Business Paper
Ordinary Meeting
Venue: Administrative Headquarters Civic Place Katoomba
Meeting: 7.30pm 23 August, 2016
- 2 -
ORDINARY MEETING
23 AUGUST 2016
AGENDA
ITEM PAGE SUBJECT COMMENTS NO.
PRAYER/REFLECTION (and Recognition of the Traditional Owners, the Darug and Gundungurra People)
APOLOGIES
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Ordinary Meeting held on 26 July 2016
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
MINUTE BY MAYOR
1 11 Council to explore participating in the White Ribbon Workplace Program
PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT
2 15 State of City End of Council Term Report 2012-2016 Enclosures x 2
3 20 Performance of Invested Monies for July 2016
4 27 Tourism Visitation Management
- 3 -
ITEM PAGE SUBJECT COMMENTS NO.
5 32 Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2016 Attachments x 5
6 41 Ratepayer Access to Information on How Rates are Spent
7 43 Community Assistance Donations/Recommendation by Councillor
LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE
8 45 Progress on Establishment of New Neighbourhood Safer Places in the Blue Mountains
9 53 Rotary Proposal for Rocket
10 57 Banning Degrading Wicked Campervan Slogans
USING LAND
11 60 Development Application No. X/1184/2015 for a two storey dwelling and driveway on Lot 8 DP 1052149, Lot 18 DP 1165971, 1/2 Spellacy Place, Leura Attachments x 2
12 86 Development Application No. X/98/2016 for tourist accommodation including conversion of storeroom to accessible bathroom and parking spaces on Lot 1 DP 1009510, Lot 1 SEC. 9 DP 5140, Lot 2 DP 1009510, 36 Mount Street, Leura, 61 - 63 Kings Road, Leura Attachments x 2
13 114 Variations to Development Standards Attachment x 1
MOVING AROUND
14 118 Naming of Great Western Highway Pedestrian Over Bridge - Bullaburra
- 4 -
ITEM PAGE SUBJECT COMMENTS NO. 15 121 Road Safety Audit - Great Western Highway - Linden to Faulconbridge Enclosure x 1
NOTICES OF MOTION
16 127 Subsidy for small landfill bins
17 128 Parking at Blaxland Station
PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE
18 131 Precis of Selected Correspondence Attachments x 8
- 5 -
- 6 -
THE COUNCIL MEETING
Blue Mountains City Council meetings are conducted in accordance with Council’s adopted Code of Meeting Practice. This Code is available via the Council website, from Council offices and in Council meetings. http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/yourcouncil/councilmeetings
Councillor Seating Map While the Councillor and Senior Staff seating map indicates the seating arrangement in most Council meetings, occasionally the seating may change based on the change to the venue or content experts.
Business Papers and Minutes Before each Council meeting, a Business Paper is prepared detailing the items that are to be presented to the Council meeting. Readers should be aware that the Recommendations and Notices of Motion as set out in the Council Business Paper are simply proposals to the Council for its consideration.
The Council may adopt these proposals, amend the proposals, determine a completely different course of action, or it may decline to pursue any course of action. The decision of the Council becomes a resolution of the Council and is recorded in the Council Minutes. Readers are referred to this separate document.
The Council Business Paper and the Council Minutes are linked by the common Item Numbers and Titles. Minutes from the meeting are confirmed at the following meeting, until then they are presented as draft unconfirmed minutes.
To Register to Speak at a Council Meeting Members of the public are welcome to address the Council on any items of business in the Business Paper other than: • Unconfirmed Minutes; • Minutes by the Mayor; • Rescission Motions; • Councillor Reports; • Questions with Notice; • Responses to Questions without Notice; • Responses to Questions with Notice; • Notices of Motion (including Rescission Motions) • the Précis of Correspondence; and • Matters of Urgency.
To address the meeting a speaker’s registration form must be completed at the speaker’s registration desk on the night of the Council meeting. To pre-register, the speaker’s registration form must be emailed no later than 4pm on the day of the meeting to [email protected].
- 7 -
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS – MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION When determining a development application the Council is required to take certain matters into consideration. These must be relevant to the development application under consideration. These considerations are detailed under s. 79C (1) (Matters for consideration – general) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and are reproduced below: 79C Evaluation (1) Matters for consideration—general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application: (a) the provisions of: (i) any environmental planning instrument, and (ii)any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Secretary has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and (iii) any development control plan, and (iii) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and (iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and (v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates, (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, (c) the suitability of the site for the development, (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, (e) the public interest.
- 8 -
MINUTE BY MAYOR
MINUTE BY MAYOR Item 1, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 1
SUBJECT: COUNCIL TO EXPLORE PARTICIPATING IN THE WHITE RIBBON WORKPLACE PROGRAM
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/160415
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: People and Safety
Recommendation:
That the Council receives a report on the efficacy of the Council seeking accreditation or participation in the White Ribbon Workplace Program.
Mayoral Minute
Reason for report This Mayoral Minute calls for a report to the Council on the efficacy of the Council seeking accreditation or participation in the White Ribbon Workplace Program. The report will consider what mechanisms currently exist within the Council, and how the organisation may expand on these mechanisms through an accreditation process, to support and assist the women and men within the Council workforce who are subject to domestic violence.
Background As a White Ribbon Ambassador, I am a formal representative of White Ribbon Australia and consider it of enormous importance to advocate and represent the welfare of people who are affected by domestic violence, particularly those within our own community.
Domestic violence cuts across social, ethnic and economic boundaries. While not exclusively, domestic violence is a gendered crime, with the majority of violence perpetrated on women by men. It is connected to death, physical and mental ill health, disability, child abuse and homelessness.
The Council has an opportunity, and a responsibility, to lead by example in a prevention approach, to encourage staff to participate in social change, to support and empower those affected, and to advocate in the interests of our community. All this may be achieved through participation in the White Ribbon Workplace Program. Through this program, a workplace is subject to an accreditation program that recognises workplaces that are taking active steps to prevent and respond to violence against women, thus accrediting them as a White Ribbon Workplace.
In September 2015, the Council received a report on the programs the Council has in place to support staff affected by domestic violence. This Mayoral Minute acknowledges the existing programs at Council and calls for a report that considers the further development of this view to drive social change, define the support offered to employees who are victims of violence, and to support and assist the women and men within the Council workforce who are subject to domestic violence through accreditation or partnership with the White Ribbon Workplace Program.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 11 -
OFFICERS REPORTS
PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 2, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 2
SUBJECT: STATE OF CITY END OF COUNCIL TERM REPORT 2012-2016
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/157090
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Corporate Planning and Reporting
Recommendations:
1. That the Council endorses the State of City End of Council Term Report 2012–2016, noting that the Report is required to be submitted with the 2015-2016 Annual Report to the Office of Local Government by 30 November 2016; and
2. That, on the recommendation of the Office of Local Government, the Council will publish the report, including media notification, following the September local government elections.
Report by Group Manager, Integrated Planning & Finance:
Reason for Report The State of City and End of Term Council Report 2012-2016 are legislatively required reports (Local Government Act, 1993 S428, S428A) under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.
The State of City Report provides an assessment of achievement against the environmental, social, economic and civic leadership objectives and progress measures of the Blue Mountains Community Strategic Plan – Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025.
The Act requires the End of Term Report to be presented to the last meeting of the outgoing Council. Its purpose is to inform the community on the Council’s achievements and effectiveness over the past four years in meeting the Objectives of its Community Strategic Plan - Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025. The report is also used to inform the incoming Council who has the responsibility of reviewing the Community Strategic Plan for the new 10 year horizon. The report is to be sufficiently comprehensive to allow for informed community discussion.
The Act requires the Council to submit the State of City /End of Council Term Report 2012- 2016 to the Office of Local Government with the Council’s Annual Report 2015-2016 by 30 November 2016.
The State of City and End of Council Term reports are presented to Council as one combined document, as efficiency and because they inform each other.
A supplementary document entitled Data Sheets is also provided. It presents the supporting data informing the State of City End of Council Term Report 2012-2016 - including the data evidence used to assess the extent of progress made against Community Strategic Plan objectives and measures.
- 15 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 2, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
This report also recommends that the community is provided with a ‘snapshot’ summary of this report in the form of a newspaper feature, following the election of the new Council. This will further support community being informed and engaged on required review and update of the Community Strategic Plan.
Overview of the Report Content for the State of City End of Council Term Report 2012-2016 has been sourced from: Council resolutions; six-monthly Integrated Planning Progress Reports; Annual Reports of the Council; results of Council Community Surveys conducted annually and more recently bi- annually; census data; ID Profile demographic and socio-economic data; research and analysis of key City trends and issues; Media Releases; and discussions with key staff.
Overview of Report Structure and Content: Message from the Mayor Your Councillors 1. Introduction 2. City Highlights 3. Key Council Achievements 2012 -2016 4. Natural Disasters: A City United 5. Civic Leadership 6. Looking After Environment 7. Looking After People 8. Using Land 9. Moving Around 10. Sustainable Economy 11. Blue Mountains Sustainability Model
The report begins with a message from the Mayor followed by a section on Your Councillors. Section 1 Introduction provides background information about the report, including an overview of the role of the Council in implementing the Community Strategic Plan.
Section 2 City Highlights presents a summary overview of the state of the City, our towns and villages, people and economy as well as the broader regional issues impacting on the Blue Mountains and key city highlights over the past four years.
Section 3 presents key Council achievements over 2012-2016 relative to the six Key Directions of the Community Strategic Plan. It also presents a summary report card on the progress made by the elected Council over there term of office against their four year Priority Commitments and Outcomes (as of June 2016).
Section 4 provides a detailed case study on the impact of, and response to, the 2013 Bushfire emergency. This is arguably one of the most significant events of the 2012-2016 Council term. The case study highlights the quality of the Council and community response to this event. It also provides an outstanding example of the resilience of our community and the leadership of the Council. This section also presents a summary overview of nine other natural disaster events that impacted on the City of Blue Mountains over the last four years.
Sections 5 though to 10 consider in turn each of the six Key Directions from the Community Strategic Plan Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025 including: Civic Leadership; Looking After Environment; Looking After People; Using Land; Moving Around; and Sustainable Economy.
- 16 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 2, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Each of these Key Direction sections includes: • The relevant values and objectives from the Community Strategic Plan; • An overview of challenges and opportunities; • An assessment of the progress measures and the outcomes achieved over the past four years (State of City reporting); • Community and Council achievements against Key Direction; • Detail on Council’s contribution against each Objective of the Community Strategic Plan; and • Highlighting of a major achievement (e.g. completion of the Local Environment Plan 2015) within most of the Key Directions.
Key Council Achievements 2012-2016 The report shows that over the past four years substantial progress has been made by the Council and the community in implementing our Community Strategic Plan.
The report documents the extensive Council contribution and action against each Objective of the Community Strategic Plan. Within each of the six Key Directions of the Plan, a majority of the progress measure improvement targets have been achieved, with some remaining steady at the 2012 performance level. In addition, the report presents a summary report card on the significant progress made by the elected Council against its four year Strategic Priority Commitments and Outcomes (as of June 2016).
Key Council achievement highlights for 2012-2016 detailed in the report include: • Being assessed “Fit for the Future” by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in November, 2015; • Leading recovery from the October 2013 bushfires on behalf of the NSW Government; • Completing the Standard Instrument Local Environment Plan 2015 and accompanying Development Control Plan 2015 and successfully advocating to State Government for key provisions to be retained to protect village character and natural environment; • Substantially improving financial sustainability of the City and the Council through implementing our Six Strategies for Financial Sustainability, including proactively managing debt reduction and engaging the community on options for Resourcing Our Future and achieving affordable and acceptable levels of service; • Improving decision making to ensure best value resource allocation; • Strengthening our governance and enterprise risk management; • Upgrading waste and resource recovery facilities at Blaxland and introducing new household recovery and waste services including a new green bin collection for garden vegetation and a new booked bulky waste collection and kerbside chipping service; • Establishing the Blue Mountains Economic Enterprise to strengthen and diversify the local economy; • Establishing a Regional Strategic Alliance with Penrith and Hawkesbury councils to achieve cost savings and enhanced regional advocacy and outcomes; • Advocating to State and Federal Governments on the inadequacy of the environmental Impact Statement and consultation processes for the proposed Western Sydney Airport and the potential adverse impact on the Blue Mountains; • Improving and revitalising key town centres including Lawson town centre civil infrastructure redevelopment and restoration of Heatherbrae House, Pioneer Place Katoomba Stage 1 upgrade, new and improved toilet facilities in Lawson, Hazelbrook and Leura town centres; • Improving accessibility and transport including resealing and maintaining the City’s extensive road network, implementing the Sealing of Unsealed Roads Program, upgrading the Hazelbrook Commuter Carpark and the Summerhayes Park Carpark and lighting, providing additional capacity and improved accessibility at the Glenbrook
- 17 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 2, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Commuter Carpark, developing and implementing the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan and the Bike Plan; • Developing the Blue Mountains as a centre of culture and creativity through completing the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre in Katoomba and the Blue Mountains Theatre and Community Hub in Springwood; • Delivering a range of community and recreation facilities, including for example the new Katoomba Library, the Hazelwood Child Care Centre, new and improved skate facilities in Katoomba, the Glenbrook Swimming Pool Filtration Upgrade and all year round Learn to Swim facility, the Gully Interpretive Walk, Mt York Heritage Conservation Reserve and commencement of the Greater Blue Mountains Trail.
Data Sheets Supporting the Report The Blue Mountains State of City End of Council Term Report 2012-2016 is supported by a supplementary “Data Sheets” document, presenting the results of analysis of over 150 trends and progress measures.
These data sheets provide an important evidence base informing the assessment of the “state of the city” as well as progress made or not made against the objectives and measures of the Community Strategic Plan.
Each Data Sheet has been numbered to enable it to be referenced within the State of City End of Council Term Report. It is planned that these documents will be made available to the community electronically and that Data Sheets referenced in the report will be able to be accessed with a single click electronically.
Access to Documents The Annual Report is required to be made available to the public on the Council’s website. The State of City End of Council Term Report 2012-2016 will also be made available on the Council’s website.
The Office of Local Government advises that councils should refrain from publishing the End of Council Term Report until after the 10 September local government election. It is proposed that following the election, the report and its supplementary data sheet document, will be promoted and made available to the community.
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental The report assesses progress made by the Council in Nil implementing its adopted Community Strategic Plan Objectives and key Progress Measures for Looking After the Environment. It also details key environmental issues, challenges and opportunities for the City going forward. Social The report assesses progress made by the Council in Nil implementing its adopted Community Strategic Plan Objectives and key Progress Measures for Looking After the People, Using Land and Moving Around. It also details key social issues, challenges and opportunities for the City going forward. Economic The report assesses progress made by the Council in Nil implementing its adopted Community Strategic Plan Objectives and key Progress Measures for Sustainable Economy. It also details key economic issues, challenges and opportunities for the City going forward.
- 18 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 2, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Effects Positive Negative Governance Reporting on the progress of the Council over the last four Nil years provides transparent information to the community on how the Council is tracking against its Civic Leadership objectives and how the Council is contributing to the achievement of the Community Strategic Plan – Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025. The report also identifies key issues, challenges and opportunities for improving civic leadership into the future.
Financial implications for the Council There are no significant financial implications from the report recommendations. The report will primarily be made available to the community in a digital electronic form via the Council’s website.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council Under the Local Government Act 1993 there is a legislative requirement to submit the End of Council Term Report to the last meeting of the outgoing Council (23 August) and then to the Division of Local Government, along with the annual report, by 30 November 2016.
External consultation No external consultation was undertaken in the preparation of the State of City End of Council Term Report 2012–2016. However, the report includes results from the Council’s annual and bi-annual Community Surveys of resident perceptions of Council service delivery and performance.
Conclusion The State of City End of Council Term Report 2012–2016 provides a summary of Community and Council achievements over the past four years (end of term reporting) and an assessment of how the Council has contributed to the achievement of the objectives of the Community Strategic Plan – Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025 (state of city reporting).
The report shows that substantial progress has been made by the elected Council, over its 2012-2016 term of office, in implementing the Community Strategic Plan - Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025 - and in achieving the Priority Commitments and Outcomes set by the Council through its annual Strategic Planning Workshops.
It also provides important information for the new Council to inform the 2017 review of the Integrated Plans including the: • Community Strategic Plan; • Resourcing Strategy (Long-term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Plan); • Delivery Program and Operational Plan; and • The forward direction for Council service delivery over the next Council term.
The report (and its supplementary data sheet document) will be promoted through local media, and made publicly available on the Council’s website, following the 10 September local government elections. A limited number of hard copies will also be placed in Council libraries. The community, as well as key agencies and organisations working in the City of Blue Mountains, will be provided with an opportunity to access the report through these means.
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES 1 State of City Report 2012-2016 (DRAFT) 16/162891 Enclosure 2 State of City 2012-2016 - DataSheets (DRAFT) 16/162995 Enclosure * * * * * * * * * *
- 19 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 3
SUBJECT: PERFORMANCE OF INVESTED MONIES FOR JULY 2016
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/152543
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Finance Management
Recommendations:
1. That the Council notes the performance of invested monies for July 2016;
2. That the Council notes that the loan balance continues to reduce ahead of long term projections, with the loan balance of $45.9 million projected to favourably reduce to $40.9 million by 30 June 2017;
3. That the Council notes that as of 31 July 2016 funds held in investment total $24.2 million; and
4. That the Council notes the certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer.
Report by Group Manager, Integrated Planning & Finance:
Reason for report This report on the performance of invested monies for July 2016 is submitted for the purpose of financial accountability and to satisfy the investment reporting requirements of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (clause 212), the Local Government Act 1993 (Section 625) and the BMCC Investment Policy.
The report certifies that the Council investments comply with the forms of investment made by order of the Minister under section 625(2) of the Local Government Act 1993. The current Ministerial Order was issued under Council Circular 11-01 on 17 February 2011.
Council Investment Portfolio Analysis The Council’s investment strategy is to invest in Authorised Deposit taking institutions (ADI’s) term deposits with the four major banks and their subsidiaries including St. George, which is part of the Westpac group and Bankwest, which is part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia group. A maximum of 45% of the investment portfolio is invested with any individual bank. The interest returns from these conservative term deposit investments are currently at record low interest rates. This investment strategy and Council’s overall Investment Policy are currently being reviewed to identify if there are any changes that could be made to improve the performance of Council’s Investment Portfolio in the current challenging economic environment.
The schedule of the Council Invested Monies for July 2016 is provided at Table 1. Funds held in investments of $24.2 million, have decreased by $6.1 million compared with the previous month, as was projected. Historically at this time, cash outflows increase with payment of end of financial year invoices whilst cash inflows from rates and other sources are lower.
