minute manager 2 - shellharbour city council shellharbour city council ordinary council meeting -...

SHELLHARBOUR CITY COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting - Tuesday 24 July 2007 Business Paper

AGENDA 1. Apologies / Leave of Absence ......................................................................... 4

2. Confidential Business (Committee of the Whole) .......................................... 4

3. Recommendations from Committee of the Whole ......................................... 4

4. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................... 4

4.1 Ordinary Meeting 3 July 2007............................................................................................. 4 4.2 Committee of the Whole 3 July 2007 ................................................................................. 4 4.3 Committee of the Whole 22 May 2007 ............................................................................... 4 4.4 Committee of the whole 12 June 2007 ............................................................................... 4

5. Pecuniary Interest ............................................................................................. 4

6. Condolences ...................................................................................................... 4

7. Presentations .................................................................................................... 4

8. Mayoral Minutes ................................................................................................ 4

9. Councillors' Reports ......................................................................................... 5

10. General Manager's Office ................................................................................. 6

10.1 Local Government Association Annual Conference - Coffs Harbour 20-24 October 2007 (8752979) .................................................................................................... 6

10.2 Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference 5-7 September 2007, Coffs Harbour (8752538) .................................................................................................... 8

10.3 Sixteenth Annual NSW Coastal Conference, Yamba - 7-9 November 2007 (8752967) .........................................................................................................................12

11. Operations & Services Division ..................................................................... 15

11.1 Proposed Demolition of Shower Block - Bucknell Street, Warilla (8759369) ...................15 11.2 DA No. 285/2006 - Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt - Proposed

Five Lot Residential Subdivision (8749513) .....................................................................18 11.3 Request for Release of a Section 88B Restriction on the Use of Land at

Lots 7 - 12 & 14, DP 270094, 108D Industrial Road, Oak Flats (8758316) .....................30 11.4 DA No. 77/2007 - Lot 3, DP 786327 and Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New

Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats - Mixed Use Development (Containing Fast Food Outlet, Bulky Goods/Office Building and Car Wash) (8735060) .............................35

This is page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council of the City of Shellharbour held Tuesday 24 July 2007


11.5 Drainage and Kerb & Gutter - Princes Highway, Albion Park Rail (8759803) .................63 11.6 Stores & Material Stocktake (8756862) ............................................................................67 11.7 Stores LTA Stocktake (8756861) .....................................................................................70 11.8 Renewal of Lease for Shellharbour Country Kitchen Cafe (8756983) .............................72 11.9 Community Land Plans of Management - Lot 2 DP 224845, Warilla Surf Life

Saving Club (8757744) .....................................................................................................74 11.10 Proposal to advertise lease for Warilla / Barrack Point Surf Club Inc

(8758644) .........................................................................................................................86 11.11 National General Assembly of Local Government - November 2007 -

Notices of Motion (8756964) ............................................................................................91 11.12 Consideration of Tenders for Appointment of Internal Auditors - Tender

2007/10 (8757530) ...........................................................................................................96 11.13 Request by Bankstown Council for assistance with legal costs (8754669) .....................98 11.14 Motions to the Local Government Association Annual Conference Coffs

Harbour 20-24 October 2007 (8756637) ........................................................................103

12. Community Planning & Strategies Division ................................................ 106

12.1 IMB Foundation grant (8755569)....................................................................................106 12.2 Affix Seal to DoCs Service Specifications (8756077).....................................................108

13. Shell Cove Business Division ...................................................................... 111

13.1 Shell Cove Report (8756864) .........................................................................................111

14. Committee Recommendations ..................................................................... 124

14.1 Recommendations from the Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 June 2007 recommended for adoption. ...............................................124

14.2 Recommendations from the Traffic Committee Meeting held 4 July 2007 recommended for adoption. ............................................................................................124

15. Notices of Rescission Motion ...................................................................... 124

16. Notices of Motion .......................................................................................... 125

16.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Hawker (8735816) ........................................125 16.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Greig (8760076) ............................................127

17. Items for Information .................................................................................... 131

17.1 Killalea State Park Trust Council Information Reports for June and July 2007 (5759964) ..............................................................................................................131

17.2 NSW Electoral Commission Estimates of Cost of Election 2008 (8753540) .................134 17.3 Investments (8759646) ...................................................................................................137

18. Questions without Notice ............................................................................. 138



19. Confirmation of Minutes of Committee of the Whole Council

Meetings (in Confidential Session). ............................................................ 138

20. Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole Council Meeting (in Confidential Session) ................................................................ 138

21. Late Items of Business / Urgent Business (as introduced by the Chairperson) .................................................................................................. 138



Acknowledgement to Country Shellharbour City Council acknowledges the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the Land on which we are meeting.

1. Apologies / Leave of Absence

2. Confidential Business (Committee of the Whole)

Nil

3. Recommendations from Committee of the Whole

Nil

4. Confirmation of Minutes

4.1 Ordinary Meeting 3 July 2007

4.2 Committee of the Whole 3 July 2007

4.3 Committee of the Whole 22 May 2007

4.4 Committee of the whole 12 June 2007

5. Pecuniary Interest

Note: Councillors who declare a Pecuniary Interest at the Council Meeting are also required to complete a Pecuniary Interest Declaration form.

6. Condolences

7. Presentations

Presentation by Council’s Youth Services Manager of IMB Community Foundation Project Plaque relating to funds received from the Foundation for purchase of a performance marquee.

8. Mayoral Minutes



8. Mayoral Minutes

BP Ordinary Meeting 24 July 2007 with LATE REPORT – LATE REPORT To my fellow Councillors Mayoral Minute Summary A resident has requested Council staff to remove a tree that is located on Council’s footpath in front of the resident’s property. Council staff are unable to support the removal of the tree, as no justifiable reason has been provided which could support this action and comply with Council’s Tree Management Order. Recommendation That on compassionate grounds, Council remove the Lilly Pilly tree on the footpath in front of 74 Ocean Beach Drive, Shellharbour and replace it with an appropriate tree. Background The property owner of 74 Ocean Beach Drive has complained on numerous occasions about berries dropping from a Lilly Pilly tree, which is located on the footpath in front of his property. The resident, who has a very well maintained garden and lawn, picks up the berries, as they create litter, which creates an untidy appearance. Unfortunately this person is now suffering from a serious illness and is finding it increasingly difficult to remove this litter. He has provided a doctor’s certificate confirming his illness. Council staff responsible for administering Council’s Tree Management Order, have not approved the removal of this tree, as the tree littler is not a justifiable reason under the Tree Management Order. I sympathise with the resident because of the circumstances which significantly restricts him from maintaining his lawn to the standard he has kept and enjoyed. As a compromise, Council may replace this tree with a more appropriate tree. Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Nil



9. Councillors' Reports

Nil

10. General Manager's Office

10.1 Local Government Association Annual Conference - Coffs Harbour 20-24 October 2007 (8752979)

To the Mayor and Councillors Division: General Manager’s Division Department: Executive Office Manager: Brian Weir - General Manager Author: Deborah Arney - Executive Assistant

Summary To advise Council of the 2007 Local Government Association Annual Conference, which is being held in Coffs Harbour from 20-24 October 2007 and to enable Council to nominate its voting delegates to the Conference and to consider attendance by any other Councillors who wish to attend as observers.

Recommendation 1. That Council nominate its four (4) voting delegates to the 2007 Local Government

Annual Conference 2. That Council endorse the attendance of those Councillors wishing to attend the

2007 Local Government Annual Conference as observers.

Background The theme for this year's Conference is "Anchoring the Future". Note from the General Manager It should be noted that the following Local Government Conferences are also being held between September and November 2007: 5-7 September 2007 Aboriginal Network Conference, Coffs Harbour 7-9 November 2007 Coastal Conference, Yamba 26-29 November 2007 National General Assembly, Darwin NT A report calling for Motions to this Conference will be dealt with by a separate report to Council.



Consultations Internal Nil. External Nil.

Considerations Financial/resources implications There is a budget allocation to cover the costs associated with attending this conference. The approximate total costs for each Councillor to attend has been calculated at $2,700.00. This includes (Early Bird) registration, accommodation, travel (including flights and transfers) and meals. Legal & policy implications Nil. Public/social impact Nil. Options 1. To adopt the recommendations, OR 2. To receive and note this report.

Conclusions Shellharbour City Council has always been represented at the Local Government Association Annual Conference. The Conference offers the opportunity discuss and debate National, State and regional Local Government issues/policies and related matters. Council was represented by four voting and two non-voting delegates at the 2006 Annual Conference. Places at the 2007 Conference are limited and accommodation has already been allocated. If Council approves attendance, to ensure that correct numbers can be confirmed, and to meet the early-bird registration deadline, any interested Councillor must advise the Executive Offices of their intention by no later than close of business Friday 31 August 2007.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Registration Guide under separate cover.



10.2 Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference 5-7 September 2007, Coffs Harbour (8752538)


Summary The purpose of this report is to determine whether any Councillors are to attend the Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference being held in Coffs Harbour from 5-7 September 2007.

Recommendation 1. That Council resolve to approve attendance at the Local Government Aboriginal

Network Conference in Coffs Harbour from 5-7 September 2007 by any interested Councillor.

2. That any Councillor wishing to attend advise the Executive Offices by 30 July 2007

in order to meet the Early Bird deadline for registrations. Background The NSW Local Government Aboriginal Network (LGAN) has been operating since 1988 to provide an information exchange and forum for discussion on local government issues relating to Aboriginal communities, business and the wider community. The Network is made up of Aboriginal Liaison Officers working in Local Government, and Aboriginal people who have been elected as Councillors. It provides support and information for network members. Note from the General Manager It should be noted that the following Local Government Conferences are also being held between September and November 2007: 20-24 October 2007 Local Government Annual Conference, Coffs Harbour 7-9 November 2007 16th Annual NSW Coastal Conference, Yamba 26-29 November 2007 National General Assembly, Darwin NT

Consultations Internal Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer.



External Nil.

Considerations Financial/resources implications The approximate total cost for each Councillor to attend has been calculated at $1,600.00. This includes (Early Bird) registration, accommodation, travel (including flights & transfers where applicable) and meals. Legal & policy implications Nil. Public/social impact Nil. Options 1. To adopt the recommendations, OR 2. To receive and note this report.

Conclusions If Council approves Councillor attendance at the Conference, any Councillor who is interested in attending the Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference should contact the Executive Offices no later than Monday 30 July 2007, so that the Early Bird Registration deadline may be met.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Preliminary Program



Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference Preliminary Program - Page 1 of 2



Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference Preliminary Program - Page 2 of 2



10.3 Sixteenth Annual NSW Coastal Conference, Yamba - 7-9 November 2007 (8752967)


Summary The purpose of this report is to determine whether any Councillors are to attend the 16th Annual NSW Coastal Conference being held in Yamba from 7-9 November 2007.

Recommendation 1. That Council approve the attendance at the 16th Annual NSW Coastal Conference

being held at Yamba from 7-9 November 2007 by any interested Councillor. 2. That any Councillor wishing to attend advise the Executive offices by Friday 31

August 2007 in order to meet the Early Bird registration deadline.

Background The theme for this year's Conference is "The tide is high". This will cover such areas as coastal pressures, climate change and sustainability. Note from the General Manager It should be noted that the following Local Government Conferences are also being held between September and November 2007: 5-7 September 2007 Aboriginal Network Conference, Coffs Harbour 20-24 October 2007 Local Government Annual Conference, Coffs Harbour 26-29 November 2007 National General Assembly, Darwin NT

Consultations Internal Nil. External Nil.



Considerations Financial/resources implications The approximate total cost for each Councillor to attend has been calculated at $1,600.00. This includes (Early Bird) registration, accommodation, travel (including flights & transfers where applicable) and meals. Legal & policy implications Nil. Public/social impact Nil. Options 1. To adopt the recommendations, OR 2. To receive and note this report.

Conclusions The Annual NSW Coastal Conference allows Councillors and staff the opportunity to enter a forum of discussion on issues related to Coastal Zone Management. Council was represented by five delegates at the 2006 NSW Coastal Conference. If Council approves Councillor attendance at the Conference, any Councillor who is interested in attending should, wherever possible, advise the Executive Offices of their intention to attend by no later than close of business Friday 31 August 2007 to ensure that correct numbers for attendance can be confirmed, and to meet the early-bird registration deadline.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Preliminary Program.



16th Annual Coastal Conference - Preliminary Program



11. Operations & Services Division

11.1 Proposed Demolition of Shower Block - Bucknell Street, Warilla (8759369)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Operations and Services Office Manager: Arthur Webster – Director Operations & Services Author: Arthur Webster – Director Operations & Services

Summary The Mayor has advised that he has received numerous complaints about regular instances of antisocial behaviour occurring at the amenities facilities located within the Bucknell Street car park adjacent to Warilla beach. He has requested that a report be prepared for the Council to consider the options to address this problem.

Recommendation Submitted for the Councils consideration.

Background The Council has considered the issue of antisocial behaviour at the Bucknell Street amenities building on previous occasions. The Council at its meeting on 27 April 2004 resolved: ‘That the installation of lockable doors on the ladies and gents sections to the toilets and showers at the Bucknell Street toilet block at Warilla Beach estimated to cost $4,000 be deferred for consideration at a future meeting of Council following further information being presented by local residents’. The Council at its meeting on 10 August 2004 resolved: ‘1. That Council demolish the change rooms attached to the existing toilet block and provide

an external shower at the amenities facilities located in the car park off Bucknell Street, Warilla.

2. That Council allocate $10,000 for Ward E available funds for the above works and amend

Council’s 2004/05 budget accordingly.’ Following the resolution of 10 August 2004 Council officers prepared a development application for the part demolition of the amenities building, Development Application No. 623/2004. This



development application was considered by the Council at its meeting on 23 November 2004 where the Council resolved: ‘That the recommendation be adopted further that notwithstanding Minute No. 352 of the Council Meeting of 10 August 2004, that Council defer the demolition of the Warilla South Beach shower block until there is reasonable evidence that the impact of further coastal erosion is causing instability of the building or in the event that the Police can verify that the shower block is a venue for incidents of antisocial behaviour.’ In each report to the Council the proposal was to demolish the change room/shower block and to provide external showers. The toilet facilities were to remain. The estimated cost of demolition and provision of the showers in an area protected from vehicle movements was $10,000. If the Council resolves to carry out these works a new development application must be lodged and funds allocated through a budget amendment. The draft Shellharbour Foreshore Master Plan is currently on public exhibition. This plan identifies the potential to provide a new amenities building in Leggett Park, which is located approximately 100m north of the existing Bucknell Street amenities building. It also indicates that the Bucknell Street amenities be removed and the area refurbished. A report on the adoption or amendment to this plan will be presented to the Council following the completion of the exhibition period and assessment of public comments.

Consultations Internal Group Manager Community Services & Development Manager Community Development External Crime Manager - Lake Illawarra Area Command 'There have been nine reported incidents at this building. It is not a building that has been designed well with regard to crime prevention.'

Considerations Financial/resources implications There are no existing funds available for the demolition of the Bucknell Street shower block or for the proposed new amenities in Leggett Park. If the Council resolves to demolish the shower block the estimated cost of $10,000 might be allocated from the 2007/2008 asset maintenance program (building component) which will require that program to be amended. Legal & policy implications The proposed demolition of the Bucknell Street shower block will require a development application and public exhibition prior to the Council’s consideration of the application.



Public/social impact The proposed removal of the shower/change room facility may impact on some users, however the provision of external showers will enable bathers to rinse off. The demolition will reduce the opportunity for antisocial behaviour. Options 1. Take no action and reconsider the demolition of the complete facility (including the toilet

block) if this is accepted in the Foreshore Master Plan and when funds are provided to construct a new amenities building in Leggett Park.

2. Demolish the existing change rooms and provide external showers, subject to development

approval being granted and Council allocating $10,000 from the 2007/2008 asset maintenance program and amend the budget accordingly.

Conclusions There have been concerns raised at Council about antisocial behaviour in this area over a number of years. The shower block does not have a roof and is not access secured. The proposed Foreshore Master Plan identifies this area for refurbishment including the removal of the old facilities and construction of more modern/attractive facilities in Leggett Park that is located nearby. The recent sand renourishment at this section of Warilla Beach will encourage greater public utilisation of this area. Other proposed works will greatly enhance the landscaping of the foreshore area and provide for cyclists and pedestrians that will increase the areas popularity.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Nil



11.2 DA No. 285/2006 - Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt - Proposed Five Lot Residential Subdivision (8749513)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Development and Technical Services Manager: Graham Mitchell – Manager Development Services Author: Graham Mitchell – Manager Development Services

Summary This application seeks the Council’s consent to the subdivision of the subject land into five residential lots. The land is identified as bushfire prone and has received a conditional bushfire safety authority from the Rural Fire Service. The application is reported to the Council, as the applicant seeks an agreement from Council to permit an area of an adjacent public reserve to be incorporated into the required Asset Protection Zone (APZ). The application was notified in accordance with our Notifications Development Control Plan. No submissions were received.

