BUSINESS PAPER ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

To be held at 6.00 pm on

Monday 24 November 2014

Council Chambers, Level 10, Council Administration Building, 41 Burelli Street, Wollongong

Order of Business Members 1 Acknowledgement of Traditional Lord Mayor – Owners Councillor Gordon Bradbery OAM (Chair) 2 Civic Prayer Deputy Lord Mayor – 3 Apologies Councillor Chris Connor 4 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest Councillor Michelle Blicavs 5 Petitions and Presentations Councillor David Brown 6 Confirmation of Minutes – Ordinary Councillor Leigh Colacino Council Meeting 10 November Councillor Bede Crasnich 2014 Councillor Vicki Curran 7 Public Access Forum Councillor John Dorahy 8 Call of the Agenda Councillor Janice Kershaw 9 Lord Mayoral Minute Councillor Ann Martin 10 Urgent Items Councillor Jill Merrin 11 Notice of Motion(s) Councillor Greg Petty 12 Agenda Items Councillor George Takacs

QUORUM – 7 MEMBERS TO BE PRESENT

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014

INDEX PAGE NO.

ITEM A Notice of Motion - Councillor Dorahy - Protection of Water Catchment Areas by NSW State Government (CM269/14) ...... 1

ITEM 1 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review (CM294/14) ...... 3

ITEM 2 Information on Dog Activity Parks (CM285/14) ...... 18

ITEM 3 Draft Planning Proposal - Rosehill Farm, 571 Avondale Road, Avondale (CM290/14) ...... 28

ITEM 4 Draft Planning Proposal - Function Centre, Lot 1 Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale (CM292/14) ...... 48

ITEM 5 Penrose Suburb Name Change - Community Engagement (CM287/14) ...... 62

ITEM 6 Wollongong Section 94A Development Control Plan (2014) - Post Exhibition Report (CM291/14) ...... 67

ITEM 7 Policy Review - Customer Service Policy and Charter (CM286/14) ...... 74

ITEM 8 Draft Quarterly Review Statement - September 2014 (CM295/14) ...... 76

ITEM 9 Bi Monthly Tabling of Returns of Disclosures of Interest and Other Matters (CM284/14) ...... 78

ITEM 10 Minutes of Electronic Meeting of The City of Wollongong Traffic Committee Held 3 November 2014 (CM288/14) ...... 79

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 1

REF: CM269/14 File: CO-910.05.01.011 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR DORAHY - PROTECTION OF ITEM A WATER CATCHMENT AREAS BY NSW STATE GOVERNMENT

Councillor Dorahy has submitted the following Notice of Motion – “I formally move that Wollongong City Council – 1 Write to the Premier, The Hon Mike Baird MP, the Minister for Resources and Energy, The Hon Anthony Roberts MP and the Minister for Natural Resources, Lands and Water, The Hon Kevin Humphries MP, to – a Offer Wollongong City Council’s congratulations on the decision made by the NSW Government to cease Petroleum Exploration Licences 468, 469 and 470 for three exploration sites across New South Wales. b Congratulate the State Government for ensuring that compliance is adhered to by any or all exploration companies, and for showing that any non- compliant company will pay the price for their lack of adherence. 2 Encourage the State Government to continue its assertive approach in ensuring compliance by exploration companies of exploration sites, or potential sites. 3 Remind the NSW State Government of its obligation to protect and maintain this State’s vital water catchment areas by cancelling or not granting any licences that could jeopardise this precious resource.”

Background provided by Councillor Dorahy: This Council is at the forefront of ensuring that necessary environmental steps are taken in order to retain the security of our 'fresh' water supply. Wollongong City Council, by virtue of having excellent dams nearby which provide a life resource to our City and outlying areas, had recently written to the NSW Government requesting cessation of coal seam gas mining in or near water catchment areas. These three sites, though not in the Illawarra, were de-licensed by the State Government for compliance factors. A State Government, strong enough to make strong decisions for the well-being of the community, should be commended by all. Whilst commending the Premier and his Government, it should be mentioned that our NSW Liberal State Government whilst being an advocate for entrepreneurial ventures to broaden and strengthen the State of NSW, has also wisely taken a sword to the blind stance of the previous NSW Labor State Government which provided numerous exploration licences without full and complete justification or concern for the State’s future water resources. This cannot be forgotten. Wollongong is bound by the sea and mountain, with water catchment areas within our immediate region. We, the people of Wollongong, and I have received many requests from locals, are totally concerned for the future of our water supply, and the future of our

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 2

children’s children, and beyond. The people of this great City want to ensure that a legacy of benefit is given to our future and our water resources are definitely a top priority. There are several identifiable licences which could be named, but having a general stance of limitation, or cessation of licences in all water catchment areas, will cover such menacing activities.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 3

REF: CM294/14 File: Z14/437392 ITEM 1 POLICY REVIEW - DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS

This report to be read in conjunction with Item 2. Council may move a Procedural Motion to consider and debate the items together. On 28 July 2014 Council resolved to place on exhibition an amended Draft Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy. The Draft Policy included significant changes to the current off-leash areas at Sharky’s, Little Austinmer, McCauley’s and Stanwell Park Beaches and the Bellambi Boat Harbour. The Draft Policy also included provisions to improve signage and transition areas at beaches and a proposal to locate additional off-leash parks in convenient locations across the City. The exhibition of the Draft Policy attracted significant public interest with 1,748 surveys and 231 open submissions received. The details of the community feedback recommended changes to the Draft Policy and are presented in the report.

RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the recommendations of Option 1 of this report which are: 1 The current Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy be maintained, this includes the current off-leash parks and off-leash beaches and current green, orange and red zonings. 2 A new off-leash area be developed in the Dapto area the location of which to be public recreation (RE1) zoned land and be considered via assessment of open space areas that will come into Council ownership. 3 Council establish an internal working party to assess on a needs basis approach, any additional suitable parks that may be established as off-leash areas and the recommendations of this group be presented to Council for consideration. 4 Council provide additional signage and colour coding of fences across the city’s beaches to improve awareness of the zoning for users. 5 Administrational content changes, reflecting the 2014 review, as shown in the attached revised Draft Dogs On Beaches and Parks Policy, (November 2014 version) be adopted.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 4

ATTACHMENTS 1 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review - Engagement Report 2 Council Report 28 July 2014 – Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy 3 Draft Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy (November 2014 version)

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Jeannie Nicol, Manager Regulation and Enforcement Authorised by: Andrew Carfield, Director Planning and Environment – Future City and Neighbourhoods

BACKGROUND On 28 July 2014 Council considered the exhibition of the Amended Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy and resolved the following (minute 132): 1 The proposed changes to the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of sixty (60) days, subject to the following: a All current off-leash parks remain in their current form. These are:  Figtree Oval, Figtree  Proud Park, Helensburgh  Riley Park, Unanderra  Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra  King George V Park, Port Kembla b A new off-leash park be included as an off-leash area to cater for the West Dapto area and additional locations across the City, close to where people live, with the aim of increasing the number of locations. The locations be Public Recreation (RE1) zoned land and be considered via assessment of open space areas that will come into Council ownership. c All off-leash beaches to remain the same with the exception of: i The area between Sharkey’s Beach off-leash area and the Headlands Boat Ramp Car Park to be altered from orange to red; and ii Bellambi Boat Harbour off-leash area be altered from a green zone to a red zone; and iii Sharkey’s, Little Austinmer and McCauley’s Beaches be altered from a green zone to a timed orange zone; and iv Stanwell Park Beach, including north of the lagoon, be an orange zoned beach on weekends and public holidays, and the existing zone be retained during Monday to Fridays (except public holidays). d Council improve transition areas by adding additional signage at Stanwell Park, Sharkey’s, Little Austinmer, McCauley’s, East Corrimal, MM, Port Kembla and Windang Beaches.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 5

e Visual colour coded painting of existing dune timber fencing be undertaken to better demarcate transition zones. 2 Following public exhibition, a final draft Policy be presented to Council for consideration. Council prepared a community feedback form addressing specific questions about the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy and exhibited the proposed Policy for 60 days commencing on 6 August 2014 and closing on 6 October 2014. Table 1 provides a history of Council decisions concerning off-leash areas within the Local Government Area with changes to existing off-leash areas identified in green. Table 1: History of Changes to Dogs on Beaches Policy/Off-Leash Areas

Year Changes and Additions to Council’s Comments/Added Declared Off-leash Beaches/Parks Changes 2002 Coniston Beach, Coniston south of Bank Ban for dogs on all Street other beaches East Corrimal Beach (east of the Bellambi Sewage Treatment Plant) Figtree Oval, Figtree Riley Park, Unanderra King George V Park, Port Kembla 2006 Perkins Beach Windang (extending from No orange zone SU23390 Shellharbour Rd/Wattle Street Beach Ban on beaches other 6/11/2006 walkway north to easterly projection of than off-leash areas unnamed road) Ban on rock pools MM Beach, Port Kembla Education and East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal enforcement car park to Bellambi Point considered important McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul for distance of 300 metres south of Corbett Ave Little Austinmer Beach, Austinmer Sharky’s Beach, Coledale (from the car park, south toward the rock outcrop) Proud Park, Helensburgh Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 6

Year Changes and Additions to Council’s Comments/Added Declared Off-leash Beaches/Parks Changes 2010 Perkins Beach, Windang (extending from Orange zone Z10/125276 Shellharbour Road/Wattle Street Beach introduced due to 28/9/2010 walkway north to access way south of Port public demand after Kembla SLSC southern car park consultation for Puckeys Beach area directly east of additional access on Puckeys Estate Fairy Meadow ie walkway beaches north of Fairy Creek lagoon to walkway Banned rock platforms south of playground at Fairy Meadow Red banned areas Beach nominated from Bellambi between Bellambi ramp and Wollongong to North ocean pool Wollongong Beaches, East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal Austinmer Beach and car park to Bellambi Point; (temporarily on Coledale Beach. All hold) remaining beaches are McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul, total length of orange timed zones. beach; (temporarily on hold) McCauley’s and East Stanwell Park Beach, north of northern Corrimal are on hold lagoon until Aboriginal and Environmental issues are resolved. 2011 East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal Both McCauley’s and Z11/103827 car park to Bellambi Point; East Corrimal continue 27/4/2011 McCauleys Beach, Thirroul, total length of as off-leash areas after beach external REF and Aboriginal consultation Woonona Beach considered for off- leash however resolved as orange zone. 2012 East Corrimal Beach from northern side of Boundary changed to Z12/178219 Bellambi Lagoon outlet to Bellambi Point northern side of 13/11/2012 Bellambi lagoon to prevent conflicting use problems.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 7

Community Interest Extensive community interest was evident with this 2014 Dogs on Beaches and Parks review. The total number of visits to Council’s website was 7,097 which reflects a high level of interest with a total of 1,748 surveys received by the community. On 19 August 2014 Council’s Manager Regulation and Enforcement and Ranger Services Manager attended the Thirroul Neighbourhood Forum meeting. Hundreds of people attended the meeting with the majority expressing support for the continuation of the dogs on beaches off-leash areas at McCauley’s, Little Austinmer and Sharky’s Beaches. Extensive media coverage was also evident as part of this review. During the exhibition period there were 48 media mentions, the majority from the Illawarra Mercury. On 21 September 2014 it was reported that thousands of dog owners rallied from Sandon Point along McCauley’s Beach to show their objection to any removal or changing of existing leash free areas. In relation to social media, blogs and websites the most significant, a facebook site “Save Northern Illawarra’s Dog Friendly Beaches” attracted 2,996 likes. Summary of Responses to Survey Questions Council’s Engagement Team has assessed the information provided by the 1,748 surveys and prepared a consolidated Report. This Report is presented separately as Attachment 1 to this report and is entitled “Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review Engagement Report October 2014”. This feedback is summarised below with Divisional comments included: Q1 Postcodes The significant majority of respondents were from the Thirroul/Austinmer/ Coledale/Scarborough area (906 submissions) followed by Bulli (177), Woonona (158), Stanwell Park(155) and Bellambi/Towradgi (108). This was then followed by Wollongong (68), Fairy Meadow (44), Dapto (23) Unanderra (19), and Figtree (16). Other postcodes were insignificant in their numbers. These results indicate a high level of response from the areas that were particularly affected by the Council recommendations that involved change. Q2 Dog Ownership Of the responses received 75.9% came from people who owned dogs. It is unclear why this significant difference exists however, it is thought that the recommended changes which disadvantaged dog owners by removing off-leash areas, was the trigger for dog owners to respond. It could also be argued that the non-dog owner response rate would be higher if the level of dissatisfaction or impact was higher.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 8

Q3 How often do you use an off-leash area? The dog owning respondents indicated that they utilise the off-leash areas on a very high frequency with 92.3% of dog owners utilising them daily or weekly. A total of 57.8% of dog owners used them daily. This would indicate that off-leash areas are an asset that is important to dog owners. Q4 Age The majority of people (74.7%) completing the survey were between 31-64 years of age with 16% being between 18-30 and 9.2% 65 years and above. This appears to be a reasonably normal bell shaped curve indicating all ages in the community were interested in this Policy. Q5 a) Importance of Policy: 97.3% of people either strongly agreed (84.4%) or agreed (12.9%) that this Policy was important to them. This result would indicate that both dog owners and non-dog owners see this Policy as important. b) Satisfaction with Education: The satisfaction with Council’s education about the Policy was divided with 40.1% of responses agreeing or strongly agreeing they were satisfied and 44.6% strongly disagreeing or disagreeing. c) Satisfaction with Enforcement: The submissions indicated that 50.7% are satisfied with the current enforcement and 34% dissatisfied with the current enforcement of the Policy. Q6 Increased Signage and Colour-Coding Fences 66% of the responses indicated that Council should increase signage and colour coding of fences. Due to this high level of support, increased signage and colour coding of fences should be pursued in any proposal. Q7 Sharky’s Beach/Headands This proposal was to change the orange area below Sharky’s Beach to the headlands boat ramp from orange to red. 77.9% of the respondents did not support the change, given this response, consideration should be given to the area remaining orange. Q8 Bellambi Boatharbour This proposal was to change the Bellambi boat harbour off-leash area from green to red zoning. As only 10.2% agreed with this proposal and 63.9% disagreed consideration should be given to the area remaining a green zone. Q9 Sharky’s Beach Coledale This proposal related to changing the current off-leash area at Sharky’s Beach to orange. Of the 1,691 responses to this question 21.3% indicated that they agreed with this proposal while 69.1% wanted the off-leash area to remain. Given this response, consideration should be given to this beach remaining an off-leash area.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 9

Q10 Little Austinmer Beach This proposal related to changing Little Austinmer Beach from an off-leash area to an orange zone. 72.7% of the respondents indicated that they did not support the proposal. Given this response, consideration should be given to allowing this off- leash beach area to remain. Q11 McCauley’s Beach This proposal related to changing McCauley’s Beach from an off-leash area to an orange zone. As 77.9% of respondents indicated that they did not support the change it is suggested that this beach should continue to remain as an off-leash area. Q12 Stanwell Park Beach This proposal related to keeping the current green zone at Stanwell Park on weekdays and changing it to an orange zone on weekends and public holidays. 15.9% agreed with the proposal and 56.3% did not support the change. Based on these views consideration should be given to this off-leash area remaining in its current state. Q13 Current Off-Leash Parks This question asked if the community supported the current off-leash parks to remain in their current form. 91.3% of respondents agreed that the off-leash park areas should remain in their current form. Q14 Usage of Specific Current Off-Leash Parks The survey response indicated that all off-leash areas were getting reasonable use with the main usage being at Figtree Oval 56% and Proud Park 48.3%. Given the reasonable usage rate and the high response rate to keep the off-leash parks, consideration should be given to leaving their status unchanged. Q15 Off-Leash Park at Dapto This question asked if the community supported a specific park in the West Dapto area. 87.3% of 1,557 responses supported this proposal. Therefore based on this support it is considered appropriate that at least one (1) park be provided to cater for the West Dapto area, an area currently without an off-leash area. There were a number of suggestions put forward for an off-leash area to cater for this area with Reed Park and Integral Energy Park being the highest responses. Q16 Additional Off-Leash Parks Throughout LGA This proposal considered support for the use of public recreation areas throughout the LGA as dedicated off-leash areas. 85.7% of the responses supported this proposal. Given this result consideration should be given to pursuing this proposal.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 10

Table 2 provides a comparison with other coastal councils and this comparison indicates that Council offers less off-leash park areas compared to other councils per population in all cases except Sutherland. Despite this, Council should be mindful of achieving a balance between all park users given that approximately 63% of households do not have a dog. Petitions/Form Letters There were two (2) petitions received during the exhibition process. One (1) petition contained 28 signatures requesting more fenced in dog parks and the other contained 2,716 signatures and opposed any changes to the Policy unless these changes provided more access to off-leash dog beaches. A form letter that contained variable statements was also received from 41 participants. This related largely to Sharky’s Beach Coledale with the participants supporting some of the varying statements. Generally these statements related to converting all beaches to red or orange, or Sharky’s in particular and suggesting a move to parks for the dogs. General Comments as Themes A small number of people provided comments within the survey as to why they indicated a yes/no response. The top three (3) areas from these comments were: 1 Unpatrolled beaches (these are unsafe, there is no one else on these beaches other than dog owners and surfers); 2 Lifestyle and Community (overall positive comments about the lifestyle and community associations with the use of off-leash beach spaces); and 3 Regulation and Education (Regulation is an issue, community needs education, Rangers need to enforce compliance, fines are a solution). In relation to community comment concerning Sharky’s Beach to the headlands boat ramp, Sharky’s Beach, Little Austinmer and McCauley’s Beach, the top two (2) consistent comments across all submissions were that they were unpatrolled beaches followed by lifestyle and community benefit. Two (2) other consistently high comments were that there were enough non dog beaches and that they want the process to be transparent (more extensive communication, listen to the community). In relation to Bellambi boat harbour the major comments related to it being an unpatrolled beach and the benefits of lifestyle and community. In relation to Stanwell Park the main response related to differentiated timing (weekends, summer and peak times should be orange or restricted and restrictions not necessary on weekdays and in winter) and the benefits of lifestyle and community. In relation to open submissions lifestyle and community benefit, transparent process and regulation and education were the three (3) most common themes.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 11

Education Council’s current approach to education includes placing advertisements in the Mercury/Advertiser concerning owner responsibilities, targeting specific aspects/topics at a time, such as registration and micro-chipping, keeping dogs on leash as well as off- leash areas. Last year Animal Control Rangers also undertook an education program at Stanwell Park explaining the off-leash areas and responding to animal control questions. The community response to this program was very positive. Further such educational programs will be developed and implemented. Council’s web page is used to display Council’s Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy as well as an electronic version of the related brochure. The web also provides information about all aspects of animal control, and includes information concerning dangerous dogs and restricted dogs. Areas of education that have not been explored previously include Council’s Facebook page which was a successful method of communication in relation to the exhibition process. Education is provided by Animal Control Rangers when dealing with action requests or while undertaking patrols. Signage also supports education of which providing additional signage and colour coding of fences across the city’s beaches will improve awareness of the zoning for users. Enforcement Animal Control Rangers report that the level of Ranger presence is an important aspect of enforcement as people not complying, quickly put leads on their dogs and pick up after their dog when a Ranger is present. Other owners will run away to avoid contact with the Ranger. Presence is seen as a very successful form of enforcement. Given this, Dogs on Beaches enforcement, funded by the Dogs on Beaches budget ($116K) and supported by the Animal Control Rangers, will continue and while not overly officious still includes a risk of being caught. Parks Providing additional off-leash parks was supported by 85.7% of the respondents. This option raises a number of concerns. Providing a significant number of new parks would require reconsideration of the type of enforcement that Council undertakes at off-leash areas.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 12

Council will need to consider which parks should be fenced and which parks receive full activity park equipment. Fencing and maintenance costs would also need to be incorporated into any future budget. Although some in the community have argued that Council is already too generous with the amount of off-leash areas that we provide, Table 2 Comparison of Councils suggests that Council could add a small number of new off-leash areas and still be consistent with other Councils. Table 2: Comparison of Councils LGA No Off-Leash Areas Other Specifics Resourcing Wollongong 15 off-leash areas 54,274 dogs 4 Animal Rangers (10 beaches and pop 201K + 2 x 7 month 5 reserves) area 648km2 positions Newcastle 17 off-leash areas 49,065 dogs 5 General/Animal (16 reserves, pop 154K Control Rangers 1 harbour beach) area 187km2 (do all requests except parking) Sutherland 5 off-leash areas 49,081 dogs 14 Animal/ (2 reserves, pop 220K General Rangers 3 beaches) area 334km2 Shellharbour 6 off-leash 22,804 dogs 4 do all requests (all reserves but 1 pop 66K adjacent to beach) area 147km2 Shoalhaven 21 off-leash areas pop 97K 4 Animal Control (10 beach and area 4,660km2 Rangers 11 reserve) Kiama 9 off-leash 4,489 dogs 2 Rangers (2 beaches and pop 20k +1 part-time 7 reserves) area 258 km2 + 1 relief Gosford 23 off-leash areas pop 170K 10 + senior (9 beaches and area 1,029km2 do all requests 14 reserves) (including parking)

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 13

Council will be considering a report concerning dog activity parks which has suggested a citywide strategic approach to the provision of district level recreation dog parks and a working party to identify option/s followed by community engagement. Given that the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review process identified a number of parks as potential off-leash areas it is suggested that a similar approach be taken to identify any additional off-leash parks. At the Thirroul Neighbourhood Forum meeting a number of people brought to Council’s attention what they thought was the misspelling of “Sharkey’s Beach” instead of “Sharky’s”. Council’s Property Division provided advice that “Sharkey’s” Beach is not recognised with the Geographical Names Board and therefore either naming could be used and recommended continuation of the current spelling. Further research has indicated that the current spelling only appears after 2006 and therefore it is our intention that the word “Sharky’s” be used in future. It is not our intention to remove and replace any current signage but merely to change the wording upon maintenance replacement.

PROPOSAL The following options are offered for Council consideration: Option 1 (Recommended Option) The recommendations for this option are:  Maintain the current Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy. This includes the current off-leash parks and off-leash beaches and current orange and red zonings.  Develop a new off-leash area in the Dapto area. The location be public recreation (RE1) zoned land and be considered via assessment of open space areas that will come into Council ownership.  Council establish an internal working party to assess on a needs basis approach any additional suitable parks that may be established as off-leash areas. The recommendations of this group be presented to Council for consideration.  Council provide additional signage and colour coding of fences across the city’s beaches to improve awareness of the zoning for users. Basis for this Option This proposal is based largely on the community’s view expressed through the exhibition process. This option indicates that the current areas and zonings within the Policy should not change.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 14

There was strong community support for all off-leash areas remaining and strong support for additional off-leash parks, including Dapto which was noted as an area of inadequate off-leash provision. The comparison table within this report indicates that Council has scope to add a small number of additional parks and still not be excessive in comparison with those Councils. The community has also identified possible parks through the exhibition process which will be useful in identifying final recommended parks. An internal working party process comprising internal divisional stakeholders is suggested to determine criteria and suitability prior to presenting those options to Council. This option also recognises that signage and colour coding also received strong support. Improving signage in relation to clarity and providing additional instructional signage is recommended. Option 2 Changes at Bellambi Beach and Minor Changes at Sharky’s Beach The recommendations for this option are:  Maintain the current Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy with the exception of Bellambi Beach off-leash area which will change from green to red zoning and the section between the Sharky’s Beach Coledale off-leash area and the headland boat-ramp being changed from orange to red.  Develop a new off-leash area in the Dapto area. The location be public recreation (RE1) zoned land and be considered via assessment of open space areas that will come into Council ownership.  Council establish an internal working party to assess on a needs basis approach any additional suitable parks that may be established as off-leash areas. The recommendations of this group be presented to Council for consideration.  Council provide additional signage and colour coding of fences across the city’s beaches to improve awareness of the zoning for users. Basis for this Option This proposal is based largely on the community’s view expressed through the exhibition process and is very similar to option 1 however, also includes two (2) proposed changes exhibited, which were originally recommended, involving the removal of Bellambi off-leash area and changing the area between the southern end of Sharky’s Beach Coledale from orange to red. The basis for the changes is explained below.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 15

Bellambi Beach had been initially proposed as an off-leash beach as an alternative off- leash option because of an internal Review of Environmental Factors(REF) report that indicated that East Corrimal Beach should change from green to red. A subsequent external review of this REF indicated that the beach was able to remain as a green off- leash area. As this beach has a fair amount of rocky outcrops it was thought its use as a green off leash area would be inconsistent with the Policy’s current principle of banning dogs where rock platforms exist and given that East Corrimal was able to remain an off-leash area, Bellambi Beach should be considered for removal. In relation to the orange zone south of Sharky’s Beach this area was recommended to be red due to current transitional problems where people were walking through the orange area outside of allowable hours to get to the green area. There is also a rock platform in this area and it was considered that making it red was consistent with the remainder of the Policy concerning rock platforms. Notwithstanding these comments due to the strong community support for these locations to remain unchanged and the enforcement and education that will continue, these changes are not recommended as part of the preferred option. Option 3 The Exhibited Proposed Changes The recommendations for this option are: 1 All current off-leash parks remain in their current form; 2 A new off-leash park be included as an off-leash area to cater for the West Dapto area and additional locations across the City, close to where people live, with the aim of increasing the number of locations. The locations be Public Recreation (RE1) zoned land and be considered via assessment of open space areas that will come into Council ownership; 3 All off-leash beaches to remain the same with the exception of: i The area between Sharky’s Beach off-leash area and the Headlands Boat Ramp Car Park to be altered from orange to red; and ii Bellambi Boat Harbour off-leash area be altered from a green zone to a red zone; and iii Sharky’s, Little Austinmer and McCauley’s Beaches be altered from a green zone to a timed orange zone; and iv Stanwell Park Beach, including north of the lagoon, be an orange zoned beach on weekends and public holidays, and the existing zone be retained during Monday to Fridays (except public holidays).

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 16

4 Council improve transition areas by adding additional signage at Stanwell Park, Sharky’s, Little Austinmer, McCauley’s, East Corrimal, MM, Port Kembla and Windang Beaches. 5 Visual colour coded painting of existing dune timber fencing be undertaken to better demarcate transition zones. Basis for this Option This option is the exhibited Draft Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy. The community have responded overwhelmingly against all the proposed changes in recommendation No 3. This option is not recommended. The other aspects that received support have been incorporated in Option 1, the recommendation option.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION The community have been consulted via a 60 day public exhibition process requesting feedback with the results summarised in the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review Engagement Report October 2014.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to the delivery of Wollongong 2022 Community Goal and Objective number 5.5 “participation in recreational and lifestyle activities are increased” under the Community Goal No 5 “We are a Healthy Community in a liveable city”. It specifically addresses the Annual Plan 2013-14 Key Deliverables “Develop and implement an animal regulatory program that assists in improving compliance with the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy and legislative requirements” which forms part of the Five Year Action Plan “Provide statutory services to appropriately manage and maintain our public spaces” contained within the Delivery Program 2012-17.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are financial implications associated with the additional signage and colour coding of fences required for the recommended option. Minor budget changes will need to be made should Council endorse the recommendation. Similarly options which require additional off-leash parks would require minor budget adjustments for signage. The provision of “dog activity parks” would be a more significant undertaking which would need to be properly scoped and costed prior to implementation.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 17

CONCLUSION All previous reviews of the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy have resulted in a high level of community interest. This review has once again demonstrated how important this Policy is to the community and with the exception to relatively minor changes, it is recommended that the current Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy and location of off- leash areas remain unchanged.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 18

REF: CM285/14 File: PR-195.005 ITEM 2 INFORMATION ON DOG ACTIVITY PARKS

This report to be read in conjunction with Item 1. Council may move a Procedural Motion to consider and debate the items together. This report is provided in response to a Notice of Motion from the Council meeting of 13 October 2014 requesting that information be provided on dog activity parks. A review on dog activity parks and the provision of dog activity parks in other council areas has been undertaken and this information, along with a proposed approach towards the provision of dog activity parks in the Wollongong Local Government Area, is provided for information.

RECOMMENDATION The report be received and noted.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Dog park examples 2 ‘Framework for the Design of Dog Parks’ (Paws4Play/LMH Consulting)

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Peter Coyte, Manager Property and Recreation Authorised by: Greg Doyle, Director Corporate and Community Services – Creative, Engaged and Innovative City

BACKGROUND At the Council meeting of 13 October 2014, a Notice of Motion from Councillor Merrin requested: 1 A report be submitted to the Council meeting on 24 November 2014 in relation to Dog Activity Parks.

2 The report provide details on –

a Dog Activity Parks provided by Shellharbour City Council, Kiama Municipal Council, and by other councils, including the:

 Size and number of parks in relation to population;  Amount of use of the parks;  Structure of fencing and landscaping;  Any associated dog owner support and training programs; and  Amenities, such as drinking water and picnic facilities.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 19

b Dog agility equipment which may be suitable for use in Dog Activity Parks in Wollongong; their sources and pricing and the success or otherwise of their use by Shellharbour City Council, Kiama Municipal Council, and other councils.

c The potential for a Dog Activity Park in each Ward. Dog Parks The term ‘dog park’ is generally given to designated dog off leash areas that contain a variety of landscape features and/or equipment that offer different activities and experiences for dog owners and their dogs. They are defined areas which offer a safe and controlled environment for dogs to play, socialise, interact and exercise with other dogs and their owners. Dog parks are typically fenced, however, the extent and need for fencing varies according to the location. Dog parks differ from dog off leash areas in that dog off leash areas are not fenced and are often large designated zones within an existing landscape that does not contain dog specific infrastructure (but may include dog waste bins and signage). Research indicates there are a number of benefits associated with dog parks including: - Dog parks offer spaces which facilitate community interaction, helping to break down social barriers and stereotypes, build trust and a sense of community; - Dog parks create better relationships between council, dog owners and residents; - Dog parks encourage responsible dog ownership and promote acceptable behaviour in dogs; - Dog parks contribute to facilitating social interactions for newcomers, marginalised and isolated groups; - Dog parks can assist in keeping dogs out of sensitive environments through providing a space for dogs to run freely; - Dog parks provide a community hub and focal point for community education and training programs; - Dog parks can help avoid potential conflict between dogs through facilitating dog socialisation which leads to dogs being more confident and less anxious, being less prone to inappropriate behaviours; and - Dog parks contribute to promoting active living and encouraging physical activity. Dog owners are 68% more likely to achieve the recommended level of physical activity per week than non-dog owners (School of Population Health at the University of Western Australia). The potential issues arising from dog parks are largely related to the responsibilities of owners and are often minimised through common sense and dog owner education programs. Potential issues include: - Health issues associated with dog faeces not being disposed of correctly; - Fights between dogs may occur and threaten other dogs and people;

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 20

- People may leave their dogs unattended, causing a nuisance to other dog park users; - Dog parks may be inappropriately used by dog trainers; - Noise from barking dogs may impact on nearby neighbouring residents; and - If located inappropriately, may conflict with other park activities/uses. Benchmarking Other Councils Council officers have undertaken a review of dog parks across a number of councils including nearby Shellharbour and Kiama Councils. The review identified that while there are many dog off leash areas in other council areas (eg six in Shellharbour, nine in Kiama), there are less dog parks within those contacted councils. Both Shellharbour (estimated population of 67,797) and Kiama (estimated population of 21,047) provide an unfenced dog park containing dog agility equipment within their respective Local Government Areas (LGA). The following table provides a summary of the council benchmarking.

Shoalhaven and Canterbury Councils were the only LGAs to have more than one dog park containing dog agility equipment. The Shoalhaven LGA is host to an estimated population of 97,694 and contains two dog parks. Not having an abundance of foreshore reserves, Canterbury LGA provides seven dog parks for its estimated population of 148,853. It was noted that many of the councils that were contacted, indicated a desire to install dog agility equipment should budget be made available in the future.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 21

The size and layout of dog parks vary within the sampled LGAs. Dog parks are generally established within existing public open spaces and the size and form has been incorporated into the site’s existing topography, use and infrastructure, in accordance with available budget. Industry specialists acknowledge that dog parks have not traditionally been a key planning consideration in cities throughout Australia and that the size of dog parks depends on land available and other recreational opportunities in the area. However, in an ideal world, the size of dog parks should range between 0.25-1.0 hectares (Paws4Play/LMH Consulting). Importantly, it is recommended that the size of a dog park be best determined by the purpose for which a dog park is proposed. Examples for why a dog park might be developed include:  ‘To separate dogs from different activities in a park or along a trail;  To provide a safe place where people can let their dogs socialise and run off-leash. This is particularly relevant for people with disabilities or older people;  To separate dogs from sensitive environments in a park;  To encourage/support people who live on small allotments to have pet dogs (health benefits);  To encourage positive pet ownership behaviours (pet owners reinforce appropriate owner behaviours);  To provide a focus for responsible pet ownership; or  To provide opportunities for owners to practise and reinforce practices learned in agility and dog education classes’ (Paws4Play/LMH Consulting, 2014). In undertaking a review of other LGAs success with dog parks, it was noted that usage figures were not recorded due to the nature of dog parks typically being located in public open space. Where a council did have a close understanding and relationship with their dog park users, they reported their sites to receive high patronage. One council reported that a local dog obedience and training club successfully operated from the grounds of both of their dog parks; however, these parks were open to the community regardless of club membership. There wasn’t any feedback available on the presence of dog owner support and training programs being implemented at the other sampled LGAs. Key considerations for councils that were highlighted in the feedback received, included: - The concept of establishing a Pet Companion Committee consisting of veterinarians, Councillors and community representatives to review dog park proposals and their operation. - The installation of double gate systems to allow people to enter/exit the facility easily with their dogs not being able to run away. - The installation of two entrance points to allow people to enter/exit without conflict if encountered.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 22

- Avoid establishing timed off leash areas on sportsgrounds as history indicates frequent user conflict. - Consider dividing dog parks into areas for small dogs and areas for larger dogs if size permits. - Investigate opportunities to partner with commercial providers (eg cafes, events). - Specifying the need for dog park provision in new development proposals. The type of infrastructure featured in the dog parks across the sampled LGAs varied according to size and purpose. Fencing was typically 1.2 metres in height and seating and water was a key element. Some of the sampled dog parks were co-located with sportsgrounds or key recreation destinations where toilet facilities already existed and complemented the introduction of a dog park. Dog Park Agility Equipment In undertaking a review of dog parks in other LGAs, it was noted that there are numerous suppliers of dog park agility equipment, offering similar elements from a range of materials including recycled plastic and timber. Dog park agility equipment is typically installed in a manner that provides a continuous circuit with a mix of elements that provides dog owners with a variety of opportunities to develop different competencies in their dogs. Items include sit-stay platforms, bridges, A-frames, balancing beams, jumps, hurdles, tunnels, mazes and weave poles. Effective dog parks provide a variety of activity spaces which may include an open run about area, a training or education area, scramble features (eg rocky outcrops) or sensory elements with different plants and bushes that are attractive to dogs and separated small dog/large dog areas. The price of dog park agility equipment varies depending on the element and the number of items to be installed. Generally, six to eight items are installed and prices range from $225 (excluding GST) for a set of six weave poles to $1,850 (excluding GST) for bridges. The average total cost for a set of dog park agility equipment is around $5,500 (excluding GST). In addition, consideration should be given to the costs associated with installation/labour, park seating, fencing, gates, signage, bubblers/water, waste receptacles and landscaping. Dog Activity Parks in Wollongong Dog owners are a key stakeholder group of park and open space users and the planning and management of spaces for dog recreation must incorporate both urban animal management and sound recreation planning. Currently, Council licenses an area of JJ Kelly Park, Wollongong to the Illawarra Dog Training Club and there are 14 dog off leash areas within the Wollongong LGA. Nine are off leash (untimed) beach areas and five are off leash dog parks that do not contain dog park infrastructure such as fencing and agility equipment. These five existing off leash dog parks are located at: - Proud Park, Helensburgh

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 23

- Figtree Oval, Figtree - Riley Park, Unanderra - King George V Park, Port Kembla, and - Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra Council’s Strategic Framework for Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities, Planning People Places (2006), supports the establishment of fenced dog parks in the LGA as a high priority noting ‘3.2.3 Identify and improve off leash areas in line with Council’s recent review of areas and consider: Fencing some areas to increase safety for dogs and people nearby, designing off leash areas to include unique and appealing settings and facilities, managing dog waste (eg signs, dog bins).’ In addition, Wollongong’s topography and the limited availability of public open space affords itself to carefully plan the establishment of dog parks which allow for dogs to be effectively accommodated alongside other parkland activities such as playgrounds and sensitive environments including waterways and bushland habitats. Using the recreation planning boundaries from Council’s Strategic Framework for Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities, Planning People Places (2006), there is the potential to facilitate a dog park within each of the three planning districts across the Wollongong LGA. Attachment 2 provides a recommended framework for the design of dog parks in accordance with a facility hierarchy including district level dog parks. Key considerations in selecting a suitable site for a dog park includes identifying a site that is a place where people want to go, where people will feel safe, where natural surveillance is achieved through passing cars and/or foot traffic, and a site that is not too close to adjoining residences. Consideration should also be given to the existing 14 dog off leash areas within the Wollongong LGA.