- 20 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
(Table 1) SCHEDULE OF INVESTED MONIES FOR JULY 2016 Institution & Fund Maturity Original Current Rate Funds Funds Change Comme nt Date Rating Rating Held - Held - From Valuations Valuations Previous Previous Month At Call & Term Deposits:- NAB Professional at call n/a n/a 1.71% 2,204,970 5,349,295 -3,144,325 Cashflow withdrawals
National Aust. Bank 31/08/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.90% 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 No movement National Aust. Bank 2/09/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.92% 4,000,000 4,000,000 0 No movement Bankwest 29/08/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.80% 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 No movement Bankwest 27/07/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.85% 0 3,000,000 -3,000,000 Cashflow withdrawal Bankwest 2/08/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.85% 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 No movement Bankwest 8/08/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.85% 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 No movement Westpac 27/07/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 3.11% 0 4,000,000 -4,000,000 Cashflow withdrawal Westpac 30/11/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.98% 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 No movement Westpac 29/10/2016 A-1+ A-1+ 2.99% 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 New investment Macquarie Cash at call AAA A-1 1.65% 20,778 20,749 29 Interest re-invested Bank Notes, CDO & FRN:- 0 Aphex (Glenelg) AA- CCC- 4.76% 0 3,607 -3,607 Balance written off due to default MAS6-7(Parkes) AAA CCC- 4.67% 0 78 -78 Balance written off due to default Totals 24,225,748 30,373,729 -6,147,981
Notes: Balances as at 31 July 2016.
Interest Income Actual interest income to July of $59,996 is close to the YTD budget of $65,000. Interest income is expected to increase in future months due to forecast cash inflows. Investment returns are above the current 90 days Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW). The BBSW is the benchmark rate for interest rates. Interest returns are summarised in Table 2.
(Table 2) Interest Income Accrued - Budget vs. Actual Actual YTD Budget Variation Income to 31 July 2016 59,996 65,000 -5,004 Estimated for remainder of year 810,004 805,000 5,004
Total for 2016/2017 870,000 870,000 0
90 Day Bank Bill Swap Rate 1.86% Average Term Deposit Rate of Return for July 2016 2.89%
Table 3 provides a breakdown of the Council’s investment portfolio by investment category. 91% of the Council’s investments are held in term deposits with the four major banks and 9% is held in the Cash at Call Account with the National Australia Bank to manage day to day expenditure requirements.
- 21 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
(Table 3) Investment Categories Cash at Call 9.10% Term Deposits 90.81% Collateralised Debt Obligations 0.09%
Chart 1 provides a summary of the Council’s investment portfolio by financial institution. The Council’s Investment Strategy places a 45% limit on investments in any one financial institution as a measure to manage risk. Funds invested with Bankwest are close to the 45% limit. No additional funds will be invested with this institution until current term deposits mature.
Chart 1 - Investments by Institution
NAB 33.87%
Bankwest 41.28%
Macquarie Bank 0.09%
Westpac 24.77%
Chart 2 provides a comparison of the Council’s investment balances compared with previous years. The investment balance at 31 July 2016 is approximately $0.5 million lower than prior years, reflecting higher net cash outflows in July 2016.
- 22 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Chart 2 Investment Balances 2013/14 to 2016/17
40
35
30
25
$ Million 20
15
10 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Council well on track in managing borrowings The Council’s has utilised borrowings to fund major infrastructure critical to the on-going community health, environmental protection, cultural and economic vitality and overall sustainability of the City. Examples of such projects include the Waste and Resource Recovery facilities at Katoomba and Blaxland, Katoomba Library and Cultural Centre, Lawson Town Centre relocation, Blue Mountains Theatre and Community Hub in Springwood as well as funding the City’s road renewal program. Borrowing for major infrastructure projects is considered appropriate and prudent as it provides for intergenerational equity in sharing the funding cost.
As shown in the bar chart below, the Council’s loan balance as at 30 June 2016 was $7.7 million lower than the previously projected position in the Long Term Financial Plan of $53.5 million. In 2015/16, the Council endorsed the transfer of $2.2 million from the 2014/15 surplus and reserves to reduce debt. With this transfer, the loan balance was reduced to $45.9 million at 30 June 2016.
In 2016/17, it is projected that the Council’s loan balance will further reduce to $40.9 million. The Council’s commitment to implementing its financial strategy has successfully positioned the Council well ahead of target and also well within industry benchmarks.
- 23 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Although the Council’s Debt Service Ratio is currently within the Office of Local Government’s acceptable benchmark level, expected to be 9.9% at 30 June 2016, the Council is committed to reducing its debt position in its Long Term Financial Plan given that: - the Council had determined that in its opinion it had reached its capacity to incur and importantly repay debt in the short to medium term; - the special variation for renewal of infrastructure in June 2013 replaced the previous program of annually borrowing $2.3 million to fund asset maintenance and renewal works; and - the reduction of debt would provide more capital funding in the medium term, than would be available if the Council continued to borrow for renewals and then had to fund the significantly more costly debt service cost.
Under Strategy 3: Manage Borrowings Responsibly, the Council is committed to: - annual reviews of the Council’s borrowing capacity; - reviewing and refinancing existing loan interest rate terms and conditions where financially beneficial; - retiring/reducing debt by managing cash and cash equivalent reserve funds; - directing any surplus cash funds to reducing borrowings wherever it is effective to do so; - not borrowing additional funds unless: o the cost of the debt is funded from sufficient income or cost savings generated by the project; o financially responsible and effective subsidised loan funding is available (e.g. NSW Government LIRS funding); o any proposed new borrowing is supported by a comprehensive business case approved by the Council; or o the borrowing relates to deferred asset works carried forward from a prior period as resolved by Council.
Implementing this Strategy is fiscally responsible and could see the Council’s Loan Balance Outstanding reduce to a projected $16.8 million by 2024-2025. However, the appropriateness of loan borrowings as a source of funding will continue to be reviewed annually and it may well be appropriate in the medium to longer term when the Council’s debt levels have been reduced and the Council’s financial sustainability strengthened, to again increase borrowings - if required by the City. Importantly, borrowing for major essential infrastructure projects is considered entirely appropriate and prudent as it provides for intergenerational equity in sharing the funding cost.
Table 4 provides a summary of the Council’s current loan position.
- 24 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
(Table 4) Loan Position Loan Debt Balance as at 30 June 2016 45,863,343 Principal repaid to 31 July 2016 -153,930
Balance as at 31 July 2016 45,709,413
Proposed borrowings in accordance with Council's adopted 6 Point Financial Strategy: 2016/2017 Operational Plan borrowings 0 Less Principal Repayments for Remainder of 2016/2017 -4,791,083 Balance as at 30 June 2017 40,918,330
Reduction in borrowings in 2016/2017 (% favourable) 10.8%
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social Nil Nil Economic Nil Nil Governance Supports the achievement of the Council’s Nil Investment Policy, the Local Government Regulations and other financial reporting requirements.
Financial implications for the Council Adoption of the recommendations in the report fulfills the Council’s financial reporting requirements. The revenue performance and security (risk management) of the investment portfolio can have a significant bearing on the Council’s current budgeting processes and long term financial planning.
The Council manages all its investments in compliance with the Ministerial Investment Order, Local Government legislation and the Council’s Investment Policy. The principal objective is the preservation of capital, liquidity and the return on investment with consideration given to prudent investment principles.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council There are no legal or risk management issues or any operational or commercial risks associated with the adoption of the report recommendations.
The Council has a prudent and conservative strategy to invest in term deposits with the four major banks and their subsidiaries including St George, which is part of the Westpac group and Bankwest, which is part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia group. Council has assessed future projections of term deposit interest rates and expects interest income to be lower in the short to medium term compared to previous years. Council’s investment strategy and Long Term Financial Plan are set to manage the risk of reduced investment returns.
- 25 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 3, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
External consultation Nil
Conclusion The Schedule of Invested Monies Report for July 2016 is submitted to comply with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (clause 212) and the Local Government Act 1993 (Section 625).
Significantly the Council has a healthy balance of $24.2 million invested which underpins and supports the Council’s financial sustainability. Any assessment of the Council’s loan borrowing position needs to take this into consideration. The $24.2 million in investments, as at 31 July 2016, are placed in term deposits and in at call accounts with the four major banks. These investments will earn the Council $870,000 in 2016/17 and contribute to the Council’s revenue to fund services. The majority of these investment funds are restricted for specific purposes to fund known future expenditure and cover identified risks.
The Council’s loan balance at 31 July 2016 is $45.7 million (projected to be $40.9 million by 30 June 2017), which is well ahead of the target to reduce loan borrowings under the Council’s Long Term Financial Plan - Six Strategies for Financial Sustainability and is within the established local government parameters.
Certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer I hereby certify that the investments listed in the report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investments Policy.
Neil Farquharson
* * * * * * * * * *
- 26 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 4, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 4
SUBJECT: TOURISM VISITATION MANAGEMENT
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/149035
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Sustainable Economy Service: Economic Development and Tourism
Recommendations:
1. That the Council notes the actions undertaken by the Council to manage the increased visitor numbers; and
2. That the Council writes to the Greater Sydney Commission and Destination NSW seeking support for significant investment by State and Federal Governments for the funding of tourism and visitor facility upgrades in the Blue Mountains.
Report by Director City & Community Outcomes:
Reason for report This report responds to a Notice of Motion. It provides a snapshot of visitation numbers, trends and forecasts for Tourism in the Blue Mountains and demonstrates initiatives undertaken by the Council to manage domestic and international tourism.
Background At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 May 2016, a Notice of Motion was resolved:
1. “That the Council receives a report on how the Blue Mountains local government area can best manage the recent great increase in tourist visitation, with particular reference to difficulties that are arising in relation to traffic, parking, garbage, toilet facilities and public safety; and
2. That the Council notes that these issues need to be dealt with through the collaboration of the Council not only with tourism industry bodies, but also with the state government and the federal government, both of which have responsibilities in the areas of tourism, infrastructure and the environment.”
[Minute No. 161]
This report responds to this notice of motion.
Tourism in the Blue Mountains The Blue Mountains is renowned nationally and internationally for its iconic natural landscapes and offers a unique destination in close proximity to Sydney. The inaugural city of the Arts is also a City within a World Heritage Area and attracts tourist at ever increasing rates.
In 2015 the Blue Mountains region had a total of 3.538 Million visitors, a 4.6% increase from the previous year*. The visitation figures for the Blue Mountains alone were 2.9M over this
- 27 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 4, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
same period. This increase is further supported and reflected in the visitation to the Council provided Visitor Information Centre’s, which have experienced a 12% increase in visitation over the same time. Evidence provided by Scenic World and the tourism industry also supports the increases identified through Destination NSW (DNSW) statistics.
These increased visitor numbers are seen against both the domestic and international visitor markets. In the year to March 2016, overnight domestic visitors increased by 10.6% from the previous year (to 909,000), while in the year to December 2015 international visitors increased to 13.3% while also extending their overnight visitation by 40%. While we have seen an increase in overnight stays the majority of visitors remain day visitors; however, spending has also increased by 15.5% to $550 million.
While the key international markets are the United Kingdom and USA, data also suggests a significant increase in Asian tourists with China being a dominate market. While not articulated in DNSW statistics, local tourism providers have observed that China, Korea and Japan are substantial source markets. In terms of our domestic market, key visitors are from within NSW followed by Victoria and Queensland.
In terms of key visitor’s activities, DNSW identifies that 60.6% of visitors listed ‘eating out’, followed by bushwalking (39.3%) and National Park visitation (36.8%).
Tourism in the Blue Mountains is responsible for an estimated $341.9Million annual output (gross revenue generated by businesses and services in catering to tourists), most of which is generated in the food and accommodation services sectors, followed by transport and ownership of dwellings. Tourism employment is at 1,774 persons and is concentrated in the food and accommodations services.
*It should be noted that visitation figures quoted are sourced from Destination NSW (DNSW) and include visitation figures for the previous region of Blue Mountains, Lithgow and Oberon, unless stated otherwise. All economic figures quoted are derived from REMPLAN and are specific to the local government area.
Tourism Trends and Forecasts Tourism visitation in Australia and NSW generally has shown an upwards trends since 2006, with China and Korea being key international source markets and demonstrating significant increases over this period. It is expected that by 2020 more than half of projected growth will come from Asia, with 42% of this expected to come from China alone. Other key international source markets in the Blue Mountains are Japan, UK, and USA and while current figures for India indicate a modest rate of visitors it is considered an emerging market.
Other trends that we should prepare for are the proliferation of technology and an expectation from tourists that internet coverage is easily and readily accessible at no cost. In addition, a desire to experience the unique qualities of a destination is becoming more important especially for the astute traveler who will seek unique experiences and exclusive locally made mementos as a reminder of their visit.
In terms of visitor number forecasts, the Blue Mountains expects to see 3.4Million by 2020 and 4.1Million by 2025, a substantial increase from the 2.9M currently seen by the Blue Mountains.
Tourism Contribution by Council The Council’s is a key contributor in the delivery and management of key tourist destinations. Key destinations managed by Council include two accredited Visitor Information Centre’s and two tourist parks and campgrounds; it also provides support to and promotes over 200 local festival and events. In addition to this, Council is heavily involved with the management and
- 28 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 4, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
renewal of tourism infrastructure including supporting infrastructure such as toilets, footpaths and car parking, lookouts, access trails, parks and cultural facilities etc.
In terms of infrastructure renewal and development, Council has spent in the order of $35Million in the previous 10 years across natural, cultural and supporting infrastructure. Works undertaken over this period have included the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre, the Springwood Theatre & Hub, and the Gully Interpretative Walk, Mount York Reserve upgrade, Wentworth Falls Lake upgrade, way finding signage and the new Leura toilet block.
Council is also responsible for the management and servicing of our Council owned tourism infrastructure including toilet cleansing, rubbish removal, carpark provision and management.
Tourism Impacts in the Blue Mountains While the many benefits and importance of tourism on our economy and workforce is clear, the increased visitor numbers has seen demand for ‘service level’ increases in infrastructure and services stretched to capacity. Some of these impacts include an increase of camping (including illegal), increases in general waste around major tourism precincts, increased toilet usage and pressures on existing carparks.
Public toilets at Echo Point have seen a significant increase in usage, demonstrated by a 38% increase in toilet paper over the previous 12 months. In the case of Leura Mall public toilets, while suitable for an average day, occasional large queues extend into the carpark on busy weekend days.
In terms of pressures on our car parks, parking reviews have identified stress and residential impacts in Cliff Drive near Scenic World, Wentworth Falls in the vicinity of Conservation Hut, around Leura Village and in Glenbrook and the National Park entrance. We are also aware that more remote areas such as Mt Wilson have suffered with large influxes of tourist on busy weekends, particularly during autumn.
Car park occupancy rates in Leura have grown from 89% in 2010-12 to 98% in 2015-16, while occupancy in Blackheath has risen dramatically from 41% to 100% in the same period. A recent study of the Conservation Hut, Wentworth Falls area found that while there are 26 designated car parks; with most regular weekends see between 80-90 cars parking in residential areas in close proximity.
It is important to note that much of our infrastructure in high tourist visitation areas is at capacity, no longer able to manage the visitation numbers currently being experienced. A key example is the toilet block at Bulls Camp. When constructed in 2013/14 it provided toilet facilities for a highway rest area, however since this time the Bulls Camp rest area has been developed to accommodate camp spots intended as basic emergency rest spot providing safety for our travelers it is now publicized through social media and various websites as a designated campground.
Tourism Demand Initiatives by Council Council is responding to the increase in visitation number in numerous ways including improved servicing, planning, capital investment and though advocacy. Set out below is a list of current initiatives which council is undertaking in relation to the management of our tourism precincts.
Increased Servicing Council has updated facilities and increased toilet cleansing in key tourist areas such as Echo Point, Studleigh Place (Katoomba) and Leura Mall. The cleansing has increased to up to five cleans a day during peak times including school holidays, Easter and the Christmas
- 29 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 4, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
and the New Year period. Council staff also provides additional bins in key areas during peak time to provide tourist the opportunity to deposit of their waste responsibly.
Strategic Planning Council has commenced a Destination Management Plan for the Blue Mountains which will document the place (the destination), the people (key stakeholders), the product (the tourism offer) and key priorities (how we will grow and manage our tourism product). This document is currently being developed in close consultation with the local tourism industry and relevant staff and a draft document is expected to be on public exhibition towards the end of 2016.
Other key planning documents which are underway or nearing completion, which will inform the management of our tourism precincts, include the city-wide Car Parking Strategy, Leura Bus Strategy, Echo Point Plan of Management & Masterplan and a review of Crown Lands contribution to tourism.
It should be noted that while a camping strategy is considered important, given current pressures this work is not currently programmed.
Capital Investment Council is currently undertaking detailed design for key infrastructure projects including the upgrade and extension of the Echo Point Visitor Information Centre and the Katoomba Falls Kiosk. The project will also upgrade associated infrastructure such as lookouts and car parks in and around the Echo Point and Katoomba Falls area.
Current work nearing completion includes improvement at our caravan and tourist parks including amenities block upgrades and additional cabins.
Advocacy While there are a number of initiatives Council can undertake to better manage tourism visitation, there is often a need to work with others. Below is a list of initiatives council has undertaken to advocate for our region: • Pursue the creation of a regional approach to tourism with our regional strategic alliance partners Penrith and Hawkesbury City Councils; • Submit funding bids for tourism related projects including current grants for the Leura Tourism Bus Parking Project ($773,260) and upgrade of Glenbrook Visitor Information Centre ($1.5Million) through the Tourism Driver Demand Infrastructure Grant; • Continue dialogue within the Greater Sydney Commission and Destination NSW, seeking recognition of the growing visitation in the forthcoming Sydney West District Plan, including a request for funds for improved and new tourism infrastructure; • Continue collaboration with National Parks and Wildlife Services to upgrade facilities; and • Advocated to local State and Federal Members of Parliament.
While Council is a key player in the delivery of tourism infrastructure it is important to recognise the potential contribution private business, state and federal government can provide.
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social These initiatives continue to support those employed through Nil the tourism sector.
Council contribution to tourism infrastructure over the previous years has demonstrated its commitment to tourism, a key driver of social and economic health in the City.
- 30 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 4, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Effects Positive Negative Economic These initiatives assist in strengthening the local tourism Nil sector and continue to encourage a significant output to the local economy. Governance Councils continued efforts in marketing and seeking of funds Nil for our region actively advocates for issues of importance to the community.
These initiatives, particularly the new Destination Management Plan, demonstrate support for existing and new partnerships with key stakeholders.
Financial implications for the Council There are no known financial implications for Council associated with the recommendation in this report; however the development of the Destination Management Plan, a key initiative by Council, will cost $40,000. This $40,000 was allocated from Council’s 2015/16 tourism budget and will be delivered in 2016/17.
Further, there are financial implications for the Council if it were required to fund solutions without any offset income from identified revenue streams, including an expanded Pay & Display parking program and through securing grant funding. A recent exercise has identified capital projects valued at up to $95 million in support of the tourism infrastructure development and diversification for which there is ongoing advocacy. Greater user pays options for support for infrastructure upgrades and servicing will be required.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council There are no known legal or risk management implications for Council associated with this recommendation.
External consultation Council consulted with Scenic World to confirm visitation numbers and better understand the local trends and figures.
Conclusion While the importance and benefits of tourism cannot be ignored, Council and the local tourism industry have a responsibility to manage tourism and visitation appropriately to ensure there is a balance between residential amenity and visitor needs.
In addition, the required investment in tourism and visitor related visitor facility upgrades is an significant cost on the Council and local ratepayers, which needs to be acknowledged at all tiers of Government and supported through policy and investment.