Recommendation That the Council approve Development Application No. 285/2006 for a five lot residential subdivision at Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, subject to the 21 conditions following the conclusion of this report.

Background Applicant: Watkinson Apperley Pty Ltd Owner: Errol Investments Pty Ltd Location: Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt

(See Attachment 1) Zone: 2(e) Residential E under Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan 2000.

Subdivision is a permissible use with the consent of Council within this zone. The subject Lot 5 and adjoining residential lots were approved under Development Application No. 742/2003 in August 2005. In accordance with Rural Fire Service requirements at that time, Asset Protection Zones (APZ) were established to protect future dwellings in the estate. In this regard, Lot 5 is now affected by



a positive covenant to an extent that 86% of the site is identified as an APZ rendering the site undevelopable. The extent of the APZ is indicated on Attachment 2. As part of the application, the applicant is seeking the support of the Council to reduce the APZ impact on the subject land through the use of part of the public reserve opposite. The Proposal The proposal is to create five residential lots, each having an area of 657.4m2. The land is relatively level, cleared and has frontage to a fully constructed and dedicated public road. Council is requested to allow an area of between 5m and 15m of the adjoining public reserve to be incorporated into the required APZ (See Attachment 4).

Consultations Internal Manager Financial Services The Manager Financial Services advises that any payment received for the purposes of maintaining an asset protection zone will be held as a restricted asset with annual releases for maintenance purposes for the identified reserve. Assets Manager Following discussions on-site, it is noted that the APZ extends up to 15m into the Public Reserve for a distance of approximately 150m. The initial work required to ensure this section of reserve complies with RFS requirements the following is required to be carried out by Council at the applicant's cost: • cleaning all undergrowth to an acceptable level • removal of all dead trees • selective removal of trees to ensure the density of trees is acceptable to an APZ. • removal of all debris that has been dumped within this area. The estimated cost for the above work is $26,750.00. The maintenance requirements on the APZ have also been assessed and the cost to mow this area in the order of four times per year plus some hand work to clear fuel loadings prior to the summer bushfire season is $1,500 for the initial year. This cost indexed at 3% over 25 years gives a total maintenance cost of $54,684. Manager Property The Manager Property notes that the Bushfire Management Plan has been funded and prepared by the applicant and that in the near future Council will be required to prepare a Plan of Management for the entire public reserve and in this regard the prepared Bushfire Management Plan would form an integral part of the actual Plan of Management for the reserve. Subject to a satisfactory funding mechanism for the ongoing (physical) maintenance of the APZ on Council land, no objection is raised to the concept.



Senior Development Engineer No objection is raised to the proposal and appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended for inclusion in any determination. External Public Exhibition The proposal was notified in accordance with our Notifications Development Control Plan. No submissions were received. Rural Fire Service The site is identified bushfire prone and as subdivision is involved, is classed as integrated development and requires a Bushfire Safety Authority from the Rural Fire Service (RFS). The initial referral resulted in a request from the RFS for a Bushfire Management Plan for the maintenance of Asset Protection Zones for the entire Stoney Range Reserve to be submitted for perusal to ensure it meets with the cyclic maintenance requirements of the Planning For Bushfire Protection 2001 document. The RFS also required written confirmation from Council that it would provide the required Asset Protection Zones in perpetuity. Following notice to the applicant of the above, the applicant offered to prepare and fund the preparation of the required Management Plan. This offer was accepted. The completed Bushfire Management Plan was subsequently submitted to the RFS, who have now issued the requisite Bushfire Safety Authority. The RFS require that Council maintain that part of the APZ within the reserve and in this regard Council’s Assets Manager has estimated an initial cost in the order of $26,750.00 to bring the area up to the required standard and an amount in the order of $54,684 is required to cover the necessary maintenance for a minimum 25 year period.

Considerations Financial/resources implications Nil Legal & policy implications When determining a development application, Council needs to take into account the requirements of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The following matters are considered relevant: Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan 2000 Zone Objectives The subject site is zoned 2(e) Mixed Use Residential under Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan 2000. In accordance with this plan, the objectives of the zone are:



‘to allow for mixed use residential neighbourhoods to be developed on greenfields sites providing for a range of household preferences and needs compatible with fully developed residential neighbourhoods’. The proposal is permitted in the 2(e) residential zone with consent. Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan The proposed subdivision complies with all relevant provisions of the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan. Likely Impacts of the Development The creation of the additional residential lots within Falcon Street is unlikely to create any impact to the detriment of the locality. Suitability of the Site The site is considered suitable for the proposed development subject to the physical provision of an APZ. The required APZ is 40m from the primary building line resulting in an intrusion of between 5m to 15m into the public reserve opposite. It is this area the applicant is seeking to utilise to achieve the required APZ, which requires Council agreement. Public/social impact The proposed subdivision is located conveniently close to a city centre with schools and public open space in close proximity. The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the residential zone. Options 1. Agree to the establishment of the APZ within the nearby reserve and grant conditional

consent to the application. 2. Not agree to the establishment of the APZ and refuse the application and give reasons.

Conclusions The land is zoned for residential purposes and the necessary infrastructure is available to service the site. There are no critical habitat or natural hazards that will prevent the project from proceeding with the exception of potential bushfire risk. However, the required Asset Protection Zone can be provided subject to Council agreeing to the use of a small area within the adjoining public reserve with the developer being responsible for its establishment and ongoing maintenance. The establishment of the APZ will provide for an improved outlook and enhanced amenity for future residents of the new lots. As indicated previously, the site is located in a prime position adjacent to the city centre and the proposal realises a better planning outcome than the current approval has delivered. As there are no reasonable constraints that would prevent the creation of four additional residential lots, the proposed development is supported.



Conditions CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE (SUBDIVISION) & PCA NOTIFICATION 1. The person having the benefit of the development consent must:

a. obtain a construction certificate (subdivision) from Shellharbour City Council or an accredited certifier (S81A)

b. appoint a principal certifying authority (S81A).

LEGISLATION 2. The subdivision must be carried out in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and

conditions approved by Council and in compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning Instruments, relevant Development Control Plans and the Building Code of Australia.

3. This consent is a development consent under the provisions of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, and it will now be necessary to obtain a construction certificate (subdivision). In this regard, it will be necessary to submit: a. an application for a construction certificate (subdivision) b. four paper prints or copies of the relevant subdivision plan c. fees appropriate at the time of submission of the application.

FINAL PLAN 4. Prior to the release of the final plan of subdivision it will be necessary to obtain a

subdivision certificate. In this regard, it will be necessary to submit: i. an application for a subdivision certificate ii. a satisfactory final plan of subdivision, an electronic copy and six paper prints

together with an original 88B Instrument and two paper copies for endorsement by the Principal Certifying Authority. The electronic copy must be in ISG coordinates and must be submitted in DXF, DWG or DGX format. All sections of the plan, the signatures and seals section of the plan, including the original and copies, (except for the General Manager’s date and signature) must be completed prior to lodging the plan

iii. fees appropriate at the time of submission of the application.

5. Electricity must be provided to all proposed lots. In this regard, the developer must submit

written advice to the Principal Certifying Authority from Integral Energy that all requirements for the supply of electricity to the proposed allotments have been satisfied. This advice must be submitted with the Subdivision Certificate application.

6. Telephone services must be provided to all proposed lots. In this regard, the developer

must submit written advice to the Principal Certifying Authority from Telstra Australia that all



requirements for the supply of telephone services to the proposed allotments have been satisfied. This advice must be submitted with the Subdivision Certificate application.

7. Lots affected by new or existing services must be burdened with easements and

restrictions on the use of land to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and Integral Energy.

8. The developer must submit written advice to the Principal Certifying Authority from the

Natural Gas Company that all requirements for the supply of gas services to the proposed allotments have been satisfied. This advice must be submitted with the Subdivision Certificate application.

9. A restriction must be placed on the 88B Instrument creating an interallotment drainage

easement and easement for services, 1m (minimum) wide, over all interallotment drainage pipelines and services. Favourable consideration will be given by Council to remove this easement if services and drainage are mutually exclusive.

GENERAL 10. Consent for this development is conditional upon satisfactory arrangements with Sydney

Water (Illawarra Branch) for the provision of adequate facilities for water supply and the removal or disposal of sewage. A section 73 compliance certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised water servicing coordinator. Please refer to the Your Business section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the e-Developer icon or telephone 13 2092 for assistance. Following application a ‘Notice of Requirements’ will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design. A copy of Sydney Water’s ‘Notice of Requirements’ must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued. The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the plan of subdivision.

11. Sydney Water (Illawarra Branch) may require a contribution towards new water and

sewerage services or amplification of the existing system for the development, the subject of this consent.

12. As Torrens Title Subdivision is proposed Sydney Water should be consulted with regard to

the need for separate services to be provided for each lot.



TOWN PLANNING Bonds & Contributions 13. The following contributions must be paid to Council in accordance with the provisions of

Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, and Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan 2005 (Amendment 1) (Dated 28 September 2006): • Community facilities/services - $34,811.94

The whole of the contribution amount of $34,811.94 must be paid prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate adjusted in accordance with the following condition. Note: The contribution amounts quoted are the base rate indexed to the date the

consent is issued. The Section 94 Contributions Plan 2005 (Amendment 1) may be inspected at Shellharbour City Council’s offices, Lamerton House, Lamerton Crescent, Shellharbour City Centre.

14. The Section 94 contribution set out in the above conditions will be recalculated during

September each year in accordance with movements in the Chain Price Index for Non-Dwelling Building and Construction (CP), published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The recalculation must be in accordance with the following formula:

Cp = Cb x CPp

CPc Where

Cp = Contribution rate at date of payment.

Cb = Base contribution rate as specified in Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan 2005 (Amendment 1).

CPp = Latest published Chain Price Index for Non-Dwelling Building and

Construction at the date of payment. CPc = Latest published Chain Price Index for Non-Dwelling Building and

Construction, at 28 September 2006. 15. The following payment must be made to Council for the initial establishment of an Asset

Protection Zone (APZ) that extends up to 15m for a distance of approximately 150m into Lot 1075, DP 1052706 (Public Reserve):

• $26,750.00

16. The following payment must be made to Council for the ongoing maintenance of the APZ

referred to in Condition No. 15:

• $54,684.00 17. The whole of the contribution amounts referred to in Conditions No. 15 and 16 must be

paid prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.



ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS 18. A 1.2m wide concrete footpath must be constructed along the road frontage of Lot 501 to

504 and along the frontage of Lot 505 to a point where the footpath can be connected to the existing pram ramp. This work must be carried out by Council, or a Council approved contractor, at the developer’s expense, including all alterations of public infrastructure where necessary.

19. A detailed drainage design of the site must be submitted and approved prior to the release

of the Construction Certificate. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and Shellharbour City Council and indicate the method of disposal of all stormwater and must include existing ground levels, finished surface levels on all paved areas, estimated flow rates, invert levels and sizes of all pipelines.

Note: An interallotment easement for drainage must be provided to ensure all lots

created can drain via gravity to Council's stormwater system. 20. Works as Executed plans must be submitted by a qualified engineer, licensed plumber, or

registered surveyor, certifying compliance of all drainage works with the approved design plans. This plan must verify surface and invert levels on all pits, invert levels and sizes of all pipelines and finished surface levels on all paved areas. Certification of paved areas must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority after the formwork for the driveway has been completed, and prior to the concrete being poured. All levels must relate to Australian Height Datum.

Bushfire 21. The fuel load requirements and management strategies identified for the balance of a 40m

Asset Protection Zone (APZ) off Falcon Street within the Bushfire Management Plan by Bushfire and Environment Services for Stoney Range Reserve, dated October 2006, Reference 6376, are to be established prior to development.

REASONS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS 1. To minimise any possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development. 2. To ensure that the amenity and character of the surrounding area is protected. 3. To ensure that the design and siting of the development complies with the provisions of

Environmental Planning Instruments and Council’s Codes and Policies. 4. To ensure that the development does not conflict with the public interest.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Locality plan 2. Proposed subdivision layout 3. Current Asset Protection Zone 4. Area required for new Asset Protection Zone within Public Reserve



Attachment 1 - Locality Plan DA No. 285/2006 – Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt



Attachment 2 - Proposed Subdivision Layout DA No. 285/2006 – Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt



Attachment 3 - Current Asset Protection Zone DA No. 285/2006 – Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt



Attachment 4 - Area required for Asset Protection Zone within Public Reserve DA No. 285/2006 – Lot 5, DP 1089622, Falcon Street, Blackbutt



11.3 Request for Release of a Section 88B Restriction on the Use of Land at Lots 7 - 12 & 14, DP 270094, 108D Industrial Road, Oak Flats (8758316)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Development and Technical Services Manager: Graham Mitchell – Manager Development Services Author: Graham Mitchell – Manager Development Services

Summary A request has been received seeking the agreement of Council to the release of a Restriction on the Use of Land created by the registration of DP 806451 that now burdens Lots 7 – 12 & 14, in a more recent subdivision of the land. The restriction, 5m in width located along the north-eastern boundaries of the subject lots restricts development to landscaping only. The applicant argues that the original intent of the buffer to provide for a level of amenity through landscaping between adjoining open space and future industrial development is no longer necessary. The applicant contends that Council has several very effective planning instruments and control documents which enable appropriate development with adequate landscaping to be achieved.

Recommendation That the Council agree to the release of the Restriction secondly referred to in the Section 88B Instrument accompanying Lot 14 in DP 806451 and as it now affects Lots 7 – 12 & 14, DP 270094, subject to all costs, including any cost incurred by Shellharbour City Council being borne by the registered proprietors of the subject lots.

Background Applicant: TCG Planning Services Owners: Lot 7 M & D Hartley

Lot 8 Harnleigh Pty Ltd Lot 9 S Ballard Lot 10 R Otto Lot 11 & 12 Yallah Investments Pty Ltd Lot 14 Harcon Haulage Pty Ltd

Zone: 4(a) Light Industrial The applicant company acting on behalf of the current registered owners of the various lots has requested Council to release a Restriction on the Use of Land originally imposed on Lot 14, DP



806451. Lot 14 has subsequently been subdivided into a community title industrial subdivision. The Restriction on the Use of Land was carried over onto the current deposited plan. The Restriction on the Use of Land states: ‘within the strip of land 5 metres wide indicated as burdened by a restriction on user no building garage shed or other structure of whatsoever nature including any advertisement hoarding or sign shall be erected on the land herein burdened shall be reserved for landscaping purposes only’.

The instrument identifies the Council of the City of Shellharbour as the person empowered to release, vary or modify the restriction on use of land. The restriction is indicated on Attachment 2.

Consultations Internal Corporate Solicitor/Manager Legal Services External Nil

Considerations Financial/resources implications Nil Legal & policy implications The restriction was imposed in 1990 at a time when the adjoining land was in Council ownership and a Public Reserve. It appears the restriction was imposed in order to establish a vegetated buffer between industrial development and the adjoining Public Reserve. The current Industrial Development Control Plan requires that where a building backs onto a public reserve the building must be set back a minimum of 3m to permit adequate landscaping. Council may wish to modify the restriction by reducing the width of the restriction. However, as the adjacent land is now developed, occupied and used for the purposes of education, the requirement for a landscaping strip is no longer considered relevant. The removal of the restriction will enable the property owners to develop to the rear boundary (subject to Building Code of Australia compliance) enhancing the economic development potential of the land. Under the terms of the Section 88B Instrument, Council is legally empowered to release the restriction. Public/social impact There is unlikely to be any public or social impacts arise as a result of the removal of the restriction on the use of land.



Options 1. Agree to the release of the Restriction. 2. Not agree to the release of the Restriction and provide reasons for its retention.

Conclusions There are no valid planning reasons to support retention of the Restriction given the changed land uses in the immediate vicinity. The removal of the Restriction will enhance the development potential of the affected lots.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Locality Plan 2. Location of 5 metre restriction



Attachment 1 – Locality Plan Lots 7 – 12 & 14, DP 270094, 108D Industrial Road, Oak Flats



Attachment 2 – Location of 5 metre restriction Lots 7 – 12 & 14, DP 270094, 108D Industrial Road, Oak Flats



11.4 DA No. 77/2007 - Lot 3, DP 786327 and Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats - Mixed Use Development (Containing Fast Food Outlet, Bulky Goods/Office Building and Car Wash) (8735060)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Development and Technical Services Manager: Graham Mitchell – Manager Development Services Author: Cathy Bern – Senior Development Assessment Officer

Summary Council’s approval is sought for a: • fast food restaurant (6.00am – 12 midnight daily)

• one and two storey commercial building for showroom/bulky goods at ground level and offices above (7.00am – 10.00pm Monday to Saturday, 8.00am – 10.00pm Sunday)

• car wash – both manual and automated facilities (7.00am – 10.00pm Monday to Saturday, 8.00am to 10.00pm Sunday)

• an acoustic fence ranging in height from 2.5 to 3.5m, along the northern boundary. The application is being presented to the Council for determination given the number and nature of objections. The proposal was notified for 14 days in accordance with Council’s Notifications Policy Development Control Plan, including letters to owners/occupiers, a sign placed on the land and a newspaper advertisement. Nine submissions were made, all objecting to the development. The objections are summarised for Council’s benefit later in this report. The proposal has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and found to be satisfactory, with potential impacts capable of being addressed by conditions of consent.