PROPOSAL The information in this report be noted. Should Council favour pursuing the dedication and installation of dog parks, it is recommended that a LGA wide strategic approach to the provision of district level recreation parks for dogs and their owners be implemented, rather than implementing a neighbourhood or local dog park approach. An initial business proposal will be required for any future capital budget allocation towards dog parks in the city. The planning of dog parks must consider: 1 Identify the Purpose In developing a dog park, it is important to identify the purpose of the proposed dog park and give consideration to the level of the facility (eg local, district or regional level) to determine whether the facility will cater for the small local community or whether it will attract people from a greater distance and possibly host special events. A clear understanding of the purpose of the proposed dog park/s and the catchment being catered for is important as this will guide the size, location and type of

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 24

infrastructure for the park. Noting the size of dog parks will vary depending on the type of activities that the dog park is to cater for and the area of land available. 2 Site Selection Checklist Once the purpose for establishing a dog park is determined, it is recommended that a checklist be used for identifying a suitable location as this will assist in removing emotion from the evaluation process. The following checklist is recommended for site selection.

DOG PARK SITE SUITABILITY CHECKLIST

Key Planning Consideration 

Site is not categorised as Natural Area under Council’s Generic

Plan of Management. Site is not used for organised sport/active recreation. Site is not in an overcrowded location. Site is not within a children’s play space. Site is not within close proximity to residents (ie 50 metres). Site has water services or the potential for the provision of water

services at low cost. Site has car parking options. Site has several access points. Site is adjacent to other existing use/s complementary to proposed

dog park (ie no potential use conflict). Site is located within an attractive location (ie amenity encourages

park visitation).

3 Engage the Community Once a site or multiple suitable sites have been identified, a comprehensive process of community engagement should be undertaken to gauge community sentiment, establish Council/resident relationships and to encourage community ownership of the proposed dog park/s. It may also be useful to establish a working party consisting of veterinarians and community representatives to provide input on any dog park proposals.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION In preparing this report, contact was made with the following councils: - Shellharbour City Council - Kiama Municipal Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 25

- Shoalhaven City Council - Sutherland Shire Council - Campbelltown City Council - Camden Council - Wollondilly Shire Council - Hornsby Shire Council - Canterbury City Council, and - Ryde City Council Additionally, Parks and Leisure Australia NSW Executive Officer and two dog park agility equipment suppliers were consulted. Internal consultation was also undertaken with the following Council officers: - Manager Regulation and Enforcement - Ranger Services Manager - Recreation and Open Space Project Officer - Recreation Policy and Planning Officer - Recreation Services Manager - Sportsfields/Playgrounds Coordinator - Waste Coordinator, and - Property Management Coordinator

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to the delivery of Wollongong 2022 under the objective ‘5.5: Participation in recreational and lifestyle activities is increased’ Community Goal ‘We are a healthy community in a liveable city’. It specifically addresses the Annual Plan 2014-15 Key Deliverable ‘Develop and implement public health, amenity and safety regulatory programs that assist in improving compliance with legislative requirements’ which forms part of the Five Year Action ‘5.5.2.4 Provide statutory services to appropriately manage and maintain our public spaces’ contained within the Revised Delivery Program 2012-17. Ecological Sustainability Dog parks may assist in helping to reduce the occurrence of dog owners and their dogs accessing sensitive environments and natural habitats (eg dune areas) through directing dog owners to a designated space for dog recreation.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 26

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The development of a dog park within the Wollongong LGA would require a capital investment from Council that is estimated at approximately $52,700 per site. Noting, should Council pursue a dog park with divided areas for small dogs and big dogs (as recommended in the research), the cost may be doubled.

Estimated Cost Dog Park Items (incl. installation)

Park seating x 2 $4,000

Small shelter x 1 $10,000 Waste bins x 2 $600 Waste bag dispensers x 2 $200 Perimeter fencing $14,000* Double gates entries $400 Bubbler/dog water bowl $1,500 Water services installation $1,500** Advanced tree planting x 4 $8,000 Rules and etiquette signage $1,500 Dog agility equipment $8,000 Review of Environmental Factor (REF) $3,000 Total Cost $52,700 * Figure is based on fencing 0.25 hectare at $70 per lineal metre. ** The cost of installing water services will vary depending on the site and the distance from an existing water service point. Additionally, ongoing operational costs associated with waste bin servicing, water usage, grounds maintenance and asset depreciation should be considered and are estimated at $18,000 per annum. Based on the corporate Cost of Preparing Council Requested Report Template, the estimated cost of preparing this report is $3,748.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 27

CONCLUSION Research indicates that dog parks contribute to enhancing social connectivity, improving community health and wellbeing and assist in facilitating positive resident and council relationships. Dog parks offer an ideal setting where dogs can socialise with other dogs and other dog owners in a closely supervised space, helping to educate on appropriate behaviours and reducing dog anxiety. This helps reduce the incidence of defensive behaviours as dogs are more relaxed when out in public. A strategic approach that takes into account the purpose for establishing a dog park, any existing recreational opportunities, and who the intended user catchment is, should be undertaken in the initial stages of planning. The subsequent use of a site selection checklist, community engagement and reference to a framework to guide the design of dog parks, will help to positive outcomes and encourage community support. A detailed business case with supporting budget will determine the feasibility of implementing dog parks within the Wollongong LGA.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 28

REF: CM290/14 File: PP-2013/1 DRAFT PLANNING PROPOSAL - ROSEHILL FARM, 571 AVONDALE ITEM 3 ROAD, AVONDALE

This report considers a draft Planning Proposal request for 571 Avondale Road, Avondale. Initially the request sought to retain the existing zoning and amend the Minimum Lot Size Map to permit nine additional dwellings. To address concerns raised by Council officers the proposal was amended to reduce the number of additional dwellings to seven, increase the extent of land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation and propose that the E2 Environmental Conservation land be a custodian lot, without a dwelling entitlement, managed by the other lots in a community title subdivision. Despite the amendments addressing many of the concerns, it is still considered that the draft Planning Proposal request is inconsistent with aspects of the Illawarra Regional Strategy, Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan, Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy and some Section 117 Directions. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal not be supported and the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 not be amended.

RECOMMENDATION 1 A draft Planning Proposal not be prepared for Rosehill Farm, 571 Avondale Road, Avondale and the current planning controls be retained for the site.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Site Locality Map. 2 Current Zoning Map. 3 Proposed initial future lot layout. 4 Proposed future lot layout. 5 Proposed Minimum Lot Size Map. 6 Proposed Zoning Map. 7 Summary of Submissions. 8 Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan Attributes.

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Renee Campbell, Manager Environmental Strategy and Planning Authorised by: Andrew Carfield, Director Planning and Environment – Future City and Neighbourhoods

BACKGROUND Rosehill Farm is located at 571 Avondale Road, Avondale and is formally known as Lot A DP 106828 and Lot 21 DP 1079478 (Attachment 1). The site has a total area of 62 hectares. The site is a mixture of bushland and cleared pasture. A dwelling house is located on Lot 21 DP 1079478.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 29

The site forms part of the former Huntley and Avondale Collieries mining operations. Huntley Colliery was established in 1946 and bought by the State Government in 1951 to supply coal to Tallawarra Power Station. Mining took place on land further west of the site and the coal was transported via conveyor across the site to a coal loader and hopper bin located centrally within the subject site. This coal was then loaded from this facility onto trucks and transported along an internal road and from the site. The mine closed in 1989 and was sold by the State in the 1990’s. In September 2006 a rezoning proposal was lodged with Council for the former Huntley and Avondale Collieries located at the western end of Avondale Road, Avondale and included the Rosehill Farm properties. In December 2010 the proponent decided to remove the western lands, including Rosehill Farm, from the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal for the former Huntley emplacement site and golf course was subsequently exhibited, adopted by Council on 12 December 2011 and notified on 8 March 2012. This current draft Planning Proposal request for Rosehill Farm was lodged on 18 February 2013. The request is separate from the HHT Huntley Heritage proposals. A Councillor briefing occurred on 16 June 2014. In August 2014, the draft Planning Proposal request was modified, to reduce the number of proposed lots and dwelling houses. PROPOSAL Rosehill Farm consists of two lots, Lot A DP 106828 and Lot 21 DP 1079478. Lot A has an area of approximately 1 hectare and is zoned E3 Environmental Management. Lot 21 has an area of approximately 61 hectares and is zoned E3 Environmental Management and E2 Environmental Conservation (see Attachments 1 and 2). Lot 21 currently contains a dwelling house. The initial Planning Proposal request (February 2013) sought to retain the current zoning and amend the Minimum Lot Size Map in the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 from 40 hectares to 1 hectare for 16 hectares of the northern part of the site. This would facilitate the future subdivision of the site, into 10 allotments, nine lots within the northern part, with the lot size ranging from 1 hectare up to 4 hectares and the remaining one lot with 46 hectares and still subject to the 40 hectares minimum lot size standard (see Attachment 3). A dwelling house would be permitted on each lot (nine additional dwellings). In August 2014, the proposal was revised to:  Amend the Minimum Lot Size Map in the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 from 40 hectares to 1 hectare for approximately 10 hectares of the site (see Attachment 3). Two of the proposed lots, Lot 6 and Lot 9 to be deleted. This is to facilitate the future subdivision of the site to enable the creation of eight allotments, seven lots within the north-eastern part of the lot, with lot size ranging

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 30

from 1 hectare to 2 hectares and the remaining larger lot to be approximately 52 hectares (see Attachment 4). The intended future subdivision is proposed to be presented as a community title subdivision. This will enable a dwelling to be created on each of the seven lots and the remaining one lot (proposed Lot 8) to be community land, a “custodial lot” whereby no dwelling entitlement has been proposed and to be managed collectively by the future owners of the seven lots.  Amend the Zoning Map in Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 to rezone part of the Lot 21 from E3 Environmental Management to E2 Environmental Conservation (Attachment 6). This would result in the increase in the extent of the site zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The intent being the area of the site to be identified as containing Endangered Ecological Communities to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation land primarily located within proposed Lot 8. A portion of proposed Lots 6 and 7 will be also rezoned E2 Environmental Conservation along the north- eastern boundary of the lot. The proponent has also proposed that the Endangered Ecological Communities within the site are to become “Protected Vegetation”, that is to be exempt from the provisions of the 10/50 vegetation clearing entitlement under the Rural Fires Act 1997. This management regime will be provided by either a Property Vegetation Plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or a BioBanking Agreement under the Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008 that would also form part of the community title arrangements. The revisions have also included the provision of a 50m riparian corridor for the watercourse within the site, resulting in the indicative building envelopes within proposed Lots 1 to 7 and associated Asset Protection Zones to be reconfigured to be located outside the riparian corridor. A more detailed map has been provided by the proponent showing the future intended subdivision layout and zoning changes with the eight allotments including internal access roads and asset protection zone on the subject site (see Attachment 4). Evaluation Biodiversity The site contains areas which have been disturbed predominantly by weeds and grazing of livestock on the land. The site also contains two Endangered Ecological Communities being the Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland and the Illawarra Subtropical Rainforest. The initial draft Planning Proposal is supported by an Ecological Assessment report prepared by Lesryk Environmental Consultants which discusses the flora and fauna impacts of future development potential on the site based on the indicative subdivision and building envelope layout.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 31

The report considers the indicative building envelopes and their Asset Protection Zones were within the existing cleared portions of the site. The development of the lots would require the establishment of services such as internal roads and given the current condition of the site generally, there is the likelihood that these can be established within the cleared portions of the property. Direct impacts on the site’s vegetation communities would be minimal. The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage objected to the initial draft Planning Proposal presented and considered it to be unlikely that the guiding principles of the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan (IESMP) would be upheld with the proposed densities without a long term and secure commitment to active management i.e. secure conservation agreement on land with high conservation value. The proponent has provided a submission outlining a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and the environmental outcomes for the site as a result of the draft Planning Proposal. This submission was prepared by Southeast Engineering and Environmental and has also included management actions for the proposal. Whilst the proponent has outlined these environmental outcomes, it is considered the VMP has not clearly demonstrated that the draft Planning Proposal aligns with the principle with the overall and long term commitment of improving, protecting and conserving biodiversity values within the Illawarra Escarpment. However, with the revisions made to the draft Planning Proposal the proponent has merged proposed Lots 9 and 10 into Lot 8 where no dwelling entitlement is proposed and an increased portion of this lot will be rezoned to E2 Environmental Conservation. The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage in their further submission to the initial planning proposal did identify that the recently released Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014 proposes amendments to the Rural Fires Act 1997, which would enable clearing of any vegetation within 10m of an external wall and clearing of vegetation, other than trees, within 50m of a residential dwelling. It is likely the proposed Vegetation Management Plan outlined in the original Planning Proposal would not be able to be enforced due to conflicts with this amendment. The proponent in the revised draft Planning Proposal has proposed to address this matter by identifying the Endangered Ecological Communities within the site as “Protected Vegetation”, that is to be exempt from the provisions of the 10/50 vegetation clearing entitlement under the Rural Fires Act 1997. This management regime will be provided by either a Property Vegetation Plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or a BioBanking Agreement under the Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008 that would also form part of the community title arrangements. The Biodiversity Certification process in New South Wales is an alternative biodiversity assessment pathway that is given effect through the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). It offers a mechanism to assess the biodiversity value of an area at a strategic landscape scale level and deliver better environmental outcomes from urban

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 32

development. It therefore has benefit for both the protection of biodiversity and the facilitation of future urban development. The site itself immediately adjoins the Biodiversity Certification of the West Dapto Urban Release Area study area proposed; therefore it has not been included in the study area. However, it is noted that the vegetation types on site are two of the key types that credits are currently required in. Whilst BioBanking agreements on private land are currently in process to secure sufficient credits, if the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed there is potential to review the study area as the site may have the potential to form a good BioBanking credit site. This could allow facilitating better conservation and development outcomes for biodiversity of the site identified as high value conservation land within the Illawarra Escarpment. A long term commitment such as through a BioBanking agreement was also indicated as a preferred mechanism to ensure a commitment to long term management of the site within the submission received from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage on the initial scheme. It is noted the site could be biobanked without the Planning Proposal being progressed. The revised Planning Proposal appears to have minimised the potential impacts on biodiversity with the presented options of a mechanism for the long term management of the site with regard to the EECs on site. Details regarding the implementation of the Property Vegetation Plan and BioBanking agreement would require further consideration and its feasibility via a community title arrangement. However, concerns remain regarding the scale of the future development and use of the site with regards to the overall intent for conservation outcomes of a site wholly located within the Illawarra Escarpment. It is considered there may be impacts on biodiversity that are likely to arise from the proposed access arrangements and riparian corridors for the future intended subdivision layout, that are discussed further later in the report. Bushfire The site is mapped as being bushfire prone and therefore any future development in the area would need to have regard for the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines. The proponent has provided a bushfire assessment to support the draft Planning Proposal prepared by Australian Bushfire Assessment Consultants dated November 2012. The Rural Fire Service provided a submission as part of the preliminary notification and raised no objections to the initial draft Planning Proposal. Comments were raised with regards to access whereby careful consideration will need to be given to future road access to any lots that do not have frontage to an existing road. It is considered whilst the proponent has generally adequately demonstrated that the land is capable of being protected against bushfire threat and the proposed Asset Protection Zones for the future dwellings for each proposed lot appears to be within the existing cleared areas of the site. It has not been satisfied that no clearing of vegetation will be required to satisfy these bushfire requirements. If the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed further, consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service would be required, as the revised Planning Proposal has not been reviewed.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 33

Flooding The site is mapped to be flood affected and the site to be located within low, medium and high flood precinct risk. A flood study was provided by the proponent. It is considered there are flood free portions of the site capable of accommodating residential development in the indicative building envelopes within the proposed lots as the intent of the planning proposal is to create a reduced minimum lot size without significant flood impacts. The provisions that apply to the flooding planning land are not proposed to be changed and due to the existing constraints of this site any future development would be required to be carried out with development consent. The proposal would appear not to be inconsistent with Section 117 Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land subject to the provision of emergency flood free access for the future lots. It appears works could be carried out to the existing road network on Avondale Road and bridge crossing or via the adjoining property to the east to facilitate appropriate access. As part of the revisions to the draft Planning Proposal the location of the emergency flood free access within the lots to connect to adjoining property to the east has been altered. If the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed further consultation regarding flooding will be required to ensure that emergency flood free access within the site can still be achieved. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage The draft Planning Proposal is supported by an Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment prepared by Myall Coast Archaeological Services. The report is primarily a due diligence assessment with the addition of consultation with the Illawarra Aboriginal Land Council and was carried out to ensure development will not have direct impacts on Aboriginal sites or artefacts that have been or can readily be identified. The recommendation of the report identifies “Area 1” as a depositional zone and that this area has a higher level of archaeological sensitivity with the proponent required to determine risk management for this area. This depositional zone has been identified by the proponent to be contained within the proposed Lot 2 and west of the indicative building envelope within the Asset Protection Zone and situated east of the right of carriageway on the site for access to other lots. It is understood that the site has not been subject to a previous Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and that an Archaeological Assessment prepared by Biosis Research 2007 for the Huntley and Avondale Mine Colliery site, whilst did not cover this site in its study area, did identify the site as containing several areas which may be likely to contain Aboriginal sites. In addition, the site contains a creek identified in the West Dapto Aboriginal Heritage Study 2006 by AMBS as being of moderate archaeological potential that was not identified in the supporting report accompanying the draft Planning Proposal. It is considered the draft Planning Proposal seeks to intensify development and it has the potential to increase the impacts on the Aboriginal Archaeological and cultural heritage significance of the site. Therefore, any future Aboriginal Heritage Assessment

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 34

considerations required for the development of this site should be clearly defined at Planning Proposal stage. It would be recommended that if the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed an Aboriginal Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment is prepared in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage guidelines. This report will need to fully consider the implications of previous archaeological assessments, including the West Dapto Aboriginal Heritage Reports by AMBS (Australian Museum Business Services) 2006 and Illawarra Escarpment Aboriginal Heritage Assessment by AMBS 2008. The views of the broader local Aboriginal community should be sought in relation to the Planning Proposal, beyond one Aboriginal group, to establish if there are Cultural Heritage Values attached to the development site. Visual Assessment It is acknowledged that due to the topography of the site, the proposed indicative location of future dwellings may not be visually prominent within the landscape from a distance with no clearing of vegetation/trees envisaged by the proponent. However, it was observed based on a site visit when viewed from the road reserve, near 410 Cleveland Road, Huntley (approximately over 2 km in distance) looking south west towards the site, that the site would be visible. The specific area visible could potentially be identified as proposed Lot 10. The revised draft Planning Proposal has removed the proposed dwelling entitlement for this area identified to be potentially visible now known as proposed Lot 8. It appears the likelihood of visual impact from the proposal on higher ground of the site may be limited as result of the revised proposal. It is considered the potential future dwellings on the lower foothills of the site when viewed from Avondale Road will affect the visual landscape of the Illawarra Escarpment. The visual assessment provided by the proponent did not appear to specifically discuss or identify the above locations. Due to the potential future development on the site, if the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed there may be potential for visual impacts on the Heritage Values of the Illawarra Escarpment and from other vantages points including the adjoining Huntley Colliery site. A detailed Visual Impact Assessment should be carried out to ensure there are no adverse impacts. Riparian Corridors Council records mapping system identifies the site to be affected by riparian land and all the watercourses traversing the site as Category 1 watercourses. Under Chapter E23 Riparian Land Management of the Wollongong Development Control Plan 2009 this requires a core riparian zone at a width of 40 metres. Initially the proponent has utilised the NSW Office of Water approach in setting the riparian corridors which is based on the stream order of the Strahler system, thus providing a 30m wide riparian corridor for Solomon Creek a third order stream and 10m corridors for the lower first order streams.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 35

It is understood that the Strahler stream classification is to be used in urban release areas and in this case the subject site is located within the Illawarra Escarpment identified as an important habitat corridor with connectivity value. The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage objected to the initial proposal and provided that the Planning Proposal appears to encroach on the 40m riparian buffers prescribed for the Category 1 watercourse as per Chapter E23 in the Wollongong Development Control Plan 2009. Subsequently the proponent has revised the draft Planning Proposal with the provision of a 50m riparian corridor for the watercourses that traverse the site. This would meet the requirements under Chapter E23 Riparian Land Management of the Wollongong Development Control Plan 2009. The revision has slightly relocated the proposed building envelopes and associated Asset Protection Zones within proposed Lots 1 to 7 that appear to be outside the 50m riparian corridor. The proposed Lots 1, 3 to 7 contain a portion of the 50m riparian corridor within their individual lots. The reconfigured internal access for emergency flood free access is partially within the riparian corridor. A portion of the access from Avondale Road to the proposed Lots 4 and 5 will also be located within the riparian corridor. It is considered the revised draft Planning Proposal has addressed the concern relating to riparian corridor widths. Landslip Council records map the site to be potentially unstable land. The proponent has provided a Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Southern Geotechnics. The report assessed the risk of slope instability at the site for the proposed future building envelopes for the 10 allotments and considered the risk of damage to houses or property and to life. In summary the report provided that:  the proposed building areas on the future proposed 10 lots to have an overall very low to moderate risk of slope instability and residential development is considered to be feasible pending compliance with geotechnical recommendations.  there are no geotechnical constraints to development of the subdivision that cannot be managed by good design and construction practices following the guidelines for hillside development. It is considered that the report demonstrates feasibility of the proposed subdivision from a geotechnical perspective. It is recognised that further geotechnical advice will be required to support the engineering division for any future subdivision that can be sought at development application stage.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 36

However, if the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed further details would be required as part of the Development Application on the waste water disposal and treatment and consideration of the portion of the emergency/evacuation flood access road. Contamination The historic and current land use as part of the former Huntley Colliery Mine site and agricultural use for grazing of livestock indicates these uses may contribute to the potential contamination of the site. The proponent has provided a Stage 1 Preliminary Soil Contamination Investigation prepared by Pacific Environmental dated October 2012 to support the draft Planning Proposal. The report concluded that the area nominated as the buildable areas have been found to be suitable for residential development and no recommendation with respect to remediation of the site in relation to contamination. A review of the preliminary site assessment report considers that there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the document. It is considered the report in its current form is inadequate to assess the draft Planning Proposal with regards to contamination matters. If the proposal is to proceed further investigation is required to determine whether the site is contaminated and if remediation is required for the land to be suitable to the proposed use.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION The initial draft Planning Proposal was placed on preliminary notification between 26 February and 12 March 2014 and three submissions were received. Copies of the document were made available at Wollongong Central and Dapto District libraries and on Council’s website. Written advice of the notification was sent to surrounding land holders and State authorities. Council received three submissions, all from State authorities. A full summary of the submissions is provided in Attachment 7. In summary the issues raised were as follows:  The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage objected to the proposal citing inconsistency with the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan.  A further submission was also received in response to the information the proponent had provided to address the Office of Environment and Heritage initial submission and the Vegetation Management Plan (as discussed previously).  The Rural Fire Service had no objection to the proposal.  The Sydney Catchment Authority had no comments as the site is not within the Drinking Water Catchment Area. The Escarpment Planning Reference Group also provided comment on the initial Planning Proposal that they did not support the submitted Planning Proposal but considered a reduced concept may be supportable. The revised scheme appears to

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 37

have taken this suggestion by reducing the number of proposed lots from 10 to 8 and dwelling entitlement for lots situated on the higher ground. The revisions made to the draft Planning Proposal that were submitted to Council in August 2014 have not been placed on preliminary notification or referred to State Authorities or EPRG for further comments at this time.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT There are a number of planning policies which are relevant to Council’s consideration of the proposal. Policies Illawarra Regional Strategy (2007) The primary purpose of the Illawarra Regional Strategy (2007) is to ensure adequate land is available and appropriately located to sustainably accommodate the projected housing and employment needs of the Region’s population over the next 25 years. This Regional Strategy also promotes the protection of areas with high value environments and the limitation of development in constrained environments. The Regional Strategy specifically identifies to protect natural features including biodiversity of the Illawarra Escarpment and the implementation of the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan. The revised draft Planning Proposal seeks to reduce the minimum lot size from 40 hectares to 1 hectare for part of the site to enable the future creation of additional lots each with a dwelling entitlement. The proposal will conform to the intent of the housing strategy to allow for the future provision of housing to cater for growth and household needs. A review of the proposal against the Sustainability Criteria within the Illawarra Regional Strategy considers that the proposal does not adequately satisfy all the criteria to support the proposed development outside of the designated areas of the regional strategy process. Concern is raised over the scale of the development, as the change to the minimum lot size will enable, in the future, the ability for a minimum of six further dwellings on the site (from the existing one dwelling) with the creation of eight separate lots on the subject land. It is considered uncertain whether this proposal will preserve the character and the values of the site without any adverse impact despite the intent of a community title arrangement for the future created lots and inclusion of rezoning of part of the land to E2 Environmental Conservation. The revised Planning Proposal still seeks the amendment to the Minimum Lot Size Map and the scale of the potential intensification of the land with 1 hectare lots for future dwellings in the context of the site located within the Illawarra Escarpment, concerns are raised in supporting this proposal could set a precedent for other individual sites within the Illawarra Escarpment that contains existing cleared areas.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 38

It is considered the Planning Proposal presents some inconsistencies that could limit the achievement of the primary purpose of the Illawarra Regional Strategy, that land is appropriately located to sustainably accommodate the projected housing and employment needs of the Region’s population. Therefore, it is considered the draft Planning Proposal is not of minor significance and overall is inconsistent with the fundamental intent of the strategy. Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan The site is within the area covered by the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan (2006) and identifies the land as core escarpment and biophysical support for core Attachment 8. The Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan specifically identifies the northern portion of the site as an “Area of Interest”. In the initial scheme this was applicable to proposed Lots 1 to 5, 6 and 9. In the Planning Proposal as revised the “Area of Interest” would apply to proposed Lots 1 to 5 and part of proposed Lot 8, the custodial lot. The biophysical support for core land has been identified to have significant environmental attributes although contains a disturbance from weeds and the fragmentation of remnant vegetation. The Plan further considers these lands provide an important buffer to the integrity of the high conservation value lands (core escarpment) and therefore needs to be managed and ensure that the “buffer” status is maintained and enhanced, whilst at the same time provide for, where appropriate, residential development. The IESMP identifies that some level of development would be permissible to drive an enhancement outcome on lands identified as biophysical support for core. The IESMP provides further discussion however that this land (whilst usually cleared land) has the potential to be easily regenerated and rehabilitated to core status. The majority of the proposed lots contain a portion of land identified as biophysical support for core and is also where the future building envelopes appear to be situated within. The IESMP also provides that any attempt to facilitate some development in this area, is to principally drive environmental improvements for the land. It is recognised that the inclusion of the draft Planning Proposal to include further areas within the site to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation with a proposed long term management scheme (Property Vegetation Plan or BioBanking Agreement) has improved the potential environmental protection standards from the initial scheme presented. This will contribute to the improved management of the high conservation value land within the site. The density sought at 1 hectare per dwelling is significantly greater than the recommended 5 hectare by the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan (noting that it will be eight dwellings over 62 hectares or 1 dwelling per 7.75 hectares). A visual assessment has not been carried out to determine whether the Heritage values

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 39

of the Illawarra Escarpment are not adversely impacted from the proposed future lots proposed within the lower foothills. Overall it has not been clearly demonstrated that the draft Planning Proposal is an integrated approach to achieving greater environmental benefit for the entire site with the amendments sought to the Minimum Lot Size Map and Zoning Map. Therefore it is considered the draft Planning Proposal presents some inconsistencies with the guiding principles and aims of the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan. Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy 2007 The Illawarra Escarpment Commission of Inquiry report and IESMP identified the need to carry out a Land Use Review Strategy (Master planning for developable land). It envisaged that the Land Use Review Strategy would provide clear development and conservation parameters for the proposed environmental conservation and management zones which would apply to the Escarpment area following a comprehensive review of the Wollongong LEP 1990. The Strategy has a geographical or spatial focus underpinned by the principles set out in the IESMP. The Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy (IELURS) outlines the approach taken, principles adopted and recommendations for future planning of the Escarpment area. The outcomes of the IELURS have been used in the formulation of the zonings and land use controls in the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 and Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (West Dapto) 2010. The IELURS shows the 10 precincts identified within the Wollongong city area. The subject site is identified to be in Precinct 1 Marshall Mount. However, the site identified as an ‘area of special interest’ from the IESMP is specifically discussed in IELURS. It did identify that the site is visually prominent on higher ground and there is development potential on the lower slopes, land at 60-140m. The proponent has identified that all the proposed lots are located below the elevated clearing on the 220m contour where the IELURS identified land is highly visible from a distance. However, the proposal has not provided justification on how the proposed density of the proposal provides environmental benefit, consistent with the visual quality analysis undertaken as part of this review strategy. Whilst the lots are located at the lower slopes as identified in the IELURS it has not considered or provided an assessment of where the site and proposal will be visible from other nearby vantage points such as Cleveland Road or the adjoining former Huntley Colliery site. The IELURS also considers mechanisms by which objective of “net gain” in the scenic and aesthetic values can be achieved especially in an area within the biophysical support for core areas which could be in multiple ownerships. This may be through site amalgamation and various incentives or creation of a Community Title over the land. The IELURS also specifies that proposals for ‘Areas of Interest’ such as this site, could allow for the establishment of Land Management Agreements. Land Management Agreement (LMA); means a formally executed deed of agreement between the Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 40

and a land owner or owners for the cooperative conservation and management of the biodiversity values of the escarpment lands. The introduction of a LMA then affords protection to remnant vegetation, vulnerable ecosystems, core habitat, wildlife corridors and riparian zones. For example, the LMA would specify what weed management, feral animal control, riparian corridor management, and vegetation protection would be implemented to ensure environmental protection of core escarpment. Another consideration suggested by the IELURS is an amalgamation of lots into Community Title with a statutory covenant applying to the core escarpment land. The initial draft Planning Proposal did not adequately address these recommendations; with the intent of the draft Planning Proposal to allow for the future Torrens Title subdivision of land which would allow for separate ownership of each proposed lot created. The revised scheme of the draft Planning Proposal has presented options to address this specific matter with the intent for any future subdivision to be a community title arrangement such that proposed Lot 8 containing the majority of the EECs within the site will be a “custodial lot” jointly managed by the remaining proposed Lots 1 to 7. The proponent has also proposed that the Endangered Ecological Communities within the site are to be part of a management regime, provided by either a Property Vegetation Plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or a BioBanking agreement under the Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008 that would also form part of the community title arrangements. Both these options present a mechanism for the long term management of the site with regard to the EECs on site in conjunction with a Vegetation Management Plan. Details regarding the implementation of the Property Vegetation Plan and BioBanking agreement would require further consideration and its feasibility via a community title arrangement. It is unclear if these mechanisms also include the management of the riparian corridors outside proposed Lot 8 and or land to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation within other lots. Details relating to community title arrangements have not been considered and no details have been outlined of any proposed Land Management Agreements that could apply to the land to achieve environmental, social and aesthetic benefit to the Illawarra Escarpment. Further details relating to these matters such as management statements could be sought if the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed. Whilst the management scheme affords protection and conservation of specific areas, further detail and discussion on details of how the remainder of the site outside Lot 8 and E2 Environmental Conservation zoned land (containing the EECs) would be addressed and managed in this context. The revised scheme still has not provided justification on how the proposed density of the proposal provides environmental benefit, consistent with the visual quality analysis undertaken as part of this review strategy. Whilst the lots are generally located at the

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 41

lower slopes as identified in the IELURS it has not considered or provided an assessment of where the site and proposal will be visible from other nearby vantage points such as Cleveland Road or the adjoining former Huntley Colliery site. It is considered the draft Planning Proposal has not adequately considered all the relevant matters within the Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy and presents inconsistencies with this strategy. Illawarra Biodiversity Strategy 2011 This strategy aims to guide a program for biodiversity management for the three Illawarra Councils, Wollongong City, Shellharbour City and Kiama Municipal Council over the next five years. The Action Plan intends provide a clear set of priority actions to be undertaken by the Illawarra Council focusing on terrestrial biodiversity. Specifically the actions and strategies for land use planning is to improve the integration of biodiversity conservation priorities into planning instruments, develop a regional landscape connectivity framework and maximise contribution to national, state and regional targets by focusing on the implementation of actions at priority conservation areas and values. The initial draft Planning Proposal did not seek to rezone the site however, in the revised scheme it is now sought to amend the Zoning Map, to have the areas containing EECs to be zoned from E3 Environmental Management to E2 Environmental Conservation. The land to be rezoned E2 Environmental Conservation will be primarily located within proposed Lot 8 but also part of proposed Lots 7 and 8. The additional land proposed to be rezoned E2 Environmental Conservation on site in the revised scheme does not include all the areas identified to form the proposed 50m wide riparian corridors. It appears the draft Planning Proposal may have not considered rezoning part of the land that provide biodiversity corridors also considered as a high conservation value, which watercourses on the site are associated with or identified as a Category 1 watercourse in Chapter E23 of Wollongong Development Control Plan 2009. The draft Planning Proposal presents an opportunity to consider that there may be the potential of the offsetting policy options in Biodiversity Certification vegetation types. The site contains Illawarra Subtropical Rainforest EEC and Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC that are two of the key types that credits are currently required. If the draft Planning Proposal is to proceed, consideration could be given to review the study area for the Biodiversity Certification of the West Dapto Urban Release Area as the site may have the potential to form a good BioBanking credit site. This could allow facilitating better conservation and development outcomes for biodiversity of the site identified as high value conservation land within the Illawarra Escarpment. Furthermore, the draft Planning Proposal presents the opportunity to consider incentives for the site such as introducing the option of Land Management Agreements or community title of the land for the biodiversity corridors within this site. The revised draft Planning Proposal has presented the intent for the land to be created and managed as a community title arrangement.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 42

The proponent has also proposed that the Endangered Ecological Communities within the site are to be part of a management regime, provided by either a Property Vegetation Plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or a BioBanking agreement under the Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008. Both these options present a mechanism for the long term management of the site with regard to the EECs on site in conjunction with a Vegetation Management Plan. Details regarding the implementation of the Property Vegetation Plan and BioBanking agreement would require further consideration and its feasibility via a community title arrangement. It is unclear if any of the mechanisms proposed to accompany this proposal include the management of the riparian corridors outside proposed Lot 8 and or land to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation which includes proposed Lots 6 to 8. In addition the areas within the site that contain EECs as identified by the proponent are to be rezoned from E3 Environmental Management to E2 Environmental Conservation. It is considered the draft Planning Proposal has generally addressed the identified actions contained within the Illawarra Biodiversity Strategy with the proposed measures above. However, the proposal does not consider the management of biodiversity values of the site overall. Further consideration and discussion is needed specifically identifying the biodiversity corridors within the site and potential management measures for the site as a whole not only the identified EECs and whether this presents further opportunities for part of the land to be rezoned to E2 Environmental Conservation. Strategic Management Plan for Historic Coal Mining Sites of the Illawarra 2006 The Plan was development to identify action for the future, taking into account the significant body of work that exists on the heritage of the coal industry in the Illawarra. The site, the subject to the draft Planning Proposal, formed part of the former Huntley and Avondale Collieries Mine site. The Strategic Management Plan for Historic Coal Mining Sites of the Illawarra also made a range of recommendations for action by individual stakeholder groups with Wollongong City Council identified as a stakeholder. The recommendations entailed that if a previous mine site is rezoned for other uses, the Council should consider planning options. The options generally related to retaining built fabric that meet significance criteria and to encourage the reuse of significant structures including maintenance and interpretation provisions, retaining formal mine gardens, developing a trail network and inclusion of a number of mine sites into the Wollongong LEP 2009. There is an existing silo on the site that will be located within the proposed Lot 8 close to the south western point of the proposed Lot 7. The draft Planning Proposal does not seek to alter or use the former silo structure and neither of the former Huntley and Avondale Colliery Mine sites are identified within the Wollongong LEP 2009. As the draft Planning Proposal relates to a reduction in the minimum lot size to enable future dwellings on separate allotments, in this instance it is considered the Strategic Management Plan is of limited relevance.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 43