Council’s initiative to fund the development of a Destination Management Plan and continued advocacy with higher levels of government for better outcomes, demonstrates our appreciation for the importance of providing an exceptional visitor experience.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 31 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 5
SUBJECT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT NSW ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2016
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/138787
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Governance and Risk
Recommendations:
1. That the Council endorses the attached motions on issues of significance impacting Local Government for submission to the 2016 Local Government NSW (LGNSW) Conference, being: • Local Planning; • Protections under copyright law; • LGNSW Representation On Behalf Of Councils; • Emergency Service Statutory Contributions linked to Rate Peg; and • Impact of Federal Budget Cuts to Local Government Financial Grants (FAGS); and
2. That the Council endorses registrations to be made for four (4) Councillors to attend the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) Conference being held in Wollongong from 16 – 18 October 2016 as voting delegates for the purposes of securing conference registrations, with the delegation to be determined through a separate report to the Council following the Local Government election.
Report by Group Manager People & Systems:
Reason for report The Local Government NSW (LGNSW) conference will take place from Sunday 16 – Tuesday 18 October at the WIN Entertainment Centre, Wollongong. In previous years, Councillors have represented Blue Mountains City Council at this conference. This report recommends the Council endorse four (4) Councillor registrations to be secured to allow for attendance at the conference, with the delegation to be determined through a separate report to Council following the Local Government election.
This report is required at this time due to the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) conference motion submission deadline of 22 August 2016. The Council has negotiated with organisers to accept the Council’s motions for submission following the Council’s endorsement at this meeting.
Background The LGNSW conference is held annually. The Blue Mountains City Council has a Members’ voting delegate entitlement for the 2016 Conference of four (4) voters, as determined by LGNSW.
Furthermore, each council has the ability to submit the most important issues which are causing concern to the council and/or the local community and provide these details to LGNSW to be considered at the conference. LGNSW will review all responses received and
- 32 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
then identify the top 3 – 5 issues as identified by member councils. On the consideration and adoption of the LGNSW, the top issues will then be put to the Conference for debate and deliberation as part of the business sessions.
The Council has received notification on that submissions must be endorsed by the Council and submitted to LGNSW by 22 August 2016 to enable LGNSW to meet LGNSW Business Paper production deadlines. Therefore it is required that the Council consider the submission of any issues to the LGNSW Conference at this Council meeting. Each issue should outline the topic in brief and any reference to substantive research on the matter.
Motions The LGNSW Board has resolved that motions will be included in the Business Paper for the Conference where they: 1. Are consistent with the objects of the Association (see Rule 4 of the Association’s rules); 2. Relate to Local Government in NSW and/or across Australia; 3. Concern or are likely to concern Local Government as a sector; 4. Seek to advance the Local Government policy agenda of the Association and/or improve governance of the Association; 5. Have a lawful purpose (a motion does not have a lawful purpose if its implementation would require or encourage non-compliance with prevailing laws); 6. Are clearly worded and unambiguous in nature; and 7. Do not express preference for one or several members over one or several other members.
Further, for a motion to be included in the Business Paper for the Conference the submitting member needs to provide evidence of its support for the motion to be included. Such evidence should be in the form of an attachment or addendum and may include an extract of the minutes of the meeting at which the member resolved to submit the motion for consideration by the Conference.
Issues for the Conference Set out below are the definitions for the categories which are used to help sort motions into groups of like motions:
Industrial Relations and Employment Industrial relations and employment related legislation; industrial awards and rates of pay; WHS and worker compensation compliance; human resources policy, practice and benchmarking; workforce planning and development; staff and councillor training and development; skills shortages; staff attraction, retention and productivity; employment security; workplace change; Code of Conduct; leadership and management capacity; capability framework; council governance.
Economic Own source revenue (e.g. rates, fees, charges etc.); intergovernmental fiscal relations (e.g. grants, cost shifting etc.); financial management and governance including long term financial planning and asset management; financial sustainability; economic policy affecting Local Government; local and regional economic development (including tourism); transport (e.g. roads, bridges, airports, pedestrian and cycle facilities, rail); Local Water Utilities; stormwater and floodplain infrastructure; other infrastructure and disaster management and recovery.
Environmental Land use planning (including environmental, heritage conservation and development planning); ecologically sustainable development; waste management in accordance with the waste hierarchy and extended producer responsibility; natural resource management;
- 33 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
protection of local, regional and state natural environments including air quality, rivers and waterways and biodiversity, biosecurity and weeds management; pollution prevention including energy consumption and soil contamination; environmental risk management through reduction of hazards and pollutants and remediation/rehabilitation of degraded environments; climate change mitigation and adaptation; and responsible resource consumption and conservation.
Governance/Civic Leadership Local Government legislative and regulatory settings (e.g. Australian and/or NSW Constitutional recognition; Local Government Act review); corporate governance (e.g. role differentiation for Mayors, Councillors, General Managers and senior staff; Codes of Conduct; Political donations); structural reform (e.g. amalgamations and/or boundary changes; shared resources and services); Local Government elections (e.g. financial impact of electoral reforms on councils; impact of electoral reforms); participation (e.g. women’s participation rates as councillors; cultural diversity in leadership; other opportunities for citizens to genuinely participate in council processes); and policies and programs of other spheres of government that impact on Local Government governance or citizen involvement in local democracy.
Social Policy Social planning, social impact assessment, access, equity and social justice; community development and community cultural development; community halls and neighbourhood centres, ageing and disability services, women’s services, youth services and children’s care and education services); issues of concern and interest to NSW Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; cultural services (performing and visual arts, art galleries, performing arts centres, museums, public art, community arts, festivals, celebrations, heritage, new media and digital arts); Libraries; Health services (regulatory activities reducing public health risks; promoting healthy lifestyles; immunisation, early childhood health centres or rural medical services); Recreation facilities and services; and crime prevention planning.
The Council has identified the following issues to be submitted as motions as attached, for inclusion in the 2016 Local Government NSW (LG NSW) Conference business paper: • Local Planning; • Protections under copyright law; • LGNSW Representation On Behalf Of Councils; • Emergency Service Statutory Contributions linked to Rate Peg; and • Impact of Federal Budget Cuts to Local Government Financial Grants (FAGS).
Once endorsed, the Council’s submissions for the Conference agenda will be electronically submitted to LGNSW.
Voting Delegates and Observers For the purpose of securing conference registrations the Council must determine the agreed number of voting delegates to attend the Conference.
As this 2016 is an election year the current composition of the Council may change before the conference. Discussions with LGNSW have confirmed the Council is able to register for the Conference and at a later date provide the names of those resolved by the Council as voting delegates. As the Council has provision for four (4) voting delegates, it is considered, as per previous years, that Council endorse the attendance of four (4) Councillors to the LGNSW Annual Conference in October 2016 with actual nominations to be resolved at the September 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.
- 34 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social Allows discussion regarding existing and future issues Nil and the impact on local communities. Economic Provides an opportunity to discuss economic Nil development within local communities. Governance Provides Councillors with the opportunity to be informed Nil about contemporary issues facing Local Government at International, National, State and Local levels.
Financial implications for the Council Funding is available in the budget for up to four (4) delegates to attend the conference. Approximate costs incurred for four voting delegates to attend the conference have been allocated within Council’s 2016/17 budget. The total cost per Councillor is approximately $1,600 including registrations and associated attendance expenses.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council There are no legal and risk management issues for the Council.
External consultation No external consultation is required.
Conclusion That the Council endorses the motions on significant issues facing Council as attached to this report for submission to the 2016 Local Government NSW Conference. Furthermore, that the Council endorses four (4) delegates to attend the Conference for the purpose of securing conference registrations, with the delegation to be determined through a separate report to Council following the Local Government election in September 2016.
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES
1 MOTION: Local Planning 16/147603 Attachment 2 MOTION: Protections under copyright law 16/147599 Attachment 3 MOTION: LGNSW Representation On Behalf Of Councils 16/147314 Attachment 4 MOTION: Emergency Service Statutory Contributions linked 16/147316 Attachment to Rate Peg 5 MOTION: Impact of Federal Budget Cuts to Local 16/150668 Attachment Government Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs)
* * * * * * * * * *
- 35 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 1 - MOTION: Local Planning
- 36 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 2 - MOTION: Protections under copyright law
- 37 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 3 - MOTION: LGNSW Representation On Behalf Of Councils
- 38 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 4 - MOTION: Emergency Service Statutory Contributions linked to Rate Peg
- 39 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 5, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 5 - MOTION: Impact of Federal Budget Cuts to Local Government Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs)
- 40 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 6, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 6
SUBJECT: RATEPAYER ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON HOW RATES ARE SPENT
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/148995
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Finance Management
Recommendation:
That the Council notes this report.
Report by Group Manager, Integrated Planning & Finance:
Reason for report This report addresses the efficacy of establishing a publicly accessible, searchable website to give ratepayers access to information on how rates are spent.
Background At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council of 24 May 2016, it was resolved in part:
“2. That the Council receives a report in regards to the efficacy of establishing a publicly accessible, searchable website to give ratepayers access to information on how rates are spent.” [Minute No. 160]
The Notice of Motion notes that the Federal, State and Local Governments in the United Kingdom and the United States of America have either researched or established “Funding Transparency” web sites that have easy to navigate online portals detailing how taxation revenue is spent. This includes for example the US Federal Governments USAspending.gov site which was established by the USA Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) in 2006. This Act mandated the creation of a publicly available, searchable website that would provide the American public with access to information on entities and organisations receiving federal funds.
Report The web sites in the United Kingdom and United States, providing information on how taxation revenue and other funding is being spent, have been developed with significant levels of federal and/or state government funding and resourcing. Currently the Australian Federal and NSW State Governments do not provide any funding or resourcing to support development of similar web sites in Australia or within the City of Blue Mountains.
The Council is committed to transparently reporting proposed and actual expenditure of its funding from rates and other sources of income, through its Delivery Program. Operational Plans, Annual Reports, Annual Financial Statements, Six Monthly and Quarterly Reports.
Currently the Council is meeting all requirements of the Office of Local Government relative to reporting on budget expenditure. This includes an annual audit of the Council’s finances
- 41 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 6, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
by an independent external auditor. The results of this audit are reported to the Council and made available to the community.
The Council’s four year Delivery Program, incorporating the annual Operational Plan, shows in a bar chart graph the planned annual budget for every Service of the Council including: Total Expenses ($), Total Income ($), Asset Works Program ($), Internal Support Costs ($). The 2015-2016 Operational Plan also showed the allocation of Special Variation funding by Council Service.
The Council’s Delivery Program/ Operational Plan also details the proposed four year Asset Works Program expenditure by Service, Project and Funding Source.
Each year the Council reports on progress made in implementing the annual Operational Plan through its Annual Report and Annual Financial Statements, in accord with all reporting requirements stipulated by the Office of Local Government and through the Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation.
Within available resources the Council is committed to continuously improving how information is reported and communicated to the community. Currently significant focus is being given to developing and providing transparent reporting on the expenditure of special variation funding.
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social Nil Nil Economic Nil Nil Governance Nil Nil
Financial implications for the Council Nil
Legal and risk management issues for the Council Nil
External consultation Nil
Conclusion The USA and UK websites referred to in the Notice of Motion have been substantively funded and resourced by other levels of government. Providing the suggested website service would be a significant financial and resourcing impost on the Council, not currently budgeted for.
However, the Council is already committed to transparently reporting on the budgeted expenditure and income for each Council Service and on the planned Asset Works Program expenditure through is Delivery Program/ Operational Plan. Moreover, through its Annual Report, Annual Financial Statements, Six Monthly and Quarterly budget reporting, the Council is currently meeting all legislative and Office of Local Government financial reporting requirements. Further, within available resources, the Council is committed to continuously improving how expenditure information is reported to the community.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 42 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 7, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 7
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE DONATIONS/RECOMMENDATION BY COUNCILLOR
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/163603
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Governance and Risk
Recommendations:
That the Council endorses the following community assistance donations from the Mayoral and Councillor funds:
Organisation Amount Mt Irvine Hall $600.00 Friends of Mechanics Institute $400.00 Springwood Neighbourhood Centre $100.00 Mid Mountains Neighbourhood Centre $200.00 Hazelbrook Scout Group $200.00 Hazelbrook-Lawson Girl Guides $200.00 Blaxland East Public School $1000.00
Report by Group Manager People & Systems:
Reason for report On 11 July 2000 the Council adopted a revised Policy for Councillors’ Minor Local Projects allocations for the provision of community assistance/donations. The following recommendations for donation, which fall within the ambit of the Policy, have been received and are submitted for approval to the Council meeting.
Minor Local Projects Recommending Organisation Purpose Amount Councillor To assist with the costs of Cr Shrubb Mt Irvine Hall $100.00 the hall. To assist with the costs of Cr Begg Mt Irvine Hall $200.00 the hall. To assist with the costs of Cr McGregor Mt Irvine Hall $300.00 the hall. To assist with the costs of Friends of the public liability insurance and Cr Hollywood $200.00 Mechanics Institute other annual operational expenses To assist with the costs of Friends of the public liability insurance and Cr Bennett $200.00 Mechanics Institute other annual operational expenses
- 43 - PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT Item 7, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Recommending Organisation Purpose Amount Councillor To assist with the costs of Springwood Cr Shrubb the Mt Victoria Bird Garden $100.00 Neighbourhood Centre Project To assist with the funding Mid Mountains Cr Bennett community workshops & $200.00 Neighbourhood Centre project Hazelbrook Scout To assist with the funding of Cr Bennett $200.00 group club equipment Hazelbrook-Lawson To assist with the funding of Cr Bennett $200.00 Girl Guides club equipment
Mayoral Contingency
Recommending Organisation Purpose Amount Councillor Blaxland East Public To assist with the sots of a Clr Greenhill $1000.00 School safety sign
* * * * * * * * * *
- 44 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 8
SUBJECT: PROGRESS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACES IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/155364
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Looking After People Service: Emergency Management
Recommendations:
1. That the Council endorses the revised approach, as set out in this report, to assist the Rural Fire Service RFS to establish new Neighbourhood Safer Places (NSPs), on sites identified by the RFS at Bell, Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine, which will involve the Council proposing and assessing required vegetation clearing works (to protect the proposed NSPs) under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979(EP&A Act);
2. That the Council further resolves that its agreement to undertake the Part 5 proposal and assessment process, as requested by the RFS, at Bell, Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine, is conditional upon the RFS Commissioner providing written confirmation, to the satisfaction of Council, that each proposed NSP site:
(a) has been assessed by the Commissioner;
(b) is considered by the Commissioner to be suitable for its intended use and to be the most suitable site for an NSP in each village;
(c) will be designated by the Commissioner as an NSP once the proposed vegetation clearing work (if approved) is carried out;
(d) and also providing the other confirmations identified in this report.
3. That the Council notes that statutory responsibility for the delivery of NSPs in NSW rests solely with the Commissioner and the RFS, and that Council is assisting the Commissioner and the RFS to undertake their roles due to concern for community safety, and due to the absence of effective enabling legislation or policy which allows the Commissioner and the RFS to give effect to their statutory responsibilities by some approval pathway other than Part 5 of the EP&A Act;
4. That the Council notes that the estimated total cost to Council of undertaking the project is $605K, and resolves that Council’s agreement to propose and assess the required vegetation clearing work, and to undertake that work (if approved) on behalf of the RFS, is conditional upon the receipt of written confirmation from the RFS that it will meet all costs incurred by the Council and associated with the delivery of the project, as specified by the Council, including ongoing maintenance costs for any Asset Protection Zones that are established to protect the proposed NSPs; and
5. That the Council writes to the RFS Commissioner and the Minister for Emergency Services bringing to their attention the deficiencies in policy and legislation that have been identified through this process and request that they be addressed and resolved.
Report by Director City & Community Outcomes:
- 45 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Reason for report The Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) has the statutory power to establish places of last resort shelter during bushfires (Neighbourhood Safer Places/NSPs). From time to time, the establishment of such facilities requires the clearing of vegetation, and other works, to protect the open space or building concerned, to make them fit for purpose prior to the Commissioner designating the NSP under Part 3A of the Rural Fires Act, 1997 (RFA). The current legislation and policy under which the RFS operates does not adequately provide for this. Consequently, in the case of the proposed establishment of three new NSPs in Bell, Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine, RFS has requested that Council undertake to carry out work on behalf of the RFS, to allow the three NSPs to be designated.
Background The Commissioner and the RFS have statutory responsibility for the delivery and administration of the NSP program across NSW. The RFS has identified sites for additional NSPs within the City of Blue Mountains. As a result of this process, a number of new building-based NSPs have been identified across the City. Of these, there are three proposals that necessitate clearing of extensive asset protection zones (APZs) across both public and private lands. This is required to achieve the necessary separation from fire prone vegetation, and therefore allowing the buildings to be fit for purpose as NSPs.
These sites are located at: • Mount Wilson Village Hall; • Mount Irvine Public Hall; and • Bell Rural Fire Brigade Station.
The status of the NSP program and progress towards establishment of these three new sites has been previously reported to the Council on 8 December 2015 and 24 May 2016.
At the time of reporting to Council in December 2015, the RFS had only sought Council’s consent as a land manager to enable clearing of extensive APZs for the proposed NSP sites. The RFS had indicated that they would manage all other aspects of APZ assessment and establishment provided all public and private landowners gave consent. At the Council meeting of 8 December 2015 the Council resolved:
“That Council grants owner consent to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) to undertake asset protection works on Council land adjacent to the Mount Wilson Village Hall, Mount Irvine Public Hall, Bell Rural Fire Brigade Station, and Lawson Bowling Club, as required to ensure the facilities meet the RFS requirements for Neighbourhood Safer Places, conditional upon all relevant statutory approvals being obtained by the RFS in relation to the works prior to commencement; and
That the Council conditionally approves the granting of owners consent on the basis that the RFS meets the full cost of assessment, construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed asset protection works on Council land.”
[Minute No. 805]
Following this resolution of the Council, the RFS indicated that, due to deficiencies in legislation and policy, they were unable to deliver the NSP project. The RFS stated that the only possible approach was for Council to prepare a Part 5 proposal under the EP&A Act for
- 46 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
the required vegetation clearing and to undertake both the assessment of that proposal and the clearing work (if approved) on behalf of the RFS, on a cost recovery basis. In good faith, and in the interests of assisting the RFS and the community involved, Council agreed in principle to this approach, subject to being satisfied that it was feasible within the available legislative pathways.
To progress this approach, Council obtained detailed legal advice regarding the most appropriate and efficient legislative pathways for delivery of the NSPs at the earliest possible time.
Advice to Council was that the simplest and most cost-effective pathway was for the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service to utilise provisions of the Rural Fires Act 1997 (the RFA) to designate and subsequently protect these NSPs. Council’s advice and a proposed way forward was provided to the RFS in a letter to the Commissioner on 10 May 2016.
This proposed approach and Council’s correspondence with the RFS was reported to the Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 24 May 2016. At that meeting the Council resolved:
“That the Council endorses the proposed approach to enable the establishment of Rural Fire Services (RFS) Neighbourhood Safer Places at Bell, Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine.” [Minute No. 152]
After considering the proposed approach, representatives of the RFS met with Council representatives on 23 June 2016. At this meeting, the RFS reiterated that, while recognising that the legislative obligation for NSPs rests with them, they were not prepared to pursue the NSP development process proposed by Council. This was due to their current legislative and policy framework not being able to give effect to proposed NSPs where extensive clearing was required to establish and protect them.