Recommendation That the Council approve Development Application No. 77/2007 for Lot 3, DP 786327 and Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats – Mixed Use Development (containing fast food outlet, bulky goods/office building and car wash) under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, subject to the 91 conditions immediately following the conclusions of this report.



Background Applicant: Martin Morris & Jones Pty Limited (MMJ) Owner: CPR Projects (CPR Projects comprises Lancaster Quest Pty Limited) Zone: 2(e) Mixed Use Residential Zone under the Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan

2000 (SLEP 2000). The use is permissible with the consent of Council. Of relevance to this application are the Lake Entrance Road, Blackbutt Development Control Plan and Commercial Development Control Plan.

Site & Locational Context The site has its main frontage to New Lake Entrance Road, which is a six lane major road. New Lake Entrance Road intersects (controlled by lights) with Government Road nearby. The site also has frontage to Old Lake Entrance Road, which connects with Government Road at a roundabout. The site is on the fringe of the Shellharbour City Centre, with the ‘main street’ and Stoney Range bulky goods precinct nearby. Low-density residential development adjoins the site to the north. A Shell service station is located to the west. Bulky goods retail developments are located on the western side of the service station. A park is located to the south on the other side of the New Lake Entrance Road. Attachment 1 shows the location of the land. The site does not have any significant vegetation. It contains a footpath, major drainage structure and pipework. The land has a gentle slope downhill from south to north. The site is privately owned having been purchased from Landcom. The footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site. It is located behind rear fences of houses to the north. The footpath is located on private land. The footpath was previously within the road reserve of Old Lake Entrance Road. The road has since been formally closed, being made redundant following the construction of New Lake Entrance Road.

Consultations Internal Senior Subdivision/Development Engineer No objection has been raised from an engineering viewpoint subject to the imposition of conditions. Landscape Technical Officer The landscape concept has been endorsed. The Landscape Technical Officer, however, is requiring the retention of three Melaleuca decora trees and substitution of proposed Angophora costata (large gums) in the road reserve, with an alternative tree consistent with the Road & Traffic Authority’s requirements.



Safer Communities Campaign The main concern relates to the proximity of the hotel to the development noting that late trading hours may attract intoxicated persons. In this regard, it may be beneficial to ensure that the fast food restaurant closes prior to the hotel. The Safer Communities Campaign Coordinator has also recommended well-positioned lighting, security alarms and appropriate landscaping. Senior Development Assessment Officer (Building) Some concern was initially expressed regarding accessibility issues. Since further investigation, it appears compliance with the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.1 ‘Design for Access & Mobility 2001’ can be achieved. Irrespective, a compliance report is recommended if approval is granted to ensure satisfactory access. Senior Development Assessment Officer The acoustic report was reviewed and found to be reasonable. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the measures recommended for sound attenuation are adhered to. Furthermore, a suggestion has been made restricting initial trading hours, notably the hotel, which could be reviewed in the future, if necessary (S96 Application). Section 94 Accountant Section 94 Contributions are applicable. The contributions have been calculated to be $974.19. Senior Strategic Planner ‘The Shellharbour LGA Retail & Commercial Centres Study currently in draft form will be the basis for a retail and commercial land use strategy, which will inform the comprehensive review of our LEP’s and DCP’s. A key recommendation of the draft study is the need for an additional 15,000m2 of bulky goods floor area for the LGA between 2011 and 2016 and for this to be located at Albion Park and Shellharbour City Centre. This figure may differ in the final study. For the purpose of the draft study the Shellharbour City Centre includes the subject land. It is noted that the site specific DCP 3/91 prefers bulky goods, commercial and warehousing and does not permit general retail usage, presumably for the objective of not fragmenting retail from the main Shellharbour City Centre retail areas on the south side of Lake Entrance Road. The use proposed being a car wash, fast food outlet and bulky goods store would maintain this objective’. Manager Property A 3m wide easement is required over the pipework on site. The site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) requires a footpath through the site. No objection is raised to the resolution of these matters via conditions of consent.



External Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) The RTA has made the following comments: • all access must be via Old Lake Entrance Road

• no signage is to be permitted within the road reserve

• any works within the road reserve will be at cost to the applicant

• parking should comply with Council’s requirements and the relevant standards

• loading should be adequate and compliant with the AUSTROADS standards. Public Notification Nine submissions were received objecting to the development. The objections were made on the following grounds. Noise • anti-social behaviour – loud voices, etc

• car wash – vehicles, machinery, loud music projecting from stereos

• shift workers will have disturbed sleep

• acoustic wall is unlikely to be effective, doesn’t extend far enough along rear boundaries, is too low in height

• hours of trade are inappropriate given the proximity to houses

• construction noise. Lighting • excessive lighting will cause nuisance to adjoining residents

• lighting associated with signage will be excessive

• no detail provided in the development application. Antisocial Behaviour • The hotel is nearby. Upon closing time patrons will frequent the fast food outlet because it

is nearby. Property damage, noise etc could result. Loss of Property Value Building B – Height is Excessive • privacy will be affected – some residences have pools. (Four out of nine submissions

raised privacy as a concern.)

• psychological damage will be caused as a result of residents feeling as though they are being watched

• building is an ‘eyesore’.



Traffic/Car Parking • increased traffic will increase noise

• increased traffic will affect the operation of the roundabout

• lack of car parking will encourage car parking on street and in the hotel grounds directly affecting the house next door

• where will construction workers park? Views • views to the south will be affected. Stormwater Runoff • not properly addressed. Car Wash (see also ‘noise’) • will generate excessive noise

• mist and spray are pollutants. Vermin • fast food outlet will attract vermin and the like which will spread into neighbouring

residences. Development Services Comments Noise This issue appears to be the main concern of objectors regarding the development. The car wash is a potential source of nuisance via mechanical equipment including drying machinery, vacuums and patrons voices/behaviour and stereos. The applicant anticipated this as a concern and commissioned an acoustic report, which recommends an acoustic fence along the northern boundary of the site. The applicant has advised that the proposed acoustic fence is to run the whole length of the northern boundary of the site. The fence is to be 3.5m high next to the car wash and 2.5m towards the western end of the site. Following a review of the acoustic report, special conditions are recommended. The conditions can be viewed under the heading ‘noise mitigation’ in the conditions attached to this report. Construction noise is, to an extent, unavoidable. Noise from this source is temporary and typically controlled via conditions of consent restricting work to normal daylight hours. There are also obligations under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 to ensure that unreasonable noise is not generated. Noise resulting from anti-social behaviour and intoxicated persons is more difficult to control.



In assessing and approving a development, certain design considerations (Safer by Design Principles) and factors such as hours of trade can assist in controlling/deterring anti-social behaviour. The site is located very close to an existing hotel. The proximity of the fast food restaurant to the hotel may attract hungry and sometimes alcohol-affected customers. Due to the proximity of the fast food outlet it will be difficult to discourage intoxicated persons from frequenting the site. Restricted trading hours, to ensure that the fast food outlet closes before the hotel, may assist in controlling late night disturbances and in this regard closure is recommended prior to closure of the hotel. Lighting Council does not usually require lighting details in a development application. In some instances, particularly for commercial style and/or larger developments, it is often a matter for resolution with the construction certificate. Lighting can be very important to ensure safety of occupants and customers and can be integral to the overall design and appeal of a development. It is however, a matter that can realistically be dealt with as a condition of consent. A lighting strategy is therefore recommended, if the development is to be approved, with application for a construction certificate. Such a strategy will also be required to address the issue of glare and nuisance in addition to security. Lighting on any signage facing north on Building B (noting its height) is to be prohibited, noting residents concerns regarding this issue. Antisocial Behaviour See comments made earlier. Loss of Property Value Residents are concerned that the development will have a negative impact. This is understandable as home ownership represents the largest investment made by the average person. Although, undoubtedly an important matter for most homeowners, it is not a Section 79C head of consideration, required to be considered in an assessment of an application. Section 79C matters relate to ensuring that development is satisfactory and that if there are any impacts, that those impacts are identified and if appropriate mitigated by conditions, if an approval is forthcoming. Height - Building B Neighbouring residents are concerned that Building B is too high and will enable occupants to overlook their yards. The DCP, which applies to the area, indicates that height should be ‘generally’ 6m. The applicant has acknowledged this and is seeking a departure from this control. The applicant notes that the DCP has been substantially varied in the past and that the portion of building, which is 9m, only represents ‘10%’ of the entire frontage and is setback from the rear (northern) boundary.



The applicant also proposes a relatively tall architectural element on the south-western corner of the building, which has been nominated to include signage. This structure measures 9.3m. This is considered a substantial structure and is shown on drawings that it includes a substantial sign, which is considered inappropriate noting that a concession is being sought for the height. The building itself is to be a maximum height of 9m. This is the same height permitted for residential dwellings, which may be constructed as close as 1.2m from a residential property’s side boundary. The 9m component is restricted to a part of the building allocated for offices and is setback almost 20m (measured at the closest point) from the boundary adjoining homes to the north. This distance is considered to be reasonable and a mitigating factor. The properties raising privacy as an issue are located further than 20m away. Building B is located to the south of residential properties. There are no overshadowing issues as a result. Building B will appear as a relatively tall building viewed from New Lake Entrance Road observing that a reduced setback is proposed for part of the development. The reduced setback is being sought as a result of the irregular allotment shape and fact that it is a commercial development. The applicant argues that there is a general expectation that such commercial developments do not have significant street setbacks and Council allows 1.8m. It is agreed that commercial development is generally setback 1.8m. This control is reiterated in the Commercial Development Control Plan. The development is compliant with this DCP. The proposal allows for 2m as opposed to the 6m, required in the site specific Blackbutt Development Control Plan. The basis for the 6m DCP setback is unknown but could be related to amenity issues or perhaps is an attempt to provide a reduced scale of development (combined with the height control) noting that a residential area abuts. A reduced setback to New Lake Entrance Road is unlikely to have any adverse impacts noting that the extent of the setback is about 20% of the entire site frontage and that the site is on the periphery of a commercial area. The development is consistent with the developing streetscape, which is considered to be modern style buildings with a variety of modern styles. Psychological Impact - Building B The alleged psychological impacts of being watched or any physiological fears are not considered planning issues and therefore are not explored in this report. Impacts such as loss of privacy, overshadowing as a result of excessive height, loss of views, streetscape impacts and the like, are however, valid planning considerations. Design - Building B Building B has been referred to as an ‘eyesore’ and ‘industrial’ in character. The building is considered to be fairly conventional in nature and consistent with modern commercial design. Refer to Attachment 3, a perspective drawing. Design is often a subjective matter. People often have different tastes and opinions. Generally there are some common aspects, which make a building acceptable to the broader community



including (but not necessarily limited to) for example, building proportions, colours and materials and accepted trends or styles. In this instance there is no particular aspect or feature, which clearly makes the building overwhelmingly objectionable. The building is not considered industrial in character or unacceptable in appearance. Traffic/Car Parking The development is compliant with Council’s controls. The RTA raises no objection to the development. Council’s engineers, including traffic engineer are satisfied with the development subject to the imposition of conditions of consent. Construction vehicles are likely to park on the site. There is no prohibition that applies to workers or the public parking on nearby streets (unless there are restrictions which must be observed by all). Any illegal parking would be the subject of normal penalty infringements. Views Views will be affected from northern residences as their outlooks will be affected by a taller than normal fence (acoustic fence). The concern with views appears to relate to one property in particular and the impact of the 9m building. Assuming that the land is flat and that a person is in the order of 180cm in height, it will be impossible to look over either a 2.5m or 3.5m fence. If moving away from the fence it is estimated that the top portion of buildings will be visible, noting also that the building is to be erected on part of the site, which increases in height towards New Lake Entrance Road. Even so, a 9m building in an urban context is not considered unreasonable. Stormwater Council’s engineers have reviewed the submitted flood study by Site Plus, hydraulic design and additional information supplied by Site Plus and the applicant and concluded that the stormwater design is satisfactory and Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Development Control Plan has been addressed. Car Wash The issue of noise has been discussed earlier. Some mist may be generated by the wash, but the ability of such mist to travel reasonable distances and thereafter up and over fences to create problems for neighbours is unlikely. A number of other automated car washes and hand wash facilities were observed. Most ‘mist’ appears to dissipate quickly and in a relatively short distance. Clearly, the ability of any mist to dissipate will depend on several factors including, but not limited to, atmospheric conditions, the use of equipment and impact of the built environment such as trees, fences and buildings. Vermin Any food outlet must adhere to a standard of construction and be operated to a suitable standard of hygiene compliant with NSW Health Requirements. Premises must also be regularly inspected by Council to ensure that they are properly operated and maintained. Conditions are recommended to ensure compliance with relevant standards and controls.



Other Issues The issue of dust has been raised as a concern. This can be controlled during the construction process via a water tanker spraying if and when required. A condition can be imposed on the development in this regard. One objector has indicated that the development is not environmentally sustainable in that it will use excessive water. The facility will be recycling water and is probably more sustainable than individuals washing their cars at home although, in theory, they should be doing so on grass and heeding water restrictions. The use of car washes in controlled environments may in fact have some environmental benefits, such as recycling water, controlling water use and collection of pollutants for proper disposal.

Considerations Financial/resources implications Nil Legal & policy implications Council is required to take into account the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, when assessing a development application. In this regard, salient points are made below. Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan 2000 Under the provisions of the SLEP 2000, the site is zoned 2(e) Mixed Use Residential. The development is permissible with the consent of the Council and not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone, which are: 'to allow for mixed use residential neighbourhoods to be development on "greenfields" sites providing for a range of household preferences and needs compatible with fully developed residential neighbourhoods'. Clause 25 of the SLEP is also relevant to the application. Under the terms of this Clause Council may consent to commercial development in 2(e) zones where it promotes the commercial hierarchy for the Shellharbour Local Government Area as identified in Schedule 4 of the SLEP 2000. The development is consistent with the commercial hierarchy, particularly as the site specific DCP encourages commercial and bulky goods/warehousing uses on the site. Irrespective, a condition is recommended to ensure the occupation of building B is consistent with Council’s strategy for the area. Lake Entrance Road, Blackbutt Development Control Plan This is a site specific DCP that was adopted in 1992 to guide the development 142-150 Lake Entrance Road. The DCP specifies what uses are to be encouraged on the site - commercial, warehousing and bulky goods and related activities are to be the preferred land uses. No retail uses will be permitted other than those subsidiary and incidental to another approved use.



The DCP also specifies the area where buildings should be located on site (building envelope) and their height. The building envelopes are located at the front along New Lake Entrance Road, with access and parking at the rear from Lake Entrance Road. The sites covered by the DCP contain approved developments that vary the requirements of the DCP, most significantly setbacks towards (Old) Lake Entrance Road. This development is generally consistent with the rear setback requirement, which appears to be the northern property boundary of Lot 3. The DCP does not include or refer to Lot 100 as it was formerly the road. The application for the subject site proposes to vary the building envelope by seeking a concession for the New Lake Entrance Road setback and height. The DCP requires pedestrian access over Lot 3. An access path is proposed. Commercial Development Control Plan The proposal has also been assessed under the provisions of this plan. No departures from numerical standards have been identified. The proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of this plan. Likely Impacts of the Proposed Development The development will have a visual impact on the streetscape as the site is undeveloped and has a considerable frontage to New Lake Entrance Road. The development may also have noise impacts, which have been addressed in an acoustic report. Conditions of consent are warranted to ensure that the development is finished and operated at a suitable standard. Suitability of the Site for Development The site is irregular in shape and is traversed by significant pipes and has in the past experienced localised flooding. The site layout has been planned and development ‘engineered’ taking these factors into account. The site is considered capable of accommodating the development. Public/social impact The proposal potentially will have an adverse impact if permitted to be constructed and operated without appropriate safeguards and conditions. The acoustic fence and modified hours of trade are considered suitable mitigating factors. Options 1. Approve the application subject to conditions. 2. Refuse the application and give reasons for refusal.



Conclusions The proposal is considered to be satisfactory and in this regard conditional approval is recommended. Conditions GENERAL Approved Plans 1. The approved plans and documentation are as follows:

• Perspective Drawing

• Drawings by Anthony Vavayis & Associates: D0001/(4) - 11.05.07 - Site + Location Plan D0003/(1) - 24.01.07 - Streetscape Elevation D1001/(4) - 18.06.07 - Ground Floor Plan - Building A & B D1002/(2) - 18.06.07 - First Floor Plan Building B / Roof Plan D1003(1) - 18.05.07 - Building A - Ground Floor 1:100 - (A2 size) D1004(1) - 18.05.07 - Building B - Ground Floor 1:100 - (A2 size) D1005(1) - 18.05.07 - Building B - 1st Floor 1:100 - (A2 size) D3001/(2) - 18.06.07 - Elevs & Section Building A D3002/(1) - 24.01.07 - Elevs & Section Building B D3003/(1) - 24.01.07 - Elevs Building B D3011/(1) - 22.12.06 - Colour Schedule - Elevs Building A D3012/(1) - 22.12.06 - Colour Schedule - Elevs Building B D3013/(1) - 22.12.06 - Colour Schedule - Elevs Building B

• Drawings A-01, A-02, A-03, dated 27 & 29 November 2006 by R J Sinclair Pty Ltd

• Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Martin Morris & Jones Pty Ltd, dated February 2007 titled ‘Mixed Use Commercial Development No. 152 New Lake Road, Oak Flats Prepared for CPR Group’.

