a fee of $120,000 as quoted

5 Subject to issue of development consent, Stage 1 construction works be undertaken starting in February 1998 for a total cost of $2.60M.

6. Detailed design work and contract documentation for subsequent stages be completed, pending the allocation of further funding in subsequent programs."

In accordance with the resolutions, Stage 1 of the streetscaping works have been completed in Wharf Street from the border to Frances Street (including the intersection) and in Bay Street from Wharf Street to Navigation Lane. To assist in the project funding, a special rate was struck for areas to be benefited. The term of this special rate has now expired, and funds were fully spent over a decade ago on the completed Stage 1 works. Completion of the projects Stage 2 works has not occurred due to funding constraints partly due to the 'closed' section of Bay Street East, which was to be sold and the proceeds allocated to completing the street scaping not proceeding. This source of project revenue is now abandoned. Stage 2 street scaping works to be completed are: • Bay Street west of Navigation Lane • Wharf Street, Florence to Frances Street There is an expectation of landowners and an obligation on Council to deliver the promised street scaping to the areas rated who have not yet received street scaping and requests have been received to this effect. An amount of $50,000 is allocated in the 2013/2014 budget to undertake community consultation and complete detailed design of the street scaping in the missing areas (parts of Bay and Wharf Streets). This report discusses the consultation process and its outcomes so that the detailed design can be completed.


PROJECT AIMS The project aims of Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 are: • Increase the "Green" feel of the area and provide for a village character. • Attempt to stimulate the street economy by providing new infrastructure. • Improve pedestrian access to and through the area. These aims will be achieved by: • Providing additional trees within the street to create more shade and amenity. • Creating nodes along the street to encourage meeting points and outdoor dining areas. • Providing new kerb and gutter and footpaths to Bay Street and wider footpath to the

western side of Wharf Street. • Providing new street furniture including bench seats, bike racks and bins. RECENT CONSULTATION

The revised concept layout for the Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 was placed on public exhibition from 23 September to 25 October 2013. Council undertook an extensive community consultation process whilst the Concept Plan was on exhibition. During the exhibition period the following engagement techniques were employed: • Direct mail to Tweed District Residents and Ratepayers Association

• Direct mail to all property affected owners in Bay and Wharf Streets

• Address to Tweed Chamber of Commerce and Industry

• Meeting with Bay Street Traders and property owners

• Meeting with the executive of Tweed Chamber of Commerce and Industry

• Handout of fact sheet to businesses in Bay and Wharf Streets

• Tweed Link article

• Media releases

• Customer Service Centre displays at Tweed and Murwillumbah Civic Centres

• Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 shown on Council’s corporate website under What’s on Exhibition

• Supporting materials Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 fact sheet

Results of the Community Consultation During the four week consultation period: • 8 written submissions were received (including email).

• 2 phone calls were received.

• Approximately 50 chamber members attended the Tweed Chamber of Commerce and Industry at the Tweed Heads Bowling Club.


• Approximately 11 people attended the Bay Street Traders and owners meeting.

• Approximately 100 Fact Sheets on the Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 were distributed.

• The Daily News and Tweed Sun conducted interviews with Council’s Coordinator Civil Engineering, which generated 5 articles in Tweed local newspapers.

• There was 1 media release and 1 article appeared in the Tweed Link. Proposed Revisions to the Master Plan As mentioned previously the Tweed Heads Streetscape Master Plan was completed in 1997. Some areas of the design in the Master Plan are now considered outdated or inefficient and have been revised to reflect contemporary design and finishes. The major departure from the master plan involves replacing central road parking in Bay Street with diagonal parking adjacent to the store/business frontages. This revision is proposed because: • Central road parking is not supported by Current Australian Standards.

• The current central parking restricts sight distance for both motorists and pedestrians in Bay Street, which is believed to have lead to a significant accident history in Bay Street.

The proposed angled parking provides the same number of car spaces as currently exists, but allows a central median for significant street tree planting. It also allows rationalisation of the intersections in Bay Street by providing blisters to better define intersections and reduce the road width where pedestrians are crossing. The blisters have the added advantages to create opportunities for more functional footpaths and encourage activities such as outdoor dining. This departure to the adopted master plan was discussed with a representative group from the Tweed Chamber of Commerce and Industry and at an on site meeting with Bay Street Traders as well as individual meetings with most business owners that weren't able to make the meeting. The general consensus was that the proposed departure was supported and the Tweed District Residents and Ratepayers Association specifically supported this revision in its submission. Submissions/Comments on Concept Plans Of the submissions received dealing with the proposed Streetscaping works, the issues raised, the response to the issue and resulting action have been detailed in the following section. The issue of car parking in Wharf Street was the most noted and for this reason it will be dealt with as a separate issue. • Retention of existing number of parking spaces in Bay Street is the number one priority Response: Current upgrade plans demonstrate that angled parking provides the same number of car spaces as the existing centre parking arrangements.

• Intersection of Bay Street and Stuart Street is extremely dangerous for motorists and particularly pedestrians. There are regular accidents and near misses betweens cars/cars and pedestrians.


Response: Street 'blisters' will narrow the road width, slow traffic, reduce confusion and reduce the distance pedestrians must walk in travel lanes to cross the road. Removing parking in the centre of the road to facilitate these blisters will also improve vision for motorists and pedestrians and make the intersection less confusing.

• Need to slow traffic in Bay Street. Consider raised pedestrian crossing to slow traffic. Response: The proposed plan allows a central planted median and reduced lane width. This arrangement has been proven to slow traffic in other areas. A raised hump will be considered at the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the Stuart Street intersection. Council will also consider applying to RMS to make the area a high pedestrian activity zone with a 40 kph speed limit.

• Need to improve street lighting - current poor lighting raises safety issues for individuals and cars.

Response: Council's Traffic Engineer advises that the 2013/2014 streetlighting budget is exhausted. Council would need to arrange for a specialist lighting consultant to undertake a street lighting design to Australian Standard prior to its installation. This work is currently outside of the project scope, however quotes to undertake the design component will be sought in the event that a source of funding is identified in the future.

• Bay Street footpaths need to be upgraded and improved. Response: Footpath upgrade currently included in Concept Plan and estimates of work.

• Bay Street used to be a commercial hub, including three banks. Desperately needs new life breathed into the street.

Response: The proposed streetscaping works will make the street more attractive for potential businesses looking to move into the area.

• What is current situation with development application for old railway station (corner of Enid and Bay Street)

Response: There is currently an active development consent for the site, allowing three towers of 15, 10 and eight storeys respectively. The towers comprise 188 residential units and 13 commercial tenancies. The owners of the site have had informal discussions with Council officers about revising the development, but nothing has been lodged with Council as yet.

• What is current situation with development application for Wharf and Bay Street intersection

Response: A private developer has a development consent to build a tower with commercial and residential components on the land. The timing of when the development occurs is in the hands of the developer. The developer has recently had two amendments to the development consent approved by Council and it is probable that revised plans for the site will soon be lodged. • Change one-hour maximum parking controls in Bay Street to two hours to suit the

nature of many businesses in the street. Response: Council's Traffic Engineer has advised that if a submission from the Bay Street traders was received, it would be considered by the Traffic Committee.


• What is happening with "Willie the Whale". Response: Willie will be retained in its current location. However, the intention is to provide the sculpture with feature lighting and not reinstate it as a water feature. Car Parking in Wharf Street The proposed Concept Plans for Wharf Street between Frances and Florence Streets provides for street blister islands to provide landscaped areas on both shop sides of the road. Currently the precinct has 48 car spaces on the east side of Wharf Street and 26 spaces on the west side. According to the plans that were exhibited seven (7) car parking spaces would be lost on the east side of Wharf Street and one (1) on the west side of Wharf Street to provide the landscaped islands. From the comments received during consultation with business owners in this area, it was clear that the vast majority do not support the loss of car parking spaces and this is also the view of the Tweed and District Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The opinion was also put forward that public parking in this precinct may be put under further pressure in the future if the Development Application for the proposed Police Station and Court is approved. However, Tweed Heads as a business district is looking tired and in much need of a facelift to give the whole area a pickup. The revitalisation of the streetscape especially along Wharf Street is critical if the approach into the Tweed Heads area from the south is to be a memorable one. The intent of the upgrade with the additional garden beds is to create an avenue affect, a sense of arrival. By planting up the centre median and either side of the road a strong avenue of planting will be created. The idea is to create a more inviting space in which to visit. Currently the strip shopping looks purely functional and not particularly inviting. By providing trees, garden beds and seating along the streetscape it encourages visitors to linger, to meet and it becomes a genuine place to stop and shop. The matter of contention is that Wharf Street traders see any loss of street side parking as having a negative impact on their business. Observations however have indicated that there are generally many empty kerbside parking areas in Wharf Street between Frances and Florence Streets. It is believed that the increased beautification brought about by a revitalised streetscape, gained by this forfeit of a small number of parking spaces will have a net positive economic benefit to adjoining businesses. In order to satisfy the aims of the streetscaping project and in particular to economically stimulate the area by increasing the "green" appeal of the Tweed Heads CBD it is recommended that the as exhibited version of the Concept Plan for Wharf Street be implemented. OPTIONS: Council can: • Implement the concept plan as exhibited. • Revise the Concept Plan for Wharf Street to provide blisters only where car spaces are

not consumed. • Defer works in Wharf Street between Frances and Florence Streets.


CONCLUSION: Community consultation for the Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 has been completed. The proposed concept designs for Bay and Wharf Street seek to provide a balance between "greening" the area and maintaining customer parking. As such, it is considered that the concept warrants approval, subject to the revisions listed in this report. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: The Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2 is in general accordance with the adopted Tweed Heads Streetscaping Masterplan, taking account of the revisions listed in this report. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: There is an amount of $50,000 allocated in the 2013/2014 budget to complete detailed design of the streetscaping in the missing areas (parts of Bay and Wharf Streets). As well, there is an amount of $780,000 allocated to Bay Street (east and west of Wharf Street) to undertake pavement repairs. Of this amount on a pro rata basis $350,000 is available for the section of Bay Street west of Navigation Lane. A cost estimate prepared by Council Officers and based on the Concept Plans that were exhibited has estimated the construction cost of the Tweed Heads Streetscaping Stage 2, not including the pavement upgrade, at approximately $620,000 including 10% contingency. A potential source of funding to cover construction costs of these sections was Round 5 of the Regional Development Australia (RDA) Fund grants. Council was allocated an amount of $613,184 in Round 5, subject to a successful grant application being lodged and approved. The grant was lodged on 22 July 2013 within the nominated time frame. However, since the Federal Election of 14 September 2013, advice has been received that Round 5 projects will not proceed, with the Coalition Government advising that there was no money available for the projects. Without the RDA grant funding there are insufficient funds to undertake the streetscaping elements of the project. Options on how the project may be funded will be the subject of a future Council report. In the meantime Council Officers will complete the detailed design of the streetscaping works using funds already allocated to the project. c. Legal: Not applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


68 [EO-CM] Naming of Public Parks and Sportsfields Policy SUBMITTED BY: Recreation Services

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At its meeting held 18 July 2013, Council resolved to place the draft "Naming of Public Parks and Sportsfields Policy Version 2.0" on public exhibition as per Council policy. At the close of the exhibition period, no submissions were received. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopts the Naming of Public Parks and Sportsfields Policy Version 2.0.


REPORT:

At its meeting held 18 July 2013, Council resolved to place the draft "Naming of Public Parks and Sportsfields Policy Version 2.0" on public exhibition as per Council policy. At the close of the exhibition period, no submissions were received. OPTIONS: 1. Adopt the policy as per the recommendation 2. Retain the Naming of Public Parks and Sportsfields Policy Version 1.0. CONCLUSION: As no submissions were received during the exhibition period, Council is able to adopt the draft policy. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Nil c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


REPORTS FROM THE ACTING DIRECTOR TECHNOLOGY AND CORPORATE SERVICES

69 [TCS-CM] Council Meeting Frequency SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Recommendation 10 of the SINC Solutions Final Report tabled at the October Council meeting, highlighted that a review of Council Meeting practices should be undertaken. This report canvasses various options for consideration of Council. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. Adopts the following:

a) Convenes a Planning Committee meeting to only discuss planning related matters on the first Thursday of the month. The Planning Committee will include Community Access on the items on the Planning Agenda, with a Council Meeting to follow, to specifically adopt the recommendations of the Planning Committee; and

b) Convenes a Council Meeting on the third Thursday of the month, where all

other items are considered, including any planning matters that may have been deferred from the Planning Committee Meeting. This Council Meeting will include consideration of Notices of Motion, Questions on Notice, Mayoral Minute and all other reports from the other directorates with the exception of Planning and Regulations. A Community Access session will be held at the commencement of the Council Meeting for members of the public to discuss pertinent matters other than planning matters.


2. Amends the Code of Meeting Practice, Version 2.3 to include the following:

"Development application requests for call up and determination by Council, which are under the current delegated authority of staff, be instigated by way of a request signed by two Councillors."


REPORT:

Recommendation 10 of the SINC Solutions Final Report tabled at the October Council meeting, highlighted that a review of Council Meeting practices should be undertaken. This recommendation states: "Recommendation 10 That Council should consider reviewing its current practice of providing considerably voluminous Council business papers to Councillors on a regular basis through adopting any or all or the following:

1. Scheduling more regular Council Meetings 2. Scheduling complex matters more effectively; 3. Undertaking a Delegations Review; and/or 4. Adoption of a Planning Committee (PC) or an Independent Hearing and

Assessment Panel (IHAP)." Current Situation The current meeting frequency has been influenced by both the Local Government Act and the Code of Meeting Practice and is as follows:

"1.1 Holding Meetings 1.1.1 How often does the council meet?

Ordinary council meetings are held on a regular basis, as decided by the council. Each council must meet at least ten (10) times a year, with each meeting being in a different month. (The Act Sec 365).

1.1.2 Where are council meetings held?

Council meetings are normally held in the Council Chambers Civic and Cultural Centre, Tumbulgum Road, Murwillumbah. It is up to the council to decide when and where to have the meeting. These meetings are open to the public. Confidential items are considered in closed session, which excludes press and public. Council Meetings will be normally conducted on the third Thursday of the month, commencing at 4.45pm which may be preceded by any Reserve Trust meeting(s) – if necessary, which commence at 4.30pm."

It is noted that Council at the October 2013 meeting resolved to conduct the normal February 2014 Council Meeting at Tweed Heads Civic Centre - within the South Sea Islander Room.


Previous Meeting Practice 2005-2008 Prior to the appointment of Administrators in May 2005, Council conducted meetings on the first and third Wednesday afternoon of the month, commencing at 4.00pm. Following the appointment of Administrators in May 2005, Council meetings were held - Initially on a fortnightly basis, meeting firstly as a Planning Committee, followed by an Operations Committee and concluding with a Council Meeting, where the recommendations of both the Planning and Operations Committees were adopted. The Administrators refined the meeting frequency to once per month, but still retained the Committee structure, followed by the Council meeting. 2008-2012 The council elected in September 2008 met on a once monthly basis, and initially retained the Planning and Operations Committee Structure as well as meeting in a formal Council Meeting framework on the same day. This practice was eventually altered to the current type of council meeting practice which is in place today. Planning Committee The Planning Committee Agenda comprised entirely of Planning and Regulations Reports and these were considered within a Committee Meeting. During this part of the meeting, members were able to address the Committee on matters that were listed on the agenda. This address took the form of Community Access, where the speakers were allowed five minutes to address the councillors, followed by questions. The reports were then considered by the Committee and the Recommendations of the Committee Resolved by the formal Council Meeting. Operations Committee The Operations Committee Agenda comprised reports from the General Manager and the other three Divisions. These reports were considered by the Committee and the Recommendations later Resolved by the formal Council Meeting. Council Meeting The Council Meeting Agenda contained the Mayoral Minute, Notices of Motion, Questions on Notice and any reports that dealt with Policy considerations of Council. September 2012 to date Council meetings to consider all reports and items submitted on the Agenda have been conducted on a once a month basis. The size of the Agendas has varied as has the time taken to consider the business. It is noted that the current Council has altered the availability of Business Papers to:

"1.4.1 Copy of Business Paper

Council and each Committee must have available for the public at its offices and at each meeting, copies (for inspection or taking away by any person) of the business paper for the meeting. This requirement does not apply to a business paper for a matter that, in the opinion of the General Manager, is likely to be considered when the meeting is closed to the public. The Act Sec 9(2)


1.4.1.1 Time of Availability

A copy of the Meeting Agenda is to be placed in the three (3) Council Libraries and is available to the public and media as nearly as possible to the time they are available to Councillors, including electronic copies on Council's Web Site from 8.00pm on the Tuesday of the week preceding the Council meeting.

The Act Sec 9(3)" It is further noted that the Local Government Act and Regulations prescribe that only three days notice is required for the provision of Business paper and Council exceeds this requirement by making the Business Paper available eight full days prior to the Council Meeting day. A further consideration could be given to reducing the size of the business papers by reviewing the manner in which development applications can be "called up" for consideration by Council. Notwithstanding the delegations provided to staff to enable determination of development applications, there exists within the Development Assessment Panel and Delegation of Authority Protocol that "the application has been called up for decision by Council by a Councillor". To further enhance this aspect of an application being "called up" it is worth noting the current process for determination of workshops requested by a Councillor. The following is an extract from the current Code of Meeting Practice:

"(a) Workshop for Councillors be determined by way of a majority of Councillors indicating their desire via an email proposal and acceptance."

A similar process could be implemented and included within the Code of Meeting Practice for the "calling up" of applications that are within the existing delegated authority of staff, as follows:

"Development application requests for call up and determination by Council, which are under the current delegated authority of staff, be instigated by way of a request signed by two Councillors."

The implementation of this process could aid in the reduction of planning matters to be considered by Council. OPTIONS: 1. On the understanding that Council has to meet at least ten times in a calendar year in

separate months, consideration could be given to meeting on a more frequent basis, say every three weeks, which would aid in balancing the size of the Business Paper and provide a more frequent consideration of matters, particularly planning matters.

2. Council may also consider the concept of convening a Planning Committee meeting to

only discuss planning related matters on a different day to the balance of the council business. The Planning Committee could include Community Access on the items on the Planning Agenda, with a Council Meeting to follow, to specifically adopt the recommendations of the Planning Committee.


3. Convene a Council Meeting on a different day to the Planning Committee meeting,

where all other items are considered, including any planning matters that may have been deferred from the Planning Committee Meeting. This Council Meeting would include consideration of Notices of Motion, Questions on Notice, Mayoral Minute and all other reports from the other directorates with the exception of Planning and Regulations. Consideration could also be given to holding a Community Access session at the commencement of the Council Meeting for members of the public to discuss pertinent matters other than planning matters.

4. Council meetings continue on the third Thursday of month. 5. Council meetings continue on the third Thursday of month and commence at an earlier

time. CONCLUSION: That Council determines a suitable Council Meeting format that suits the current demand which achieves the objectives and strategies of the Community Strategic Plan 2013-2023. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice Version 2.3 may need amending, depending on Council's decision. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Costs associated with Council Meetings are adequately covered within the existing estimates. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


70 [TCS-CM] Council Committees - Delegates to September 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The appointment of councillor delegates to the various committees of Council occurred primarily in September 2012 and as a number of committees are experiencing concerns in regards to achieving a quorum at meetings, there now exists an opportunity to review the delegates to these committees. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council reviews and makes appropriate changes to the appointed delegates to the various committees for the period ending September 2016.


REPORT:

The appointment of councillor delegates to the various committees of Council occurred primarily in September 2012 and as a number of committees are experiencing concerns in regards to achieving a quorum at meetings, there now exists an opportunity to review the delegates to these committees. The current delegates and alternate appointed to the various committees are as follows:

Committee Delegate Alternate Delegate

Aboriginal Advisory Cr Longland Cr Milne Arts Northern Rivers Board Cr Longland Cr Armstrong Audit Cr Armstrong and

Cr Byrne

Australia Day Cr Longland Destination Tweed Mayor - Cr Longland Equal Access Advisory Cr Armstrong and

Cr Youngblutt

Flood Plain Management Cr Milne Cr Bagnall General Manager Review All Councillors Gold Coast Airport Community Aviation Consultative Group

Cr Byrne Cr Milne

Local Traffic Cr Longland Cr Armstrong Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils

Mayor - Cr Longland Deputy Mayor - Cr Armstrong

Richmond - Tweed Regional Library Cr Byrne and Cr Milne

Cr Armstrong

Rural Fire Service Liaison Cr Bagnall and Cr Youngblutt

Far North Coast Bush Fire Management Cr Youngblutt Cr Bagnall Sports Advisory Cr Youngblutt Cr Polglase Tweed Coastal Cr Bagnall and

Cr Longland Cr Milne

Tweed Coast Koala Advisory Group Cr Milne Tweed River Cr Bagnall and

Cr Milne

Tweed River Regional Art Gallery Advisory Cr Polglase and Cr Youngblutt

Tweed River Regional Museum Advisory Cr Armstrong Cr Longland Mayor's Disaster Relief Fund Mayor and Deputy

Mayor

OPTIONS: To ensure the continuance of the committees, Council reviews and makes appropriate changes to the appointed delegates to the various committees for the period ending September 2016.


CONCLUSION: That Council reviews and makes appropriate changes to the appointed delegates to the various committees for the period ending September 2016. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy is Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Expenses associated with attendance at committee meetings are included within the budget. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


71 [TCS-CM] Environmental Levy 2014/2015 SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.2 Improve decision making by engaging stakeholders and taking into account community input 1.2.3 Financial requirements and the community's capacity to pay will be taken into account when meeting the community's desired levels of

service

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At Council's meeting of 15 August 2013 it was resolved that "Council officers prepare a report for the introduction of an environmental levy of 1% above the capped rate for the consideration of Council at the November 2013 meeting. This levy would be for 2014-2015 financial year and beyond." The introduction of an environmental levy would require a special rate variation to general income and this report provides a preliminary overview of the guidelines for the preparation of a special rate variation application and an indicative financial impact on ratepayers for the year 2014/2015. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. A list of environmental projects be prepared from existing and draft

environmental management plans and strategies that require additional funding (i.e. not already funded under existing budget allocations) with a view to further considering these for inclusion in the 2014/2015 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework process.

2. Advice be provided in 2014/2015 Operational Plan and Revenue Policy and

Statement of the intent to apply an environmental levy effective from the 2015/2016 financial period.


REPORT:

At Council's meeting of 15 August 2013 it was resolved that "Council officers prepare a report for the introduction of an environmental levy of 1% above the capped rate for the consideration of Council at the November 2013 meeting. This levy would be for 2014-2015 financial year and beyond." The introduction of an environmental levy would require a special rate variation to general income. The following sections are excerpts from various reference documents. Regulatory Framework In 2010 the NSW Government delegated to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) the function of regulating council rate increases, including: • Determining the annual percentage by which council's general income may be varied

(the rate peg) • Establishing a Local Government Cost Index to be used in setting the rate peg. • Reviewing applications from Councils for 'special rate variations' and determining the

special variations. • Reviewing applications from Councils for minimum rates above the statutory limit and

determining minimum rate increases. What is a Special Rate Variation? The Local Government Act 1993 allows councils to apply for a special rate variation. A special rate variation allows councils to increase general income by more than the rate peg. Councils may apply for a special rate variation for a range of reasons such as: • improving the financial position of the council, particularly where there may be financial

sustainability issues • funding the development and/or maintenance of essential community infrastructure or to

reduce backlogs in asset maintenance and renewal • funding new or enhanced services to meet growing demand in the community • funding projects of regional significance, and • covering special or unique cost pressures that the council faces. Types of Special Rate Variation There are two special variation options under the Local Government Act 1993. When seeking a special variation, councils may apply for:


• a one-off percentage increase under section 508(2); or • multi-year percentage increases (of between two and seven years) under section 508A. The type of special variation that is appropriate for each council will be determined by the revenue requirements of the council, as outlined in the adopted Long Term Financial Plan. This will depend on a number of factors including: • the size of the variation required, • the reason for the variation, • the need for the increase to be ongoing or for a fixed term, • the fluctuation of expenditure over time, • the financial objectives of a council, and • the rate at which a council wishes to recover its costs. It is important to understand the difference between each type of variation and the impact each will have on a council’s financial position, the provision of services and the ability of ratepayers to pay the additional rates. In general, a council’s general income could follow one of four scenarios: • Scenario 1 (s508A of the Local Government Act 1993): Successive annual percentage

increases (between 2 and 7 years), which remain permanently in the rate base; • Scenario 2 (508(2) permanent): a one-off (single year) percentage increase that remains

permanently in the rate base; • Scenario 3 (508(2) fixed for x years): a one-off (single year) percentage increase that

remains in the rate base for x years. At the end of the fixed period the rate base is adjusted to match the rate peg path; or

• Scenario 4 (Rate Peg): IPART determined rate peg applies each year. Assessment Criteria IPART have advised that the following criteria will be used to assess an application for a Special Rate Variation:


1. The need for and purpose of a different revenue path (as requested through the special variation) is clearly articulated and identified through the council’s IP&R documents, including its Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan. Evidence for this criterion could include evidence of community need/desire for service levels/project and limited council resourcing alternatives and the Council’s financial sustainability conducted by the NSW Treasury Corporation. In demonstrating this need councils must indicate the financial impact in their Long Term Financial Plan applying the following two scenarios:

• Baseline scenario – revenue and expenditure forecasts which reflects the business

as usual model, and exclude the special variation, and

• Special Rate Variation scenario – the result of approving the special variation in full is shown and reflected in the revenue forecast with the additional expenditure levels intended to be funded by the Special Rate Variation.

Comment: Although there is considerable scope to improve funding via a special rate

variation for environmental actions under various environmental management plans that have been adopted or are in preparation (e.g. Vegetation Management Strategy, Koala Plan of Management, Coastal Zone Management Plans, Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, Environmental Sustainability Strategy), such actions have not (at this stage) been specifically identified in Council’s Delivery Program or Long Term Financial Plan.

2. Evidence that the community is aware of the need for and extent of a rate rise. This

must be clearly spelt out in Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework documentation and the council must demonstrate an appropriate variety of engagement methods to ensure opportunity for community awareness/input. The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework documentation should canvas alternatives to a rate rise, the impact of any rises upon the community and the council’s consideration of the community’s capacity and willingness to pay rates. The relevant Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework documents must be approved and adopted by the council before the council seeks IPART’s approval for a Special Rate Variation to its general revenue.