The position adopted by the RFS meant that the pathway under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) was the only remaining viable approach. To progress this, Council again wrote to the RFS on July 19, 2016, to outline how this pathway could be utilised and roles and responsibilities allocated. In summary, Council advised the RFS that: • They were able to perform the function of both proponent and determining authority for the works under the EP&A Act; • The RFS, as the agency with statutory responsibilities for NSPs, is most appropriately the proponent of the activity; • That under the EP&A Act, both the RFS and Council are able to fulfil the role of both proponent and determining authority, but separation of these responsibilities was considered important to avoid any perception of conflict of interest in the assessment and approvals process; • To give effect to this, Council would further consider whether it would act as the determining authority; and • Council would be willing to be contracted to manage the associated clearing, once relevant approvals had been obtained; and • The RFS would need to commit to the establishment costs and the ongoing funding for maintenance of the APZs.
The Deputy Commissioner of the RFS responded on 26 July 2016, indicating that the RFS was not prepared to act as either the proponent or determining authority, insisting that
- 47 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Council should undertake both roles, and inferring that failure to do so would have significant implications for public safety.
To date, Council’s interaction with this issue has been in good faith, driven by the desire to assist the RFS where possible to identify the most expeditious and practical pathway to deliver the NSPs. However, whilst the provisions of the RFA are clear that responsibility for the delivery of NSPs rests with the Commissioner and the RFS, it is equally clear that in regards to the establishment of these NSPs, due to deficiencies in state legislation and policy, RFS are not willing or able to give effect to that responsibility.
In the absence of the RFS considering alternate statutory approval pathways other than Part 5 of the EP&A Act this creates the potential for delay to the timeframe for delivery of the NSPs.
It is therefore suggested that, in the interests of assisting the RFS to designate the three proposed NSPs, Council undertake the work identified by the RFS on terms nominated in this report.
However, if Council is to act as proponent for these activities, assess environmental impact, approve the proposals and carry out the necessary works across both public and privately managed land, then the statutory framework needs to be appropriate and lawful to ensure that Council is not exposed to any legal or financial risks.
The Part 5 process should be initiated as soon as possible, subject to the Commissioner and the RFS providing the confirmations recommended in this report. However, with the need to follow due process three proposed NSPs for Bell, Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine will not be in place for the commencement of the 2016-17 bush fire danger period.
Council’s Role as Proponent and Determining Authority The RFS has declined to pursue the pathway under the RFA, as suggested by Council. Council believes that the Commissioner has the discretion to “pre-emptively” declare the NSPs, conditional upon the works required to make them ‘fit for purpose” being undertaken.
However, the Commissioner of the RFS has stated to Council that they are not able to declare the subject NSPs until after the requisite works are undertaken to make them fit for purpose. The RFS considers that it is bound by the NSW Bushfire Environmental Assessment Code (the Code), which does not allow for the extent of clearing required to make a building-based NSP “fit for purpose”, being a 140 meter cleared perimeter. In this regard, the RFS’ current legislation and policy are not set up to allow the clearing required to “establish” an NSP. This issue needs addressing as a priority and a recommendation to that effect is suggested.
The clearing required to make the subject NSPs fit for purpose is therefore proposed to be assessed and approved using an alternative pathway, being Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
However, the RFS has declined to take shared responsibility for the project under this pathway, as proposed by Council, and described earlier in this paper. Council proposed that the RFS assume the role of proponent, while Council assumed the role of determining authority, under the EP&A Act pathway. The RFS has declined, and appear to propose that Council assume both of these roles.
Under this approach, Council will need to be the proponent of an activity (vegetation clearing), and to identify the purpose of the proposed clearing. A principal issue for Council is that the development, being an NSP, does not currently exist, and the clearing work is therefore prospective, in anticipation of an NSP being declared.
- 48 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
The risk is that Council would assess, approve and undertake the works to enable the designation of the NSPs, which the Commissioner then fails to designate under Part 3A of the RFA.
The approach that Council is being (in effect) asked to adopt may also transfer a range of other risks from the RFS to Council. As stated previously the Council is only in this position as a result of deficiencies in the RFS legislation and policy.
The problematic nature of NSPs, in particular, building-based NSPs, has been subject of considerable debate within the emergency management community. Issues include: • That the NSP needs to be continually “fit for purpose” at all times, so as to continually meet its warranty to the community that it will provide an adequate “place of last resort” during a bushfire, and this will require active, ongoing asset management, in accordance with RFS Guidelines and Standards for the protection of NSPs; • That for a building-based NSP to be “fit for purpose” it will also need to be enabled and accessible during a time of crisis, again requiring active management; and • That affected community members may make a highly consequential decision in a time of crisis, based on the presence of an NSP, such as a decision not to leave early. This may have consequences should the NSP not be “fit for purpose” at that point in time.
Despite these issues, subject to the matters raised in this report being satisfactorily resolved by the RFS, Council remains committed to assisting the RFS to meet the RFS’ statutory responsibility for the provision of life safety bushfire shelter options in high risk communities.
The proposed remedy to mitigate the above issues, and limit the Council’s risks, is to make Council’s involvement conditional upon: • Receiving written confirmation from the Commissioner that the Bell, Mt Wilson and Mt Irvine areas have been assessed and that the three proposed NSPs have been identified as the most appropriate location for an NSP in each village; • Receiving written assurance, to the satisfaction of Council, from the Commissioner of the RFS that the NSP will be dedicated once the requisite works to make it “fit for purpose” as defined for Council by the RFS are complete; • Receiving clear written specifications, to the satisfaction of Council, from the Commissioner regarding the nature of works that will be required to make it “fit for purpose” and therefore subject of Council’s application, assessment and determination; • Receiving written confirmation, to the satisfaction of Council, from the Commissioner that the RFS takes full and ongoing responsibility and liability for the provision, function and maintenance of the NSPs in a ”fit for purpose” state, and that no liability or duty of care in relation to these matters will fall to Council, as a result of its role as proponent and determining authority for the development; and • Receiving written confirmation, to the satisfaction of Council, from the Commissioner that all costs associated with Council’s role as proponent, determining authority and contractor to deliver and maintain the works, if that transpires, will be met in full by the RFS and an MoU to this effect will be agreed.
- 49 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Creation of the NSPs will require significant clearing and permanent modification of vegetation, some of which is classified as nationally significant Social The RFS have advised that the Nil provision of NSPs at the proposed locations will enhance community safety during severe bushfires Economic The financial impact on Council There is potential for Council to incur should be neutral provided that significant costs, particularly for the RFS provide full ongoing maintenance of APZs on reimbursement for costs incurred Council lands, if the RFS cannot in managing these projects commit to full and ongoing cost recovery Governance Delivery of NSPs is a statutory Specific NSP establishment responsibility of the RFS under arrangements do not yet exist in the Rural Fires Act 1997 NSW law. The assessment and approval of proposed works must therefore use statutory provisions that are not intended for this purpose. Arrangements for approval and ongoing maintenance of the work required at these sites are therefore expected to be complex and time consuming.
Financial implications for the Council The Rural Fire Service has indicated that, in principle, they are willing to fully reimburse Council for all costs incurred in undertaking these projects. However, they are yet to agree formally to a schedule of costs, and Council has already invested significant resources in the matter.
It should be noted that the provision of this level of assistance to the RFS was not included in Council’s delivery program, and is currently un-budgeted and un-programmed for 16-17.
The overall impact of delivering the NSP is yet to be costed in detail, however, the below provides an estimate / indication of minimum expected cost:
ITEM ESTIMATED COST Costs to date (staff time, legal advice etc.) $20,000 Allocation of senior planner to manage and co-ordinate studies and the $50,000 assessments and application, including backfilling @ 3 months Cost of specialist external advice, scientific assessment and services $50,000 (this could be variable and would be subject to RFQ processes) Cost of statutory approvals, including peer review by an independent $15,000 Further legal advice $10,000
- 50 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Community engagement, communication and negotiation for clearing of $10,000 private land, including documented agreements, monitoring, compliance etc. Cost of construction – subject to Council being engaged to provide this $350,000 Annual cost of maintenance - – subject to Council being engaged to $100,000 provide this TOTAL $605,000 (first year of establishment, $100K a year thereafter for maintenance)
Legal and risk management issues for the Council Within NSW, there are no specific statutory provisions that support clearing for NSP establishment to the extent specified in the RFS’ Guidelines and Standards. This is a current major deficiency in the RFA and under the RFA Regulations and associated documents regarding the establishment of NSPs.
The interplay between the various provisions of the EP&A Act and RFA are complex and require careful consideration. Council has spent considerable time engaging with the RFS on this issue, and despite providing a number of options that might have streamlined the NSP designation process; the RFS have chosen not to amend their legislation and policy and instead pursue the use of Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
A particular risk with this pathway is that the assessment of these proposals under Part 5 of the EP&A Act does not guarantee approval for the works to proceed. Elements of the proposed NSP APZ project will need to be referred to State and Federal environment agencies, and a requirement for a peer review of the environmental assessment is likely.
Should the likely environmental impacts of extensive vegetation clearing be deemed unacceptable or inappropriate, and if mitigating options cannot be implemented under the Part 5 pathway, Council may be required by state legislation to reject one or more proposals. There could be reputational risks associated with a negative outcome from the Part 5 assessment for the Council under the proposed RFS approach.
As previously noted, if Council assumes the role of proponent, determining authority and project manager on behalf of the RFS, then Council may be exposed to reputational risks associated with any delays in, or constraints on, the implementation of the NSP establishment works. By their nature, NSPs and vegetation clearing are a potentially sensitive issue and due process has to be followed. The recommendation of this report proposes that Council, in the circumstances, acknowledge and take on this risk.
Council proposes to mitigate such risks through ongoing engagement, a visible partnership with the RFS, and strong communications that highlight this is a multi-agency, whole of community program. RFS will need to be willing to adopt such an approach for these three projects to be successful.
External consultation Council officers have consulted extensively with the NSW Rural Fire Service regarding the development of NSPs across the City.
- 51 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 8, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Council has also consulted extensively with its legal advisor regarding the application of existing statutory approval pathways to the NSP establishment program.
Conclusion The Commissioner of the NSW RFS has clear statutory responsibility for the delivery and administration of the NSP program across NSW. However, in the circumstances identified in this report, Council has the option to undertake a number of these roles to assist the RFS to fulfil this responsibility to support our local communities.
There is a significant investment of financial and other resources required to do this, and they are currently unbudgeted and un-programmed. There are also risks for the Council in pursuing the Part 5 approach and the recommendations are designed to limit these risks.
Given that the RFS are resisting amending current legislation and policy it is recommended that Council could, to facilitate the designation of the NSPs by the Commissioner, take the action outlined in this report.
It is proposed that Council proceed in this matter, in accordance with the recommendations set out in this report.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 52 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 9, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 9
SUBJECT: ROTARY PROPOSAL FOR ROCKET
FILE NO: F01887 - 16/142747
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Asset Planning
Recommendations:
1. That the Council accepts in-principle the Rotary Club of Blackheath’s proposal for a rocket as play equipment in Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park, subject to Rotary undertaking to cover all costs associated with delivering and installing the rocket; and
2. That the Council considers a further report providing full project details for the rocket equipment, suitability in regards to the future upgrade Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park to a District Park, the financial implications for lifecycle costs and ongoing maintenance, and an update on fundraising activities by Rotary, in December 2016.
Report by Director City & Community Outcomes
Reason for report The Rotary Club of Blackheath has approached Council with an offer to re-instate a rocket in Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park. As this is a generous offer which comes with potential cost for both installation and ongoing maintenance, the matter is referred to Council for consideration.
Background Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park historically contained a range of old style play equipment, of which a ten metre tall rocket was a popular local icon. This was removed approximately twenty years ago due to poor condition and inability to meet Australian Standards. The Rotary Club of Blackheath have offered to supply and install a very similar item which would be constructed to meet Australian Standards, however a number of additional site adaptations are required to meet accessibility standards and planning requirements.
Council officers have met with the Rotary Club of Blackheath on site and a location and general scope of works have been discussed. The current proposal is for the rocket to be installed at one end of the main playground, replacing a swing set. An accessible pathway is proposed across the lawn to Prince Edward Street where an existing carpark could potentially be converted to an accessible parking bay.
Rotary have offered to supply and install the Rocket for which they have budgeted $65,000 and are currently fundraising. They have requested that Council cover the costs of the associated works, which is similar to the approach adopted in establishing the exercise park at Winmalee earlier in 2016. These additional supporting works are currently unfunded in the AWP for 16-17.
- 53 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 9, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
District Park Master Planning The Council has an adopted district park masterplan program, for four nominated district parks. The emphasis of the program is to seek a significant lift in the performance of identified areas as key attractors, to be offset by future changes in service levels elsewhere as part of the Strategic Review of Open Space and Recreation, together with the Play Strategy, with both reporting in 2017. Glenbrook Park masterplan is underway and expected to be completed in 2017, and Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park is third on the list. It is preferable that significant changes occur within the context of an adopted masterplan which has been subject to a consultation phase, and for which a budget has been identified.
However, Rotary are keen to proceed in advance of any updated master planning process. Given the significance of the proposal it is considered reasonable to consider this as commensurate with the District Park status of Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park and for Council to consider allocating resources to securing this outcome, should Rotary be successful in securing the necessary funding to deliver the Rocket. Given current fundraising activities it is understood that should this prove successful, the rocket would be delivered late in 2017.
Project Costs Rotary have provided an estimate of the costs of supply and installation of a replacement rocket. This is already a challenging fund raising target. As the rocket is a bespoke item, and it is early days in the design process, there is a risk that the estimate may not prove reliable and / or that the project may not proceed.
There are additional steps required in the design phase of the project as Council needs to be assured, through independent certification, of the safety of the design. There are also associated construction works required over and above the basic supply and installation of a rocket, including:
Disability access This is required for all new developments. While access into the rocket itself is impractical, a reasonable alternative is that a wheelchair can reach the base of the rocket and a child can interact with other users and in a related manner. This could be achieved by providing a path from a dedicated parking bay on Prince Edward Street, a speaking tube to the levels within the rocket and a rocket themed play panel at the base.
Preparations for installation The proposed site for the rocket is within the existing main playground. To allow for the rocket to be placed; a swing set needs removal, a set of steps and part of a retaining wall need replacement or to be incorporated into the design
Refurbishment of adjacent assets If a new rocket and access is installed, it would be an appropriate time to undertake refurbishment of adjacent play items and park furniture which are in medium to poor condition. This could potentially be covered by reviewing the priorities in Council’s maintenance and renewal budgets.
Construction A preliminary estimate for the construction of the total rocket project is shown in table 1 below, indicating $36,000 - $50,500 is required above the cost of supply and installation of the rocket. Estimates may vary as the project is further scoped and details developed. Being a bespoke project on a much loved historic site, extensions to the project scope are highly likely during the detailed design and also the construction phase.
- 54 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 9, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Table 1 Project preliminary estimate for design and construction Item Quantity Cost Rocket supply and installation with 1 rocket with 80 square metres $65,000 rubberised softfall. of soft fall (Rotary’s estimate) Independent review of design 1 initially, but further review $500-$2,000 against Australian Standards for may become necessary if Play equipment and the alterations are required. engineering of the structure Replace failing retaining wall and 20 metres $5,000 in timber steps (20 year life) Provide wheel chair accessible Earth works, Concrete path, $19,000 path Restoration of turf
Accessible play item at base of the One - cost will vary with what $3,000 - $6,000 rocket is selected Line mark and signpost 2 bays 2 $2,000 accessible parking at start of accessible path Remove swings where rocket will 1 $500 go Refurbish adjacent play equipment; One extensive set of play $3,000 oil the exposed timbers, paint metal equipment with much exposed components and clean plastic timber components Refurbish nearby seating; sand 3 seats $3,000 back, paint, provide concrete pads Total $101,000 - $115,500
Funds would need to be identified in the 2017/18 budget to accommodate this proposal, however, it should be noted that this proposal is considered commensurate with the District Park classification of Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park. The costs associated with accommodating this proposal can also be partially offset against the renewal of older play equipment at the preferred location, which would be required in the short to medium term.
Maintenance and Renewal Costs Over a 20 year period with high use, a rocket is anticipated to require enhanced maintenance, operational activities and renewal budgeting that will also need to be factored into future programming.
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social The Blackheath community would Nil broadly welcome the return of a rocket. Economic Could potentially increase Will increase Council’s overall visitation to Blackheath Soldiers maintenance costs. Memorial Park. Governance The outcome is commensurate The proposal is before the intended with the Council’s aim of creating delivery of the District Park upgrade for 4 District Parks. Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park; as such no external consultation has been undertaken on the proposal.
- 55 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 9, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Financial implications for the Council It is estimated that should Council be required to make up the shortfall of the project costs for supporting works, between $36,000 to $50,500 will be required in 2017/18, with a commensurate increase in annual maintenance for this bespoke item.
Funding for the provision of upgraded district park facilities have not been included in the asset works plan at this stage, although it is noted that enhanced district park facilities at Blackheath are proposed as part of the rolling plan of masterplanning currently underway.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council No legal issues are associated with receiving a rocket from Rotary. An independent review of the design of the rocket and its installation are recommended to ensure liability and public safety risks are adequately managed.
External consultation Consultation by Council has been limited to conversations and correspondence with the Rotary Club of Blackheath only.
Conclusion The Rotary Club of Blackheath has approached Council with an offer to supply and install a rocket in Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park. Their preliminary estimate for their offer is $65,000. A further $36,000 - $50,500 is estimated to be required in 2017/18 for the project to be completed. Ongoing maintenance and renewal of the rocket and associated assets will also require additional maintenance funding or a reduction in maintenance and renewal of play equipment elsewhere to offset this task.
Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park is identified within the Council’s District Park Program, it is third on the program and this initiative precedes the intended approach of developing plans in consultation with the community (planned for 2017/18). However, the proposal is considered to be commensurate with the stated aims of the District Park program and the re- installation of a rocket is likely to be a welcome item in Blackheath.
Given the generous offer of Blackheath Rotary it is recommended that that the Council accepts in principle the Rotary Club of Blackheath’s proposal for a rocket in Blackheath Soldiers Memorial Park, subject to Rotary undertaking to cover all costs associated with delivering and installing the rocket; and that a further report providing full project details, together with an update on fundraising activities, is presented to the Council by December 2016.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 56 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 10, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 10
SUBJECT: BANNING DEGRADING WICKED CAMPERVAN SLOGANS
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/154702
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: People and Safety
Recommendations:
1. That the Council notes the contents of this report and the progress made in resolving the outstanding matters;
2. That the Council notes correspondence sent to Andrew Cappie-Wood, Secretary for the New South Wales Department of Justice, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Women, and Elizabeth Wing, Acting President of the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW in relation to misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery on Wicked Campervans;
3. The Council notes correspondence to the Australian Standards Bureau requesting that the images and slogans used on Wicked Campers be classified as a form of outdoor advertising and subject to the same rules and standards as commercial billboards; and
4. That the Council receives a further report in relation to legal advice regarding banning Wicked Campervans with offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery from Council-owned tourist/caravan parks within the Blue Mountains.