The development must be constructed in conformity with the above unless modified by special conditions of consent.

Prescribed Condition – Compliance with the Building Code of Australia 2. Work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of

Australia. Dilapidation Report 3. The developer must commission a dilapidation report detailing the condition of public roads

and assets on the perimeter and adjacent to the development site. The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified person such as a structural engineer and include photographs and accurately detail the condition of the land and assets.

4. The report must be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any works on site.



5. Any damage to public property or repair of public property must be undertaken at cost to

the developer, to Councils specifications and standards. Construction Certificate & PCA Notification 6. Before any site works, building, demolition or use is commenced, the person having

the benefit of the development consent must:

a. obtain a construction certificate from Shellharbour City Council or an accredited certifier (S81A)

b. appoint a principal certifying authority (S81A). Occupation Certificate 7. All conditions of consent must be satisfied prior to issue of an occupation certificate. The

development must not be occupied or used until the Principal Certifying Authority issues an occupation certificate.

Easements 8. No part of any structure must encroach onto any easement. 9. An easement for drainage 3m wide must be created at no cost to Council over the site. 10. A copy of the Plan of Easement and accompanying Section 88B Instrument must be

provided to Council as evidence that the easement has been created prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

Pedestrian Pathway 11. The proposed public pedestrian pathway 2m wide and variable located on and for the full

length of the western property boundary on Lot 3 in DP 786327, must be dedicated to Council at no cost. The dedication must be resolved, with legal documents registered, prior to release of an occupation certificate.

Utilities Sydney Water 12. Consent for this development is conditional upon satisfactory arrangements with Sydney

Water (Illawarra Branch) for the provision of adequate facilities for water supply and the removal or disposal of sewage.

A section 73 compliance certificate under the Sydney Water Act, 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

Application must be made through an authorised water servicing coordinator. Please refer to the Your Business section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the e-Developer icon or telephone 13 2092 for assistance.

Following application a ‘Notice of Requirements’ will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the coordinator, since



building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

A copy of Sydney Water’s ‘Notice of Requirements’ must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate for this development.

13. Sydney Water (Illawarra Branch) may require a contribution towards new water and

sewerage services or amplification of the existing system for the development, the subject of this consent.

14. In the event Torrens, Community or Strata subdivision is proposed now or in the future,

Sydney Water should be consulted with regard to the need for separate services to be provided for each commercial unit.

Integral Energy 15. Consent for this development is conditional upon satisfactory arrangements being made

with Integral Energy for the provision of electricity supply to the development. Written confirmation from Integral Energy detailing the arrangements for electricity supply must be submitted to the Accredited Certifier or Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate for the development.

Relocation of Services 16. Any relocation of services will be at full cost to the applicant. Soil & Sediment Controls 17. Before construction starts, the builder must install runoff and erosion controls to prevent

soil erosion, water pollution or the discharge of loose sediment on surrounding land. The control system must be maintained in a good effective order and remain in place until the land has been stabilised.

Waste Management 18. The management of waste must comply with the approved Waste Management Plan

attached with this Consent. Any variations to the Waste Management Plan must be approved by Council in writing.

A metal waste container with a minimum capacity of 4m3 must be provided on site for the disposal of ‘General Waste’ designated for landfill.

Site Management 19. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant must submit to and obtain

approval of a construction and site management plan, from the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, that clearly sets out the following:

a. what actions are proposed to ensure safe access to and from the site and what

protection will be provided to the road and footpath area from building activities,



crossings by heavy equipment, plant and materials delivery and static load from cranes, concrete pumps and the like

b. the proposed method of loading and unloading excavation machines, building materials and formwork within the site

c. the proposed areas within the site to be used for the storage of excavated material, construction materials and waste containers during the construction period

d. how it is proposed to ensure that soil/excavated materials is not transported on wheels or tracks of vehicles or plant and deposited on the roadway

e. the proposed method of support to any excavation adjacent to adjoining buildings or the road reserve. The proposed method of support is to be certified by an accredited certifier in civil engineering

f. dust control measures. 20. Where it is proposed to:

i. pump concrete from within a public road reserve

ii. stand a mobile crane within the public road reserve

iii. use part of Council’s road/footpath area

iv. pump stormwater from the site to Council’s stormwater drains, or

v. store waste containers, skip bins and/or building materials on part of Council’s footway or roadway

written applications together with any necessary fee, must be made to Council for the temporary occupation of the road reserve.

Approval must be obtained prior to any works commencing on site.

Protection of Public Places 21. Where the work involves the erection or demolition of a building; and

a. the work is likely to or will cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in public places to be obstructed, diverted or rendered inconvenient, and/or

b. the building involves the enclosure of a public place (ie footpath),

i. a Class B hoarding must be erected between the work site and/ or over the

public place

ii. if a hoarding is not necessary, an awning is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place,

iii. the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place, and

iv. any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

22. Any proposed work, hoarding, fence or awning proposed within the road reserve will

require a specific approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993. An application fee will apply in accordance with Council’s Revenue Policy.



General 23. The requirements of WorkCover must be satisfied at all times. Hours of Work During Construction 24. Work can only be done between 7.00am to 6.00pm, Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 12

noon Saturdays. (No work is permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed to by Council in writing.)

Mandatory Inspections 25. In accordance with Clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation

2000, mandatory inspections are required to be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority at various stages of construction.

Erection Of Signs 26. The principal contractor and the Principal Certifying Authority will need to have a sign (or

signs) erected and maintained on the development site that provides their name and contact telephone number (during and outside work hours for the principal contractor), and stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.

The principal contractor and Principal Certifying Authority can have separate signs or they can both use one sign if they choose.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Structural Details 27. Full engineering details on reinforced concrete footings, slabs and/or structural steel by a

practising structural engineer complying with the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any work.

Survey Certificate 28. A survey certificate must be given to the Principal Certifying Authority on completion of the

floor slab formwork, before concrete is poured. The survey certificate must detail the location of the structure to the boundaries and confirm that the levels are in accordance with the approval and relate to the datum shown on the consent.

Building Height 29. The building must not exceed the height shown on the approved plans. Retaining Walls 30. The cut and filled areas associated with the building work must be suitably retained.



Any retaining wall at or over 1m in height must be designed by a practising structural engineer and a construction certificate must be obtained prior to the commencement of work on the retaining wall.

The retaining wall must be located wholly within the property, including footings and agricultural drainage lines. Construction of retaining walls or associated drainage work along common boundaries must not compromise the structural integrity of any existing structures.

Fire Resistance 31. The Type of Construction proposed for the building must comply with Part C of the Building

Code of Australia. Details of the proposed Type of Construction for the building must be submitted with the Construction Certificate for assessment.

32. In accordance with the provisions of Specification C1.10 of the Building Code of Australia,

any material used in the building must, in the case of a sarking type material, have a flammability index not greater than 5, or otherwise, a smoke developed index not greater than 8 if the spread-of-flame index is greater than 5, and in any case a spread-of-flame index not greater than 9.

Fire Egress 33. The requirements of Part D of the Building Code of Australia concerning exit requirements

in the event of fire must be complied with at all times. Essential Services 34. ‘Services & Equipment’ must be installed as required by Part E of the Building Code of

Australia. In this regard, full details of the proposed ‘Services & Equipment’ must be submitted with the Construction Certificate for assessment.

Fire Safety Schedule Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment Regulation 2000 35. On completion of the building work, the owner of the building must submit to Council an

annual fire safety statement from a competent person with respect to each statutory fire safety measure.

The fire safety statement must certify that each statutory fire measure:

a. has been inspected and tested by a person (chosen by the owner of the building)

who is competent to carry out such an inspection and test

b. was or was not (as at the date on which it was inspected and tested) found to have been designed and installed, and to be capable of operating, to a standard not less than that required by or under this Regulation or by the Council.

Access & Facilities for People with Disabilities 36. An Access Report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant must be submitted to and

approved by Council or the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. The report must address compliance with the Building Code of



Australia and relevant Australian Standards, including but not limited to AS 1428.1 to ensure that access for disabled people is compliant and satisfactory.

37. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to and within buildings as set out in

Table D3.2 from areas specified by Part D3.2 of the Building Code of Australia, by means of a continuous path of travel in accordance with AS 1428.1.

38. Access must be provided to a sanitary compartment required for the use of people with

disabilities and complying with AS 1428.1, as required by Part D3.3 of the Building Code of Australia. Full details including a floor plan and relevant internal elevation views of the WC facility, drawn to 1:20 scale, must be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

39. Car parking spaces for disabled persons must be provided at the rate of one car parking

space for each 100 spaces, or part thereof (Building Code of Australia D3.5). The minimum width for the car parking space is 3.2m (AS 2890.1).

40. A sign incorporating the international symbol for people with disabilities must identify the

parking space and sanitary compartment required for the use of people with disabilities. 41. Full details regarding ramps, walkways, landings and or circulation spaces, including long

section views, providing access for people with disabilities demonstrating compliance with AS1428.1 must be provided with application for a construction certificate.

Health & Amenity 42. WC and amenities must at all times comply with the requirements of Part F2 of the Building

Code of Australia and the WorkCover Authority. 43. Where natural light and ventilation is not available to the sanitary facility, artificial lighting

and ventilation complying with Part F4 of the Building Code of Australia must be provided to the sanitary facility.

Note: Where the sanitary compartment containing a WC is prohibited under F4.8 from

opening directly into another room, the provisions of F4.9 of the Building Code of Australia must be satisfied.

Food Regulation 2004/Food Act 2003 – Building A 44. The developer/food business must comply with:

a. NSW Food Regulation 2004

b. ANZFA Food Standards Code

c. Council’s Food Premises Code

d. NSW Food Act 2003

Notification 45. Before commencing operations, business details of the food business must be notified to

the NSW Food Authority at www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au.



Compliance with Legislation 46. The shop fitout must comply with the Building Code of Australia, AS 4674–2004

(Construction and Fitout of Food Premises) and Council’s Food Premises Code.

Details of the method of compliance must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Kitchen Exhaust 47. The kitchen exhaust must be designed and installed in accordance with AS 1668.2–2002

(The Use of Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings) Appendix C (Kitchen Exhaust Hoods).

a. Documentation verifying design compliance with this requirement must be submitted

to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

b. Documentation verifying installation compliance with this requirement must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Floor 48. The floor of the preparation areas must be paved or covered with an approved impervious

material, graded and drained to a floor waste. Details of the location of the floor waste is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Grease Arrestor 49. A grease arrestor must be installed. Please contact Sydney Water for approval and

installation advice.

Note: The installation of grease arrestors within kitchens and food preparation areas is not permitted.

Washing 50. A double bowl sink with a supply of cold and hot water must be provided for cleaning of all

utensils, receptacles, tools of trade, benches, fittings, machinery and other appliances. 51. Hand wash basins must be provided near food preparation areas and each hand basin

must have hot and cold water and hand drying facilities. Waste Handling 52. All waste must be stored in impervious containers with firm fitting lids suitable to exclude

vermin. 53. Waste must be removed by a licensed contractor no less than twice per week. More

frequent collection may be necessary in some circumstances. 54. Waste oil must be stored within a secure area at all times. Oil must never be stored in

areas accessible to the public or areas that drain to the stormwater system.



Environmental Requirements Carwash – Building C 55. All effluent from the washbay must be drained to a collection well and be treated by a

coalescing plate separator, to separate oils and solids from water. 56. Oil and solid waste must be removed by a contractor. Full details of the contractor must be

provided to Council. 57. Waste water from the separator must discharge to the sewer. Approval for the trade waste

discharge must be obtained from Sydney Water (Illawarra Branch). 58. Overland flow of water must be restricted from entering the washbay area by the provision

of bunds, grades or dish drains around the area. 59. The washbay must be covered with a roof extending at least 600mm beyond the perimeter

of the washbay to exclude rain water from the area. Noise Mitigation 60. Prior to issue of a construction certificate the acoustic consultant must review and provide

written authorisation/agreement to the acoustic components of the design of the acoustic walls, restaurant, retail/bulky goods building and carwash buildings.

61. Noise from any public address system, intercom, alarm or amplified sound equipment on

the premises must not be audible in any residential building at any time. 62. Amplified music is prohibited. 63. Noise from the use of the premises must not be audible within any residential building at

any time between 10.00pm and 7.00am on any day. 64. The use of the premises must not cause offensive noise, as defined in the Protection of the

Environment Operations Act 1997, at any time. 65. Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate the acoustic consultant must provide

documentation verifying that noise from the combined operation of all mechanical plant within the premises has been assessed and complies with the Noise Assessment Goals in the acoustic report dated January 2007 and prepared by Atkins Acoustics and Associates Pty Ltd.

66. Signage must be installed on the site within the area to be used for the car wash, prior to

issue of an occupation certificate. The signage must advise customers to operate equipment and car stereos responsibly to minimise noise nuisance.

67. The fast food premises must close prior to the closure of the hotel. Details concerning

closure times, relative to that of the hotel must be provided with the application for a construction certificate and confirmed in writing prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. Closure must be a minimum of half an hour prior to that of the hotel.



PLANNING Landscape & Site Facilities 68. At all times the number of on-site parking bays provided must be sufficient to cater for the

parking demands of the development. In this regard, a minimum of 60 car spaces must be provided for the proposal.

69. Location points for mail delivery must satisfy the requirements of Australia Post. Street

numbers must be obtained from Council’s GIS Department during normal office hours, prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

70. Prior to the final inspection by the Principal Certifying Authority, the unbuilt upon land with

the exception of the paving, must be landscaped and planted with turf, trees and shrubs. In this regard, two copies of a landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect, generally in accordance with the landscape concept prepared by Site Plus, Project 06135, dated 13 July 2006 must be submitted to the Accredited Certifier or Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. The Landscape Plan must be prepared in accordance with the requirements as set out in Council’s document entitled Landscape Guidelines, available from Council’s Operations & Services Division.

71. The following amendments and/or inclusions to the plan must be made and shown on the

drawing required by the above condition.

a. The three existing native indigenous Melaleuca decora trees located adjacent to the south western boundary must be retained and protected prior to and during any works on site. The landscape plan must detail protection measures and show the pedestrian path relative to the trees.

Protection measures must include:

i. 1.5m high fencing, 3m from the existing tree trunks, constructed of cyclomesh

ii. marking of the fence with high visibility plastic hazard tape or parawebbing.

b. The Angophora costata trees are classed as frangible by the Road & Traffic Authority and must be replaced with Alphitonia excelsa. Non-frangible trees can only be used if a clearance zone of 2.5m from the roadside kerb to the trunk of the tree can be achieved. If the proposed pedestrian path along New Lake Entrance Road can be placed adjacent to the back of the kerb, this will achieve a 2.5m clearance for planting.

72. The minimum requirements for the landscape plan required by the above condition are:

a. the name and qualifications of the person preparing the plan (minimum qualification generally horticulture certificate unless otherwise approved by Council)

b. a title block

c. scale of the plan

d. landscape schedule indicating plant symbol, botanical names, ground cover planting densities and existing vegetation



e. landscaped site plan showing existing vegetation to be retained and proposed

additional planting to scale

f. location of paved areas and the types of surfaces to be used in paved areas

g. rubbish bins and screens, seats and the like

h. the location and construction details (ie materials) of the acoustic wall

i. details of graffiti resistant materials. Design and Visual Impact Waste 73. Any waste storage receptacles must be screened from all street frontages and adjacent

properties by the use of screen enclosures and landscaping. The screen must be constructed of high quality building materials and complement the design and external materials used in the building. In this regard, colorbond or similar material is not an acceptable building material. Details of the proposed screen must be submitted in conjunction with the Construction Certificate for this proposal for assessment by Council or the Accredited Certifier.

Plant & Equipment 74. Details of any mechanical ventilation or air-conditioning system must be submitted and

approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. Where the system will be visible from adjoining properties or from public places, the system must be screened and enclosed with materials that complement the building.

Signage 75. The following signs and sign panels have been approved.

a. Building A – the triangular pylon sign with dimensions no greater than 6.3m in height and 1.7m in width along each face. Only two sides are permitted to be used for signage.

Noting that the tenancy arrangements are to be secured for this building and the varying corporate requirements for fast food chains, a separate development application is required for all signage on the building.

b. Building B – All signs as shown on plan excepting the use of the architectural panel facing the street. The use of the panel for signage is strictly prohibited.

Illumination of signs on the northern elevation is prohibited.