Wollongong City Housing Study 2005 The objective of the Housing Strategy is to provide a mix of housing choice for a broad demographic range, in addition to providing opportunities for housing that are affordable for people living in the city currently and for those choosing to live in the area in the future. The Housing Strategy has limited relevance to the draft Planning Proposal as the proposed change to minimum lot size to enable the future subdivision to create eight allotments for a dwelling entitlement would have minimal effect on the supply of housing in Wollongong but will be consistent in providing further housing of a rural residential nature. Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2008 The aim of the Bushfire Risk Management Plan is to minimise the risk of adverse impact from bush fires on life, property and the environment. This Plan is a strategic document which identifies community assets at risk and sets out a five year program coordinated with multiple agencies to reduce the risk of bush fire to these assets. Treatments may include such things as hazard reduction (including burning), grazing, community education, fire trail maintenance and establishing fire wise communities. This Bush Fire Risk Management Plan for the Illawarra identifies the possibility of human settlement in Avondale in the lower foothills of the Illawarra Escarpment. The draft Planning Proposal does seek to potentially increase residential development on land mapped as bushfire prone land. It is considered the draft Planning Proposal has considered the bushfire risk and related matters with the proposed intensification of the land. Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size Should the draft Planning Proposal proceed this will result in an amendment to the Minimum Lot Size Map. This will enable the future subdivision of the land. Clause 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table The initial draft Planning Proposal did not seek to amend the zoning of the site that is currently zoned E3 Environmental Management and E2 Environmental Conservation. However, the revised proposal now seeks to amend the Zoning Map rezoning part of the Lot 21 from E3 Environmental Management to E2 Environmental Conservation. This would result in an increase in the extent of the site zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The intent being the area of the site to be identified as containing Endangered Ecological Communities to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation land primarily located within proposed Lot 8. However, a portion of proposed Lots 6 and 7 will be also rezoned E2 Environmental Conservation along the north-eastern boundary of the lot. The objectives of the E3 Environmental Management are:

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 44

 To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.  To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on those values. The objectives of the E2 Environmental Conservation are:  To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.  To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.  To retain and enhance the visual and scenic qualities of the Illawarra Escarpment.  To maintain the quality of the water supply for Sydney and the Illawarra by protecting land forming part of the Sydney drinking water catchment (within the meaning of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011) to enable the management and appropriate use of the land by the Sydney Catchment Authority. With the revised scheme the amendment sought to the Minimum Lot Size Map from 39.99 hectares to 1 hectare will be located on the site where the zoning is to remain E3 Environmental Management. It is considered that the amendment to the Minimum Lot Size Map to facilitate the future subdivision of the site into eight allotments to enable a future dwelling on each lot would not be consistent with the zoning objectives. The proposal does not seek to change the permissible land use within the E3 Environmental Management zone. However, due to the scale of intensification of the site that would be enabled by the change to the minimum lot size it is difficult to identify that the intent of the proposal is to preserve the character and the values of the site within the Illawarra Escarpment and that there will be no adverse impact on these values. Clause 7.8 The Illawarra Escarpment area conservation The site is mapped as being within the Illawarra Escarpment and is subject to the provisions of the clause: 1) The objective of this clause is to provide specific controls to protect, conserve and enhance the Illawarra Escarpment. 2) This clause applies to land shown as being within the Illawarra Escarpment area on the Illawarra Escarpment Map. 3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development: a) will be located so as to minimise any adverse impact on the natural features and environment of the Illawarra Escarpment, and

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 45

b) will incorporate on the land, conservation and rehabilitation measures to enhance the Illawarra Escarpment. The draft Planning Proposal does not seek to amend the Illawarra Escarpment Map. However, as discussed previously within the report concerns are raised as to how the proposal clearly supports the objective of this clause with regards to conservation and enhancement of the Illawarra Escarpment and minimising impacts from the proposal. Options Council has the following options with regard to the draft Planning Proposal: 1 Resolve not to progress the draft Planning Proposal. The minimum lot size and zoning of the land will remain unchanged. Recommended. 2 Resolve to prepare a draft Planning Proposal for Lot A DP 106828 and Lot 21 DP 1079478 being 571 Avondale Road, Avondale and refer to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for review and approval to exhibit as an amendment to the Minimum Lot Size Map and the Zoning Maps in the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. If Council supports option 2 to progress with the draft Planning Proposal, a suitable recommendation would be: 1. A draft Planning Proposal be prepared for 571 Avondale Road, Avondale (Lot A DP 106828 and Lot 21 DP 1079478) to amend the Minimum Lot Size Map from 40 hectares to 1 hectare and amend the Zoning Map from E3 Environmental Management to E2 Environmental Conservation (Attachments 5 and 6) be prepared and submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination, and if approved exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days. 2. The Gateway request include the identification of the following issues to be addressed by the proponent: a. The sustainability criteria of the Illawarra Regional Strategy; b. Visual assessment study; c. Details of the proposed community title and custodian lot arrangements; d. Details of the management of the riparian corridors and E2 Environmental Conservation land outside proposed Lot 8; e. Details of the environmental benefits; and f. Details on how the Section 117 Directions are satisfied. 3. Council requests authority for the General Manager to exercise plan making delegations in accordance with Council’s resolution of 26 November 2012, for both Planning Proposals.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 46

This report contributes to the delivery of Wollongong 2022 – Community Strategic Plan This report contributes to the Wollongong 2022 objective Residents are able to have their say through increased engagement opportunities and take an active role in decisions that affect our city under the Community Goal we are a connected and engaged community. This report contributes to the services Land Use Planning in the Annual Plan 2014-15 Key Deliverables specifically Prepare planning policies and strategic studies to inform land use planning for the city including local environmental plans and development control plans.

CONCLUSION A draft Planning Proposal request has been submitted for 571 Avondale Road, Avondale initially seeking an amendment to the Minimum Lot Size Map to the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 from 40 hectares to 1 hectare for a portion of the northern part of the site to the future subdivision of the site into 10 lots, enabling nine additional dwellings. The request was subsequently amended to reduce the number of additional dwellings to seven, increase the extent of land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation, and propose a custodian lot with no dwelling house to improve the environmental outcome and conservation in the Illawarra Escarpment. Despite the amendments addressing many of the concerns, it is still considered that the proposal is inconsistent with Council and State strategies. The current minimum lot size has been informed by relevant policies; concerns are raised in reducing the minimum lot size from 39.99 hectares even to 5 hectares would be inconsistent with relevant policies such as the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan, Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy and Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. The draft Planning Proposal is also likely to result in planning impacts and conflicts between matters relating to achieving the required bushfire management, Asset Protection Zones, riparian corridors and access requirements. It is considered the overall intent of the draft Planning Proposal does not align with the primary aim to improve the environmental outcome for the land and this being aided through the consideration of allowing additional dwellings on the site. Rather the proposal as presented appears to convey the primary justification of maximising development potential on the site by using existing cleared areas of the land and that the environmental management outcomes for the land can be appropriately included around the future proposed development as a secondary outcome. Overall, the draft Planning Proposal is not considered consistent with the relevant planning policies as discussed within this report in particular the Illawarra Regional Strategy, Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan, Illawarra Escarpment Land Use Review Strategy and the applicable section 117 Ministerial Directions. Consequently, planning impacts are likely to be envisaged if the draft Planning Proposal would proceed.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 47

In addition, it is also likely that a precedent would be set by pursuing this option and surrounding land owners within the Illawarra Escarpment with existing cleared areas could seek similar proposals seeking a reduction in the minimum lot size to enable further residential development. On this basis, it is recommended that Council does not support the draft Planning Proposal.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 48

REF: CM292/14 File: PP-2013/9 DRAFT PLANNING PROPOSAL - FUNCTION CENTRE, LOT 1 LADY ITEM 4 WAKEHURST DRIVE, LILYVALE

This report considers a rezoning submission requesting the preparation of draft Planning Proposal for Lot 1 Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale (Lot 1 DP 335557 and Lot 1 DP 652830). The proposal requests Lot 1 DP 335557 remain zoned E3 Environmental Management, Lot 1 DP 652830 be rezoned from SP2 infrastructure – Road to E3 Environmental Management, and an additional permitted use to facilitate a function centre and construction of tourist and visitor accommodation (subject to development consent) on Lot 1 DP 335557 in Schedule 1: Additional Permitted Uses of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. The proposal will also require consequential amendments to introduce a minimum lot size of 39.99ha and a maximum building height of 9m. While there are a number of issues that need to be addressed during the exhibition period, it is considered the draft Planning Proposal has sufficient merit to proceed for Gateway determination and exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION 1 A draft Planning Proposal be prepared for Lot 1 Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale being Lot 1 DP 335557 and Lot 1 DP 652830 to rezone Lot 1 DP 335557 from the proposed E2 Environmental Conservation to E3 Environmental Management and rezone Lot 1 DP 652830 from SP2 Infrastructure – Road to E3 Environmental Management with an additional permitted use of a function centre and tourist and visitor accommodation (subject to development consent) on Lot 1 DP 335557. 2 Consequential amendments be made on Lot 1 DP 652830 to introduce a minimum lot size of 39.99ha and a maximum building height of 9m. 3 The draft Planning Proposal be referred to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking Gateway determination and if approved exhibited for minimum period of 28 days. The Gateway request include a requirement for additional flora and fauna, bushfire, water quality studies and referrals to Roads and Maritime Services, Office of Environment and Heritage/National Parks and Wildlife Service, Office of Water, NSW Primary Industries – Fisheries and Agriculture. 4 Council requests authority for the General Manager to exercise plan making delegations in accordance with Council’s resolution of 26 November 2012.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Locality Plan 2 Current Zoning Map 3 Proposed Zoning Map 4 Proposed Minimum Lot Size Map 5 Proposed Height of Buildings Map

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 49

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Renee Campbell, Manager Environmental Strategy and Planning Authorised by: Andrew Carfield, Director Planning and Environment – Future City and Neighbourhoods

BACKGROUND A rezoning submission has been received for Lot 1 Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale (Lot 1 DP 335557 and Lot 1 DP 652830). The site has an area of 12,861m² and a frontage of 57m to Lady Wakehurst Drive; refer Locality Plan (Attachment 1). The site can be accessed via vehicle from Lady Wakehurst Drive. Lady Wakehurst Drive connects Otford in the south to the Royal National Park in the north and consists of one travel lane in each direction. The larger lot (Lot 1 DP 335557) is currently zoned E3 Environmental Management. The lot has a minimum lot size of 39.99ha and a 9m height restriction under the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. The lot currently contains two single story dwellings and one shed. The smaller lot (Lot 1 DP 652830) is former road reserve and provides access to the large lot and is currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Road, refer Current Zoning Map (Attachment 2). There is currently no mapped minimum lot size or height restriction on this portion of the site. The site is surrounded by the Royal National Park which is zoned E1 National Park and Nature Reserves. The Hacking River within the Royal National Park adjoins the site’s north and eastern boundaries. Historic records indicate that the property was originally settled as a fruit orchard. After changing ownership the site took on the role of accommodating mine workers and loggers. The draft Planning Proposal submission indicates that the previous owner established the holiday let that is situated on site, some 20 years ago. However, for this time, the holiday let and a more recently established function centre have been operating without Council’s consent. The proponent continued operating the additional uses under the business name Lilyvale after purchasing the property on 8 April 2004. On 20 February 2010 the proponent’s stake in the property increased to 100%. The holiday let and function centre was first brought to Council attention by a resident of Otford. On 11 March 2013, the Otford resident contacted Council requesting information regarding the legitimacy of the business operating on the property. The resident also voiced concern that, due to a lack of signage to Lilyvale, visitors had often stopped and asked for directions. The investigation of Lilyvale was forwarded to Regulation and Enforcement Division and it was determined the holiday let and function centre were operating without development consent. The proponent was contacted by a Council officer on the 21 March 2013 and advised of the complaint regarding the land uses without consent. The proponent was also advised by the Council officer to contact a planning consultant for advice on how to

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 50

legitimise the uses. Additionally a letter was sent to the proponent seeking their cooperation to resolve the breach. TCW Consulting Pty Ltd was approached by the proponent to assist in legitimising the land uses. A Development Application DA-2013/863 was lodged on the 29 July 2013 seeking to change the use of the existing house to bed and breakfast accommodation as defined in the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. The Development Application was granted development consent on the 18 December 2013. As part of the review of the former 7(d) lands at Helensburgh, Otford and Stanwell Tops, Council on 29 July 2013 resolved to endorse the rezoning of all isolated E3 Environmental Management zoned lots within the Royal National Park to E2 Environmental Conservation. Council’s resolution was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment. The Department then referred the draft Planning Proposal to the Southern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for review. JRPP completed their review on 30 July 2012, the JRPP report was then reported to Council on 25 August 2014. The JRPP report noted that there was a draft Planning Proposal for this site and stated that: “Isolated lots within the Royal National Park are appropriately zoned as E2 Environmental Conservation, noting that a planning proposal has been submitted for Lot 1 DP 335557 to create an additional permitted use that is outside the terms of reference for the Regional Panel’s consideration.” The Planning Proposal for the former 7(d) lands is with the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation. The applicant notes that the proposed E2 Environmental Conservation zoning would jeopardise further improvements being undertaken on existing structures. The change in zoning would prohibit future structures being developed on site. For these reasons the Planning Proposal request seeks to retain/reinstate an E3 Environmental Management zone and requests additional permitted uses with consent to Schedule 1 of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. The two sheds on site, originally approved in DA-1994/323 as orchid houses for the production of cut flowers has been operating as the function centre on site. This structure is known as the pavilion. An application for building certification was lodged with Council. However, the application was rejected by Council officers due to the pavilion being constructed as a function centre and not meeting design standards of a shed/Class 10a building. The building was also being utilised as a function centre without approval. Additionally, the building did not satisfy the Building Code of Australia for its current use and potential impacts of the building had not been assessed in regards to impacts on traffic, bushfire safety, and noise. Council officers recommended the removal of the kitchen facilities and a site survey was to be undertaken to locate the shed on the property.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 51

PROPOSAL The Planning Proposal request is to:  Rezone Lot 1 DP 335557 site from the proposed E2 Environmental Conservation zone to E3 Environmental Management zone (assuming the Planning Proposal for the former 7(d) lands is made, which will rezone the lot from E3 Environmental Management to E2 Environmental Conservation);  Rezone Lot 1 DP 652830 from SP2 infrastructure - Road to E3 Environmental Management refer Proposed Zoning Map (Attachment 3). A minimum lot size of 39.99ha and a 9m height restriction also needs to be introduced for Lot 1 DP 652830, consistent with Lot 1 DP 335557; and  Permit on Lot 1 DP 335557 the additional permitted uses of a function centre and tourist and visitor accommodation through Schedule 1: Additional Permitted Uses of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009. The draft Planning Proposal seeks to enable a 400m² function centre to be established within an existing shed on site. Furthermore, 900m² of tourist and visitor accommodation is sought to be established part of which will be within an existing dwelling house on site. The additions of a function centre and further tourist and visitor accommodation will be subject to development consent and the controls in the Wollongong Development Control Plan. Evaluation The site is one of the five isolated properties in Royal National Park considered as part of the review of former lands zoned 7(d) Hacking River Environmental Protection. The review noted that the properties were surrounded by the Royal National Park, were adjacent to the Hacking River, had limited services, were bushfire prone and sought to constrain future development by rezoning the properties to E2 Environmental Conservation. It was envisaged that over time the properties would be incorporated into the National Park, although they are not identified for acquisition and would not be a priority for acquisition. The Office of Environment and Heritage did not object to the rezoning as part of the 7(d) Planning Proposal. The draft Planning Proposal request would result in further improvements to the property which would make it more difficult for the State to acquire the land sometime in the future for inclusion in the Royal National Park. Flora and fauna On 22 May 2013 a site survey was carried out by a Senior Ecologist employed by EcoLogical Australia. It was reported that the subject site consisted of a cleared area and was surrounded by native vegetation. The surrounding vegetation mostly consisted of Blackbutt Tall Open-forest, although there are also narrow bands of Sandstone Riparian Scrub along the banks of the Hacking River and patches of Coachwood warm temperate rainforest further downstream. A total of 230 different flora species were identified within the subject site, of which 69 species were exotic. No threatened flora

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 52

species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) were found on site. However, two species having regional conservation significance (Gmelina Leichardtii and Lomandrafluviatilis) were recorded. Individuals of both these species will not be affected by the draft planning proposal, as they are recorded as being beyond the identified vegetation management area. The cleared or thinned vegetation management area will consist of a 0.21ha area west of the function centre based on its current floor space. A number of fauna habitats were found within the subject site including the open-forest canopy, tree hollows, fallen branches, or coarse woody debris, shrubby understory and the riparian habitat. No threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act were recorded within the subject site during field surveys. Whilst no migratory fauna species listed under the EPBC Act were observed within the subject site during field surveys, it was noted that a range of threatened species may occasionally visit the site. Threatened species may occasionally visit the site as suitable foraging and sheltering habitats were identified. The EcoLogical Australia Fauna and Assessment report (September 2013) considers the clearing and thinning of the proposed 0.21ha is unlikely to have a significant impact on threatened flora and fauna species. The report also details that recommendations for impact mitigation measures will be addressed at the DA stage. Environment Division has provided comment on the draft Planning Proposal’s flora and fauna assessment. Environment Division’s concerns were that no studies were carried out identifying the possible impacts on the Hacking River’s riparian land and aquatic environments through the intensification of the site. Environment Division also requested that the flora and fauna assessment detail the impacts on E1 National Park and Nature Reserves land affected by increasing the size of managed Asset Protection Zones (APZ) land. Increasing APZ land is a result of modelling APZ off existing floor spaces and not off those floor spaces proposed in the draft Planning Proposal. If Council is to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal, greater understanding of the impacts on E1 National Park and Nature Reserve land and the Hacking River riparian and aquatic environments is to be sought. The draft Planning Proposal has identified basic environmental impacts, although requires further detailed assessment as illustrated by Environment Division’s comments. As the site is located in close proximity to the Hacking River and within the Royal National Park it is imperative that correct balance between development and environmental be achieved. This will be obtained through building upon the submitted flora and fauna assessment and those recommendations given by the Environment Division. Water supply and effluent disposal The draft Planning Proposal details that water supply requirements will be considered by the Rural Fire Service (RFS) at the development assessment stage. The proposed function centre and tourist and visitor accommodation are not serviced by reticulated water. The RFS Planning for Bush Fire Protection (December 2006) requires that each

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 53

building on site be provided with a minimum 10,000 litre static water supply for firefighting purposes. The subject land is serviced by an existing main ring that is fed from a 20,000 litre water tank. It is also detailed in the draft Planning Proposal that the site is not connected to town sewage and utilises a pump out septic tank. There were no internal comments regarding the site’s existing water supply. However, internal comment from the Environment Division detailed that further evidence is required to demonstrate what safeguards are in place to prevent accidental overland flow or ground seepage from the site’s existing or future greater capacity septic system. Should Council proceed with the draft Planning Proposal, further consultation with state agencies including the Rural Fire Service and Sydney Water will be required. It will be necessary to demonstrate how the site’s water supply satisfies the requirements for firefighting. The site’s associated firefighting equipment will also be scrutinised to ensure it adequately fulfils all legal requirements. The site’s existing pump out septic system has demonstrated that it can cater for current volumes of effluent. However, should Council proceed with the draft Planning Proposal any future DA should address the safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of effluent escape. This is essential due to the site’s proximity to the Hacking River and addresses the Environment Division concerns. Bushfire The Bushfire Assessment (26 September 2013) prepared by EcoLogical Australia supports the proposed additional uses of a function centre and tourist and visitor accommodation. EcoLogical Australia deems the proposal capable of meeting Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection, the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and Practice Note 2/12 Planning Instruments and Policies. The widths of required Asset Protection Zones (APZ) detailed in the draft Planning Proposal were calculated using the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 for existing buildings. Internal comments regarding the sites bushfire management came from the Environment, Development Assessment and Certification and Traffic Divisions. Traffic Division’s comments have been noted under the site’s access. Development Assessment and Certification Division’s comments have partially been dealt with in the site’s access. However, Development Assessment and Certification Division have additionally commented, if Council should proceed with the draft Planning Proposal any future Development Applications will be required to comply with all building standards relating to bushfire safety. Environment Division has commented that bushfire APZ modelling was carried out using the buildings on site with their current floor space. Environment Division has added that to understand the actual size of the managed APZ for the site, APZ calculations should be based upon the proposed increased floor space. Environment Division have commented that if the managed APZ is to cross onto adjoining E1 National Park and Nature Reserve land then further studies will be required to quantify

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 54

the extent and impact. Additionally the Environment Division has commented asking for the draft Planning Proposal to expand on how riparian land will be managed should it fall within an APZ of the site. If Council is to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal an updated bushfire report is to be sought. It should include APZ modelled off the proposed intensified land uses and including structures of larger floor space. Although exact building footprints are required at the DA stage, indicative building size and placements should be utilised to increase the accuracy of the understood APZ at the gateway. The updated bushfire report should identify the impacts on affected flora and fauna from increasing the managed APZ. The report should also list each affected lot and detail an estimate of vegetation that will be cleared or thinned. Access The draft Planning Proposal details that the site is accessed from Lady Wakehurst Drive via an unsealed road. It acknowledges the internal road will require upgrading to the specifications listed in the Planning for Bush Fire Protection at the DA stage. Council’s Traffic Division’s comments regarding bushfire access reflect those that are detailed in the draft Planning Proposal. Additionally, Traffic has stated that there are unlikely to be any traffic impacts from the continued use of the guest facility / function centre. Development Assessment and Certification have also commented on the need for bushfire access/egress to meet relevant standards if Council should progress with the draft Planning Proposal. Lady Wakehurst Drive from Traffic’s perspective has demonstrated the capacity to carry traffic to and from the site, incorporating the additional uses. It is mutually understood that if Council is to proceed with the draft Planning Proposal the site’s internal unsealed road will require upgrading. Upgrading the internal road to meet specifications listed in the PBP at the DA stage will satisfy the concerns raised by Traffic and Development Assessment and Certification.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION Preliminary notification of the Lilyvale draft Planning Proposal request was undertaken between 28 July and 15 August 2014. As part of the preliminary notification, a notice was placed in the Illawarra Mercury on 26 July 2014 and letters were sent to adjoining and nearby property owners, and to all property owners in Otford. No submissions were received for this draft Planning Proposal request. Councils Have Your Say webpage indicates that the draft Planning Proposal had 109 views. Internal referrals are discussed in the Planning and Policy Impact Section of this report. If endorsed for Gateway determination a formal exhibition will follow, the exhibition of the Lilyvale draft Planning Proposal will be advertised on Council’s website, in local newspapers and letters will be sent to affected and surrounding landowners and relevant State agencies.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 55

Following the exhibition period, issues raised in submissions will be reviewed and reported to Council.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT Illawarra Regional Strategy 2007 The Illawarra Regional Strategy (2007) (IRS) does not specifically mention the Lilyvale site. The IRS does recognise the economic value of the Illawarra’s natural and cultural resources and its environments. The IRS also recognises these resources and environments as potential employment generators due to their importance to tourism. The draft Planning Proposal request details the site currently operates as a holiday let and on-site function centre. Lilyvale Essential Tourism Product for the Illawarra (May 2013) indicates the site’s popularity since 2006 when holiday let operations began. In 2006 Lilyvale had a total of 10 bookings. This has increased to 40 bookings in 2012. The numbers of guests to the site rose from approximately 100 in 2006 to 2,750 in 2013. This has economic flow on effects to the local community, through increased local employment and financial interactions with the local economy. The site directly employs six people part time. Local maintenance contractors are employed when required. Additionally, a wide range of local businesses are utilised when conducting events and weddings. Lilyvale Essential Tourism Product for the Illawarra (May 2013) approximates in 2012 $800,000 was added to the local economy through flow on effects from the leasing of Lilyvale. Section 117 Directions 2.1 Environmental Protection Zones The objective of the Direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. Under this Direction Council must: a. include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas; and b. not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying any development standards or subdivision controls that apply to the land). It is considered that this draft Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Direction as the environmental zone is not being removed on the primary lot and the smaller lot is being rezoned from SP2 Infrastructure to E3 Environmental Management creating an increase to the total area zoned Environmental Management. It is also noted that the site is developed and is proposing extensions and a permissible use.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 56

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection The objective of the Direction is to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas, and to encourage sound management of bush fire prone areas. Under this Direction Council must: a. consult with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service; b. have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006; c. introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas; and d. ensure that bushfire hazard reduction is not prohibited within the APZ. A draft LEP shall, where development is proposed, comply with the following provisions, as appropriate: a. provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) incorporating at a minimum: i. an Inner Protection Area bounded by a perimeter road or reserve which circumscribes the hazard side of the land intended for development and has a building line consistent with the incorporation of an APZ, within the property, and ii. an Outer Protection Area managed for hazard reduction and located on the bushland side of the perimeter road, b. for infill development (that is development within an already subdivided area), where an appropriate APZ cannot be achieved, provide for an appropriate performance standard, in consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service. If the provisions of the draft LEP permit Special Fire Protection Purposes (as defined under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997), the APZ provisions must be complied with, c. contain provisions for two-way access roads which links to perimeter roads and/or to fire trail networks, d. contain provisions for adequate water supply for firefighting purposes, e. minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed, and f. introduce controls on the placement of combustible materials in the Inner Protection Area. It is considered that this draft Planning Proposal has potential to be consistent with this policy. An updated Bushfire Assessment would be required however to cover some minor outstanding issues and this would then require consultation with the Rural Fire Service should it proceed to Gateway.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 57

6.3 Site Specific Provisions The objective of this Direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. Under this Direction a draft LEP that amends another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out shall either: a. allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or b. rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or c. allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended. Under this direction a draft LEP shall not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal. It is considered that this draft Planning Proposal requires an additional permitted use because the biodiversity and site context warrant special controls that specify and restrict development. A change in zone would enable many unsuitable uses on the site that would not be compatible or appropriate in the current site context. Wollongong 2022 – Community Strategic Plan This report contributes to the Wollongong 2022 objective - Residents are able to have their say through increased engagement opportunities and take an active role in decisions that affect our city under the Community Goal – we are a connected and engaged community. It specifically delivers on core business activities as detailed in the Land Use Planning Service Plan 2014-15. Internal Comments The draft Planning Proposal was referred internally to assist in the assessment. Comments are outlined below. Traffic  No objection to the draft planning proposal.  There are unlikely to be any traffic impacts from the continued use of the guest facility / function centre.  The development would have to meet the relevant bushfire access/evacuation provisions.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 58

Traffic comments are noted and it is considered that bushfire access and egress would need to be demonstrated as part of the revised the Bushfire Assessment Report. Development Assessment and Compliance  Assessed and granted consent for the use of a bed and breakfast on site which was restricted to the main house;  Considered the site inappropriate for tourist and visitor accommodation up to 900m² due to the location and the intensification of land use;  There may be impacts on the surrounding National Park through wastewater, services and management;  Risk management of the site may be impacted i.e. bushfire emergency;  Operations of a function centre on the site should be limited to the existing structure;  The function centre structure will be required to meet all Australian Standards including fire safety standards before a Building Certificate Application is granted; and  Current SP2 Infrastructure zoned land should be discussed with RMS. The size of the tourist and visitor accommodation would appear to be a concern because of the potential for impacts on surrounding lands as a result of intensification. The applicant would be required to address how these would be managed if a larger tourist and visitor component was supported to proceed to Gateway. Furthermore a Bushfire Report has been submitted but does require updating post-Gateway determination. Compliance with the Australian Standard and the management of the site would form part of a development application and not the draft Planning Proposal. Consultation will occur with the Roads and Maritime Services as part of the draft Planning Proposal exhibition, however it is noted that the SP2 Infrastructure zoned portion of the land is privately owned, and is not owned by the RMS. Heritage No objection to the draft Planning Proposal as any future development on site will be subject to a Development Application. Geotechnical Do not object to the draft Planning Proposal as there is no recorded land instability. It has been noted the stability of soils in the area are additionally stabilised through existing vegetation. Stormwater and Flooding There is no objection to the draft Planning Proposal but note that Council has no flood level information for this portion of the Hacking River catchment. It is expected that a

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 59

detailed flood study accompany any future Development Applications, demonstrating the potential for development on site. It is considered that the flood study should be pursued post-Gateway to assist in establishing whether the land is capable of supporting further development. Environment The draft Planning Proposal is not supported at this time. Environment has deferred a final decision until there is a more complete flora and fauna assessment, which includes:  The Flora and Fauna Assessment be extend over the channel of the Hacking River and the report’s content and context be updated. This should include aquatic habitats and discuss their diversity and sensitivity.  Due to the proposed intensification of the site, the Flora and Fauna Assessment address the: o Water Management Act 2000; o National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; o Fisheries Management Act 1994; and o Clause 7.4 (3) Riparian lands under the Wollongong LEP 2009.  Out of date data audits be updated and include a defined 5 kilometre search area.  Provide top of bank mapping.  Provide updated managed vegetation polygon.  Impact assessment in the Flora and Fauna Assessment be updated and: o Provide a likely location of the 900m² tourists and visitor accommodation (part of which is within an existing dwelling). o Update Asset Management Zones based upon the proposed increased floor space. o Tabularise estimated vegetation removal listing each affected lot based upon required increased APZ.  The guidelines for developments adjoining land and water managed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW, 2010) (now Office of Environment and Heritage) (OEH) be addressed and summarised into a table.  Discuss safeguards against a pollution incident from the sites existing or if required greater pump out septic system.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 60

 Discuss if surrounding E1 National Park and Nature Reserves will be sought to be included into managed APZ land and if so to what extent is proposed.  Seek comment on the draft Planning Proposal from relevant stakeholder agencies, including Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water, and NSW Primary Industries – Fisheries and Aquaculture. This issue can be addressed by the proponent as a requirement of the Gateway determination, if Council resolves to progress the draft Planning Proposal. OPTIONS 1. Resolve to prepare a draft Planning Proposal to rezone Lot 1 DP 335557 and Lot 1 DP 652830, Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale to E3 Environmental Management and permit a function centre and visitor and tourist accommodation (up to 900m²), a minimum lot size of 39.9ha and maximum building height of 9m. RECOMMENDED. 2. Resolve not to prepare a draft Planning Proposal. A suitable recommendation would be: a. A draft Planning Proposal not be prepared for Lot 1 DP 335557 and Lot 1 DP 652830, Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale and the site retain its current planning controls (as amended by the Review of lands formerly zoned 7(d)). b. The site continue the existing use as a bed and breakfast accommodation as approved under DA-2013/863. The existing operation of the Function Centre would be required to cease and no further expansion of the site would be allowed. c. The applicant be advised of Council’s decision.

CONCLUSION This report considers a rezoning submission requesting the preparation of the draft Planning Proposal for Lot 1 Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale. The proposal requests the site be zoned E3 Environmental Management, and additional permitted uses of function centre and tourist and visitor accommodation be permitted on the site. The proposal will also require consequential amendments to introduce a minimum lot size of 39.99ha and a maximum building height of 9m to Lot 1 DP 652830. The site has a history of being a holiday let that has been operating without development consent for the past 20 years. The proponent purchased the property in 2004 and commenced leasing the property as a holiday let in 2006. Additionally in 2006 the proponent commenced operating a function centre. The draft Planning Proposal emphasises the site use as a generator of local employment and provides revenue to the Illawarra’s economy.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 61

Due to the site being located within the Royal National Park, any environmental impacts from the site are considered important and need to be addressed if progressed. Potential environmental impacts are compounded as the site is bounded by the Hacking River riparian corridor. Further evidence would be required showing how this risk could be mitigated. The additional uses and intensification of the site require further bushfire management provisions to be adopted. It is expected that should Council proceed with the draft Planning Proposal, requirements in regard to bushfire management must be met. It is recommended that Council proceed with the draft Planning Proposal for Lot 1 Lady Wakehurst Drive. Lilyvale does present a unique opportunity as a venue and visitor accommodation for Wollongong Local Government Area in the north. However, due to the sensitivity of the Royal National Park and the Hacking River bounding the site, it is recommended that updated bushfire and flora and fauna assessment be provided. These updated reports will assist with Council’s assessment of whether or not to finalise the draft Planning Proposal during Gateway determination. Comment from Office of Environment and Heritage, Office of Water, and NSW Primary Industries – Fisheries and Aquaculture should also be sought.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 62

REF: CM287/14 File: Z14/229037 ITEM 5 PENROSE SUBURB NAME CHANGE - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

In March 2014 Council endorsed an engagement strategy to determine the communities view on possible options for resolving the duplication of the Penrose suburb name in the Wollongong and Wingecarribee LGA’s. This report provides the outcome from that engagement process and makes a recommendation to be put forward to the Geographical Names Board NSW for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION The Geographical Names Board NSW be advised of outcome of the community engagement, with a recommendation that the suburb name Penrose be changed to Avondale.