Report by Director City & Community Outcomes:
Reason for report At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council on the 24 May 2016, it was resolved:
“1. That the Council reaffirms its position opposing the offensive imagery and slogans on Wicked campervans and calls on Wicked Campervans to eliminate misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery from their vehicles;
2. That the Council notes the community concern for Wicked Campervans that display offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery;
3. That the Council calls for a report on the options available to Council to ban Wicked Campervans with offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery from Council-owned tourist/caravan parks within the Blue Mountains;
4. That the Council writes to Andrew Cappie-Wood, Secretary for the New South Wales Department of Justice, The Hon. Prue Goward, MP, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and Elizabeth Wing, Acting President of the Anti-Discrimination Board NSW expressing the concern of the Council and community that some Wicked - 57 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 10, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Campervans still display offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery; and
5. The Council writes to the Advertising Standards Board to make a formal complaint regarding the offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans displayed on Wicker Campervans, including a request for the vehicles to be classified as a form of outdoor advertising and subject to the same rules and standards as commercial billboards.” [Minute No.142]
This report responds to items 1, 3, 4, and 5, of this resolution, noting that following portfolio changes as a result of the Federal Election, correspondence was sent to Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash, Minister for Women and not Hon. Prue Goward, MP, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. A copy of this outgoing correspondence is attached as part of the précis of correspondence.
Banning Wicked Campervans with Offensive Imagery & Signage from Council-owned Tourist Parks The Council operates two tourist/caravan parks (parks) under management agreements with private operators. The parks in question are located within Crown Land reserves at Katoomba and Blackheath, under the care and control of Council. These parks are promoted as family-friendly holiday destinations within the Blue Mountains and draw visitations from national and international travelers.
It is through the Management Agreements and the associated Parks Rules and Regulations that Council seeks to control the entry of campervans with offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery. Council officers have sought advice in relation to the Councils ability to apply the relevant provisions of these agreements in this particular circumstance, and the necessary procedures required for the effective implementation of this strategy. A further report will be brought back to Council upon clarification of these matters.
Upon receipt of the legal advice, Council will write to Wicked Campervans to reaffirm its position in opposing the offensive imagery and slogans used on their vehicles and Council’s proposed course of action to refuse the entry of their vans to Council’s parks.
Further, officers have identified action that is being pursued by the Queensland Government to amend laws which will enable commercial vehicles that do not comply with the decisions made by the ASB to be deregistered.
Correspondence sent in relation to Wicked Campervans Council has written to Andrew Cappie-Wood, Secretary for the New South Wales Department of Justice, The Hon. Michaelia Cash MP, Minister for Women and Elizabeth Wing, Acting President of the Anti-Discrimination Board NSW expressing the concern of the Council and community that some Wicked Campervans still display offensive, misogynistic, racial and degrading slogans and imagery.
Within its correspondence Council requested that NSW Government follow the Queensland Governments lead to amend laws to enable commercial vehicles that do not comply with the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) Code of Ethics to be deregistered.
Council has also written to the Advertising Standards Bureau and requested that the images and slogans used on Wicked Campers be classified as a form of outdoor advertising and subject to the same rules and standards as commercial billboards.
- 58 - LOOKING AFTER PEOPLE Item 10, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social The offensive slogans and imagery displayed on Wicked Nil Campervans is widely viewed by the Community as inappropriate, offensive and not acceptable. The removal of these types of slogans from these vans would alleviate community concerns in relation to this matter. Economic Nil Nil Governance The position adopted by the Council demonstrates civic Nil leadership in such matters.
Financial implications for the Council There are no financial implications for council as a result of this report.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council Council officers have sought advice in relation to a proposed strategy to ban Wicked Campervans with offensive slogans and imagery from its tourist / caravan parks through the application of provisions within the operating agreements and associated Parks Rules and Regulations under which these facilities are administered.
External consultation No external consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.
Conclusion Council is awaiting advice in relation to an option to exclude campervans with offensive and inappropriate signage from its tourist parks through the use of the existing management agreements and associated parks rules and regulations. This will be the subject of a further report to the Council.
Council has also identified action that is being pursued by the Queensland Government to amend laws which will enable commercial vehicles that do not comply with the decisions made by the ASB to be deregistered and has written to Andrew Cappie-Wood, The Hon. Michaelia Cash, MP and Elizabeth Wing asking that they urge the NSW Government to follow the Queensland Governments lead to amend laws to enable commercial vehicles that do not comply with the decisions made by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) to be deregistered.
In addition, Council has written to the ASB and requested that the images and slogans used on Wicked Campers be classified as a form of outdoor advertising and subject to the same rules and standards as commercial billboards.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 59 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 11
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. X/1184/2015 FOR A TWO STOREY DWELLING AND DRIVEWAY ON LOT 8 DP 1052149, LOT 18 DP 1165971, 1/2 SPELLACY PLACE, LEURA
FILE NO: F09794 - X/1184/2015 - 16/153760
Recommendation:
That the Development Application No. X/1184/2015 for a two storey dwelling and driveway on Lot 8 DP 1052149, Lot 18 DP 1165971, 1/2 Spellacy Place, Leura be determined pursuant to S.80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by the granting of consent subject to conditions shown in Attachment 1 to this report.
Disclosure Disclosure of any political donation and/or gift - No
Report by Director, Development & Customer Services
Reason for report The applicant has proposed a variation of greater than 25% to a numerical development standard which is outside Council Officer delegation.
Applicant Mr A D Peters and Ms B Le Breton
Owner Mr A D Peters and Ms B Le Breton
Application lodged 19 November 2015
Property address 1/2 Spellacy Place, Leura
- 60 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 61 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Site description The subject land is located at 1/2 Spellacy Place, Leura and comprises 2 allotments having a total area of 1841m2. It is an L- shaped lot on top of a small rise adjacent to the Great Western Highway. The site generally slopes towards the Highway.
Proposal It is proposed to construct a two storey weatherboard dwelling. A copy of the plans showing the site area and extent of the proposed development are provided in Attachment 2 to this Report.
Supporting The application is supported by: documentation • Architectural plans • Landscape plan • Concept stormwater drainage plan • External colour schedule • Statement of environmental effects • Objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary development standard regarding building height.
Background The site is currently vacant. It was previously known as 117-129 Great Western Highway and developed as a residential flat building with direct access to the highway. During the process of constructing the Leura highway underpass the property was provided alternative access via Den Hogan Drive and Spellacy Place. An easement to provide right of carriageway to 1/2 Spellacy Place through 2/2 and 3/2 Spellacy Place has been registered by the property owners.
Environmental Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2005 Planning Instruments • Zone: Living – Conservation • Protected Area – Water Supply Catchment • Protected Area – Slope Constraint Area
Blue Mountains Draft LEP 2013 • R6 Residential Character Conservation
Blue Mountains Local LEP 2015 • Deferred matter
Development Control Plan • Better Living DCP 2005
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
- 62 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Notification Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part L (Public Participation) of the Better Living Development Control Plan and the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.
The application was advertised for a period of 14 days from 02/12/2015 to 16/12/2015 with notification in the Blue Mountains Gazette as well as written notification to adjoining and nearby properties.
No submissions were received as a result of this notification process.
Evaluation The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C (Evaluation) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the Act”). A commentary on the assessment of the development against the Section 79C evaluation matters has been detailed in this report for the Council’s consideration.
Implications of 10-50 The site is located within the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of vegetation clearing Practice entitlement area. The following assessment matters code of practice may be affected which will be discussed in further detail later in this Report: • Clause 53 of LEP 2005 - Retention and Management of Vegetation • Clause 65 LEP 2005 - Landscaping
Issues The following assessment issues are further detailed in the report: 1.1 Local Environmental Plan 2005 and Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013 1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards 1. Better Living Development Control Plan 2005 2. Vegetation removal and management 3. Character and amenity 4. Stormwater drainage 5. Access, traffic and parking, and 6. Environmental, social and economic impacts, the suitability of the site and the public interest.
1.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(i) Environmental Planning Instruments 1.1 Local Environmental Plan 2005 / Draft Local Environment Plan 2013 The following table provides for an assessment against the provisions of LEP 2005. The proposed development has also been assessed against the provisions of Draft LEP 2013 with discussion provided accordingly.
LEP 2015 came into force on 15 February 2016, however the R6 Residential Character Conservation zone has been deferred from the new instrument. As such it has been excluded from LEP 2015 and draft LEP 2013 still applies.
- 63 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N cl. 9 Considerations The development satisfactorily Yes before complies with the aims, principles, development locality provisions and the assessment consent requirements relevant to the development. cl. 12 Principal The proposed development complies Yes objectives of with the Principal objectives of the plan. DLEP2013 LEP DLEP2013: As above. cl. 1.2 cl. 23 Objectives of The objectives of the Living – Yes the zone Conservation zone are aimed at protecting and maintaining the landscape and garden setting.
The proposed development retains the garden setting character through the proposed landscaping and the retention of mature vegetation. The traditional style building uses materials characteristic of the area such as weatherboard cladding and timber. DLEP2013 DLEP2013: As above. Land use table cl. 32 Development A dwelling house is a permissible use in Yes permissible on the Living – Conservation zone. DLEP2013 subject land DLEP2013: As above. Land use table cl. 45 Protected Area The proposed development is not Yes – Slope located on that part of the site Constraint designated as a Protected Area – Slope Area Constraint Area and involves minimal site disturbance. The development is a site responsive design which utilises the existing driveway and cleared area. It is considered that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the Protected Area located in the front corner of the existing site. DLEP 2013 DLEP2013: As above. cl. 6.3 cl. 48 Protected Area The site is located within the Sydney Yes – Water drinking water catchment. An Supply assessment of the proposal has been Catchment undertaken which demonstrates that the proposed development has a neutral or beneficial effect (NorBE) on water quality. cl. 53 Retention and There are no trees proposed to be Yes management removed as part of the application. An of vegetation existing L-shaped row of 15m tall pine trees are to be retained on the north eastern boundaries.
- 64 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N DLEP2013 DLEP2013: As above. cl. 5.9 cl. 56 Site There is an 840mm cut proposed as Yes disturbance & part of the development to erosion control accommodate the concrete slab. This complies with the maximum 1 metre cut and fill standard. The location and size of the cut could potentially interfere with the root system of the westernmost pine tree marked for retention. The construction of a retaining wall adjoining the verandah would limit the extent of the cut and assist in protecting the root pine tree. This will be included as a condition of any Development Consent.
Erosion and sediment control measures are to be conditioned in any consent. DLEP2013 DLEP2013: As above. cl. 6.14 cl. 57 Stormwater Roof water is proposed to be collected Yes management in a 10,000 litre rainwater tank. As the site is within a Protected area – Water Supply Catchment, in accordance with cl.57 (2) the development will need to incorporate effective measures for on- site retention of 4,000L per 100m2 of hard or impervious surface and for reuse of that water. The hard surface area of the proposed development (dwelling plus driveway) is 412.5m2. The water tank capacity will need to be increased to a minimum of 16,500 litre to comply with the LEP. This will be included as a condition of any Development Consent. DLEP2013 DLEP2013: As above. 6.9 cl. 60 Consideration There is no single dominant building Yes of character character apparent in the immediate and landscape visual catchment as viewed from the highway. The two directly adjacent dwellings (129A Great Western Highway and 2/2 Spellacy Place) are both two storey residences of weatherboard/tile and brick/tile construction respectively.
The streets to the rear of the site are East View Avenue and Mount Street. The proposed dwelling will not be
- 65 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N viewed from these locations. The dwellings in these streets comprise an eclectic mix of 1 and 2 storey buildings of varying styles and ages. Of note is ‘The Nunnery and Garden’ a heritage listed property at 6 East View Ave (LA043).
The subject property is not part of a Protected Area - Period Housing Area under LEP 2005.
LEP 2005 specifically identifies land zoned as Living - Conservation as being characterised by larger allotments and single dwelling houses within a prominent traditional garden setting. The zone objectives promote the importance of retaining landscape elements and the maintenance of the garden setting. In this case the retention of existing mature trees and the use of new landscaping will achieve these objectives. It is considered that the design will complement the established character and streetscape of the surrounding area.
In relation to the other built character considerations detailed in cl.60, a) Scale and massing of the proposed building - the dwelling is a two storey, Victorian style building with first floor veranda. It complies with the development standards for site coverage and landscaped area but exceeds the maximum building height and height at eaves standards. However it is not inconsistent with the scale of other larger sized homes in the vicinity. b) Building materials, colours and finishes – traditional materials are proposed including weatherboard wall cladding and colorbond steel roof cladding in mid-grey tones. c) Building form, roof pitch and proportions of windows – the proposed dwelling is of a traditional style with a 30 degree pitched roof. d) Location of buildings on the allotment and relationship to the street - the immediately adjacent
- 66 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N dwellings are located with 2-5 metre front setbacks to the highway boundary. The proposed dwelling is set back 15.6 metres from the front boundary. Due to the topography of the site this deeper setback is also considered appropriate to reduce the perception of bulk of the proposed two storey dwelling from the highway. DLEP2013 DLEP2013: As above. 6.18, 6.21 cl. 65 Landscaping A detailed landscape plan has been Yes for residential submitted which indicates an development appropriate level of landscaping suited to the garden character of the area. A row of 15m tall mature pines trees are proposed to be retained that will assist in providing a balance to the scale and massing of the dwelling.
On the recommendation of Council’s Landscape Officer the dwelling location was amended to maintain a buffer from the drip line of the westernmost pine tree. The recommendation was made in order to safeguard the ongoing vigour of the tree. Other recommendations that have been incorporated into the landscape plan include the implementation of a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), relocation of the water tanks, and provision of additional mixed screening plantings along the boundaries of the site. cl. 78 Consideration The site is partly designated as Yes of bushfire Bushfire Prone Land. A bushfire protection assessment has been undertaken and demonstrates that the property would be subject to a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) 12.5. The construction requirements under AS3959 and Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) 2006 have been met. cl. 98 Access to land An easement to provide right of Yes from a public carriageway through 2/2 and 3/2 road Spellacy Place has been registered with the Land Titles Office. cl. 99 Car parking An open car parking space is proposed Yes provision alongside the dwelling on the south eastern portion of the site.
- 67 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N cl. 103 Privacy Due to the topography of the site any Yes dwelling would be elevated above neighbouring dwellings. This limits privacy conflicts resulting from direct views between habitable rooms and windows.
In relation to overlooking of private spaces, the existing pine trees effectively screen the proposed development to dwellings to the east. The dwelling at 129A Great Western Highway is located in close proximity to the front boundary, considerably forward of the building line of the proposed dwelling, however the veranda could potentially provide an opportunity for overlooking the rear of the adjoining dwelling. A privacy screen on the western end of the first floor veranda will be included as a condition of any consent. To the north the additional planting will provide screening between the proposed development and 1 East View Ave. The private open space at 3 East View Ave is located in front of the dwelling. cl. 105 Energy The building achieves the BASIX Yes efficiency requirements for energy efficiency. cl. 133 Development The development has been assessed Yes adjoining against the NSW Department of regional Planning publication “Development Transport near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Corridor Interim Guideline’ (2008). The development will potentially be impacted by both road and rail noise. The Guideline specifies a range of standard noise attenuation measures which will reduce internal noise levels to an acceptable level. It would be necessary for the development to comply with the standard mitigation measures consistent with Category 2 acoustic treatment of construction methods and building materials, or alternatively provide an acoustic assessment to demonstrate compliance with the applicable noise level standards provided in the Guideline. A condition has been included in the draft conditions at Attachment 1 reinforcing this requirement. The development does not require
- 68 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N concurrence of RMS as direct access to the highway is not proposed. The minimum setback from the Regional Transport Corridor is required to be 18 metres unless the physical circumstances of the land warrant a lesser setback. The proposed setback to the corner of the front verandah is 15.6 metres and 18 metres to the front wall of the dwelling. Given the shape of the lot, the dwelling is setback as far as possible from the front boundary. It is considered that a lesser minimum setback to the front verandah is reasonable in the circumstances and will have no adverse impacts on the Regional Transport Corridor. Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 1 Building envelope cl. 1 Building height The proposed dwelling originally had a No building height of 11.2 metres and a height at eaves of 7.8 metres. The plans have been amended to reduce the building height to 8.1 metres and the height at eaves to 6.2 metres. A concession is available in subclause (2) permitting a maximum building height of 8 metres and a maximum height at eaves of 6.5 metres if: (a) the building will retain the prominence of the landscape setting and will not protrude above the existing tree canopy of vegetation adjacent to the building or above adjacent buildings, and (b) the building incorporates a design that minimises its bulk when viewed from a public road, and (c) … (d) buildings in the immediate vicinity in the Living – Conservation zone have a 2 storey residential character, and (d) the building does not exceed a maximum building height of 8 metres or a maximum height at eaves of 6.5 metres.
The proposed dwelling is not able to be considered under the concession heights clause as it does not comply with all of the specified clause requirements. Due to the location of the allotment on the top of a ridge, any
- 69 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N dwelling on the site, even a single storey, will protrude above adjacent buildings as required by (a). In addition, due to the design and pitch of the roof, at 8.1 metres the dwelling marginally exceeds the maximum height specified in (d). Therefore the relevant height standards are 6.5 metres for building height and 4.5 metres for eave height.
The application is accompanied by an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 (SEPP 1) requesting a variation to this development standard. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 1.2 of this Report. cl. 2 Building As the site adjoins the Regional Yes setback Transport Corridor, the front building setback is required under LEP 2005 clause 133. The proposed development complies with this development standard. cl. 3 Site coverage The maximum permissible building site Yes cover for the allotment is 384.1m2. The proposed site cover is 298.8m2. The minimum area to be retained as pervious or landscaped area is 1104.6m2. The proposed pervious surface area is 1428.5m2. Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 Character and landscape considerations cl. 1 Retaining A character assessment was submitted Yes character with the application. It demonstrates within the that the character of buildings in the Living – immediate area is mixed in style and Conservation size. The proposed dwelling is of a Zone traditional design and material schedule which complies with the character requirements of the zone. Additional landscaping and retention of existing vegetation will satisfy the relevant objectives of the zone. cl. 2 Landscape The detailed landscape plan was Yes character assessed by Council’s Landscape within the Officer who recommended additional Living – screen planting on all lot boundaries, Conservation comprising of a mix of sizes and Zone species. A Tree Protection Zone around the existing vegetation to be retained was also recommended. cl. 3 Development No work in the road reserve is Yes in road proposed as part of this application.
- 70 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provision Proposed Compliance Y/N reserves Any works that may be associated with adjoining the forming the right of carriageway from Living- Spellacy Place will require approval Conservation under the Roads Act. Zone
1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objection has been lodged with respect to the maximum building height and maximum height of the building at the eaves.
Development standard objected to Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 1, Clause1(1) of LEP 2005 provides the development standards for building height and height at eaves for the Living – Conservation Zone. The maximum applicable heights in this instance are a 6.5 metre building height and 4.5 metre height at eaves.
Nature and extent of non-compliance with the standard The proposal seeks a maximum building height of 8.1 metres above finished ground level which is a 24.6% variation of the allowable building height. The proposed eave height of 6.2 metres represents a variation of 37.8%.
Objectives of the (type/name of standard) standard LEP 2005 does not include specific objectives for the building height standard. However, having regard to the considerations under Part 2, Division 1 Clause 1 it is understood that the purpose of the standard is to: • Limit building/eave height so that the development retains the prominence of the landscape setting and does not result in a visually prominent built form, particularly when viewed from the road; • Ensure that the eave/wall height of new development is consistent with the established built character in the streetscape.