Full details of signage must accompany the application for the construction certificate with details of the sign-face areas being consistent with the letter from Martin Morris and Jones dated 31 May 2007, page 4 of 6 under the heading 'Building B'.

c. Building C - all signage as detailed on the drawings is approved. 76. Any further signage will require an approval from Council other than signage classed

specifically as exempt development.



Colours & Materials 77. A detailed colour schedule in the form of a detailed sample board must be submitted with

the application for a construction certificate, demonstrating compliance as detailed in the Schedule of Approved plans listed in Condition No. 1 and the perspective drawing unless otherwise agreed to by Council in writing.

Lighting 78. A detailed lighting strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified person, for all external lights is

to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate. The strategy must indicate the type of lights and location of lights with a view to:

a. minimising nuisance and glare to adjoining residences and motorists

b. ensuring sufficient illumination on site for pedestrians and users of the site after dark

c. ensuring energy efficiency.

The strategy should refer to levels of luminance and illuminance and compliance with any relevant Australian Standards.

79. All lights associated with the businesses except those associated with security must be

turned off at the close of business, unless otherwise agreed to by Council in writing. Methods to ensure shut off are to be detailed with application for a construction certificate.

Land Use 80. No occupation or use of the building B is permitted by the granting of this consent. A

separate development application must be made to, and consent obtained from, Council for the initial use of each commercial unit, excepting the food premises and car wash. Approval is granted for the use of those premises.

Bonds and Contributions 81. The developer must provide a written undertaking, prior to issue of a construction

certificate, against failure to complete or maintain landscape works during the maintenance period. This maintenance period will cover a six month period commencing from the date upon which notification is issued by the developer that the landscaping works have been completed. It is the responsibility of the developer to notify Council for a reinspection at the conclusion of the maintenance period.

82. Prior to the release of the Construction Certificate, the developer must lodge with

Council, an administration and inspection fee totalling $300, which includes GST, for the purpose of landscape plan assessment, final landscape inspection prior to occupation of the development and landscape inspection following completion of the maintenance period referred to in the previous condition.

83. A contribution of $974.19 must be paid to Council under Section 94 of the Environmental

Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, towards the provision of community facilities and services in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan 2005 (Amendment 1) (Dated 28 September 2006) prior to the issue of a construction certificate adjusted in accordance with the following condition.



Note: The contribution amounts quoted are the base rate indexed to the date the consent is issued.

The Section 94 Contributions Plan 2005 (Amendment 1) may be inspected at Shellharbour City Council’s offices, Lamerton House, Lamerton Crescent, Shellharbour City Centre.

84. The Section 94 contribution set out in the above conditions will be recalculated during

September each year in accordance with movements in the Chain Price Index for Non-Dwelling Building and Construction (CP), published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The recalculation must be in accordance with the following formula:

Cp = Cb x CPp

CPc

Where Cp = Contribution rate at date of payment.

Cb = Base contribution rate as specified in Council’s Section 94

Contributions Plan 2005 (Amendment 1).

CPp = Latest published Chain Price Index for Non-Dwelling Building and Construction at the date of payment.

CPc = Latest published Chain Price Index for Non-Dwelling Building and

Construction, at 28 September 2006. ENGINEERING Drainage/Flooding 85. A detailed drainage design of the site must be submitted and approved prior to the release

of the Construction Certificate. The plan must be generally in accordance with plan (Reference No. 06135.C01, dated 9 January 2007) prepared by SitePlus Pty Ltd and to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan must indicate the method of disposal of all stormwater and must include existing ground levels, finished surface levels on all paved areas, estimated flow rates, invert levels and sizes of all pipelines.

86. Works As Executed plans must be submitted by a qualified engineer, licensed plumber, or

registered surveyor, certifying compliance of all drainage works with the approved design plans. This plan must verify surface and invert levels on all pits, invert levels and sizes of all pipelines, and finished surface levels on all paved areas. Certification of pits and stormwater pipelines must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority after installation and prior to backfilling. Certification of paved areas must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority after the formwork for the driveway has been completed, and prior to the concrete being poured. All levels must relate to Australian Height Datum.

Drainage Easement 87. The walls of any structure adjoining the easement boundary shall be designed by a suitably

qualified engineer to withstand all forces should the easement be excavated to existing pipe invert level. This may require foundations to be designed such that they are set to a minimum of 300mm below pipe invert level, or alternatively founded on sound rock.



Parking & Manoeuvring 88. All car parking areas, manoeuvring areas and access aisles must be paved, drained and

marked. The pavement must be designed by a qualified civil engineer and certified to be satisfactory for the expected traffic loadings from a development of this size and type. Australian Standard Guide to Residential Pavements (AS 3727-1993 or subsequent amendments) can be used as the design guideline for the pavement design.

Access & Kerb, Gutter, Footpath Works 89. An industrial vehicular layback crossing must be constructed at the point of access. This

work must be carried out by Council, or a Council approved contractor, at the Developer’s expense, including all alterations of public infrastructure where necessary.

90. An industrial standard concrete footpath crossing must be constructed across the footpath

at the points of access and must be finished with a slip resistant coating. This work must be carried out by Council, or a Council approved contractor, at the Developer’s expense, including all alterations of public infrastructure where necessary. Detail must be submitted in with the Construction Certificate application.

91. According to Section 142(i)(a) of the Roads Act, 1993, the person who has a right to the

control, use or benefit of a structure or work in, on or over a public road (namely a footpath crossing), must maintain the structure or work in a satisfactory state of repair.

REASONS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS 1. To minimise any possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development. 2. To ensure that the amenity and character of the surrounding area is protected. 3. To ensure that the design and siting of the development complies with the provisions of

Environmental Planning Instruments and Council’s Codes and Policies. 4. To ensure that the development does not conflict with the public interest.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Locality Plan 2. Site Plan 3. Perspective Drawing 4. Elevations



Attachment 1 – Locality Plan DA No. 77/2007 – Lot 3, DP 786327 & Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats



Attachment 2 – Site Plan DA No. 77/2007 – Lot 3, DP 786327 & Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats



Attachment 3 – Perspective Drawing DA No. 77/2007 – Lot 3, DP 786327 & Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats



Attachment 4 – Elevations DA No. 77/2007 – Lot 3, DP 786327 & Lot 100, DP 849384, 152 New Lake Entrance Road, Oak Flats



11.5 Drainage and Kerb & Gutter - Princes Highway, Albion Park Rail (8759803)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Development and Technical Services Manager: Max Boenisch – Group Manager Development & Technical Services Author: Murray Davis – Forward Planning Engineer

Summary The purpose of this report is for the Council to allocate funding toward the drainage and kerb & gutter and redesigned drainage works on the Princes Highway at Albion Park Rail.

Recommendation 1. That the Council allocates $9,000 from ‘Ward F Works’ for the work. 2. That the Council allocates $13,462 from ‘Citywide Grant Matching Funds’ for the

work. 3. That the Council allocate an additional $29,825 towards the project using the existing

allocation in the Capital Works Program for the Glider Avenue/Parma Way roundabout.

4. That the budget be amended accordingly.

Background Council accepted a $43,500 grant from the Road & Traffic Authority (RTA) toward the upgrade of the Princes Highway drainage and shoulder south of Kimbeth Crescent at Albion Park Rail. This report seeks the allocation of additional Council funds toward the project. The total project cost to provide drainage, kerb & gutter and a parking lane is $220,000. The proposed funding details are as follows: • $167,713 - Funds currently allocated toward the project

• $9,000 - 2007/2008 allocation from ‘Ward F Works’

• $13,462 - 2007/2008 allocation from ‘Citywide Grant Matching Funds’

• $29,825 - Reallocation of existing allocation toward the Glider Avenue/Parma Way roundabout

Required allocation of funds to complete the works = $52,287



The RTA would not commit to matching Council's allocation of funds in 2006/2007 for the Glider Avenue/Parma Way roundabout. There is no guarantee that the RTA funds would become available in 2007/2008 and accordingly it is recommended that Council's allocation of funds for the project be redirected. Additional funding towards kerb and gutter and redesigned drainage works is required due to RTA design directives.

Consultations Internal Director Operations & Services Group Manager Development & Technical Services Group Manager Works & Services Manager Design Manager Financial Services External Mayor Councillors Roads & Traffic Authority

Considerations Financial/resources implications There are funds in ‘Ward F Works’, ‘Grant Matching Funds’ and the existing Capital Works Program allocation toward the Glider Avenue/Parma Way roundabout to allocate $50,787 to the project. Legal & policy implications Work will be in accordance with the relevant standards and guidelines. Public/social impact The works on the Princes Highway will vastly improve the appearance and drainage of the road. Safety for road users and residents will be improved by providing a level footpath strip and clear definition of the road edge. The proposed work will complete all drainage and kerb & gutter works from the Illawarra Highway through to Tongarra Road, Albion Park Rail for both sides of the Princes Highway. Options 1. Allocate $9,000 from ‘Ward F Works’, $11,962 from ‘Citywide Grant Matching Funds’ and

$29,825 from the existing Capital Works Program allocation toward the Glider Avenue/Parma Way roundabout.

2. Do not allocate the specified funds for the project. In this instance an alternate funding

source would need to be identified.



Conclusions The Council needs to allocate the necessary funds to the project to allow this essential upgrade to be completed.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Locality Plan



Attachment 1 – Locality Plan Drainage and Kerb & Gutter - Princes Highway, Albion Park Rail



11.6 Stores & Material Stocktake (8756862)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Paul Henderson - Manager Financial Services Author: David Ralph - Accounting Officer

Summary This report is to advise Council of the outcome of the Stores & Materials stocktake held at Council’s Works Depot on 16 June 2007. The stocktake resulted in a net write-off of stock to the value of $3,409.27.

Recommendation That the appropriate journal entries be prepared to record in the Stores & Materials Ledger and the General Ledgers the net write-off of stock of $3,409.27.

Background Council’s outdoor staff require a wide range of materials at short notice to carry out their day-to-day duties. To ensure staff have immediate access to these materials, Council has a central store containing Stores & Materials at the Oak Flats Works Depot. The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires Council to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the assets of, or under the control of, the Council are properly accounted for. To assist in the control of Council’s Stores & Materials assets, stocktakes are held every six months, generally in May and November, by staff from Councils Financial Services Section. Physical counts are performed on all stock items held in the store. The results of the count are then compared to the stock item balances contained in Council’s Financial Management software system. These balances include all “issue” and “receipt” transactions associated with each stock item. If there are any major variances, a physical re-count is usually performed on each item to confirm the original count. Once all counts are completed, a discrepancy report is produced which details the recommended write-off or write-on for the stocktake period.

Consultations Internal Group Manager Works & Services External Nil



Considerations Financial/resources implications The stocktake of Stores & Materials conducted on 16 June 2007 resulted in a net write-off of stock of $3,409.27. Group Manager Works & Services Comments I refer to the stores and materials stocktake held at Council’s Works Depot on 16 June 2007, which resulted in a net write off of stock of $3,409.27. The total value of stock in Council’s store at the stocktake was $229,708. The net write off represents 1.5% of the value of the stock on hand. The majority of the write off was caused by an incident during April this year when approximately 3000 litres of diesel was lost from a faulty underground fuel line. This has been rectified but the lost diesel has been valued at $3,180.79. Once this amount is subtracted from the net figure, the overall discrepancy is reduced to $228.48. Other discrepancies in the Waste Depot diesel fuel and the Works Depot unleaded fuel were due to faulty equipment, which has also been repaired now. During the stocktake period 305,275 litres of fuel was dispensed from the fuel outlets at the Works and Waste Depot. The discrepancies in Kubota blades and belts, Karcher Sweeper gutter brooms, silt fence and stainless steel cisterns was due to these items being taken from the store without being booked out of the stores system. The discrepancies in slide film and nylon head assemblies was due to delivery dockets not being received to enable these items to be booked into the store. The adjustment to the Hino fuel filters and Weldlock grates is due to a booking error when the wrong product codes were used. Once the fuel losses from the diesel reticulation failure are discounted the stocktake result is considered to be satisfactory given the high level of activity in the past six months. Legal & policy implications Nil Public/social impact Nil Options 1. To adopt the recommendation 2. To not adopt the recommendation

Conclusions The $3,409.27 write-off of stock from the Stores & Materials stocktake held on 16 June 2007 is largely due to the loss of diesel and unleaded fuels due to leaks in the fuel lines that were detected in late April. The fuels are monitored on a weekly basis and since the rectification works on the fuel lines have been completed the fuel variations have stabilised to normal levels. The other discrepancies of significance, as mentioned in the Group Manager of Works and Services Comments, have been adequately explained as administrative errors.



While the write-off figure represents 1.48% of the stock value of $229,707.78, which is considerably higher than recent stocktakes, the result is still considered satisfactory after the loss of the fuel is taken into account.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments Nil



11.7 Stores LTA Stocktake (8756861)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Paul Henderson - Manager Financial Services Author: David Ralph - Accounting Officer

Summary This report is to advise Council of the outcome of the Stores Loose Tools & Appliances (LTA) stocktake held at Council’s Works Depot over the period 5 June to 7 June 2007. The stocktake resulted in a net write-off of stock to the value of $454.72.

Recommendation That the appropriate journal entries be prepared to record in the Stores LTA Ledger and General Ledgers the write-off of stock to the value of $454.72.

Background Council’s staff require a wide range of tools and personal issue type items (referred to as Loose Tools & Appliances) to carry out their day-to-day duties. For convenience and easy access to these items, Council has a central store at the Oak Flats Works Depot where staff can sign these items out. When these items are issued out they are recorded against the employees name and they remain accountable for them while they remain signed out. The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires Council to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the assets of, or under the control of, the Council are properly accounted for. To assist in the control of Council’s Loose Tools and Appliances assets, stocktakes are held every six months, generally in May and November, by staff from Council’s Financial Services section. Physical counts are performed on all stock items currently signed out to each employee. The results of the count are then compared to the stock item balances contained in Council’s Financial Management software system. These balances include all “issue” and “return” transactions associated with each stock item. Once all counts are completed, a discrepancy report is produced which details the recommended write-off or write-on for the stocktake period.

Consultations Internal Group Manager Works & Services External Nil



Considerations Financial/resources implications The stocktake of the Stores LTA undertaken from 5 to 7 June 2007 resulted in a net write-off of stock of $454.72. Group Manager Works & Services Comments I refer to the Personal Issue (LTA) Stocktake carried out during the period 5 to 7 June 2007, resulting in a net write off of equipment to the value of $454.72. This stocktake is held every six months with the objective of providing accountability for Loose Tools and Appliances allocated to operational staff from Councils store. Most of the discrepancies are items which are either lost or damaged in the course of routine daily tasks, but haven’t been reported in accordance with correct stores procedures. This result is generally consistent with previous L.T.A. discrepancies. The value of issued equipment at the time of the stocktake was $33,172.55. The stocktake involved 164 employees who have been issued with tools and appliances and the net write off represents 1.37% of the value of the stock on hand, or $2.77 for each employee. Legal & policy implications Nil Public/social impact Nil Options 1. To adopt the recommendation 2. To not adopt the recommendation

Conclusions The outcome of the Stores LTA stocktake, held over the period of 5 to 7 June 2007, is considered satisfactory with the net write-off figure of $454.72 representing 1.37% of the total stock of $33,172.55 held by employees at the time of the stocktake, which is well within acceptable industry standards. The shortage of stock identified during the stocktake represents an average shortage of just $2.77 for each of the 164 employees who participated in the stocktake.




11.8 Renewal of Lease for Shellharbour Country Kitchen Cafe (8756983)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Tim McLeod - Manager Property Author: Kim Cavanough - Property Officer/Legal Secretary

Summary This report seeks Council approval to renew the lease with Carol Lee Testa and Lindsey Anne Crofts for the occupation of part Lot 1 DP 745795 Addison Street, Shellharbour, known as Shellharbour Country Kitchen, for a further three (3) years.

Recommendation 1. That Council renew the lease agreement with Carol Lee Testa and Lindsey Anne

Crofts for the occupation of part Lot 1 DP 745795 Addison Street, Shellharbour for a further three (3) years at a rental amount of $25,000.00 plus GST per annum.

2. That the Seal of Council be affixed to the lease agreement with Carol Lee Testa and

Lindsey Anne Crofts for the occupation of part Lot 1 DP 745795 Addison Street, Shellharbour.

Background We have received a letter from Carol Lee Testa and Lindsey Anne Crofts requesting that the three (3) year option to renew their lease, be taken up for the occupation of part Lot 1 DP 745795 Addison Street, Shellharbour. We have had a valuation carried out by John Austin of Walsh and Monaghan that showed that the annual rental amount should be increased from $20,000.00 plus GST to $25,000.00 plus GST. A letter was sent to Carol and Lindsey advising of the increase in rental and they have confirmed that they wish to proceed with the three (3) year option to renew at the new rental amount. Carol and Lindsey have been operating the site as a café with indoor and alfresco seating since May 2006, when the lease was assigned to them from the previous lessees, and they wish to continue with this operation. The option to renew forms part of the current agreement and, as such, the lease terms and conditions will be the same as the current lease.