Comment

: As noted above, specific environmental actions that may be funded under a special rate variation have not (at this stage) been specifically identified in Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework documentation nor has the community been consulted on the need for and extent of such a rate rise.

3. The impact on affected ratepayers must be reasonable, having regard to both the current rate levels, existing ratepayer base and the proposed purpose of the variation. Council’s IP&R process should also establish that the proposed rate increases are affordable having regard to the local community’s capacity to pay.

Comment

: As noted in the history detailed below, the community has endured a series of rate increases over recent years. No analysis has been carried out at this stage to indicate that a rate increase is affordable.


4. The proposed Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan must show evidence of realistic assumptions.

Comment

: As specific environmental actions that may be the subject of a special rate variation identified have not been identified it is not possible at this stage to test the assumptions inherent in the proposal.

5. An explanation of the productivity improvements and cost containment strategies the council has realised in past years, and plans to realise over the proposed special variation period.

6. IPART’s assessment against criteria 1 to 5 should take into account:

• size of the Council • resources of the Council • size (both actual $ and %) of increase requested • current rate levels and previous rate rises • purpose of the special variation • any other matter considered relevant in the assessment of a special variation

application

Further IPART has advised that Council must supply with its application a copy of the resolution(s) to apply for a Special Rate Variation, as it will not assess the application unless the Council demonstrates its commitment to its proposal.

Comment: Without a detailed analysis of environmental needs, a Council resolution

demonstrating commitment to an unspecified environmental levy proposal is likely to be premature.

The IPART Guidelines for 2014/2015 have changed from the previous year in three main respects: 1. Councils must submit both a special variation scenario and a ‘business as usual’

scenario in their Long Term Financial Plans. 2. Councils must have adopted their relevant Integrated Planning and Reporting

(IP&R) documents before submitting an application for a special variation. - (emphasis added by Council)

3. Where a council is not able to incorporate its special variation into its IP&R documents,

it may apply for an exemption from this requirement. However, this would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

Special Variations and Integrated Planning and Reporting The NSW Government introduced the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework to improve councils’ long term planning; integrate community, financial and asset planning; and to improve council accountability. All councils have now implemented the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. This means that they have:


• Identified and planned for funding priorities, asset management and service levels following engagement with their communities. One way these priorities might be paid for would be through a special variation in rates.

• Developed a set of plans in consultation with their communities, including a

Community Strategic Plan, a Long Term Financial Plan (both for at least a minimum of 10 years), and a 4-year Delivery Program and 1-year Operational Plan with accompanying budgets. Any proposed special variation would be reflected in the Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan.

• Established a series of reporting processes.

Timeline Important dates for a Council that is considering an application for a Special Rate Variation are: 1. Have a preliminary telephone discussion with IPART and consider a meeting before

official notification date 13 December 2013. 2. Register on IPARTS's Council Portal and submit a notification letter indicating Councils

intention to apply for a special rate variation by 13 December 2013. 3. Have the completed application form, both part A and B and supply of all

supporting documentation registered via the Portal by 24 February 2014. (emphasis added by Council)

4. Although IPART does not solicit submissions from interested groups or individual

ratepayers it will accept submissions up to 24 March 2014. 5. Special Rate Variation application decisions (approved or rejected) are announced in

mid June 2014. Financial Impact of the proposed Increase A one percent increase (1%) on Council’s total notional yield would currently produce an amount of $523,073.00. A straight line spread of this amount over the three rating categories equates to a rate in the dollar of .00055. Using this scenario the following table has been provided for information.


Rate Type Number of Properties Land Value

Rate in the Dollar

Total Rates Levied

Percentage of Total Levy

RESRATE (Env Levy) 35,594 7,623,543,492 0.000055 $419,356.58 80.17

BUSRATE (Env Levy) 1,801 938,065,180 0.000055 $51,595.46 9.86

FARMLAND (Env Levy) 1,548 947,612,510 0.000055 $52,121.84 9.96

Sub-Total 38,943 9,509,221,182

TOTAL

$523,073.88 100.00

Rate Type Number of Properties Land Value

Rate in the Dollar

Total Rates Levied

Percentage of Total Levy

Environmental Levy 38,943 9,509,221,182 0.000055 $523,073.88 100.00

Rate Type Number of Properties

Average Land Value

Average Amount of Rates Levied

Greater Than Minimum

Number on Minimum

RESRATE (Env Levy) 35,594 214,180.58 $11.78 35594 0

BUSRATE (Env Levy) 1,801 520,857.96 $28.65 1801 0

FARMLAND (Env Levy) 1,548 612,152.78 $33.67 1548 0

Sub-Total 38,943 38943 0

Environmental Levy 38,943 244,183.07 $13.43 38943 0 The proposed average rate increase for the first year equates to:

Category Ave. Land Value Increase Residential $214,180 $11.78 Business $520,854 $28.65 Farmland $612,152 $33.67

The average levy for all properties within the shire is $13.43 per property.


Tweed Shire Council rates increase history The following table compares Council rate increases adopted to the allowable increase from 1977.

Year Allowable

Increase for General Fund

Tweed Shire Council Adopted

Change Variation

1977 12.0% 12.0% Nil 1978 9.5% 9.5% Nil 1979 8.0% 8.0% Nil 1980 10.0% 10.0% Nil 1981 12.5% 10.2% -2.3% 1982 12.0% 10.0% -2.0% 1983 11.0% 11.0% Nil 1984 8.0% 8.0% Nil 1985 8.0% 8.0% Nil 1986 8.0% 8.0% Nil 1987 7.0% 7.0% Nil 1988 6.5% 6.5% Nil 1989 6.5% 6.5% Nil 1990 7.3% 5.9% -1.4% 1991 6.7% 6.7% Nil 1992 0.0% 0.0% Nil 1993 2.6% 2.6% Nil 1994 3.5% 13.5% +10.0%

1994/1995 0.0% 1.9% +1.9% 1995/1996 2.2% 9.7% +7.5% 1996/1997 2.7% 10.5% +7.8% 1997/1998 3.1% 8.1% +5.0% 1998/1999 1.7% 7.9% +6.2% 1999/2000 2.4% 2.4% Nil 2000/2001 2.7% 2.7% Nil 2001/2002 2.8% 2.8% Nil 2002/2003 3.3% 3.3% Nil 2003/2004 3.6% 3.6% Nil 2004/2005 3.5% 7.5% +4.0% 2005/2006 3.5% 3.5% Nil 2006/2007 3.6% 7.6% +4.0% 2007/2008 3.4% 8.0% +4.6% 2008/2009 3.2% 9.5% +6.3% 2009/2010 3.5% 9.5% +6.0% 2010/2011 2.6% 8.5% +5.9% 2011/2012 2.8% 7.5% +4.7% 2012/2013 3.6% 7.9% +4.3% 2013/2014 3.4% 3.4% Nil


Discussion The introduction of the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework by the NSW Government intended councils to have a longer term planning view of their communities through the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Resourcing Strategy (including the Long Term Financial Plan) and Operational Plan. Similarly, community engagement of these plans is a pivotal theme of the legislation affording Council the opportunity to clearly articulate the cost and benefits of any proposed special rate variation for community feedback. The information above provides the steps needed to be undertaken for the introduction of an environmental levy through the Special Rate Variation process, including the need to have adopted IPR documents (including community engagement) by 24 February 2014. As the IPR process for 2014/2015 is yet to commence it is considered very optimistic that the full process could be completed and adopted by 24 February 2014. If Council were to pursue any special rate variation, be it for environmental or any other purposes, it is suggested that the planning and community engagement be undertaken for introduction in the 2015/2016 financial year. OPTIONS: 1. Considering the substantial justification required to implement a special rate variation,

Council staff develop a prioritised list of environmental projects from existing and in-preparation environmental management plans and strategies that require additional funding (i.e. not already funded under existing budget allocations) with a view to further considering these for inclusion in the 2014/2015 IPR process. This would permit the above steps to introduce any special rate variation for implementation in the 2015/2016 financial year.

2. Council receives and notes the report and takes no further action on the resolution. CONCLUSION: It is acknowledged that there is scope to consider additional funding for environmental projects under Council’s adopted (and in-preparation) environmental management plans and strategies. However, to implement and properly consult with constituents on a special rate variation for the 2014/2015 rating year would be a challenging task considering the timeframe and legislative requirements associated with the application process. It is therefore recommended that Council develop a prioritised list of environmental projects that require additional funding and that these be further considered by Council with a view to their inclusion in the 2014/2015 IPR process. This would permit the necessary steps to be taken to introduce any special rate variation for implementation in the 2015/2016 financial year. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: A 1% increase from an environmental levy would generate $523,073 which could be used to fund the following environmental programs. Council would need to develop a prioritised list of projects from existing, current environmental strategies and management plans above and beyond those already funded from existing budget allocations. This project list would be reviewed annually and upon adoption of future environmental strategies. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult-We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


72 [TCS-CM] Tweed Shire Council Annual Report 2012/2013 SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The 2012/2013 Annual Report has been prepared as required under Sections 428 and 428A of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 217 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 and is attached to this report for information of the Council and community. The Annual Report documentation comprises the following:

• Tweed Shire Council Annual Report 2012/2013 which includes statutory information as prescribed within the Local Government Act and Regulations; and

• Tweed Shire Council Audited Financial Statements 2012/2013. Copies of all these documents will be uploaded to the Council website and as prescribed, will be made available to the Minister for Local Government. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receives and notes the Tweed Shire Council Annual Report 2012/2013 and makes it available to the public on Council's website and notifies the Minister for Local Government of its availability.


REPORT:

The 2012/2013 Annual Report has been prepared as required under Sections 428 and 428A of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 217 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005and is attached to this report for information of the Council and community. The Annual Report documentation comprises the following:

• Tweed Shire Council Annual Report 2012/2013 which includes statutory information as prescribed within the Local Government Act and Regulations; and

• Tweed Shire Council Audited Financial Statements 2012/2013. Copies of all these documents will be uploaded to the Council website and as prescribed, will be made available to the Minister for Local Government. The Annual Report highlights achievements against each of the Community Strategic Plan themes of Civic Leadership, Supporting Community Life, Strengthening the Economy and Caring for the Environment. While not specifically required with this edition of the Annual Report a summary of the Tweed Shire Council State of the Environment Report has been included which provides information on further elements of the Caring for the Environment theme. The audited Financial Statements 2012/2013 detail the income and expenditure and financial position of Council over this period as well as specific schedules and the Special Purpose Financial Reports. OPTIONS: Council adopts the Annual Report 2012/2013 and the associated documents. CONCLUSION: Council adopts the Annual Report 2012/2013 and the associated documents. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. In accordance with Sections 428 and 428A of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 217 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed.



Attachment 1. Tweed Shire Council Annual Report 2012/2013 (ECM 3215157) Attachment 2. General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

included as an attachment to [TCS-CM] 2012/2013 Statutory Financial Reports/Audit Report of this Agenda.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


73 [TCS-CM] 2012/2013 Statutory Financial Reports/Audit Report SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid


service

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council's Statutory General Purpose and Special Purpose Financial Reports in accordance with Section 413 of the Local Government Act, 1993 for the financial year ended 30 June 2013 have been completed and audited. The Reports, including significant accounting policies and associated independent Audit Report from Thomas, Noble and Russell (TNR), presents Council with a financial overview of its operations for the year 2012/2013. The financial result for the year reveals that Council's finances are in a stable position and that the internal financial management practices are sound. The Financial Reports for 2012/2013 are now presented to Council for adoption. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopts the 2012/2013 Statutory General Purpose and Special Purpose Financial Reports.


REPORT:

Background Council’s General Purpose Financial Report, including significant accounting policies for year ended 30 June 2013 have now been completed and the auditor’s report received. These reports were completed by Council and audited by Council’s auditors, Thomas Noble and Russell. Legislation Requirements: The Local Government Act, 1993 (“the Act”) relating to the preparation of Council’s annual financial reports requires that: 1. Section 413 – A council must prepare financial reports for each year, and must refer

them for audit as soon as practicable after the end of that year. 2. Section 413 (2) – A council’s financial reports must include:

(a) a general purpose financial report; (b) any other matter prescribed by the regulations; and (c) a statement in the approved form by the council as to its opinion on the general

purpose financial report. 3. Section 413 (3) – The general purpose financial report must be prepared in

accordance with the Act and the regulations and the requirements of:

(a) the publications issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board, as in force for the time being, subject to regulations; and

(b) such other standards as may be prescribed by the regulations. 4. Section 416 – A council’s financial reports for a year must be prepared and audited

within the period of 4 months after the end of that year. 5. Section 418 – Upon receiving the Auditor’s Report, the Act requires the Council to give

at least 7 days public notice of the meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports, together with the Auditor’s Report, to the public.

6. Section 420 – Any person may make a submission to the Council with respect to the

Council’s audited financial reports or with respect to the Auditor’s Report. 7. Section 428(4)(a) – The audited financial reports must be included in the Council’s

annual report. 8. Clause 215 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, 2005 requires that the

Statement under Section 413 (2) (c) on the annual financial report must be made by resolution of the Council and signed by the Mayor, at least one (1) other member of Council, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.


9. It is a requirement of the Division of Local Government that lodgement of the Audited Financial Statements and the Auditors Report be submitted to the Chief Executive by 7 November of each year. (Note: This requirement has been met with Council submitting the Statements on 25 October 2013).

Council’s responsibility Council is responsible for the preparation of the financial reports and adequate disclosures. This includes the maintenance of adequate accounting records and internal controls, the selection and application of accounting policies, and the safeguarding of the assets of Council. As the Responsible Accounting Officer, the Acting Director Technology and Corporate Services, Mr Michael Chorlton has stated the accounting records have been maintained in accordance with Section 412 of the Act and in a manner that permitted the preparation of the General and Special Purpose Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2013. Update No. 21 to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting was issued in June of this year and is relevant to accounting periods ending 30 June 2013. Purpose of Annual Financial Reporting The purpose of financial reporting, or the preparation of annual financial statements, is to communicate information about the financial position and operating results of Council to those who need to know or have an interest in Council operations. Parties who have an interest in, or need to know financial reporting information include: • councillors and management; • residents/ratepayers; • government departments and public authorities; • community groups; and • financial institutions The users of financial reporting information are varied and financial statements must, therefore, be structured to meet all their respective requirements. This is achieved through conformity with the Australian Accounting Standards, which apply to the majority of business operations in Australia. Annual Financial Reporting System General Purpose Financial Reports Under the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards, Council is required to prepare the following reports for each financial year. Income Statement This shows the operating result and change in net assets from operations for the year.


Statement of Comprehensive Income Components of the statement of comprehensive income are items of income and expense that are not recognised in profit and loss as required or permitted by other Australian Accounting Standards. These items were previously recorded in the statement of change in equity, but due to the change in AASB101 Presentation of Financial Statements, are now recorded in this new statement. Statement of Financial Position This discloses the assets, liabilities and equity of Council. Statement of Changes in Equity This reconciles opening and closing balances for each class of equity during the reporting period and gives details of any movement in these classes of equity. Statement of Cash Flow This shows information about cash flows associated with Council’s operating, financing and investing activities. Notes to the Financial Statements These disclose the accounting policies adopted by Council and provide additional material necessary for evaluating and interpreting the financial statements. In addition to the General Purpose Financial Reports, Council must also submit the Auditor’s Reports in accordance with Section 417(1) of the Act and Council’s Statement in accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Act. Special Purpose Financial Reports The National Competition Policy requires Local Government to complete Special Purpose Financial Reports for all Council's declared business activities:- Tweed Water, Tweed Sewerage, Tweed Coast Holiday Parks and Commercial Waste. Special Schedules The Division of Local Government, the Local Government Grants Commission and the NSW Office of Water require a series of schedules. These provide additional details on Council’s net cost of services; internal and external loans; operating statements and statements of net assets committed for water and sewerage services; and information on water and sewerage rates and charges. Audit Mandate Council’s Auditors, Thomas Noble and Russell, have completed the audit of Council’s general purpose financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2013 under Section 417 of the Local Government Act 1993. Council’s auditor must prepare two reports to Council (Section 417 (1)): • A report on the general purpose financial report, and • A report on the conduct of the audit. As soon as practicable after receiving the auditor’s reports, Council must send a copy of the audited financial reports and the auditor’s reports to the NSW Division of Local Government.


Management Responsibility - Audit The performance of an audit or the provision of an audit report does not in any way absolve or relieve management of its responsibility in the maintenance of adequate accounting policies and the preparation of financial information such as budget preparation and the quarterly budget reviews submitted to Council each three months. Council has strong internal management reporting practices in place that ensures all costs and income are monitored and acted upon. Management has the responsibility to safeguard Council assets and prescribe policies and procedures that are consistent with the economic and efficient use of resources. Performance Indicators Council remains in a sound financial position regarding its short-term liquidity. The key financial performance ratios, as shown in the statements and listed in the following table, remain at satisfactory levels. Performance Indicators 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 Unrestricted Current Ratio 3.38:1 3.07:1 2.77:1 2.65:1 Debt Service Ratio 15.13% 14.05% 13.81% 11.67% Rates and Annual Charges Coverage Ratio 47.18% 44.41% 47.02% 42.70% Rates and Annual Charges Outstanding 7.04% 8.08% 7.28% 7.22%

To clarify the meaning and implication, a basic definition of each indicator is listed below. a) Unrestricted Current Ratio – The total current cash or cash convertible assets

available, divided by current liabilities, excluding assets and liabilities, which relate to activities that are restricted to specific purposes by legislation. This is a measure of Council’s liquidity.

b) Debt Service Ratio – The amount used to repay borrowings as a percentage of total

operating revenues. The indicator shows the amount of revenue necessary to service annual debt obligations.

c) Rates and Annual Charges Coverage Ratio – This percentage is based on rates and

annual charges revenues as a percentage of total operating revenues. This is a measure of Council’s dependency on rate income.

d) Rates and Annual Charges Outstanding Percentage – This percentage is based on the

amount outstanding as a percentage of the amount to be collected for rates and annual charges. This indicator measures the effectiveness of Council in recovering legally owed debts.

OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION: The Financial Reports for 2012/2013 are now presented to Council for adoption.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. The Statutory General Purpose and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year 2012/2013 (ECM 3204067).


74 [TCS-CM] Councillors - Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy - Version 1.8

SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council at its meeting held on Thursday 19 September 2013 resolved that:

"under the provisions of Section 253(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, places on public exhibition for at least 28 days the Draft Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy – Version 1.8."

The policy was placed on public exhibition from Wednesday 2 October 2013 to Friday 1 November 2013 and during this period Council received no written submissions. It is recommended that the Draft Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy Version 1.8 be adopted. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, in accordance with Section 252(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, adopts the Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy, Version 1.8.


REPORT:

Council at its meeting held on Thursday 19 September 2013 resolved that:

"under the provisions of Section 253(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, places on public exhibition for at least 28 days the Draft Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy – Version 1.8."

The policy was placed on public exhibition from Wednesday 2 October 2013 to Friday 1 November 2013 and during this period Council received no written submissions. The suggested amendments to the Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy Version 1.7 were to: 1. Insert in the policy under the monetary limits for all expenses category:

• Newspapers Council will meet the cost of provision of newspapers up to a maximum of $75.00 per month.

2. Cater for the retention of documents as follows:

• Filing cabinets Councillors to be provided with up to two 4 drawer filing cabinets if required.

It is recommended that the Draft Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy Version 1.8 be adopted with the inclusion of the above two suggested amendments. OPTIONS: 1. Adopts the Draft Policy Version1.8. 2. Adopts the Draft Policy, Version 1.8 without the proposed two amendments. CONCLUSION: That Council, in accordance with Section 252(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, adopts the Draft Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Policy, Version 1.8. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Councillors-Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor and Councillors Version 1.7 to replaced with Version 1.8. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Expenses are allowed within the current budget. c. Legal: Not Applicable.


d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Councillors – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Mayor

and Councillors Policy, Version 1.8 (ECM 3151817).


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


75 [TCS-CM] Transactional Banking Services Tender SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Tenders for supply of transactional banking services for the Northern Rivers Regional Group of Councils was coordinated by Clarence Valley Council and closed in September 2013. This report recommends the acceptance of the Commonwealth Bank's five (5) year contract. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Council accepts the Commonwealth Bank's contract for supply of transactional

banking services for a term of five (5) years commencing 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018.

2. Contract documents be executed under the Common Seal of Council. 3. ATTACHMENT 1 is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the

Local Government Act 1993, because it contains: (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person

with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.


REPORT:

Council's transactional banking services contract is due for renewal. The Commonwealth Bank has provided these services to Council for the last seven (7) years and the current contract is due for expiry on 31 December 2013. Background A report titled Transaction Banking Services presented to Council on 4 May 2005 outlined the benefits of a regional approach to the provision of banking services. These benefits included transaction cost efficiencies from greater economies of scale if a combined councils banking service tender was formulated with Ballina, Byron, Clarence Valley, Far North Coast County Council, Kyogle, Lismore, Rous Water and Tweed Shire Councils - Northern Rivers Regional Group of Councils (NRRGC). The objective of the NRRGC tender is to secure services of a banking institution with the necessary expertise and capacity to accommodate the current and future transactional banking requirements including agency payment facilities on a cost effective basis. Tender Process Tenders for supply of transactional banking services for the Northern Rivers Regional Group of Councils was coordinated by Clarence Valley Council and closed in September 2013, with responses received from Australia Post, Commonwealth Bank and National Australia Bank. This report recommends the acceptance of the Commonwealth Bank's five (5) year contract. The successful organisation must perform the services in a diligent manner and to the standard of skill and care expected of a banking corporation experienced in the provision of the type of services required by the NRRGC in accordance with the Transactional Banking Services Agreement. A committee of staff members from the NRRGC considered the tenders using the following evaluation criteria:

• A reduction in the cost of transactional banking processes through the minimisation of fees, charges and government taxes.

• Reliable and efficient service with clearly documented and measurable performance criteria.

• A mutually, pro-active and beneficial relationship with the selected service provider. • Services to review business proposals. • Value added banking services • Customer friendly and client focused agency payment facilities.

A detailed evaluation matrix - qualitative criteria and price, is an attachment to this report. It should be noted that although the tender for transactional banking services was undertaken by the NRRGC the banking contracts need to be considered and executed by individual councils. The Australia Post submission was only for agency payment facilities and is therefore a non-complying tender and has been excluded from the tender evaluation.


Basis of Decision The Commonwealth Bank of Australia was assessed as having the highest level of capabilities with respect to the selection criteria. They have demonstrated an excellent knowledge of NRRGC's business and understand the current issues that are impacting NSW Local Government. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia have been providing excellent banking services to Council under the current and previous banking agreements. OPTIONS: 1. Accept the tender submitted by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. 2. Accept an alternate tender for the provision of transactional banking services. CONCLUSION: Based on the Panel's evaluation, the tender from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia represented the highest rated assessment against the selection criteria and demonstrated the most advantageous tender to the NRRGC and is therefore recommended as the preferred applicant. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

(Confidential) Attachment 1. Evaluation Matrix - Qualitative Criteria and Price (ECM

3207807).


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


76 [TCS-CM] Corporate Quarterly Report - 1 July to 30 September 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership 1.3 Delivering the objectives of this plan 1.3.2 Council will seek the best value in delivering services

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Corporate Quarterly Report for the period 1 July to 30 September 2013 is presented to Council for consideration. This report and accompanying attachments detail the progress of the 2013/2014 Operational Plan activities up to 30 September 2013. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorses the Corporate Quarterly Report as at 30 September 2013.


REPORT:

At the Council meeting held Tuesday 20 June 2013 the Operational Plan 2013/2014 was adopted by Council and a reporting structure has been developed which is based upon four themes identified below:

Civic Leadership - Aim: To set the overall direction and long-term goals for the Tweed in accordance with community aspirations.

Supporting Community Life - Aim: To create a place where people are healthy, safe, connected and in harmony with the natural environment, to retain and improve the quality of community life.

Strengthening the Economy- Aim: To strengthen and diversify the region's economic base in a way that complements the environmental and social values of the Tweed.

Caring for the Environment - Aim: For Council and the community to value, respect and actively participate in the care and management of our natural environment for current and future generations.

Some highlights for the quarter 1 July to 30 September 2013 are as follows: P1.3.1.1 Communications and Customer Services Residents Kit/Community

Handbook project • The Community Handbook and Residents' Kit project is almost completed.

An electronic version of the Handbook will soon be available on Councils new website.

S1.5.2.1 Development Planning and Assessment • All non-urgent section 149 certificates were issued within five days with

urgent certificates issued in two days. S2.3.2.1 Water Supply Services • Residential Water Consumption per person met the target of 180 litres per

day. S2.3.3.1 Wastewater Services • Recycled Water Use (percentage of volume) remains at 10% of total

wastewater volume. Effluent Quality Compliance (percentage of volume) is 100%.

S2.3.4.4 Waste Management Services • Recycling rate is currently at 67kg per household per annum more than

doubling the target rate of 30kg per household per annum. S4.1.3.1 Building Control • Average time to determine a Building Development Application was 38days

and exceeded the target by 2 days. The average processing time to issue a Complying Development approval was 5 days, while the average processing time to issue a Construction Certificate was 4 days well exceeding the target of 15 days.


S4.1.3.2 Environmental Health • 213 Onsite Sewage Management systems ('OSSM') were inspected well

exceeding the target of 100 OSSM systems. S4.1.3.3 Natural Resource Management • Total value of external grants administered across all Natural Resource

Management programs is $266,100 being 10% greater than expected. OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION: An undertaking given through the overarching Community Strategic Plan was that the General Manager will report quarterly to Council on the progress in meeting activities and targets of the Operational Plan. This is the first quarterly report on the progress of the 2013/2014 plan and following adoption by Council will be made available via the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework page on Council's website. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. Being reported in accordance with requirements associated with Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: In line with the impacts of the adopted Operational Plan. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1 Quarterly Report - 1 July to 30 September 2013 (ECM 3213177)


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


77 [TCS-CM] Quarterly Budget Review - September 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid


service

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This is the first quarter statutory budget review for this financial year and summarises the estimated expenditure and income changes to the 2013/2014 Budget. This statutory report is prepared in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005, sections 202 and 203. Council will have a balanced budget as at 30 June 2014 in all Funds. RECOMMENDATION:

That the: 1. Quarterly Budget Review Statement as at 30 September 2013 be adopted.