ATTACHMENTS 1 FAQ Proposed name change for Penrose 2 Feedback form Renaming of suburb of Penrose 3 Map Penrose merge option B 4 Table1: Summary of new suburb name proposals 5 Engagement Report Penrose Naming Proposal 6 Map Recommendation Extension of Avondale

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Mike Dowd, Manager Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Authorised by: Mike Hyde, Director Infrastructure and Works

BACKGROUND The Geographical Names Board NSW (GNB) formally requested Wollongong Council support it in resolving the duplication of the suburb name Penrose in the Wollongong and Wingecarribee LGA’s. The Lord Mayor agreed to support a community engagement to determine the view of Penrose (postcode 2530) residents and the broader community on possible alternatives to the current suburb name. The community engagement strategy was endorsed by Council at its meeting of 10 March 2014. The strategy proposed two broad options – Option A: to retain the existing suburb boundaries and suggest a new name for the suburb of Penrose. The new name could either include Penrose by adding a relevant prefix or suffix (eg Penrose Meadow), or an alternate name could be proposed. Option B: to adjust the existing suburb boundaries by absorbing Penrose into the adjoining suburbs of Cleveland, Avondale and Marshall Mount. A map showing a proposed re-alignment of the suburb boundaries was developed (Attachment 3). The re-alignment was based on existing land use patterns and natural features, current road

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 63

frontage addresses for properties along Marshall Mount Road, and on the Draft Structure Plan and LEP for the Yallah Marshall Mount precinct. Penrose and all adjoining suburbs including Dapto come under the 2530 postcode. A public exhibition of the proposed options was subsequently undertaken from 7 April – 14 May 2014. Engagement Methodology Documents provided with the initial engagement comprised a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet (Attachment 1), Feedback form (Attachment 2) and Option B map (Attachment 3). These were made available at Council’s Customer Service area, the Dapto and Wollongong libraries, and on Council’s engagement website. The website also included a quick poll questionnaire, facilitated by the Bang the Table program. The proposal was advertised through Council’s page in The Advertiser on 9, 16, 23 and 30 April 2014, and promoted through Council’s Facebook page and Twitter account during the exhibition period. In addition, the FAQ and Feedback forms were mailed to the residents and owners of all properties in Penrose, with a covering letter inviting them to make a submission and providing links to the information on the Council and GNB websites. Initial Engagement Results The 2011 ABS Census statistics for the suburb of Penrose 2530 were – Population of 1396, comprising 395 families and 591 private dwellings Notification letters were sent to the 619 property addresses in Penrose recorded in Council’s land information database as at April 2014. A total of 51 submissions were received through this exhibition period. Of these –  48 (94%) were from residents of Penrose - Of these 15 (35%) said they had experienced, or were concerned about, confusion in locating their current address  4 (8%) did not support any change to the current suburb name  9 (17.6%) supported a merge with adjoining suburbs. Of these, only 4 supported the Option B Marshal Mount/Cleveland proposal, the others preferring an Avondale/Marshall Mount merge  41 (80%) supported some change to the suburb name, offering one or more options. These varied from including Penrose in the new name to adopting an adjoining suburb name (effectively merging the suburbs), or to a totally new name (see Table 1 Attachment 4)

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 64

 14 (27.5%) expressed a preference for retaining Penrose as part of a new suburb name  22 submissions mentioned the option of adopting an adjoining suburb name Of these, 50% proposed Avondale, 32% proposed Dapto, 18% proposed Cleveland, with one proposal was for South Dapto (see Table 1 Attachment 4) The Wollongong Heritage Advisory Committee considered the proposal at its meeting of 14 May 2014, and minuted the following – The Wollongong Heritage Advisory Committee agreed that “Penrose” should be retained in the suburb name. Recommendation: Retain the historical significance of “Penrose” by keeping the word Penrose in any new suburb name. Moved by Carol Herben and seconded by Mitchell Gordon. Suggested alternatives included: “Penrose Farm”, “Penrose Vale”, “Penrose Valley”. Further Engagement with Penrose Residents The initial engagement process was aimed at canvassing the community view across a range of possible options for resolving the duplicate name issue for Penrose. While this process was not expected to provide a conclusive result, it did identify some trends which were then used to inform a more focused engagement with the affected residents of Penrose. These include –  94% of the submissions received (48) were from residents of Penrose.  80% of submissions supported at least some change to the suburb name, with only 4 submissions (8%) objecting to any change at all.  27% expressed a preference for retaining Penrose in a new name, however over 40% of submissions saw adopting an adjoining suburb name (ie merging) as either acceptable or preferred. While the majority of submissions were from Penrose residents, those 48 submissions represented just over 8% of the properties identified as residential in the 2011 ABS statistics for Penrose. In order to get a more comprehensive response on the views of the affected Penrose residents, a second phase engagement was undertaken focussing specifically on those residents. Based on the trends identified from the initial submissions, a short list of the most popular alternate names (those mentioned in four or more submissions) was developed into a “postcard” format (see Attachment 5). Together with a covering letter explaining this phase of the engagement, the postcards were mailed on 22 August 2014 to all residents and owners of Penrose properties recorded in Councils land information database. Residents were requested to mark their preferred option, and return the postcard to Council by Wednesday 10 September 2014.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 65

Outcome of Second Engagement with Penrose Residents The outcome of this second phase is summarised in the attached Engagement Report (Attachment 5). The 239 returned postcards represent just under 40% of the 619 properties in the mail-out, or just over 40% of the 591 properties identified as residential by the 2011 ABS report. The results show a clear preference for the most favoured option (Avondale) over the nearest two alternatives. Those that selected “none of the above” represented less than 3% of the total returns.

PROPOSAL Feedback from the engagement process has provided a clear outcome and can be considered as being reasonably representative of the views of key stakeholders, the affected residents of the suburb of Penrose. On this basis, it is proposed that the GNB be advised of the outcome of the community engagement, with a recommendation that the suburb name be changed to Avondale. While this recommendation would effectively remove the current suburb boundary between Penrose and Avondale (Attachment 6), no other change is proposed to the boundaries with the adjoining suburbs at this time. It is anticipated that any other adjustments would be resolved in the course of future development of the area. The recommendation has no impact on the current property address of properties fronting Marshall Mount Road. If adopted by Council, the GNB will consider the recommendation. If approved, the GNB will advertise the proposal locally and in the NSW Government Gazette. The community will have one month to comment on the proposal. If no objections are received, the change of suburb name will be formalised by way of notice in the Gazette, and Council will notify all affected residents and owners of the change. If objections are received, Council will be asked to provide feedback to the GNB. The GNB will either re-advertise the proposal, abandon the proposal or make a recommendation to the Minister for Finance and Services for final determination.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION Geographical Names Board NSW Communications – Community Engagement

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report relates to the commitments of Council as contained within the Strategic Management Plans: Wollongong 2022 Community Goal and Objective – This report contributes to the Wollongong 2022 Objective 4.1 Residents are able to have their say through increased

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 66

engagement opportunities and take an active role in decisions that affect our city under the Community Goal 4: We are a connected and engaged community. It specifically addresses the Annual Plan 2013-14 Key Deliverables Ensure an effective community engagement framework connects the community to Council decision making which forms part of the Five Year Action contained within the Delivery Program 2012-17.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council also resolved at its meeting of 10 March 2014 that: 3 Reimbursement of engagement costs be sought from the Geographical Names Board NSW. Costs incurred by Council to date for the community engagement process total $10,570. A statement detailing these costs will be forwarded to the GNB with a request that the GNB consider reimbursing Council. Council will be responsible for any changes to signposting if they are required. These would be minor and managed within the existing operational budget.

CONCLUSION An undertaking was given to the GNB that Council would support a community engagement to determine the view of Penrose (postcode 2530) residents and the broader community on possible alternatives to the current suburb name. The engagement process has now been completed and the outcome is presented in this report. If adopted by Council, the Geographical Names Board NSW can be advised of this outcome, with a recommendation that the suburb name be changed to Avondale.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 67

REF: CM291/14 File: ESP-100.05.001 WOLLONGONG SECTION 94A DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN ITEM 6 (2014) - POST EXHIBITION REPORT

On 8 September 2014 Council endorsed the draft Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (2014) for exhibition. The Section 94A Plan is linked to the Wollongong 2022 Community Strategic Plan. The Works Schedule included in the Section 94A Plan is a subset of the works program expressed in the adopted Capital Budget Delivery Program 2012-2017. As a consequence of the annual update of the Delivery Program, it is necessary to update the Section 94A Plan for consistency. As a result of the exhibition, two submissions were received. It is recommended that the amended Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (2014) be adopted.

RECOMMENDATION 1 The Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (2014) be adopted. 2 The adoption of the Plan be notified in the local newspapers in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

ATTACHMENTS Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (2014)

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Renee Campbell, Manager Environmental Strategy and Planning Authorised by: Andrew Carfield, Director Planning and Environment – Future City and Neighbourhoods

BACKGROUND Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables Council to apply a percentage levy on the cost of development within a specific area. These funds are then applied to new or augmented works within the collection area. A plan of works to expend these funds must be publicly exhibited and adopted. Section 94A Plans are generally used in developed areas where increased development creates a general increase in demand for services and facilities. The City-Wide Section 94A Contribution Plan came into force on 14 June 2006. This Section 94A Plan repealed the previous 12 Section 94 Plans. In January 2007 it was amended to include an additional levy for the Wollongong City Centre and renamed, ‘Combined City Wide and City Centre Section 94A Development Contributions Plan’. In July 2009 it was amended by further combining Part A – City Wide and Part B – City Centre and renamed ‘Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan’.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 68

Section 94A Plan applies to the whole LGA, except stages 1 and 2 of the West Dapto Release Area, where the West Dapto Section 94 Development Contribution Plan applies. The Section 94A Plan requires the payment of contributions based on the value of development as follows:  Up to $100,000 – Nil;  0.5% for developments with a cost of between $100,001 to $200,000;  1% for developments with a cost of more than $200,000; and  2% for developments within the B3 Commercial Core zone in the City Centre with a cost of more than $250,000 and that increases the gross floor area. The Section 94A Plan is linked to the Wollongong 2022 Community Strategic Plan, in particular the five year Delivery Program, so that there is a single process and a single works schedule that governs Council’s infrastructure provision and activities. The Delivery Program is the document which provides the community with an overview of the major projects and activities proposed by Council for the next five years, including the capital budget. The Delivery Program is reviewed on an annual basis and the major capital projects and activities are reviewed and amended accordingly. Council endorsed the current Wollongong Section 94A Development Contribution Plan (2013) on 9 September 2013. The Section 94A Plan needs to be updated annually to remain consistent with the Capital Delivery Program. Council endorsed the 2014-15 Annual Plan on 23 June 2014 and the detailed Capital Delivery Program was finalised soon after. On 8 September 2014 Council resolved that: 1 The draft Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 incorporate the following amendments: a updating the Works Program and maps to reflect the 2014-15 Capital Budget Delivery Program; b listing in clause 13 – Residential Care Facilities and Industrial Training Facilities as being exempt uses; and c including other minor changes as listed in the report. 2 The draft Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 (Attachment 1 of the report) be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days. The draft Wollongong Section 94A Development Contribution Plan (2014) was exhibited from 20 September to 24 October 2014.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 69

PROPOSAL As a result of the exhibition, two submissions were received, as summarised in the following table:

Submitter Issues raised Comment TCG Planning Supports the submission by Marco Polo and Noted. on behalf of supports the recommendation to include Warrigal Care ‘residential care facility’ for exemption consideration. An exemption (whether partial or full) can be Clause 13 details the granted by Council at a public Council meeting information required to be or by Council’s delegate however the terms of submitted when seeking a this exemption are not specified. Recommend full or partial exemption. that this clause could be amended to include Exemption point n has clear guidelines as to when a ‘partial’ been expanded to include exemption and when a ‘full’ exemption can be the internal fit out of granted, as there is too much room for residential development speculation, error and inconsistencies in (which includes seniors decision making. housing) to allow the upgrading of existing buildings without additional contributions. Request Council also consider including an The Minister for Planning exemption for integrated seniors housing has issued a direction that developments which propose to include not seniors housing provided by just independent living units but also a social housing provider are retirement villages, residential care facilities exempt. and related community services and facilities as part of the development on the same site The provision of senior for the following reasons: housing is a form of residential accommodation  Seniors living as defined under the LEP is and creates a demand for the overarching definition by which aged services and facilities care developments are defined, whether the provided by Council and developer is private, public, not for profit, or partially funded through benefits financially. Section 94A.  The term ‘seniors living’ can mean any The proposed residential individual component, or may refer to an care exemption will apply to overall and integrated development this component in an encompassing one or a number of these integrated seniors housing uses within the one development. development. The further  Integrated seniors housing developments exemption is not supported. often provide extensive community hub services onsite by the provider which minimise the use of local and regional services off-site.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 70

Submitter Issues raised Comment  Clause 13 of the Plan already supports the exemption of ‘privately funded community infrastructure’ which it could be argued, is what these developments provide.  Residents are generally provided with services similar to those provided in a hospital including medical services, meals, accommodation.  Integrated seniors housing developments include organised activities and trips external to the development such as to local and regional recreation areas and attractions where transport is provided.  Employment and volunteer opportunities within these developments and also employment of local business such as catering facilities, cleaning, office equipment etc. is extensive, thereby reducing reliance on Council’s services.  Reference is made to a current example recently submitted development application by Warrigal to Shellharbour City Council in Cutter Parade, Shell Cove which has an integrated aged care home and retirement village and provides extensive community hub services on-site. It is a development such as this for which and exemption should be provided by Council's Contribution Plan. Accordingly, the Draft Plan should be amended to provide an exemption for ‘Seniors housing developments providing integrated aged care homes/retirement villages and community services on the same site’. Neighbourhood The Plan is a totally mystifying document. Forum 5 The works schedule anticipates contributions The Works Schedule from 2011/12 to 2016/17 to be $18.6m but summary (page 3) has goes on to list project costs of $50.9m on the been updated to reflect the basis that the difference will be made up Detailed Works Schedule from grants and from general revenue. How (pages 16-20). Section the determination is made as to which of the 94A only represents some projects is actually funded from s.94 is not 5% of Council’s Capital stated and so it would appear to be used as Works program and can a slush fund to top up whatever is expedient. only be used for the provision of new facilities.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 71

Submitter Issues raised Comment Some projects can only be partially funded by Section 94A. The balance is funded from General Revenue or grants. Section 94A revenue is only one component of Council’s annual capital works funding program. Moreover the figures are totally confusing The Works Schedule and the document is not designed to allow summary (page 3) has anybody to know exactly what is proposed. been updated to reflect the Some examples follow below notably that Detailed Works Schedule there appears to be a $21.5m difference (pages 16-20). between the Works Summary and the Detailed Works Schedules. The total project costs have been updated to EXAMPLES OF CONFUSION OR $54m in both tables. CONCERN. Forecast contributions from 2014/5 to 2016/7 are $10.8m. Forecast expenditures from 2014/5 to 2016/7 are $11.7m. Other funding from 2014/5 to 2016/7 is estimated $32.3m. Yet total project costs are stated to be $29.4m. The Forum seeks clarification: Expenditure is determined 1 on the methodology used to determine though the Capital Works how funds are spent and on which Program. projects, as does doubtless the On average Council development industry; receives $1.3m in Section 2 as to the forecasts of contributions and 94A contributions annually. expenditure; 2014-15 is higher due to 3 why expenditure on cars exceeds that on the completion of the GPT active transport by 4:1. development. As noted below roads and bridges are more expensive to provide than footpaths/cycleways.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 72

Submitter Issues raised Comment The only project specific to Neighbourhood Section 94A only Forum 5 for year 2015/16 is $72,000 for City represents some 5% of Centre Public Transport (annual variation is Council’s Capital Works 0 for 2014/15 to $100,000 for 2016/17 which program and can only be is absurd). used for the provision of new facilities. The Capital Works program includes projects at Beaton Park and the Botanic Gardens. There is $550,000 for skate parks, hopefully The construction of the including a vert skate park, whilst $730,000 Southern Suburbs Skate is for the Berkeley Skate Park in 2014/15. park at Holborn Park, Both figures sound exorbitant. Berkeley is underway. Council has issued a construction tender of $700,000. The Section 94A plan includes a budget of $730,000 for the park in 2014-15 and $39,000 was spent in 2011-13. The plan includes a bulk vote allocation to skate parks of $550,000 in 2015- 16 and $50,000 in 2016-17. A vert skate park is not currently part of the Capital Works Program. Blanket city-wide bulk votes include: The quoted bulk vote figures $650,000 for traffic facility improvements. are for the 2015-16 year, where the detail capital $200,000 for shared cycleway/pathways. works program has not been $150,000 for footpaths. developed. For the current $500,000 for car parks. 2014-15 year, the funding has been allocated to So, despite Council’s rhetoric about active specific projects. transport, cars/people funding is 77/23. The construction of roads ($4,700/m) and bridges is far more expensive than footpaths, ($250/m), so a greater allocation is required. Moreover, total confusion reigns over the The Works Schedule difference between Schedule 2 – Works summary (page 3) has been Schedule Summary (page 3) and Schedule 4 updated to reflect the – Detailed Works Schedule (pages 16 -20). Detailed Works Schedule (pages 16-20).

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 73

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION The draft Wollongong Section 94A Development Contribution Plan (2014) was exhibited from 20 September to 24 October 2014. Notices were included in the local papers and on Council’s website. Neighbourhood Forums, local peak industry associates (UDIA, Property Council), Marco Polo (who requested the Residential Care facility amendment) and local planning consultants were advised of the exhibition. The Property Council included a notice on its webpage advising of the exhibition. The draft Plan was exhibited in Council libraries and on Council’s website. As a result of the exhibition, two submissions were received, which have been detailed earlier in the report.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to a number of Wollongong 2022 objectives as the Section 94A Plan is aligned with the Capital Works Program, and contributes to the funding required to meet the Delivery Program. It specifically delivers on core business activities as detailed in the Land Use Planning Service Business Plan 2014-15.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS At 1 July 2014 the balance of Section 94A Contributions held was $1.328 million and the forecast income for 2014-15 is $3.45 million. This makes maximum available funding for 2014-15 of $4.778 million. The Capital Works Program 2014-15 is $83 million, of which Section 94A is proposed to contribute $4.291 million, as identified in the Works Schedule. If all 2014-15 scheduled projects are to be completed and actual income matches forecast income there will be a surplus of approximately $0.487 million. This will be monitored as the delivery program is finalised and projects are scheduled to commence. The 2014-17 forecast capital works will continue to be reviewed in future years, in order to match available Section 94A funding.

CONCLUSION The Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan is an important mechanism to assist with funding community infrastructure within the City. It is recommended that the Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (2104) (Attachment 1) be adopted.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 74

REF: CM286/14 File: GI-914.05.002 ITEM 7 POLICY REVIEW - CUSTOMER SERVICE POLICY AND CHARTER

The Customer Service Policy and Customer Service Charter have been reviewed as part of the three year rolling program. There have been minor changes made to the Charter and Policy. The draft Charter and Policy are now submitted to Council for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION The revised Customer Service Policy and Customer Service Charter be adopted.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Draft Customer Service Policy 2 Draft Customer Service Charter

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Lyn Kofod, Manager Governance and Information Authorised by: Greg Doyle, Director Corporate and Community Services – Creative, Engaged and Innovative City

BACKGROUND The Customer Service Charter and Policy were first adopted by Council in September 2008. The last revision was in August 2012. Primary areas of the recent revision are as follows: Customer Service Policy  Regulatory Framework This section has been inserted to include the various guidelines and legislation referenced in the Policy.  Accessing Council Services Information on access to Council services via translating, interpreting and advocacy services has been updated. The means of contact for all customers has also been updated.  Commitment to Service This section has been updated to better reflect Council’s overall commitment to service and is closely aligned to the recommendations made by the NSW Ombudsman’s Better Service and Communication for Councils. 

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 75

 Records of Customer Service requests This section has been updated to reflect our procedures on accepting and investigating anonymous requests and complaints/requests for service where no action will be taken.  Complaints about Council The Policy provides detail about Council’s internal complaint/review process and has been updated to include further information on avenues for complaint about Council.  Guidance Notes The notes have been updated to acknowledge that the Customer Service Charter is an overarching Charter and this Charter will be reflected in service charters adopted by providers of a specific service eg Council Libraries, Community Facilities and Leisure Centres. Customer Service Charter Minor edits have been made to the Customer Service Charter.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION All divisions were consulted in the review of these policies and their feedback has been considered in the review. The revised Customer Service Policy and Charter will be published on Council’s website. A communication strategy will be developed to ensure all staff are aware of the revised Policy and Charter. An eLearning model will be provided on all Customer Service policies.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to the Wollongong 2022 Objective ‘our local Council has the trust of the community’ under the Community Goal ‘we are a connected and engaged community’. It specifically addresses the Annual Plan 2014-15 Key Deliverable ‘continue to build a professional, customer focussed quality organisation.’

CONCLUSION Council is committed to improve the delivery of service to our customers. The Customer Service Policy and Charter define Council’s commitment to service and outline measurable outcomes. The Policy is also a mechanism to explain to customers options for redress if their expectations for service delivery are not met.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 76

REF: CM295/14 File: EM-030.55.006 ITEM 8 DRAFT QUARTERLY REVIEW STATEMENT - SEPTEMBER 2014

The draft Quarterly Review Statement 2014 outlines the progress made to achieve Council’s Wollongong 2022 Strategic Management Plans, in particular the Delivery Program 2012-17 and Annual Plan 2014-15. It addresses the financial and operational performance of Council for the first quarter of 2014-15. The draft Quarterly Review also includes the Budget Review Statement.

RECOMMENDATION 1 The draft Quarterly Review Statement 2014 be adopted. 2 The Budget Review Statement as at September 2014 be adopted and revised totals of income and expenditure be approved and voted.

ATTACHMENTS Draft Quarterly Review Statement 2014 including Budget Review Statement as at September 2014

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Kerry Hunt, Executive Manager Strategy Authorised by: David Farmer, General Manager

BACKGROUND Council’s draft Quarterly Review June 2014 outlines the operational and financial performance of Council’s Wollongong 2022 Strategic Management Plans, in particular the Delivery Program 2012-17 and Annual Plan 2014-15. This report provides an overview of the significant achievements against the priority areas as identified in the Wollongong 2022, Delivery Program 2012-17 and Annual Plan 2014-15. This overview reports on highlights and progress of key projects for the six Community Goals from the Wollongong 2022 Community Strategic Plan. The organisational performance is reported through the inclusion of performance indicators. During the quarter there were a number of significant highlights: - Wollongong’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative won a national award from the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. - The Illawarra Remembers project was launched. - National Tree Day saw 2,200 new seedlings planted and over 19,000 additional plants distributed by Council’s nursery. - Mt Keira Road was reopened to traffic on 25 August.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 77

Key infrastructure projects completed during the quarter include Shone Avenue and Cleveland Road Bridge in West Dapto. The Financial Sustainability Annual efficiency targets were also launched. This quarterly overview of how Council is tracking against its budgets and expenditure is a concise visual summary of Council’s financial situation for the quarter including budget, capital budget and expenditure.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION All members of the Executive Management Committee and Senior Management Group have had input into the production of the draft Quarterly Review September 2014.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report relates to the commitments of Council as contained within the Strategic Management Plans: Wollongong 2022 Objective: residents are able to have their say through increased community opportunities and take an active role in decisions that affect our city and our local council has the trust of the community under the Community Goal we are connected and engaged. It specifically addresses the 5 year Action to streamline reporting across the organisation and provide user friendly, plan English documents.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Full financial performance details and implications on Council’s financial position are contained within the attached Budget Review Statement.

CONCLUSION This draft Quarterly Review has been prepared following input and assistance from all Divisions within the organisation. It is submitted for consideration by Council.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 78

REF: CM284/14 File: GI-80.12.016 BI MONTHLY TABLING OF RETURNS OF DISCLOSURES OF ITEM 9 INTEREST AND OTHER MATTERS

The Local Government Act 1993 requires the General Manager to table all Returns of Disclosures of Interest lodged by persons nominated as designated persons. Returns are submitted to Council on a bi-monthly basis.

RECOMMENDATION Council note the tabling of the Returns of Disclosures of Interest as required by Section 450A of the Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS Returns of Disclosures of Interests and Other Matters (to be tabled)

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Lyn Kofod, Manager Governance and Information Authorised by: Greg Doyle, Director Corporate and Community Services – Creative, Engaged and Innovative City

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to the delivery of Wollongong 2022 under the objective our local Council has the trust of the community (Community Goal) we are a connected and engaged community. It specifically delivers on core business activities as detailed in the Governance and Administration Service Plan 2014-15.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 79

REF: CM288/14 File: IW-911.01.124 MINUTES OF ELECTRONIC MEETING OF THE CITY OF ITEM 10 WOLLONGONG TRAFFIC COMMITTEE HELD 3 NOVEMBER 2014

An Electronic meeting of the City of Wollongong Traffic Committee was held on 3 November 2014 to consider a road closure in Foster Street, Helensburgh. The minutes in relation to Regulation of Traffic, which must be determined by Council, are presented. Item 1 recommends Council approve the temporary regulation of traffic on public roads for works or events by independent parties.

RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the powers delegated to Council the Minutes and Recommendation of the City of Wollongong Traffic Committee Electronic Meeting held on 3 November 2014 in relation to regulation of traffic be adopted.

ATTACHMENTS Council’s Standard Conditions for Street Parties

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Mike Dowd, Manager Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Authorised by: Mike Hyde, Director Infrastructure and Works – Connectivity Assets and Liveable City

BACKGROUND REGULATION OF TRAFFIC HELENSBURGH 1 Foster Street Helensburgh Street Party Road Closure for Saturday 13 December 2014 from 4pm to 10pm Background: Council has received an application for a street party on 13 December 2014 where a road closure will be in place from 4pm to 10pm. The section of street to be closed is from the intersection of Foster and Parkes Streets to 21 Foster Street. It is intended to divert traffic around the closure via Tunnel Road and Parkes Street. The organiser has provided a letter of agreement signed by all residents affected by the proposed closure. Council will provide adequate signs and barriers to the residents so that the road closure can be managed safely and in these circumstances a separate Traffic Management Plan is not required.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2014 80

PROPOSAL The proposed road closure be approved subject to the organisers installing detour signs at the intersections of Foster and Parkes Streets and Foster Street and Tunnel Road, and Council’s Standard Conditions for Street Closures.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to the delivery of Wollongong 2022 under the objective Community Goal 5 – We are a healthy community in a liveable city. It specifically delivers on core business activities as detailed in the Transport Services Plan 2014-15.

MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

at 6.00 pm

Monday 10 November 2014

Present Lord Mayor – Councillor Bradbery OAM (in the Chair), Councillors Kershaw, Connor, Brown, Takacs, Martin, Merrin, Blicavs, Colacino, Crasnich, Curran and Petty

In Attendance General Manager – D Farmer, Director Corporate and Community Services – Creative, Engaged and Innovative City – G Doyle, Director Infrastructure and Works – Connectivity, Assets and Liveable City – M Hyde, Director Planning and Environment – Future, City and Neighbourhoods – A Carfield, Manager Governance and Information – L Kofod, Manager Property and Recreation – P Coyte, Manager Environmental Strategy and Planning – R Campbell and Manager Community Cultural and Economic Development – T Buchanan

Apology Min No. 200 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Colacino seconded Councillor Blicavs that the apology tendered on behalf of Councillor Dorahy be accepted.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014

INDEX PAGE NO.

One Minute’s Silence – Remembrance Day ...... 1

Petition – Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy ...... 1

Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Monday, 27 October 2014 ...... 1

Public Access Forum - Ban on Coal Seam Gas Exploration and Mining - Wollongong Local Government Area ...... 1

Public Access Forum - NSW Marine Protected Areas – Removal of Amnesty ...... 2

Public Access Forum – Review of Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy ...... 2

Call of the Agenda ...... 4

ITEM A Notice of Motion - Councillor Dorahy - Protection and Maintenance of NSW Water Catchment Areas ...... 4

ITEM B Notice of Motion - Councillor Takacs - Policy Coherence on Climate Change ...... 4

ITEM C Notice of Motion - Councillor Curran - Comprehensive Air Quality Assessment and Monitoring ...... 6

ITEM D Notice of Motion - Councillor Petty - Ban on Coal Seam Gas Exploration and Mining - Wollongong Local Government Area ...... 8

ITEM E Notice of Motion - Councillor Merrin - NSW Marine Protected Areas – Removal of Amnesty ...... 8

ITEM 1 Review of 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice ...... 10

ITEM 2 Proposed Creation of Covenant over Puckeys Estate, Fairy Meadow for Biobanking Agreement ...... 11

ITEM 3 Economic Development Advisory Board - Evaluation and Annual Update ...... 11

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014

PAGE NO.

ITEM 4 Election of Councillor Delegate to Illawarra Regional Airport Management Advisory Committee ...... 12

ITEM 5 Tender T14/01 - Provision for Cash in Transit Services ...... 13

ITEM 6 Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2014 - Post Advertising ...... 13

ITEM 7 Policy Review: Conference Attendance by Reference Group and Committee Members ...... 13

ITEM 8 Minutes of the City of Wollongong Traffic Committee Meeting held 15 October 2014 ...... 14

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 1

Minute No.

ONE MINUTE’S SILENCE – REMEMBRANCE DAY The Lord Mayor advised that tomorrow, 11 November 2014, being Remembrance Day, is a time to reflect on the centenary of the First World War and its implications for our Country. As a mark of respect for the sacrifices of so many nearly a century ago, the Lord Mayor asked that Council observe one minute’s silence.

One minute’s silence was duly observed.

PETITION – DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS POLICY Councillor Brown tabled a petition ‘signed by’ several hundred dogs in the Illawarra. 201 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Petty seconded Councillor Colacino that the petition be noted.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2014 202 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Brown seconded Councillor Kershaw that the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Monday, 27 October 2014 (a copy having been circulated to Councillors) be taken as read and confirmed.

PUBLIC ACCESS FORUM - BAN ON COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION AND MINING - WOLLONGONG LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA Mr W Erwin expressed concerns at the recent passing of both houses of the Water NSW Act. He said that our water catchments are our future for the supply of clean fresh drinking water. However, he said it was not only our water supply catchments that are under threat from coal seam gas, but all waterways. Wherever there is a possibility of gas from coal then any waterway in that area is under threat, and this includes waterways which are below ground. Mr Erwin went on to read one sentence from the Water NSW Act “The Board of Directors of Water NSW is to consist of not fewer than three, and not more than eight, directors appointed by the voting shareholders”. He said that the Act merges the Sydney Catchment Authority, a regulatory body, in to a corporation to operate on a commercial basis. This sets it up

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 2

Minute No. for privatisation; sets it up in a corporation where the main purpose is to make money for its shareholders. Mr Erwin could not find anywhere in the Act that states who the shareholders will be. In conclusion, he said that there are nuclear free Council areas in NSW and he asked why the Wollongong City Council area could not be a Coal Seam Gas Exploration and Mining Free area.

PUBLIC ACCESS FORUM - NSW MARINE PROTECTED AREAS – REMOVAL OF AMNESTY Mr I Macfadyen, on behalf of the NSW Conservation Council, advised that the NSW Marine Reserve system began protecting marine life in 1991 and since then, five more marine parks had been created after extensive scientific research and community consultation. In March 2013, the NSW State Government temporarily lifted restrictions for recreational fishers, as a trial, while a threat and risk assessment was undertaken. He said that this was of significant concern as the allowance for recreational fishing will further diminish ecosystem quality. Recreational fishing can account for up to 90% of the catch of some species, meaning that sanctuary zones need to be protected from both recreational and commercial fishing. The State Government was ignoring the fact that fishers are still free to fish in the remainder of the Marine Park. Mr Macfadyen felt that it was vital for the State Government to hear that communities want strong marine environmental protections and that marine parks and designated marine sanctuary zones have significant economic benefits for regional areas dependent on tourism; in particular, marine activities such as diving, snorkelling and other non-destructive water sports. In conclusion, Mr Macfadyen urged Councillors to call upon the State Government to lift the amnesty and once more ban recreational fishing in sanctuary zones.

PUBLIC ACCESS FORUM – REVIEW OF DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS POLICY Ms D Bennett said that the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy was not only about dogs, but about people. She said that Wollongong’s dog-friendly beaches offer socialisation opportunities for people and this was particularly important for those marginalised in our community. Being responsible for the wellbeing of a dog and getting out each day into the off leash beach areas was vital for these people. Ms Bennett said that as part of the review

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 3

Minute No. of the policy, the Bellambi Boat Ramp was earmarked for closure to dogs altogether and she believed that this was the only off leash beach area with wheelchair access. If Council makes this area a Red zone and off limit to dogs, she asked what would be the wheelchair-friendly replacement area. Ms Bennett said that whilst she was strong and healthy enough to walk her dog on leash, people with particular challenges were unable to do this and she said that these were the people that Council should be protecting, not isolating. She felt that changing Green zone beaches to Orange will further restrict the most vulnerable. Even if the restrictive time zones are removed, people with physical and health challenges will find it difficult, if not impossible, to exercise their dogs on leash. In conclusion, she asked Councillors to consider those people whose only source of socialisation is their daily interaction on the off leash dog beaches, when this matter comes to Council on 24 November 2014.

Mr B O’Donnell raised a number of concerns and questions that dog owners in the northern Illawarra have about the Councillors’ proposals to radically change the dog zones for beaches in the northern Illawarra. He said that in the days following the Council meeting on 28 July 2014, when Council voted to place the Policy on exhibition, people watched the webcast of the Council meeting and the reaction of dog owners was of anger and total incomprehension. Dog owners were asking questions such as ‘on what basis did Councillors reject the recommendation to leave unleashed beaches in the north as is’, and ‘why was it proposed by a Councillor to remove all Green beaches from Ward 1, north of Bellambi, whilst leaving other Green zones untouched’. Mr O’Donnell said that the proposal to end off-leash access to McCauleys, Little Austinmer and Sharkey’s Beaches was in response to a vocal minority of 15 complainants. Mr O’Donnell felt that the proposals are unreasonable, discriminatory and inconsistent. Advice has been received that the NSW Ombudsman would take up the complaint if it is lodged. In conclusion, he said that this matter had caused stress and disruption to people’s lives, as well as a huge amount of time and money committed to fighting the proposals. On 24 November 2014, if Councillors vote to placate a miniscule vocal minority rather than support the interests of the majority, then come the next Council Election, the dog community would stand candidates.

203 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Brown seconded Councillor Martin that all speakers be thanked for their presentation and invited to table their notes.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 4

Minute No. CALL OF THE AGENDA 204 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Brown seconded Councillor Blicavs that the staff recommendations for Items 1 to 3, and 5 to 8 inclusive, be adopted as a block.

ITEM A – NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR DORAHY - PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF NSW WATER CATCHMENT AREAS

205 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Colacino seconded Councillor Crasnich that this matter be deferred to the Council meeting on 24 November 2014.

ITEM B - NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR TAKACS - POLICY COHERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE PROCEDURAL MOTIONS were MOVED and extensions granted for the following Councillors to address the meeting in relation to Item B – Moved by Councillor Merrin seconded Councillor Martin – a two minute extension for Councillor Takacs; Moved by Councillor Crasnich seconded Councillor Blicavs – a one minute extension for Councillor Colacino; Moved by Councillor Colacino seconded Councillor Blicavs – a 30 second extension for Councillor Crasnich; Moved by Councillor Crasnich seconded Councillor Merrin - a two minute extension for Councillor Curran; and Moved by Councillor Martin seconded Councillor Merrin – a one minute extension of Councillor Takacs. MOVED by Councillor Takacs seconded Councillor Merrin that - 1 Council write to the Premier of NSW, The Hon Mike Baird MP, the Minister for Resources and Energy, The Hon Anthony Roberts MP, the Minister for Primary Industries, The Hon Katrina Hodgkinson MP, and the Minister for the Environment, The Hon Rob Stokes MP, urging them to – a commit the NSW State Government to a strategy of policy coherence in the areas of climate change, emissions reductions, and energy; and,

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 5

Minute No. b demonstrate this commitment to the community by ceasing to issue any further petroleum exploration licences, and to restrict coal exploration licences and mine approvals to metallurgical coal only. 2 The letter make clear, and explain in detail, the basis for this request.

At this point, Councillor Colacino FORESHADOWED a MOTION should Councillor Takacs’ Motion be defeated.

An AMENDMENT was MOVED by Councillor Connor seconded Councillor Martin that - 1 Council write to the Premier of NSW, The Hon Mike Baird MP, the Minister for Resources and Energy, The Hon Anthony Roberts MP, the Minister for Primary Industries, The Hon Katrina Hodgkinson MP, and the Minister for the Environment, The Hon Rob Stokes MP, urging them to – a commit the NSW State Government to a strategy of policy coherence in the areas of climate change, emissions reductions, and energy; and, b foster through government incentives the development of renewable energy generation technologies. Addressing the challenges of higher costs of renewable energy, barriers to investment and community concerns. 2 The letter seek the expedition of the key recommendations and goals contained in the NSW Government’s Renewable Energy Action Plan.

Councillor Connor’s AMENDMENT on being PUT to the VOTE was LOST. In favour Councillors Connor, Brown, Crasnich and Bradbery Against Councillors Kershaw, Martin, Takacs, Merrin, Blicavs, Colacino, Curran and Petty

Councillor Takacs’ MOTION was then PUT to the VOTE and was LOST. In favour Councillors Takacs, Merrin and Curran Against Councillors Kershaw, Connor, Brown, Martin, Blicavs, Colacino, Crasnich, Petty and Bradbery

Following the defeat of Councillor Connor’s AMENDMENT and Councillor Takacs’ MOTION, Councillor Colacino’s FORESHADOWED MOTION then became the MOTION.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 6

Minute No. MOVED by Councillor Colacino seconded Councillor Crasnich that Council write to the Premier of NSW, The Hon Mike Baird MP, the Minister for Resources and Energy, The Hon Anthony Roberts MP, the Minister for Primary Industries, The Hon Katrina Hodgkinson MP, and the Minister for the Environment, The Hon Rob Stokes MP, congratulating them for the continued support shown towards understanding the complexities of coal seam gas and coal mining activities within the sensitive areas of Wollongong.