Consultations Internal Nil



External Carol Lee Testa Lindsey Anne Crofts John Austin - Walsh and Monaghan

Considerations Financial/resources implications In assessing the market rental of part Lot 1 DP 745795, John Austin, Valuer, has had regard to general rental levels in Shellharbour Village, though as this property is unique, the newer commercial buildings in the area are not comparable to the subject premises. Accordingly, John Austin has carefully considered all available rental evidence and his opinion is that an increase of $5,000.00 plus GST to the annual rental amount is a fair market rental assessment. Therefore, the new rental amount on the subject premises is proposed to be $25,000.00 plus GST per annum. The lessees will be responsible for all legal fees associated with the lease renewal. Legal & policy implications A Council resolution is required in order to affix the Seal of Council to the lease documents. Under the current lease conditions, the tenants have the option to renew this lease for the three (3) year term. Public/social impact The Shellharbour Country Kitchen has been in operation for a number of years and provides a service to the residents and visitors of Shellharbour. Options

The only option available to Council is to renew the lease for the three (3) year term in accordance with the current lease conditions.

Conclusions The tenants have requested to take up the option to renew the current lease and have complied with the terms of the lease regarding this option. Therefore, as it is the tenants’ right to take up the option, Council must approve the renewal of the lease. Carol and Lindsey provide a service to the community and have been in operation from the site for a number of years without incident, therefore the lease should be renewed for a further term of three years.




11.9 Community Land Plans of Management - Lot 2 DP 224845, Warilla Surf Life Saving Club (8757744)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Tim McLeod – Manager Property Author: Kim Cavanough – Property Officer / Legal Secretary

Summary Council continues to work on the revision of Plans of Management for all land classed as community land under the Local Government Act 1993, as amended, (the Act). This report seeks approval to exhibit an amended draft Plan of Management for Community Land, for Lot 2 DP 224845, part Lot 78 DP 553511 and part Lot 76 DP 238866 Osborne Parade, Warilla. The plan of management relates to land currently occupied by the Warilla Surf Life Saving Club and two small adjoining areas. The formal management plan process is observed for Council’s compliance with the Local Government Act.

Recommendation 1. That in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, (s38), the draft Plan of

Management for Community Land described as Lot 2 DP 224845, part Lot 78 DP 553511 and part Lot 76 DP 238866 Osborne Parade, Warilla, be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days, but allowing a period of not less than 42 days after the date on which the draft plan is first placed on public exhibition, during which submissions may be made to the Council.

2. That following the public exhibition and submission stage, a further report be

presented to Council for consideration of any submissions and the adoption or otherwise of the draft Plan of Management for Community Land for Lot 2 DP 224845, Lot 78 DP 553511 and Lot 76 DP 238866 Osborne Parade, Warilla.

Background It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1993, that all land vested in or under the control of Council must be classified as either “operational” or “community” land. Section 36 of the Act requires Council to prepare draft Plans of Management for all land in Council’s ownership that has been classified as “community” land. Section 40A requires Council to conduct a public hearing in relation to amendments to the proposed Plan of Management.



Council’s land was classified as either “operational” or “community” when the Act was first introduced. All community land vested in Council or under Council’s control is required to have a Community Land Plan of Management prepared in order to inform the public of Council’s intended uses, controls applying to the land and maintenance programmes. There is a current Plan of Management for this parcel of land. Council’s Property Section is currently reviewing and updating all of the Plans of Management in order to comply with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Department of Local Government Practice Notes. The current plan needs to be altered to comply with statutory requirements and to allow the future enhancement of the site in relation to the surf life saving club building expansion. The club has identified a need for expansion and refurbishment of the club. The plan of management proposes a minor boundary alteration to facilitate expansion of the surf life saving club.

Consultations Internal Nil External Nil

Considerations Financial/resources implications The plan preparation and review process is resource intensive, but essential as a statutory requirement. Council is required to place advertisements in the Lake Times advising of the draft Community Land Plans of Management. The advertising process is covered in Council’s operational budget. Legal & policy implications Council is required to meet its obligations under the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended). Section 36 of the Act requires Council to prepare draft Plans of Management for Community Land. Section 38 of the Act requires the Council to give public notice of the draft Plans of Management. Section 40A of the Act requires Council to conduct a public hearing prior to the adoption of amended draft plans. If the plan of management is approved a boundary alteration and fresh lease will be required. Public/social impact The Community Land Plans of Management allow the community to be aware of Council’s intentions in controlling and maintaining its community land. Council has no power to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of land which is classified as community land, but Council may grant leases or licenses over community land, subject to provisions of the Act and in accordance with the particular Management Plan.



The Management Plan advertising process allows for submissions to be made on the amended draft Community Land Plan of Management for Council’s consideration prior to adoption of the Plan. Council is also required to conduct a public hearing when there is an amendment to the Plan of Management. It is proposed that the public hearing will be conducted prior to the Council Meeting where the amended draft plan will be resubmitted to Council for adoption. Options 1 Proceed with advertising of the amended Plan of Management. 2. Not proceed with advertising of the amended draft Plan of Management

Conclusions This process is a legislative requirement that Council is required by law to follow and therefore the recommendation should be adopted. The Plans of Management for these parcels of land have been amended to reflect this requirement.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Draft Plan of Management - Osborne Parade



Draft Plan of Management - Osborne Parade



11.10 Proposal to advertise lease for Warilla / Barrack Point Surf Club Inc (8758644)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Tim McLeod – Manager Property Author: Kim Cavanough – Property Officer / Legal Secretary

Summary This report seeks Council approval to advertise the proposal to enter into a new 21 year lease with the Warilla / Barrack Point Surf Club for Lot 2 DP 224845 and part Lot 76 DP 238866 and part Lot 78 DP 553511 being community land owned by Council.

Recommendation That Council grant approval to proceed with public consultation as detailed in Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993, for the proposal to grant an a lease for a term of twenty one (21) years with the Warilla Barrack Point Surf Club Inc for the occupation of Lot 2 DP 224845, Part Lot 78 DP 553511 and Part Lot 76 DP 238866, Osborne Parade, Warilla. That the matter be reported back to Council at the conclusion of the public consultation stage.

Background Council has received a DA for the extension and refurbishment of the Warilla / Barrack Point Surf Club. If the DA, as lodged, is approved, the current lease will have to be rescinded and a new lease incorporating the updated conditions relating to the extension and leased area will be entered into. The majority of the conditions will be in accordance with the current lease and with other leases for community land. Obviously there have been a majority of legislative changes and formatting to the lease documents since 1982 and a new lease will incorporate any new legislation that will be of benefit to the Council and the lessee. The plan of management affecting this lot is being advertised outlining alterations to comply with statutory requirements and to allow the future enhancement of the site.

In accordance with Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993, resolving to enter a lease for a term greater than five (5) years, Council must advertise the proposal by placing an advertisement in the local paper, exhibiting notice on the land, giving notice to such persons owning or occupying the adjoining land and notice of the proposal to any other person, appearing to the council to be the owner or occupier of land in the vicinity of the community land, if in the opinion of the council the land the subject of the proposal is likely to form the primary focus of the person’s enjoyment of community land.



This is a complex matter and requires, amongst other things, public consultation and consideration by council of any written submissions received. If Council receives a submission in the form of an objection, before granting the lease it will need to seek the approval of the Minister for Local Government. Before determining the matter, the Minister for Local Government will refer the proposal also to the Director of Planning, for determination.

Consultations Internal Director Operations and Services Corporate Solicitor / Public Officer Manager Development Services Senior Development Assessment Officer (Planning) External Warilla / Barrack Point Surf Club Martin Morris and Jones Kells the Lawyers

Considerations Financial/resources implications At this stage, Council will be required to fund the placement of an advertisement and letters to adjoining residents. Legal & policy implications Local Government Act 1993 required that if Council proposes to grant a lease over community land Council must give public notice in accordance with Section 47 and allow twenty eight days for submissions. A minor boundary adjustment, which will incorporate into Lot 2 DP 224845 part of Lot 76 DP 238866 and part of lot 78 DP 553511, is proposed and this may affect the land description. The proposed leased area, as identified in the attached plan, incorporates the boundary adjustment and this is the area that will be advertised as the leased area. All submissions received must be considered by Council. If a submission is received in the form of an objection the matter must be referred to the Minister for Local Government for determination of the lease request. Public notice will include an advertisement placed in the Lake Times, adjoining owner notification and written notice at the subject site. Compliance with Section 47 requires Council to resolve to proceed with the process. After following the process required by Section 47 of the Act, a further resolution would be required to consent to the granting of a lease over this Council owned land. Public/social impact There is a current lease over Lot 2 DP 223845 for the current building. The surf club provide a highly important role to community by providing safe and enjoyable use of the adjoining beach.



Options 1. That Council resolve to proceed with the requirements of Section 47 to advertise the

proposal to grant a twenty one (21) year lease to Warilla / Barrack Point Surf Life Saving Club Inc.

2. That Council refuse the Clubs request to advertise the proposal. This will cease the

proposed development for extension and refurbishment of the club.

Conclusions It is recommended that Council approve proceeding with the requirements of Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993 and undertake public consultation regarding the proposal. The proposal is not, at this stage, the resolution to enter into the lease, it is a process of allowing the public to make submissions, that will later be considered by Council.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Plan showing proposed lease area. 2. Locality plan.



Plan showing proposed lease area.



Locality plan.



11.11 National General Assembly of Local Government - November 2007 - Notices of Motion (8756964)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Tony Gearon - Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Tony Gearon - Group Manager Corporate Services, Paul Henderson – Manager

Financial Services.

Summary Two topics have so far been identified by previous Council resolution, for investigation for possible proposal at the National General Assembly in Darwin in November. This report outlines key issues with each topic, so that council can determine if it wishes to raise these matters by way of proposed motions to the Assembly.

Recommendation That Council receive and note the information in this report.

Background Council at its meeting of 22nd May 2007 (Item 10.4) resolved as follows: RESOLVED: Hawker/Briggs

1. That Council consider submitting Notices of Motion for the 2007 National General Assembly

2. That Council staff investigate and report back to Council two proposed motions

on: (a) GST and how it affects this Council. (b) Cost shifting.

FOR VOTE - Cr Hamilton, Cr Greig, Cr Hawker, Cr Briggs, Cr Bailey, Cr Gillett, Cr Bird, Cr Hore, Cr Leedham, Cr Jeffreys, Cr Stewart

AGAINST VOTE – Cr Mifsud, Cr Rose

Cost Shifting : Cost shifting by State and Federal Governments can be done by overcharging for services provided to local government by the State, but it is more often the art of transferring responsibility and costs for the provision of selected services, to Local government. Cost shifting can be



imposed by failure to transfer or maintain sufficient funding to operate a service to an expected standard, leaving the Council to provide the service and source the funding. The end result is that Local Government is gradually required to assume responsibility for the services their increasing costs and the sourcing of their funding. There is rarely any option to withdraw or discontinue the services as the community has been accustomed to their presence, so the Council’s range of responsibility and services is expanded and there is increasing pressure on the Council to become more frugal in other areas. Cost shifting can occur in several ways, one being the initial, partial transfer of responsibility to Councils, followed in later years by an increase in responsibility transferred, followed by a reduction or discontinuation of the funding. The growth of Community services provided by Councils over the past ten years, has been seen as within the context of cost shifting. Another way is by the arbitrary dumping by State government, of additional, unheralded and mandatory cost increases on Councils, for the purpose of revenue raising or cost shifting. Fire Services levys. One of the most obvious and expensive forms of cost shifting to effect Shellharbour Council in recent years has been associated with the Rural Fire Service and the NSW Fire Levy. Council’s annual required contributions to both these organisations has increased significantly over the past 5 –7 years, with Council having little influence in the areas it is contributing to. Examples include the establishment of a new Fire Station in the local government area and the makeup of the annual Rural Fire Service programs, both of which, Council has no direct influence over. Council’s contribution to the NSW Fire Brigades was $44,000 in 2000/01 and $291,687 in 2006/07, an increase in the cost shifting of $247,687. Likewise, Council’s contribution to the NSW Rural Fire Service was $48,000 in 2000/01 and $233,803 in 2006/07, an increase in the cost shifting of $185,803. Waste disposal levys. Another example could be the costs and levys commanded by State government for the operation by Council, of its waste disposal and materials recycling facilities on Council owned property. These charges are more in the nature of revenue seizures than cost shifting, but when accompanied by additional State regulation, they have a similar effect to cost shifting, on the Council. Local Government elections Yet another example was the take over of the local government election process, now followed by excessive billing for State Electoral Services, far in excess of what it cost Councils to provide an equal or better service. “NSW councils and their communities are being hit with bills of up to $1.2 million for the 2008 local government elections, in what the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW describe as 'brazen cost shifting' by the State Government. Councils will be forced to pay the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) up to four times more than 2004 - without explanation for the astronomical cost increases.” The irony is that the Electoral Office has for years relied on Shellharbour Council staff and ex Council staff to conduct the election, performing roles from the Returning Officer down to stationery clerk and polling booth officer, for a portion of the cost of operating the NSWEC bureaucracy. The evidence indicates that Councils are being overcharged significantly more than the reasonable cost of running their elections, as if the election process is being used as a revenue generator, to fund other State Government expenditure.



Government cost shifting strategies are about shifting the responsibilities and costs of services onto Councils, without adequate, ongoing funding to provide for them. A great deal has been spoken and written about the abuse of this strategy and there is a large volume of this material on the Internet. The practice is so entrenched and so lucrative for the state, that there is little opportunity for Local Government to reverse cost shifting, but it may be possible to slow its expansion. GST and how it affects Council: The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a broad based tax of 10 per cent charged on the supply of most goods and services. The GST was introduced from 01 July 2000 when a number of changes were made to taxation legislation including the abolishment of wholesale sales tax and significant reductions in personal income tax rates. The key feature of GST is that the tax is borne by the end – consumer in a transaction chain. The supplier and anyone in the supply chain for the goods and services may pay the tax temporarily, but then they get the tax returned to them from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as the goods and services are passed along the supply chain. Organisations producing goods and services must add GST (10%) to the price they charge for any supplies of goods and services they make as part of their business operations. The GST portion they then collect from their customers / consumers must be remitted to the ATO. Organisations using goods or services purchased elsewhere for use in their production processes, will have been charged GST (by their suppliers) on any purchases made as part of their business. This GST can then be claimed back from the ATO, while a new calculation of GST is charged to the next person / organisation in the supply line. In this way, GST is charged and remitted and increased and charged again at each step in the supply chain, until it is paid by the final consumer, who of course cannot claim the GST back from the ATO. However, there is still a cost to suppliers associated with the GST, as suppliers are the people made liable for collecting and remitting the GST to the ATO. The accounting and book keeping costs associated with tracking the passage of GST liability can be substantial, as a proportion of total book keeping costs. GST has limited effect on Council or its operations, with the main impact being the accounting costs of tracking liability, payments and remittances and the maintenance of processes which allow council to complete its Business Activity Statements, the principal records associated with GST. Council is exempt from payment of GST on goods and services which are used by Council on the day to day activity of the Council. Any GST paid by Council is then claimed back from the ATO. GST is charged to customers, on goods or services, which are on sold to the public. Anything which Council sells to a customer, from garbage services to blocks of land, will have a GST component added to its price by Council. Council collects this GST from the customer and remits it to the ATO as required. When the GST was introduced on 01 July 2000, all Council’s fees and charges, which attracted GST, were increased by 10% to include the GST component. The additional 10% income Council receives on these increased fees and charges is remitted to the ATO. The tax cost to Council is nil. The overall effect of GST on Council is therefore the accounting related costs for tracking tax liability, collection and remittance.



Consultations Internal Manager Financial Services External Australian Taxation Office.

Considerations Financial/resources implications GST administration and accounting is a cost to Council. There is no actual tax cost to Council. Government cost shifting strategies are about shifting the responsibilities and costs of services onto Councils, without adequate funding to provide for them. Cost shifting has significant financial implications on Council. Legal & policy implications Nil Public/social impact Cost shifting results in less funding being available for other services Council provides for its community. GST charged by Council on its fees and charges is borne by the end consumer and collected by Council, for remittance to the ATO. Options 1. To adopt of the recommendation of this report. 2. Council adopt some other recommendation.

Conclusions GST administration and accounting is a cost to Council. There is no actual GST tax cost to Council. Government cost shifting strategies are about shifting the responsibilities and costs of services onto Councils, without adequate, ongoing funding to provide for them. A great deal has been spoken and written about the abuse of this strategy and there is a large volume of this material on the Internet. It appears that efforts by many people and organisations to date to convince higher levels of Government about the inequity of this practice have not been very successful. Council may wish to restate its objections to cost shifting, by proposing a motion at the National Assembly.



11.12 Consideration of Tenders for Appointment of Internal Auditors - Tender 2007/10 (8757530)

To the General Manager Division: Operations & Services Division Department: Corporate Services Manager: Tony Gearon – Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Tony Gearon – Group Manager Corporate Services

Summary The Department of Local Government in its Promoting Better Practice (PBP) review encouraged Council to consider the establishment of an internal audit function. Council called for tenders in April 2007, prior to the exhibition of Council’s draft Management Plan and 2007/08 Budget, for the provision of internal audit services. Two experienced audit firms responded with submissions. Since the calling of tenders, Council has considered and adopted its budget and management plan for the year to June 30th 2008 and internal audit services were not funded, due to competition from other priorities. It now remains for Council to consider the tenders received, decline to accept any tender and thank the tenderers for their submissions.