2. Expenditure and income, as summarised below and detailed within the report, be voted and adjusted in accordance with the revised total expenditure and income for the year ending 30 June 2014.

Description Change to Vote

Deficit Surplus

General Fund Expenses Employee costs 0 50,000

Materials & Contracts 851,073 0 Interest 0 0 Other Operating costs 85,198 0 Capital 4,026,130 0 Loan Repayments 0 0 Transfers to Reserves 0 0

4,962,401 50,000

Income Rates and Annual Charges 0 0

Interest revenue 0 0 Operating Grants & Conts 0 343,071 Capital Grants & Conts 0 3,554,330 User Charges & Fees 0 10,000 Other Operating Revenue 0 10,000 Loan Funds 0 260,000 Recoupments 0 145,000 Transfers from Reserves 0 590,000 Asset Sales 0 0

0 4,912,401

Net Surplus/(Deficit)

0

Deficit Surplus Sewer Fund

Expenses Employee costs 0 0

Materials & Contracts 24,912 0 Interest 0 0 Other Operating costs 0 0 Capital 0 1,786,980 Loan Repayments 0 0 Transfers to Reserves 4,529,232 0

4,554,144 1,786,980

Income 0 0 Rates and Annual Charges 0 0 Interest revenue 0 1,830,644 Operating Grants & Conts 0 0 Capital Grants & Conts 0 0 User Charges & Fees 0 0 Other Operating Revenue 0 0 Loan Funds 0 0 Recoupments 280,250 0 Transfers from Reserves 0 1,216,770 Asset Sales 0 0


280,250 3,047,414


0

Water Fund Expenses Employee costs 0 0

Materials & Contracts 7,698 0 Interest 0 0 Other Operating costs 0 0 Capital 0 295,890 Loan Repayments 0 0 Transfers to Reserves 460,693 0

468,391 295,890

Income Rates and Annual Charges 0 0

Interest revenue 0 961,437 Operating Grants & Conts 0 0 Capital Grants & Conts 0 0 User Charges & Fees 0 0 Other Operating Revenue 0 0 Loan Funds 0 0 Recoupments 1,290,350 0 Transfers from Reserves 0 501,414 Asset Sales 0 0

1,290,350 1,462,851


0


REPORT:

Budget Review 30 September 2013 (Quarterly Budget Review) In accordance with section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a Budget Review Statement and revision of the estimates of income and expenditure must be submitted to council within two months of the close of each quarter. The Regulation requires that the quarterly financial review must include the following: • A revised estimate for income and expenditure for the year. • A report as to whether or not such statements indicate that the financial position of the

Council is satisfactory and if the position is unsatisfactory, make recommendations for remedial action.

Report by Responsible Accounting Officer – Quarterly Budget Review Statements The Quarterly Budget Review Reports are prepared to provide Council and the community with information in relation to Council's financial performance and proposed amendments to its budget and forward estimates. The reports are prepared under accrual accounting principles in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993. From the 2011/2012 financial year, councils are required to prepare a Quarterly Budget Review Statement, which includes the following information: • The original budget • Approved changes to the original budget • Recommendations by Council officers regarding changes to the revised budget • A projected year end result • Actual year to date figures • Key Performance Indicators • New contracts entered into during the quarter • Consultancy and legal expenses This information is presented in the following reports: • List of changes which will impact on revenue, i.e. will affect the Operational Plan

(budget) or Long Term Financial Plan • Detailed list of recommended changes, including those recommended by officers and

those adopted by Council • Income and Expenses Statement, consolidated and by fund • Funding Statement, consolidated and by fund, which gives the total budget result • Capital Budget Review Statement • Cash & Investments Budget Review Statement • Budget Review Key Performance Indicators Statement • Budget Review Contracts (part A) and Other Expenses (part B)


Impacts on the Operational Plan and/or Long Term Financial Plan Some recommended changes will have no net effect on the Operational Plan (1 year budget). Others will have long term effects and will need to be reflected in the next revision of the Long Term Financial Plan. The changes which will have such an effect are listed below: Description $ $

General Fund Net Effect on

2013/2014 Budget Net Effect on

LTFP Life Education 1,000 1,000 Financial Assistance Grant (General) (185,198) (185,198) Legal fees 35,198

Purchase of demountable buildings 25,000 Murwillumbah Civic Centre 32,000 Murwillumbah SES Building landslip 75,000 Online engagement 27,000 Rental income communication tower (10,000)

0 (184,198)

Detailed list of changes In/Ex Item Category Description Current

Vote Change to

Vote Details / Comments

1. Proposed Variations

General

Ex 1 Ex-Capital TRCP drainage improvements

120,000

Western boundary Billabong caravan park

In 1 In-Recoup CP4 Roads

-120,000 Funding for above In 2 In-OG&C Regional roads block grant -1,810,000 18,000 Advice received

Ex 2 Ex-Op Regional roads maintenance 1,810,000 -18,000 Reduce expenditure to match income

In 2 In-OG&C Traffic facilities block grant -248,467 -8,533 Advice received

Ex 2 Ex-Op Traffic facilities - classified roads 248,467 8,533 Increase expenditure to match income

Ex 2 Ex-Capital Pottsville Road, highway to Kellehers Rd

765,000 Black Spot project

In 2 In-CG&C Black Spot grant

-765,000 Funding for above In 3 In-OG&C Youth Opportunities Grant -50,000 50,000 Grant application unsuccessful Ex 3 Ex-OpEmp Improved Services for Shire Youth 211,413 -50,000 Position no longer funded Ex 3 Ex-Op Improved Services for Shire Youth 211,413 -36,477 Transfer budget to Youth Strategy Ex 3 Ex-Op Youth Strategy

36,477 Transfer budget from Shire Youth

Ex 4 Ex-Op Oxley river bank stabilisation

500,000 New project Ex 4 In-TFR Catchment water quality reserve

-500,000 Funding for above

Ex 5 Ex-Op Tweed Life Education Group 2,138 1,000 Submission to Original Budget Ex 6 Ex-Capital Art Gallery construction 0 2,789,330 Margaret Olley Art Centre In 6 In-CG&C Margaret Olley Trust

-1,000,000 Funding (in addition to rollovers)

In 6 In-CG&C Federal Better Regions grant

-1,000,000 Funding (in addition to rollovers) In 6 In-CG&C State WASIP grant

-89,330 Funding (in addition to rollovers)

In 6 In-CG&C Friends & Foundation contributions

-700,000 Funding (in addition to rollovers)

In 7 In-OG&C Financial Assistance Grant (General) -6,434,152 -185,198 Advice received

In 7 In-OG&C Financial Assistance Grant (Roads) -2,510,640 -89,340 Advice received Ex 7 Ex-Op FAG roads maintenance 250,000 69,340 Adjust roads budget for extra grant


In/Ex Item Category Description Current Vote

Change to Vote Details / Comments

Ex 7 Ex-Op Pedestrian access & mobility plan

40,000 Development of strategy In 7 In-OG&C RMS grant


Ex 8 Ex-Op Kingscliff Foreshore Master Plan

30,000 Design costs Ex 8 Ex-Op Rec services


Ex 8 Ex-Op Coastline Management Plan


In 8 In-Operating Tweed Coast Holiday Parks


Ex 9 Ex-Op Pedestrian facilities 80,000 -40,000 Grant funding no longer available In 9 In-OG&C RMS grant -40,000 40,000 Funding for above

Ex 10 Ex-OpOther Legal Fees 11,503 35,198 Corporate legal costs

Ex 11 Ex-Op Tweed Coastal Floodplain ASS Hotspot

100,000 Acid sulfate soil project

Ex 11 Ex-Op Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 119,078 -50,000 Funding for above

In 11 In-OG&C Office of Environment and Heritage


Ex 12 Ex-Op Bus Stop Remedial Works - Terranora & Bilambil Roads

50,000 New project

In 12 In-OG&C RMS grant

-25,000 Funding for above In 12 In-Recoup CP12


Ex 13 Ex-Capital Purchase of demountable buildings

25,000 Tweed Heads Civic Centre site Ex 14 Ex-Op Murwillumbah Civic Centre

32,000 Carpark resurfacing

Ex 15 Ex-Op Murwillumbah SES Building 100,000 75,000 Landslip remediation Ex 16 Ex-Capital Faulks Park upgrade

26,800 Hard stand area (youth space)

Ex 16 Ex-Op Youth Strategy

-26,800 Funding for above Ex 17 Ex-Op Fire Mitigation Fund 2013/14

5,000 Mitigation works

Ex 17 Ex-Op Fire Hazard Reduction 80,942 -2,000 Funding for above In 17 In-OG&C RFS Grant


Ex 18 Ex-Op Online engagement

27,000 Purchase Bang the Table

10,000

Sewer Fund Ex 19 Ex-Op Operations

38,720 Climate change fund Ex 19 Ex-Op Operations

-13,808 Operational adjustments

Ex 19 Ex-Capital Various Capital Works

-1,786,980 Deferrals to future years In 19 In-Interest Interest

-1,830,644 Funding adjustment

Ex 19 Ex-TTR Transfers to Asset Replacement Res.

4,529,232 Restriction of interest

In 19 In-Recoup Transfers from Capital Contributions Res.

280,250 Funding adjustment

In 19 In-TFR Transfers from Revenue Res.

-1,216,770 Funding adjustment

0

Water Fund Ex 20 Ex-Op Operations

36,718 Climate change fund Ex 20 Ex-Op Operations

-29,020 Operational adjustments

In 20 In-Interest Interest

-961,437 Funding adjustment Ex 20 Ex-Capital Various Capital Works

-295,890 Deferrals & adjustments

Ex 20 Ex-TTR Transfers to Asset Replacement Res.

460,693 Funding adjustment

In 20 In-TFR Transfers from Asset Replacement Res.

-501,414 Funding adjustment

In 20 In-Recoup Transfers from Capital Contributions Res.

1,290,350 Funding adjustment

0

2. Variations Arising from Council Resolutions Ex 21 Ex-Capital Crown Land acquisition - Pottsville

300,000 Council meeting 20/6/2013 In 21 In-TFR Road Land Sale Reserve


In 21 In-Loan Unexpended loans

-260,000 Funding for above Ex 22 Ex-Op Climate change fund (General Fund)

24,562 Council meeting 18/4/2013

Ex 22 Ex-Op Murwillumbah Civic Centre mtce & electricity -8,243 Funding for above Ex 22 Ex-Op Tweed Civic Centre mtce & electricity


Ex 22 Ex-Op Art Gallery mtce & electricity

-4,469 Funding for above Ex 22 Ex-Op Murwillumbah Pool mtce & electricity





Ex 22 Ex-Op Tweed Pool mtce & electricity

-2,095 Funding for above Ex 22 Ex-Op Works Depot mtce & electricity


Ex 23 Ex-OpOther Contribution to Seagulls


In 23 In-TFR Matching grants reserve

-50,000 Funding for above Ex 24 Ex-Op HACC Program Transition funding


In 24 In-OG&C Department of Health & Ageing grant


In 25 In-OpOther Rental income communication tower

-10,000 Council meeting 19/9/2013

-10,000

Summary of Votes by Type

2012/13 Variations

10,000

Council Resolutions

-10,000

0

Key to Category codes

Ex-OpEmp Employee costs

Ex-Op Materials & contracts

Ex-Interest Interest on loans

Ex-OpOther Other operating expenses

Ex-Capital Capital works

Ex-Loan Reps Repayment on principal on loans

Ex-TTR Transfers to reserves

In-Rates Rates & annual charges

In-Interest Interest income

In-OG&C Operating grants & contributions

In-CG&C Capital grants & contributions

In-Operating User charges & fees

In-OpOther Other operating income

In-Loan Loan funds

In-Recoup Recoupment from s64 & s94 funds

In-TFR Transfers from reserves

In-Sales Proceeds from sale of assets

Expenses

Employee costs

-50,000

Materials & Contracts

883,683

Interest

0

Other Operating costs

85,198

Capital

1,943,260

Loan Repayments

0

Transfers to Reserves

4,989,925

7,852,066

Income

Rates and Annual Charges

0

Interest revenue

-2,792,081

Operating Grants & Conts

-343,071

Capital Grants & Conts

-3,554,330

User Charges & Fees

-10,000

Other Operating Revenue

-10,000

Loan Funds

-260,000

Recoupments

1,425,600

Transfers from Reserves

-2,308,184

Asset Sales

0

-7,852,066

Net

0

Summary of Votes - by Division

Technology & Corporate Services

-98,721




Planning & Regulation

-11,477

Community & Natural Resources

-25,800

Engineering & Operations

48,800

General Manager

87,198

0

Results by fund: General Fund The General Fund is expected to remain as a “balanced budget”. Water Fund The Water Fund is expected to remain as a “balanced budget”. Sewer Fund The Sewer Fund is expected to remain as a “balanced budget”. Quarterly Budget Review Statements Income and Expense - Consolidated Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)

Approved Changes Recommended changes

for Council Resolution

(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)

*

Revised Budget (000's)

Income

Rates and Annual Charges 90,063 - -

90,063 -

90,063

22,816

User Charges and Fees 36,296 - - 36,296 10 36,306 9,222 Interest and Investment Revenue 6,266 - - 6,266 2,792 9,058 1,985 Other Revenues 2,030 - - 2,030 10 2,040 430 Grants & Contributions - Operating 15,065 - - 15,065 343 15,408 1,991 Grants and Contributions - Capital 8,629 - - 8,629 3,554 12,183 1,153 - Contributions (S94) 6,749 - - 6,749 - 6,749 3,248 Net gain from the disposal of assets - - - - - - - Total Income 165,098 - - 165,098 6,709 171,807 40,845 Expense

Employee costs 44,740 - - 44,740 (50) 44,690 11,375 Borrowing Costs 13,419 - - 13,419 - 13,419 2,644 Materials & Contracts 44,840 - - 44,840 855 45,695 11,077 Depreciation 40,809 - - 40,809 - 40,809 10,202 Legal Costs 387 - - 387 - 387 126 Consultants 352 - - 352 29 381 79 Other Expenses 13,847 - - 13,847 85 13,932 2,878 Net Loss from Disposal of Assets - - - - - - - Total Expenses 158,394 - - 158,394 919 159,313 38,381

Net Operating Result 6,704 - - 6,704 5,790 12,494 2,464

Net Operating Result before capital items (1,925) - - (1,925) 2,236 311 1,311

Funding Statement - Consolidated - Source and Application of Funds Operating Result (Income Statement) 6,704 - - 6,704 5,790 12,494

Add Back non-funded items:

Depreciation

40,809 - -

40,809 -

40,809

- - - - -

Add non-operating funding sources - - - - - Transfers from Externally Restricted

Cash 19,325 - - 19,325 (1,425) 17,900 Transfers from Internally Restricted Cash 10,858 - - 10,858 2,308 13,166


Proceeds from sale of assets 2,806 - - 2,806 - 2,806 Loan Funds Utilised 2,076 - - 2,076 260 2,336 Repayments from Deferred Debtors - - - - - - Funds Available 82,578 - - 82,578 6,933 89,511 Funds were applied to: Purchase and construction of assets 51,593 - - 51,593 1,943 53,536 Repayment of principal on loans 7,655 - - 7,655 - 7,655 Transfers to Externally Restricted Cash 6,749 - - 6,749 - 6,749 Transfers to Internally Restricted Cash 16,581 - - 16,581 4,990 21,571 Funds Used 82,578 - - 82,578 6,933 89,511 Increase/(Decrease) in Available

Working Capital - - - - - - * Includes Carried Forward Works revotes

Income and Expense- General Fund Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 Original

Budget

(000's)



(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep

Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)

*


Income Rates and Annual Charges 63,551 63,551 - 63,551 16,014

User Charges and Fees 17,703 17,703 10 17,713 4,775 Interest and Investment Revenue 3,112 3,112 - 3,112 832 Other Revenues 1,797 1,797 10 1,807 310 Grants & Contributions - Operating 14,105 14,105 343 14,448 1,959 Grants and Contributions - Capital 6,348 6,348 3,554 9,902 1,153 - Contributions (S64/S94) 2,330 2,330 2,330 1,327 Net gain from the disposal of assets - -

Total Income

108,946 - -

108,946

3,917

112,863

26,370 Expense

Employee costs 34,949 34,949 (50) 34,899 9,008 Borrowing Costs 6,199 6,199 - 6,199 780 Materials & Contracts 35,854 35,854 822 36,676 9,410 Depreciation 24,837 24,837 24,837 6,209 Legal Costs 387 387 387 126 Consultants 99 99 29 128 73 Other Expenses 9,980 9,980 85 10,065 2,462 Net Loss from Disposal of Assets - - Total Expenses 112,305 - - 112,305 886 113,191 28,068

Net Operating Result (3,359) - - (3,359) 3,031 (328) (1,698)

Net Operating Result before capital items (12,037) - - (9,707) (523) (10,230) (2,851)

Funding Statement - General Fund - Source and Application of Funds Operating Result (Income Statement) (3,359) - - (3,359) 3,031 (328)

Add Back non-funded items: Depreciation 24,837 24,837 - 24,837

Add non-operating funding sources

Transfers from Externally Restricted Cash 4,312 4,312 145 4,457

Transfers from Internally Restricted Cash 2,168 2,168 590 2,758

Proceeds from sale of assets 2,806 2,806 - 2,806 Loan Funds Utilised 2,076 2,076 260 2,336 Internal charges 7,551 7,551 7,551 Repayments from Deferred

Debtors - - Funds Available 40,391 - - 40,391 4,026 44,417 Funds were applied to: Purchase and construction of

assets 28,854 28,854 4,026 32,880 Repayment of principal on loans 3,485 3,485 - 3,485 Transfers to Externally Restricted

Cash 2,330 2,330 2,330 Transfers to Internally Restricted

Cash 5,722 5,722 - 5,722 Funds Used 40,391 - - 40,391 4,026 44,417 Increase/(Decrease) in Available - - - - - -


Working Capital Income and Expense- Sewer Fund Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)



(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)

*



User Charges and Fees 1,274 1,274 - 1,274 255 Interest and Investment Revenue 2,183 2,183 1,831 4,014 564 Other Revenues 20 20 - 20 6 Grants & Contributions - Operating 468 468 - 468 32 Grants and Contributions - Capital 1,149 1,149 - 1,149 - Contributions (S64/S94) 753 753 753 626 Net gain from the disposal of assets - -

Total Income

27,985 - - 27,985

1,831 29,816

7,186 Expense

Employee costs 5,811 5,811 - 5,811 1,427 Borrowing Costs 2,494 2,494 - 2,494 647 Materials & Contracts 3,942 3,942 26 3,968 625 Depreciation 9,160 9,160 9,160 2,290 Legal Costs - - Consultants 50 50 50 3 Other Expenses 2,119 2,119 - 2,119 416 Net Loss from Disposal of Assets - - Total Expenses 23,576 - - 23,576 26 23,602 5,408

Net Operating Result 4,409 - - 4,409 1,805 6,214 1,778

Net Operating Result before capital items 3,260 - - 3,260 1,805 5,065 1,778

Funding Statement - Sewer Fund - Source and Application of Funds

Operating Result (Income Statement) 4,409 - - 4,409 1,805 6,214

Add Back non-funded items: Depreciation 9,160 - - 9,160 - 9,160


Transfers from Externally Restricted Cash 7,556 7,556

(280) 7,276

Transfers from Internally Restricted Cash 5,563 5,563 1,217 6,780

Proceeds from sale of assets - - Loan Funds Utilised - - - Repayments from Deferred

Debtors - - Funds Available 26,688 - - 26,688 2,742 29,430 Funds were applied to: Purchase and construction of

assets 12,905 12,905 (1,787) 11,118 Repayment of principal on loans 3,102 3,102 - 3,102 Transfers to Externally Restricted

Cash 753 753 753 Transfers to Internally Restricted

Cash 6,139 6,139 4,529 10,668 Internal charges 3,789 3,789 3,789 Funds Used 26,688 - - 26,688 2,742 29,430 Increase/(Decrease) in Available

Working Capital - - - - - -

Income and Expense- Water Fund Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)



(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)

*




User Charges and Fees 17,319 17,319 - 17,319 4,192 Interest and Investment Revenue 971 971 961 1,932 589 Other Revenues 213 213 - 213 114 Grants & Contributions - Operating 492 492 - 492 Grants and Contributions - Capital 1,132 1,132 - 1,132 - Contributions (S64/S94) 3,666 3,666 3,666 1,295 Net gain from the disposal of assets - -

Total Income

28,167 - -

28,167

961

29,128

7,289 Expense

Employee costs 3,980 3,980 - 3,980 940 Borrowing Costs 4,726 4,726 - 4,726 1,217 Materials & Contracts 5,044 5,044 7 5,051 1,042 Depreciation 6,812 6,812 6,812 1,703 Legal Costs - - Consultants 203 203 203 3 Other Expenses 1,748 1,748 - 1,748 Net Loss from Disposal of Assets - - Total Expenses 22,513 - - 22,513 7 22,520 4,905

Net Operating Result 5,654 - - 5,654 954 6,608 2,384

Net Operating Result before capital items 4,522 - - 4,522 954 5,476 2,384

Funding Statement - Water Fund - Source and Application of Funds Operating Result (Income

Statement) 5,654 - - 5,654 954 6,608 Add Back non-funded items: Depreciation 6,812 - - 6,812 - 6,812


Transfers from Externally Restricted Cash 7,457 7,457 (1,290) 6,167

Transfers from Internally Restricted Cash 3,127 3,127 501 3,628

Proceeds from sale of assets - - Loan Funds Utilised - - - Repayments from Deferred

Debtors - - Funds Available 23,050 - - 23,050 165 23,215

Funds were applied to: Purchase and construction of

assets 9,834 9,834 (296) 9,538 Repayment of principal on loans 1,068 1,068 - 1,068 Transfers to Externally Restricted

Cash 3,666 3,666 3,666 Transfers to Internally Restricted

Cash 4,720 4,720 461 5,181 Internal charges 3,762 3,762 3,762 Funds Used 23,050 - - 23,050 165 23,215 Increase/(Decrease) in Available

Working Capital - - - - - -

This document forms part of Tweed Shire Council's Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 and should be read in conjunction with other documents in the QBRS. Capital Budget Review Statement - Consolidated - for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)



(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep

Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)


Capital Funding * Rates and other untied funding 26,927 26,927 27 26,954 4,504

Capital Grants & Contributions 9,309 9,309 3,554 12,863 3,977


Internal Restrictions (Reserves) 10,237 10,237 300 10,537 2,896 External Restrictions

- s64 & s94 funds

8,035 8,035 (1,938) 6,097 1,920 Other Capital Funding Sources - loans

1,976 1,976 1,976 611

Income from sale of assets - plant and equipment

2,406 2,406 2,406 744

- Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings Total Capital Funding

58,890 58,890 1,943 60,833 14,652

Capital Expenditure New Assets - Plant and Equipment

448 448 448 - Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings 246 246 325 571 2,594 - Roads, Bridges, Footpaths 322 322 322 1,717 - Drainage

- Water & Sewer Infrastructure 6,874 6,874 (296) 6,578 489 - Other

9,350 9,350 9,350 306

Renewals (Replacement)

- Plant and Equipment

5,958 5,958 5,958 1,414

- Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings 168 168 168 - Roads, Bridges, Footpaths 8,854 8,854 8,854 2,014 - Drainage

166

- Water & Sewer Infrastructure 2,540 2,540 2,540 81 - Other

350 350 350 108

Upgrades


- Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings 124 124 2,789 2,913 60 - Roads, Bridges, Footpaths 1,276 1,276 765 2,041 810 - Drainage

1,100 1,100 120 1,220 20

- Water & Sewer Infrastructure 13,325 13,325 (1,787) 11,538 3,483 - Other

300 300 300 600 245

Loan Repayments (principal) 7,655 7,655 7,655 1,145 Total Capital Expenditure 58,890 58,890 2,216 61,106 14,652

Capital Budget Review Statement - General Fund - for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget (000's)



(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep

Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)


Capital Funding * Rates and other untied funding 13,014 13,014 27 13,041 2,953

Capital Grants & Contributions 9,309 9,309 3,554 12,863 3,977 Internal Restrictions (Reserves) 2,000 2,000 300 2,300 711 External Restrictions

- s64 & s94 funds

3,276 3,276 145 3,421 1,058 Other Capital Funding Sources - loans

1,976 1,976 1,976 611


2,406 2,406 2,406 744


31,981 31,981 4,026 36,007 10,054


448 448 448 - Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings 246 246 325 571 2,594 - Roads, Bridges, Footpaths 322 322 322 1,717 - Drainage

- Water & Sewer Infrastructure - Other

9,350 9,350 9,350 306



5,958 5,958 5,958 1,414 - Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings 168 168 168 - Roads, Bridges, Footpaths 8,854 8,854 8,854 2,014 - Drainage

166


350 350 350 108

Upgrades


- Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings 124 124 2,789 2,913 60


- Roads, Bridges, Footpaths 1,276 1,276 765 2,041 810 - Drainage

1,100 1,100 120 1,220 20


300 300 27 327 245

Loan Repayments (principal) 3,485 3,485 3,485 600 Total Capital Expenditure 31,981 31,981 4,026 36,007 10,054


Capital Budget Review Statement - Sewer Fund - for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)



(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep

Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)


Capital Funding * Rates and other untied funding 11,152 11,152 11,152 974

Capital Grants & Contributions Internal Restrictions (Reserves) 2,836 2,836 2,836 343 External Restrictions

- s64 & s94 funds

2,019 2,019 (1,787) 232 28 Other Capital Funding Sources - loans



16,007 16,007 (1,787) 14,220 1,345


- Land,Buildings,Furniture,Fittings - Roads, Bridges, Footpaths - Drainage






Upgrades



- Water & Sewer Infrastructure 8,416 8,416 (1,787) 6,629 798 - Other

Loan Repayments (principal) 3,102 3,102 3,102 314 Total Capital Expenditure 16,007 16,007 (1,787) 14,220 1,345


Capital Budget Review Statement - Water Fund - for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)

Approved Changes

Recommended changes


(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual YTD

(000's)

Sep Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)


Capital Funding * Rates and other untied funding 2,761 2,761 2,761 577

Capital Grants & Contributions Internal Restrictions (Reserves) 5,401 5,401 5,401 1,842 External Restrictions

- s64 & s94 funds

2,740 2,740 (296) 2,444 834 Other Capital Funding Sources - loans



10,902 10,902 (296) 10,606 3,253



- Water & Sewer Infrastructure 3,677 3,677 (296) 3,381 297 - Other





Upgrades



- Water & Sewer Infrastructure 4,909 4,909 4,909 2,685 - Other

Loan Repayments (principal) 1,068 1,068 1,068 231 Total Capital Expenditure 10,902 10,902 (296) 10,606 3,253

This document forms part of Tweed Shire Council's Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 and should be read in conjunction with other documents in the QBRS. * Note: figures in the Actual YTD column of capital funding are estimates only. Detailed

calculations of funding results are performed annually.


Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

Original Budget

(000's)

Approved Changes Recommended

changes for Council Resolution

(000's)

Projected year end

result

(000's)

Actual * YTD

(000's)

Sep Review (000's)

Dec Review (000's)


Unrestricted 3,483 3,483 735 4,218 3,296

Externally restricted RTA Contributions 390 390 390 390 Developer contributions 25,917 25,917 (145) 25,772 24,593 Domestic waste management 10,075 10,075 10,075 10,075 Special Rates 230 230 230 230 Special purpose grants 4,975 4,975 4,975 4,975 Water Supplies 22,701 22,701 22,701 23,971 Sewerage Services 48,915 48,915 48,915 54,442 Other 17,582 17,582 17,582 12,000 Total Externally restricted 130,785 0 0 130,785 (145) 130,640 130,676

Internally restricted Employee Leave entitlements 5,123 5,123 5,123 5,123 Unexpended loans 10,328 10,328 10,328 10,328 Unexpended grants 5,930 5,930 5,930 5,930 7 Year Plan 4,340 4,340 4,340 4,340 Works Carried Forward 8,762 8,762 8,762 8,762 Replacement of Plant and Vehicles 1,528 1,528 1,528 1,528 Tip improvements 7,105 7,105 7,105 7,105 Asset renewals 1,538 1,538 1,538 1,538 Other 2,849 2,849 (590) 2,259 2,259 Total Internally restricted 47,503 0 0 47,503 (590) 46,913 46,913

Total Restricted 178,288 0 0 178,288 (735) 177,553 177,589

Total cash and investments 181,771 0 0 181,771 0 181,771 180,885

Available cash 3,483 0 0 3,483 735 4,218 3,296 * Note: figures in the Actual YTD are estimates only. Detailed calculations of funding

results and cash restrictions are performed annually. Notes: The available cash position excludes restricted funds. External restrictions are funds that must be spent for a specific purpose and cannot be used by council for general operations. Internal restrictions are funds that council has determined will be used for a specific purpose. Statement of compliance with investment policy: Council's investments have been made in accordance with Council's investment policies.


Reconciliation of restricted funds with current investment report:

(000's)

Total restricted funds

177,589 Total invested funds as per September Investment Report

181,337

Note: some restricted funds are held as cash as they will be utilised in the current period. Statement of bank reconciliation: Cash has been reconciled with the bank statement. The last bank reconciliation was completed to 20 October 2013 Reconciliation of cash and investments:

(000's)

Cash and investments as per above

180,885

Cash on hand and at bank

(452) Investments

181,337

180,885

This document forms part of Tweed Shire Council's Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 and should be read in conjunction with other documents in the QBRS. Key Performance Indicators Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 Note that KPIs will be distorted by the short reporting period (3 months), and by the fact that detailed calculations are only prepared on an annual basis. These ratios should therefore be viewed with caution.

1. Unrestricted Current Ratio

(000's)

Current assets less all external restrictions

99,045 5.8:1 Current liabilities

17,036

Purpose: To assess the adequacy of working capital and its ability to satisfy obligations in the short term for the unrestricted activities of Council. Comment: Higher than it would be for the annual calculation, as expenditure throughout the year will run down cash and receivables.


Amounts Indicator

2. Debt Service Ratio

(000's)

Debt Service Cost

3,789 10.73% Selected operating income

35,305

Purpose: To assess the impact of loan principal and interest repayments on the discretionary revenue of Council. This document forms part of Tweed Shire Council's Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 and should be read in conjunction with other documents in the QBRS. Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses for the quarter ended 30 September 2013

PART A-Contracts Listing

Contract value Commencement Duration of Budgeted

Contractor Contract detail & purpose $ date contract (Y/N)

Greenwood Landscape Management

EC2013-129 Faulks Park Kingscliff Proposed Park Upgrade $227,397.50 15/08/2013 Unspecified Y

PART B - Consultancy and Legal expenses

Expenditure YTD Budgeted

Expense

$ (Y/N)

Consultancies

84,874 Y

Legal expenses

133,889 Y

This document forms part of Tweed Shire Council's Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2013 and should be read in conjunction with other documents in the QBRS.


Statutory Statement – Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 (Sections 202 & 203) by “Responsible Accounting Officer”

202 Responsible accounting officer to maintain system for budgetary control The responsible accounting officer of a council must: (a) establish and maintain a system of budgetary control that will enable the

council’s actual income and expenditure to be monitored each month and to be compared with the estimate of the council’s income and expenditure, and

(b) if any instance arises where the actual income or expenditure of the council is materially different from its estimated income or expenditure, report the instance to the next meeting of the council.

203 Budget review statements and revision of estimates (1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June

quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the Statement of the council's revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by: (a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes

that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

(b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action. (3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the

Code to be included in such a statement. Statutory Statement It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Tweed Shire Council for the quarter ended 30/9/2013 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30/6/2014 will be satisfactory at year end, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

M A Chorlton 29/10/2013 “Responsible Accounting Officer” Manager Financial Services Tweed Shire Council

OPTIONS: Not Applicable CONCLUSION: Refer to Statutory Statement above.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Not Applicable b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: As detailed in the report it should be noted that the financial position does not include any carry over works (expenditure and income) from the 2012/2013 financial period. c. Legal: Not Applicable d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


78 [TCS-CM] Budget Review - 2012/2013 Carry Over Works SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid


service

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report provides details of the funds to be carried forward from 2012/2013 to the 2013/2014 budget. The carried forward works represent those projects/services that could not be completed in 2012/2013 for a variety of reasons. The funding of these works fall into the following categories:

• Unexpended Loans • Reserves Funds • Grants • Section 94 • Sales

Within these funding sources, the carry over works from the 7 year infrastructure and services plan, and the 2004/2005 rate variation, have been separately identified. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopts the Budget Review 2012/2013 Carry Over Works and the expenditure and income, as detailed within the report, be voted.


REPORT:

This report provides details of the funds to be carried forward from 2012/2013 to the 2013/2014 budget. The carried forward works represent those projects/services that could not be completed in 2012/2013 for a variety of reasons. The funding of these works fall into the following categories:

• Unexpended Loans • Reserves Funds • Grants • Section 94 • Sales

Within these funding sources, the carry over works from the 7 year infrastructure and services plan, and the 2004/2005 rate variation, have been separately identified.

In/Ex Description Carry over amount

General Expenses

Ex Innovation Fund 177,909

Ex GM Recruitment Costs 33,734

Ex Core Business Systems 90,500

Ex Hardware Maintenance 22,448

Ex Software Maintenance 117,362

Ex I.T. Employee costs 18,397

Ex Information Services & Technology 26597

Ex I.T. Employee costs 50,000

Ex I.T. Operating costs 50,000

Ex New Computer Items 22,705

Ex Richmond Tweed Council Co - operation 576

Ex Provision for hardware replacement 342,378

Ex Internet/Intranet 45,000

Ex Asset Management Systems 259,442

Ex Future asset management & maintenance ex 24,314

Ex Drug & Alcohol Testing 1,000

Ex Tab Safe Campaign 217

Ex Health and Safety Initiatives Fund 43,410

Ex Healthy Workplace Partnership Project 4,000

Ex Traineeships & Apprenticeships 97,931

Ex Civic Buildings Asset Mgt 138,229

Ex Coastal Mgt Planning 4,219

Ex Waterways Asset Mgt 4,153

Ex Pt Danger Lighthouse Asset Mgt 23,164

Ex Economic Development Fund 16,552

Ex Sale Yards 50,000

Ex Murwillumbah Airfield 96,666

Ex Economic Development - internal 18,346

Ex Toursim - Internal 104,595

Ex Tweed Heads Masterplan 10,000

Ex Western Hangar Development 58,281

Ex T.V. Transport Info Service 1,000

Ex Planning Proposals - Landowner Funded Ex 43,358

Ex Land Purchase Open Space 84,635

Ex Koala Management Plan 75,719

Ex Local Growth Management Plans 21,304

Ex Tweed Aboriginal Heritage Study 17,623

Ex Stage 1 Shirewide LEP 2,389

Ex Tweed City Centre LEP 16,011

Ex Developer funded studies - expenditure 8,533

Ex Murwillumbah Civic Centre Security Fence 76,339

Ex Donation To RFS 17,301

Ex Bush Fire Control Expenses 313,178

Ex Fire Mitigation Works Fund 2010-2011 1,554

Ex SES/Flood Rescue 126,953

Ex Civic Centre-Tweed Heads 50,000

Ex Acquisitive Prize BAP 3,144

Ex Prizes 19,229



Ex Acquisitive Prize Community Printmakers 2,088

Ex Goorimahbah Public Art 82,816

Ex Library Grant Exp 150,678

Ex MoT Western Villages Bus Service 1,031

Ex Museum / Historical Operations 35,972

Ex M'Bah Museum Capital 25,156

Ex Migration – Final Stage 9,737

Ex Museum Storage Facility 53,422

Ex Healthy Ageing Strategy 10,000

Ex Northern Rivers Carpool 7,468

Ex Anti Drugs Campaign 4,881

Ex Disability Action Plan 19,934

Ex Community Safety 50,000

Ex COP Operating Costs 164,840

Ex COP Client Subsidies 16,617

Ex Social Development Fund 31,040

Ex SAS 9,170

Ex SUPPORT COORDINATION (OPC) Expenses 147,405

Ex Podiatry 1,500

Ex Banora Point Community Centre 112,202

Ex Community & Cultural Services Management 87,688

Ex CDSE Doon Doon Community Project 577

Ex TVC Crematorium 7,000

Ex Chillingham Village Common 9,441

Ex Casuarina Blossum Bat Rehabilitation 30,199

Ex Terranora Village Open Space Embellishment 145,374

Ex Pottsville Env Park (Bond Inc) 179,986

Ex Sec 94 Street Trees 43,427

Ex Passive recreation s94 projects 249,335

Ex Asset maintenance trades plant replacement 6,971

Ex RDAF Grant Funding - Arkinstall Park Red 87,018

Ex Merve Edwards Field Shelters & Fencing 11,246

Ex Sportsfield strategy s94 50,000

Ex Insect/Vermin Cnt Other 5,000

Ex Coastal Creeks – Australian Research Cou 82,921

Ex USP - Bray Park Green Banks 4,869

Ex Riparian Vine Weed Mapping & Suppress 1,709

Ex Northern Rivers Coastal Management Project 2,692

Ex Environmental Capacity of Tweed Valley F 1,342

Ex Salt Dune Rehabilitation 19,500

Ex NRCMA Community Support Project Tweed 7,470

Ex Recovery of Threaten Species in Priority 32,086

Ex Protection and Restoration of the Pottsville 106,008

Ex Koala Connections NSW Environmental Trust 41,490

Ex Care Group Training and Resources 2,790

Ex Increasing Soil Carbon in Tweed Valley F 98,106

Ex Tweed Byron LALC Land Clean Up Project - 35,297

Ex Linking Koala Habitat & Endangered Ecology 186,009

Ex Cross-tenure Invasive Animal Control to 29,752

Ex Restoration of Habitat at Pottsville Environment Centre 8,476

Ex Beach Nesting Bird Program 4,920

Ex Upper Rous River Vegetation Connectivity 20,874

Ex Coordinator Northern Rivers Fire & Biodiversity 10,830

Ex Koala Beach 53,559

Ex Koala road crossing DA11/0014 Condition 50,000

Ex Fraser Drive 230,572

Ex Roads Upgrading Unallocated 52,888

Ex Kennedy Drive 83,553

Ex Dry Dock Road 530,400

Ex Byangum Rd 35,750

Ex Dulguigan Road 147,000

Ex Wommin Bay Rd 115,023

Ex Rose Street 183,685

Ex Fingal Road 315,408

Ex Simpson Drive 394,193

Ex Terranora Rd 750,000

Ex River Street 160,000

Ex R2R Kyogle Road Snake Creek Bridge Appro 73,639

Ex Tumbulgum Road 304,863

Ex Black Spot 11/12 Tweed Valley Way centre 236,668

Ex Clothiers Creek Road 50,696

Ex Recreation Street, Tweed Heads 139,273

Ex Greenway Drive Tweed Heads South 568,390

Ex Bilambil Road 70,953

Ex Crescent Street 31,181

Ex Kennedy Drive 193,240



Ex Tweed Street Bilambil Heights 79,085

Ex Crabbes Creek Rd 334,523

Ex Sleepy Hollow Road 110,494

Ex AC Resurfacing 214,448

Ex Local roads resurfacing 598,522

Ex Ducat Street 353,600

Ex Federal Assistance Grant Maintenance 2,127,949

Ex Repair Prog Funding 10,529

Ex John Rabjones Clubhouse Capital works 25,000

Ex Knox Park Netball Facility Capital works 41,172

Ex Charltons Bridge 419,309

Ex Richards bridge 521,363

Ex Stormwater Drainage Rehabilitation 396,864

Ex Stafford/River St 204,023

Ex Quiggan Street 89,551

Ex Wentworth Street 343,780

Ex Banner Lane 59,537

Ex Tamarind Avenue 470,842

Ex Drainage construction 219,900

Ex Cycleways construction s94 93,988

Ex Cudgen Creek Foreshore Boardwalk 460,391

Ex Cycleway Kennedy Drive - Norman St to Ke 161,394

Ex Depot compliance expenditure 35,658

Ex Project Management System 9,358

Ex Design Capital Purchases 9,768

Ex Kirkwood Road Stage1 2,055,675

Ex Homestead at Fraser Drive Development 2,000,000

Ex Traff Fac-Classified Rds 35,452

Ex Pedestrian Facilities 20,221

Ex Footpaths 47,549

Ex Pandanus Parade Pedestrianisation 2,903

Ex South Tweed Flood Levee – Investigation 1,244

Ex NDMP 08-09 TV Floodplain RM Comp & Impl 11,935

Ex Coastal Creeks Flood Study & Floor Level 54,641

Ex Voluntary purchase - general 89,462

Ex Future flood mitigation works 94,128

Ex Country Passenger Transport Interchange 5,613

Ex Plan of Management Duranbah Beach 9,387

Ex MIP Boat Ramps 69,263

Ex Kingscliff Foreshore Revetment Stage D 15,780

Ex Lower Tweed Management Plan 233,391

Ex Lwr Tweed Mgt Plan 652,199

Ex Expansion of Byrill Ck Restoration Program 1,376

Ex Catchment Water Quality 60,204

Ex Budd Park Stage 1 works 100,000

Ex Dept of Environment & Climate Change 6,605

Ex Road Safety Programs 3,737

Ex NDF - January 08 Flooding Event Local Ro 349,046

Ex Maintenance MR7733 116,285

Ex NDF - May 2009 Storm - Local Roads 50,283

23,625,116

General funding sources

In Grant funds 8,665,140

In Loan funds 3,267,400

In Reserve funds 2,096,756

In Works carried reserve funds 6,742,941

In s94 funds 2,850,187

In Other funds 2,692

23,625,116

7 Year Plan expenses

Ex Pools Asset Management 105,000

Ex Economic Development - Internal 48,245

Ex Tourism & Promotion - Internal 101,756

Ex Tourism & Economic Development - Contract Services 36,839

Ex Western Hangar Development 34,369

Ex Future Fund 110,443

Ex Closed Circuit Television 5,573

Ex Rural Lands Strategy 101,990

Ex Cultural Arts Seed Funding 132

Ex Arts Traineeship and Mentorship 2,572

Ex Administrative assistant (Community) 8,015

Ex Community Centre Murwillumbah 57,659

Ex SES Operation Centre additions Banora Po 70,000

Ex Environmental Health Compliance - Caravan 25,190

Ex Emergency Management Plan Implementation 44,847

Ex Pool Upgrade Kingscliff (including shade) 936



Ex Aboriginal Community Development 156,441

Ex Surf Life Patrols 44,724

Ex Surf Life Saving Strategy 2020 18,509

Ex Land purchase - open space 100,000

Ex Park asset maintenance 82,891

Ex Parks Asset Renewal 13,670

Ex Botanical Gardens 200,000

Ex Regional Sport & Recreational Facilities 2,364,726

Ex Jack Evan Boatharbour 124,632

Ex Building Compliance Officer 909

Ex Coastline Management Plan 2,323,604

Ex Stormwater Drainage Rehabilitation 380,661

Ex LEP Reviews 47,812

Ex Corporate Planning Unit 65,014

Ex Asset management Levees & Floodgates 200,352

Ex Kerb & Gutter Rehabilitation 40,540

Ex Footpaths rehabilitation 111,543

Ex Murwillumbah Auditorium refurbishment 5,101

Ex Community Buildings Renovations 45,663

Ex Vegetation Management Strategy 292,593

Ex Saleyards Upgrade 65,995

Ex Sportsgrounds capital works (local) 283,294

Ex Murwillumbah Museum 2,149,644

Ex Botanical Gardens Visitors Centre 500,000

Ex Flood studies coastal creeks 2D (7YP) 17,233

Ex Pottsville North drainage outlet - Elanora 6,276

Ex West Kingscliff Drain - Gales/Bowling Club 74,764

Ex Rural roads landslip remediation 510,000

Ex Amenities Hall Kingscliff 56,529

Ex Internal Auditor/Corporate Planning 185,061

Ex Administrative Assistant Building 10,075

Ex Regional All Access Playground 350,000

Ex Locality Plans - Rural Villages 50,000

Ex Sport Development Officer 83,303

Ex Extension Officer - Urban Design 6,733

Ex Locality Plans - Burringbar/Mooball 50,000

Ex WHRC Redevelopment 589,892

Ex Newell Park Upgrade 1,459

Ex Faulks Park Upgrade 327,016

Ex Budd Park Stage 2 110,190

Ex Amenities Hall K'cliff Recurring costs 60,000

Ex Lot 500 Bushland 134,000

Ex Youth Strategy - recurrent 43,025

Ex SES Operations Centre Banora Point 35,000

13,072,440

7 Year Plan funding sources

In Revenue (7 Year Plan Reserve) 3,226,319

In Loans 6,428,748

In Grants 170,268

In Reserves (other) 139,446

In Section 94 1,750,000

In Sales/Other 1,357,659

13,072,440

2004/05 Rate Rise expenses

Ex Bus Route Rate Rise Surplus/Deficit 81,596

Ex Footpath repairs (Rate Rise) 13,314

Ex Everinghams Rd Rate Rise 135,263

Ex Nobbys Creek Rd Rate rise 65,430

Ex Asphalt Resheeting (Rate Rise) 12,031

307,634

2004/05 Rate Rise expenses

In Revenue 307,634

OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION:


Based on current projections, the 2013/2014 Budget is expected to remain balanced for all funds. The rolled over expenditure and income is required to be voted in the 2013/2014 Budget. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: As detailed within the Carry Over Expenditure and Revenue section of the report. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


79 [TCS-CM] In Kind and Real Donations - July to September 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Details of in kind and real donations for the period July to September 2013 are reproduced in this report for Council's information. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the total in kind and real donations of $229,719.21 for the period July to September 2013.


REPORT:

Council maintains a register of in kind and real donations. Details of these donations for the period July to September 2013 are reproduced as follows: Financial Assistance

Amount Recipient Donated Item Date $50,000.00 Tweed Heads Seagulls Rugby League

Football Club Ltd Donation - Council Resolution 20/06/2013

03/07/2013

$12,876.00 Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Assoc Budget Allocation 04/07/2013 $25,815.08 Arts Northern Rivers Inc Budget Allocation 05/07/2013 $5,500.00 Murwillumbah District Business Chamber Donation - Business Excellence

Awards 24/07/2013

$3,850.00 Murwillumbah Cricket Club Donation - Council Resolution 20/06/2013

31/07/2013

$1,000.00 Tweed Heads Croquet Club Inc (Spring Festival)

First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013

$4,000.00 Twin Towns Services Club ( New Years Eve Fireworks)


$20,000.00 Cooly Rocks On First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013 $750.00 Chillingham Community Association Inc

(Three Choirs Festival) First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013

$1,500.00 The Family Centre (Superhero Saturday) First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013 $1,150.00 Caba Creative ( Carnivale) First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013 $1,000.00 Crabbes Creek Community Film Society

(CrabbesFest) First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013

$3,000.00 St Joseph's Youth Services (Tweed Mental Health Awareness - Family Fun Day)


$4,000.00 Caldera Environment Centre (World Environment Day Festival)


$1,500.00 Tweed River Canine Club (Canine Spectacular)


$1,500.00 Coolangatta-Mt Warning Dragon Boat Club Inc (Tweed River Festival Regatta)


$1,500.00 Kids in Need Association (Dragon Boat Festival 2013)


$1,500.00 Murwillumbah Rowing Club ( Head of Tweed 2014)


$7,500.00 Tweed River Agrivultural Society (Murwillumbah Show)


$5,000.00 Island Style Promotions (Australian Longboard Surfing Festival)


$6,000.00 Tyalgum Festival Committee ( Classical Music & Community Spring Fair)


$7,500.00 Rotary Club Murwillumbah Central Inc (Banana Festival)


$5,000.00 Tweed Food Fest Inc (Twwed Foodie Fest) First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013 $7,500.00 Murwillumbah Festival of Performing Arts First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013 $1,500.00 Cabarita Beach Pottsville Beach Lions Club

Inc (Greenback Taylor Fishing Competition) First Round Donation-2013/2014 14/08/2013

$5,000.00 Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers Inc Budget Allocation 27/08/2013 $15,312.00 Nortec Employment and Training Donation - Council Resolution

04/09/2013 11/09/2013

$200,753.08 Goods and/or Materials

Amount Recipient Donated Item Date $75.60 Tweed Land Care Committee Printing July/Aug/Sept $75.60


Provision of Labour and/or Plant and Equipment Amount Recipient Donated Item Date $1,907.60 Life Education Van Relocation Provision of Labour & Council Plant July/Aug/Sept

$238.59 Banana Festival Provision of Labour & Council Plant 30/08/2013 $606.64 Seniors Expo 2013 Provision of Labour & Council Plant 06/09/2013

$2,752.83 Rates

Amount Recipient Donated Item Date $1,642.20 Bilambil Literary Society Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $2,116.05 Tyalgum Community Hall Association Inc Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $1,626.00 Legacy Club of Coolangatta/Tweed

Heads Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013

$1,322.05 Trustee Kunghur Hall Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $2,337.10 Uki Hall Reserve Trust Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $2,348.80 Trustee Burringbar School of Arts Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $1,383.60 Stokers Siding Hall Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013

$972.20 Murwillumbah Autumn Club Inc Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $2,597.50 Twin Towns Police & Community Youth

Club Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013

$3,123.05 Tweed Coast Community Centre Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013 $1,328.35 Crabbes Creek Hall Pty Ltd Council Rates 2013/2014 02/08/2013

$691.00 Pottsville Beach Tennis Club Council Rates 2013/2014 (Sewer)

17/09/2013

$21,487.90 Tweed Link Advertising

Amount Recipient Donated Item Date $175.50 Various Community Notices Advertising 02/07/2013 $59.40 Various Community Notices Advertising 09/07/2013 $45.90 Various Community Notices Advertising 16/07/2013 $89.10 Various Community Notices Advertising 23/07/2013

$191.70 Various Community Notices Advertising 30/07/2013 $164.70 Various Community Notices Advertising 06/08/2013 $278.10 Various Community Notices Advertising 14/08/2013 $113.40 Various Community Notices Advertising 20/08/2013 $216.00 Various Community Notices Advertising 27/08/2013 $70.20 Various Community Notices Advertising 03/09/2013 $70.20 Various Community Notices Advertising 10/09/2013 $48.60 Various Community Notices Advertising 17/09/2013 $67.50 Various Community Notices Advertising 24/09/2013

$1,590.30


Room Hire Amount Recipient Donated Item Date

$62.00 Murwillumbah Theatre Company Room Hire - Murwillumbah Civic Centre

26/09/2013

$77.50 Northern Rivers Symphony Orchestra Room Hire - Tweed Heads Civic Centre

14/07/2013

$120.00 Northern Rivers Symphony Orchestra Room Hire - Tweed Heads Civic Centre

21/07/2013

$79.00 Tweed Heads Ladies Hospital Auxiliary AGM Meeting

Room Hire - Tweed Heads Civic Centre

05/08/2013

$120.00 Tweed Theatre Company Room Hire - Tweed Heads Civic Centre

08/08/2013


15/08/2013


29/08/2013

$1,560.00 Tweed Theatre Company Room Hire - Tweed Heads Civic Centre

3-29/09/2013

$52.00 Blind & Vison Impaired Support Group Room Hire - Coolamon Room Banora Pt Com Centre

15/07/2013


19/08/2013


16/09/2013

$37.00 Twin Towns Friends Room Hire - South Tweed HACC 10/07/2013 $37.00 Twin Towns Friends Room Hire - South Tweed HACC 14/08/2013 $37.00 Twin Towns Friends Room Hire - South Tweed HACC 11/09/2013 $89.00 Tweed Heads Hospital Auxillary Room Hire - South Sea Islander

Room 01/07/2013

$89.00 South Sea Islanders Meeting Room Hire - South Sea Islander Room

13/07/2013


03/08/2013


23/08/2013

$89.00 Tweed Heads Hospital Auxillary Room Hire - South Sea Islander Room

02/09/2013


14/09/2013

$3,059.50

$229,719.21 Total Donations 1st Quarter (July, August, September 2013)

OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION: For Councillor's Information and the details will also be included in the 2013/2014 Annual Report. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Donations and Subsidies Version 1.2.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: As per Budget estimates. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


80 [TCS-CM] Legal Services Register as at 30 September 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Governance

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Legal Services Report as at 30 September 2013 monitors the status on legal instructions, for current or recently completed matters which have been issued to panel legal providers. The report includes payments to the various legal providers, but also payments for barristers and consultants where applicable. The net amount for legal instructions for the period 1 July to 30 September 2013 is $107,314. The legal instructions that principally relate to the September quarter expenditure are: • Hacienda Homestead Caravan Park $13,489 • Class 1 Appeal Noble Lakeside - DA11/0456 $71,288 • Class 1 Appeal 63 Kingscliff Street - DA12/0419 $4,998 • Class 1 Appeal 29 Oyster Point Road - DA10/0300 $8,410 RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receives and notes the Legal Services Register as at 30 September 2013.