Councillor Colacino’s MOTION on being PUT to the VOTE was LOST. In favour Councillors Colacino and Crasnich Against Councillors Kershaw, Connor, Brown, Martin, Takacs, Merrin, Blicavs, Curran, Petty and Bradbery

DEPARTURE OF COUNCILLORS During debate and prior to voting on Item C, the following Councillors departed and returned to the meeting – • Councillor Crasnich from 7.35 pm to 7.37 pm; • Councillor Blicavs from 7.41 pm to 7.42 pm; • Councillor Merrin from 7.52 pm to 7.54 pm; and • Councillor Colacino from 7.57 pm to 7.59 pm.

ITEM C - NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR CURRAN - COMPREHENSIVE AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING A PROCEDURAL MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Takacs seconded Councillor Martin that a two minute extension be granted for Councillor Curran to address the meeting in relation to Item C. MOVED Councillor Curran seconded Councillor Merrin that - 1 As a means of ensuring the health and safety of our community, Council urgently write to all relevant Ministers, and Illawarra Members of Federal and State Parliament, requesting urgent implementation of comprehensive ongoing assessment and monitoring of the Air Quality Program in the Wollongong Local Government Area, in locations previously identified to State and Federal Agencies and Wollongong City Council, as being impacted by pollution, emissions and contamination from industrial sites and transport corridors associated with Port Kembla.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 7

Minute No. 2 The letter include - a A copy of Council’s resolution of 12 August 2013 regarding Air Quality Monitoring in Port Kembla; and, b Relevant studies, documents, reference material known to Council, or held by Council, to justify the urgency and need for this comprehensive Air Quality Monitoring Program. 3 A copy of all material listed in Points 1 and 2 above, be urgently provided to the Sinter Plant Working Party, the Environment Protection Authority, Office of Environment and Heritage and NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

At this point, Councillor Bradbery FORESHADOWED a MOTION should Councillor Curran’s Motion be defeated.

A PROCEDURAL MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Kershaw that the MOTION BE PUT. Councillor Curran’s MOTION on being PUT to the VOTE was LOST. In favour Councillors Martin, Takacs, Merrin, Curran and Petty Against Councillors Kershaw, Connor, Brown, Blicavs, Colacino, Crasnich and Bradbery

Following the defeat of Councillor Curran’s MOTION, Councillor Bradbery’s FORESHADOWED MOTION then became the MOTION. 206 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Bradbery seconded Councillor Colacino that Wollongong City Council – 1 Reaffirm the following resolution of 12 August 2013 – a Council seek the support of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and the Environmental Protection Authority to establish a permanent air quality monitor in Port Kembla. b In response to the increased industrial activity in and around Port Kembla, Council, as a matter of priority, work with the above Government agencies, local industry and the Port Kembla Pollution Committee to establish the best location for the monitor. c Council calls on the State Government to formulate an "Illawarra Air Particles Action Plan", similar in style and context to the Upper Hunter Air Particles Action Plan 2013, administered by the NSW Environment Protection Authority.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 8

Minute No. 2 Request a review of the monitoring and assessment of air quality across the local government area by the Environment Protection Authority addressing adequacy, ie does it meet health and environmental standards. 3 Ascertain the level of auditing and evaluation of such monitoring and assessment that is in place, and does it address the concern for independent verification and validation. Variation The variation moved by Councillor Martin to add Part 1 was accepted by the mover and seconder.

ITEM D - NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR PETTY - BAN ON COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION AND MINING - WOLLONGONG LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Lord Mayor ruled Councillor Petty’s original motion “That coal seam gas exploration and mining be banned in the Wollongong Local Government Area” to be out-of-order. 207 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Petty seconded Councillor Colacino that the Wollongong Local Government Area be declared a coal seam gas exploration and mining free zone.

DEPARTURE OF COUNCILLORS During debate and prior to voting on Item E, the following Councillors departed and returned to the meeting – • Councillor Petty from 8.32 pm to 8.35 pm; and, • Councillor Curran from 8.37 pm to 8.39 pm.

ITEM E - NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR MERRIN - NSW MARINE PROTECTED AREAS – REMOVAL OF AMNESTY MOVED by Councillor Merrin seconded Councillor Takacs that Council - 1 Note: a NSW has six Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) which provide vital protection to Australia’s fish stocks and sensitive marine environments;

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 9

Minute No. b Within these MPAs, no-take sanctuary zones are one of the most critical components providing our precious marine ecosystems with protection from all forms of fishing; c The NSW Government currently has an amnesty in place allowing recreational fishing within no-take sanctuary zones in an overwhelming majority of MPAs, and this amnesty has been in place since March 2013, originally intended as a 12 month trial; d The NSW Government’s delay in lifting the amnesty continues to undermine the precious marine ecology of NSW’s Marine Parks’ system; e A study by the University of Tasmania’s Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies has found that the most effective MPAs are those with well-enforced no-take sanctuary zones with “on average eight times more large fishes, nine times more gropers and 14 times more sharks than fished areas”. f Approximately 222 marine scientists from around Australia and the world have written to the NSW State Government to convey the importance of Sanctuary Zones within NSW’s Marine Parks’ system. g In addition to the broad scientific support for Sanctuary Zones, 93% of the NSW public think marine sanctuaries are a good idea, including 91% support from recreational fishers. h Hundreds of businesses have spoken out in support of marine park sanctuary zones as an integral part of effective marine conservation, including tourism and related businesses, diving associations and local chambers of commerce. 2 Requests the Premier, The Hon Mike Baird MP, and Minister for the Environment, The Hon Rob Stokes MP, to: a Acknowledge the scientific evidence and listen to the overwhelming public support for an immediate end to the amnesty allowing recreational fishing in no-take sanctuary zones. b Ensure that no-take sanctuary zones are well enforced, allowing for a revitalisation of marine life in those areas. c Ensure that there will be no further risks to the scientific integrity of sanctuary zones and NSW’s Marine Parks system.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 10

Minute No. At this point, Councillor Brown FORESHADOWED a MOTION should Councillor Merrin’s Motion be defeated.

Councillor Merrin’s MOTION on being PUT to the VOTE was LOST.

In favour Councillors Connor, Takacs, Merrin and Curran Against Councillors Kershaw, Brown, Martin, Blicavs, Colacino, Crasnich, Petty and Bradbery

Following the defeat of Councillor Merrin’s MOTION, Councillor Brown’s FORESHADOWED MOTION then became the MOTION.

208 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Brown seconded Councillor Blicavs that - 1 Council request the State Government produce a timeline for finalising the review of the ‘no-take’ amnesty in Marine Protection Areas. 2 Council request any decision in this area follow a period of comprehensive community consultation that includes publication of the environmental, social and economic data that the Government announced would form the basis of an evidence-based policy. 3 Any findings in this policy area made by the Marine Estate Expert Knowledge Panel be made public. In favour Councillors Connor, Brown, Martin, Takacs, Merrin, Blicavs, Colacino, Crasnich, Curran, Petty and Bradbery Against Councillor Kershaw

ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF 10/50 VEGETATION CLEARING CODE OF PRACTICE The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – The draft submission on the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice be endorsed for finalisation by the General Manager and submission to the NSW Rural Fire Service.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 11

Minute No.

ITEM 2 - PROPOSED CREATION OF COVENANT OVER PUCKEYS ESTATE, FAIRY MEADOW FOR BIOBANKING AGREEMENT The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – 1 Council approve the creation of a permanent conservation covenant over the portions of Lot 1 DP 998002, Lot 2 DP 231228, Lot 1 DP 62286, Lots 305 and 306 DP 746634 and Lot 9 DP 116386 shown hatched in orange on the plan attached to the report. 2 Authority be granted to affix the Common Seal of Council to the covenant creation documents and any other documentation required to give effect to this resolution.

ITEM 3 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - EVALUATION AND ANNUAL UPDATE The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – Council note the Economic Development Advisory Board Annual Report 2014, attached to the report.

DEPARTURE OF COUNCILLOR During the debate on Item 4, Councillor Curran departed the meeting, the time being 8.53 pm. Councillor Curran returned to the meeting at 8.54 pm, and she was not present for the vote taken for Item 4. However, Councillor Curran was present during the Election process.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 12

Minute No.

ITEM 4 - ELECTION OF COUNCILLOR DELEGATE TO ILLAWARRA REGIONAL AIRPORT MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 209 COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION - RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY on the motion of Councillor Blicavs seconded Councillor Kershaw that - 1 A Councillor or Council Officer be elected to represent Wollongong City Council on the Illawarra Regional Airport Management Advisory Committee for the term of this Council. 2 Council elect an Alternate Delegate to the Illawarra Regional Airport Management Advisory Committee. 3 The election be conducted by open means on a show of hands.

Variation The variation moved by Councillor Takacs to add the words ‘for the term of this Council’ to Part 1 and the variation moved by the Lord Mayor to add Part 2 were accepted by the mover and seconder.

Nominations were received for Councillors Blicavs and Petty and on a show of hands, the following votes were recorded – Councillor Blicavs: Councillors Martin, Blicavs, Colacino, Crasnich and Bradbery; and Councillor Petty: Councillors Kershaw, Connor, Brown, Takacs, Merrin, Curran and Petty Councillor Petty was subsequently declared elected as Council’s Delegate to the Illawarra Regional Airport Management Advisory Committee and Councillor Blicavs was declared elected as the Alternate Delegate.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 13

Minute No.

ITEM 5 - TENDER T14/01 - PROVISION FOR CASH IN TRANSIT SERVICES The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – 1 In accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Clause 178 (1) (a), Council accept the tender of Knightguard Protections Services Pty Ltd t/as Knightguard Protection Group for the provision of cash-in-transit services, for the approximate sum of $180,573, excluding GST, in accordance with the priced schedule of collections, for the period of three years. 2 Council delegate to the General Manager the authority to finalise and execute the contract and any other documentation required to give effect to this resolution. 3 Council grant authority for the use of the Common Seal of Council on the contract and any other documentation, should it be required to give effect to this resolution.

ITEM 6 - ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014 - POST ADVERTISING The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – The audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014, together with the Auditor’s Report, be presented to the public.

ITEM 7 - POLICY REVIEW: CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE BY REFERENCE GROUP AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – The Conference Attendance by Reference Group and Committee Members Policy be adopted.

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 November 2014 14

Minute No.

ITEM 8 - MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WOLLONGONG TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 15 OCTOBER 2014 The following staff recommendation was adopted as part of the Block Adoption of Items (refer Minute Number 204). COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION – In accordance with the powers delegated to Council, the minutes and recommendations of the City of Wollongong Traffic Committee Meeting held on 15 October 2014 in relation to Regulation of Traffic be adopted.

THE MEETING CONCLUDED AT 8.59 PM.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council of the City of Wollongong held on 24 November 2014.

Chairperson

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS POLICY REVIEW ENGAGEMENT REPORT

October 2014 Z14/424719 Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 1

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Background ...... 5 Methodology ...... 6 Promotional Materials ...... 7 Online Engagement ...... 7 Stakeholders ...... 7 Media Activities ...... 8 Results ...... 9 Online Engagement Results ...... 10 Survey Results ...... 10 Draft Survey ...... 11 Open Submission Results ...... 11 Section A: Background and Demographic Information ...... 12 Section B: Beach Proposals ...... 17 Section C: Park Proposals ...... 26 Section D: Additional Comments ...... 31 Form Letter ...... 32 Petition ...... 35 Appendix A ...... 36 Feedback Survey ...... 36 Appendix B ...... 45 Frequently Asked Questions ...... 45 Appendix C ...... 47 Draft Survey ...... 47

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 2

Executive Summary

The Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy review process was put into action this year as part of Council’s normal Policy review cycle. Following a report to Council on 28 July 2014 a number of proposed Policy changes were put on public exhibition. The proposals focused on increased used of signage and colour coded fencing, the introduction of additional parks throughout the Wollongong LGA and specifically in the new West Dapto area, and suggested changes to 6 beach spaces between Bellambi and Stanwell Park. The exhibition ran from August 6 – October 6, 2014.

Stakeholders were notified of the exhibition period, including the Neighbourhood Forums, community dog groups, and people who had previously participated in the 2012 Dogs on Beaches and Parks policy engagement. Promotion of the project was via Council’s Advertiser pages on 6 and 27 August, and 1 October. Social media was important to the engagement, with Facebook and Twitter both used by Council’s media team.

A feedback survey and a Frequently Asked Questions were made available to the community on Council’s website, libraries and community centres throughout the Wollongong area. The survey was broken into four sections, focusing on demographic information, beach proposals, park proposals and additional comments. A total of n=1,748 surveys were received, n=1,434 through online sources, and n=314 print surveys. The total number of visits to the engagement website at n=7,097, reflects a high level of interest in the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review. N=231 open submissions in the form of letters and emails were also received.

Council received N=41 form letters were received, and 2 petitions were submitted during the exhibition period with n=2,716 and n=28 signatures respectively. Council officers were invited to address the community at the Thirroul Neighbourhood Forum 3 on 19 August 2014 giving the community an opportunity to ask questions about the proposed Policy changes.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 3

The survey results identified that 75.9% of respondents were dog owners and 97.3% of respondents felt the policy was important to them. All beach proposals were rejected by the majority of respondents, ranging from 56% against the proposal for Stanwell Park through to 78% unsupportive of both the Sharkys/Headlands Boat Ramp and McCauleys Beach proposals. In terms of the comments provided to support these statistics, 19.6% of comments were against the proposals because these beach spaces are unpatrolled, with respondents claiming that as they are unsafe for swimming, dog owners and dogs were the dominant users of the spaces. Additionally, 14.0% of all comments focused on the positive lifestyle and community associations from the use of off‐leash beach spaces. Finally, 77.5% (n=179) of the open submissions were against the proposals.

In terms of parks, 91.3% of respondents were satisfied with the current arrangement of off‐ leash park spaces. 87.3% supported the idea to introduce a new off‐leash park space in West Dapto, and 85.7% supported additional off‐leash park spaces throughout the Wollongong LGA. 66% of respondents supported the proposals for additional signage and/or colour coded fencing at beaches.

As with previous engagements on this Policy, there was a significant level of interest in the surveys and responses submitted to Council. This was also reflected by the 19 news stories the Illawarra Mercury ran during the exhibition period, and the 7 stories run through additional newspaper and radio media.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 4

Background The Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy review process was commenced this year as part of Council’s normal Policy review cycle in order to ensure their relevance to both Council and the community. In 2010 Council implemented a traffic light system, which uses a three‐tier approach to designate usage of beaches. The traffic light system uses green (off‐leash), orange (on‐leash, time‐specific) and red zones (dogs prohibited).

The proposals exhibited during the engagement, held from August 6 to October 6, 2014, focused on changes to off‐leash areas at Sharkys Beach, Headlands Boat Ramp, and Bellambi Boat Harbour by proposing they become red zones, with Sharkys, Little Austinmer and McCauleys beaches proposed to become orange zones. Further to this, there was a proposal to have differentiated zoning in Stanwell Park, dependant on weekday or weekend. As with previous engagements on this policy area, there was a significant level of interest in the surveys and responses submitted to Council.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 5

Methodology The following section outlines the various activities undertaken during the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review exhibition period, held from August 6 – October 6, 2014.

The engagement strategy identified a number of different target audiences, leading to a variety of techniques being utilised during the engagement process, which is summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Exhibition Period Communication Methods Activity Communication Methods Stakeholders Information pack (see Appendices A‐B) Residents across Dogs on  Consisted of a Frequently Asked Questions and Feedback the LGA Beaches and Survey. Residents Parks Policy  Distributed to all Council libraries, leisure centres & tourist engaged in 2013 Review parks. engagement Exhibition  Distributed to a number of Council’s Neighbourhood & Council Reference Period Community Centres throughout the LGA. Groups  Distributed to Neighbourhood Forums and community dog Neighbourhood groups. Forums

Online Engagement All stakeholders  All relevant documents available via Council’s engagement website.  Shared through Wollongong City Council Facebook pages.

Neighbourhood Forum 3 meeting Residents from  Council officers attended to present the proposals and Thirroul, answer questions from the floor. Austinmer and Coledale suburbs Community Kiosks Residents across  Exhibition materials were displayed at a number of the LGA Community Safety Survey kiosks throughout the LGA

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 6

Promotional Materials Information packs were produced and distributed at a number of Council sites throughout the LGA. The packs consisted of Frequently Asked Questions, and a copy of the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review survey (See Appendices A‐B). The information pack was distributed to all Council libraries, Beaton Park and Lakeside Leisure Centres, Bulli, Corrimal, and Windang Tourist Parks, and a range of Neighbourhood and Community Centres throughout the LGA. The feedback survey was available on the website in PDF, so that residents could download it. Alternatively residents could provide feedback directly into the website.

Online Engagement The use of online media supported the engagement process during the exhibition period. The engagement website, hosted by Bang the Table, and accessed via Council’s website, was used during the exhibition period. All promotional materials, including a copy of the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Feedback Survey and Frequently Asked Questions, were made available on the webpage. Respondents could provide their feedback directly to the website, however, the feedback survey was also available on the website in PDF, so that residents could download it if necessary.

The use of online tools for the exhibition worked to complement the print materials distributed to various community facilities. From a total of n=1,748 surveys received, n=1,434 were sourced via the engagement website. However, the total number of visits to the engagement website was much greater, at n=7,097.

Stakeholders Notification of the exhibition was sent to a number of key stakeholders, including; the Neighbourhood Forums, community dog groups, and people who had previously participated in the Dogs on Beaches and Parks policy project in the 2012 engagement period. All stakeholders were sent a Frequently Asked Question and a feedback survey, as well as a link to the engagement website.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 7

Media Activities

Print Media Media played an important role in the exhibition, both in terms of Council promoting the policy review, and also exhibiting a wide range of perspectives and news stories throughout the two month exhibition period. Council’s media team produced a media release on 9 October to report the close of the Dogs on Beaches & Parks policy. The exhibition period was promoted via Council’s pages in The Advertiser on 6 and 27 August, and 1 October.

During the exhibition period, The Illawarra Mercury ran approximately 19 stories relating to the policy review and the issues of dogs recreational spaces. The stories focused on the Council process, the exhibition period, and community sentiment on the issue of dogs on and off leash spaces, whether beach or park.

In addition to this, seven media outlets (combined radio and newspaper) ran stories and interviews during the exhibition period that shared a similar focus on the proposals put forth by the policy review, and community response to the issue.

Social Media Council’s social media tools, namely Facebook and Twitter, were used to further publicise the exhibition period. Facebook updates were provided on 5 and 18 August, while tweets were published on 5 and 19 August, and 9 October. The link to the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review webpage was shared and promoted via Council’s Facebook page.

Social media was equally important to the exhibition period, with a local community group forming the ‘Save Northern Illawarra’s Dog Friendly Beaches’ page on Facebook. The page received 2,996 likes by the close of the exhibition period. Three independent blog sites also covered the issue during the exhibition period.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 8

Results

Table 2: Summary of Results

Summary of results Web hits 7,097 Total surveys received 2,034* Open submissions 231 Petitions Total submitted: Signatures: 2 2,744 Q2 Dog ownership 1,345 Q3 Frequency of use of off‐leash areas 805 daily Q5a Importance of Policy to respondents 1,741 agreed ** 27 disagreed Q5b Satisfaction with education about Policy 715 agreed** 795 disagreed Q5c Satisfaction with enforcement of Policy 897 agreed** 601 disagreed Q6 Increased signage and fence colour coding 1,110 agreed** 520 disagreed Q7 Changes to Sharkys Beach and Headlands Boat ramp 201 agreed** 1,325 disagreed Q8 Changes to Bellambi Boat Harbour 173 agreed** 1,078 disagreed Q9 Changes to Sharkys beach 362 agreed** 1,169 disagreed Q10 Changes to Little Austinmer Beach 301 agreed** 1,227 disagreed Q11 Changes to McCauleys Beach 209 agreed** 1,319 disagreed Q12 Changes to Stanwell Park Beach 267 agreed** 947 disagreed Q13 Off‐leash parks remain in current form 1,474 agreed** 140 disagreed Q14 Off‐leash park in West Dapto 1,360 agreed** 197 disagreed Q15 Off‐leash parks throughout the Wollongong LGA 1,347 agreed** 224 disagreed Attendance at community meeting: Neighbourhood Forum 3 Thirroul 220 * Note: 55 respondents used the draft survey contained in the Council report that did not reflect the final version of proposals put to the community. Where questions of the draft survey mirrored those in the feedback survey, the results were combined.

**Note: not all respondents provided an answer to each question.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 9

Online Engagement Results

The use of online tools for the exhibition worked to complement the print materials distributed to various community facilities. From a total of n=1,748 surveys received, n=1,434 were sourced via the engagement website. However, the total numbers of visits to the project page was much greater, at n=14,231. Table 3 below presents the usage statistics for the project page.

Table 3: Summary of Bang the Table Usage

Bang the Table Measurement Explanation Usage 14,231 Unique Site Visits Total number of visits to the project page 6,747 Aware Total number of users who viewed the project page 3,547 Informed Total number of users who open a hyperlink or read a document 1,417 Engaged Total number of users who have actively contributed to the project via the project page 556 Library Tool Use Total number of users who downloaded documents from the library 1,168 Frequently Asked Questions Total number of users who accessed the Frequently Asked Questions

Survey Results The following presents the results from the surveys received, combining those received via the engagement website and those received in print survey form. A total of n=1,748 surveys were received, with n=1,434 received via Council’s engagement website, and n=314 surveys received in print form. The survey asked respondents to answer questions about each and every proposal of the Dogs on Beaches and Parks policy review. The survey was broken into four sections, as follows:

Section A asked respondents for demographic information such as whether they were dog owners, frequency of use of off‐leash areas, age and how they felt about the existing policy, education and enforcement.

Section B asked respondents whether they supported the beach proposals, and to provide comments on their response. There were six beach spaces identified by the proposals, and

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 10 the survey contained a map of each space so that respondents could be clear about the spatial orientation of the proposals.

Section C asked respondents whether they supported the park proposals, and to provide comments on their responses. Section D asked respondents for additional comments that had not already been covered in their previous answers. The results are presented below, reflective of the order of the survey.

Draft Survey Before the exhibition commenced, a draft survey was produced by the engagement team (See Appendix C). It was included in the Council report on the Dogs on Beaches and Parks policy, and as such, n=55 community members submitted their feedback via the draft survey. As some of the questions in the draft survey replicate the questions in the exhibition feedback survey, these responses are included in the overall data analysis. Wherever possible, this report provides results on the combined responses from open submissions, the Feedback survey and the draft survey.

The questions from the draft survey that reflect those of the exhibition feedback survey are primarily demographic, focusing on postcode, dog ownership, and frequency of use of off‐ leash areas. Additionally, the two surveys converge in asking participants the importance of the policy area and levels of satisfaction with education and enforcement with the policy. In the following section, the results for Section A, the responses provided here reflect the combined results of the exhibition feedback survey and the draft survey.

Open Submission Results

In addition to the survey, the community had the option to provide their feedback on the Policy Review proposals in open format. N=231 sent in open emails and/or letters providing a diversity of responses to the beach, park and signage proposals. The overall results of the open submissions found 77.5% (n=179) against the proposals, and 20.7% (n=48) supportive of the proposals. There was continuity in the responses of the open submissions with the survey results. As such, the results of the open submissions are presented alongside the analysis of the survey results, using the same thematic coding approach (see below Table 7). It also assists in providing a comparative and useful analysis of the community’s feedback.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 11

Section A: Background and Demographic Information Section A consisted of questions 1‐6, and asked respondents for demographic information such as whether they were dog owners, frequency of use of off‐leash areas, age and how they felt about the existing policy, education and enforcement. Note that this information was not generally provided in open submissions.

Question 1: What is your post code? Respondents were asked to provide their postcode, with n=906 residing in the 2515 postcode. This was followed by n=177 for postcode 2516, n=158 for postcode 2517, n=109 for postcode 2518 and n=109 for postcode 2508. These suburbs contain the beaches that were the focus of the proposals, and reflect the importance of the Dogs on Beaches and Parks policy to the immediate and local community. A number of respondents indicated they live outside the Wollongong LGA with 24 living in southern Sydney suburbs and 6 residing in the Shellharbour area. Note, not all respondents provided this information.

Figure 1: Postcode of respondents

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 12

Question 2: Are you a dog owner? Respondents were asked if they were a dog owner, with n=1,772 people answering this question. The majority of respondents (n=1,345) indicated they are dog owners.

Figure 2: Dog Ownership Dog Ownership

No 24%

Yes 76%

Question 3: How often do you use an off‐leash beach? Respondents were asked how often they use an off‐leash area. A total of n=1,392 people answered this question, with the majority (n=805) people using an off leash area daily.

Figure 3: Frequency of use of off‐leash areas Usage of Off‐Leash Areas Monthly 8%

Weekly 34% Daily 58%

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 13

Question 4: What is your age? Question 4 asked for the age grouping of respondents, with=1,702 participants identifying which age group they are located in. The following graph reflects the breakdown of participants.

Figure 4: Age of Respondents

65+ Age 9% 18‐30 16%

31‐64 75%

Question 5a: The Dogs on Beaches & Parks Policy is important to me The survey asked participants to rank their feelings about the importance with the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy, as well as their satisfaction with existing levels of education and enforcement of the policy. Figures 4‐6 reflect the responses to these questions. Figure 5a: Importance of Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy

No opinion Disagree 0.4% Strongly 1.1% Disagree 1.1%

Agree 12.9%

Strongly Agree 84.4%

N=1,789 respondents answered this question, with the vast majority of respondents strongly agreeing that the policy is important to them (n=1,510).

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 14

Question 5b: I am satisfied with the education currently provided to the community N=1,779 respondents answered this question. Approximately n=715 people agreed or strongly agreed that they are satisfied with education about the policy, while n=795 disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment.

Figure 5b: Satisfaction with Education about the Policy

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 13.5% 15%

Disagree 31.1% Agree 25.1%

No opinion 15.1%

Question 5c: I am satisfied with the current enforcement of the policy N=1,765 respondents answered this question, with n=897 people agreed or strongly agreed that they are satisfied with enforcement of the policy, while n=601 disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment.

Figure 5c: Satisfaction with Enforcement of the Policy

Strongly Disagree 19.4% Strongly Agree 23.9% Disagree 14.6%

Agree 26.8% No opinion 15.1%

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 15

Question 6: There is a proposal to improve transition areas at beaches by increasing signage, and colour coding beach fences to indicate which zone applies to the beach. Do you support this proposal? Sixty‐six percent out of n=1,678 respondents agreed with the signage proposal.

Figure 6: Signage Proposal Not relevant to me 3% No 31%

Yes 66%

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 16

Section B: Beach Proposals Section B consisted of questions 7 to 12 in the survey, and asked respondents whether they supported the beach proposals, and to provide comments on their response. There were six beach spaces identified by the proposals, and the survey contained a map of each space so that respondents could be clear about the spatial orientation of the proposals. Each question asked participants whether they supported the proposal for that particular beach space, and then asked participants to provide a comment as to why they had chosen that response. Figures 9‐14 reflect the statistical response to whether participants supported the proposals for each of the six beach spaces, and Tables 4‐7 reflect the thematic analysis of the additional comments for the beach spaces. The results of the open submissions are included within this thematic analysis, and are presented below in Table 7.

Question 7: Sharkys Beach & Headlands Boat Ramp Car Park

Of n=1,700 respondents to this question, n=1,325 people were unsupportive of the proposals for Sharkys and Headlands Boat Ramp.

Figure 7: Sharkys Beach and Headlands Boat Ramp Proposal Sharkys & Headlands Boat Ramp Not relevant 10.2% Yes 11.8%

No 77.9%

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 17

Question 8: Bellambi Boat Harbour

Of n=1,686 respondents to this question, n=1,078 people were unsupportive of the proposals for Bellambi Boat Harbour.

Figure 8: Bellambi Boat Harbour Proposal Bellambi n=1,686 Yes Not 10% relevant 26%

No 64%

Question 9: Sharkys Beach, Coledale

Of n=1,691 respondents to this question, n=1,169 people were unsupportive of the proposals for Sharkys Beach.

Figure 9: Sharkys Beach Proposal

Sharky's n=1,691 Not relevant 9% Yes 22%

No 69%

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 18

Question 10: Little Austinmer Beach

Of n=1,686 respondents to this question, n=1,227 people were unsupportive of the proposals for Little Austinmer Beach.

Figure 10: Little Austinmer Beach Proposal Little Austinmer n=1,686 Not relevant 9% Yes 18%

No 73%

Question 11: McCauleys Beach

Of n=1,693 respondents to this question, n=1,319 people were unsupportive of the proposals for McCauleys Beach.

Figure 11: McCauleys Beach Proposal McCauleys n=1,693 Not relevant 10% Yes 12%

No 78%

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 19

Question 12: Stanwell Park Beach

Of n=1,681 respondents to this question, n=947 people were unsupportive of the proposals for Stanwell Park.

Figure 12: Stanwell Park Beach Proposal

Stanwell Park n=1,681

Yes Not relevant 16% 28%

No 56%

The following tables present the results of the comments provided in relation to each of the beach spaces. Table 4 provides an explanation of the codes used in the analysis, as well as the overall results. The percentage results reflect the percentage of all comments for each thematic code. Between the six open ended beach questions and the open submissions a total of n=4,173 comments were made, and coded into 22 different themes.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 20

Table 4: Overall Thematic Comment Analyses for Beach Proposals Theme Explanation of Themes Number of % of all Comments Comments Differentiated Timing Weekends, summer and peak times should be orange/restricted 181 4.3 Restrictions not necessary on weekdays and in winter On Leash On leash at all times 125 2.9 Keep dogs of the beach Off Leash Off leash at all times 137 3.2 Dogs on beaches all the time Dog‐free Beaches There are enough non‐dog beaches 296 7.0

Lack of Alternatives Lack of off‐leash parks in the north 236 5.6 There are no alternatives in the north Regulation & Education Regulation an issue 308 9.7 Community needs education Rangers need to enforce compliance Fines a solution Wellbeing of Dogs Dogs are healthier and happier when they exercise off‐leash 225 5.3 Socialisation of dogs improved via off‐leash Rights of Dogs & Dog Dog rights 89 2.1 Owners Dog owner rights Lack of Control of Dogs Owners can’t always control their dogs 266 6.3 Families and children threatened by dogs Impact on Beach – Dog faeces on beach 125 2.9 Negative Impact on Beach ‐ Dog owners clean up after others 112 2.6 Positive Beaches littered by others

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 21

Unpatrolled Beach These are unsafe, unpatrolled beaches 819 19.6 No‐one else on these beaches other than dog owners and surfers Time Restrictions Time restrictions don’t work for shift workers or visitors 167 4.0 Dog owners also enjoy the weekend

Tourism Positive and negative responses to tourism 118 2.8 Recognition that the off leash spaces attract visitors/tourists to the area Lifestyle & Community Overall positive comments about the lifestyle and community associations with the use of 586 14.0 off‐leash beach spaces Transparent Process Need a more transparent process 322 7.7 More extensive community consultation required Listen to community Signage Additional signage would improve compliance 101 2.4

Environment Environmental issues 136 3.2 Conservation of wildlife a problem Aboriginal cultural significance of some off leash beach spaces Congestion Closing some beaches will lead to overcrowding on other beach spaces 91 2.1

Elderly & Disability These beaches provide decent access for disability, mobility impaired 83 1.9 Access Beaches provide positive access for elderly residents Not Applicable** 74 1.7

Other* Miscellaneous 280 6.7

*‘Other’ indicates responses that were related to the issues raised in the project but did not respond directly to the proposals presented

**‘Not Applicable’ indicates responses that were unrelated to both the issues raised in the project and the proposals presented

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 22

Table 5: Comment Analyses from Sharkys, Little Austinmer & McCauleys Beach Proposals Beach Sharkys Beach Sharkys Beach Little McCauley’s & Headlands Austinmer Beach Boat Ramp Beach Number of 669 733 658 739 Submissions Differentiated 21 0 34 33 Timing On Leash 10 38 34 18 Off Leash 31 24 23 24

Non‐dog Beaches 57 46 54 68 Lack of Alternatives 41 51 42 34

Regulation & 54 53 52 55 Education Wellbeing of Dogs 31 38 35 50 Rights of Dogs & Dog 11 14 20 11 Owners Lack of Control of 27 92 54 38 Dogs Impact on Beach – 12 39 17 21 Negative Impact on Beach ‐ 15 15 16 15 Positive Unpatrolled Beach 111 141 172 239 Time Restrictions 12 34 24 33

Tourism 11 18 23 31 Lifestyle & 82 92 112 132 Community Transparent Process 37 56 67 48 Signage 18 13 11 12 Environment 22 21 25 25

Congestion 14 19 13 10 Elderly & Disability 13 17 7 13 Access Not Applicable 68 36 74 15 Other 7 15 15 21

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 23

Table 6: Comment Analyses from Bellambi Boat Harbour & Stanwell Park Beach Proposals Beach Bellambi Stanwell Park

Number of Submissions 445 699 Differentiated Timing 20 56 On Leash 9 8 Off Leash 17 10

Non‐dog Beaches 25 27 Lack of Alternatives 30 24

Regulation & Education 32 21

Wellbeing of Dogs 26 23 Rights of Dogs & Dog Owners 6 17 Lack of Control of Dogs 10 16 Impact on Beach – Negative 6 7 Impact on Beach ‐ Positive 15 19

Unpatrolled Beach 92 38 Time Restrictions 13 44

Tourism 4 14 Lifestyle & Community 58 46

Transparent Process 29 25 Signage 11 10 Environment 21 4

Congestion 14 17 Elderly & Disability Access 16 3 Not Applicable 40 34 Other 7 7

Table 5 and Table 6 present the results of the exhibition feedback survey’s comments on the six beach proposals. The following table, Table 7, presents the results of the open submissions comments on the six beach proposals.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 24

Table 7: Comment Analyses from Open Submission Beach Open Submissions (n=231) Number of Submissions 231 Differentiated Timing 17 On Leash 8 Off Leash 8 Non‐dog Beaches 19 Lack of Alternatives 14 Regulation & Education 41 Wellbeing of Dogs 22 Rights of Dogs & Dog Owners 10 Lack of Control of Dogs 29 Impact on Beach – Negative 23 Impact on Beach ‐ Positive 17 Unpatrolled Beach 26 Time Restrictions 7 Tourism 17 Lifestyle & Community 64 Transparent Process 60 Signage 26 Environment 18 Congestion 4 Elderly & Disability Access 14 Not Applicable 2 Other 13

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 25

Section C: Park Proposals Section C consisted of questions 13‐16 of the survey, and focused on Council’s proposals for off‐leash park spaces. Question 13 asked participants whether they support the continuation of the current arrangement of off‐leash parks, with n=1,614 responding to this question. 91.3% of participants supported the current arrangement of off‐leash parks, while 8.7% did not. Question 14 asked participants which of the five existing off‐leash park spaces they used, with n=412 people answering this question.

The results show that Figtree Oval is the most commonly used off‐leash park space at 56.0%. Table 8 below presents the results for each of the five off‐leash spaces.

Table 8: Use of Off‐Leash Park Spaces Park Eleebana King Riley Figtree Proud Usage Reserve George V Park Oval Park n=412 BTT 60 81 87 202 166 Print 5 7 5 29 33 Total 65 88 92 231 199 % 15.7 21.3 22.3 56 48.3

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 26

Question 15 asked participants their response to the proposal to create an off‐leash park in the developing West Dapto area. N=1,557 participants responded to this question, with 87.3% supporting the addition of an off‐leash park space in that area, and 12.6% not supportive of the proposal. The survey asked participants to provide a suggestion for a space in the West Dapto area that might be suitable for an off‐leash park, with n=286 people providing a comment. The majority of respondents, n=151, identified that they supported parks in the West Dapto area, with n=86 people claiming they are unfamiliar with the area, and thus had no specific suggestion. The results, including the suggested parks are presented below in Table 9.