Justification for the non-compliance with the (type/name of standard) standard The SEPP 1 objection submitted by the applicant states that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to comply with the building height development standard by reason that: • The building will retain the prominence of the landscape setting; the stand of conifers on the eastern boundary which will be retained. The building will not protrude above the stand of conifers. • The development will improve and enhance the landscape setting of the locality by improving the appearance of the site. The building is in keeping with period housing style of architecture and improvements to landscaping are a key component of the proposal. • The only way to avoid the increased building height above adjoining buildings would be to significantly excavate. Any building above 3 metres (or less in relation to the building to the west) in height would be above the roof levels of buildings on adjoining sites. As a result compliance with the minimum height development standard for Living Conservation of 6.5 metres and 4.5 metres at eaves would contravene this development standard. • A larger more sprawling single storey dwelling would be more apparent as viewed from the highway and reduces the space available for the planting of large trees which will in time further screen the development from any fleeting views available to the driver not watching the road. • The bulk of the dwelling can be seen from the rear of the property; however, there is an 11m rear setback. The main view will be from opposite the site on the Great Western
- 71 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Highway and on the train. The dwelling will not be visible when driving east along the Great Western Highway due to the height increase from the highway and the building being setback from the front boundary. • The plans have been amended to endeavour to comply with the maximum height restriction; however strict compliance with this clause would result in the first floor veranda being removed from the plans. As the veranda is intrinsic to the design of the house it is considered unreasonable to require the proposal to comply with the standard. Considering the significant modification that has already been made to the plans; it is contended that the variation is justified and that the impact of the variation being 100mm is minor and will not result in any adverse impacts. • Due to the nature and form of the location any development on this site will result in a building that is higher than buildings on adjacent sites. However, the design and siting of the proposed building and the proposals for landscaping the site will enhance the landscape setting and the character of the locality.
Whether compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary The non-compliance with the development standard relates to the maximum building height and the height at the eaves.
The assessment against the relevant planning controls has revealed that the proposed development complies with the front, side and rear setbacks, width across the lot and site coverage standards. While it does not comply with the building and eaves standards, the massing of the building is offset by the retention of a row of large pine trees in the north eastern corner of the property. These trees provide a balance to the scale of the two storey development and it is considered that the height of the dwelling will appear appropriate in the context of its surroundings. The planning controls in relation to height are aimed at preserving the existing character of the area. There is no consistent built character in the surrounding area with a variety of housing styles and sizes from various time periods evident. The subject lot is not within a period housing area. The character to be preserved therefore is related to the garden setting and landscaping, and the impact on the streetscape. Notwithstanding the noncompliance in height, when viewed from the Highway the development will present as a traditional style dwelling set amongst a landscaped garden, fitting appropriately with the existing character of the area. Additionally, the perceived difference between a compliant development and the proposed dwelling in this location would be marginal when viewed from the Highway or other surrounding locations due to the setback from the front boundary and limited views into the site from the Highway.
The height of buildings in the surrounding area is also a mix of single and two storey dwellings. Significantly the two adjacent buildings on the Great Western Highway frontage are two storey. Although these buildings will be lower that the proposed dwelling because of the sloping land on either side of the subject lot, these developments are the most visible neighbouring buildings and will assist in providing a gradual increase in the height of built forms and a consistency in the overall streetscape.
For these reasons it is considered unreasonable and unnecessary to maintain the building height development standards in this instance.
Other considerations in deciding whether concurrence should be granted (in accordance with Clause 8 SEPP1): SEPP 1 provides flexibility in the application of planning controls where strict compliance with a development standard would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the Act”). These sub-sections of the Act are:
- 72 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
a) to encourage: (i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment; and (ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.
In relation to the objectives of the Act stated above it is considered the proposed development is consistent with the established character and streetscape. The height and scale of the proposed development is in keeping with adjoining and surrounding buildings. In relation to the objectives of the Act stated above, it is considered that the proposed development is an orderly and economic use of the subject property that will not result in a negative impact on the community or the environment.
Whether the SEPP 1 objection is well founded To fulfil the requirements of SEPP 1, in addition to satisfying the underlying objectives of the standards themselves, the proposal must also comply with the relevant Living – Conservation zone objectives, which are: a) To retain and enhance the character of residential areas that are formed by larger allotments and single dwelling houses within a prominent traditional garden setting. b) ….. c) To ensure development, including development within adjoining road reserves, retains the prominence of landscape elements and traditional garden settings; d) To ensure that established gardens are retained or landscape settings are re-established as part of any development of land, including development involving major alterations and additions. e) …
As discussed above, the local area is not typified by a particular building character but is characterised by landscaping and its garden setting. The zone objectives seek to retain and protect this character.
The proposal is considered to comply with both the underlying objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the Living–Conservation zone despite the non-compliance with the development standard.
Clause 8 of SEPP 1 also requires that the following matters be considered in deciding whether to grant consent to the development application, notwithstanding the development standards:
1. Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Comment: It is considered that in this particular case that non-compliance with the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.
2. The public benefit of maintaining the planning controls. Comment: There is no public benefit in maintaining the planning controls in this case because the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of the LEP without complying with the numerical standards.
Having regard to the above, it is considered the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and it is recommended that, on balance, the Council support the variation to the development
- 73 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
standard as compliance relating to the maximum building height and height at eaves is considered unnecessary in this particular case.
1.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchments) 2011 Clause Provisions Proposed Compliance cl.10 Neutral or Clause 10 of SEPP (Sydney Drinking Water Yes beneficial Catchment) 2011 states that “A consent effect on water authority must not grant consent to the quality carrying out of development under Part 4 of the Act on land in the Sydney drinking water catchment unless it is satisfied that the carrying out of the proposed development would have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality”.
An assessment has been made of the neutral or beneficial effects (NorBE) of the development using the Sydney Catchment Authority’s online assessment tool. It has been determined that the proposed development will have a neutral or beneficial effect on the water quality in the catchment. Erosion and sedimentation controls have been proposed and will be conditioned in any Development Consent.
2.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) Proposed Instruments Blue Mountains City Council’s DLEP2013 has been considered as outlined in Section 1.1 above.
3.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) Development Control Plans 3.1 Better Living Development Control Plan The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the Better Living Development Control Plan (BLDCP) with significant points of consideration identified and discussed in the table below. Clause Standard Proposed Compliance Y/N D1.2 Biodiversity A 840mm cut is proposed to Yes accommodate the concrete slab which complies with the maximum 1m cut and fill standard. The land has been previously cleared and will be progressively rehabilitated with vegetation appropriate to the garden setting objectives of the zone. D1.4 Stormwater A 10,000L tank is proposed however Yes based on the impervious area proposed a minimum of 16,500 litres is required to comply with LEP and DCP controls. This will be included as a condition of any Development Consent. D1.5 Streetscape The development complies with the Yes and character setback from the Regional Transport Corridor. Character considerations
- 74 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Standard Proposed Compliance Y/N have been detailed above in Section 1.1 D1.6 Landscaping The landscaping has been assessed Yes and amendments to the design made by council’s Landscape Officer in order to comply with the DCP standards. D1.8 Services All services are available. Yes
D1.10 Vehicular A right of carriageway easement has Yes access, been established to provide access parking and from Spellacy Place through the roads adjacent allotments. An open car parking space is provided on the site. D1.11 Amenity The development is designed and Yes located so that solar access to the living areas and private open space areas of adjoining properties is not reduced to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21st June.
4.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(iii)(a) Planning Agreement There are no planning agreements that apply to the proposed development or the subject site.
5.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) The Regulations The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulations) provides controls and regulations that relate to the management of the proposed development. These requirements are inherent in the assessment processes undertaken for the proposal.
6.0 Section 79C(1)(b) Likely Impacts 6.1 Natural and Built Environment 6.1.1 Vegetation removal and management No vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of the application.
6.1.2 Heritage impacts The site is not identified as a heritage item, site or relic.
6.1.3 Character and amenity The proposed development is consistent with the established character and streetscape of the surrounding area. It is also considered that the proposed development retains the garden setting character of the area through the proposed landscaping and the retention of existing vegetation.
6.2 Social and Economic Impacts The development proposed is a new dwelling in an established residential area. It is considered that there will be no adverse social or economic impacts associated with the development.
7.0 Section 79C(1)(c) Suitability of the Site It is considered that the physical site conditions are suitable to accommodate the proposed development.
- 75 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
8.0 Section 79C(1)(d - e) Submissions and Public Interest 8.1 Submissions As identified in the ‘Notification’ section of this report, the application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners. As a result no submissions were received.
8.2 Public Interest No issues have arisen during the assessment that would indicate the proposed development is not in the public interest.
9.0 Community Contribution The Citywide Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2010 applies to the site. In accordance with Part B1.09 of the Plan, the rate of the levy for the stated value of $721,952 is $7,219.52. This will require adjustment at time of payment in accordance with a final Cost Summary Report and the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment. Payment of the contribution is required by consent condition prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.
Conclusion The application for a two storey dwelling has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979), Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2005, Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Council’s Better Living Development Control Plan. The application seeks SEPP 1 variation to the development standards relating to building height and height at eaves and is considered reasonable in this case.
Notwithstanding non-compliance with the height development standard, the proposal will achieve an outcome that meets the objectives of the Living – Conservation zone. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the character and/or streetscape of the area.
Accordingly it is recommended that the Council support the proposal and the development application be approved subject to the conditions shown in Attachment 1 to this report.
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES
1 X-1184-2015 Plans 16/153922 Attachment 2 X-1184-2015 Conditions of development consent 16/153919 Attachment
* * * * * * * * * *
- 76 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 1 - X-1184-2015 Plans
- 77 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 78 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 79 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 2 - X-1184-2015 Conditions of development consent
- 80 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 81 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 82 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 83 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 84 - USING LAND Item 11, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 85 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 12
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. X/98/2016 FOR TOURIST ACCOMMODATION INCLUDING CONVERSION OF STOREROOM TO ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM AND PARKING SPACES ON LOT 1 DP 1009510, LOT 1 SEC. 9 DP 5140, LOT 2 DP 1009510, 36 MOUNT STREET, LEURA, 61 - 63 KINGS ROAD, LEURA
FILE NO: F09794 - X/98/2016 - 16/154360
Recommendation:
That the Development Application No. X/98/2016 for Tourist accommodation including conversion of storeroom to accessible bathroom and parking spaces on Lot 1 DP 1009510, Lot 1 Sec. 9 DP 5140, Lot 2 DP 1009510, 36 Mount Street, Leura, 61 - 63 Kings Road, Leura be determined pursuant to S.80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by the granting of consent subject to conditions shown in Attachment 1 to this report.
Disclosure Disclosure of any political donation and/or gift - No
Report by Director, Development & Customer Services:
Reason for report Application requires variation of a development standard that is outside officer delegation.
Type of development Integrated
Applicant Mr M F Hennessy
Owner Mr M F Hennessy and Ms M S Gliener
Application lodged 10 February 2016
Property address 36 Mount Street, and 61-63 Kings Road, Leura
- 86 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 87 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Background The tourist accommodation business known as ‘Old Leura Dairy’ has been operating for an extended period without development consent. Council first became aware of the business in December 2003.
The buildings across the three allotments were historically approved for residential uses, with workshop and studios. The tourist accommodation land use was not permissible on the site at that time.
During June 2004, the owner lodged an amendment to Local Environmental Plan 4, the then in force planning instrument (O/1445/2004). The aim of this amendment was to permit tourist accommodation as an additional land use. In June 2005 the business was expanded to include 61 Kings Rd, Leura with the associated rezoning process becoming stalled and the application withdrawn.
A second amendment application (O/2246/2007) was submitted in 2007 under Local Environmental Plan 2005 (LEP 2005). This amendment applied to all three lots and was accompanied by a development application for tourist accommodation (X/949/2007). The development application component was subsequently withdrawn, in part due to the length of time associated with the rezoning process.
The recommendations from Council’s 11 March 2008 report supported the rezoning application. The recommendations also noted that the Old Leura Dairy is domestic in scale and generally compatible with the residential setting. It has contributed both directly and indirectly to the local tourist industry. The rezoning application was approved by the NSW Government on 19 May 2010. The amendment to Schedule 8 of LEP 2005 was gazetted allowing the additional land use for tourist accommodation across the subject site.
Following this rezoning, Council requested that the applicant lodge a development application to formalise the tourist accommodation use operating at the property. After further correspondence and negotiations with the owners of the site, the current application was submitted for assessment.
Site description The site operates as tourist accommodation and is known as ‘Old Leura Dairy’. The development comprises the following three allotments: 1. 36 Mount Street, Leura - Lot 1 DP 1009510 Area: 1200sqm. Mount Street frontage: 26.3m 2. 63 Kings Rd. Leura - Lot 2 DP 1009510 Area: 854sqm Mount Street frontage: 20.6m Kings Street frontage: 46.2m 3. 61 Kings Rd, Leura - Lot 1 Section 9 DP 5140 Area: 1130.3sqm Kings Street frontage: 15m East View Ave frontage: 58m
- 88 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
The site has a total area of approximately 3,182sqm and drains to the north west and north east, with site levels falling from 958m at its southern (rear) boundary to 951m at its northern (front) boundary.
The site contains a range of buildings and ancillary structures, as well as existing driveways and car parking areas. Existing buildings on site can be summarised as follows: • 36 Mount Street, Leura, contains “The Straw Bale House” (south east portion) and “The Studio” (south central portion). A circular driveway accesses the lot from Mount St with three on site car parking spaces. • 63 Kings Rd, Leura, contains “The Workers Cottage” (north east portion) and “The Milking Shed” (north central portion). A single access driveway from King Rd leads to two car parking spaces. • 61 Kings Rd, Leura, contains the “Moo Manor” (north west portion) with associated office, and the “Buttercup Barn” building (south west portion). Three individual driveways exist with access from East View Ave. The driveways are configured with one to each suite and one to the office. Four car parking spaces in total are available from these driveways. • The Straw Bale House and the Milking Shed which are partially two storey, with all other buildings being single storey. Crossovers and driveways are generally irregular and mostly unsealed. The site contains a mix of native and exotic species of vegetation.
Proposal The proposal seeks to formalise the existing use of the site as Tourist Accommodation, as well as create an accessible bathroom and car parking space.
The development includes the following details: • Accommodation for up to 30 guests within six existing accommodation suites. • Office and utility spaces provide meeting rooms and corporate retreat areas. Retreats limited to 30 people can be held, utilising the accommodation suites. • Modifications are proposed to the Milking Shed to make it accessible, including entrance area, bathroom, toilet; pathway/ramp and an accessible parking space. • A total of 8 car parking spaces shall be provided across the site (including 1 accessible space). The accommodation suites and car parking are proposed in the following configuration: 36 Mount St • Straw Bale House: 5 bedrooms • Studio: 1 bedroom
63 Kings Rd • Workers Cottage: 3 bedrooms • Milking Shed (accessible): 2 bedrooms
- 89 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
61 Kings Rd • Moo Manor: 2 bedrooms • Buttercup Barn:2 bedrooms • Staff office and reception attached to Moo Manor.
A copy of the plans showing the site area and extent of the proposed development are provided in Attachment 2 to this Report.
Supporting The application is supported by: documentation • Architectural plans • Statement of environmental effects • Variation under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards • Crime Minimisation Statement • Bushfire Hazard Assessment • Access Audit
Environmental Local Environmental Plans: Planning Instruments The site is zoned Living Bushland Conservation (LBC) under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2005.
The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living under Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2015.
The application was lodged on 10 February 2016, before LEP 2015 commenced on 15 February 2016. Therefore the application is considered under LEP 2005 with Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2015 considered as if a draft LEP.
Development Control Plan: • Better Living
State Environmental Planning Policies: • SEPP 1 Development Standards • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20: Hawkesbury Nepean River
Notification Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part L (Public Participation) of the Better Living Development Control Plan and the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.
The application was advertised for a period of 14 days from 2 March 2016 with notification in the Blue Mountains Gazette as well as written notification to adjoining and nearby properties.
One (1) submission was received as a result of this notification process.
Evaluation The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C (Evaluation) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the Act”). A commentary on the
- 90 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
assessment of the development against the Section 79C evaluation matters has been detailed in this report for the Council’s consideration.
Issues The following assessment issues are further detailed in this report: • Character and amenity • Accessibility • Vehicular access and parking, and • Environmental, social and economic impacts, the suitability of the site and the public interest.
1.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(i) Environmental Planning Instruments 1.1 Local Environmental Plan 2005 [LEP2005] & Draft Local Environment Plan 2015 (DLEP2015) The application was lodged on 10 February 2016 and prior to the gazettal of Local Environmental Plan 2015. Clause 1.8A of LEP 2015 means that the current application will be assessed against LEP 2005 and LEP 2015 considered as a draft LEP. The following table provides for an assessment against the provisions of LEP 2005. The proposed development has also been assessed against the provisions of LEP 2015 with discussion provided accordingly.