REPORT:

Expenditure incurred on legal instructions for the period 1 July to 30 September 2013 follows: Category 1 Planning, Environmental and Local Government Law

Category 2 Commercial/Property Law

District/Local Court

Other

$91,925 $0 $15,389 A summary of payments to each of the Legal Service Providers including barristers and consultants where applicable, for current or recently completed matters is as follows:

Legal Service Provider Category 1 Planning, Environmental, Local Government Law

Year to Date Current Period 1 July to 30 September 2013

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers $71,654 $71,654 Lindsay Taylor Lawyers Nil Nil Maddocks Lawyers $6,863 $6,863 Marsdens Law Group Nil Nil Sparke Helmore Lawyers $4,998 $4,998 Stacks – The Law Firm Nil Nil Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie $8,410 $8,410

Legal Service Provider Category 2 Commercial/Property Law


HWL Ebsworth Lawyers Nil Nil Lindsay Taylor Lawyers Nil Nil Maddocks Lawyers Nil Nil Marsdens Law Group Nil Nil Stacks – The Law Firm Nil Nil Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Nil Nil

Legal Service Provider District/Local Court


Stacks – The Law Firm $15,389 $15,389

Other Provider District/Local Court


Nil Nil Nil


LEGAL SERVICES REGISTER as at 30 September 2013 Provider (Reference)

Cat. Description of Matter General Instructions

Costs to Date

Comments

HWL Ebsworth (2697)

1 Class 4 Appeal – DA08/0966 Refusal to determine Development Application and other issues impacting upon on- site sewerage management system at 49 Upper Crystal Creek Road Crystal Creek. File DA08/0966.

Defend the matter in the Land and Environment Court.

09/10 $48,763 10/11 $24,185 11/12 $24,381 12/13 $988 $98,317

In Progress – Land and Environment directions hearing held on 4 December 2009. Case heard on 4 February 2010. Case dismissed, costs awarded, Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court. Payment of $7,106.53 for security of costs received. Matter of recovering further costs in progress.

HWL Ebsworth (2721)

1 Viviateene v Tweed Shire Council. Appeal to Supreme Court on decision of Local Court pertaining to the issue of 7 penalty infringement notices.

Defend the mater in the Supreme Court.

12/13 $31,676

In Progress - Matter heard on 28 June 2013. Decision was to set aside 2 of the convictions and remit remaining 5 convictions back to the Murwillumbah Local Court for re-determination. An Appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard on 4 October 2013 - decision was to agree with the decision of the 2 convictions and dismiss the Appeal with the remaining 5 convictions.

HWL Ebsworth (2746)

1 Class 1 Appeal Noble Lakes DA11/0456

Defend Appeal against deemed or actual refusal of a development application in the Land & Environment Court.

12/13 $51,325 13/14 $71,288 $122,613

In Progress - directions and notice of motion hearings conducted. Matter set for hearing in November 2013. Applicant submitted amended plans.

Lindsay Taylor (2735)

1 Voluntary planning agreement - Altitude Aspire (Area E). File DA07/0701.

Provide appropriate advice.

12/13 $17,423

In Progress - updated draft received from Solicitors for Altitude Aspire and a final draft prepared by Council's service provider forwarded on 27 September 2012 which is being reviewed.


Provider (Reference)


Costs to Date

Comments

Marsdens 1 Class 4 Appeal – 7 Year Special Rate Variation. File Budget/Management Plan.

Defend the matter in the Land and Environment Court

07/08 $24,446 08/09 $280,956 09/10 $79,879 10/11 $58,658 11/12 $49,181 $493,120

In Progress – Land and Environment judgement handed down 30 December 2008, applicants claim was unsuccessful, part costs claim awarded, Court of Appeal case heard on 5 February 2010. Applicant was unsuccessful, part costs awarded. Costs of LEC and Court of Appeal have been assessed. Application for Special Leave to Appeal refused by High Court on 12 August 2011 with costs. Recovery of costs currently being pursued.

Marsdens (2731)

1 Administrative Decisions Tribunal hearing - Leda Developments.

Assist Council in dealing with Tribunal hearing.

12/13 $5,534

In Progress - decision handed down on 30 May 2013 to release some information. Other information not released, subject to an Appeal by applicant. Heard on 22 October 2013.

Piper Alderman (2689)

Appeal against Oakvale Capital

12/13 $30,324

In Progress - Appeal currently under investigation.

Stacks (2698)

District/ Local Court

Provide advice on proposed action on activities at Hacienda and Homestead Caravan Parks, Chinderah Bay Road.


11/12 $1,320 12/13 $5,100 13/14 $13,489 $19,909

In Progress - Matter heard in Local Court on 18 June 2013. Decision no in Council's favour. Now subject to an Appeal to the Land & Environment Court.

Stacks (130457)

Local Court

Prosecute for undertaking development without consent, 29 Oyster Point Road

Defend the matter of an infringement notice in the Local Court.

13/14 $1,900

In Progress - matter heard on 22 August 2013. Court determined that the offence was proven and landowner was ordered to pay Council costs. Matter now subject to an Appeal.


Provider (Reference)


Costs to Date

Comments

HWL Ebsworth (372209)

1 Business Investment Policy

Review Policy and provide advice.

12/13 $2,610 13/14 $366 $2,976

Completed - appropriate advice provided.

Maddocks (2755)

1 Provide advice regarding listening devices.


13/14 $3,202


Maddocks (744970)

1 Provide advice regarding employment matter.


13/14 $3,661


Sparke Helmore (2750)

1 Class 1 Appeal - Land & Environment Court DA12/0419, 63 Kingscliff Street

Appeal against refusal of development application.

13/14 $4,998

Completed - Consent orders for approval made on 3 September 2013.

Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (2749)

1 Class 1 Appeal - Land & Environment Court DA10/0300, 29 Oyster Point Road

Defend the matter in the Land & Environment Court

13/14 $8,410

Completed - matter heard on 8 August 2013. Court issued consent orders for modified approval.

OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION: Legal expenses for the quarter related primarily to actions instigated in previous periods. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable. Tender AC2009/073 Provision of Legal Services. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: As reported with legal expenses allowed for in appropriate areas of Council's budget. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


81 [TCS-CM] Monthly Investment and Section 94 Developer Contributions Report for the Period Ending 31 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Financial Services

Valid


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The "Responsible Accounting Officer" must report monthly to Council, setting out details of all the funds Council has invested. The Manager Financial Services, being the Responsible Accounting Officer, certifies that investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act (1993), Cl. 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations and Council policies. Council had $172,257,120 invested as at 31 October 2013 and the accrued net return on these funds was $570,306 or 3.97% annualised for the month. RECOMMENDATION:

That in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 the monthly investment report as at period ending 31 October 2013 totalling $172,257,120 be received and noted.


REPORT:

1. Restricted Funds as at 1 July 2013

Description ($'000)

General Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Total Externally Restricted 1,126 18,785 39,653 59,564 Crown Caravan Parks 15,926 15,926 Developer Contributions 25,917 3,916 29,833 Domestic Waste Management 10,075 10,075 Grants 4,975 4,975 Internally Restricted 26,122 26,122 Employee Leave Entitlements 5,123 5,123 Grants 5,930 5,930 Unexpended Loans 10,328 10,328 Total 105,522 22,701 39,653 167,876 Note: Restricted Funds Summary updated September 2013, corresponding with the Annual Financial Statements as at 30 June 2013

2. Investment Portfolio by Category

3. Investment Rates - 90 Day Bank Bill Rate

Fixed Rate Bonds, 6.62%

At Call Accounts, 2.90%

Zero Coupon Bond, 1.95%

Floating Rate Notes, 19.16%

Term Deposits, 69.37%

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.10

3.30

3.50

3.70

Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13

%

%


4. Bond and Floating Rate Note Securities

Counterparty Face Value Market Value % Return on Face Value

Investment Type

Maturity Date

AMP (ANZ) (03/16) 1,700,000.00 1,716,615.80 3.66 FRN 14/03/2016 AMP (RBS) (05/17) 500,000.00 506,531.50 3.69 FRN 29/05/2017 AMP (RBS) (06/14) 2,000,000.00 2,018,066.00 3.79 FRN 06/06/2014 AMP (RIM) (05/17) 2,000,000.00 2,026,126.00 3.69 FRN 29/05/2017

Bendigo (FIIG) (11/15) 1,000,000.00 1,014,150.00 4.02 FRN 02/11/2015 Bendigo (RBS) (05/17) 2,000,000.00 2,023,180.00 3.78 FRN 17/05/2017 Bendigo (RIM) (05/17) 1,000,000.00 1,011,590.00 3.78 FRN 17/05/2017

BOQ (ANZ) (05/16) 1,000,000.00 1,014,060.00 3.93 FRN 30/05/2016 BOQ (RBS) (05/16) 1,000,000.00 1,014,060.00 3.93 FRN 30/05/2016

CBA (08/16) 1,000,000.00 1,017,210.00 3.74 FRN 02/08/2016 CBA (08/16) 2,000,000.00 2,034,420.00 3.74 FRN 02/08/2016

CBA Retail Bond (12/15) 500,000.00 499,450.00 3.79 FRN 24/12/2015 CBA Retail Bond (12/15) 500,000.00 499,450.00 3.79 FRN 24/12/2015 CBA Retail Bond (12/15) 1,000,000.00 998,900.00 3.79 FRN 24/12/2015 CBA/Merrill Lynch Zero Coupon Bond (01/18)

4,000,000.00 3,346,120.00 7.28 Fixed Rate Bond

22/01/2018

Heritage (RBS) (06/17) 1,325,000.00 1,417,750.00 7.25 Fixed Rate Bond

20/06/2017

Heritage (RBS) (06/17) 617,804.40 620,600.00 5.80 Fixed Rate Bond

20/06/2017

Heritage (RBS) (06/17) 85,076.00 85,600.00 5.80 Fixed Rate Bond

20/06/2017

ING (RBS) (08/16) 1,000,000.00 1,006,980.00 4.25 Fixed Rate Bond

23/08/2016


23/08/2016


03/09/2015


03/09/2015

Macquarie (RIMSEC) (03/14)

1,000,000.00 1,007,826.00 4.72 FRN 13/03/2014

ME Bank (CBA) (09/15) 1,400,000.00 1,408,585.66 3.82 FRN 03/09/2015 NAB (06/16) 2,000,000.00 2,041,620.00 3.75 FRN 21/06/2016 NAB (11/15) 1,000,000.00 1,015,410.00 3.79 FRN 05/11/2015

NAB Direct (12/14) 1,000,000.00 1,016,000.00 3.85 FRN 19/12/2014 Rabo (07/16) 1,000,000.00 1,011,350.00 3.77 FRN 27/07/2016 Rabo (07/16) 1,000,000.00 1,011,350.00 3.77 FRN 27/07/2016

Suncorp (05/14) 2,000,000.00 2,020,880.00 3.70 FRN 26/05/2014 Suncorp (Westpac)

(04/15) 2,000,000.00 2,026,360.00 4.09 FRN 23/04/2015

Suncorp (Westpac) (04/16)

2,000,000.00 2,013,420.00 3.59 FRN 11/04/2016

Suncorp Covered (RIMSEC) (12/16)

2,000,000.00 2,096,300.00 4.75 Fixed Rate Bond

06/12/2016

Westpac (RBS) (02/17) 1,000,000.00 1,041,190.00 4.23 FRN 20/02/2017 Totals 47,627,880.40 47,757,119.68 4.31 LEGEND Investment Type ABS = Asset Backed Security Bond = Fixed Rate Bond CDO = Collaterised Debt Obligation FRN = Floating Rate Note Counterparty BB = Bendigo Bank ME = Members Equity Bank AMP = AMP Bank Heritage = Heritage Bank RaboDirect = Rabo Bank ANZ = ANZ Bank ING = ING Bank Rural = Rural Bank BOQ = Bank of Queensland Investec = Investec Bank Suncorp = Suncorp Metway Bank CBA = Commonwealth Bank Macquarie = Macquarie Bank Westpac = Westpac Bank

NAB = National Australia Bank


5. Term Deposits Lodged or

Rolled DUE Counterparty PRINCIPAL TERM % Yield

06-Aug-13 05-Nov-13 BOQ (Aug 2013) 2,000,000.00 91 4.00 10-Jul-13 05-Nov-13 BOQ (Nov 2013) 2,500,000.00 118 4.20 06-Sep-13 06-Nov-13 Investec (RIMSEC) (Aug 2013) 1,000,000.00 92 4.14

12-Nov-12 11-Nov-13 RaboDirect (Curve) (Nov 2016) annual

interest 1,000,000.00 366 6.40 12-Aug-13 11-Nov-13 NAB (RBS) (Aug 2015) quarterly interest 2,000,000.00 91 4.56 12-Aug-13 12-Nov-13 BOQ (Nov 2013) 2,000,000.00 92 4.10 12-Aug-13 12-Nov-13 NAB (Feb 2015) annual interest 2,000,000.00 91 4.00 19-Aug-13 18-Nov-13 Westpac (Feb 2016) 2,000,000.00 91 3.79 16-Aug-13 18-Nov-13 Westpac (Nov 2014) 2,000,000.00 94 3.95 20-Nov-12 19-Nov-13 NAB (Nov 2012) 2,000,000.00 364 4.72 20-Aug-13 20-Nov-13 ING (FIIG) (Feb 2014) 1,000,000.00 92 3.98 20-Aug-13 20-Nov-13 ING (RIMSEC) (Feb 2015) 1,000,000.00 92 3.98 23-Aug-13 23-Nov-13 BOQ (Feb 2016) 1,000,000.00 92 4.19 01-Mar-13 26-Nov-13 Rural (Curve) (Nov 2013) 2,000,000.00 270 4.30 27-Aug-13 27-Nov-13 NAB (RBS) (Aug 2015) 2,000,000.00 92 3.80 30-Aug-13 03-Dec-13 IMB (Dec 2013) 2,000,000.00 91 3.83 03-Sep-13 03-Dec-13 Westpac (Sept 2014) 4,000,000.00 91 3.73 28-Aug-13 03-Dec-13 Rural (Curve) (Dec 2013) 2,000,000.00 97 3.90 10-Sep-13 10-Dec-13 Investec (RIMSEC) (Jun 2014) 1,000,000.00 91 4.55 17-Aug-13 17-Dec-13 NAB 2,000,000.00 91 3.80 20-Sep-13 20-Dec-13 BOQ (Sept 2016) annual interest 2,000,000.00 91 3.85 04-Oct-13 06-Jan-14 BOQ (Apr 2014) 2,000,000.00 94 4.08 11-Jul-13 07-Jan-14 RaboDirect (Curve) (Jan 2015) 1,000,000.00 551 4.20 09-Oct-13 07-Jan-14 ING (RIMSEC) (Jul 2014) 2,000,000.00 91 4.01 08-Oct-13 07-Jan-14 Westpac (Apr 2016) quarterly interest 2,000,000.00 91 3.86 11-Oct-13 13-Jan-14 Westpac ( Jan 2016) 8,000,000.00 94 3.84 22-Oct-13 22-Jan-14 ING (FIIG) (Jul 2014) 3,000,000.00 92 4.03 24-Oct-13 23-Jan-14 NAB (July 2013) annual interest 2,000,000.00 90 4.03 30-Jul-13 28-Jan-14 ING (RIMSEC) 2,000,000.00 182 4.13

07-Feb-13 07-Feb-14 RaboDirect (Curve) (Feb 2015) annual

interest 1,000,000.00 366 6.00 21-Aug-13 18-Feb-14 Beyond Bank 1,000,000.00 181 3.85 20-Feb-13 18-Feb-14 Heritage Bank (Feb 2014) 2,000,000.00 363 4.40

03-Sep-13 11-Mar-14 AMP (CURVE) (Sept 2013) annual

interest 500,000.00 189 3.80 10-Sep-13 11-Mar-14 Westpac (Mar 2014) quarterly interest 2,000,000.00 182 3.66 17-Sep-13 18-Mar-14 Westpac 2,000,000.00 182 3.56 17-Aug-13 18-Mar-14 Westpac (Mar 2014) 2,000,000.00 182 3.56 22-Mar-11 25-Mar-14 BOQ (Mar 2014) annual interest 1,000,000.00 1099 6.75 15-Oct-13 15-Apr-14 MEB (Jul 2013) 4,000,000.00 182 3.85 02-Aug-13 29-Apr-14 AMP 4,000,000.00 270 4.00 15-Aug-13 13-May-14 MEB 3,000,000.00 271 4.05

10-Sep-13 10-Jun-14 AMP (CURVE) (Sept 2013) annual

interest 500,000.00 273 3.80 11-Jun-13 17-Jun-14 MEB (RIMSEC) (June 2014) 4,000,000.00 371 4.15 24-Jul-13 24-Jul-14 RaboDirect (RIMSEC) annual interest 2,000,000.00 734 4.25 26-Jul-13 26-Jul-14 RaboDirect (Curve) (Jul 2015) 1,000,000.00 365 5.20 26-Jul-13 26-Jul-14 RaboDirect (Curve) (Jul 2016) 1,000,000.00 365 5.40 30-Jul-13 29-Jul-14 MEB annual interest 4,000,000.00 364 4.15 30-Jul-13 30-Jul-14 AMP (Curve) annual interest 1,000,000.00 365 4.00 03-Sep-13 03-Sep-14 NAB (Sept 2013) annual interest 4,000,000.00 546 4.05 03-Sep-13 03-Sep-14 BOQ (Mar 2016) 3,000,000.00 365 4.05

03-Sep-13 03-Sep-14 Investec (RIMSEC) (Sept 2015) annual

interest 1,000,000.00 365 4.14 04-Sep-13 04-Sep-14 NAB (Sept 2016) 4,000,000.00 1098 4.25 11-Sep-13 11-Sep-14 Investec (Sept 2015) annual interest 2,000,000.00 365 4.37


Lodged or Rolled DUE Counterparty PRINCIPAL TERM % Yield

20-Sep-13 20-Sep-14 BOQ (Sept 2015) annual interest 2,000,000.00 365 4.20 11-Oct-13 11-Oct-14 CBA (Oct 2015) annual interest 1,000,000.00 365 4.85 15-Oct-13 15-Oct-14 ING (Curve) (March 2013) 2,000,000.00 365 4.01 06-Aug-13 04-Aug-15 NAB (Curve) 2,000,000.00 728 4.10 03-Sep-13 02-Sep-15 ING (RIMSEC) (Sept 2013) 1,000,000.00 365 4.14

22-Mar-11 22-Mar-16 RaboDirect (RIMSEC) (Mar 2016)

annual interest 1,000,000.00 1827 7.15 Total 119,500,000.00 4.27

LEGEND Counterparty ING = ING Bank RaboDirect = Rabo Bank

AMP = AMP Bank

Investec = Investec Bank

Rural = Rural Bank

ANZ = ANZ Bank

Macquarie = Macquarie Bank

Suncorp = Suncorp Metway Bank

BOQ = Bank of Queensland NAB = National Australia Bank Westpac = Westpac Bank

CBA = Commonwealth Bank ME = Members Equity Bank

Heritage = Heritage Bank NPBS = Newcastle Permanent Building Society

6. Performance by Category

Category Face Value Market Value Average Return

Above or (Below) 90 day

BBSW Benchmark

Overnight Money Market Bonds & FRNs Term Deposits

5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 3.50% 0.89%

47,627,880.40 47,757,119.68 4.31% 1.70% 119,500,000.00 119,500,000.00 4.27% 1.66%

90 Day UBS Bank Bill Index 172,127,880.40 172,257,119.68 2.61%

Benchmark 90 Day UBS Bank

Bill Index

3.50%

4.31% 4.27%

2.61%

Overnight Money Market Bonds & FRNs Term Deposits 90 Day UBS Bank Bill Index

Performance by Category Compared with Benchmark


7. Total Portfolio Income v Budget

8. Investment Policy Diversification and Credit Risk

Total Portfolio Credit Limits Compared to Policy Limits Long-Term

Credit Ratings

Investment Policy Limit

Actual Portfolio Short-Term Credit

Ratings

Investment Policy Limit

Actual Portfolio

AAA Category

100% 1.24% A-1+ 100% 12.85%

AA Category 100% 22.86% A-1 100% 19.16% A Category or below

60% 11.25% A-2 60% 18.85%

BBB Category or below

20% 4.33% A-3 0% 0.00%

Unrated 10% 7.00% Unrated 10% 2.46% 9. Term to Maturity

Maturity Profile Actual % Portfolio

Policy Limits

Less than 365 days 39.91% Minimum 40% of portfolio Between 365 days and 2 years 25.67% Maximum 60% Between 2 years and 5 years 34.42% Maximum 35% Total 100.00%

$0.00

$1,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$7,000,000.00

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

Budget

Actual


10. Investment Alternatives Explained

Investment Product

Maturity Range

Usual term to maturity

Major Benefits Major risks

At Call Cash At Call Immediate to a few months

Highly liquid - same day access to funds with no impact on capital

Not a capital growth asset

Highly secure as a bank deposit

Underperforms other asset classes in the long term

Bank Bill 1 - 180 days Less than 1 year Highly liquid - same day access to funds, usually with no or minimal impact on capital

Not a growth asset

Highly secure (bank risk)


May incur a small loss for early redemption

Term Deposit Up to 5 years Less than 2 years Liquid - same day access to funds

Will incur a small capital loss for early termination

Highly secure as a bank deposit

Underperforms growth assets in the longer term

Floating rate Note Bond

1 - 5 years Greater than 2 years

Increased yield over bank bills

Not a growth asset

Can accrue capital gain if sold ahead of maturity and market interest rates have fallen

Can incur capital losses is sold ahead of maturity and market interest rates have risen

Coupon interest rate resets quarterly based on 90 day bank bill swap rate

Credit exposure to company issuing the paper

Relatively liquid May not be bank guaranteed

Less administration than bank bills


Fixed Rate Bond

1 - 5 years Greater than 3 years

Can accrue capital gain if sold before maturity and market interest rates have fallen

Can incur capital losses if sold before maturity and market interest rates have risen

Fixed return - semi annual coupons

Credit exposure to company issuing paper

Generally liquid Can be government or corporate issuer


11. Monthly Comparison of Total Funds Invested

$0.00

$20,000,000.00

$40,000,000.00

$60,000,000.00

$80,000,000.00

$100,000,000.00

$120,000,000.00

$140,000,000.00

$160,000,000.00

$180,000,000.00

$200,000,000.00

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNMonth

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14


12. Section 94 Developer Contributions - Monthly Balances and Receipts Contribution

Plan Plan Description End of Month

Balance Contributions Received for

Month 01 Banora Point West/Tweed Heads South Open Space 3,946,862 - 02 Banora Point Western Drainage 564,193 - 03 Banora Point West/ Tweed Heads South Community

Facilities 4,901 -

04 Tweed Road Contribution Plan 10,459,163 79,502 05 Local Area Open Space 832,611 875 06 Street Tree Planting in Residential Areas 136,455 - 07 West Kingscliff Opens Space & Drainage 423,586 - 10 Cobaki Lakes Open Space & Community Facilities (1,270) - 11 Shire Wide Library Facilities 1,547,515 37,353 12 Bus Shelters 68,745 2,842 13 Eviron Cemetery (16,901) 5,520 14 Mebbin Springs Subdivision - Rural Road Upgrading 84,920 - 15 Community Facilities 553,472 1,044 16 Emergency Facilities - Surf Lifesaving 346,802 - 18 Council Administration & Technical Support 756,654 29,436 19 Kings Beach/Casuarina/Kings Forest 209,823 31,032 20 Seabreeze Estate - Open Space 708 - 21 Terranora Village Estate - Open Space & Community

Facilities 29,074 -

22 Shirewide Cycleways 82,108 17,744 23 Shirewide Carparking 1,468,258 - 25 Salt Development - Open Space & Car Parking 1,024,521 - 26 Shirewide/Regional Open Space 1,544,689 199,787 27 Tweed Heads Masterplan Local Open Space &

Streetscaping 97,874 -

28 Seaside City 107,050 - 90 Footpaths & Cycleway - - 91 DCP14 101,626 - 92 Public Reserve Contributions 127,460 - 95 Bilambil Heights 496,960 -

Total 24,997,858 405,135


13. Economic Commentary Australian Economy and Cash Rate At the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) meeting on 5 November 2013 the cash rate remained unchanged at 2.50%. Recent information is consistent with global growth running a bit below average this year, with reasonable prospects of a pick-up next year. Commodity prices have declined from their peaks, but generally remain at high levels by historical standards. Inflation in most countries is well contained. Overall, global financial conditions remain very accommodative. Volatility in financial markets has abated recently. Long-term interest rates remain very low and there is ample funding available for creditworthy borrowers. In Australia, the economy has been growing a bit below trend over the past year and the unemployment rate has edged higher. This is likely to persist in the near term, as the economy adjusts to lower levels of mining investment. Further ahead, private demand outside the mining sector is expected to increase at a faster pace, though considerable uncertainty surrounds this outlook. There has been an improvement in indicators of household and business sentiment recently, but it is still too soon to judge how persistent this will be. Public spending is forecast to be quite weak. Recent data on prices show inflation consistent with the medium-term target. The Bank's assessment is that this is likely to remain the case over the next one to two years. Council's Investment Portfolio Council's investment portfolio is conservatively structured in accordance with Division of Local Government guidelines with 72.27% of the portfolio held in cash and term deposits. Term deposit and bonds are paying above average margins above the 90 day bank bill rate and remain high but margins continued to contract during October. The historic low cash rate is translating to falling total investment yields. This situation continues to present difficulties obtaining reasonable investment income without risking capital. All investment categories including cash at call out-performed the UBS 90 day bank bill benchmark this month. Overall, the investment portfolio has returned an average 1.42% pa above the 90 day UBS bank bill index for the last month.