Table 9: West Dapto Off‐Leash Park Comment Number General Support n=151 No recommendation – lack of familiarity with Dapto area n =85 Prefer beaches to parks n =7 Other n =14 Park suggestions n =39  Diamond Brothers Park 2  Fred Finch Park 1  Horsley 1  Integral Energy Park 6  Lakelands 3  Near Rugby fields 1  Near Robins Creek 2  Penrose Estate 1  Purrugully Woodlands 1  Reed Park 16  Timberi Park 2  William Beach Memorial Park 1  Wongawilli 1  Under power lines 1

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 27

Question 16 asked participants their response to the proposal to create additional off‐leash parks throughout the Wollongong LGA. N=1,557 participants responded to this question, with 85.7% supporting the addition of off‐leash park spaces throughout the LGA, and 14.2% not supportive of the proposal. The survey asked participants to provide suggestions for such additional park spaces, with n=535 people providing a comment. N=136 provided general support by suggesting all and/or any parks, with n=45 respondents identifying that they would not support this if it meant losing beach spaces. A vast number of suggestions were identified by participants, with the results presented below in Table 10.

Table 10: Wollongong LGA Off‐Leash Parks Suburb Park suggested Number Austinmer  Boat ramp area 1 n=151  Brickyard Point 2  Clowes Park 48  Felix Ryan Park 11  Glastonbury Gardens 53  Headlands Park 10  Slade Park 2  Austinmer suburb* 10  Pinecourt Park 14 Balgownie  Balfour Park 1 N=8  Balgownie suburb* 3  Judy Masters Oval 4 Bellambi  Near cricket Oval 2 N=11  Bott Reserve 1  Bellambi Sewage Works 2  Bellambi Beach 5  Duncan Park 1 Berkeley  Gladstone Park 2 N=3  Holborn Park 1 Bulli  Bulli High School 3 N=46  Bulli Park 23  Bulli Showground 3  Bulli Beach 2  Bulli suburb* 10  Sandon Point 1  Slackey Creek Park 4 Coalcliff  Coalcliff Park 1 N=1 Clifton  Clifton suburb* 2 N=2

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 28

Coledale  Coledale Soccer Park 4 N=20  Coledale suburb* 4  Shark Park 1  St James Park 7  Kerryn McCann Park 4 Corrimal  Corrimal suburb* 4 N=11  Memorial Park 2  Robert Ziems Park 5 Dapto  Dapto suburb* 1 N=2  Mt Brown Reserve 1 East Corrimal  Happy Valley Reserve 1 N=3  Phil Adams Park 2 Fairy Meadow  Fairy Meadow Surf Club 3 N=20  Thomas Dalton Park 17 Farmborough Heights  Farmborough Heights suburb* 1 N=1 Gwynneville  Beaton Park 4 N=11  Botanic Gardens 4  Gwynneville suburb* 3 Helensburgh  Helensburgh suburb* 1 N=2  Rex Jackson Park 1 Kembla Grange  Integral Energy Park 1 N=1 Mangerton  Mangerton suburb* 1 N=1 Mount Keira  Keira Oval 1 N=3  Mt Keira suburb* 2 Mount Ousley  Guest Park 4 N=4 North Wollongong  Puckeys Estate 5 N=19  Stuart Park 14 Russell Vale  Cawley Park 2 N=3  Russell Vale Oval 1 Scarborough  Scarborough suburb* 4 N=4 Stanwell Park  Beard Park 5 N=13  Stanwell Park suburb* 7  Stanwell Park tennis courts 1 Thirroul  Thomas Gibson Park 24 N=54  McCauley Park 6  Thirroul Beach Reserve 3  Thirroul suburb* 11  Thirroul soccer field 6  WF Jackson Park 4 Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 29

Towradgi  Towradgi Park 4 N=8  Towradgi Beach Park 1  Towradgi suburb* 3 West Wollongong  Gilmore Park 1 N=4  Harry Graham Park 1  Roy Johanson Park 2 Windang  Windang suburb* 1 N=1 Wollongong  JJ Kelly Park 6 N=15  McCabe Park 6  Lang Park 2  Pioneer Park 1 Wombarra  Jim Allen Park 5 N=10  Wombarra suburb* 5 Woonona  Balls Paddock 3 N=57  Collins Park 6  Edgewood Estate 1  Gordon Hutton Park 1  Hollymount Park 13  Nicholson Park 6  Ocean Park 14  Pioneer Estate 1  Woonona Heights Park 1  Woonona suburb* 11 *Suburb denotes a general response indicating support for an off‐leash park somewhere in the named suburb

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 30

Section D: Additional Comments Question 17 asked participants to add any final comments. N=980 participants provided comments to this question, however, n=971 of these comments reflect the statements, ideas, issues and concerns identified in the beach proposal comments (Questions 7‐12, as presented above in Tables 4‐7). As such, n=9 of the comments provided raised new or additional ideas. The n=9 comments are provided verbatim below in Table 11.

Table 11: Additional Comments

 Green before 8 and after 4pm, and orange for all other times for the beach between Thirroul and Austinmer

 Canberra has dedicated dog parks that provide an example for Wollongong

 Dog owners should have licences to use off leash areas

 Council needs to improve its approach to petitions and social media

 This is a divisive community issue, a trial period may help improve community relations

 Perhaps introducing a new timed off‐leash category to the traffic zoning system would assist

 Previous system implemented by administrators

 Zoning system needs to recognise the changing patterns and hours associated with work, especially as the Wollongong LGA has such a large commuter population

 Provide just one beach area to dogs

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 31

Form Letter N=41 participants sent in a form letter, consisting of up to 19 statements. The statements provided by the form letter were analysed separately to the survey, and were not supportive of dog’s access to Sharky’s Beach. The following table highlights both the content of the form letter submissions, and the number of form letters supporting each of the 19 statements.

Table 12: Statement Content ‐ Verbatim Number of Responses All beaches orange Beaches across the Illawarra should have orange zonings to split dogs across all beaches so that locals can go to their 28 own beach. Orange zones also allow people without dogs to enjoy the beach during the day. I do not support any green beaches. All beaches red I cannot believe dogs are allowed to desecrate such a precious place as a beach. The dog owners that say they look 21 after the beach, that there are never any issues, that they never see any poo left behind are kidding themselves. All beaches which people use should be red. Headlands orange Headlands boat ramp should be an orange zone if Sharky beach is an orange zone, so that the beach can be accessed 14 to access Sharky from this end. orange More dog parks I would like to see more dog parks made available. There are too many people wanting to enjoy all the beaches and 26 uncontrolled dogs on these beaches makes it a dangerous place. Separate areas need to be provided where it is safer for all. Sharky beach Coledale is an example of an already busy beach which is inundated with dogs from the local area but also from Sydney as they cannot take the dogs to their own beaches. The increase in dogs on this beach each year is becoming ridiculous and dangerous. Orange needs to be the minimum for this beach.

No more Sooty There used to be Sooty Oyster Catchers at Sharky Beach, today it is rare to see any bird life apart from the odd seagull 25 Oyster Catchers and even these are chased away by any dogs on the beach. People frequently turn up at the beach for a half or whole day and bring the dog. The sit and enjoy the surrounds or the surf and leave the dog completely unattended. Orange or

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 32

red zoning will hopefully see the return of some birds to the area and ensure that other people can use the beach without being harassed by dogs just like the birds are. No support Sharky We cannot support Sharky beach Coledale being a green beach as there are too many people on this beach, particularly 26 beach Coledale in summer and it becomes dangerous with the amount of dogs and people on the beach. Sharky beach needs to be being green changed to a beach with no dogs, as it is too popular with surfers and their families and becomes crazy on weekends and in the summer months when overrun by uncontrolled dogs and owners who don’t look after them or have any care for the environment.

Orange fair for all Orange is fair, walking your dog on leash used to be the norm and orange caters to this while also giving families and 28 people a chance to use the beach without being harassed by people who think a dog beach is only for dogs. If dogs need to be ran (sic] free then take them to a dog park where people without dogs won’t go. Beaches are too beautiful not to be available for everyone to enjoy. Orange north Orange in the north and green in the south of Sharky Beach would be a compromise local people would on the most 25 green south for part be happy with. We don’t want people not to be able to walk their dogs on leash across the beach in the morning Sharky and evening, we just want to also have a time when people can use the beach without being harassed by rogue dogs and often abusive owners.

Orange minimum I cannot support our local beaches being green. The poo, the damage to the dunes, the abusive owners and lack of 27 for this family respect they show for any other users of the beach means that orange must be the minimum. Sharky beach used to be beach a family oriented beach, since the implementation of the dogs on beaches policy it has gone to the dogs and no one else can use the beach which is sad, unfair and wrong. Parks for dogs & There used to a be a few locals that used the beach to walk their dog, now everyone that owns a dog comes to Sharky 21 beaches for beach it feels like. People have forgotten they are allowed to walk with their dog on a leash on footpaths. They expect people to have complete and unrivalled access to the beach and have abused the privilege. Make them all red and give the dog people parks instead. Red is harsh, Red beaches is harsh, orange is fair. Locals have always walked their dogs on the beach but people have abused the 14 orange is fair privilege and think they own the beach and no one else should have equal access.

Sharky beach red I support Sharky beach becoming a red zone at the very least for warmer months. In summer this beach becomes 24

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 33 at least for overrun with dogs and owners who want to come to the beach for the day and let their dog run wild, often in packs. It summer will only be a matter of time until someone is badly attacked or mauled. The Council will have a problem, knowing that this is an already busy beach, and the problems associated with having uncontrolled dogs in such an area.

Sharky beach red, I do not support Sharky beach Coledale having dogs at all. This needs to be a red zone. There are too many 24 dogs out of control uncontrolled dogs, dogs chasing the endangered sooty oystercatcher and other birdlife, dogs on rock platforms, dog here poo, dog poo bags and many many uncontrolled dogs on an already busy beach. Sharky beach red Sharky beach Coledale needs to become a red zone for dogs and more separate dog parks need to be made available to 28 & more dog parks keep dog owners happy.

Sharky red for Having grown up here and now having seen what happens when beaches are made green I cannot support anything 26 sure but red. Most dog owners have complete disregard for everyone that does not have a dog on the beach. Sharky beach Sharky beach needs to become an orange zone to give people who once enjoyed the beach a fair go. Many local 25 orange fair to all residents and surfers use this unique northern Illawarra beach and with so many dogs now on the beach, it has turned into an uncontrolled circus. Support all I support all Illawarra beaches being made into orange zone beaches, where dogs are on leash before and after busy 22 Illawarra Beaches times. Dog on leash means that the owner tends to control the dogs more and are more inclined to pick up the dog being made into poo. This will also spread the dogs across all areas rather than concentrate on beaches such as Sharky beach which is orange zones inundated with local and Sydney dog owners. More dog parks need to be made available. Support split I support split beaches in the northern Illawarra where people can be in an area free of dog faeces and dogs. I support 25 beaches in the Scarborough beach (south end only), Sharky beach (south end only, Thirroul beach (north end), to become green zones northern Illawarra and the rest of the beach red. I support Sharky beach Coledale to become a split zoned beach, with a red zone at the northern end and a green zone at the southern end, with orange zoning at headlands boat ramp to create extra access to the green area. Young children I have young children and cannot take them to the beach for fear of them being jumped on, harassed or attacked by a 25 aren’t safe at the dog. Beaches should be a safe place for all and orange zoning would allow this. Yes there are other beaches but why beach as is should I have to drive somewhere when I live right near a beautiful beach.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 34

Petition Council received two petitions regarding the proposed changes to the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review.

Petition 1 contained 2,716 signatures, collected over 83 pages.

The petition stated that:

“We the undersigned, petition Council to: oppose any proposed changes to the policy of dogs on beaches and parks in the Northern suburbs of Wollongong LGA unless it enables increased access for unleashed dogs on beaches. For the following reasons: continued safe and responsible exercise of dogs”.

Petition 2 contained 28 signatures, and was an online petition hosted by change.org.

The petition stated that:

I just signed Jane Harrison's petition "Wollongong Council: Build more fenced in dog parks within the Illawarra" on change.org.

I just signed the following petition to ensure the development of more fenced in dog parks within the Illawarra. ______

Dog parks need to be fenced to be really safe for dogs to run and play without access to roads, people and aggressive dogs. Fenced parks will ensure all owners have peace of mind that their dogs can play in safety due to the fencing, avoiding any injury from cars. It is estimated that there are 20 dogs per 100 people in Wollongong. With a population of approximately 290,000 people in Wollongong this rate equates to 58,000 dogs. As dog ownership is significant the Council has a responsibility to ensure that access for these dogs in public places is provided in a way that is consistent with their significance. Currently there is only one known fenced in off leash dog‐park which is within the Shellharbour Council area at Whittaker Street Flinders. This is unacceptable with the amount of dogs in the Wollongong area. The most fundamental need for dogs is that they be taken out with their owner as much as possible. This enables them to experience a full range of benefits ‐ exercise, training, socialisation, relief of pent‐up energy as well as time and fun with their owner and other dogs”.

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 35

Appendix A

Feedback Survey

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 36

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 37

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 38

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 39

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 40

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 41

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 42

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 43

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 44

Appendix B

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions Policy Review – Dogs on Beaches & Parks Policy The Dogs on Beaches & Parks policy is under review, and we’d like to hear your thoughts on the proposed changes. To have your say, please read the following information, and fill in the survey. We thank you for taking the time to provide us with your thoughts, as it assists us in making more informed decisions about this policy.

Feedback must be received by 5pm Monday, 6 October, 2014.

Why is Council reviewing the Dogs on Why do the proposals include a shift from Beaches & Parks Policy? beaches to parks as off-leash areas? The policy review process was put into action this There are a few reasons underpinning the proposals, year as part of Council’s normal Policy review cycle. which suggest moving away from off‐leash areas on Policies must be regularly reviewed in order to beaches to parks. Partly, this reflects that as the City of ensure their relevance to both Council and the Wollongong continues to grow so will the competing use community. of the beach area. It will become more important to provide recreational spaces in parks. The Delivery Program 2012‐17 commits Council to ensure policies and procedures are regularly There have also been issues relating to compliance with reviewed, updated and promoted. the zoning system on beaches as well as general compliance with picking up after your dog and having Has the traffic light system changed? control of your dog. This has led to community No. The traffic light system, which uses a three‐tier complaints. Proposals to assist with better compliance approach remains in place. This means that; include further education campaigns, increased use of  Green zones remain off‐leash areas. signs and colour coded fencing, along with modification  Orange zones are still on‐leash and time ‐ of existing off‐leash beach areas. specific areas. Dogs are able to access orange zones, on‐leash at certain times. What are the proposed changes to the In summer, this means before 9am and after Policy? 6pm. In winter, this means before 9am and Most of the 2011 Policy remains in place. The policy after 4pm. Summer is still defined as starting review proposes changes to a few beaches throughout in the September school holidays, and the local government area. The proposed changes have finishing on ANZAC Day, similar to lifeguards been broken into beaches and parks, and include and surf lifesaving club patrol dates. suggestions for the future development of more off‐leash  Red zones remain prohibited areas for dogs. park areas throughout the entire local government area.

So, while the zoning system isn’t changing, what is being proposed are a few changes to where each of the different zones are located. Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 45 www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au

What are the proposed changes to What are the proposed changes to parks? beaches? The proposal is that all off‐leash parks remain the same. The proposal is that all off‐leash beaches remain the There is an additional proposal to create a new off‐leash same, except for: park in the West Dapto area.  The area between Sharkys Beach, Coledale off‐leash area & Headlands boat ramp car Finally, there is a proposal to identify additional locations park change from orange to red zoning, throughout the local government area that could be used reflective of compliance issues and as off‐leash parks. community concerns with such non‐ compliance. What about signage?  Bellambi Boat Harbour off‐leash areas The review has identified the need to improve transition change from green to red zoning, due to the areas, especially at beaches, by adding signage and proximity to the East Corrimal off‐leash colour‐coded dune fencing at beaches to better identify area, and that Council restricts the use of the zone applied to that beach. rock platforms, seen in the rocky outcrops in the area. How can I have my say?  Sharkys, Little Austinmer and McCauleys off‐ The easiest way to provide your feedback on the leash beaches change from green to timed proposed changes is to complete the feedback survey, orange, reflecting the move away from available on Council’s website. The feedback survey is also beach off‐leash areas. available at Council libraries and community centres  Stanwell Park Beach, including north of the throughout the Wollongong area. lagoon, remain green on weekdays, and become a timed orange zone on weekends Council officers will be attending events throughout the and public holidays. This proposal reflects Wollongong area, with details to be confirmed via the high use of this small area, and ongoing Council’s website. community response to the current zoning arrangements. For further questions please call 4227 7111 or email [email protected]

We want to know what you think of You can have your say by: the proposed changes to the Dogs on Visiting www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/dogsonbeaches email [email protected] Beaches & Parks Policy. or fax to 02 4227 7580 Now’s the time to have your say… For more information please phone 4227 7111 Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 46 www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au Appendix C

Draft Survey

Dogs On Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 Feedback Form

Feedback must be received by XXXX, 2014

We would like to hear your thoughts on the Dogs On Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014. Please read the Policy and provide your feedback below.

1: What is your post code? ______

2: Are you a dog owner? □ Yes □ No

Complete the responses below using the following scale:

1 = Not at all 2 = Not very 3 = Neutral 4 = Very 5 = Extremely

3. How important is the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy to you? 1 2 3 4 5

4. Overall, how satisfied are you with the current access for Dogs on 1 2 3 4 5 Beaches category approach? 5. How satisfied are you with the education currently provided to 1 2 3 4 5 the community? 6. How satisfied are you with the current enforcement of the 1 2 3 4 5 policy?

7. Which green off‐leash area/s do you regularly use? ______

8. How often do you go there? □ Daily □ Weekly □ Monthly □ N/A

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page

47

9. Council is considering an option for an off‐leash area to cater for the growing West Dapto area. Do you support a dedicated off‐leash area in the West Dapto area: □ Yes □ No 10. Option 1:

Some members of the Coledale community believe that non‐compliance levels at Sharkys Beach Coledale warrant changing the beach to a red zone. Do you support it being changed to a red zone? □ Yes □ No

OR Option 2: If you are a user of Sharkys beach Coledale, do you agree with the beach remaining as a green zone? □ Yes □ No If not, please outline your reasons why: ______11. If you could make one important change to the policy what would that be? ______

Additional Comments: ______

Name: ______Address: ______Signature: ______

Information about your submission. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, your submission including any personal information such as your name and address, will be made available for public inspection. You may request, in the form of a statutory declaration, that Council suppress the personal information in your submission from public inspection, if you consider that the personal safety of any person would be affected if the information was not suppressed. Any such request will be dealt with in accordance with the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1988. You may also make an anonymous submission however if you choose to do so Council will be unable to contact you any further as to the outcome of your submission. Additionally, anonymous submissions will be considered however it should be noted that the lack of information as to the respondent’s place of living may affect Council’s consideration of the potential impact of the subject proposal. Note: If Council receives a submission from any person who is legally required to provide a disclosure of any reportable political donation and / or gift under section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council is legally required to publicly disclose all relevant details of the reportable political donation or gift onto Council's website. This will include the name and residential address of the person who provided the political donation or gift onto Council's website for full viewing by the general public.

We want to know what you think about the Not sure what to do? Contact our Customer Service Team on Dogs On Beaches & Parks Policy Review 2014 (02) 4227 7111 and they’ll point you in the right direction.

Now’s the time to have your say…

Z14/424719 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 ‐ Community Engagement Report Page 48

Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2014 1

REF: CM176/14 File: Z14/238941 ITEM 1 EXHIBITION OF AMENDED DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS POLICY

Council at its meeting on 14 October 2013 considered a Notice of Motion on ‘Inspection of Off Leash Areas’ and resolved, inter alia, that “The Dogs on Beaches policy be reviewed as soon as possible”. A Councillor Briefing was held in March 2014 and this report outlines a number of proposed changes to the policy based on feedback from the public and Council’s Rangers. Due to previous public interest and diverse views in the community, it is recommended that further community consultation be undertaken on the draft changes to the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy prior to final consideration by Council.

RECOMMENDATION 1 The proposed changes to the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days. 2 Following public exhibition a final draft policy be presented to Council for consideration.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Current Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy 2 Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy Review 2014 Feedback Form

REPORT AUTHORISATIONS Report of: Jeannie Nicol, Manager Regulation and Enforcement Authorised by: Andrew Carfield, Director Planning and Environment – Future City and Neighbourhoods

BACKGROUND The Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy current three (3) tier traffic light system utilises green for off-leash areas, orange for timed zones and red for banned areas. This system has been in place since 2010. The last modification to the Policy was on 13 November 2012 and related to the adjustment of the southern boundary for the East Corrimal off-leash area. On 31 March 2014 the Regulation & Enforcement Division provided a background to Councillors on the history and principles of the Policy and the current three (3) tier traffic light system as well as the recurring community non-compliance issues relating to the beaches.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2014 2

Feedback from Rangers Rangers indicate that the park off-leash areas appear to be operating well with minimum issues, based on complaints and observations and that current concerns relate to beaches only. With regard to the beaches, feedback indicates that the Rangers sight an increased number of people carrying and utilising bags to clean up after their dog and improved general awareness of responsibilities both inside and outside of the off-leash areas. They also indicate that there is continuing non-compliance with issues such as command control within the off-leash areas and a need for owners to be aware of their dog’s behavioural traits and take appropriate avoidance strategies to minimise altercations with other users. The Rangers believe that continued community tolerance is important given that there will always be an unpredictable aspect with dogs in off-leash areas. The community must appreciate that these areas are provided to them as a public recreational place and be encouraged to help facilitate a cultural change when non-compliance issues are apparent. Rangers also indicate poor habits such as collecting dog waste in bags and leaving the used bags for the return trip have decreased, specifically in the East Corrimal off-leash area. Less transition problems near the East Corrimal car park are occurring since the relocation of the southern boundary to the northern side of the Bellambi Lagoon. An additional area that can be considered for removal is the Bellambi Boat Harbour off- leash area located between the Bellambi Point Boat ramp and the Bellambi saltwater ocean pool. This area is a small area that was provided as the alternate only option at a time when East Corrimal was being considered for removal. As East Corrimal off-leash area remained as an off-leash area it is considered that the Bellambi Boat Harbour off-leash area could be removed and changed to a red zone given that significant amount of rocky outcrops are adjacent to the area and has been argued as being contradictory to Council’s general position of restricting access to rock platforms. Observations indicate that this area does not receive high usage. Stanwell Park Beach presents challenges due to the high number of users and relatively small area. However, this off-leash area was introduced following community feedback at the last review and it also relieves pressure from the Sharkeys Beach off-leash area. Rangers further indicated that a recent education campaign by the Rangers at northern beaches was extremely well received with Council being congratulated for putting the effort into education to help people understand the rules without punitive action. Continued education is supported by the Rangers.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2014 3

The following options would be beneficial to improving awareness: • improved signage, particularly in demarcation and transition zones will improve compliance rates; • the introduction of colour coding on adjacent sand dune enclosure fencing posts which will increase clarity when moving from one (1) zone into another; and • the transition areas on northern or southern sides of beaches could be improved and additional signs at areas proximate to rock platforms would assist with non- compliance rates. Feedback via Complaints Council has received 58 complaints from July 2012 (the commencement of the dogs on beaches complaint category) to 26 March 2014. These complaints covered a variety of non-compliance concerns. In relation to Penalty Notices, 115 Penalty Notices were issued from the period between 1 October 2012 and 31 September 2013, the majority being related to transition areas where people were outside the appropriate zone. An additional 18 customer requests were considered between 16 October 2013 and 26 March 2014. Of these 1 supported the off-leash areas in Little Austinmer, Sharkeys and McCauleys, 2 complaints concerning Coledale pool, 2 against unspecified, 11 complaints against Sharkeys Beach and 2 complaints against little Austinmer Beach. In relation to Sharkeys Beach Coledale, this beach remains an unflagged and unpatrolled beach. It has its own car park and although rocks under the water make it less suitable for swimming, it remains highly used by owners exercising their dogs. There have been continued requests by local community members to restrict dog access from Sharkeys Beach. These requests specifically note continued non- compliance issues by dog owners along with episodes of unwanted friendly behaviour. These submissions concerning Sharkeys Beach may be an indication that the beach should change status, however, it is believed that initially Council should place on exhibition a continuation of this beach as an off-leash beach. This opinion is based on previous community consultation about this beach which indicated that 41% (71% if petitions included) of the community wanted the beach to remain as an off-leash beach and 38% were opposed to it. It would be inappropriate to presume that the majority of the community would want to change the zone at this early stage of review. It is recommended that the community be asked this question in the feedback form. Some of the problems encountered by Rangers in the Sharkeys Beach area relate to the transition zone to the south, with people unaware they are entering or leaving the off-leash area due to not having a definite boundary. It is considered that if Sharkeys Beach area is to remain an off-leash zone that the zone immediately to the south, extending to the Headlands boat ramp, be made a red banned area. This will enable

Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2014 4

signage to be erected near the boat ramp end indicating no access for dogs and will assist in some transitional zone non-compliance. A debate about enforcement levels continues in relation to Dogs on Beaches. This review is seen as a good opportunity to gauge community perception of the current service level. The current service level is not overly officious but still includes a risk of being caught. Questions relating to this are included in the feedback questionnaire.

PROPOSAL The proposal is that Council initially consults with the community on the basis of minor adjustments to the Policy and that further consideration to changes be based on the community feedback received. The proposal is as follows: 1 All current off-leash Parks remain in their current form. These are: • Figtree Oval • Proud Park Figtree • Riley Park Helensburgh • Eleebana Reserve Unanderra • Koonawarra • King George V Park, Port Kembla 2 A new off-leash park be included as an off-leash area to cater for the West Dapto area. The location be Public Recreation (RE1) zone land and be considered via assessment of open space areas that will come into Council ownership. 3 All off-leash beaches to remain the same with the exception of: a The area between Sharkeys Beach off-leash area and the Headlands boat ramp car park to be altered from orange to red: and b Bellambi Boat Harbour off-leash area be altered from a green zone to a red zone. 4 Council improve transition areas by adding additional signage at Stanwell Park, Sharkeys, Little Austinmer, McCauleys, East Corrimal, MM, Port Kembla and Windang Beaches. 5 Visual colour code painting of existing dune timber fencing be undertaken to better demarcate transition zones. CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION Internal consultation has occurred with key Council divisions. Feedback was provided on several key issues - McCauleys Beach The Draft Plan of Management is still ongoing concerning formalised access ways which will assist with directing people and their dogs in appropriate directions and

Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2014 5

minimise current problems with dogs being in unwanted areas. In addition, recent feedback requests increased enforcement at McCauleys Beach. Options for off-leash areas in West Dapto No current sites have been considered suitable. Therefore Council will need to consider open space areas that will come into Council ownership for the use of a future dog off- leash park. This will relate to Public Recreation (RE1 zone) land and could be highlighted through either the Neighbourhood Planning or the Planning Proposal processes. Education of dog owners There is an ongoing need for education of owners regarding faeces management and keeping effective control of dogs in off-leash areas to prevent them from chasing sea birds. The exclusion of rocky headland locations from off-leash areas as this is the region where threatened birds such as sooty oystercatchers feed at low tide are supported. Stanwell Park Beach The current off-leash area is well utilised however, there is occasional conflict issues with current zones. It is not recommended that there is any expansion or further access to the beach as it may create issues for the Lifeguard Services Section and hang gliders. Advice recommends continuing with this off-leash area in its current form. Delineation of beach zones A concept of having colour coded posts to clearly designate areas would need to be supported with additional capital ($3,000) and operational funding ($1,000 per annum), as current budgets do not enable the initiative to be implemented. Bins and Dispensers The bins and dispensers are working well and that Council has provided 880 rolls of biodegradable bags per annum each year over the last two (2) years approximating $18,000 in cost. As each roll has 500 bags this equates to 440,000 Council supplied bags per annum being used by the community as well as an unknown amount of owner supplied bags.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT This report contributes to the delivery of Wollongong 2022 under the objective Community Goal No 5 “We are a healthy community in a liveable city”. It specifically addresses the Annual Plan 2014-15 Key Deliverables “5.5.2.4 Develop and implement public health, amenity and safety regulatory programs that assist in improving compliance with legislative requirements” which forms part of the Five Year Action contained within the Revised Delivery Program 2012-17.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2014 6

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Financial implications will result in relation to the production of an amended Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy brochure and the installation of additional signage and colour coding. It is expected that an amended brochure and additional signage could have a financial implication of approximately $10,000 however, a more accurate cost will be provided dependent on the feedback and the final changes required.

CONCLUSION All previous reviews of the Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy have resulted in a high level of community debate. This review recommends a number of changes to the existing Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy to address issues identified by public feedback and Council’s Rangers. Further community consultation on the proposed changes is recommended before Council considers the final draft policy.

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS

COUNCIL POLICY

BACKGROUND

Council has a legislative responsibility to provide a minimum of one off-leash area and a responsibility to provide effective and responsible care and management of dogs within our area.

It is estimated that there are 20 dogs per 100 people in Wollongong. With a population of approximately 190,000 people in Wollongong this rate equates to 38,000 dogs. As dog ownership is significant Council has a responsibility to ensure that access for these dogs on our public places is provided in a way that is consistent with their significance.

This policy has been developed after considerable community consultation (1st stage in 2009 and 2nd stage 2010), including specific Aboriginal consultation, an assessment of a comprehensive Review Of Environmental Factors (REF00499) and a peer review of the REF by LesryK Environmental Consultants. The Policy also included an assessment of the publication “Public Open Space and Dogs - A design and management guide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995” an accepted guide for local government in planning for dogs in public open space.

This policy will be reviewed from time to time as dog owner behaviour and community needs change.

OBJECTIVE

To have a Dogs on Beaches and Parks policy that:

• meets accepted planning guidelines • is balanced and generally meets the dog-owning and non dog-owning community’s needs • is valued by the community • defines areas for varyingDRAFT levels of dog access • supports the need for continued education and enforcement.

POLICY STATEMENT

The intent of this policy is to introduce a comprehensive policy that considers recommended Department of Local Government planning guidelines and establishes a best practice, balanced, approach to access for dogs in public places within our City.

Z11/7437

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES

1.0 Context/Background

Estimates in 2003 by the Companion Animals Council estimate dog ownership at 20 dogs per 100 people. With a population of approximately 200,000 people this rate for Wollongong equates to 40,000 dogs. There are currently some 26,000 dogs registered. The estimated ownership level of households for Wollongong is 37%.

In December 2002 Council approved the establishment of five off-leash areas for dogs in the Wollongong LGA. In 6 November 2006, after a city wide review, Council adopted additional off-leash areas, a total of 12 off-leash areas. Of these seven were beaches.

This policy has been triggered due to ongoing community feedback that Council’s previous dogs on beach access policies, in place since 2006, could be improved to benefit the needs of the community. The most significant public concerns since the implementation of the 2006 policy provisions can broadly be categorised as follows:

• The banning of dogs on beaches is harsh and unreasonable. Especially given that if dogs are allowed on beaches on-leash “effective dog control” problems are largely eliminated. • The Stanwell Park/Coalcliff area is not suitably provided with any access on the beach and inadequate off- leash areas are provided for the northern most suburbs. • Time sharing because of the lack of off-leash areas in some localities should be initiated. • Concern that Council has not sufficiently considered strategic guidelines that relate to access for dogs.

On 1 June 2009 a draft Dogs on Beaches Discussion Paper was presented to the Executive Management Committee(EMC). The EMC resolved to endorse the draft discussion paper for the purpose of internal consultation prior to public exhibition and report back to Council. Subsequently, on 17 June 2009 an internal presentation of the draft discussion paper occurred and several minor changes were made to the discussion paper.

2.0 Community Consultation

On 1st July 2009 the Dogs on Beaches Discussion Paper was placed on public exhibition for public comment until 6 August 2009. Council’s Ranger Services and Community Engagement Team worked together during this period and discussed the draft discussion paper at five (5) kiosks and seven (7) neighbourhood forums.

At the expiry of the exhibition process 870 submissions were received, 700 on the prepared feedback form and 170 open submissions. TwoDRAFT (2) petitions were also received, one with 60 signatories supporting the proposed change to Sharkeys beach as an orange zone and one with 492 signatories against the changes to Sharkeys preferring it to remain as an off-leash area.

In September 2010 after Council endorsed the majority of the policy a second round of community consultation was undertaken in relation to McCauley’s beach, East Corrimal beach (East Corrimal carpark to Bellambi Point) and a portion of Woonona beach. During this process a further 531 submissions and eight( 8) petitions were received.

In addition to the broad community consultation, a specific Aboriginal consultation process commenced which included meetings with the following Aboriginal groups/Individuals:

• Aunty Muriel Davis, Traditional owner, Wodi Wodi Elders Group • Uncle Allen Carriage, Traditional Owner, Wadi Wadi Coomaditchie • Uncle Reuben Brown, Traditional owner, KEJ

2

• Aboriginal Land Council • Sandon Point Tent Embassy (SPATE) • Wollongong City Council, Aboriginal Reference group • Wider Aboriginal Community – Onsite kiosk Bellambi Neighbourhood Centre

As a result of the community concern over the recommendations of Council’s original Review of Environmental factors (REF), an external consultant, LesryK Environmental Consultants was also engaged to review the document concerning the ecological values of these beaches and the recommended zonings.

2.1 Amendments to the original Policy

On 23 April 2012 Council requested a review of East Corrimal Beach due to concerns regarding conflict associated with the south end of East Corrimal beach off-leash area, adjacent to the carpark. A further community consultation process commenced concerning this area and a consultation report provided for Council consideration. On 26 November 2012 Council resolved to relocate the southern boundary of the off- leash area to the northern side of the Bellambi lagoon outlet and provide an open space area to allow access to the off-leash area at any time.

3.0 Current Legislation

The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires Council to provide at least one off-leash area for the Wollongong LGA. The form of the off-leash area is broad as indicated in section 13(6).

Section 13(6) states “A local authority can by order declare a public place to be an off-leash area. Such a declaration can be limited so as to apply during a particular period or periods of the day or to different periods of different days. However, there must at all times be at least one public place in the area of a local authority that is an off-leash area”.

Council is the authorised authority under the Companion Animals Act to manage companion animals. Dogs are classified as companion animals. A new principal object of the Companion Animal’s Act, Section 3A, is “to provide for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals”. Advice provided by the Manager Companion Animals Unit of the Division of Local Government indicate that this new objective was specifically included in the Act to ensure that councils are proactive in the proper management of companion animals under the Act. This increases the level of responsibility to provide education, enforcement and presence in the community. To understand if Council is effectively and responsibly managing, and therefore complying with legislative obligations, significant consideration has been given to the recent community survey results of the 2009-10 review in the development of this policy. With few exceptions, such as in off-leash areas, all dogs must remain on leash whilst in a public space. Section 13 (1) of the CAA states: “13 (1) A dog that is in a public place must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by (or secured DRAFTto) the person”. Because this is legislated across NSW no signage is required for this to be enforced.

Acting contrary to signage is dealt with under the Local Government Act 1993. Section 632 (1) LGAct states: “A person who, in a public place within the area of a council, fails to comply with the terms of a notice erected by the council is guilty of an offence”. Signage along access paths, in parks and off-leash rules signs are dealt with primarily under the Local Government Act.

4.0 Strategic Planning for Access by Dogs

4.1 Key principles

This policy considers current information relating to dogs in public places from “Public Open Space and Dogs - A design and management guide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson

3

Pty Ltd, August 1995”. This publication is accepted as the guide for local government in planning for dogs in public open space.

Jackson 1995 indicates that there are four principles that need to be established and considered when Council is considering access by dogs to public places and provide a sound basis for assessing the options for dogs' access to public open space. They are:

1 Provide formal recognition of the legitimacy of dog owners as being a deserving significant group of customers. 2 Understand more clearly the needs of both dogs and their owners. 3 Aim for integration of dogs with other public space users while recognising that separation is warranted in some instances. 4 Councils should apply a strategic approach that considers access on a comprehensive Council wide basis rather than on a piecemeal park by park basis.

The basic premise is that since within our community 37% of households have at least one dog, this population should have facilities consistent with their significance. The purpose of establishing off-leash areas, and other forms of access for dogs, is to provide locations where their dogs can be exercised and socialised with other dogs to reduce problems such as barking and other nuisance behaviour.