Recommendation 1. That Council consider the tenders received as tender 2007/10 for Internal Audit

services and decline to accept any tender, due to budgetary considerations. 2. That the two tenderers be advised of Council’s decision and thanked for their

participation in the Internal Audit tender process.

Background Council has been encouraged by the Department of Local Government to develop and maintain an internal audit function. Council called tenders via tender No. 2007/10 to obtain accurate estimates of the cost of an internal audit function, from auditors experienced in the management of local government accounting systems. Following the calling of tenders in local and Sydney media, Council’s budget process revealed the scale of the list of priorities competing for funding. The result of budget deliberations was that internal audit failed to win funding and remained as an “essential B “ class item in Council’s draft new items list for funding. This finally meant the item did not win funding. The internal audit function will be re listed for consideration in the 2008 / 2009 budget. Tenders were received from two large accounting firms: one based in Sydney and the other who would provide audit services from their Wollongong office. Both firms have experience in auditing



local government Councils and would be very capable in meeting all internal audit requirements of Shellharbour Council. The potential cost associated with the appointment of one of the above firms could vary greatly depending on the scope of the audit plan agreed upon. To give Council an indication of a cost at the lower end of a price range, an amount in the vicinity of $45,000 could be expected.

Consultations Internal General Manager Director Operations and Services Manager Financial Services External Nil

Considerations Financial/resources implications There is no provision for internal audit services within the budget for 2007/2008. This means Council can neither appoint a full time accounting professional to the role, nor can council accept one of the tenders. The project cannot proceed and there are no other financial implications. Legal & policy implications Council will reconsider the appointment of an internal auditor in conjunction with future budgets. Public/social impact The appointment of an experienced and qualified internal auditor complements the work of existing financial services staff and assists in the maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of council’s financial management processes and financial risk management. Options The only option is to adopt the recommendation.

Conclusions There is no provision for internal audit services within the budget for 2007/2008. Council will reconsider the appointment of an internal auditor in conjunction with future budgets.




11.13 Request by Bankstown Council for assistance with legal costs (8754669)


Summary Bankstown Council has been involved in a legal case which the Local Government Association believes, has relevance to many Councils. Perusal of the information attached to this report indicates that the matter is relevant to Shellharbour. It is a longstanding convention for Councils to assist other councils with contributions to legal costs, in cases where the court action or decision has relevance to our Council and where the Association recommends such assistance. In this way, Councils support each other and the awareness of legal precedents and legal liabilities is circulated for the benefit of all Councils.

Recommendation 1. That Shellharbour City Council contribute the amount of $11,728.75, to the Local

Government Association appeal towards the legal costs incurred by Bankstown City Council, in its pursuit of legal action related to interpretation of Section 733 of the Local Government Act, relating to Council’s exemption from liability in respect of flood liable land.

2. That $618 be funded from the existing budget allocation for contributions towards

legal expenses, with the remainder being funded from the existing allocation for general legal expenses.

Background The attached correspondence from the Local Government Association (Doc ref 8841070) describes the legal action taken by Bankstown City Council to achieve a High Court ruling which is of benefit to all Councils which have any exposure to flood liable land and which may have cause to consider the implications of S733 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). Group Manager, Development and Technical Services Comment The ruling of the High Court confirms the protection that Council has under S733 of the Local Government Act 1993. This provides Council technical staff who deal with flood/coastal zone and drainage related issues, and Elected Members, with better direction when involved in associated decision making.



Consultations Internal Manager Financial Services Corporate Solicitor Group Manager Development and Technical Services External Nil

Considerations Financial/resources implications This allocation would be in excess of Council’s budget for contributions to the Local Government Association for legal expenses. It is recommended that the balance be funded from the general legal expenses allocation. Legal & policy implications Council has an obligation as a member of the Local Government Association, to consider and support Association recommendations to share in the cost of legal action, which has implications for Council’s operations. Public/social impact Nil Options Council could reject this request for funding assistance, with or without providing reasons.

Conclusions The subject legal action is relevant to Shellharbour City Council, because of the existence of flood prone land within this city. The legal action the cause of these costs was won by Bankstown on behalf of all councils with exposure to S 733 of the Act.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Local Government Association request for assistance with Bankstown City Council legal costs. (Doc 8841070)



Local Government Association request for assistance with Bankstown City Council legal costs. (Doc 8841070)



11.14 Motions to the Local Government Association Annual Conference Coffs Harbour 20-24 October 2007 (8756637)


Summary The purpose of this report is to consider a proposed motion to the Local Government Association Annual Conference regarding possible methods of providing additional rate relief to pensioners at no cost to Council, as requested by Council at its meeting on 3 July 2007. This report is also for Council to determine if any other “Motions” are to be submitted from Shellharbour City Council to the Conference which is being held in Coffs Harbour from 20-24 October 2007. All motions for consideration at the conference need to be received by the LGA by the deadline of 5.00pm Friday 10 August 2007.

Recommendation 1. That Council submit the following motion to the Local Government Association

Annual Conference: “That the Associations seek the commitment of both State and Federal Governments, to provide for an increase in the pensioners’ rate rebate under S575 of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, by increasing the proportions of the rebate paid by State and Federal governments to Local government, in such a way that the benefit to eligible pensioners is increased, but that the maximum Council contribution remains at the current level of $112.50 (45% of $250). That the maximum rebate allowed as indicated by S575(3)(a) of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, be increased annually by indexation in line with the Sydney all groups CPI, so that the proportions of the rebate paid by State and Federal governments to Local government are increased, in such a way that the benefit to eligible pensioners is increased, but that the maximum Council contribution remains at the current level of $112.50 (45% of $250).”

2. That Council consider further motions, if any, it wishes to submit to the 2007 Local

Government Association Annual Conference. 3. That the General Manager frame suitable motions, if any, and supporting statements

for consideration at the forthcoming Local Government Conference and report these to the next meeting of Council for information.



Background At the meeting of July 3rd 2007, Council unanimously adopted the following motion: Resolution No 313: "That Council Officers investigate the situation of pensioner rebates and on possible methods of providing additional rate relief to pensioners, at no cost to Council." The investigation has been completed and the only way that pensioner rebates can be increased “at no cost to Council” is for State and Federal Governments to increase the rebate and change the formula in the Local Government Act, so that Council’s share of the rebate does not increase. To achieve this objective would require widespread support from political representatives and Councils. The starting point may be to approach the Local Government Association as well as local members of Parliament. The recommendation represents the suggested approach to the Association, within the parameters of Council’s resolution No 313. Pensioners in many council areas are being impacted by rising land values, which affect Council rates. Many pensioners with fixed or minimal incomes are facing rapidly increasing rates accounts each year. Pensioners who are eligible for rebates under the current arrangement, receive a rebate which is partly funded by both Federal and State governments, with the remainder of the subsidy being paid by Council ratepayers. A small number of Councils including Shellharbour, still provide an additional, voluntary rebate to assist their eligible pensioners. The purpose of this motion is to comply with Council’s resolution No 313 of 2007 by calling upon both Federal and State governments to increase their commitments to the pensioner rebate currently paid under S575 of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, in a way which allows the rebate to pensioners to be increased, without additional cost to the Council and other ratepayers. The current arrangement is for a maximum rebate of $250, with Council paying 45%, the Federal Government paying 5% and State government, 50%. The proposal is for the maximum Council contribution to the mandatory rates rebate under S575 of the Act to be fixed at the current level of $112.50 (45% of $250 ), the maximum Federal contribution to be increased and the maximum State contribution to be increased, to achieve an overall increase in the pensioners’ rebate. Further, that the maximum rebate allowed under the legislation also be increased in line with the Consumer Price Index. This could be done by changes to the following: 1. Amend S575(3)(a) of the Act, to allow a greater maximum $ amount to be determined by

the Associations and indexed annually. 2. Amend relevant legislation so that State and Federal contributions are in line with the

proportions described above, providing an increase in the eligible pensioner rebate without increased cost to Councils.

All motions for consideration at the Local Government Annual Conference need to be received by the LGA by the deadline of 5.00pm Friday 10 August 2007. Therefore if Council decides to propose any further motions, the General Manager will require authority to frame those motions and send them to the Local Government Association prior to the deadline. The motions will then be reported to Council for information only as the deadline is prior to the next Council Meeting.



Consultations Internal Manager Financial Services Senior Rating Services Coordinator Manager Executive Offices External Nil

Considerations Financial/resources implications With regard to the proposed motion on rate relief for pensioners, the proposition is conditioned by Council resolution, that there is no cost to council. Legal & policy implications With regard to the proposed motion on rate relief for pensioners, the proposition requires amendment to the NSW Local Government Act and other legislation. Public/social impact With regard to the proposed motion on rate relief for pensioners, the proposition would result in increased rates subsidies to eligible pensioners. Options 1. The recommendation 2. Adopt an alternative motion to be determined. 3. Receive and note this report.

Conclusions Council has expressed its concern at the impact of rising land values on rates paid by all pensioners. Shellharbour Council responds to this concern by providing eligible pensioners in this city with an additional rebate of $90 per year, paid for by Council. Most Councils in NSW do not provide this rebate. Council has expressed the view that both Federal and State governments could increase both the maximum rebate and the proportion of their contributions to the pensioners’ rates rebate. An increase in the proportional contribution by both State and Federal governments would stabilise the burden on Councils while still providing additional rate relief to eligible pensioners.




12. Community Planning & Strategies Division

12.1 IMB Foundation grant (8755569)

To the General Manager Division: Community Planning & Strategies Division Department: Community Services and Development Manager: Linda Campbell – Group Manager Community Services & Development Author: Linda Campbell – Group Manager Community Services & Development

Summary Council’s Youth Services Team has been granted funds from the IMB Community Foundation to purchase a performance marquee.

Recommendation That Council accept the grant of $20,000 from the IMB Community Foundation and the budget be adjusted to reflect this grant.

Background The IMB Community Foundation was established in late 1999 as a way for IMB to show tangible support for the communities in which its members live. The Foundation supports projects that reflect its objectives, which include enhancing the economic self-sufficiency of communities, as well as generating economic, social, cultural, environmental, tourism and educational benefits for those communities. The amount of funding allocated to the Foundation for 2007 was $450,000. Community groups, chambers of commerce, local councils, educational institutions and service clubs were encouraged to approach the Foundation with requests for funding for a community project in 2007. Council’s Youth Services Team successfully submitted an application to purchase a performance marquee to support the strong performance project operated by the Youth Services Team and has received $20,000.

Consultations Internal Youth Services Team General Manager's Division



External IMB Community Foundation

Considerations Financial/resources implications The $20,000 grant will be used to purchase a marquee. Legal & policy implications The IMB Foundation grant has some reporting, acquittal and acknowledgment responsibilities which are in line with most grant supported activities undertaken by the Community Services Team. Public/social impact The performance project has had some significant positive results for the young people involved. The Gullibles Performance Group has toured in 2005, 2006 and 2007 performing in housing estates, community centres, schools seniors centres and parks. Other strands of the Youth Services Team performance strategy include circus skills, bands and dance activities all of which will be enhanced by the marquee purchase. The performance strategy is not as much about performance as it is about growth, empowerment and participatory process- the performance is the tool to obtainment. On being told of the grant one young participant was overjoyed that, “someone as big and important as the IMB thinks what we are doing is important”. In terms of social impact I feel that comment says it all. Options 1.Council accepts the grant and adjusts the budget. 2. Council declines the grant.

Conclusions The purchase of a performance marquee will enhance the empowering work being done by Council’s Youth Services Team. Special acknowledgment must be given to Nick Higgins Council’s long serving Youth Services Manager who compiled the submission and presented the project to the IMB Foundation. Nick will be presenting a IMB Community Foundation Project plaque to the Mayor at this meeting.




12.2 Affix Seal to DoCs Service Specifications (8756077)

To the General Manager Division: Community Planning & Strategies Division Department: Community Services and Development Manager: Linda Campbell – Group Manager Community Services Author: Linda Campbell – Group Manager Community Services

Summary This report seeks Council approval to affix the Seal of Council on The Service Specifications for NSW Department of Community Services Salary Subsidies under the Community Services Grant Program.

Recommendation That Council resolve to affix the Seal of Council to the Service Specifications for NSW Department of Community Services Salary Subsidies under the Community Services Grant Program.

Background As previously reported to Council, the Department of Local Government issued a Circular on 10 December 1996 advising that a Council Seal can be affixed to a document only after the Council has resolved that the Seal be affixed. The resolution must specifically refer to the document and the document must relate to the Council business. The power to authorise the affixing of the Seal can only be exercised by the Council. It cannot be delegated to a committee or employee (Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, as amended). In June the funding agreements were reported to Council for all DoCs funding (Item 12.1 on 12th June 2007), however, DoCs have now requested the Seal also be applied to the service specifications for the three salary subsidies, (Community Worker and Youth Worker 1 and 2) received under the Community Services Grant Program. The service specifications are copied from Council’s Management Plan in relation to activities undertaken as part of our Social Planning and Youth Work activities as previously reported to Council.

Consultations Internal Nil External NSW DoCs



Considerations Financial/resources implications Nil Legal & policy implications This is a requirement of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. Public/social impact Nil Options There is no option as it is a requirement of the Local Government act 1993, as amended, and its Regulations for there to be a Resolution of Council in order to affix the Seal on documents.

Conclusions In order to complete the Service Specifications it is a requirement that the Seal of Council be affixed to this document. This is an administrative requirement of DoCs which hopefully can be eliminated or at least combined with DoCs other requirements during the current review being undertaken of the Community Services Grants Program

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Letter from NSW Department of Community Services - 2007/08 CSGP Service

Specifications Local Government Salary Subsidy – Community Worker, Youth Worker 1, Youth Worker 2



13. Shell Cove Business Division

13.1 Shell Cove Report (8756864)

To the General Manager Division: Shell Cove Business Division Department: Shell Cove Business Unit Manager: Phil Woodcock – Director Shell Cove Business Division Author: Kevin James – Shell Cove Commercial Manager

Summary Council, at its meeting on 3 July 2007, resolved to defer this report until after a full briefing of Councillors by Council Officers, including the General Manager. The briefing was held on 10 July 2007 and the report is reproduced below for Council’s consideration.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * As Shell Cove moves into its most important phase, namely the construction of the Boatharbour, it is critical that Council has certainty about the Development Program ahead. This report outlines Australand’s recent Feasibility Study of the Project and requests Council’s adoption. The progress of Shell Cove has been (and will be) based on the cashflow from the sale of residential lots; therefore, any downturn in the residential market in NSW is of concern. Both Australand and Council are committed to a timely completion of the Boatharbour and, following extensive discussions between the parties, a strategy has been developed whereby any potential initial shortfall in income from residential sales can be met from the strategic sale of the limited ‘super-lots’ in and around the Boatharbour Precinct. Australand have indicated that they are willing to purchase the retail precinct at full market value. Most importantly, this approach would provide the key benefit of having the core of the retail centre completed at the same time as the completion of the Boatharbour. This allows the local community and the potential residential purchasers to benefit from and experience a vibrant retail area, rather than completing the Boatharbour and then starting development of the surrounding vacant land. Importantly, this will advance Council’s primary objective of creating much needed Employment and increased levels of Tourism. There are a number of minor changes to the Management Agreement that would be required as a result of Council adopting the strategies and recommendations of this report. Kells the Lawyer, Council’s solicitor, will prepare the amending deed for signing by Council and Australand.



To begin some 12 months ago, Australand submitted the new Feasibility Study to Council for adoption in accordance with the Management Agreement. The main features are:

Development Program Activity Start Finish

Boatharbour – harbour construction – Dec 2011 Boatharbour – Marina (staged) Jul 2011 Nov 2015 Commercial/retail – Boatharbour precinct Nov 2009 May 2014 Residential – Dec 2018 Golf course Completed Myimbarr (Shadforth) Wetlands Completed Land acquisitions Completed

Feasibility Cashflow Area Amount (millions)

Gross income $651 Gross costs - $533 Net profit (to be shared 50/50) $118

Current & Past Feasibilities - Profit Item 1993 1998 2006

Net Profit $65m $76m $118m The reviews by Council staff and KPMG confirm that the Feasibility Study conforms to the requirements of the Management Agreement and is an appropriate statement for the future development of the Shell Cove Project.

Recommendation 1. That Council resolves to adopt the 2006 Feasibility Study for the Shell Cove Project,

as amended by the 2007 modifications, submitted by Australand Corporation (NSW) Pty Ltd.

2. That Council resolves to endorse the sale of lots within the Boatharbour Precinct in

the manner outlined in this report and in conformity with the Management Agreement.

3. That Council resolves to amend the Management Agreement to reflect the changes

outlined in this report. 4. That Council resolves to affix the Seal of Council on the amending deed to the

Management Agreement and associated documents.