Source: RBA Commentary and Oakvale Treasury Report


14. Investment Summary

GENERAL FUND

CORPORATE FIXED RATE BONDS 14,749,318.72

FLOATING RATE NOTES 33,007,800.96

TERM DEPOSITS 45,000,000.00 WATER FUND CALL ACCOUNT 5,000,000.00 97,757,119.68

TERM DEPOSITS 30,000,000.00 SEWERAGE

FUND FUND MANAGERS 0.00 30,000,000.00

TERM DEPOSITS 44,500,000.00

FUND MANAGERS 0.00 44,500,000.00

TOTAL INVESTMENTS 172,257,119.68

It should be noted that the General Fund investments of $97.7 million are not available to be used for general purpose expenditure. It is virtually all restricted by legislation and council resolution for such purposes as unexpended loans, developer contributions, unexpended grants and various specific purpose reserves such as domestic waste, land development and employee leave entitlements. All Water and Sewerage Fund investments can only be expended in accordance with Government regulation and Council resolution. Statutory Statement - Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Cl. 212 I certify that Council's investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulations and Council's investment policies.

Responsible Accounting Officer Acting Director Technology and Corporate Services Tweed Shire Council OPTIONS: Not Applicable. CONCLUSION: Not Applicable. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable.


b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable. c. Legal: Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 - Section 212 - Reports on council investments "(1) The responsible accounting officer of a council:

(a) must provide the council with a written report (setting out details of all money that the council has invested under section 625 of the Act) to be presented:

(i) if only one ordinary meeting of the council is held in a month, at that

meeting, or (ii) if more than one such meeting is held in a month, at whichever of those

meetings the council by resolution determines, and

(b) must include in the report a certificate as to whether or not the investment has been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the council's investment policies.

(2) The report must be made up to the last day of the month immediately preceding the

meeting." d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


REPORTS FROM SUB-COMMITTEES/WORKING GROUPS

82 [SUB-AAC] Minutes of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting held Monday 5 August 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services

2 Supporting Community Life 2.1 Foster strong, cohesive, cooperative, healthy and safe communities 2.1.1 Work closely with government and community organisations to improve services to children

and families, youth, elderly, Indigenous people, disadvantaged and minority groups and to build stronger and more cohesive communities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting held Monday 5 August 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. The Minutes of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting held Monday 5

August 2013 be received and noted; and 2. The Executive Management Team's recommendations be adopted as follows:

Midden site at Avondale Park That in relation to the Avondale Park: 1. Council to prepare AHIMS for the site, and forward it to AAC for

endorsement prior to submission; 2. that the midden site is fenced to prevent further damage; and 3. that cultural monitors be on site during any disturbance of the site. Possibility of using the Council's Laboratory Testing Facilities in Conjunction with a Bio-toxin Management Plan for Pipis That Council notes the Aboriginal Advisory Committee request for assistance from Council to utilise the water quality testing facilities at Banora Point Laboratory to assist with biotoxin testing for the health and quality of Yugaris (pipi) stocks on the North Coast and brings forward a report on the estimate cost and funding sources for the proposal.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting held Monday 5 August 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. Venue:

Minjungbal Museum and Cultural Centre Time:

9.31am Present:

Veronese Burgess (Canowindra representative), Jackie McDonald (Tweed Wollumbin Aboriginal Consultative Group representative), Leweena Williams (Tweed Aboriginal Corporation for Sport representative), Des Williams (Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council representative), Barry Longland (Mayor of Tweed Shire)

Ex-officio: Naida Tattersall (Tweed Shire Council), Anne McLean (Tweed Shire Council), Gabby Arthur (Tweed Shire Council)

Guests (in order of arrival): Jason Young (Tweed Shire Council) (arrived at 10.00am), Sally Cooper (Tweed Shire Council) (arrived at 10.30am) Vince Connell (Tweed Shire Council) (arrived at 10.55am)

Apologies: Aunty Joyce Summers (Canowindra representative), Desrae Rotumah (Tweed Aboriginal Co-Operative Society Limited representative)

Chair: Jackie McDonald Moved: Leweena Williams Seconded: Veronese Burgess

RESOLVED that the Chair was declared vacant and nominations were called. Jackie McDonald was nominated and was unanimously elected to Chair the meeting. Jackie McDonald opened the meeting with a welcome to all present and paid respect to Elders past and present.

Minutes of Previous Meeting: Moved: Veronese Burgess Seconded: Leweena Williams

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee meeting held Friday 14 June 2013 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting.


Business Arising: OSM30 Aboriginal Employment on Kirkwood Road Project Jackie provided an update to the Mayor of the AAC's position regarding lack of Aboriginal employment on the Kirkwood Road project. Jackie also advised that she had received correspondence from the Acting General Manager, Troy Green regarding the issue and apologised for not bringing it along to the meeting as she had intended. Anne read out an email sent to Council by James Blakeney of See Civil dated 2 July 2013 advising the name of the Aboriginal employee working on the project and confirmed he had transferred from the Banora Point Upgrade Project. The members were not aware of this person. Anne advised that there will be opportunities to advocate for improved Aboriginal employment outcomes at Council through the DEEWR Indigenous Employment Project. The Mayor advised that the Arkinstall Park project could provide an opportunity for Aboriginal employment and there may be some scope to still recover some Aboriginal positions on the Kirkwood Road project. Action: Anne to arrange a meeting between Mayor, Troy Green and Anne McLean to discuss Aboriginal employment and to discuss the Kirkwood Road Project in the context of the Indigenous Employment Project report prepared by DEEWR. Jackie advised that she received an email sent to her personally by See Civil providing an undertaking for Aboriginal employment on the Kirkwood Road project. Action: Jackie McDonald to forward to Council a copy of the email she has received from See Civil regarding the Kirkwood Road project. A7(a) Cobaki Lakes Development Des Williams asked for an update on the Cobaki Lakes development. The Mayor advised that the State Government has approved the concept plan for the project. Council is involved in ongoing debate about environmental protection around the lake however this hasn't yet been finalised. Des raised concerns regarding Aboriginal Cultural Heritage noting these issues haven't yet been fully addressed. Jackie advised that Everick's Report indicated 2% of the site has been assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. There is evidence that the site has a higher level of Aboriginal cultural significance through Heritage reports from both Tugun Bypass and Cobaki Lakes. It was mentioned that the Cobaki Tugun Alliance is considering making a submission to State and Federal Government to have the site identified as a site of national significance because of the wealth of Aboriginal artefacts found. BA1. Nomination of Panel Member for Community Development Officer - Aboriginal position Nominations were requested for a panel member for the Community Development Officer - Aboriginal position. Two nominations received: Des Williams and Aunty Joyce Summers. The need for two Aboriginal panel members was discussed. This would mean the panel will be made up of four members - a Human Resources representative, Anne McLean (Chair) and two AAC representatives.


Moved: Leweena Williams Seconded: Barry Longland

RESOLVED that two members of the AAC (Des Williams and Aunty Joyce Summers) be on the panel for the Community Development Officer - Aboriginal position to attend shortlisting and interviews.

Agenda Items: A2. Kirkwood Road Project - Jason Young (Tweed Shire Council) (a) Relocation of the Scarred Tree Jason Young advised that the scarred tree is still being stored securely at a Council Depot and it has been declared clear of pests. Des enquired whether there was a process for keeping the bark intact and Jason advised he wasn't aware of any process and that he understood that when a tree is growing the bark is continuously renewed but once the tree is dead, the bark is not reproduced. Des advised of a silicone infusion process used many years ago in Sydney to preserve some limestone statues that were disintegrating. Des proposed that there were two options regarding location of the scarred tree. The preferred option would be to house it at Minjungbal Aboriginal Museum and Cultural Centre as it would have great cultural and educational functions. The second option is to locate it at Murwillumbah Museum. It was noted that some of the staff who work at Minjungbal Aboriginal Museum are concerned about the spiritual impact of having the scarred tree located there. Jason tabled an image of the scarred tree. Committee noted that the tree is still in good condition. Action: That Jason investigates tree preservation and treatment processes with an expert. Jason advised that it may be necessary to transport the scarred tree to another city for inspection and treatment which could present some risks as far as possible damage to the scarred tree. Once the scarred tree has been preserved, it could be displayed in a 3-sided perspex enclosure which included information regarding the significance of the tree. (b) Plaque Committee agreed to develop draft wording for the plaque via email and to finalise at next AAC meeting. (c) AHIP Jason will check to see whether the AHIP has been provided to the AAC.

Jason Young left at 10.40am A1. Sally Cooper (Tweed Shire Council) (a) Midden site at Avondale Park Sally advised that following a request for Council officers to investigate an illegal BMX track in the bush regeneration area at Avondale Park, disturbance of a midden was revealed. Council has forwarded some photographs to Ian Fox of the midden and is seeking the Committee's approval to work with Ian Fox regarding registering the site with AHIMS.


Sally advised a Plan of Management will need to be prepared for the midden which she will draft and forward to the Committee for endorsement. Sally tabled a site plan and advised that the BMX track is mainly superficial and goes around in circles which is how the midden was exposed. Sally sought advice as to whether children should be allowed to continue to access the area. The Committee advised it would like the midden to be fenced to protect it otherwise the material will continue to be scattered. Council's Design Unit is preparing interpretive signage regarding the regeneration work and requested advice from the Committee as to whether it would like interpretive signage for the midden. The Committee advised that it would like signage. Jackie suggested reference to Kelly Fox's research on former sea levels would be of interest on signage and Des noted that the higher ground would have been a food gathering area. Moved: Des Williams Seconded: Leweena Williams

RECOMMENDATION that in relation to the Avondale Park: 1. Council to prepare AHIMS for the site, and forward it to AAC for endorsement

prior to submission; 2. that the midden site is fenced to prevent further damage; and 3. that cultural monitors be on site during any disturbance of the site.

The Committee requested that at least one week's notice be provided to TBLALC to arrange for monitors to be on site. (b) Foysters Jetty near Minjungbal Drive and Fraser Drive Sally advised of the proposed works required at Foysters Jetty. She further advised that as a result of erosion, the footpath is being undermined and has now been closed and the jetty is also being scoured out. Works are proposed for the base of the jetty and an extension of the revetment in two places; near the midden and also at the southern end near the bus shelter. It is proposed there will be minimal disturbance as rock and fill will be used. All staff working at the site will be briefed about the significance of the site. Des requested that TBLALC monitors attend the site to do an assessment and also be on site during construction works. Moved: Des Williams Seconded: Leweena Williams

RESOLVED that Jason McDonald and Warren Phillips carry out a site assessment and be engaged as site monitors during the construction at Foysters Jetty.

Leweena Williams left the meeting at 10.59am Sally Cooper left at 11.01am

A3. NSW Planning White Paper - Overview - Vince Connell (Tweed Shire Council) Vince provided an overview of the White Paper and tabled 'A Fresh Approach - Your guide to the new planning system (April 2013)', a plain English brochure prepared by the NSW Government.

Leweena Williams returned to meeting at 11.01am Mayor Barry Longland left at 11.03am


The current system is based on the NSW Planning and Assessment Act. Extensive consultation has been conducted over the past 18 months which included the initial Green Paper and now the White Paper and draft legislation have been produced for comment. The formal exhibition/submission period closed on 28 June 2013 for the White Paper however a submission could still be made if it was done without delay. The NSW Government is looking for a more efficient planning system, which is partly in response to lobbying from various business and development industry stakeholders. Part of the legislation seeks to simplify the processes for some Development Applications to only require a Complying Development or Exempt Development. The Government wishes to place more emphasis on upfront strategic planning and comprehensive community consultations to support same.

Mayor Barry Longland returned at 11.08am This will allow a more streamlined Development Application when all of the requirements have been completed upfront. In Queensland, 80% of development assessments go through a system similar to Complying Development. In NSW, only 20% of all applications are complying and exempt development. The NSW Government wishes to move more towards the other States seeking 80% Complying Developments requiring minimal assessment by Council. Tweed Shire Council made a submission to the Government which was endorsed by Council. Council had concerns regarding resources for upfront strategic planning. Currently, 3% of Development Applications are determined by the elected Councillors and 97% are processed by Council officers. The State Government is proposing joint Council decision-making on large developments, similar to the Joint Regional Planning Panel rather than having the applications go through the Councillors. This is of concern to Tweed Shire Council as it removes the democracy at local level to a higher authority. The proposal is aligned with the NSW Local Government reforms suggesting amalgamations of smaller areas to a centralised regional module. Vince summarised Council's submission that it remain as a stand-alone Council rather than part of the proposed County Council model with Lismore being the main political and administrative base. Council is waiting for a decision from the NSW Government on the local government reforms. Vince tabled Council's submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure entitled "A New Planning System for NSW White Paper and Two Exposure Bills", which was adopted by Council on 20 June 2013. The Committee noted that Tweed has had an AAC since 1996 and the AAC has spent those 17 years developing a relationship with the Council. Other Shires don't have such a relationship. Jackie enquired whether the AAC has a voice in the process and the Mayor advised that the AAC could make a submission regarding the impact of amalgamation on Aboriginal cultural heritage. Des noted that community members living in small towns in the Clarence Valley feel disempowered since the amalgamation.


In relation to the new model for Development Application assessments, Des asked how Aboriginal cultural heritage issues will be assessed. Vince noted that detail regarding this is not yet available. The Mayor noted the importance of having all Aboriginal cultural heritage management and assessment processes embedded in the legislation to ensure protection. Jackie advised that the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan needs to be updated more regularly than every 5 years as sites are constantly being identified. Council is working on protocols so that when new sites are identified they can be recorded. The sites will also need to be registered in AHIMS. TBLALC advised that it has made a submission to the White Paper. Maybe the AAC should also make a submission. Vince advised any submission will need be done very quickly as the Government wishes to bring the legislation into place before the end of the year. Action: TSC to email to the Committee a copy of Council's submission which was endorsed by Council, for the Committee's reference. Discussions with Vince were suspended for General Business General Business: GB1. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) - Resolution for next AAC meeting to adopt the thematic history, mapping project and spreadsheet distributed on 16 July 2013. Further discussion is required regarding how often the ACHMP will be updated. Moved: Des Williams Seconded: Veronese Burgess

RESOLVED that the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan thematic history, mapping project and spreadsheet distributed by Converge on 16 July 2013, be adopted.

GB2. Possibility of using the Council's laboratory testing facilities in conjunction with a bio-toxin management plan for pipis. Pipis are a staple food for the Aboriginal community however there is currently a ban on harvesting pipis. The Mayor advised that he will be able to give further information at the Council meeting if required. Moved: Leweena Williams Seconded: Des Williams

RECOMMENDATION that the Aboriginal Advisory Committee seeks assistance from Council to utilise the water quality testing facilities at Banora Point Laboratory to assist with biotoxin testing for the health and quality of Yugaris (pipi) stocks on the North Coast.

GB3. Formal thanks to Ian Fox Moved: Jackie McDonald Seconded: Des Williams

RESOLVED that the Aboriginal Advisory Committee acknowledges the dedication, passion and contribution of Ian Fox in relation to mapping sites and places in Tweed Shire for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

Veronese Burgess left at 11.44am


Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee will be held on Friday 6 September 2013. The meeting closed at 11.44am. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM COMMENTS: Midden site at Avondale Park Nil. Possibility of using the Council's laboratory testing facilities in conjunction with a bio-toxin management plan for pipis Nil. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS: Midden site at Avondale Park That in relation to the Avondale Park: 1. Council to prepare AHIMS for the site, and forward it to AAC for endorsement

prior to submission; 2. that the midden site is fenced to prevent further damage; and 3. that cultural monitors be on site during any disturbance of the site. Possibility of using the Council's Laboratory Testing Facilities in Conjunction with a Bio-toxin Management Plan for Pipis That Council notes the Aboriginal Advisory Committee request for assistance from Council to utilise the water quality testing facilities at Banora Point Laboratory to assist with biotoxin testing for the health and quality of Yugaris (pipi) stocks on the North Coast and brings forward a report on the estimate cost and funding sources for the proposal. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Adopted 25 September 2012. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable.



Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


83 [SUB-LTC] Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 3 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Planning and Infrastructure

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.4 An integrated transport system that services local and regional needs 2.4.1 Provide a safe and efficient network of arterial roads connecting neighbourhoods to town

centres, employment, shopping, health, commercial and education facilities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 3 October 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 3 October

2013 be received and noted. 2. The recommendation of the Executive Management Team be endorsed as

follows:

A1 [LTC] Adelaide Street, Tweed Heads

That the committee supports the request for a "No Stopping" yellow edge line on Adelaide Street to improve sight distance for passing vehicles on the approach to Charles Street.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 3 October 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. VENUE:

Mt Warning Meeting Room TIME:

Commencing at 10.00am PRESENT:

Committee Members: Mr Ian Shanahan, Roads and Maritime Services of NSW, Snr Constable Andrew Simpson, NSW Police, Mr Rod Bates on behalf of Mr Geoff Provest MP, Member for Tweed.

Informal: Mr Ray Clark (Chairman), Mr Michael Kenny, Mr David Bonner, Ms Sandy

Zietlow (Minutes Secretary). APOLOGIES:

Cr Barry Longland, Liz Smith, Roads and Maritime Services of NSW; Mr Geoff Provest MP, Member for Tweed. Snr Constable Ray Wilson, NSW Police, Mr Thomas George MP, Member for Lismore.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 5 September 2013 be adopted as a true and accurate record of proceedings of that meeting.

FOR VOTE - Unanimous SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING RESOLUTIONS [LTC-SOR] Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions - 3 October 2013 From Meeting held 5 September 2013 1. [LTC] Upper Burringbar Road, Burringbar (B1) FILE NO: ECM 3053499; Burringbar Road; Upper Burringbar Road; Traffic - Committee;

Traffic - Safety; Traffic - Speed Zones; Traffic - Pedestrian Safety SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received in relation to the speed of vehicles on Burringbar Road particularly between the two rail crossings.


"….. writing to inform you of our community problem we are having with speeding cars between the two rail crossings, there have been numerous accidents on this particular stretch of road as the youth are using these corners as a race track, the road has been widened which allows more speed, there are numerous driveways on this stretch . There are children riding there bikes to school everday , and there seems to be a ten fold increase in P PLATE drivers, last week i rang the police on a speeding car that nearly hit me while i was just across the bridge between guard rail and the road , he was travelling so fast, swerved to miss me with inches to spare and kept speeding without slowing down even when he came so close to hitting me, on friday early evening a car ran off the road into the ditch ……. and hit a tree, from going too fast and losing control. The past couple of years there have been many near fatalities, one horror smash in the same place as friday nights accident, where a local man has severe brain trauma and will never recover. We are requesting as we have done in the past to make this area between the two rail crossings a 60 zone, as we neighbors believe the 80 zone is not suitable and not sensible ….." A similar item was discussed at the Local Traffic Committee meeting held 21 October 2010 where the following resolution was made: "That: 1. The NSW Police consider dedicating resources to speed enforcement along Upper

Burringbar Road. 2. Pedestrian and cyclist warning signage be placed along Upper Burringbar Road at

locations deemed appropriate by Council officers." COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. Consideration be given to a review of the speed limit on Upper Burringbar Road,

Burringbar and supporting information be forwarded to the Roads & Maritime Services. 2. This item be listed on the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions. Current Status: An Inspection has been done and a report is being prepared by the

NSW Roads and Maritime Services. That the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions Item Upper Burringbar Road, Burringbar, from Local Traffic Committee meeting held 8 August 2013 remain on the list of Outstanding Resolutions. (This item was originally listed as an Outstanding Resolution at the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held 16 May 2013 (Item B1).

—————————————


From Meeting held 5 September 2013 2. [LTC] Kennedy Drive and Gollan Drive, Tweed Heads (B1) FILE NO: ECM 3096455; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Traffic - Speed Zones; Kennedy Drive, Tweed Heads SUMMARY OF REPORT: "A review of Kennedy Drive / Gollan Drive, Tweed Heads has revealed a significant crash history for a 4km length of road, approximately between Terranora Terrace and Scenic Drive. Kennedy Drive has a sign posted speed of 60km/h. During the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012 (5 years) there were 90 reported crashes within the subject distance on Kennedy Drive. Information was tabled at the meeting with a view to RMS reducing the speed limit to 50km/h. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. The RMS be requested to review the speed limit on Kennedy Drive and Gollan Drive in

accordance with the speed zoning guidelines. 2. This item be placed on the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions." Current Status: That the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions Item Kennedy Drive and

Gollan Drive, Tweed Heads, from Local Traffic Committee meeting held 8 August 2013 remain on the list of Outstanding Resolutions.

(This item was originally listed as an Outstanding Resolution at the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held 11 July 2013 (Item B1).

————————————— BUSINESS ARISING Nil. A. FORMAL ITEMS SECTION DELEGATIONS FOR REGULATORY DEVICES A1 [LTC] Adelaide Street, Tweed Heads ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3158708; Signs - Traffic Issues; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Adelaide Street; Charles Street


SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received for a "no standing" sign on the corner of Adelaide Street and Charles Street: "Because of up to 4 cars parked on this narrow corner traffic going uphill in Adelaide St must go onto the wrong side of the road to get around these parked cars. If a car is coming downhill from Charles (sic) there is danger of a head on collision. Needs a no standing sign on the corner". COMMITTEE ADVICE: That the committee supports the request for a "No Stopping" yellow edge line on Adelaide Street to improve sight distance for passing vehicles on the approach to Charles Street. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That the committee supports the request for a "No Stopping" yellow edge line on Adelaide Street to improve sight distance for passing vehicles on the approach to Charles Street. FOR VOTE - Mr Ian Shanahan, Snr Constable Andrew Simpson; Mr Rod Bates AGAINST VOTE - Nil ABSENT. DID NOT VOTE - Snr Constable Ray Wilson; Cr Barry Longland, Mr Geoff Provest, Liz Smith PRESENT. DID NOT VOTE - Nil A2 This item was moved to Section B4 at the request of the Chairperson, please refer to

Item B4 for decision on this matter. DELEGATIONS FOR REGULATORY DEVICES Nil.

————————————— B. INFORMAL ITEMS SECTION B1 [LTC] Wiggle Cycling Series Event - Kingscliff - 24 November 2013 ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3179683; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Festivals/Events - Other; Marine Parade, Pottsville Road, Tweed Valley Way, Smiths Creek Road, Zara Road, Numinbah Road, Cudgen Road


SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received for permission to hold the Wiggle Cycling Series Event - Kingscliff on 24 November 2013 as follows: "There will be three different cycling routes of differing lengths, Fun (72km), Classic (103km) and Epic (135km). All three routes are proposed to begin and finish at the southern end of Jack Bayliss Park (Jack Bayliss carpark south), Marine Parade, Kingscliff. Whilst all three cycling routes vary at different locations, all proposed routes are located within Tweed Shire Council. The Epic route extends as far south as the towns of Pottsville and Mooball, and then continues inland to Tyalgum via Uki. From Tyalgum the course heads back towards Murwillumbah via Chillingham, and from there onto Kingscliff to finish via Cudgen. Both the Fun and Classic cycling routes are encompassed within the extents of the Epic route. The cycling event is proposed as a 'fun ride' only, and is not geared towards a race, hence participants are expected to obey regular road rules at all times. Five intersections within the course routes were identified as requiring cyclist and traffic control via a traffic controller. The Cudgen Rd and Tweed Valley Way intersection was identified as requiring speed control to provide greater safety to participants making the right-hand turn into Cudgen Rd. This included a 60km/h speed zone 100m either side of the intersection coupled by a 300m long 80km/h transition zone. In addition to this, bicycle warning signage will also be utilised on the approach roads to this intersection." COMMITTEE ADVICE: That Council supports the conduct of the Wiggle Cycling Series Events on various roads in the Tweed Shire, subject to the following: 1. Police approval for the event is sought and obtained. 2. The event organiser is to provide adequate public liability insurance for the event. 3. All signage installed for the event must not cause a hazard for motorists or pedestrians

and are to be removed immediately after the conduct of the event. 4. The event organiser notifies Tweed residents of the impact of their event by advertising

in the Tweed Link at their expense a minimum of one week prior to the operational impacts taking effect. The advertising must include the Event Name, specifics of any traffic impacts or road closures and times, alternative route arrangements and the event name, event organiser, a personal contact name and a telephone number for all event related enquiries or complaints.

5. Compliance with the Traffic Management Plans and Traffic Control Plans for the event.

————————————— B2 [LTC] Botanical Circuit and Leisure Drive, Banora Point ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3179374; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Pedestrian Safety; Botanical Circuit; Leisure Drive


SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received for a speed pacifier to be installed: "Reference is made to 2 telephone calls (September 11 and September 23) made to Council in regard to the "T" intersection of Leisure Drive and Botanical Circuit at 'Flame Tree Estate' Banora Point. This is a 50kph zone but nobody cares. Having discussed with operators at Council I am putting in writing the problem that currently exists at this intersection. From west down Botanical Circuit vehicles appear to exceed the 50kph speed limit and come around the corner very fast thereby making it nearly impossible to avoid a collision with vehicles reversing from the driveways of unit 1/185 Botanical Circuit and also from units 1/231 and 2/231 Leisure Drive. The suggestion is that a speed pacifier be installed across the road outside unit 2/185 across to 156 Botanical Circuit to help reduce the speed of traffic traveling (sic) east entering Leisure Drive and thus avoid the possibility of a serious accident with a vehicle reversing from one of the units abovementioned. Today, September 23, a near collision between 2 pedestrians (children) and a vehicle at this intersection has also prompted this letter. A site inspection by the Traffic Committee would seem appropriate to settle this 'accident waiting to happen'. We, the undersigned have been in our front yards on several occasions witnessing near collisions from vehicles doing excessive speed around the corner of Botanical Circuit and into Leisure Drive." A review of the intersection indicates no crash history in the past five years. The driveways would appear to have sight distance egress similar to a typical urban area. Installation of a speed calming device would lead to amenity issues including noise generation and given that there is no crash history, is not supported. COMMITTEE ADVICE: Council investigates the installation of infill chevrons on the inside of the curve at the intersection of Botanical Circuit and Leisure Drive.