Where a draft clause is equivalent to a clause under LEP 2005, the clauses are listed together and a single assessment undertaken. Clauses within LEP 2015 which represent new policy are listed at the end of the table. Only those relevant to the proposed development have been addressed. Clause Provisions Proposed / Comment / Assessment Compliance LEP 2005/DLEP2015 Y/N 11 Ecologically The existing development and Y sustainable proposed accessibility works are development considered to be consistent with the a) integration principles of ecologically sustainable development. b) community involvement The business has won the NSW Tourism Awards for “Environmental c) precautionary Sustainability” with the buildings behaviour renovated using 80% recycled material d) equity within & as well as the Straw Bale House between generations incorporating passive solar heating. e) continual improvement f) conservation of biological diversity & ecological integrity g) improved valuation & pricing of environment resources 12 Principal objectives of LEP2005: Y LEP The development contributes to the unique identity of the Blue Mountains. It operates with minimal environmental
- 91 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provisions Proposed / Comment / Assessment Compliance LEP 2005/DLEP2015 Y/N impact and maintains a strong landscape setting. The proposal incorporates accessible facilities for the development and is a strong contributor to the tourism industry. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 1.2 24 Objectives of the zone LEP2005: Y The development generally satisfies the objectives for the LBC zone. Tourist accommodation would ordinarily be prohibited in the zone, however as detailed above in the background to this report, a site specific rezoning allows for tourist accommodation as an additional permitted use on the site. The development provides tourist accommodation whilst generally maintaining an overall residential setting. DLEP2 DLEP2015: 015 Consistent with LEP 2005 assessment. Landus e table 32 Development LEP2005: Y permissible on subject Permissible. Refer to clause 24 above land and section 1.1.1 Permissibility for further discussion. DLEP2 DLEP2015: 015 Permissible 2.6 for subdivi sion. Landus e table 37 Bushfire safety A Bushfire Safety Authority, dated 7 Y authority April 2016, has been received from the RFS. This will be attached to and form part of any consent. Refer to the 3.1 Better Living DCP (D7.7) section of this report for further discussion. 41-43 Site analysis Acceptable as detailed above. Y 44 Environmental impact LEP2005: Y The only environmental constraint
- 92 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provisions Proposed / Comment / Assessment Compliance LEP 2005/DLEP2015 Y/N applicable to the site is bushfire prone land (buffer). Refer to the 3.1 Better Living DCP (D7.7) section of this report for further discussion. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.1 56 Site disturbance & LEP2005: Minor works associated with Y erosion control the accessible car parking space is proposed. A suitable condition will ensure appropriate erosion and sediment controls are implemented during construction. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.14 57 Stormwater LEP2005: The area of the proposed Y management accessible space is already sealed and there is no increase in hardstand area. Stormwater infrastructure is sufficient to cater for existing stormwater rates. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.9 58 Modification of land LEP2005: The accessible car space is Y form already sealed and does not involve any substantial modification of land form. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.14 60 Consideration of LEP2005: Y character and Character is considered appropriate landscape within the landscape setting of the site and overall streetscape. Refer to the 6.1.1 Character section for further discussion. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.18, 6.20 74 Development affecting LEP2005: Y places or sites of A search of the Office of the known or potential Environment and Heritage Aboriginal
- 93 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provisions Proposed / Comment / Assessment Compliance LEP 2005/DLEP2015 Y/N Aboriginal heritage Heritage Information System has significance shown that no aboriginal sites or aboriginal places are declared in or near the subject site. DLEP2 DLEP2015: 015 Consistent with LEP 2005 assessment. 5.10 76 Development in the LEP2005: Y curtilage of a heritage No heritage items or heritage item or in a heritage conservation areas are identified as conservation area being located in the vicinity of the subject site. DLEP2 DLEP2015: 015 Consistent with LEP 2005 assessment. 5.10 87 Crime minimisation There are no crime related concerns in Y assessment relation to the proposal. The development is considered to generally improve passive surveillance. 94 General provision of LEP2005: Y services Water services to the site already exist and demand will not be increased as a result of this proposal. A condition requiring a Sydney Water S73 Certificate is to be included in the conditions of consent. Usually such an application would include a condition that the sites are consolidated to ensure ongoing use. The applicant has requested, as an alternative, that a restrictive covenant be imposed across all three lots stipulating the tourist accommodation business must cease should any of the properties be sold. This approach is considered sufficient to ensure the sites remain functionally connected whilst ever the tourist accommodation use operates. This approach will also require easements be established across the site for access and services. It will also be stipulated that the covenant cannot be removed without the approval of Council. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.23
- 94 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provisions Proposed / Comment / Assessment Compliance LEP 2005/DLEP2015 Y/N 99 Car parking provision Car parking is considered adequate in Y terms of the proposed development. Refer to the 6.1.2 Vehicular access and parking section of this report for further discussion. 106 Sustainable resource LEP2005: Y management The proposed development is considered to adequately address sustainable resource management. DLEP2 DLEP2015: Consistent with LEP 2005 015 assessment. 6.21 108 Accessibility of One suite is required to be accessible. Y dwellings The development complies with this provision. Refer to the 6.1.3 Accessibility section of this report for further discussion. 109 Adaptability of All accommodation suites are required N dwellings to be adaptable. Aside from the one SEPP 1 accessible suite, no suites are proposed to be adaptable. The applicant has lodged an objection to this development standard under SEPP 1. Refer to the section 1.2 of this report for further discussion. Sch 2 Locality management LEP2005: Y – Living Bushland The existing buildings were approved Conservation zone prior to LEP 2005. The existing buildings are consistent with the development consent issued at that time. The proposal will not alter the existing building height, setback or site coverage. The existing development has been reviewed against the relevant building envelope standards as follows: • Maximum height 8m, eaves 6.5m: The existing buildings are not being altered and are generally single storey (with a portion of the Straw Bale House being two-storey). All buildings are under the maximum height limit. • Maximum setback 20% of average: Setbacks are not being altered. The front building facing each road reserve is generally setback consistent with those adjoining and nearby to the site.
- 95 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause Provisions Proposed / Comment / Assessment Compliance LEP 2005/DLEP2015 Y/N • The site coverage for all three allotments combined is 31%, slightly above the 30% standard. The individual allotments contain the following respective site coverage: - 36 Mount St: 35% site cover - 63 Kings Rd: 26% site cover - 61 Kings Rd: 32% site cover This is an existing situation, and as detailed above, the buildings were historically approved for residential uses. Site coverage was assessed and approved as part of these consents. • The soft pervious area for all three allotments exceeds the soft, pervious or landscaped area requirement of 60%.
DLEP2 DLEP2015: The existing approved 015 buildings remain unchanged in terms of 4.3, the building envelope. 4.3A, No FSR limit applies to the zone. 4.4A, Site coverage controls are consistent 6.20 with LEP 2005, and are detailed above.
1.1.1 Permissibility The site is zoned Living Bushland Conservation (LBC) under LEP 2005 and is zoned Environmental Living (E4) under DLEP 2015. The proposed use is defined as tourist accommodation. LEP 2005 defines the use as follows: tourist accommodation means a building or buildings providing for short term visitor accommodation and recreation which use, adapt or complement the existing building or buildings and which may include a refreshment room and space capable of being used for functions such as receptions, conventions, or the like.
Tourist accommodation is not a permissible use in the Living Bushland Conservation zone under the general provisions of clause 32 (Land Use Matrix). However clause 38 allows a use to be carried out with consent as identified under Schedule 8 (Additional land uses) of LEP 2005. Point 5 of the additional land uses (ALU05) relates to the subject site and allows development for the purpose of tourist accommodation with consent.
Therefore the defined use is permissible within the LBC zone under LEP 2005 with development consent.
1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards Development standard objected to A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objection has been lodged to vary from clause 109(2) Adaptability of dwellings of LEP 2005.
- 96 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Clause 109(2) of LEP 2005 states: All dwellings or accommodation suites within development for the purpose of accessible housing, boarding houses, multi-dwelling housing or tourist accommodation are to be adaptable.
Nature and extent of non-compliance with the standard The proposal provides for one accessible accommodation suite and no additional adaptable suites.
Objectives of the Adaptability standard There is no direct objective to the standard, however the following principal objective of the Plan is considered to be of relevance: 12 Principal objectives of the plan (i) To promote the provision of accessible, diverse and affordable housing options to cater for the changing housing needs of the community.
Justification for the non-compliance with the Adaptability standard The applicant provides the following justifications in support of the departure from the clause: • The proposal seeks approval for the use only. • The buildings were granted Council consent • The business has been in operation for 15 years without complaint. • To undertake significant works across the site to enforce requirements for adaptability would jeopardise the viability of the business due to financial burden of facilitating the works. • Modification accommodation suites to meet adaptability requirements would significantly alter the character of the accommodation which is a major factor in the appeal and success of the business. • Draft LEP 2013 does not impose additional requirements for adaptability of accommodation suites.
Whether compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary The justification identified by the applicant is generally agreed with; notwithstanding that approval is sought for construction of accessible facilities rather than for the tourist use only, as stated. The information provided is sufficient to demonstrate that the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in accordance with the criteria and guidelines for SEPP 1.
It is considered that the objectives of the zone have not been compromised. The provision of an additional accessible suite and associated car parking will increase the accessible facilities available at the site, and therefore result in an improved overall outcome.
Other considerations in deciding whether concurrence should be granted (in accordance with Clause 8 SEPP 1): The non-compliance with the standard does not raise any matters of State or regional significance and there would be no public benefit to maintain the planning control.
Whether the SEPP 1 objection is well founded With consideration for the merits of this application and for the reasons outlined above, the SEPP 1 objection is considered to be well founded and is supported.
1.3 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20: Hawkesbury Nepean River The land is located within the Grose River sub-catchment. The development has been assessed against the planning considerations as set out in Clause 5 and 6 of SREP 20 and
- 97 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
considered acceptable. The proposal does not impact on the existing stormwater regime or infrastructure.
2.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) Proposed Instruments Local Environmental Plan 2015 has been assessed as if a draft environmental planning instrument. Refer to the 1.1 Local Environmental Plan 2005 [LEP2005] & Draft Local Environment Plan 2015 (DLEP2015) section of this report for further discussion.
3.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) Development Control Plans 3.1 Better Living Development Control Plan The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the Better Living Development Control Plan (BLDCP) with significant points of consideration identified and discussed below.
D7 Tourist accommodation & boarding houses D7.2 Biodiversity The development exists with minimal new works proposed with the exception of a new accessible car parking space and some tree removal to comply with an Inner Protection Area (IPA). The site is not affected by any protected areas or scheduled vegetation.
D7.3 Weeds No new planting is proposed, and the development exists, with comprehensive coverage of tree and vegetation within and around the site. A condition has been prepared in relation to the management of weeds located on the site.
D7.4 Stormwater Stormwater infrastructure already exists to the site and is not increased as part of the development. The area proposed for the accessible space is currently sealed and utilised for car parking so there is expected to be negligible impact upon hard stand area.
D7.6 Landscaping No new planting is proposed, and the development exists, with comprehensive coverage of tree and vegetation within and around the site. Some vegetation removal is required to satisfy the IPA requirement. A suitable condition has been provided to guide which trees and vegetation is appropriate for retention / removal in accordance with the RFS conditions.
D7.7 Bushfire The application was accompanied by a bushfire report and the application was assessed by the RFS as Integrated Development. The RFS issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority (BFSA) with conditions. The conditions require (amongst other requirements) an IPA across the whole site and new construction to comply with BAL 12.5. Although there is no dense vegetation on the site, some vegetation removal will be required. Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has provided a suitable condition to help guide and prioritise tree removal, and to ensure the landscape character is maintained.
D7.8 Services Services to the site already exist, with no changes to servicing proposed. A condition requiring a S. 73C from Sydney Water is to be included in the consent.
D7.11 Energy The SOEE identifies that solar hot water systems are in place and water saving devices are in place.
- 98 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
4.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(iii)(a) Planning Agreement There are no planning agreements that apply to the proposed development or the subject site.
5.0 Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) The Regulations The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulations) provides controls and regulations that relate to the management of the proposed development. These requirements are inherent in the assessment process undertaken for the proposal.
5.1 Fire safety The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of clauses 93 and 94 of the Regulations, a suitable fire safety condition is attached and will be implemented in any condition of consent.
6.0 Section 79C(1)(b) Likely Impacts 6.1 Natural and Built Environment 6.1.1 Character Old Leura Dairy is domestic in scale and is overall considered to be compatible with the residential setting. The generally positive residential character of the development is enhanced by factors such as compliance with the site coverage, rustic and subdued building design, and prominent landscaping throughout the site.
The consent includes upgrading of a number of crossovers, which is recommended by Council’s Development Engineer, and is considered appropriate to avoid adverse impact and is consistent with the residential character of the area.
6.1.2 Vehicular access and parking The Better Living DCP lists the following car parking requirements for tourist accommodation: “Car parking for tourist accommodation is to be provided at the rate of 1 space per accommodation suite, plus 2 spaces per 3 employees present at any one time”.
The development incorporates 6 accommodation suites and a maximum two (2) employees on site at any one time.
The proposal is for 8 car parking spaces, including one accessible space, and one staff space, which complies with the numerical requirements of the DCP. The car parking arrangements are detailed further in the “Proposal” section of the report and the documentation and plans accompanying the application.
Five of the car parking spaces are located in front of their respective building alignments, which is a situation that has existed for a number of years. The overall development retains a residential character and existing landscaping helps to soften some of the car parking spaces, and development more generally. The three driveways and parking within East View Ave are the most visually prominent of the development. The possibility of reducing the driveways was considered, however, this is not recommended for the following reasons: • Removal of a driveway will reduce car parking on site by at least one space. • 61 Kings Rd has a wide street frontage to East View Ave of 57.6m which better caters for the three driveways. • The three driveways are spread across a distance of approximately 27m, and there are numerous examples within East View Ave of similar distances between driveways. • The driveway/parking access from East View Ave exists and has operated in this capacity for a number of years.
Four of the access points do not allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. To ensure compliance would require substantial modifications to the development,
- 99 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
including impacting on the buildings and likely reducing the car parking allocation. Considering the above and Council’s engineering assessment, variation of the DCP standard is not considered unreasonable in the circumstances of this development.
However, it is recommended that the crossovers for four out of the six access driveways be upgrade to a sealed surface; these being the three driveways to East View Ave, and the driveway to King St. Although the development generally complements the residential setting, it does represent an intensification of typical residential use, and therefore the requested upgrades are considered reasonable. It is noted that a less intensive use such as a new dwelling may require a similar treatment to the crossover in Council’s road reserve. The existing entry to the site from Kings Rd is in particularly poor condition. Upgrading of the remaining crossover to Mount St and the internal access area has not been recommended for upgrade due to the proposed level of use and its adequate existing condition.
6.1.3 Accessibility The application is supported by an Access Report which demonstrates compliance with the requirements of: • Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 • Building Code of Australia • AS1428.1 – 2009 Design for access and mobility Part 1: General requirements for access – New building work • LEP 2005 • Better Living DCP
The proposal is for one accessible suite (The Milking Shed) with associated accessible car space and accessible path to the building. The Milking Shed will be modified to provide an accessible bathroom, and compliant doorway widths and manoeuvring areas.
The Access Report states that an accessible pathway from the street, within the site and to/from the office is not necessary to achieve compliance with the above requirements. The report identifies that the office at 61 Kings Rd is not a reception for guests whilst staying at the site. The office serves to take bookings and undertake the paperwork required for the business. Guests are not required to sign in or out from the office and keys are left at the accommodation suite for arrival and departure.
The report also states that there are no shared facilities, and therefore the internal walkways etc are not required to be upgraded.
In regards to the lack of an accessible path to the street boundary (BCA D3.2), the Access Report identifies the following:
“The Australian Building Codes Board has previously clarified this requirement, conditioning it upon the presence of an existing pedestrian entry at the allotment boundary. In this case, where there is no paved footpath in front of the premises, there is no ‘pedestrian entry’ suitable for people with disabilities. The existing grassed verges are not access ways in terms of either the BCA or AS 1428.1. The grassed surfaces do not meet the requirement for continuous accessible paths of travel, as they are not traversable by people who use wheelchairs, nor by people with ambulant disabilities, nor by people with vision impairments”.
None of the road reserves adjoining the site or within the surround vicinity have a sealed footpath. Accordingly, there is no requirement to provide a separate access way for people with disabilities from the property boundary to the entrance to the dwellings.
- 100 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
The justifications and level of accessibility proposed by the access consultant are considered reasonable, and to comply with the relevant provisions of LEP 2005 and the BLDCP. In particular, the following is noted: • The LEP and DCP require 20% of accommodation suites to be accessible (to the nearest whole number). With a total of six suites, one of these is to be accessible, which the proposal complies with. • The LEP and DCP require all common amenities to be accessible. As detailed above, the applicant identifies that there are no common amenities. • In addition to the justifications raised above by the access consultant, it is noted that the DCP (which the LEP requires compliance with) relates to new building works only. For existing developments, a merit based approach is required, and partial conformity can be accepted. In this case, the only works proposed are specifically to provide accessible facilities to the site (namely one suite and one on site car space).
6.2 Social Impacts 6.2.1 Amenity There is potential for the development to adversely impact on the amenity of the locality, particularly to those residents adjoining the property. Potential impacts from up to 30 guests visiting the premises at any one time include noise and light spill, as well as traffic and car parking issues associated with vehicles parking in the street.
The development has operated for 15 years and to better appreciate any potential impacts, a search of the sites history was undertaken, including a review of any Customer Service Requests (CSR) and the past rezoning applications. The results of any amenity related concerns are discussed below: a) Two submissions were received in July 2005 in relation to the first rezoning application (O/1445/2004) – Concerns relating to the land use and that of the intensification of activities such as the potential use of the site for weddings / conferences. Comment: The matter of the expansion of the operations resulted in the withdrawal of the rezoning application. The use of the site for functions and events culminated in a complaint to Council approximately one year after the notification period. b) A complaint lodged and responded to in 2006, regarding amenity concerns (particularly noise) from functions / events operating at the property, including a band and a wedding late into the night. Comment: The CSR was actioned with a note that the Old Leura Dairy owner advising Council that weddings had occurred but were no longer carried. The current use will be limited to contained corporate retreats. This will be included in the conditions of consent. c) One submission in October 2009 in relation to rezoning application No. O/2246/2007. It objected to the rezoning due to potential for impacts from receptions/conventions. Comment: The proposal includes the continuation of the tourist accommodation operation as it has for years including no events or functions except for corporate retreats. The proposal does not request the site be used for weddings functions or receptions. It is noted that there have been no complaints in relation to events at the site.
A search of the file history has revealed an overall low number of complaints, the latest occurring some years ago as well as submission raised regarding potential future concerns. This provides some indication of the effective management of the development.
To ensure amenity impacts are satisfactorily managed on an ongoing basis, conditions of consent are recommended that limit the operation of the development, such as prohibiting the use of the site for function and events. Other conditions to minimise amenity impacts include restrictions to the hours the spa can be used, and restrictions on noise and lighting. In regards to the spa, it is located south of the nearest adjoining dwelling. Accordingly, the
- 101 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
living space of the nearby dwelling faces away from the development, reducing potential amenity impacts. The recommended conditions relate to the hours of use and are not expected to negatively impact on the current operation of the development. The conditions do give some certainty that the development can continue to operate successfully with minimal negative impacts.
6.3 Economic Impacts The “Old Leura Dairy” is a successful and award winning tourist accommodation facility in the Blue Mountains. Its continued operation benefits the tourism industry, broader community and Blue Mountains economy.
7.0 Section 79C(1)(c) Suitability of the Site The development is located within a low density residential area. Leura Mall is located approximately one (1) kilometre away by car or foot. The site is generally considered to be suitable for the development, for the following reasons: a) The tourist accommodation has operated successfully for 15 years, benefiting the local economy. b) Council records and the notification period demonstrate the development has continued to operate with minimal objection or complaints from neighbours. c) The development was subject to an extensive rezoning process. The assessment of the rezoning, including the notification period and ultimate approval, demonstrate the Council’s continued support for the use as an appropriate development. d) The development has been designed and vegetated to be generally consistent with the surrounding residential land use in terms of character and amenity.
8.0 Section 79C(1)(d - e) Submissions and Public Interest 8.1 Submissions As identified in the ‘Notification’ section of this report, the application was advertised for a period of 14 days with notification in the Blue Mountains Gazette as well as written notification to adjoining properties.
One (1) submission was received as a result of the public exhibition process.
A summary of the submission and relevant comment is detailed hereunder.
Visitors to the Old Leura Dairy park across the submitters driveway.
Comment: The development complies with the car parking numbers required by the Better Living DCP. Despite this, it is acknowledged that in practice visitor vehicles may exceed the onsite parking allocation and park within the street. Provided this practice is infrequent and involves a low number of on street vehicles, which are parked in front of the subject site, no major concern is raised, and this is a practice accepted in residential areas more generally. It is noted that this objection is the first of its kind recorded by Council during the sites development history. To ensure vehicles do not obstruct neighbouring properties, including their driveways, a suitable condition is recommended in this regard.
8.2 Public Interest The tourist accommodation development benefits the wider community and Blue Mountains economy. Based on the results of the notification period, and a review of Council records and the development history, it is concluded that the development, which has operated for approximately 15 years, has generally been well received by the surrounding neighbours with minimal complaints. Further, the development was subject to an extensive rezoning process. The assessment of the rezoning, including the notification period and ultimate approval, demonstrate the appropriateness of the development.