Background 2006 Feasibility Study A prudent requirement under the Management Agreement between Council and Australand is the preparation by Australand of a Feasibility Study for the remaining development in the Shell Cove Project. The requirement specifies that a new Study be prepared at nominated dates during the Project and submitted to Council for adoption. Each Feasibility Study comprises:

• Development Program • Feasibility Cashflow

and each section and element is substantiated by supporting evidence. As reported previously, Australand prepared the most recent Study in 2006 (using 31 December 2005 as the base date) and submitted it to the General Manager for review. Besides the review by staff, the Feasibility Study was independently reviewed by KPMG as is permitted under the Management Agreement. KPMG commented on the Study with:

….. we provide the following summary:

a. A sample of major costs was supported by information provided by independent third parties.

In certain instances the Australand project managers adopted a more conservative view in incorporating estimated costs into the feasibility. There were no instances identified from the sample selected where a less conservative view was adopted. In addition, the professional judgement of the Australand project managers was required in identifying costs that may have already been incurred when reviewing an independent consultants’ report on estimated future costs.

b. Assumptions used in the feasibility were agreed to information provided by third parties where appropriate…..

It was noted that in certain instances the Australand project managers adopted a more conservative view of the estimated selling prices for certain lots. There were no instances identified from the sample selected where higher selling prices than those provided by the selling agent were incorporated into the feasibility.

c. Historical figures included in the feasibility were agreed to previously reported information.

d. The arithmetical accuracy of the feasibility document was also confirmed. There

were only minor rounding errors noted.



With the benefit of further research, information and actions over the last 12 months, and following recent discussions, Australand completed an updated modification of the Study to a base date of 30 June 2007. The principal items of change were:

• actual sales, income and development costs in 2006 and 2007; • the detailed design phase for the Boatharbour is nearing completion; • consequentially, the construction parameters and staging of the Boatharbour and the

surrounding land platform became delineated and firmer; • changes to timing of some of the development stages to reflect current forecasts; • annual escalation of the Major Works and Infrastructure costs; • residential subdivision costs updated against recent construction contracts; and • increased infrastructure charges levied by Sydney Water and others.

Future lot sale prices were not changed to reflect the current market, as they were considered reasonable and conservative. The 2007 modifications are considered to be beneficial, minor and within the ambit of the original 2006 Feasibility Study. In summary, the main items of the final Feasibility Study are:

Development Program Activity Start Finish

Boatharbour – harbour construction – Dec 2011 Boatharbour – phases Waste relocation – Oct 2007 Armour rock supply – Jun 2010 Breakwater Apr 2008 Jun 2010 Dry earthworks - west Apr 2008 Jun 2010 Dry earthworks - east Aug 2009 Dec 2011 Wet dredging Jun 2008 Dec 2011 Boatharbour – Marina (staged) Jul 2011 Nov 2015 Golf course Completed Myimbarr (Shadforth) Wetlands Completed Land acquisitions Completed Major works – sewer, Harbour Boulevarde, water quality – Feb 2017

Commercial/retail – Boatharbour precinct Nov 2009 May 2014

Residential – – Dec 2018 Stages 1 to 5, 7A & 7B, 8A, 10A Completed Stage 6 – Jun 2010 Stage 7C Jul 2007 Jun 2008 Stage 8B Jul 2009 Sep 2011 Stage 9 Jul 2009 Sep 2011 Stage 10B Jan 2012 Oct 2012 Boatharbour precinct Nov 2009 Dec 2018

Project duration – construction – Dec 2018 Project duration – sales & income – Jun 2019 Break-even point (date when profitable) Dec 2014



Feasibility Cashflow Area Amount (millions)

Gross income $651 Development costs - $436 Management fees (including sales commission) - $ 43 GST - $ 48 Interest - $ 6 Gross costs - $533 Net profit (to be shared 50/50) $118 Development costs – Residential subdivision costs $225 Boatharbour costs (including ancillary actions) $113 Golf course costs $ 10 Other infrastructure costs $ 22 Major works costs $ 32 Other costs (including land acquisition) $ 34

Current & Past Feasibilities - Profit Item 1993 1998 2006

Net Profit $65m $76m $118m Council should note:

• The Feasibility Study and Australand’s proposal are commercial-in-confidence documents and the above summary contains the important features and the answers to the most asked questions.

• The Feasibility Study is not a statement of a fixed contractual timetable and financial return. It is a scenario based upon proper assumptions, researched base cost and income data and best construction practice. It cannot guarantee the future, but it does provide a well-engineered business plan with conservative projections.

• The reviews by Council staff and KPMG confirm that the Feasibility Study conforms to the requirements of the Management Agreement and is an appropriate statement for the future development of the Shell Cove Project.

Council is asked to adopt the 2006 Feasibility Study, as updated by the 2007 amendments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *



Strategies to Sustain the Shell Cove Boatharbour Development Program The development program for the construction of the Boatharbour is dependent upon the financial scenarios presented in the Feasibility Study. Primarily of note, the income is derived substantially from the sale of residential lots. This is the precautionary note contained in our quarterly reports to Council. Council is committed to starting and finishing the Boatharbour contract in accordance with the Development Program. The first phase of the total Boatharbour works (the relocation of the old waste tip) is well underway. The calling of tenders for the all-important second phase of construction is about to happen. Australand is committed to starting and finishing the Boatharbour contract in accordance with the Development Program, but holds reservations created by:

• the major financial commitment by them to a contractor under an expected $80million contract;

• the current state-wide downturn in the residential housing market that is not expected to substantially improve in the short term; AND

• the constraints of funding given that there is the requirement under the Management Agreement not to mortgage Council’s land.

With common goals and noting these commercial implications, the General Manager and Mr Peter Burke (Australand’s Executive General Manager) had ongoing discussions about the Shell Cove Feasibility and Boatharbour Development Program. A satisfactory solution/strategy was achieved and this is succinctly contained in Mr Burke’s letter to Council:

Australand Executives in consultation with the Shell Cove Management Committee have put together a proposal that we believe will maintain the Boatharbour Development Program. In the proposal any shortfall in cash flow from residential land sales would be augmented by “super lot” land sales within the Boatharbour precinct. In putting forward this strategy we have had regard to the Management Committee’s goal of having the core of the retail centre completed at the same time as the completion of the Boatharbour. This goal would allow the community and potential purchasers to experience a vibrant retail area, as against just a large water body surrounded by vacant land…… In order to provide sufficient funds to augment the Boatharbour Development Program, Australand are offering to acquire the town centre site in stages, which will enable additional Development Funds to be provided if a shortfall in residential cash flow occurs. The acquisition price would be determined by valuation in accordance with the framework established in the Shell Cove Management Agreement. Australand would then develop this centre in accordance with the detailed design guidelines developed by architectural consultants in consultation with the NSW Department of Planning and the Shell Cove Management Committee.

For Council’s information, the Shell Cove Town Centre is approximately 8,000 square metres of retail/commercial floor space plus apartments, but excludes the Hotel site.



The letter concludes:

Australand have put this proposal forward as a way in which the Boatharbour Development Program can move forward as envisaged, and where both Council and Australand control the final outcome as has always been the intention. Should Council not accept Australand’s proposal it would be necessary to place the town centre site on the open market, however, it is estimated that it would take over 12 months to develop guidelines and finalise a sale. This delay will impact on the Boatharbour Development Program.

Council staff have worked with Australand to define strategies for the other main sites within Shell Cove. These will be developed within the existing framework of the Management Agreement:

• Hotel - critical importance to the vision of the Boatharbour Precinct, - sell by tender (or similar), following finalisation of the town centre plans and

guidelines.

• Retirement Village - identified for a 3-tier village, - sell by tender, following confirmation of servicing.

• Residential within Boatharbour Precinct - project develops and sells high value residential lots for individual housing

(by auction or similar process), - project develops and sells selected integrated housing and apartment sites, - for the balance, sell to Council or Australand or developers

(in accordance with the Management Agreement).

• Business Park within quarry buffer zone - identified for high tech, employment generating uses, - sell by tender (or similar), following confirmation of servicing.

Council should note:

• The Management Agreement defines Harbour Land as the land within Harbour Boulevarde. This area has expanded and changed because of the westward rotation of the Boatharbour and the westward relocation of Harbour Boulevarde. In other words, the current Boatharbour Precinct is much larger than the original concept plan.

• Under the Agreement, Council has first option rights to purchase lots in the old Harbour Land.

• The Agreement originally contemplated the full subdivision process of registered and serviced lots before the rights to the options were activated and any development decisions by Council could be made.

• Importantly, Council needs to fund the purchase of any selected lot. • Development decisions need to be made now by Council and Australand. • Development income is needed as soon as possible and Council has not resolved as yet

to commit to funds. • Independent consultant advice states that commercial sites, like the Town Centre, are for

specialist developers (not Council) due to the need to have (or have access) to the requisite expertise and the high levels of available development funds.



• Council retains a range of investment opportunities within the Boatharbour Precinct since

Council retains its first option rights over most lots. • Australand would enter into a contract for the Town Centre where it makes part payments

of the price into the Trust Fund (or other) on call for Boatharbour construction costs. • Australand’s proposal has the core of the retail centre completed at the same time as the

completion of the Boatharbour. • Australand’s proposal will maintain the Boatharbour Development Program – with the all-

important completion date for the Boatharbour of late 2011. Council is asked to:

• Endorse the changed approach of developing the Boatharbour Precinct (including the Harbour Land) concurrent with the construction of the Boatharbour.

• Endorse the sale of lots within the Boatharbour Precinct in the manner stated above and in conformity with the Management Agreement.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Management Agreement – resultant changes There are a number of minor changes to this document as a result of Council adopting the strategies and recommendations of this report. These include:

• re-define the Shell Cove Boatharbour Precinct land (Harbour Land) and amend its development in line with the above strategies;

• adjust the end date of the Term to 31 December 2020; and • add extra dates for updated Feasibility Studies.

Kells the Lawyers, Council’s solicitor, will prepare the amending deed for signing by Council and Australand. Kells will, besides the above changes, include any recommended changes that result from needed updates to the Management Agreement (for example, legislation changes since the last amendments, etc). Council is asked to approve the changes to the Management Agreement and to affix the Seal of Council to the associated documents. * * * * * * * * * * * * * General Manager’s Comments The last 2 years has represented a critical period for the Project as we prepared for the calling of tenders for the harbour construction – the major feature of the Project. We have reviewed the new Feasibility Study – internally and externally. We have reviewed and modified the harbour positioning and design as well as the harbour precinct size and masterplan. We have reassessed the costs of the harbour construction and considered the merits of staging.



I have sought independent appraisal of Council’s operational role in the Project. All this was done in a climate of very low residential sales revenue. A practical financial solution had to be found to keep to Council’s construction program and to find an alternate source/avenue of funding whilst protecting Council’s long-term profit projections. Therefore, the Shell Cove officers have embarked upon strategy sessions internally and externally with Australand and key advisers to come up with the best possible outcome to preserve Council’s objectives and timetable. I am pleased that our negotiations with Australand have been satisfactorily concluded to achieve a win/win outcome and I strongly urge Council to endorse our actions and negotiations over the past 12 months by adopting the recommendations presented. * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Consultations Internal

• General Manager • Director Shell Cove Business Division • Shell Cove Project Engineer • Group Manager Corporate Planning • Manager, Media & Communications External

• Australand Holdings Ltd • Kells the Lawyers • KPMG • Other advisors

Considerations Financial/resources implications Council’s adoption of the Feasibility Study will confirm the future direction for the development of Shell Cove. This will continue the status quo for financial and resource implications on Council but, importantly, demonstrates a sound potential profit and an early commencement of the construction of the Boatharbour. If not adopted, it would lead to delays in the development. Also, Council’s endorsement to the changed approach of developing the Boatharbour Precinct and of the methods of sale of lots within the Boatharbour Precinct will secure the future financial direction for the development of Shell Cove. Importantly, these are the strategies to sustain the Shell Cove Boatharbour Development Program. If not endorsed, it would lead to delays in the development. Otherwise, it is considered that there are no additional implications as a consequence of this report.



Legal & policy implications It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1993, as amended, and its Regulations for there to be a Resolution of Council in order to affix the Seal on documents. The recommendations do not conflict with Council’s Policy with regard to this matter of having granted delegated authority to the General Manager to proceed with the Shell Cove Project, subject to all necessary approvals being obtained. Otherwise, it is considered that there are no additional implications as a consequence of this report. Public/social impact Shell Cove is a major development by Council. Besides the potential profits, the project delivers needed infrastructure and facilities to local residents and the region. The new community will function as part of the Shellharbour City Local Government Area and will deliver immense tourism and employment benefits. These are strong, positive public and social impacts. Council’s adoption of the Feasibility Study, as well as its endorsement of the changed approach of developing the Boatharbour Precinct and of the methods of sale of lots within the Boatharbour Precinct, will advance these positive impacts. The vast majority of the current residents of the LGA have patiently waited for the day when the Boatharbour is opened and would be extremely disappointed if it was delayed. Otherwise, it is considered that there are no additional impacts as a consequence of this report. Options

• Adopt, or not, the Feasibility Study. • (if adopted) Endorse, or not, the changed approach of developing the Boatharbour

Precinct and its methods of sale of lots. There are no options for there to be a resolution of Council in order to affix the Seal on documents as it is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1993, as amended, and its Regulations.

Conclusions Council staff met with Australand to develop strategies to sustain the timetable in the Shell Cove Boatharbour Development Program, despite the downturn in the property market. These negotiations evolved to the following recommended outcomes:

• Amend the Management Agreement to allow sale and development of lots earlier than the full subdivision process – the pre-sale method.

• Sell the town centre/retail site to Australand in accordance with the Management Agreement that will enable Development Funds to be provided earlier if a shortfall in residential cashflow occurs.

• Australand to develop the core of this retail centre in conjunction with the construction of the Boatharbour.



Council is asked to:

• adopt the Feasibility Study, • endorse to the changed approach of developing the Boatharbour Precinct and its

methods of sale of lots, and • agree to use the Seal of Council for the changes to the Management Agreement.

Approved for Council's consideration: Attachments 1. Plan showing Shell Cove Residential Stages. 2. Plan showing Shell Cove Superlot/Main sites.



1. Plan showing Shell Cove Residential Stages



2. Plan of Shell Cove Superlot / Main Sites



14. Committee Recommendations

14.1 Recommendations from the Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting held 27 June 2007 recommended for adoption.

14.2 Recommendations from the Traffic Committee Meeting held 4 July 2007 recommended for adoption.

15. Notices of Rescission Motion

Nil



16. Notices of Motion

16.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Hawker (8735816)



16.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Greig (8760076)



17. Items for Information

17.1 Killalea State Park Trust Council Information Reports for June and July 2007 (5759964)

The Killalea State Park Trust has forwarded to Council their meeting reports for June and July 2007 as attached below. As each monthly report is received, I will report it to Council for information. Responsible Manager: Brian Weir, General Manager



Attachment 1 - Killalea State Park Trust Council Information Report 001 - 14th June 2007



Attachment 2 - Killalea State Park Trust Council Information Report 002 - 11th July 2007



17.2 NSW Electoral Commission Estimates of Cost of Election 2008 (8753540)

The NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) is responsible for the conduct of Local Government elections. The Commission organises and conducts the election on behalf of the Council, then bills the Council for all of its costs, including its overheads. Different Councils have different levels of involvement in the election process, usually depending on the resources of the Council and the experience of local personnel. This involvement is at the Council’s additional cost, but it may well ensure a more efficient election process. The NSWEC has written to Council advising its estimate of conducting the 2008 election, as $307,000. There will undoubtedly be significant additional, direct and indirect costs to Council, associated with the Ordinary and Mayoral election. In September 2008, Council may also be conducting a referendum on the proposed composition of the Council from 2012. Any such referendum is likely to be conducted by the Commission at extra cost, but in conjunction with the election to take advantage of the organisation and staffing of polling places, and the counting process. The all up cost to Council is impossible to estimate accurately because we do not know the fees for a Mayoral election or a referendum and we do not know the degree to which the NSWEC will rely on Council staff who will be costed to the project. The estimate for discussion purposes could approach $450,000. The attached letter from the SEC conveys the Commission’s estimates of the base cost of the election process, at this stage not including a Mayoral election or referendum, and with expectation of some costs being “absorbed” by Council. . Responsible Manager: Group Manager Corporate Services - Tony Gearon Attachment Letter dated 18/6/07 from Electoral Commission of NSW re Indicative Costing for Local Government 2008 General Elections.



Attachment Letter dated 18/6/07 from Electoral Commission of NSW re Indicative Costing for Local Government 2008 General Elections.



17.3 Investments (8759646)



18. Questions without Notice

19. Confirmation of Minutes of Committee of the Whole Council Meetings (in Confidential Session).

20. Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole Council Meeting (in Confidential Session)

21. Late Items of Business / Urgent Business (as introduced by the Chairperson)


minute manager 2 - shellharbour city council shellharbour city council ordinary council meeting -...

Documents