—————————————


B3 [LTC] Tweed Coast Road, Bogangar ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3173589; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Traffic - Parking Zones; Tweed Coast Road, Bogangar SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received for a refuge island, slightly raised crossing, traffic and speed count and signage along Tweed Coast Road, Bogangar: "I was invited to meet the members of the Cabarita Beach/Bogangar Residents' Association last Tuesday 10 September to discuss a number of traffic issues in Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita. I am suggesting that these could be the basis for an agenda item at the next Traffic Committee Meeting and they are as follows: They are seeking a refuge island on Tweed Coast Road to the north of the Rosewood Avenue roundabout on the road in front of the shops (Kartel Cafe etc). There is already a refuge island to the south and the residents claim that the need for both refuge islands was identified in the Cabarita DCP. The carparks on Tweed Coast Road that are nearest to the pedestrian crossing outside Woolworths are claimed to affect sight lines for motorists approaching the crossing. As well, they are asking for a slightly raised crossing at this point as a traffic calming measure. Residents believe that a traffic and speed count on Tweed Coast Road through the CBD would assist in determining the need for additional safety measures, as above. With the change to half hour parking on Tweed Coast Road, residents are seeking some signage (preferably at Rosewood Avenue and Banksia Avenue intersections) that indicates parking is available in the Woolworths carpark off Hastings Road. Any advice you could give me would be appreciated." Item 1: A wide concrete median is in place north of Rosewood Avenue then a wide

painted median extends to the north for an additional 70m. Adequate crossing opportunities are in place and an additional pedestrian refuge was not warranted.

Item 2: Sight lines of pedestrians on the crossing are appropriate. Vehicles exiting

parking spaces may temporarily limit the sight distance however removing parking spaces was not necessary.

Item 3: The RMS advised that the area should be considered for a 40km/h High

Pedestrian Activity Area. Item 4: The Committee considered that Woolworths could install additional signage in

their premises to direct customers to their off road parking area. It was noted that a sign is currently on the front of the building advising parking at rear.


Additional correspondence relating to vehicle speeds was discussed. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That Council applies to the RMS for the implementation of the 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area for Tweed Coast Road in the vicinity of the Woolworths complex at Bogangar. B4 [LTC] Pioneer Parade, Banora Point ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3167850; Signs - Traffic Issues; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Linemarking; Traffic - Parking Zones; Traffic - Safety; Traffic - School Zones; Pioneer Parade SUMMARY OF REPORT: Advice requested from the Local Traffic Committee on addressing impact of queuing on through traffic and compliance with parking signage and linemarking on Pioneer Parade, Banora Point: "It has been reported that queues form along Pioneer Parade in the afternoon due to parents picking up students from the Banora Point Primary School’s car park. The off road car park was constructed by Council using Department of Education funds. Students are escorted to the vehicle by teachers and in general offers a safe outcome for students. The Committee’s advice is sought on how to address the impact of this queuing on through traffic and compliance with parking signage and linemarking." There is a double centre line on Pioneer Parade from Johnson Street to 58 metres south of Johnson Street and adjacent "No Stopping" signage. Parents are queuing along Pioneer Parade up to half an hour before the school bell sounds on school afternoons. Through traffic wishing to travel north on Pioneer Parade from Banora Hills Drive are either forced to join the queue for up to 45 minutes or illegally pass the queued vehicles over the double centre line. Options to address this issue include: 1. Remove the double centre lines and associated "No Stopping" signs. 2. Request that the school only opens the access gate to the carpark at the end of the

school day. 3. Parents parking adjacent to double centre lines are issued with an infringement. 4. Queuing the traffic from the opposite direction would present more safety issues than

the current situation. 5. Reduce the current 58 metres of double centre lines to 15 metres from Johnson Street

and replace the existing "No Stopping" signs on the school side of Pioneer Parade with "No Parking 8.00-9.30am, 2.30-4.00pm School Days" signs.


The Chairperson requested that this item be moved from Section A Formal Items t B Informal Items. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That Council advise the School Principal to include in the School's Newsletter that parents are not to park adjacent to double centre lines on Pioneer Parade before the end of the school day and that Rangers will continue to monitor the site and issue infringements for non compliance. GENERAL TRAFFIC ADVICE Nil. NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the Local Traffic Committee will be held Thursday 7 November 2013 in the Mt Warning Meeting Room commencing at 10.00am. There being no further business the Meeting terminated at 11.30. SECTION A - FORMAL ITEMS SECTION - DELEGATIONS FOR REGULATORY DEVICES FOR ENDORSEMENT BY COUNCIL: Executive Management Team Comments:


Nil.

Executive Management Team Recommendations:


That the committee supports the request for a "No Stopping" yellow edge line on Adelaide Street to improve sight distance for passing vehicles on the approach to Charles Street.

————————————— COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Reviewed 21 August 2013. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable.


d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION: Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


84 [SUB-TRC] Minutes of the Tweed River Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Community and Natural Resources

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.3 Maintain and enhance Tweed's waterways and its catchments 4.3.1 Manage water resources sustainably and minimise impact on the environment by achieving more integration of water supply,

wastewater and stormwater services

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Tweed River Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. The Minutes of the Tweed River Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October

2013 be received and noted; and 2. The Executive Management Team's recommendations be adopted as follows:

A2. Tweed River Navigation That Council investigates priorities, costs, benefits, approvals processes and financial assistance opportunities for navigational dredging in the Tweed River.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Tweed River Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. Venue:

Canvas & Kettle Meeting Room Time:

9.10am Present:

Robert Quirk (NSW Cane Growers’ Association) (Chair); Cr Katie Milne; Ben Fitzgibbon (Office of Environment and Heritage); Pat Dwyer (Department of Industry & Investment NSW); Carl Cormack (Roads and Maritime Services); Claire Masters (Tweed Landcare Inc); Scott Petersen (Tweed River Charter Operators); Sam Dawson (Caldera Environment Centre); Eddie Norris (Community Representative); Max Boyd (Community Representative); David Oxenham; Jane Lofthouse, Tom Alletson, Mark Kingston (Tweed Shire Council).

Informal:

Cathey Philip (Minutes Secretary). Apologies:

Rhonda James (Bushland Restoration Industry), Cr Gary Bagnall. Minutes of Previous Meeting: Moved: Max Boyd Seconded: Pat Dwyer

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Tweed River Committee meeting held Wednesday 14 August 2013 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting.

—————————————

Business Arising: BA1. Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan Tom advised that Tim Mackney from Council's Water Unit will attend the December meeting to further update members on the Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan. BA2. National River Prize Tom advised members that Council again missed out on the National River Prize and provided them with information on the winner - Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority. Tom has requested feedback from the judging panel but hasn't received anything as yet.

Ian Walker attended at 9.15am Cr Milne attended at 9.30am

—————————————


Agenda Items: A1. Project Proposal - Riparian Restoration at Byangum and Murwillumbah Ian Walker gave a presentation on the above proposal. He provided an overview on his history as a bush regenerator and Tweed Shire resident and how he came to be interested in riparian restoration. A general discussion followed. Aspects of Ian proposal discussed included steps to remove carp from the river through recreational fishing and the proposal to install large woody debris into the river channel downstream of the Byangum bridge. It was agreed that Ian's proposal to address riverbank condition in the Murwillumbah of the river was worthy of the Committee's support.

Stuart Giblin attended at 9.55am Moved: Cr Milne Seconded: Scott Petersen

RESOLVED that the Tweed River Committee provide in principle support to Ian Walker's application to the NSW DPI recreational fish trust habitat restoration grants.

A2. Tweed River Navigation Scott Peterson and Stuart Giblin (senior skipper for Tweed Endeavour Cruises) gave a presentation on navigating the Tweed River. Stuart explained the problems encountered when navigating the Tweed River in the Golden Swan. The importance of navigation through to Tumbulgum was stressed, in terms of its importance to Endeavour Cruises, and the Tumbulgum economy.

David Oxenham attended at 10.10am Scott advised that the river has dramatically changed over the past 12 months. It was assumed this has happened because of the flood in February 2013. Robert expressed an interest in the issue, noting that as a farmer who needs drainage down the Tweed River, its sedimentation is a concern to him and the cane industry. Robert noted his opinion that dredging would have major benefit to agriculture in the valley. It was generally agreed that the river has been gradually getting shallower in some areas, for some years. Two major areas of concern exist with respect to operation of the Golden Swan. These shallow areas are in the Fingal reach of the river, and around Stott's Island. RECOMMENDATION: Moved: Max Boyd Seconded: Eddie Norris

RESOLVED that Council investigates priorities, costs, benefits, approvals processes and financial assistance opportunities for navigational dredging in the Tweed River.

There was discussion for and against the motion. Scott Peterson expressed an interest in the issue and did not vote. David Oxenham abstained from voting.


FOR VOTE - Robert, Max, Ben, Pat, Eddie, Carl. AGAINST VOTE - Cr Milne, Claire, Sam. The Motion was Carried

Stuart Giblin left at 11.00am Ian Walker left at 11.00am

A3. Tweed River System Recreational Strategy Tom advised that at its meeting on 19 September, Council resolved as follows: "that Council develops a 'Tweed River System - Recreational Strategy' to determine the Tweed community's desired future character for the river system in light of the current state of erosion of the River, and the desired level of recreational facilities. 1. Education of the community on the current issues affecting the Tweed River system

from recreational use, including but not limited, to the cumulative impacts from boat wakes and wakeboarding on accelerating erosion and the 6kms of road along Tweed Valley Way, now subject to severe erosion, and the projected cost estimates of such works.

2. Consultation with the community and affected stakeholders, including but not limited to, a survey and public meetings, to determine: a) The community's current use and engagement with the river, b) The desired amenity, visual character and ecological aspirations for the River

system, c) Priorities eg revegetation, environmental facilities (walking trails, picnic tables,

interpretive signs, bird hides, etc), boating facilities, rock revetment, etc d) Support or objection to various recreational activities on the river in light of the

erosion impacts and cost for revetment works, e) Preference on whether the community would like to see waterway facilities

increased, and if so, the types and sizes of recreational waterway facilities the community would prefer."

Tom provided details on how he thought the study could be undertaken and advised that other projects he was currently working on may need to be put aside to allow time for this study. Costs were advised to be in the order of $50,000+, with a time requirement of up to 18 months. Cr Milne noted that in drafting the resolution she had not considered that the project would entail such significant costs or time. There was a lengthy discussion regarding this matter. Moved: Ben Fitzgibbon Seconded: Scott Petersen

RESOLVED that the Committee workshop the scope of a Tweed River Recreational Strategy, with a view to submitting a funding application for such a project to the Office of Environment and Heritage in December. The priority of the project should be determined within the context of other Tweed River Committee projects.


A4. Appointment of New Tweed River Committee member Tom advised that at its meeting of 19 September 2013 Council resolved:

that, as stated in the terms of reference that Council appoints a new member of the Tweed River Committee and a position has become available, and that this community position be advertised inviting expressions of interest.

The expression of interest was advertised in the Tweed Link of 1 October 2013 with the submission closing date being 25 October 2013. There was a brief discussion regarding this matter. A5. Proposed Chinderah Pontoon - Public Meeting Tom advised that a public meeting will be held at 4.00pm on Tuesday 15 October 2013 to discuss the above proposal. He provided details on the format proposed for the meeting. A copy of the feedback form is to be circulated to members, Councillors and the Executive Management Team.

Ben left at 12.10pm There was a lengthy discussion regarding this matter with differing opinions voiced. Moved: Claire Masters Seconded: Cr Milne

RESOLVED that due to areas of seagrass in the area that the Committee recommend that the size of the pontoon be reduced so that it is equal in size to the pontoon at Tumbulgum.

Pat and David abstained from voting. For vote: 3 Against vote: 5 The Motion lost. A6. Project Updates Tom updated members on the following projects: • CSIRO continuous water quality monitoring station • Riverbank erosion management plan • Lower Oxley River erosion • Tweed River Festival • State of the Tweed River Report Jane provided more information on the Tweed River Festival program. A7. Code of Conduct for Council Committees A copy of the above code was circulated to members with their meeting agenda.


Eddie advised that a development application with which he has involvement has been submitted to Council. Eddie will declare an interest if any aspect of the application is discussed at a future Tweed River Committee meetings. There was a brief discussion regarding this matter.

————————————— Outstanding Items: O1. Revegetation of Riparian Land and Windmill Corner No further action. O2. Implementation Summary - Lower and Upper Tweed Estuary Management Plans No further action.

————————————— General Business: GB1. Proposal to Undertake Stocking of Mangrove Jack in Clarrie Hall Dam Cr Milne raised ecological concerns about Mangrove Jack. David responded to the concerns and provided details on the proposal. No problems have been raised at this stage regarding the Bass already in the dam. Pat will investigate and bring information to the next meeting. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Tweed River Committee will be held on Wednesday 11 December 2013. The meeting closed at 12.55pm. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM COMMENTS: A2. Tweed River Navigation Nil. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS: A2. Tweed River Navigation That Council investigates priorities, costs, benefits, approvals processes and financial assistance opportunities for navigational dredging in the Tweed River. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Adopted by Council 24 January 2013. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable.



Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


85 [SUB-TCC] Minutes of the Tweed Coastal Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Community and Natural Resources

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 4 Caring for the Environment 4.4 Manage the Tweed coastline to ensure a balance between utilisation and conservation 4.4.1 Recognise and accommodate natural processes and climate change

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Tweed Coastal Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the Tweed Coastal Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013 be received and noted.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Tweed Coastal Committee Meeting held Wednesday 9 October 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. Venue:

Canvas & Kettle Meeting Room Time:

1.18pm Present:

Cr Barry Longland (Chair); John Harbison (Mooball); Terry Kane (Cabarita Beach-Bogangar); Jason Pearson (Kingscliff); Tim Jack Adams (Kingscliff); David Cranwell (Pottsville); Roger Graf (Fingal Head); Jane Lofthouse, Tom Alletson, Marama Hopkins, Stewart Brawley (Tweed Shire Council).

Informal: Cathey Philip (Minutes Secretary).

Apologies: Rhonda James (Restoration Industry); Ben Fitzgibbon (Office of Environment and Heritage); Pat Dwyer (Department of Industry & Investment NSW).

Not in Attendance: Cr Gary Bagnall; Michael Munday (Bogangar); Peter Sloan (Hastings Point).

Minutes of Previous Meeting: Moved: John Harbison Seconded: Terry Kane

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Tweed Coastal Committee meeting held Wednesday 14 August 2013 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting subject to the following amendment: Cudgen Lake Upstream Drainage Issues …that the Drainage Union has gone ahead with developing permit applications for submission to all relevant state government departments to enable debris and obstruction clearing.

—————————————

Business Arising: BA1. Lot 490 Meeting Cr Longland advised Council is meeting with Department of Lands on 10 October to obtain information regarding its plans for Lot 490. Council has resolved to have a public meeting. There is a lot of interest within the community and Council is expecting a lot of discussion. Cr Longland will advise the outcomes of the meeting at the next Tweed Coastal Committee meeting.


BA2. Fingal Head Erosion Jane advised that at its meeting on 19 September 2013, in response to the Tweed Coastal Committee recommendation, Council resolved as follows: "that Council: 1. Adopts a position of undertaking sand nourishment and other minor works for

immediate erosion events at Fingal Head Beach in which assets are at risk, and 2. Commences discussions with the Fingal Rovers Surf Lifesaving Club to consider

planning for the long-term relocation of the clubhouse behind the 2050 Coastal Hazard Line."

There was a general discussion regarding this matter. BA3. Kingscliff Beach Public Access during Erosion Jane advised that the Tweed Coast Holiday Parks staff are still looking at options to reinstate access at the northern end of the holiday park but there is no timeframe advised at this stage. BA4. Items of Concern to Pottsville Community David raised concerns regarding the following: • Still some work required at the log wall adjacent to Pottsville Bridge. Tom advised

mangroves are going to be planted to assist with stabilisation. David concerned wall may be undermined.

• Repair of a board on the beach vehicle access at Black Rocks. • The beach vehicle access at Casuarina is still eroding. Requested boards be rolled up

and sand placed beneath. Jane will arrange for Rod Keevers to contact David directly. BA5. Cudgen Lake Upstream Drainage Issues John provided a brief update. Project and environmental management plans are being developed.

————————————— Agenda Items: A1. Kingscliff Foreshore Project Update Jane advised that the Hazard Study will be provided to the Committee at the December meeting or before if possible. A brief will be sent out shortly for development of an updated Kingscliff Coastal Zone Management Plan. A2. Beach and Shore Nesting Birds Marama advised that it is now shorebird nesting season and that Council is working with BirdLife Northern Rivers to assist with the protection of beach and shorebirds. Most of these birds are classed as either vulnerable or endangered. There are no active nests at the moment but it is hoped there will be soon. Marama asked if members could advise of any nests that they may come across. Various methods of promoting information on protection of nesting and roosting shorebirds was discussed. A brochure will be available soon for distribution.


A3. Tweed DuneCare Coordinating Committee Minutes A copy of the minutes from the meeting held 26 September 2013 was provided to members. Marama gave a brief update on the meeting. There was a general discussion on various items. David requested that litter bins at beach accesses be replaced with a larger size and also additional bins provided during holiday periods or increased servicing. Jane noted that most of the bins provided at beach accesses were supplied and maintained by the NRM Coast Crew, not Waste or Recreation Services and an increase in servicing would not be possible without severely impacting on the other services they provide such as assisting DuneCare groups and weed control. A4. Code of Conduct for Council Committees A copy of the above code was circulated to members with their meeting agenda. There was a brief discussion regarding this matter. A5. Tweed River Festival Jane provided members with a brief update on the Tweed River Festival which will be held 4 - 9 November 2013. All members were encouraged to attend the main day on Saturday 9 November in Budd Park, Murwillumbah, as well as any other events that are of interest to them. It was decided that a report on the Koala Connection program is to be provided at a future meeting.

————————————— General Business: GB1. Fox and Feral Dog Control Trial Terry raised the issue of the signs placed I the dune advising of the above baiting program are very small and difficult to read. Marama advised that they are trialling a new baiting system and no poisons are being used. Details of trial will be advertised in the Tweed Link. It would be several years before the program goes live and "real" baits are used. There was a general discussion regarding this matter. GB2. Increased Regulatory Signage in Kingscliff Jason raised concerns over the increase of "no alcohol" signs in public foreshore parks. There was a general discussion regarding this matter and the pros and cons of establishing "no alcohol" zones in public areas. GB3. Pottsville - Seabreeze Estate David raised concerns about the potential removal of sediment settlement ponds for extension of the development. Cr Longland advised that a public meeting will be held regarding the extension of Seabreeze Estate.


GB4. Proposed Chinderah Pontoon Tom advised members that a public meeting is to be held on 15 October 2013 at the Chinderah Scout Hall to discuss the proposed public pontoon. GB5. Orchids in Lot 490 Roger raised issue of an endangered species of orchid that has been identified in Lot 490 and an article in the Tweed Sun claiming the orchids had been vandalised. GB6. Access Ramp at Ed Parker Rotary Park Tim raised concerns about protruding nails in the recently built access ramp. Also mentioned that showers are required in this park. Jane to address the ramp, Stewart to consider provision of an outdoor shower at this location. A reminder to Committee members that general maintenance issues should be addressed to Council directly as required rather than waiting for Tweed Coastal Committee meetings.

————————————— Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Tweed Coastal Committee will be held on Wednesday 11 December 2013 at a venue to be decided. The meeting closed at 2.40pm. DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS: Nil. DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS: Nil. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Reviewed 21 August 2012. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable.



Nil.


86 [SUB-FMC] Minutes of the Floodplain Management Committee Meeting held Friday 11 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Planning and Infrastructure


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Floodplain Management Committee Meeting held Friday 11 October 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. The Minutes of the Floodplain Management Committee Meeting held Friday 11

October 2013 be received and noted; and 2. The Executive Management Team's recommendations be adopted as follows:

1. Development Controls for Extreme Floods That Council notes the information on extreme flood events contained in the report. 4. Raising Oaks Avenue (Tweed Valley Way / Old Pacific Highway) That Council considers the raising of an isolated section of Tweed Valley Way "Burns' Corner") in future road maintenance/reconstruction programs to reduce the risk to motorists from flood inundation.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Floodplain Management Committee Meeting held Friday 11 October 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. Venue:

Mount Warning Room, Murwillumbah Civic Centre Time:

9.00am Present:

Danny Rose, Patrick Knight, Steve Twohill, Leon McLean, Lindsay McGavin (left 10:00am), (TSC), Toong Chin (OEH), Wayne Pettit, Brian Sheahan (SES), Robert Quirk, Felicia Cecil, Max Boyd,

Apologies: Cr Katie Milne, Iain Lonsdale, Paul Taylor, Samuel Dawson

Minutes of Previous Meeting: Moved: M Boyd Seconded: R Quirk

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Floodplain Management Committee meeting held 12 July 2013 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting.

Business Arising: 1. Development Controls for Extreme Floods Leon McLean made a presentation relating to recent extreme flood events (Brisbane 1974, Nyngan, Newcastle, Bundaberg), and the resultant development controls that have been adopted in those local government areas in response. He also provided extracts from the Floodplain Development Manual regarding considerations when Councils set design flood levels. The general approach of local authorities to extreme floods is to introduce a range of risk mitigation measures including flood modification (levees, dam spillways etc) and property modification (voluntary house raising and purchase, development controls). Moved: M Boyd Seconded: R Quirk RESOLVED that Council includes a summary of extreme flood events in the preamble to all Council meetings, alongside the charter.


2. Environmental Impacts of Floodplain Filling Leon McLean explained that based on his research there is limited available literature specific to environmental impacts of floodplain filling. However there is widespread acknowledgement that urban development in general has negative impacts on the environment. The filling component of urban development has not been specifically identified as a major contributor to the associated environmental degradation, and extensive clearing and regrading is required on large development scale sites regardless of their flood liability. Under the NSW planning system, developers are required to address impacts of development in their applications, and mitigate them to the required extent, for site specific merit assessment. By way of example, the Kings Forest development application was required to provide a wide range of studies/plans with the Environmental Assessment including but not limited to:

• Construction Management Plan • Land Dedication Plans • Assessment Against Coastal Design Guidelines • Engineering Services Report • Bulk Earthworks and Engineering Plans • Landscape Concept Plans • Contamination Assessment • Visual Impact Assessment • Flooding and Flood Management Assessment • Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan • Stormwater Management Plan • Drainage Maintenance Impact Assessment and Management Plan • Acid Sulphate Soils Assessment • Groundwater Assessment • Site Based Management Plan • Bushfire Risk Assessment • Wildlife Corridor Assessment • Buffer Zone Management Plan • EPBC Act Referral • Feral Animal Management Plan • Weed Management Plan • Threatened Species Management Plan • Koala Plan of Management • Vegetation Management Plan

Filling can have benefits to floodplain development, by reducing damages and aiding in evacuation, provided it does not cause significant changes in flood behaviour to the detriment of existing development. This report was noted.


3. Department of Primary Industries Flood Resilience Project Letter from DPI was discussed. Danny Rose has been provided as Council's point of contact for the project. Meetings with the project facilitators are yet to be arranged. This report was noted. 4. Raising Oaks Avenue (Tweed Valley Way / Old Pacific Highway) The committee recognised that large scale raising of Oaks Avenue is not economically feasible and would have potential negative impacts on adjoining land. Alternate routes generally exist. Max Boyd clarified the previous resolution of the committee, by specifying that only the lowest section at Burns' Corner required minor raising and that this should be considered when reconstruction of the road is necessary. The purpose of raising his concerns centred around safety of motorists. Moved: M Boyd Seconded: R Quirk RESOLVED that Council considers the raising of an isolated section of Tweed Valley Way ("Burns' Corner") in future road maintenance/reconstruction programs to reduce the risk to motorists from flood inundation. 5. Community Education - SES Projects Wayne Pettit circulated a summary of proposed SES community engagement in Tweed Shire. Council officers would also participate where relevant. It was noted that the Tumbulgum FloodSafe Committee initiative post-January 2013 flood was highly successful and won an award. The forthcoming ABC Catalyst program was discussed, which involves a flooding scenario in the Lower Tweed canal estates. SES and Council were involved in the show's production, however SES were now concerned that it trivialised the issues and may withdraw support. This report was noted.

————————————— Agenda Items: 1. Post Exhibition Draft Tweed Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan Powerpoint presentation by Danny Rose regarding the exhibition process, submissions received, and subsequent amendments to the draft document. The major change in the document relates to its presentation, making the draft study a stand alone document, without relying on the volumes of discussion papers as it did previously. Previous recommendations do not change significantly, but additional recommendations have been added to address submissions.


Additional explanation was provided regarding the study responses to the submissions by the Chinderah and Districts Residents Association and the South Murwillumbah Business Owners Group, who addressed the last committee meeting. It was noted that most committee members had not received the posted hard copies of the draft Study, or had only recently received them and had not had time to properly review the document. As such, committee members were not able to comment on their support, or otherwise, for the study recommendations. The committee supported an option to defer consideration of the study to another meeting to be convened in two weeks time. It was further noted that the draft Plan was nearing completion and also required consideration by the committee prior to adoption. This plan would be completed and circulated in this time frame. Moved: M Boyd Seconded: F Cecil RESOLVED that this item be deferred and a meeting be convened in two weeks to consider the draft Tweed Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and the draft Tweed Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

—————————————

2. Model Code of Conduct - Your Obligations as a Council Committee Member Code attached to agenda. For information of Committee Members. Noted by the Committee

————————————— General Business: 3. South Murwillumbah Voluntary Purchase Max Boyd was concerned that the few remaining residents in the VP area were disadvantaged. It was recommended that the property owners contact Council staff to discuss the VP process, and assure them that they would be paid current market rates should they request purchase. 4. Chinderah Pontoon Robert Quirk noted that the proposed pontoon at Chinderah had been discussed at the Tweed River Committee. At this meeting Council's Director Community and Natural Resources stated that there would be no flood impact of the structure. It was asked whether that was also this committee's view? Patrick Knight explained to the committee that pontoons required significant engineering design to make them structurally sound in major flood flows. However due to their floating nature, impacts on flood behaviour are insignificant. The committee therefore voiced no concerns about flood impacts of the proposed structure.