4.2 Main Access Options

The main dog access options are:

• On-leash areas • Off-leash areas • Banning • Different zones in one park/beach • Time share arrangements. Seasonal variations have also been used although mainly on beaches, eg dogs banned from November to April.

4.3 Selection of off-leash areas

What to look for in selection of off leash areas:

• Beaches/parks that can withstand free-running by dogs; • Beaches/parks that have natural boundaries; • Beaches/parks that meet the needs of dogs and their owners; • Beaches/parks that are not associated with established recreation interests; • Unique local conditions or opportunities. The areas to avoid in selectingDRAFT off-leash areas are: • Areas in the immediate vicinity of children's playgrounds- because of the relative unpredictability of children in unfamiliar situations; • Areas that attract high concentrations of people, eg popular beaches; • Picnic areas - the presence of food may provoke annoying behaviour; and • Botanic gardens or Environmental protection areas

4.4 Needs of dogs and owners

The most fundamental need for dogs is that they be taken out with their owner as much as possible. This enables them to experience the full range of benefits - exercise, training, socialisation, relief of pent-up energy as well as time and fun with their owner and other dogs. They don't need to run freely off the leash as

4

much as they need interaction with their owner and diversity of experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans).

Taking a dog out has been found to stimulate social interaction with other humans. Studies suggest that friendships are developed with others using the same route and that, on average, the conversations lasted longer than those with people without dogs. For some, particularly the elderly who live alone, taking a dog to the park may stimulate the only human contact that person has for an entire day.

Urban consolidation, with more high and medium density housing developments occurring, will place greater demands on public open space both for human needs and as an outlet for dogs.

4.5 Fitness, health and mental health

Harlock Jackson (1995) states that the health benefits of pet ownership are increasingly being recognised. Studies have revealed a beneficial effect of pet ownership on several of the classical factors for coronary heart disease and reported better physical and mental health than of non dog-owners.

Owning a dog encourages people to exercise and provide social opportunities particularly for the elderly and parents isolated at home during the day with small children. In an era when people feel increasingly threatened in public areas, being accompanied by a dog can also improve actual and perceived safety.

Pets can act as emotional substitutes for spouses, romantic partners and children. The studies have found that widows, single people and empty nesters are more likely to emphasise the companionship qualities of pets. Pets are often also obtained to help children learn responsibility and how to share. They show that if affection is given it will be returned.

4.6 Conflicts

The problems generally attributed to dogs and their owners whilst in public places include defecation, aggression to humans and other animals, non-compliance with leash laws and other nuisance behaviour.

Conflict is a matter of degree with its impacts ranging from threats to safety, to detracting from the quality of the recreation experience, to more simple annoyance. Even annoyance is a matter of degree - what is intolerable to one person may only annoy another and may not even be noticed by another.

The most common complaint about unremoved faecal deposits is the effect on aesthetics and the unpleasant experience of dodging droppings on footpaths and in parks.

Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and there is always a great deal of interest in the issue. Attacks can occur against humans, other dogs and other animals. Most dogs don't bite people or other dogs. Those that do are either frightened,DRAFT dominant, protective or possessive. Another argument for restricting dogs' access to public open space is that their presence (behaviour and smell) frightens away native wildlife.

The problems described above are either eliminated or reduced if dogs are confined to a leash. However leash laws of themselves raise another area of potential conflict - that of non-compliance. People don't comply for many reasons whether through protest, lack of awareness, laziness or because they think they can escape prosecution.

5.0 Three-Tier Approach

The three-tier approach (as in traffic lights) has been chosen as it is a suitable, easily understood, way in which to explain the three levels of access provided for the community along the foreshore and beaches. This

5

approach also enables a diagrammatic view of the access provisions along our coast. The green areas are off- leash, the orange areas are time share access areas and the red areas are dog prohibited (banned) areas.

5.1 Green zone - Off leash

The green off-leash zones have been provided to meet the needs of dog and dog owners given the significant population in our community. Their spread along our coastal area demonstrates that Council is considering good planning practice in accordance with Harlock Jackson (1995). The chosen off-leash areas substantially meet the desired selection criteria for off-leash zones

The following beaches declared Off-leash areas are:

• Perkins Beach, Windang (extending from Shellharbour Rd/Wattle Street beach walkway north to access way south of Port Kembla SLSC southern carpark • MM Beach, Port Kembla • Coniston Beach, Coniston south of Bank Street • Beach area directly east of Puckeys Estate Fairy Meadow ie walkway north of Fairy Creek lagoon to walkway south of playground at Fairy Meadow beach • Bellambi between Bellambi ramp and ocean pool • East Corrimal Beach from northern side of Bellambi Lagoon outlet to Bellambi Point • McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul • Little Austinmer Beach, Austinmer • Sharkey’s Beach, Coledale(from the car-park, south toward the rock outcrop • Stanwell Park beach, north of northern lagoon.

The following parks are also declared as off-leash areas:

• Figtree Oval, Figtree • Proud Park, Helensburgh • Riley Park, Unanderra • Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra • King George V Park, Port Kembla

5.2 Orange zone – timed access

The orange zone is a time sharing zone. This zone allows dogs on beaches on-leash only and only within certain times. This time sharing zone is an important zone that allows additional access for dogs and their owners in a controlled manner.

This zone is on-leash only as Council determined the need for this to minimize fauna and flora impact from unrestrained dogs is necessary. It also enables Council to have a higher degree of success in improving dog owner behaviour in relation to faeces management. Keeping dogs on leash also has the added benefit of reducing unwanted aggressiveDRAFT behaviour due to the increased control.

In these zones access on leash is allowed in summer before 9.00 am and after 6pm and in winter before 9.00 am and after 4.00 pm. To assist the community with a simple education analogy for summer this area is also known as flags up - no dogs/flags down – dogs on leash. The orange zone includes all beaches not designated as off-leash or banned areas.

Summer is defined as being from September school holidays to ANZAC day,( in line with lifeguard and SLSC patrols), and winter is the remainder of the year.

6

5.3 Red zone – banned

The red zone is an area where dogs are prohibited. The banned areas have been considered as a last resort to all other access provisions. These areas have been banned due to sites with sensitive environmental fauna and flora factors, high human population areas or for heritage reasons.

The banned areas for dogs are:

• All rock pools and ocean pools including Wombarra, Coledale, Austinmer, Bulli, Woonona, Bellambi, Towradgi, the old men’s baths (rock pools north of the continental pool) and the nun’s pools (northern headland of Wollongong City beach) rock pool areas • All rock platforms • Windang beach from Lake entrance to southern point of off-leash area • Port Kembla beach extending to south end of southern carpark • The entire Wollongong to North Wollongong beach area described as extending from Coniston off-leash area (east of Bank Street) beach to 500 metres north of Fairy Creek entrance North Wollongong (east of lower level of puckeys estate). This area includes Belmore Basin. • Austinmer beach • Coledale beach.

5.4 Other Public Places including Parks and Sportsfields

The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires all dogs to be under effective control by cord or leash while in a public place. Signage is not required to enforce this effective control provision as it is NSW state legislation applying throughout the State. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, all public road reserves and park areas allow access for dogs but they must be maintained on leash.

Signage is used to determine alternatives to on-leash including prohibition. With the exception of the current parks identified as off-leash areas other specific parks and sports fields have been determined to prohibit dogs. These areas will have No dogs allowed signage. The signage has been determined as appropriate in the past and will be enforced by Council under the Local Government Act 1993.

6.0 Faeces Management

The impact of Dog faeces has been assessed by a report titled “Review Of Environmental Factors REF 00499”undertaken by Wollongong City Council. The REF identifies a report prepared on behalf of the Australian Veterinary Association that concluded that although dog faeces may contain a variety of organisms that are pathogenic to humans the risk to human health does not justify the banning of dogs from those areas. Several factors detailed in the report indicated that the risk was low and that these risks are acceptable and can be almost eliminated with an effective education and enforcement strategy. An education and enforcement strategy are both part of this policy.

The need for bins and dispensersDRAFT has been highlighted as an essential requirement to reducing current faecal problems on the beach and along the bike track and pedestrian walking areas. Each off-leash area will have sufficient bins and dispensers and the bike track adjoining the orange zones will also be provided with bins and dispensers.

7.0 Enforcement

Enforcement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s current Enforcement Policy. Council currently also has a zero-tolerance enforcement policy for all companion animal offences. In the community feedback from the recent review 67% of the community supported a continuation of this policy and the REF also confirms the need for enforcement to manage compliance for zone requirements and faeces management. Council current Enforcement (SEINS) policy will be used by compliance officers in relation to the issuing and handling of penalty infringement notices and the representation process.

7

The Regulation and Enforcement Division commits to providing regular enforcement for dogs on public land, particularly enforcement on beaches. This will form part of a regular roster to patrol these areas.

To improve conditions for users of off-leash areas conditions of use, or rules, have been included on rules signage at each off-leash area. The following wordage exists on the rules signs:

All dogs within the designated off leash area must be supervised by a person. The person in charge of any dog within this area, (which has been provided as a facility for enjoyment by the community), MUST:

1. Be a competent person 16 years of age or over. 2. Be able to control the dog (by voice command or other means). 3. Carry a bag suitable for dog faeces. 4. Remove and place dog faeces in a suitable bag and dispose in an appropriate rubbish bin. 5. Not allow restricted breeds, or dogs declared as dangerous, to use this off leash area. 6. Not allow dogs suffering from contagious disease, skin irritation or parasitic infection to use this area. NOTE: THE OWNER OF A DOG IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE IF THE DOG ATTACKS A PERSON OR ANIMAL As well as educating users in regard to expectations of use, the rules sign can be enforced under the Local Government Act where users act contrary to the signage.

8.0 Signage/Education

Council will provide education to the community in the following manner:

• Website information • Media Releases at appropriate intervals or incident • Telephone caller waiting information • Development and use of an Off-leash brochure • Ranger in-field education • School education • Distribution of brochures and other education material to RSPCA and veterinary clinics • Promoting the policy at microchipping days

Additional education will be provided by signage in various forms. Signage has been recognized as particularly important to providing an effective policy and appropriate signage will be increased. Signage includes:

• Zone explanatory signage • Off-leash rules signage • Access path signage • Dogs prohibited signage • Directional signs DRAFT Enforcement staff will also recommend additional signage after the policy becomes operational where ongoing non compliance occurs and where signage should be increased for compliance and education purposes.

9.0 Risk of Aggressive Behaviour by Dogs

The various levels of access within the three zones have a varying degree of risk associated with it in relation to unwanted attention or aggressive behaviour. The issue of responsibility has arisen in the review and advice received by Council is that the Tort of Duty of Care arises under the common law of negligence and that Council has no responsibility as off-leash areas are allowed and specified under the Act.

Irrespective of this advice Council provides enforcement support to increase compliant behaviour in the dedicated zones. By providing clear access options and signage, the community is able to decide which area

8

they wish to frequent and assume the risk associated with that area. Education advice will also be provided to the community in relation to risk.

Council also has included conditions of use on each off-leash area that will reduce risk of aggressive behaviour to users. Council Rangers will enforce under the Local Government Act when dog owners fail to comply with these conditions.

Should an attack occur in a public place, including an off-leash area, Council will ensure that all matters are investigated and the appropriate enforcement action taken. Action can include issuing penalty infringement notices and/or having a dog declared a dangerous dog. Any injury or damage as a result of an attack is the responsibility of the attacked person to take legal action against the owner of the offending dog through the Court process.

10.0 Fauna Flora

The fauna and flora impacts of access by dogs on our beaches will be minimized by adopting the recommendations of REF00499 and adopting Plans of Management that includes recommendations of the LesryK Environmental Consutant’s report in relation to McCauleys Beach and East Corrimal beach. The red zone protect fauna and flora and the orange zone has been made on-leash only also to protect fauna and flora.

11.0 Aboriginal Heritage

The Sandon Point Aboriginal Place is a highly valued area for the Aboriginal Community and this site is known to contain at least one burial. This area is also the only declared 'Aboriginal Place' under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 in the Local Government Area. East Corrimal to Bellambi Point has potential to carry similar levels of significance and cultural concern as Sandon Point. Although this is not as well documented the traditional elders indicate that the significant areas relate to the western side of the dunal system.

These two sites are two of the key coastal areas of Aboriginal cultural significance in the LGA. Council will be undertaking its duty of care to ensure the protection of the cultural significance of the Aboriginal Place.

It is clear that members within the Aboriginal Community consulted in the development of this policy, (including several highly respected elders) do not feel that the banning of dogs is a necessary option and feel comfortable with the off leash area continuing despite the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage significance. Their advice is that Aboriginals and dogs have co-existed for generations and therefore is not an issue particularly on the sandy part of the beach.

The Aboriginal community’s concern is directed at the areas behind the beach, the dunal areas, and how people gain access to the beach through areas of Aboriginal significance. Plans of Management (PoM) will be completed which will implement protection measures to limit Aboriginal heritage disturbance by both people and dogs. The Aboriginal community request respect of these areas and the PoM will assist in educating the broader community of their cultural significance. DRAFT 12.0 Complaint Handling

The current customer service action request system will be used to register and monitor complaints in relation to dogs in public places. In addition, to improve the monitoring of the current system, a separate category has been installed within the system specific to off-leash areas. This information will be used in future reviews of this policy.

13.0 Review

Council will review this policy on a regular basis. The review will include public consultation and feedback, an assessment of complaints received, penalty infringement notices levels and areas, the level of enforcement resources, changes to dog owner behaviour and other significant impacts or legislative changes since the development of this policy.

9

14.0 Attachments: Maps of Zone areas

Legend

Off Leash

Timed On Leash Access

Dogs Banned

10

Map 1: Stanwell Park to Austinmer

11

Map 2: Coledale to Bellambi

12

Map 3: Woonona to North Wollongong

13

Map 4: North Wollongong to Coniston

14

Map 5: Port Kembla to Windang

15

Map 6: Primbee to Lake Illawarra

16

Map 7: Riley Park, Unanderra

17

Map 8: Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra

18

Map 9: Figtree Oval, Figtree

19

Map 10: King George V Park, Port Kembla

20

Map 11: Proud Park, Helensburgh

21

SUMMARY SHEET

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION Regulation and Enforcement

DATE ADOPTED ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL 26 November 2012

DATE OF PREVIOUS ADOPTION(S) 27 April 2011, 28 September 2010

DATE FOR REVIEW 27 April 2014

PREPARED BY Ranger Services Manager

AUTHORISED BY Director Environment and Planning

22

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL: [TO BE COMPLETED BY CORP SUPPORT]

BACKGROUND Council has a legislative responsibility to provide a minimum of one (1) off-leash area and a responsibility to provide effective and responsible care and management of dogs within our area. It is estimated that there are 20 dogs per 100 people in Wollongong. With a population of approximately 190,000 people in Wollongong this rate equates to 38,000 dogs. As at 16 October 2014 there are 49,760 dogs identified in Wollongong under the NSW Companion Animal Register. This level of ownership As dog ownership exceeds the State average and is a is significant overall number. Council has a responsibility to ensure that access for these dogs on our public places is provided in a way that is consistent with their significance. This pPolicy has been developed after considerable community consultation (1st stage in 2009, and 2nd stage 2010 and 2014), including specific Aboriginal consultation, an assessment of a comprehensive Review Of Environmental Factors (REF00499) and a peer review of the REF by LesryK Environmental Consultants. The Policy also included an assessment of the publication ‘Public Open Space and Dogs - A design and management guide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995’ an accepted guide for lLocal gGovernment in planning for dogs in public open space. This pPolicy will be reviewed from time to time as dog owner behaviour and community needs change and in accordance with Council’s normal review cycle.

OBJECTIVE The main objectives of this pPolicy are to have a Dogs on Beaches and Parks pPolicy that: – • meets accepted planning guidelines; • is balanced and generally meets the dog-owning and non dog-owning community’s needs; • is valued by the community; • defines areas for varying levels of dog access; and • supports the needprovides for continued education and enforcement.

POLICY STATEMENT This pPolicy aims to introduce a comprehensive pPolicy that considers recommended Office of Local Government planning guidelines and establishes a best practice, balanced, approach to access for dogs in public places within our City.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 1 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188 DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES

1 Context/Background It has been estimated by the Australian Companion Animal Council in 2010 that 36% of households own at least one (1) dog. They have also estimated that there are sixteen (16) dogs per hundred (100) people in NSW. With a population of approximately 201,000 people in Wollongong this rate equates to 32,160 dogs. As at 16 October 2014 there are 49,760 dogs identified in Wollongong under the NSW Companion Animal Register. As dog ownership exceeds the State average and is a significant number, Council has a responsibility to ensure that access for these dogs on our public places is provided in a way that is consistent with their significance. The Policy also included an assessment of the publication ‘Public Open Space and Dogs - A dDesign and mManagement gGuide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995’ an accepted guide for lLocal gGovernment in planning for dogs in public open space. Table 1 provides a history of Council decisions concerning off-leash areas within the Local Government Area with changes to existing off-leash areas identified in green. Table 1: History of Changes to Dogs on Beaches Policy/Off-Leash Areas

Year Changes and additions to Council’s Comments/ added Declared off-leash beaches/parks changes 2002 Coniston Beach, Coniston south of Bank Ban for dogs on all Street; other beaches East Corrimal Beach (east of the Bellambi Sewage Treatment Plant). Figtree Oval, Figtree; Riley Park, Unanderra; King George V Park, Port Kembla.

2006 Perkins Beach Windang (extending from No orange zone. SU23390 Shellharbour Rd/Wattle Street Beach Ban on beaches other 6/11/2006 walkway north to easterly projection of than off-leash areas. unnamed road) Ban on rock pools. Education and MM Beach, Port Kembla; enforcement considered important. East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal car park to Bellambi Point;

McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul for distance of 300 metres south of Corbett Ave;

Little Austinmer Beach, Austinmer;

Sharkey’s Beach, Coledale (from the car park, south toward the rock outcrop);

Proud Park, Helensburgh; Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra.

2010 Perkins Beach, Windang (extending from Orange zone Z10/125276 Shellharbour Road/Wattle Street Beach introduced due to 28/9/2010 walkway north to access way south of public demand after Port Kembla SLSC southern car park; consultation for additional access on Puckeys Beach area directly east of beaches. Puckeys Estate Fairy Meadow i.e. walkway north of Fairy Creek lagoon to Banned rock platforms

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 2 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

walkway south of playground at Fairy Meadow Beach; Red banned areas nominated from Bellambi between Bellambi ramp and Wollongong to North ocean pool; Wollongong Beaches, Austinmer Beach and East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal Coledale Beach. All car park to Bellambi Point; (temporarily remaining beaches are on hold) orange timed zones.

McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul, total length McCauley’s and East of beach; (temporarily on hold) Corrimal are on hold until Aboriginal and Environmental issues Stanwell Park Beach, north of northern are resolved. lagoon.

2011 East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal Both McCauley’s and Z11/103827 car park to Bellambi Point; East Corrimal continue 27/4/2011 as off-leash areas after McCauleys Beach, Thirroul, total length external REF and of beach Aboriginal consultation.

Woonona Beach considered for off- leash however resolved as orange zone.

2012 East Corrimal Beach from northern side Boundary changed to Z12/178219 of Bellambi Lagoon outlet to Bellambi northern side of 13/11/2012 Point. Bellambi lagoon to prevent conflicting use problems. 2014 Additional parks, including one in Dapto, Existing beaches and Z14/437392 locations yet to be determined parks remained the same due to overwhelming community support.

Estimates in 2003 by the Companion Animals Council estimate dog ownership at 20 dogs per 100 people. With a population of approximately 200,000 people this rate for Wollongong equates to 40,000 dogs. There are currently some 26,000 dogs registered. The estimated ownership level of households for Wollongong is 37%. In December 2002 Council approved the establishment of five off-leash areas for dogs in the Wollongong LGA. In 6 November 2006, after a city wide review, Council adopted additional off-leash areas, a total of 12 off-leash areas. Of these seven were beaches. This policy has been triggered due to ongoing community feedback that Council’s previous dogs on beach access policies, in place since 2006, could be improved to benefit the needs of the community. The most significant public concerns since the implementation of the 2006 policy provisions can broadly be categorised as follows: • The banning of dogs on beaches is harsh and unreasonable. Especially given that if dogs are allowed on beaches on-leash ‘effective dog control’ problems are largely eliminated; • The Stanwell Park/Coalcliff area is not suitably provided with any access on the beach and inadequate off-leash areas are provided for the northern most suburbs; Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 3 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

• Time sharing because of the lack of off-leash areas in some localities should be initiated; and • Concern that Council has not sufficiently considered strategic guidelines that relate to access for dogs. On 1 June 2009 a draft Dogs on Beaches Discussion Paper was presented to the Executive Management Committee (EMC). The EMC resolved to endorse the draft discussion paper for the purpose of internal consultation prior to public exhibition and report back to Council. Subsequently, on 17 June 2009 an internal presentation of the draft discussion paper occurred and several minor changes were made to the discussion paper.

2 Community Consultation

This pPolicy has been developed after considerable community consultation (2009, 2010 and 2014), an assessment of a comprehensive Review Of Environmental Factors (REF00499) and a peer review of the REF by LesryK Environmental Consultants. On 1 July 2009 the Dogs on Beaches Discussion Paper was placed on public exhibition for public comment until 6 August 2009. Council’s Ranger Services and Community Engagement Team worked together during this period and discussed the draft discussion paper at five (5) kiosks and seven (7) neighbourhood forums. At the expiry of the exhibition process 870 submissions were received, 700 on the prepared feedback form and 170 open submissions. Two (2) petitions were also received, one with 60 signatories supporting the proposed change to Sharkeys beach as an orange zone and one with 492 signatories against the changes to Sharkeys preferring it to remain as an off-leash area. In September 2010 after Council endorsed the majority of the policy a second round of community consultation was undertaken in relation to McCauley’s beach, East Corrimal beach (East Corrimal carpark to Bellambi Point) and a portion of Woonona beach. During this process a further 531 submissions and eight (8) petitions were received. In addition to the broad community consultation, a specific Aboriginal consultation process commenced which included meetings with the following Aboriginal groups/Individuals – • Aunty Muriel Davis, Traditional Owner, Wodi Wodi Elders Group • Uncle Allen Carriage, Traditional Owner, Wadi Wadi Coomaditchie • Uncle Reuben Brown, Traditional Owner, KEJ • Aboriginal Land Council • Sandon Point Tent Embassy (SPATE) • Wollongong City Council, Aboriginal Reference Group • Wider Aboriginal Community – Onsite kiosk Bellambi Neighbourhood Centre As a result of the community concern over the recommendations of Council’s original Review of Environmental factors (REF), an external consultant, LesryK Environmental Consultants was also engaged to review the document concerning the ecological values of these beaches and the recommended zonings.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 4 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

2.1 Amendments to the original Policy On 23 April 2012 Council requested a review of East Corrimal Beach due to concerns regarding conflict associated with the south end of East Corrimal beach off-leash area, adjacent to the carpark. A further community consultation process commenced concerning this area and a consultation report provided for Council consideration. On 26 November 2012 Council resolved to relocate the southern boundary of the off-leash area to the northern side of the Bellambi lagoon outlet and provide an open space area to allow access to the off-leash area at any time.

3 Current Legislation The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires Council to provide at least one (1) off-leash area for the Wollongong LGA. The form of the off-leash area is broad as indicated in section 13(6). Section 13(6) states “A local authority can by order declare a public place to be an off-leash area. Such a declaration can be limited so as to apply during a particular period or periods of the day or to different periods of different days. However, there must at all times be at least one public place in the area of a local authority that is an off-leash area”. Council is the authorised authority under the Companion Animals Act to manage companion animals. Dogs are classified as companion animals. A new principal object of the Companion Animals Act, Section 3A, is “to provide for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals”. Advice provided by the Manager Companion Animals Unit of the Office of Local Government indicate that this new objective was specifically included in the Act to ensure that cCouncils are proactive in the proper management of companion animals under the Act. This increases the level of responsibility to provide education, enforcement and presence in the community. To understand if Council is effectively and responsibly managing, and therefore complying with legislative obligations, significant consideration has been given to the recent community survey results of the 2009-10 review in the development of this pPolicy. With few exceptions, such as in off-leash areas, all dogs must remain on leash whilst in a public space. Section 13 (1) of the CAA states: “13 (1) A dog that is in a public place must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by (or secured to) the person”. Because this is legislated across NSW no signage is required for this to be enforced. Acting contrary to signage is dealt with under the Local Government Act 1993. Section 632 (1) LGAct states: “A person who, in a public place within the area of a cCouncil, fails to comply with the terms of a notice erected by the cCouncil is guilty of an offence”. Signage along access paths, in parks and off-leash rules signs are dealt with primarily under the Local Government Act.

4 Strategic Planning for Access by Dogs 4.1 Key Principles This policy considers current information relating to dogs in public places from ‘Public Open Space and Dogs - A dDesign and mManagement gGuide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995’. This publication is accepted as the guide for lLocal gGovernment in planning for dogs in public open space. Jackson 1995 indicates that there are four (4) principles that need to be established and considered when Council is considering access by dogs to public places and provides a sound basis for assessing the options for dogs’ access to public open space. They are: 1 Provide formal recognition of the legitimacy of dog owners as being a deserving significant group of customers; 2 Understand more clearly the needs of both dogs and their owners; 3 Aim for integration of dogs with other public space users while recognising that separation is warranted in some instances; and 4 Councils should apply a strategic approach that considers access on a comprehensive Council wide basis rather than on a piecemeal park by park basis. The basic premise is that since within our community 367% of households have at least one (1) dog, this population should have facilities consistent with their significance. The purpose of establishing off-leash areas, and other forms of access for dogs, is to provide locations where their dogs can be exercised and socialised with other dogs to reduce problems such as barking and other nuisance behaviour. Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 5 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

4.2 Main Access Options The main dog access options are: • On-leash areas; • Off-leash areas; • Banning; • Different zones in one (1) park/beach; and • Time share arrangements. Seasonal variations have also been used although mainly on beaches, eg dogs banned from November to April. 4.3 Selection of off-leash areas What to look for in selection of off-leash areas: • Beaches/parks that can withstand free-running by dogs; • Beaches/parks that have natural boundaries; • Beaches/parks that meet the needs of dogs and their owners; • Beaches/parks that are not associated with established recreation interests; and • Unique local conditions or opportunities. The areas to avoid in selecting off-leash areas are: • Areas in the immediate vicinity of children's playgrounds – because of the relative unpredictability of children in unfamiliar situations; • Areas that attract high concentrations of people, eg popular beaches; • Picnic areas – the presence of food may provoke annoying behaviour; and • Botanic gGardens or Environmental pProtection areas. 4.4 Needs of dogs and owners The most fundamental need for dogs is that they be taken out with their owner as much as possible. This enables them to experience the full range of benefits – exercise, training, socialisation, relief of pent-up energy as well as time and fun with their owner and other dogs. They don't need to run freely off the leash as much as they need interaction with their owner and diversity of experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans). Taking a dog out has been found to stimulate social interaction with other humans. Studies suggest that friendships are developed with others using the same route and that, on average, the conversations lasted longer than those with people without dogs. For some, particularly the elderly who live alone, taking a dog to the park may stimulate the only human contact that person has for an entire day. Urban consolidation, with more high and medium density housing developments occurring, will place greater demands on public open space both for human needs and as an outlet for dogs. 4.5 Fitness, health and mental health Harlock Jackson (1995) states that the health benefits of pet ownership is increasingly being recognised. Studies have revealed a beneficial effect of pet ownership on several of the classical factors for coronary heart disease and reported better physical and mental health than of non dog-owners. Owning a dog encourages people to exercise and provide social opportunities particularly for the elderly and parents isolated at home during the day with small children. In an era when people feel increasingly threatened in public areas, being accompanied by a dog can also improve actual and perceived safety. Pets can act as emotional substitutes for spouses, romantic partners and children. The studies have found that widows, single people and empty nesters are more likely to emphasise the companionship qualities of pets. Pets are often also obtained to help children learn responsibility and how to share. They show that if affection is given it will be returned. 4.6 Conflicts The problems generally attributed to dogs and their owners whilst in public places include defecation, aggression to humans and other animals, non-compliance with leash laws and other nuisance behaviour. Conflict is a matter of degree with its impacts ranging from threats to safety, to detracting from the quality of the recreation experience, to more simple annoyance. Even annoyance is a matter of degree – what is intolerable to one (1) person may only annoy another and may not even be noticed by another.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 6 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

The most common complaint about unremoved faecal deposits is the effect on aesthetics and the unpleasant experience of dodging droppings on footpaths and in parks. Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and there is always a great deal of interest in the issue. Attacks can occur against humans, other dogs and other animals. Most dogs don't bite people or other dogs. Those that do are either frightened, dominant, protective or possessive. Another argument for restricting dogs' access to public open space is that their presence (behaviour and smell) frightens away native wildlife. The problems described above are either eliminated or reduced if dogs are confined to a leash. However leash laws of themselves raise another area of potential conflict – that of non-compliance. People don't comply for many reasons whether through protest, lack of awareness, laziness or because they think they can escape prosecution.

5 Three-Tier Approach The three-tier approach (as in traffic lights) has been chosen as it is a suitable, easily understood way in which to explain the three (3) levels of access provided for the community along the foreshore and beaches. This approach also enables a diagrammatic view of the access provisions along our coast. The green areas are off-leash, the orange areas are time share access areas and the red areas are dog prohibited (banned) areas. 5.1 Green zone – off-leash The green off-leash zones have been provided to meet the needs of dogs and dog owners given the significant population in our community. Their spread along our coastal area demonstrates that Council is considering good planning practice in accordance with Harlock Jackson (1995). The chosen off-leash areas substantially meet the desired selection criteria for off-leash zones. The following beaches declared off-leash areas are: • Perkins Beach, Windang (extending from Shellharbour Road/Wattle Street beach walkway north to access way south of Port Kembla SLSC southern carpark; • MM Beach, Port Kembla; • Coniston Beach, Coniston south of Bank Street; • Beach area directly east of Puckeys Estate Fairy Meadow ie walkway north of Fairy Creek lagoon to walkway south of playground at Fairy Meadow Beach; • Bellambi between Bellambi ramp and ocean pool; • East Corrimal Beach from northern side of Bellambi Lagoon outlet to Bellambi Point; • McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul; • Little Austinmer Beach, Austinmer; • Sharkey’s Beach, Coledale(from the carpark, south toward the rock outcrop); and • Stanwell Park Beach, north of northern lagoon. The following parks are also declared as off-leash areas: • Figtree Oval, Figtree; • Proud Park, Helensburgh; • Riley Park, Unanderra; • Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra; and • King George V Park, Port Kembla. • 5.2 Orange zone – timed access The orange zone is a time sharing zone. This zone allows dogs on beaches on-leash only and only within certain times. This time sharing zone is an important zone that allows additional access for dogs and their owners in a controlled manner. This zone is on-leash only as Council determined the need for this to minimise fauna and flora impact from unrestrained dogs as necessary. It also enables Council to have a higher degree of success in improving dog owner behaviour in relation to faeces management. Keeping dogs on-leash also has the added benefit of reducing unwanted aggressive behaviour due to the increased control. In these zones access on-leash is allowed in summer before 9am and after 6pm and in winter before 9am and after 4pm. To assist the community with a simple education analogy for summer this area is also

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 7 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

known as flags up – no dogs/flags down – dogs on-leash. The orange zone includes all beaches not designated as off-leash or banned areas. Summer is defined as being from September school holidays to ANZAC day, (in line with lifeguard and SLSC patrols), and winter is the remainder of the year. 5.3 Red zone – banned The red zone is an area where dogs are prohibited. The banned areas have been considered as a last resort to all other access provisions. These areas have been banned due to sites with sensitive environmental fauna and flora factors, high human population areas or for heritage reasons. The banned areas for dogs are: • All rock pools and ocean pools including Wombarra, Coledale, Austinmer, Bulli, Woonona, Bellambi, Towradgi, the old men’s baths (rock pools north of the continental pool) and the nun’s pools (northern headland of Wollongong City Beach) rock pool areas; • All rock platforms; • Windang Beach from Lake entrance to southern point of off-leash area; • Port Kembla Beach extending to south end of southern carpark; • The entire Wollongong to North Wollongong Beach area described as extending from Coniston off- leash area (east of Bank Street) beach to 500 metres north of Fairy Creek entrance North Wollongong (east of lower level of Puckeys estate). This area includes Belmore Basin; • Austinmer Beach; and • Coledale Beach. 5.4 Other Public Places including Parks and Sports fields The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires all dogs to be under effective control by cord or leash while in a public place. Signage is not required to enforce this effective control provision as it is NSW sState lLegislation applying throughout the State. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, all public road reserves and park areas allow access for dogs but they must be maintained on-leash. Signage is used to determine alternatives to on-leash including prohibition. With the exception of the current parks identified as off-leash areas, other specific parks and sports fields have been determined to prohibit dogs. These areas will have No Dogs Allowed signage. The signage has been determined as appropriate in the past and will be enforced by Council under the Local Government Act 1993.

6 Faeces Management The impact of dog faeces has been assessed by a report titled ‘Review Of Environmental Factors REF 00499’ undertaken by Wollongong City Council. The REF identifies a report prepared on behalf of the Australian Veterinary Association that concluded that although dog faeces may contain a variety of organisms that are pathogenic to humans the risk to human health does not justify the banning of dogs from those areas. Several factors detailed in the report indicated that the risk was low and that these risks are acceptable and can be almost eliminated with an effective education and enforcement strategy. An education and enforcement strategy are both part of this pPolicy. The need for bins and dispensers has been highlighted as an essential requirement to reducing current faecal problems on the beach and along the bike track and pedestrian walking areas. Each off-leash area will have sufficient bins and dispensers and the bike track adjoining the orange zones will also be provided with bins and dispensers.

7 Enforcement Enforcement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s current Enforcement Policy and Ranger Services procedures. Council currently also has a zero-tolerance enforcement policy for all companion animal offences. In the community feedback from the recent review 67% of the community supported a continuation of this policy and tThe REF also confirms the need for enforcement to manage compliance for zone requirements and faeces management. Council’s current Enforcement (SEINS)Penalty Notice Review pPolicy will be used by cCompliance oOfficers in relation to the issuing and handling of pPenalty iInfringement nNotices and the representation process. The Regulation and Enforcement Division commits to providing regular enforcement for dogs on public land, particularly enforcement on beaches. This will form part of a regular roster to patrol these areas.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 8 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

To improve conditions for users of off-leash areas conditions of use, or rules, have been included on rules signage at each off-leash area. The following wordage exists on the rules signs: All dogs within the designated off-leash area must be supervised by a person. The person in charge of any dog within this area, (which has been provided as a facility for enjoyment by the community), MUST: 1. Be a competent person 16 years of age or over.; 2.1. Be able to control the dog (by voice command or other means);. 3.2. Carry a bag suitable for dog faeces;. 4.3. Remove and place dog faeces in a suitable bag and dispose in an appropriate rubbish bin;. 5.4. Not allow restricted breeds, or dogs declared as dangerous, to use this off-leash area;. 6.5. Not allow dogs suffering from contagious disease, skin irritation or parasitic infection to use this area. NOTE: THE OWNER OF A DOG IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE IF THE DOG ATTACKS A PERSON OR ANIMAL. As well as educating users in regard to expectations of use, the rules sign can be enforced under the Local Government Act where users act contrary to the signage.

8 Signage/Education Council will provide education to the community in the following manner: • Website information; • Media Releases at appropriate intervals or incident; • Telephone caller waiting information; • Development and use of an off-leash brochure; • Ranger in-field education; • School education; • Distribution of brochures and other education material to RSPCA and veterinary clinics; and • Promoting the pPolicy at microchipping days. Additional education will be provided by signage in various forms. Signage has been recognised as particularly important to providing an effective pPolicy and appropriate signage will be increased. Signage includes: • Zone explanatory signage; • Off-leash rules signage; • Access path signage; • Dogs prohibited signage; and • Directional signs. Enforcement staff will also recommend additional signage after the pPolicy becomes operational where ongoing non-compliance occurs and where signage should be increased for compliance and education purposes.