- 102 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
In accordance with the above, the development is considered to be in the public interest.
9.0 Community Contribution The Blue Mountains Citywide Section 94A Infrastructure Contributions Plan commenced on 1 July 2015 and applies to the site.
In accordance with Table 1: Summary of Levies the proposed cost of the development is below $100,000 and therefore no contribution is required.
Conclusion The “Old Leura Dairy” has operated as an unauthorised tourist accommodation for approximately 15 years. The site was rezoned in 2010 to permit tourist accommodation with consent.
The proposed development seeks to formalise the use of the land and incorporate improved accessible features. The development is generally compatible with its residential setting, and relatively few objections have been raised during the life of the development, including within the notification period for the subject application. To ensure the continued satisfactory operation of the development, suitable conditions relating to the use and necessary upgrades to facilities, are recommended.
With the implementation of these conditions, it is considered that the continued use of Old Leura Dairy (an award winning facility) as tourist accommodation is an appropriate outcome for the site. The development contributes both directly and indirectly to the local tourism industry and economy.
The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions based on an assessment against the heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES
1 X-98-2016 Conditions of development consent 16/156473 Attachment 2 X-98-2016 Plans 16/154375 Attachment
* * * * * * * * * *
- 103 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 1 - X-98-2016 Conditions of development consent
- 104 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 105 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 106 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 107 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 108 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 109 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 110 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 2 - X-98-2016 Plans
- 111 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 112 - USING LAND Item 12, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 113 - USING LAND Item 13, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 13
SUBJECT: VARIATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/154458
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Using Land Service: Land Use Management
Recommendation:
That the Council notes this report.
Report by Director, Development & Customer Services:
Reason for report This is a regular report provided to the Council in compliance with reporting procedures required for development applications relying upon State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP1) or cl.4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.
Background Councils have delegations from the Director General of the Department of Planning to determine development applications that rely on a variation of development standards. The delegations specify that some applications must be determined by the Council, others are delegated to the General Manager, thence to the relevant officers.
With the exception of the variation that lifted limitation on the delegations in relation to the rebuild of bush fire affected dwellings, the current delegations to officers of the Council enable determination of applications utilising SEPP1 or cl.4.6 variations for each of the following classes are as follows:
1. Residential alterations and additions and single new dwellings if: • The variation in a development standard for building setback does not exceed that standard by more than 50%, or • The variation in any other development standard does not exceed that other standard by more than 25%
2. Otherwise officer delegations are limited to 10% variation from the standard. It should also be noted that applications are regularly also referred to the Council for determination as called up by Councillors.
Reporting Reporting of applications determined which rely on a SEPP 1 or cl.4.6 variation is by way of: • Quarterly Reports to the Department of Planning (DoP) • Quarterly reports listed on BMCC website • Report to each Ordinary Meeting of the Council
- 114 - USING LAND Item 13, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
The applications that have been approved using SEPP 1 or cl. 4.6 to vary a development standard since the last report to the Council, being for the period between 24 May and 27 June, 2016, are as listed in Attachment 1.
Sustainability Assessment A sustainability assessment is not required for this report.
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES
1 Variation to Standard 16/156485 Attachment
* * * * * * * * * *
- 115 - USING LAND Item 13, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 1 - Variation to Standard
- 116 - USING LAND Item 13, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 117 - MOVING AROUND Item 14, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 14
SUBJECT: NAMING OF GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN OVER BRIDGE - BULLABURRA
FILE NO: F01666 - 16/132984
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Moving Around Service: Transport and Public Access
Recommendations:
1 That the Council places a call for nominations for the naming of the Great Western Highway Pedestrian Overbridge at Bullaburra on public exhibition for a period of 42 days; and
2. That the Council receives a report in November 2016 following the public exhibition process.
Report by Director City & Community Outcomes:
Reason for report The purpose of this report is to seek the endorsement of the Council placing on public exhibition a call for nominations on the naming of the existing pedestrian overbridge on the Great Western Highway at Bullaburra Railway Station, constructed as part of the highway upgrade program, in accordance with Council’s protocols.
Background In November 2015, Council received a request from the Thomas family of Hazelbrook to name the above bridge in honour of their father, Ray Thomas, who was a longtime resident of Bullaburra and was strongly involved with his local community. Ray Thomas served on many committees including the Scouts, Bullaburra Progress Association, Emmanuel Church, and local fire bridge. Ray Thomas was also known for his work with those less fortunate in the community.
Whilst the bridge is (and will remain) an asset of the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS), agreement has been secured for the Council to seek community comment on naming the bridge.
The Council adopted an asset naming process at its meeting of 2 December 2003, which states in the report:
In considering a request/proposal to name a Council owned (or non-Council owned) asset with a commemorative name to honour an individual or group of individuals, the following criteria be applied (to an individual or group):
• demonstrated excellence, courage or exceptional service to the citizens of the City of the Blue Mountains, the State of New South Wales or the Australian Nation; • provided extensive community service;
- 118 - MOVING AROUND Item 14, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
• worked to foster equality and reduce discrimination; • risked his/her life to save others; • made a significant financial or non-financial contribution to a park or facility; and • made an outstanding contribution to the City of Blue Mountains outside of his or her capacity as an employee or former employee of Council.
Additional criteria to be applied in conjunction with those outline above in naming an asset after an individual or group, and recommended by the Geographical Naming Board, are that the individual or group is: • no longer living; or • retired from public life; or • towards the end of their career in public life.
In this instance it is proposed to first undertake a call for nominations for the naming, prior to refinement and selection.
Review of Naming of Council Assets Protocols At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council on 10 December 2013, it was resolved in part;
“5. That a full review of the Naming of Council Assets Protocol is programmed within the Operational Plan for 2014-2015.” [Minute No.534]
Due to other work program priorities, this review has not been completed. It is intended that this review will occur as part of the assessment process following the public call for nominations on the naming of this bridge.
Process Following the conclusion of the public exhibition period, calling for nominations for the naming of the overbridge, nominations received will be assessed and a report prepared for consideration and adoption by the Council. Any proposed commemorative name would then be publically exhibited. The RMS would be advised at this point of the intention to put the proposed name on public exhibition. The suggested commemorative name will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 42 days for receiving submissions, and be advertised in a metropolitan daily and a local newspaper advising the community of: • the naming proposal; • the period open to the public to comment/submission; and • how to make a comment/submission (to whom etc., including providing contact details for further information etc.).
If the name complies with the Board’s guidelines it is unlikely to be rejected, and much of Council’s Protocol for Naming of Council Owned Assets mirrors the GNB guidelines for place names.
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Nil Nil Social The proposed process enables broad community Nil engagement in the naming of assets.
Former Blue Mountains community advocate is acknowledged in a location appropriate to their background. Economic Nil Nil
- 119 - MOVING AROUND Item 14, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Effects Positive Negative Governance Process responds to a resolution from the Council in Nil accordance with Council’s and GNB naming policies in a transparent manner.
Financial implications for the Council The proposed overbridge will remain an RMS asset, and the cost to manufacture, install and maintain the sign will be the responsibilities of the RMS. The only financial implications for the Council will be staff time and advertising fees.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council Nil
External consultation The Council’s Protocol for the Naming of Council Owned Assets is to be adhered to. This protocol also covers the naming of non-Council owned assets such as this pedestrian overbridge. Roads and Maritime Services have been consulted on the proposed naming process and have indicated that the Council should formally write to them following the public exhibition period and endorsement by the Council.
Conclusion In accordance with the asset naming process, and with the endorsement of RMS, it is recommended that the Council approves the public exhibition calling for nominations to the naming of the pedestrian overbridge at Bullaburra.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 120 - MOVING AROUND Item 15, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 15
SUBJECT: ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY - LINDEN TO FAULCONBRIDGE
FILE NO: F05049 - 16/150675
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Moving Around Service: Transport and Public Access
Recommendations:
1. That the Council notes the findings of the Road Safety Audit;
2. That the Council notes that a nomination to the Australian Government Blackspot Program 2017/18 has been lodged;
3. That the Council writes to the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure the Hon. Andrew Constance, MP; Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, the Hon. Duncan Gay MLC; Senator for NSW, Senator Doug Cameron; Federal Member for Macquarie, Mrs Susan Templeman MP; and State Member for Blue Mountains, Ms Trish Doyle MP seeking their support for the Blackspot nomination; and
4. That the Council writes to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, the Hon. Duncan Gay MLC advising of the findings of the Road Safety Audit and request that they are considered for funding and implementation by Roads and Maritime Services.
Report by Director City & Community Outcomes:
Reason for report This report is in response to Minute 88 of 29 March 2016 Council meeting that states:
“That the Council endorses the commencement and funding, in the 2015/2016 financial year, of a road safety audit for the Great Western Highway section from Linden to Faulconbridge”.
Background At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council on 13 October 2015, it was resolved:
'’1. That the Council makes representations to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) seeking urgent action to undertake a road safety audit/review and propose suitable safety upgrade works to the Great Western Highway, generally between the Metro Service Station and the RMS truck parking area in Faulconbridge for the purpose of providing safer access to and from the Highway for existing commercial premises operating lawfully in this area; and
2. That concurrently the Council works with the RMS to explore the potential to make application for grants from the Federal Government to fund work that will address the need for upgrade of this busy and high speed section of this
- 121 - MOVING AROUND Item 15, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
National Highway to improve the safety of general road users and assist historic lawful commercial uses in remaining viable'’. [Minute No. 722]
At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council on 2 February 2016 it was resolved:
“That the Council receives a report to the next meeting on the feasibility of the Council commissioning an independent assessment of traffic management arrangements along the section of the Great Western Highway between Linden and Faulconbridge”. [Minute No. 26]
A Councilor briefing session was held on the 16 August 2016 on the outcomes of the Road Safety Audit.
Road Safety Audit (RSA) As resolved by Council, a suitable qualified auditor was engaged and completed a Stage 6 – Existing Road – Road Safety Audit on 5 July 2016. The RSA package of works received consisted of: • Road Safety Audit Report; • Field Data Safety Findings; and • Blackspot Schematic of Treatments.
These documents are contained within – Enclosure 1
Scope of Works The RSA of the Great Western Highway was for the section between Weemala Avenue, Linden and Clifton Avenue, Faulconbridge. This is a distance of approximately 2100m. The RSA was conducted in accordance with RMS and Austroads Guidelines.
Methodology & Time Frame The RSA was of existing road conditions and included both day time and night time inspections. The usual practice is for the auditors to undertake their inspections and record any safety issues, allocating a risk rating for each and suggesting possible measures to mitigate such risks. Given the relatively short distance of the subject section, it is suggested the day time inspection should be a walk through in each direction where footpath is available and a drive through to capture areas with no footpath, while the night time inspection could be a drive through in each direction. This is important to discover any deficiencies in reflection of sign posting or road marking.
Safety Findings of RSA The RSA provides recommendations for each of the identified safety findings and allocates a risk rating. The recommendations generally consisted of reference to the relevant Australian Standard and Austroad Guide. In response to the key safety findings assessed as being high, a schematic was developed for inclusion as part of the Blackspot Nomination contained in Enclosure 2. The area captured being the Metro Service Station entry/exit and associated issues.
A summary of the key safety findings and recommendations of the RSA were: Safety Findings Recommendations
Poor sightlines Improving intersection & sight distance in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3 – 2010, AS 2890.1 (2004), and Part 4A – 2010.
- 122 - MOVING AROUND Item 15, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Faded line marking/signs Re-mark line in accordance with AS 1742.1-2014. Replace faded sign and place appropriately in accordance with AS1742.1 – 2014. Narrow shoulders/clear Increase shoulder width to 2.5m - 3m as per Austroads Guide zones/dish drains to Road Design Part 3 – 2010 and increase clear zone width to minimum 6m – 6.5m in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6 - 2009. Potential for vehicles to Consider options for physical prevention of right turn turn right from manoeuvres / separation of carriageway adjacent to Faulconbridge Farm Faulconbridge Farm, in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6 – 2009. Inadequate deceleration Provide deceleration lane in accordance with Austroads Guide lane length to Road Design Part 4 – 2009, Part 4A – 2010, and Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6B – 2015. Non-compliant guard rail Apply appropriate safety barrier treatments in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6 – 2009, and RMS Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6. Non-compliant pedestrian Consider options for upgrading the pedestrian refuge in refuge accordance AS1742.10 – 2009 and Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A – 2010 Footpath pavement Consider footpath reconstruction in accordance with Austroads failure Guide to Road Design Part 7 – 2008. Pedestrian desire lines at Consider options for improving pedestrian sight distance and Metro Service Station kerbside protection in accordance with AS1742.10 – 2009 and Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A - 2010. Drive behaviour issue – Consider options for physical prevention of U-turn manoeuvre / illegal U-turns at Metro separation of carriageway adjacent to service station in Service Stations accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6 – 2009.
The implementation of the audit findings is considered to be an important step in the resolution of safety issues for this section of highway as previous detailed in reports on this matter.
Sustainability Assessment Effects Positive Negative Environmental Reduce/manage impact Nil from highway traffic, emissions and noise. Social Reduce/manage impact on If no improvements to safety are amenity Improved driver achieved there is potential for serious behavior and traffic safety. crashes on this section of GWH. Economic Reduce/manage impact on Poor traffic management outcomes, local road network especially in relation to adversely impact efficiency and safety on local businesses, commuters and tourism visitors using this section of GWH. Governance Nil Nil
Financial implications for the Council There are no known financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report.
- 123 - MOVING AROUND Item 15, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
As the Blackspot Nomination is for works on a State Road, which is an asset under the care and control of the RMS, it is therefore considered the responsibility of the RMS to project manager these works if successful in being funded. Council staff will be organising a meeting with relevant RMS officers when the decision on funding is known.
Legal and risk management issues for the Council There are no known legal or risk management issues associated with the recommendations of this report.
External consultation There has been no external consultation undertaken as part of the Road Safety Audit. Conclusion It has been detailed within this report and attached documents, the findings of the Road Safety Audit. The recommendations of the audit are considered necessary and highly relevant in addressing the safety issues that Council has raised with the RMS for this section of the Great Western Highway over many years.
It should be noted that the majority of safety issues are the direct responsibility of the Road & Maritime Services, and as such will be referred for action.
A nomination for the Metro Service Station entry/exit and associated issues has been submitted to the Australian Government Blackspot Program 2017/18, which is managed and determined by Transport for NSW. Notification of successful nominations will be advised early 2017.
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES
1 Enclosure 1 - Linden to Faulconbridge- Road Safety Audit 16/161832 Enclosure
* * * * * * * * * *
- 124 -
NOTICES OF MOTION
NOTICES OF MOTION Item 16, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 16
SUBJECT: SUBSIDY FOR SMALL LANDFILL BINS
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/153436
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Governance and Risk
Notice of Motion by Councillor Greenhill:
That the Council receives a report on any further possible measures to ameliorate the impact of the removal of the subsidy for small landfill bins now that the size has been standardised across the city.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 127 - NOTICES OF MOTION Item 17, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 17
SUBJECT: PARKING AT BLAXLAND STATION
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/163539
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Governance and Risk
Notice of Motion by Councillor Christie:
1. That the Council notes its previous requests to the State Government for more parking at Blaxland train station;
2. That the Council writes to Andrew Constance, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, requesting that the commuter car park at Blaxland train station be upgraded to increase commuter parking spaces thus to reduce numbers of commuters required to park in the shopping precinct of Blaxland village centre; and
3. That the Council receives a report on possible approaches to better manage parking in Blaxland village centre.
* * * * * * * * * *
- 128 -
PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE
PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ITEM NO: 18
SUBJECT: PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE
FILE NO: F09794 - 16/157220
Delivery Program Link Principal Activity: Civic Leadership Service: Governance and Risk
Recommendation:
That the Précis of Selected Correspondence be received and appropriate letters forwarded where necessary.
Correspondence Received by Council
1. 12 July 2016 – Tom Bagnat, Director Park Management – Metropolitan and Mountains, National Parks and Wildlife Service Letter to the General Manager regarding Visitor Facilities in Blue Mountains Park.
2. 12 July 2016 – Robyn Kemp, Assistant Secretary Parliamentary and Governance Branch Letter to the Acting General Manager regarding funding for ANZAC Day commemorations.
3. 22 July 2016 – Mark Speakman, Minister for Environment Letter to Trish Doyle, Member for the Blue Mountains regarding Visitor Facilities at Wentworth Falls, Blue Mountains National Park.
Correspondence Sent by Council
4. 21 July 2016 – Hon. David Elliott, MP, Minister for Emergency Services Letter from the General Manager regarding Emergency Services resourcing in the Blue Mountains.
5. 8 August 2016 – Fiona Jolly, Chief Executive Officer, The Advertising Standards Bureau Letter from the Director City & Community Outcomes regarding Community Concerns in relation to Wicked Campervans.
6. 10 August 2016 – Senator the Hon Michaela Cash, Minister for Women, Minister for Employment, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service Letter from the Mayor regarding Community Concerns in relation to Wicked Campervans.
7. 11 August 2016 – Andrew Cappie-Wood, Secretary, NSW, Department of Justice Letter from the Mayor regarding Community Concerns in relation to Wicked Campervans.
8. 11 August 2016 – Elizabeth Wing, A/President, Anit-Discrimination Board NSW Letter from the Mayor regarding Community Concerns in relation to Wicked Campervans.
- 131 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES
1 NP&WS Response Re: Issues with Visitor Facilities in Blue 16/138751 Attachment Mountains National Park Wentworth Falls 2 Advice re request for funding for future Anzac Day 16/139003 Attachment commemorations 3 Correspondence re: Visitor Facilities/Parking at Wentworth 16/146536 Attachment Falls 4 PDF version - Letter to the Minister for Emergency 16/146777 Attachment Services re Emergency Services Resourcing in the Blue Mountains 5 Letter to Fiona Jolly re community concern in relation to 16/159669 Attachment Wicked Campervans 6 Letter to the Minister for Women - Community Concern in 16/160940 Attachment Relation to Wicked Campervans(2) 7 Letter to Department of Justice - Community Concern in 16/160938 Attachment Relation to Wicked Campervans 8 Letter to Anti-Discrimination Board NSW - Community 16/160935 Attachment Concern in Relation to Wicked Campervans(2)
* * * * * * * * * *
- 132 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 1 - NP&WS Response Re: Issues with Visitor Facilities in Blue Mountains National Park Wentworth Falls
- 133 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 2 - Advice re request for funding for future Anzac Day commemorations
- 134 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 3 - Correspondence re: Visitor Facilities/Parking at Wentworth Falls
- 135 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 136 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 4 - PDF version - Letter to the Minister for Emergency Services re Emergency Services Resourcing in the Blue Mountains
- 137 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 138 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 5 - Letter to Fiona Jolly re community concern in relation to Wicked Campervans
- 139 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 6 - Letter to the Minister for Women - Community Concern in Relation to Wicked Campervans(2)
- 140 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 7 - Letter to Department of Justice - Community Concern in Relation to Wicked Campervans
- 141 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 142 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
Attachment 8 - Letter to Anti-Discrimination Board NSW - Community Concern in Relation to Wicked Campervans(2)
- 143 - PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Item 18, Ordinary Meeting, 23.08.16
- 144 -