5. Community Education Brian Sheahan expressed concerns that the SES needs urgent assistance to provide flood information to individuals in the floodplain, as the consequences of a repeat of the 1954 flood would be catastrophic (see attached Daily News article). Diagrams are needed for each dwelling specifying floor and related gauge levels, and advice on warning times and when closure of local evacuation routes is likely to occur. Funding and resources are the main impediments. Danny Rose advised that the draft risk management study included major recommendations regarding community awareness. This has been used as justification for applying for 2013/14 flood grant funding from OEH - this application is awaiting a decision, which should be received this month. Max Boyd requested that a 1954 flood flyer be put together to aid the educational process, and added that he could provide first hand accounts of the devastating impacts of the flood, to provide a human perspective. Moved: M Boyd Seconded: B Sheahan RESOLVED that 1. The Committee be advised of the outcome of the 2013/14 State Floodplain

Management Program application for community awareness when it is made available; 2. 1954 flood information be compiled to assist in the education process.

————————————— Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Floodplain Management Committee will be held Friday 25 October 2014. The meeting closed at 12.00pm. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM’S COMMENTS: Business Arising 1. Development Controls for Extreme Floods This is not an appropriate location for this information. 4. Raising Oaks Avenue (Tweed Valley Way / Old Pacific Highway) Nil.


EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM’S RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Development Controls for Extreme Floods That Council notes the information on extreme flood events contained in the report. 4. Raising Oaks Avenue (Tweed Valley Way / Old Pacific Highway) That Council considers the raising of an isolated section of Tweed Valley Way "Burns' Corner") in future road maintenance/reconstruction programs to reduce the risk to motorists from flood inundation. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Reviewed by Council 21 August 2013. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK


87 [SUB-TRMAC] Minutes of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Community and Cultural Services


SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013 be received and noted.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee Meeting held Thursday 17 October 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. Venue:

Coolamon Centre Time:

2:00pm Present:

David Oxenham (Director Community & Natural Resources); Judy Kean (Museum Director); Gary Fidler (Community); Sandra Flannery (Community); Fay O’Keeffe (Community); Janet Swift (Community); Peter Budd (Community); Joan Smith (Tweed Heads Historical Society); Denise Garrick (Tweed Heads Historical Society); Helena Duckworth (Uki & South Arm Historical Society); Mary Lee Connery (Uki & South Arm Historical Society); Tony Clark (Murwillumbah Historical Society).

Apologies: Cr Michael Armstrong; Naida Tattersall (Manager Community & Cultural Services); Max Boyd (Murwillumbah Historical Society); Beverley Lee (Murwillumbah Historical Society).

Election of Chairperson: As the Chairperson, Max Boyd, was an apology, a Chairperson was elected. Gary Fidler was nominated by Joan Smith. Gary Fidler accepted the nomination. All Committee members agreed.

Minutes of Previous Meeting: Moved: Joan Smith Seconded: Fay O'Keeffe

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee meeting held Thursday 18 July 2013 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting.

Business Arising: Helena Duckworth enquired as to what constitutes a research item as opposed to an accessioned item. Judy Kean explained some of the key concepts and issues and advised that all items are considered on a case-by-case basis.


Agenda Items: 1. Deaccessions Judy Kean called for feedback on the deaccessions list previously circulated. Moved: Sandra Flannery Seconded: Tony Clark RESOLVED that the deaccessions list be accepted by the Committee, with the exception of two objects; MUS1985.116.5 and MUS2000.93. These items will be given further consideration before a decision is made. 2. Tweed Regional Museum Strategic Plan review: Judy Kean led the discussion and outlined feedback received. Helena Duckworth enquired about the possibility of building redevelopment at Uki. It was agreed that it is more appropriate that this be discussed at a review of the Memorandum of Understanding. Judy Kean advised that the table on page 8 showing the program outcomes would be edited and a copy sent to members for approval before the next meeting. Judy Kean advised members that this draft of the Strategic Plan would be formatted and branded, and circulated to members prior to the November Advisory Committee meeting. Any feedback will need to be sent to Judy as soon as possible, as the final version will be approved via a resolution of the Committee at the November meeting and submitted for Council approval at the December Council meeting. General Business: 3. Report by Friends of Tweed Regional Museum Moved: Janet Swift Seconded: Mary Lee Connery

RESOLVED that the Friends of Tweed Regional Museum provide a report to the tabled at each Advisory Committee meeting along with the three Historical Societies of Tweed Heads, Murwillumbah and Uki & South Arm.

4. Max Boyd's 80th Birthday The Committee requested that their best wishes be conveyed to Max on the occasion of his 80th birthday. 5. Friends 2014 calendar Janet Swift advised the Committee that the Friends calendar for 2014 is now available for sale. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Tweed Regional Museum Advisory Committee will be held Thursday 21 November 2013 at 2:00pm. The meeting closed at 3:00pm. DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS: Nil. DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS: Nil.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Reviewed by Council 21/8/2012. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


88 [SUB-ADC] Minutes of the Australia Day Committee Meeting held Wednesday 23 October 2013

SUBMITTED BY: Business Undertakings and Economic Development

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 3 Strengthening the Economy 3.1 Expand employment, tourism and education opportunities 3.1.2 Attract major events to the Tweed

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Australia Day Committee Meeting held Wednesday 23 October 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the Australia Day Committee Meeting held Wednesday 23 October 2013 be received and noted.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Australia Day Committee Meeting held Wednesday 23 October 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. Venue:

Rous Room, Tweed Shire Council Offices, Murwillumbah. Time:

3:30pm Present:

Donald McDonald, Sue Breckenridge, Brian Breckenridge, Barbara Pudsey, Alan Downes, Graham Jackson, Cr Barry Longland (Chair), Barbara Allen (Major Events and Film Officer).

Apologies: Lloyd Warren, Wendy Warren, Bevan Wise, Ewan Walker

Minutes of Previous Meeting: RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Australia Day Committee meeting held 6 December 2012 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. Agenda Items: 1. Promoting 2013 Tweed Shire Australia Day Award Nominations

Awards nomination form tabled and adopted by the Committee. Council will distribute the forms as soon as possible and advertise in the Tweed Link. Council will also organise a mail out to a wide range of local organisations inviting them to nominate. Committee members are requested to encourage people to put pen to paper. Mr McDonald suggested that schools be included and Cr Longland advised he would follow up with Councillors.

It was noted that the form has been kept simple to ensure it is not onerous to complete and is the same as last year. Copies of the nomination forms were provided for Committee members to distribute.

Closing date is Monday 2 December 2013 with nominations then collated and circulated to Committee via email by 5 December, for review prior to the meeting to select the award winners on Thursday 12 December.

2. Reports on last year's community events

Mr Alan Downes of Kingscliff Lions advised that the breakfast event to be held at Kingscliff was washed out and the food for the BBQ was donated to the You've Got a Friend charity.

Mr McDonald advised that the Bowlers Event at the Pottsville Sports Club drew a good crowd and included a cooking competition, but with the focus on the championships and local awards.


Mr Graham Jackson of Lions Club of Tweed Coast South Inc provided an update on the new Australia Day event held at Pottsville Sports Club. Mr Jackson advised that the event was a success despite the poor weather as it was undercover and was attended by the Mayor and Ambassador who was impressed with the event and gave it special mention on the day. Activities included: face painting, thong throwing, golf putting, sausage sizzle, damper making as well as other Australian cakes and sweets, a country singer performance and an ice cream eating competition. Mr Jackson noted that with Mr McDonald's event it was a great addition for the Pottsville community and he hopes that the two can continue working together to expand further.

Ms Pudsey advised that she was involved in the honours selection but not a community event.

Mr and Mrs Breckenridge of the Tumbulgum Community Association said the main event in the hall was great with all elements working well including timing, food and seating arrangements. The BBQ breakfast was a success and at least 60 people attended the local awards presentation. A game of cricket was organised to follow.

Council confirmed its ongoing support of local community events across the Shire on Australia Day. Assistance of $300 and an Australia Day merchandise pack will again be offered to event organisers for celebrations in local communities in 2014.

3. Main event ceremony

A letter from the Cabarita Beach Pottsville Lions Club requesting to be considered to hold the main event ceremony at the Bogangar Primary School was discussed.

Mr Jackson advised that Lions Club of South Tweed would also like to propose the Pottsville Hall for the main event.

The Committee also discussed where the main event had been held in the past in relation to ensuring the event is held in different areas of the Tweed.

The Committee decided to accept the Pottsville offer with Bogangar as a backup for 2014. Mr Jackson will confirm tomorrow the acceptance of the Club and the Pottsville Community Hall to host the event.

Cr Longland raised the need for an Ambassador for the event and asked the Committee members about their preferences for a local person versus a state appointed person.

After some discussion it was decided that a local person is preferred and suggestions were made of the Ambassador for 2014. If Committee members had any other suggestions they are to forward them to Council.


General Business: 1. Time of Meeting/Work Commitments

Mr Lloyd and Wendy Warren were not able to make the meeting due to work commitments, however Burringbar is still interested in being part of the Australia Day events. Mr Warren also wished it to be noted that previous meetings were held at 6pm allowing committee members with work commitments to attend.

2. Emailing of Notices

Council committees are currently receiving notices by email. Australia Day Committee members were asked about their preferences of delivery of notices. All members agree to delivery of notices via email, however Mr Donald McDonald advised that he is currently unable to receive email and will advise when this is rectified.

Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Australia Day Committee will be held Thursday 12 December from 3pm-4.30pm. Those members of the Committee that are unable to attend the meeting are requested to send their selection of Award recipients in for consideration at the meeting. The meeting closed at 4:25pm. ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Nil. ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS: Nil. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Endorsed by Council 17 July 2012. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


89 [SUB-LTC] Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013


LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 2 Supporting Community Life 2.4 An integrated transport system that services local and regional needs 2.4.1 Provide a safe and efficient network of arterial roads connecting neighbourhoods to town

centres, employment, shopping, health, commercial and education facilities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013 are reproduced in the body of this report for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013 be received and noted.


REPORT:

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held Thursday 7 November 2013 are reproduced as follows for the information of Councillors. VENUE:

Mt Warning Meeting Room

TIME: Commencing at 10.00am

PRESENT: Committee Members: Cr Barry Longland, Mr Geoff Provest MP, Member for Tweed. Informal: Mr Ray Clark (Chairman), Ms Judith Finch (Minutes Secretary).

APOLOGIES: Ms Liz Smith, Roads and Maritime Services of NSW, Snr Constable Ray Wilson, NSW Police, Mr Thomas George MP, Member for Lismore, Mr Michael Kenny, Mr David Bonner.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held 3 October 2013 be adopted as a true and accurate record of proceedings of that meeting.

FOR VOTE - Unanimous SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING RESOLUTIONS [LTC-SOR] Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions - 7 November 2013 From Meeting held 5 September 2013 1. [LTC] Upper Burringbar Road, Burringbar (B1)

FILE NO: ECM 3053499; Burringbar Road; Upper Burringbar Road; Traffic - Committee;

Traffic - Safety; Traffic - Speed Zones; Traffic - Pedestrian Safety SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received in relation to the speed of vehicles on Burringbar Road particularly between the two rail crossings.


"….. writing to inform you of our community problem we are having with speeding cars between the two rail crossings, there have been numerous accidents on this particular stretch of road as the youth are using these corners as a race track, the road has been widened which allows more speed, there are numerous driveways on this stretch . There are children riding there bikes to school everday , and there seems to be a ten fold increase in P PLATE drivers, last week i rang the police on a speeding car that nearly hit me while i was just across the bridge between guard rail and the road , he was travelling so fast, swerved to miss me with inches to spare and kept speeding without slowing down even when he came so close to hitting me, on friday early evening a car ran off the road into the ditch ……. and hit a tree, from going too fast and losing control. The past couple of years there have been many near fatalities, one horror smash in the same place as friday nights accident, where a local man has severe brain trauma and will never recover. We are requesting as we have done in the past to make this area between the two rail crossings a 60 zone, as we neighbors believe the 80 zone is not suitable and not sensible ….."

A similar item was discussed at the Local Traffic Committee meeting held 21 October 2010 where the following resolution was made:

"That:

1. The NSW Police consider dedicating resources to speed enforcement along Upper Burringbar Road.

2. Pedestrian and cyclist warning signage be placed along Upper

Burringbar Road at locations deemed appropriate by Council officers." COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. Consideration be given to a review of the speed limit on Upper Burringbar Road,

Burringbar and supporting information be forwarded to the Roads & Maritime Services. 2. This item be listed on the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions. From Meeting held 7 November 2013:


COMMITTEE ADVICE: That the Mooball & District Moovers Inc be advised that a speed zone review of Upper Burringbar Road is currently being undertaken by the RMS.

Current Status: An Inspection has been done and a report is being prepared by the NSW Roads and Maritime Services.

That the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions Item Upper Burringbar Road, Burringbar, from Local Traffic Committee meeting held 3 October 2013 remain on the list of Outstanding Resolutions.

(This item was originally listed as an Outstanding Resolution at the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held 16 May 2013 (Item B1).

—————————————

2. [LTC] Kennedy Drive and Gollan Drive, Tweed Heads (B1)

FILE NO: ECM 3096455; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Traffic - Speed Zones;

Kennedy Drive, Tweed Heads SUMMARY OF REPORT:

"A review of Kennedy Drive / Gollan Drive, Tweed Heads has revealed a significant crash history for a 4km length of road, approximately between Terranora Terrace and Scenic Drive. Kennedy Drive has a sign posted speed of 60km/h. During the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012 (5 years) there were 90 reported crashes within the subject distance on Kennedy Drive. Information was tabled at the meeting with a view to RMS reducing the speed limit to 50km/h. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. The RMS be requested to review the speed limit on Kennedy Drive and Gollan

Drive in accordance with the speed zoning guidelines. 2. This item be placed on the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions."


Current Status: That the Schedule of Outstanding Resolutions Item Kennedy Drive and Gollan Drive, Tweed Heads, from Local Traffic Committee meeting held 3 October 2013 remain on the list of Outstanding Resolutions.

(This item was originally listed as an Outstanding Resolution at the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held 11 July 2013 (Item B1).

—————————————

BUSINESS ARISING Nil. A. FORMAL ITEMS SECTION DELEGATIONS FOR REGULATORY DEVICES Nil. B. INFORMAL ITEMS SECTION GENERAL TRAFFIC ADVICE B1 [LTC] Fraser Drive, Banora Point ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3194837; Traffic; Committee; Speed Zones; Safety; Fraser Drive SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received for a reduction in the 80km/h speed zone on Fraser Drive Banora Point/Terranora based on the following:

"The matters to take in consideration are: 1. There are no footpaths to speak of, forcing the many people, including

children, having to walk on the road verge because of the rough nature either side of the bitumen. Many bike riders walk their bikes up the steep hill.

2. At night there is no street lighting in the areas of the road that are currently 80km/h particularly in the vicinity of the sporting fields. In a dark rainy night this danger is further advanced especially because of the bends in the road.

3. The volume of traffic that now uses Fraser Drive, to and from Terranora Road, has increased enormously since its completion of The Sexton Hill. Vehicles turning from Terranora Road down the hill accelerate, exceeding the 60km/h prior to reaching 80km/h areas, making exiting driveways hazardous. Many of them are using mobile phones too.

4. In the afternoon traffic sometimes queues 300 metres trying to turn into Terranora Road.


5. Large numbers of bike riders use Fraser Drive. 6. Whether we like it or not young people use the downhill for skateboard riding."

The Committee advice from the meeting on 8 August 2013 in relation to the speed limit on Fraser Drive between Vintage Lakes Drive and south of Acacia Street was to remain at 80 km/h as per the following:

"That the speed limit on Fraser Drive is considered appropriate and no changes are warranted."

The existing 80km/h speed limit on Fraser Drive extends south of Botanical Circuit to north of Glen Ayr Drive, a length of approximately 1.3km. Accident data shows 2 casualty and 1 injury crash in this area and additional crashes at the intersection of Amaroo and Fraser Drive. No speed surveys are available for the area. There are only 3 houses with direct access to Fraser Drive within the area. Traffic volumes on Fraser Drive south of Terranora Road have reduced from 5556 in 2011 to 5063 in 2013. ADVICE TO COMMITTEE: That the 80 km/h speed limit on Fraser Drive remain. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. This item be referred to the Roads & Maritime Services for a review of the speed limit

on Fraser Drive, Banora Point. 2. The Banora Point Residents Association be advised that a review of the speed limit on

Fraser Drive (by the RMS) has been requested. B2 [LTC] Kingscliff Triathlon Multisport Weekend 30 November to 1 December 2013 ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM 3125879; 3204624; Traffic - Committee; Traffic - Safety; Traffic - Control;

Festivals/Events - Other; Bridges - Cudgen Creek; Boat Ramps; Parks - Jack Julius; Parks - Faulks - Kingscliff; Marine Parade; Casuarina Way; Sutherland Street; Point Break Circuit; Seaview Street; Viking Street; Hungerford Lane; Orient Street; Moss Street; Wommin Bay Road; Chinderah Bay Drive; Pearl Street; Turnock Street; Boomerang Street; Waugh Street; Chinderah Road

SUMMARY OF REPORT: This item was discussed at the Local Traffic Committee meeting held 8 August 2013 and the following advice given:


"That the proposed Kingscliff Triathlon Multisport Weekend on Saturday 30 November and Sunday 1 December 2013 be supported, subject to the use of roads previously supported for this event and a suitable turnaround area being developed for the cycling leg, standard conditions of approval, NSW Police approval being obtained, community and business consultation and advertising in the Tweed Link well in advance of the event."

Further advice received on 28 October 2013 is reproduced below:

"The proponent of the triathlon has advised officers that to comply with Triathlon Queensland conditions for the bicycle component for the event, Marine Parade can only be used for one way bicycle movements in the area between Turnock Street and Seaview Street. It is now proposed to partially close Pearl Street (south bound lane) for cyclists. Northbound through traffic will be maintained with detours in place."

Cr Longland arrived at 10.12am ADVICE TO COMMITTEE: That the proposed Kingscliff Triathlon on Sunday 1 December 2013 be supported, including partial closure of Pearl Street between Turnock Street and Seaview Street subject to: 1. NSW Police approval being obtained 2. Endorsement of the event by Triathlon NSW or Triathlon QLD 3. Conformance with a Traffic Management Plan and associated Traffic Control Plans

installed and controlled by approved persons 4. Community and affected business consultation 5. The event organiser notifies Tweed residents of the impact of their event by advertising

in the Tweed Link at their expense a minimum of one week prior to the operational impacts taking effect. The advertising must include the event name, specifics of any traffic impacts or road closures and times, alternative route arrangements, event organiser, a personal contact name and a telephone number for all event related enquiries or complaints

6. Consultation with bus and taxi operators and arrangements made for provision of

services during conduct of the event 7. Adequate public liability insurance being held by the event organiser 8. All signage erected for the event to not cause a hazard for motorists or pedestrians

and be removed immediately following the completion of the event 9. Consultation with emergency services particularly Kingscliff Police, Kingscliff Fire

brigade and Kingscliff Ambulance 10. Arrangements made for private property access and egress affected by the event


COMMITTEE ADVICE: That the proposed Kingscliff Triathlon on Sunday 1 December 2013 be supported, including partial closure of Pearl Street between Turnock Street and Seaview Street subject to: 1. NSW Police approval being obtained 2. Endorsement of the event by Triathlon NSW or Triathlon QLD 3. Conformance with a Traffic Management Plan and associated Traffic Control Plans

installed and controlled by approved persons 4. Community and affected business consultation 5. The event organiser notifies Tweed residents of the impact of their event by advertising

in the Tweed Link at their expense a minimum of one week prior to the operational impacts taking effect. The advertising must include the event name, specifics of any traffic impacts or road closures and times, alternative route arrangements, event organiser, a personal contact name and a telephone number for all event related enquiries or complaints

6. Consultation with bus and taxi operators and arrangements made for provision of

services during conduct of the event 7. Adequate public liability insurance being held by the event organiser 8. All signage erected for the event to not cause a hazard for motorists or pedestrians

and be removed immediately following the completion of the event 9. Consultation with emergency services particularly Kingscliff Police, Kingscliff Fire

brigade and Kingscliff Ambulance 10. Arrangements made for private property access and egress affected by the event B3 [LTC] McLeod Street Condong ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM3189992; Traffic Committee; Pedestrian Crossings; Parking Zones SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request has been received for "No Stopping" zones a "Loading Zone", and a Pedestrian Crossing in McLeod Street Condong.

"The NSW Sugar Milling Co-operative Condong Mill seeks to have areas of McLeod Street marked as either no parking zones, as a loading zone and as a pedestrian crossing.


1. The no parking zones are so trucks can enter the mill area safely without the need to swing wide on the road or risk collision with parked cars close to the entrance. The no parking zones also allow people crossing the road to have clear vision for vehicles up and down the street and vice versa.

2. The loading zone is to allow couriers to drop off/pickup small goods at the mill

store. Keeping the vehicles off site removes the hazard of a courier driving onto site into a highly pedestrian environment.

3. The zebra crossing is so that people moving between the office, car park and the

mill can cross the road safely. The crossing could also be beneficial for those people accessing the shop including school children. There are 130 people working at the mill who would cross the road at least twice a day and then staff who would cross the road a number of times during the working day itself. This pedestrian activity needs to also be considered in light of the heavy vehicle traffic using McLeod Street. Another option would be to extend the 50km/hr zoning."

ADVICE TO COMMITTEE: 1. That "No Stopping" signage either side of the Mill entry off McLeod Street is not

supported and it is suggested that the driveway be widened to accommodate a wider swept path for larger vehicles accessing the site.

2. Provision of a "Loading Zone" on McLeod Street is not supported as all loading or

unloading should be undertaken from within the Mill site. 3. Given the low concentration of pedestrians at any given time, coupled with an

estimated peak hour traffic on McLeod Street of 80 vehicles, warrants for a marked pedestrian crossing are unlikely to be met and its installation cannot be supported.

4. Council officers investigate the provision of W6-2A pedestrian warning signage on

approach to the general store area. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. "No Stopping" signage either side of the Mill entry off McLeod Street is not supported

and it is suggested that the driveway be widened to accommodate a wider swept path for larger vehicles accessing the site.

2. Provision of a "Loading Zone" on McLeod Street is not supported as all loading or

unloading should be undertaken from within the Mill site. 3. Given the low concentration of pedestrians at any given time, coupled with an

estimated peak hour traffic on McLeod Street of 80 vehicles, warrants for a marked pedestrian crossing are unlikely to be met and its installation cannot be supported.

4. Council installs W6-2A pedestrian warning signage on the approaches to the general

store area.


B4 [LTC] Tweed Valley Way, Mooball ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM3192611; Traffic - Committee; Directional Signs; Tweed Valley Way,

Mooball; SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request has been received for the installation of a "Stop" or "Giveway" restriction in the unnamed laneway between Victory Hotel and the Post Office, Mooball.

"During the recent meeting of the Mooball & District Movers Inc concerns were voiced for the safety of motorists approaching the Tweed Valley Way at Mooball from the laneway between the Victory Hotel and Post Office. We would like to hear from council with ideas on this problem or if a STOP sign is needed."

Lanemarking on Tweed Valley Way either side of the intersection between Kelly's store and the Victory Hotel be modified to delineate appropriate safe parking distance from the intersection. ADVICE TO COMMITTEE: That lanemarking be modified on Tweed Valley Way to improve sight distance for drivers exiting the unnamed road reserve adjacent to the Victory Hotel. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That lanemarking be modified on Tweed Valley Way to improve sight distance for drivers exiting the unnamed road reserve adjacent to the Victory Hotel. B5 [LTC] Condong and Brisbane Streets Murwillumbah ORIGIN: Planning & Infrastructure FILE NO: ECM3187210 - Traffic Committee; Traffic Safety; Condong Street; Brisbane

Street. SUMMARY OF REPORT: Request received for the installation of traffic calming devices to reduce the speed of traffic in Condong and Brisbane Streets Murwillumbah. Crash data indicates that for the most recent 5 year period there has been: • One casualty crash at the intersection of Condong and Brisbane Streets where a driver

failed to give way. • One single vehicle tow away crash at the intersection of Prince and Brisbane Streets.


• One intersection crash involving 2 vehicles at the intersection of King and Brisbane Streets.

A centre median was placed on Condong Street at the intersection of Brisbane Street in recent years to control vehicle movements at the intersection as part of the Federal Black Spot Program. Pedestrian activity and parking increases significantly in this area at weekend sporting events. Traffic volumes on Brisbane Street just north of Condong Street are around 3,000 vehicles per day which would indicate that it is operating as a urban collector and may not be suitable for traffic calming devices as drivers may be discouraged from using this road and 'rat running' through other local streets. ADVICE TO COMMITTEE: That: 1. Kerb extensions with plantings be incorporated into any redesign/reconstruction of

Brisbane Street. 2. Police speed enforcement be requested for Brisbane Street between Wollumbin and

Condong Streets in conjunction with deployment of Council's mobile radar system. COMMITTEE ADVICE: That: 1. Kerb extensions with plantings be considered for incorporation into any

redesign/reconstruction of Brisbane Street. 2. Council officers gather accurate speed and volume data for Brisbane and Condong

Streets and this information used to determine any road safety behavioural programs that may require further attention.

NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the Local Traffic Committee will be held 5 December 2013 in the Mt Warning Meeting Room commencing at 10.00am. There being no further business the Meeting terminated at 11.05am. SECTION A - FORMAL ITEMS SECTION - DELEGATIONS FOR REGULATORY DEVICES FOR ENDORSEMENT BY COUNCIL: Nil.


COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Code of Meeting Practice. Terms of Reference - Reviewed 21 August 2013. b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not applicable. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


CONFIDENTIAL COMMITTEE Nil.


THIS PAGE IS BLANK