9 Risk of Aggressive Behaviour by Dogs The various levels of access within the three (3) zones have a varying degree of risk associated with it in relation to unwanted attention or aggressive behaviour. The issue of responsibility has arisen in the review and advice received by Council is that the Tort of Duty of Care arises under the common law of negligence and that Council has no responsibility as off-leash areas are allowed and specified under the Act. Irrespective of this advice Council provides enforcement support to increase compliant behaviour in the dedicated zones. By providing clear access options and signage, the community is able to decide which area they wish to frequent and assume the risk associated with that area. Education advice will also be provided to the community in relation to risk. Council also has included conditions of use on each off-leash area that will reduce risk of aggressive behaviour to users. Council Rangers will enforce under the Local Government Act when dog owners fail to comply with these conditions. Should an attack occur in a public place, including an off-leash area, Council will ensure that all matters are investigated and the appropriate enforcement action taken. Action can include issuing pPenalty iInfringement nNotices and/or having a dog declared a dangerous dog. Any injury or damage as a result of an attack is the

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 9 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

responsibility of the attacked person to take legal action against the owner of the offending dog through the Court process.

10 Fauna Flora The fauna and flora impacts of access by dogs on our beaches will be minimised by adopting the recommendations of REF00499 and adopting Plans of Management that includes recommendations of the LesryK Environmental Consultant’s report in relation to McCauley’s Beach and East Corrimal beach. The red zone protect fauna and flora and the orange zone has been made on-leash only also to protect fauna and flora.

11 Aboriginal Heritage The Sandon Point Aboriginal Place is a highly valued area for the Aboriginal Community and this site is known to contain at least one (1) burial. This area is also the only declared 'Aboriginal Place' under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 in the Local Government Area. East Corrimal to Bellambi Point has potential to carry similar levels of significance and cultural concern as Sandon Point. Although this is not as well documented the traditional elders indicate that the significant areas relate to the western side of the dunal system. These two (2) sites are two (2) of the key coastal areas of Aboriginal cultural significance in the LGA. Council will be undertaking its duty of care to ensure the protection of the cultural significance of the Aboriginal Place. It is clear that members within the Aboriginal Community consulted in the development of this pPolicy, (including several highly respected elders) do not feel that the banning of dogs is a necessary option and feel comfortable with the off-leash area continuing despite the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage significance. Their advice is that Aboriginals and dogs have co-existed for generations and therefore is not an issue particularly on the sandy part of the beach. The Aboriginal community’s concern is directed at the areas behind the beach, the dunal areas, and how people gain access to the beach through areas of Aboriginal significance. Plans of Management (PoM) will be completed which will implement protection measures to limit Aboriginal heritage disturbance by both people and dogs. The Aboriginal community request respect of these areas and the Plans of Management will assist in educating the broader community of their cultural significance.

12 Complaint Handling The current customer service action request system will be used to register and monitor complaints in relation to dogs in public places. In addition, to improve the monitoring of the current system, a separate category has been installed within the system specific to off-leash areas. This information will be used in future reviews of this pPolicy.

13 Review Council will review this pPolicy on a regular basis. The review will include public consultation and feedback, an assessment of complaints received, pPenalty iInfringement nNotices levels and areas, the level of enforcement resources, changes to dog owner behaviour and other significant impacts or lLegislative changes since the development of this pPolicy.

14 Attachments: Maps of Zone Areas Legend:

Off-Leash

Timed On-Leash Access

Dogs Banned

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 10 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 1: Stanwell Park to Austinmer

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 11 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 2: Coledale to Bellambi

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 12 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 3: Woonona to North Wollongong

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 13 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 4: North Wollongong to Coniston

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 14 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 5: Port Kembla to Windang

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 15 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 6: Primbee to Lake Illawarra

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 16 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 7: Riley Park, Unanderra

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 17 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 8: Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 18 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 9: Figtree Oval, Figtree

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 19 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 10: King George V Park, Port Kembla

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 20 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 11: Proud Park, Helensburgh

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 21 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

SUMMARY SHEET

Responsible Division Regulation and Enforcement

Date adopted by Council [To be inserted by Corporate Governance]

Date of previous adoptions 26 November 2012, 27 April 2011, 28 September 2010

Date of next review [List date - Not more than 3 years from adoption]

Prepared by Ranger Services Manager

Authorised by Director Planning and Environment

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 22 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL: [TO BE COMPLETED BY CORP SUPPORT]

BACKGROUND Council has a legislative responsibility to provide a minimum of one (1) off-leash area and a responsibility to provide effective and responsible care and management of dogs within our area. As at 16 October 2014 there are 49,760 dogs identified in Wollongong under the NSW Companion Animal Register. This level of ownership exceeds the State average and is a significant overall number. Council has a responsibility to ensure that access for these dogs on our public places is provided in a way that is consistent with their significance. This Policy has been developed after considerable community consultation (2009, 2010 and 2014), including specific Aboriginal consultation, an assessment of a comprehensive Review Of Environmental Factors (REF00499) and a peer review of the REF by LesryK Environmental Consultants. The Policy also included an assessment of the publication ‘Public Open Space and Dogs - A design and management guide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995’ an accepted guide for Local Government in planning for dogs in public open space. This Policy will be reviewed from time to time as dog owner behaviour and community needs change and in accordance with Council’s normal review cycle.

OBJECTIVE The main objectives of this Policy are to have a Dogs on Beaches and Parks Policy that: • meets accepted planning guidelines; • is balanced and generally meets the dog-owning and non dog-owning community’s needs; • is valued by the community; • defines areas for varying levels of dog access; and • provides for continued education and enforcement.

POLICY STATEMENT This Policy aims to introduce a comprehensive Policy that considers recommended Office of Local Government planning guidelines and establishes a best practice, balanced, approach to access for dogs in public places within our City.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 1 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188 DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES

1 Context/Background It has been estimated by the Australian Companion Animal Council in 2010 that 36% of households own at least one (1) dog. They have also estimated that there are sixteen (16) dogs per hundred (100) people in NSW. With a population of approximately 201,000 people in Wollongong this rate equates to 32,160 dogs. As at 16 October 2014 there are 49,760 dogs identified in Wollongong under the NSW Companion Animal Register. As dog ownership exceeds the State average and is a significant number, Council has a responsibility to ensure that access for these dogs on our public places is provided in a way that is consistent with their significance. The Policy also included an assessment of the publication ‘Public Open Space and Dogs - A Design and Management Guide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995’ an accepted guide for Local Government in planning for dogs in public open space. Table 1 provides a history of Council decisions concerning off-leash areas within the Local Government Area with changes to existing off-leash areas identified in green. Table 1: History of Changes to Dogs on Beaches Policy/Off-Leash Areas

Year Changes and additions to Council’s Comments/ added Declared off-leash beaches/parks changes 2002 Coniston Beach, Coniston south of Bank Ban for dogs on all Street; other beaches East Corrimal Beach (east of the Bellambi Sewage Treatment Plant). Figtree Oval, Figtree; Riley Park, Unanderra; King George V Park, Port Kembla.

2006 Perkins Beach Windang (extending from No orange zone. SU23390 Shellharbour Rd/Wattle Street Beach Ban on beaches other 6/11/2006 walkway north to easterly projection of than off-leash areas. unnamed road) Ban on rock pools. Education and MM Beach, Port Kembla; enforcement considered important. East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal car park to Bellambi Point;

McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul for distance of 300 metres south of Corbett Ave;

Little Austinmer Beach, Austinmer;

Sharkey’s Beach, Coledale (from the car park, south toward the rock outcrop);

Proud Park, Helensburgh; Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra.

2010 Perkins Beach, Windang (extending from Orange zone Z10/125276 Shellharbour Road/Wattle Street Beach introduced due to 28/9/2010 walkway north to access way south of public demand after Port Kembla SLSC southern car park; consultation for additional access on Puckeys Beach area directly east of beaches. Puckeys Estate Fairy Meadow i.e. walkway north of Fairy Creek lagoon to Banned rock platforms

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 2 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

walkway south of playground at Fairy Meadow Beach; Red banned areas nominated from Bellambi between Bellambi ramp and Wollongong to North ocean pool; Wollongong Beaches, Austinmer Beach and East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal Coledale Beach. All car park to Bellambi Point; (temporarily remaining beaches are on hold) orange timed zones.

McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul, total length McCauley’s and East of beach; (temporarily on hold) Corrimal are on hold until Aboriginal and Environmental issues Stanwell Park Beach, north of northern are resolved. lagoon.

2011 East Corrimal Beach from East Corrimal Both McCauley’s and Z11/103827 car park to Bellambi Point; East Corrimal continue 27/4/2011 as off-leash areas after McCauleys Beach, Thirroul, total length external REF and of beach Aboriginal consultation.

Woonona Beach considered for off- leash however resolved as orange zone.

2012 East Corrimal Beach from northern side Boundary changed to Z12/178219 of Bellambi Lagoon outlet to Bellambi northern side of 13/11/2012 Point. Bellambi lagoon to prevent conflicting use problems. 2014 Additional parks, including one in Dapto, Existing beaches and Z14/437392 locations yet to be determined parks remained the same due to overwhelming community support.

2 Community Consultation

This Policy has been developed after considerable community consultation (2009, 2010 and 2014), an assessment of a comprehensive Review Of Environmental Factors (REF00499) and a peer review of the REF by LesryK Environmental Consultants. In addition to the broad community consultation, a specific Aboriginal consultation process commenced which included meetings with the following Aboriginal groups/Individuals – • Aunty Muriel Davis, Traditional Owner, Wodi Wodi Elders Group • Uncle Allen Carriage, Traditional Owner, Wadi Wadi Coomaditchie • Uncle Reuben Brown, Traditional Owner, KEJ • Aboriginal Land Council • Sandon Point Tent Embassy (SPATE) • Wollongong City Council, Aboriginal Reference Group • Wider Aboriginal Community – Onsite kiosk Bellambi Neighbourhood Centre Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 3 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

3 Current Legislation The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires Council to provide at least one (1) off-leash area for the Wollongong LGA. The form of the off-leash area is broad as indicated in section 13(6). Section 13(6) states “A local authority can by order declare a public place to be an off-leash area. Such a declaration can be limited so as to apply during a particular period or periods of the day or to different periods of different days. However, there must at all times be at least one public place in the area of a local authority that is an off-leash area”. Council is the authorised authority under the Companion Animals Act to manage companion animals. Dogs are classified as companion animals. A new principal object of the Companion Animals Act, Section 3A, is “to provide for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals”. Advice provided by the Manager Companion Animals Unit of the Office of Local Government indicate that this new objective was specifically included in the Act to ensure that Councils are proactive in the proper management of companion animals under the Act. This increases the level of responsibility to provide education, enforcement and presence in the community. To understand if Council is effectively and responsibly managing, and therefore complying with legislative obligations, significant consideration has been given to the recent community survey results in the development of this Policy. With few exceptions, such as in off-leash areas, all dogs must remain on leash whilst in a public space. Section 13 (1) of the CAA states: “13 (1) A dog that is in a public place must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by (or secured to) the person”. Because this is legislated across NSW no signage is required for this to be enforced. Acting contrary to signage is dealt with under the Local Government Act 1993. Section 632 (1) LGAct states: “A person who, in a public place within the area of a Council, fails to comply with the terms of a notice erected by the Council is guilty of an offence”. Signage along access paths, in parks and off-leash rules signs are dealt with primarily under the Local Government Act.

4 Strategic Planning for Access by Dogs 4.1 Key Principles This policy considers current information relating to dogs in public places from ‘Public Open Space and Dogs - A Design and Management Guide for open space professionals and Local Government by Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, August 1995’. This publication is accepted as the guide for Local Government in planning for dogs in public open space. Jackson 1995 indicates that there are four (4) principles that need to be established and considered when Council is considering access by dogs to public places and provides a sound basis for assessing the options for dogs’ access to public open space. They are: 1 Provide formal recognition of the legitimacy of dog owners as being a deserving significant group of customers; 2 Understand more clearly the needs of both dogs and their owners; 3 Aim for integration of dogs with other public space users while recognising that separation is warranted in some instances; and 4 Councils should apply a strategic approach that considers access on a comprehensive Council wide basis rather than on a piecemeal park by park basis. The basic premise is that since within our community 36% of households have at least one (1) dog, this population should have facilities consistent with their significance. The purpose of establishing off-leash areas, and other forms of access for dogs, is to provide locations where their dogs can be exercised and socialised with other dogs to reduce problems such as barking and other nuisance behaviour. 4.2 Main Access Options The main dog access options are: • On-leash areas; • Off-leash areas;

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 4 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

• Banning; • Different zones in one (1) park/beach; and • Time share arrangements. Seasonal variations have also been used although mainly on beaches, eg dogs banned from November to April. 4.3 Selection of off-leash areas What to look for in selection of off-leash areas: • Beaches/parks that can withstand free-running by dogs; • Beaches/parks that have natural boundaries; • Beaches/parks that meet the needs of dogs and their owners; • Beaches/parks that are not associated with established recreation interests; and • Unique local conditions or opportunities. The areas to avoid in selecting off-leash areas are: • Areas in the immediate vicinity of children's playgrounds because of the relative unpredictability of children in unfamiliar situations; • Areas that attract high concentrations of people, eg popular beaches; • Picnic areas – the presence of food may provoke annoying behaviour; and • Botanic Gardens or Environmental Protection areas. 4.4 Needs of dogs and owners The most fundamental need for dogs is that they be taken out with their owner as much as possible. This enables them to experience the full range of benefits – exercise, training, socialisation, relief of pent-up energy as well as time and fun with their owner and other dogs. They don't need to run freely off the leash as much as they need interaction with their owner and diversity of experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans). Taking a dog out has been found to stimulate social interaction with other humans. Studies suggest that friendships are developed with others using the same route and that, on average, the conversations lasted longer than those with people without dogs. For some, particularly the elderly who live alone, taking a dog to the park may stimulate the only human contact that person has for an entire day. Urban consolidation, with more high and medium density housing developments occurring, will place greater demands on public open space both for human needs and as an outlet for dogs. 4.5 Fitness, health and mental health Harlock Jackson (1995) states that the health benefits of pet ownership is increasingly being recognised. Studies have revealed a beneficial effect of pet ownership on several of the classical factors for coronary heart disease and reported better physical and mental health than of non dog-owners. Owning a dog encourages people to exercise and provide social opportunities particularly for the elderly and parents isolated at home during the day with small children. In an era when people feel increasingly threatened in public areas, being accompanied by a dog can also improve actual and perceived safety. Pets can act as emotional substitutes for spouses, romantic partners and children. The studies have found that widows, single people and empty nesters are more likely to emphasise the companionship qualities of pets. Pets are often also obtained to help children learn responsibility and how to share. They show that if affection is given it will be returned. 4.6 Conflicts The problems generally attributed to dogs and their owners whilst in public places include defecation, aggression to humans and other animals, non-compliance with leash laws and other nuisance behaviour. Conflict is a matter of degree with its impacts ranging from threats to safety, to detracting from the quality of the recreation experience, to more simple annoyance. Even annoyance is a matter of degree – what is intolerable to one (1) person may only annoy another and may not even be noticed by another. The most common complaint about unremoved faecal deposits is the effect on aesthetics and the unpleasant experience of dodging droppings on footpaths and in parks. Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and there is always a great deal of interest in the issue. Attacks can occur against humans, other dogs and other animals. Most dogs don't bite people or other dogs. Those that do are either frightened, dominant, protective or possessive.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 5 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Another argument for restricting dogs' access to public open space is that their presence (behaviour and smell) frightens away native wildlife. The problems described above are either eliminated or reduced if dogs are confined to a leash. However leash laws of themselves raise another area of potential conflict – that of non-compliance. People don't comply for many reasons whether through protest, lack of awareness, laziness or because they think they can escape prosecution.

5 Three-Tier Approach The three-tier approach (as in traffic lights) has been chosen as it is a suitable, easily understood way in which to explain the three (3) levels of access provided for the community along the foreshore and beaches. This approach also enables a diagrammatic view of the access provisions along our coast. The green areas are off-leash, the orange areas are time share access areas and the red areas are dog prohibited (banned) areas. 5.1 Green zone – off-leash The green off-leash zones have been provided to meet the needs of dogs and dog owners given the significant population in our community. Their spread along our coastal area demonstrates that Council is considering good planning practice in accordance with Harlock Jackson (1995). The chosen off-leash areas substantially meet the desired selection criteria for off-leash zones. The following beaches declared off-leash areas are: • Perkins Beach, Windang (extending from Shellharbour Road/Wattle Street beach walkway north to access way south of Port Kembla SLSC southern carpark; • MM Beach, Port Kembla; • Coniston Beach, Coniston south of Bank Street; • Beach area directly east of Puckeys Estate Fairy Meadow ie walkway north of Fairy Creek lagoon to walkway south of playground at Fairy Meadow Beach; • Bellambi between Bellambi ramp and ocean pool; • East Corrimal Beach from northern side of Bellambi Lagoon outlet to Bellambi Point; • McCauley’s Beach, Thirroul; • Little Austinmer Beach, Austinmer; • Sharky’s Beach, Coledale(from the carpark, south toward the rock outcrop); and • Stanwell Park Beach, north of northern lagoon. The following parks are also declared as off-leash areas: • Figtree Oval, Figtree; • Proud Park, Helensburgh; • Riley Park, Unanderra; • Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra; and • King George V Park, Port Kembla. 5.2 Orange zone – timed access The orange zone is a time sharing zone. This zone allows dogs on beaches on-leash only and only within certain times. This time sharing zone is an important zone that allows additional access for dogs and their owners in a controlled manner. This zone is on-leash only as Council determined the need for this to minimise fauna and flora impact from unrestrained dogs as necessary. It also enables Council to have a higher degree of success in improving dog owner behaviour in relation to faeces management. Keeping dogs on-leash also has the added benefit of reducing unwanted aggressive behaviour due to the increased control. In these zones access on-leash is allowed in summer before 9am and after 6pm and in winter before 9am and after 4pm. To assist the community with a simple education analogy for summer this area is also known as flags up – no dogs/flags down – dogs on-leash. The orange zone includes all beaches not designated as off-leash or banned areas. Summer is defined as being from September school holidays to ANZAC day, (in line with lifeguard and SLSC patrols), and winter is the remainder of the year. 5.3 Red zone – banned

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 6 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

The red zone is an area where dogs are prohibited. The banned areas have been considered as a last resort to all other access provisions. These areas have been banned due to sites with sensitive environmental fauna and flora factors, high human population areas or for heritage reasons. The banned areas for dogs are: • All rock pools and ocean pools including Wombarra, Coledale, Austinmer, Bulli, Woonona, Bellambi, Towradgi, the old men’s baths (rock pools north of the continental pool) and the nun’s pools (northern headland of Wollongong City Beach) rock pool areas; • All rock platforms; • Windang Beach from Lake entrance to southern point of off-leash area; • Port Kembla Beach extending to south end of southern carpark; • The entire Wollongong to North Wollongong Beach area described as extending from Coniston off- leash area (east of Bank Street) beach to 500 metres north of Fairy Creek entrance North Wollongong (east of lower level of Puckeys estate). This area includes Belmore Basin; • Austinmer Beach; and • Coledale Beach. 5.4 Other Public Places including Parks and Sports fields The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires all dogs to be under effective control by cord or leash while in a public place. Signage is not required to enforce this effective control provision as it is NSW State Legislation applying throughout the State. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, all public road reserves and park areas allow access for dogs but they must be maintained on-leash. Signage is used to determine alternatives to on-leash including prohibition. With the exception of the current parks identified as off-leash areas, other specific parks and sports fields have been determined to prohibit dogs. These areas will have No Dogs Allowed signage. The signage has been determined as appropriate in the past and will be enforced by Council under the Local Government Act 1993.

6 Faeces Management The impact of dog faeces has been assessed by a report titled ‘Review Of Environmental Factors REF 00499’ undertaken by Wollongong City Council. The REF identifies a report prepared on behalf of the Australian Veterinary Association that concluded that although dog faeces may contain a variety of organisms that are pathogenic to humans the risk to human health does not justify the banning of dogs from those areas. Several factors detailed in the report indicated that the risk was low and that these risks are acceptable and can be almost eliminated with an effective education and enforcement strategy. An education and enforcement strategy are both part of this Policy. The need for bins and dispensers has been highlighted as an essential requirement to reducing current faecal problems on the beach and along the bike track and pedestrian walking areas. Each off-leash area will have sufficient bins and dispensers and the bike track adjoining the orange zones will also be provided with bins and dispensers.

7 Enforcement Enforcement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s current Enforcement Policy and Ranger Services procedures. The REF also confirms the need for enforcement to manage compliance for zone requirements and faeces management. Council’s current Penalty Notice Review Policy will be used by Compliance Officers in relation to the issuing and handling of Penalty Infringement Notices and the representation process. The Regulation and Enforcement Division commits to providing regular enforcement for dogs on public land, particularly enforcement on beaches. This will form part of a regular roster to patrol these areas. To improve conditions for users of off-leash areas conditions of use, or rules, have been included on rules signage at each off-leash area. The following wordage exists on the rules signs: All dogs within the designated off-leash area must be supervised by a person. The person in charge of any dog within this area, (which has been provided as a facility for enjoyment by the community), MUST: 1. Be a competent person 16 years of age or over.; Be able to control the dog (by voice command or other means); 2. Carry a bag suitable for dog faeces; 3. Remove and place dog faeces in a suitable bag and dispose in an appropriate rubbish bin; 4. Not allow restricted breeds, or dogs declared as dangerous, to use this off-leash area; 5. Not allow dogs suffering from contagious disease, skin irritation or parasitic infection to use this area. Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 7 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

NOTE: THE OWNER OF A DOG IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE IF THE DOG ATTACKS A PERSON OR ANIMAL. As well as educating users in regard to expectations of use, the rules sign can be enforced under the Local Government Act where users act contrary to the signage.

8 Signage/Education Council will provide education to the community in the following manner: • Website information; • Media Releases at appropriate intervals or incident; • Telephone caller waiting information; • Development and use of an off-leash brochure; • Ranger in-field education; • School education; • Distribution of brochures and other education material to RSPCA and veterinary clinics; and • Promoting the Policy at microchipping days. Additional education will be provided by signage in various forms. Signage has been recognised as particularly important to providing an effective Policy and appropriate signage will be increased. Signage includes: • Zone explanatory signage; • Off-leash rules signage; • Access path signage; • Dogs prohibited signage; and • Directional signs. Enforcement staff will also recommend additional signage after the Policy becomes operational where ongoing non-compliance occurs and where signage should be increased for compliance and education purposes.

9 Risk of Aggressive Behaviour by Dogs The various levels of access within the three (3) zones have a varying degree of risk associated with it in relation to unwanted attention or aggressive behaviour. The issue of responsibility has arisen in the review and advice received by Council is that the Tort of Duty of Care arises under the common law of negligence and that Council has no responsibility as off-leash areas are allowed and specified under the Act. Irrespective of this advice Council provides enforcement support to increase compliant behaviour in the dedicated zones. By providing clear access options and signage, the community is able to decide which area they wish to frequent and assume the risk associated with that area. Education advice will also be provided to the community in relation to risk. Council also has included conditions of use on each off-leash area that will reduce risk of aggressive behaviour to users. Council Rangers will enforce under the Local Government Act when dog owners fail to comply with these conditions. Should an attack occur in a public place, including an off-leash area, Council will ensure that all matters are investigated and the appropriate enforcement action taken. Action can include issuing Penalty Infringement Notices and/or having a dog declared a dangerous dog. Any injury or damage as a result of an attack is the responsibility of the attacked person to take legal action against the owner of the offending dog through the Court process.

10 Fauna Flora The fauna and flora impacts of access by dogs on our beaches will be minimised by adopting the recommendations of REF00499 and adopting Plans of Management that includes recommendations of the LesryK Environmental Consultant’s report in relation to McCauley’s Beach and East Corrimal beach. The red zone protect fauna and flora and the orange zone has been made on-leash only also to protect fauna and flora.

11 Aboriginal Heritage The Sandon Point Aboriginal Place is a highly valued area for the Aboriginal Community and this site is known to contain at least one (1) burial. This area is also the only declared 'Aboriginal Place' under the National

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 8 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 in the Local Government Area. East Corrimal to Bellambi Point has potential to carry similar levels of significance and cultural concern as Sandon Point. Although this is not as well documented the traditional elders indicate that the significant areas relate to the western side of the dunal system. These two (2) sites are two (2) of the key coastal areas of Aboriginal cultural significance in the LGA. Council will be undertaking its duty of care to ensure the protection of the cultural significance of the Aboriginal Place. It is clear that members within the Aboriginal Community consulted in the development of this Policy, (including several highly respected elders) do not feel that the banning of dogs is a necessary option and feel comfortable with the off-leash area continuing despite the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage significance. Their advice is that Aboriginals and dogs have co-existed for generations and therefore is not an issue particularly on the sandy part of the beach. The Aboriginal community’s concern is directed at the areas behind the beach, the dunal areas, and how people gain access to the beach through areas of Aboriginal significance. Plans of Management (PoM) will be completed which will implement protection measures to limit Aboriginal heritage disturbance by both people and dogs. The Aboriginal community request respect of these areas and the Plans of Management will assist in educating the broader community of their cultural significance.

12 Complaint Handling The current customer service action request system will be used to register and monitor complaints in relation to dogs in public places. In addition, to improve the monitoring of the current system, a separate category has been installed within the system specific to off-leash areas. This information will be used in future reviews of this Policy.

13 Review Council will review this Policy on a regular basis. The review will include public consultation and feedback, an assessment of complaints received, Penalty Infringement Notices levels and areas, the level of enforcement resources, changes to dog owner behaviour and other significant impacts or Legislative changes since the development of this Policy.

14 Attachments: Maps of Zone Areas Legend:

Off-Leash

Timed On-Leash Access

Dogs Banned

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 9 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 1: Stanwell Park to Austinmer

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 10 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 2: Coledale to Bellambi

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 11 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 3: Woonona to North Wollongong

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 12 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 4: North Wollongong to Coniston

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 13 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 5: Port Kembla to Windang

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 14 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 6: Primbee to Lake Illawarra

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 15 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 7: Riley Park, Unanderra

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 16 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 8: Eleebana Reserve, Koonawarra

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 17 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 9: Figtree Oval, Figtree

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 18 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 10: King George V Park, Port Kembla

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 19 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

Map 11: Proud Park, Helensburgh

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 20 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

DOGS ON BEACHES AND PARKS COUNCIL POLICY

SUMMARY SHEET

Responsible Division Regulation and Enforcement

Date adopted by Council [To be inserted by Corporate Governance]

Date of previous adoptions 26 November 2012, 27 April 2011, 28 September 2010

Date of next review [List date - Not more than 3 years from adoption]

Prepared by Ranger Services Manager

Authorised by Director Planning and Environment

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 21 (November 2014) Trim No: Z13/9188

Attachment 1 - Examples of Dog Parks

Shellharbour City Council (Flinders, NSW)

Shoalhaven City Council (Milton, NSW) City of Ryde (North Ryde, NSW)

City of Kingston (Kingston, VIC)

Whalon Lake (Naperville, USA)

Attachment 2 - Framework for the Design of Dog Parks, prepared by Paws4Play/LMH Consulting

E3

E3 Lot A Dp 106828 E4 E2 R2

RE2 E3 E2 RE2 Lot 21 Dp 1079478 R2

E4 E2 R2 E3 E4 E4 E4 E2 E2

E3

Lots 21 DP 1079478 and Lot A DP 106828 Drawn By: H. Jones 571 Avondale Road Avondale Date: 28 05 2014 μ Existing zoning map LEP 2009 Date of Aerial Photography: 2012 Subject Site E3 Environmental Management RU2 Rural Landscape Gis ref: A4P Rosehill Farm Huntley Colliery E4 Environmental Living SP2 Infrastructure LEP 2009.mxd E1 National Parks & Nature Reserves R1 Low Density Residential 0 600 E2 Environmental Conservation RE2 Private Recreation Meters

D E ROA AVOND AL

X

AVONDALE COLLIERY ROAD

AB

F

U1 U1

Lots 21 DP 1079478 and Lot A DP 106828 Drawn By: J Lewis 571 Avondale Road Avondale Date: 09.10. 2014 μ Proposed Minimum Lot Size (sq m) Date of Aerial Photography: 2012 Subject Site F 449 T 999 V 2999 Y 1.99ha AA 9.99 Gis ref: A4P Rosehill Farm ProposedMLS.mxd

Huntley Colliery J 549 U1 1499 W 3999 Z1 3.99ha AB 39.99ha 0 240 C 300 P 699 U2 1999 X 0.99ha Z2 4.99ha Meters E2

E2

E3 AVOND ALE ROAD

AVONDALE COLLIERY ROAD

RE2

E3

E2

E2 R2

E4 E4

RE2

E3

RU2

Lots 21 DP 1079478 and Lot A DP 106828 Drawn By: J Lewis 571 Avondale Road Avondale Date: 09.10. 2014 μ Proposed Zoning Date of Aerial Photography: 2012 Subject Site E3 Environmental Management RE2 Private Recreation Gis ref: A4P Rosehill Farm Huntley Colliery E4 Environmental Living RU2 Rural Landscape Proposedzoning.mxd E1 National Parks & Nature Reserves R1 Low Density Residential 0 240 E2 Environmental Conservation RE1 Public Recreation Meters SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

A summary of the three (3) submission received during preliminary consultation is provided below: State Government Authority Submissions No. Address Submission Comments SA1 Sydney The site is not located within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment Catchment and not adjacent to Sydney Catchment Authority Authority land in the Metropolitan Special Area. Therefore no comments to make on this proposal. SA2 Office of Comments from submission dated 1 April 2014: Environment and Does not support the planning proposal. Heritage The site contains areas of cleared land and two Threatened Ecological Communities; Illawarra Subtropical Rainforest and Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland and other native vegetation. Comments provided with regard to the guiding principles of the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan: - Increase in minimum lot size represents a significant increase in lot density; - Development has not demonstrated it contributes to the improved management of adjoining high conservation lands; - The proposed lots will not allow for provision of vegetated buffers; - Proposal appears to encroach on prescribed 40m riparian buffers; - Some level of clearing is likely to meet asset protection zone requirements and this is likely to lead to an impact on TECs; and - Access to lots 7, 8 and 10 is likely to require vegetation removal for construction. The proposal presents a significant deviation from goals of IESMP, current planning controls and escarpment lands. Without a long term and secure commitment to active management the proposal is likely to reduce the condition of TEC vegetation on the site. The proposal is likely to set a precedent for other E3 Environmental Management zoned lands in the Illawarra Escarpment foothills and reduce the intent of the zone objectives. Significant amendments to minimum lot size should be assessed as part of a strategic landscape study rather than one off proposals. Comments from submission dated 10 June 2014: Vegetation Management Plans are enforced for a short term period of two to five years and the proposed implementation timeframe is not deemed to provide adequate long term enhancement to the Illawarra Escarpment. A long term commitment such as a Biobanking agreement would be the preferred mechanism. Riparian corridor buffer widths are to align with Chapter E23 of WDCP 2009; 40m buffer in addition to 10m vegetated buffer. Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014 proposes amendments that would enable clearing of any vegetation (except trees or part of trees) within 10m up to 50m from an external wall that is part of a residential development. Should such an amendment come into effect it is likely the VMP will not be able to be enforced. SA3 Rural Fire Service Does not object to the planning proposal subject to the provision of any future development compling with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and AS3959 2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas. Careful consideration given to future road access to any lots that do not have frontage to an existing public road. The bushfire assessment report appears to identify appropriate building sites to support asset protection zones and is generally within cleared areas of the site. AVONDALE ROAD

ONDALE COLLIERY ROAD AV

Lots 21 DP 1079478 and Lot A DP 106828 Drawn By: J Lewis 571 Avondale Road Avondale Date: 09.10. 2014 Escarpment MP Attributes Date of Aerial Photography: 2012 Subject Site CORE Gis ref: A4P Rosehill Farm EscAttributes2.mxd

Huntley Colliery ESCARPMENT INTERFACE 0 240 BIOPHYSICAL SUPPORT LANDSCAPE SUPPORT Meters Lilyvale

Planning Proposal N Lot 1 DP 652830

Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

030 Subject site Meters Scale 1:1500 @ A3 Map Identification number: Lilyvale_PlanningProposal_Aerial.mxd 1 E1

901263

1 1 DP65283

0 D P E3 LADY WAKEHURST DRIVE Lilyvale 335557

SP2

POR 22

E1

Zones

E1 National Parks & Nature Reserves E3 Environmental Management SP2 Infrastructure

Planning Proposal N Lot 1 DP 652830

Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Existing Zoning 0 30

Meters

Subject site Scale 1:1500 @ A3 Map Identification number: Lilyvale_PlanningProposal_ExistingZoning.mxd 1

90126 E1 3

Proposed Rezoning to E3 Proposed maximum building height 9m Proposed minimum lot size 39.99ha

1 1 DP6 52830 E3 LADY WAKEHURST DRIVE 335557 Lilyvale

SP2

E1

Zones

E1 National Parks & Nature Reserves E3 Environmental Management SP2 Infrastructure

Planning Proposal N Lot 1 DP 652830

Lady Wakehurst Drive, Lilyvale Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Proposed Zoning 0 30

Meters

Subject site Scale 1:1500 @ A3 Map Identification number: Lilyvale_PlanningProposal_PropZoning.mxd AB AB LADY WAKEHURST DRIVE

Lots 1 DP 652830 Drawn By: H. Jones Lady Wakehurst Drive Lilyvale Date: 30.10. 2014 Proposed Minimum Lot Size (sq m) Date of Aerial Photography: 2012 Lilyval_Subject_Land 449 999 2999 1.99ha 9.99 F T V Y AA Gis ref: A4P Lilyvale J 549 U1 1499 W 3999 Z1 3.99ha AB 39.99ha ProposedMLS.mxd 0 40

C 300 P 699 U2 1999 X 0.99ha Z2 4.99ha Meters VE EHURST DRI 9m LADY WAK

Lots 1 DP 652830 Drawn By: H. Jones Lady Wakehurst Drive Lilyvale Date: 30.10. 2014 Proposed Height of Building (sq m) Date of Aerial Photography: 2012 8 12 16 30 60 120 Gis ref: A4P Lilyvale ProposedHOB.mxd 9 13 20 32 65 Lilyval_Subject_Land 0 40

11 15 24 48 80 Meters

Frequently Asked Questions Proposal to Rename the Suburb of Penrose

All feedback must be received by Sunday, 4 May, 2014

The Geographical Names Board NSW (GNB) is the Option B: Merge the existing suburb of Penrose into the NSW Government authority for assigning and adjoining suburbs of Cleveland, Avondale and Marshall recording names of localities including suburb names. Mount (Map Attached: Option B). The GNB has requested that Wollongong City Council engage with residents in Penrose to consider a name change for the suburb because it conflicts This would place the rural properties fronting Marshall with a suburb of the same name in the Wingecarribee Mount Road into the suburb of Marshall Mount, consistent Shire. with the proposed future development of the Yallah / Marshall Mount precinct. A new boundary would run west Penrose in the Southern Highlands was established from Huntley Road / Marshall Mount Road intersection as the name of several structural entities including a along a natural ridge line to meet the Avondale boundary. railway station, school, village and forest. The northern section of Penrose would be merged into Penrose in the Illawarra obtained its name from its Cleveland. The historical link to the name would be historic link with Penrose Farm. The historic retained through Penrose Villa, Penrose Park and farmhouse still exists, but lies outside Penrose in the Penrose Drive. adjoining suburb of Dapto. Can I propose an alternative solution? Why is a name change required? All community feedback will be considered in developing a The GNB has asked Council to engage the response to the GNB. Only proposals that conform to GNB community in finding a solution to the problems Guidelines will be put forward as possible solutions. associated with two suburbs in close proximity with the same name. This is creating confusion with deliveries and postal services, and has the potential How is a final determination made? for emergency service vehicles to be dispatched to Council will review the community feedback and may the wrong destination. propose one or more solutions to the GNB for

consideration. The GNB will consider the proposal along Feedback from the community will be used by Council to propose a solution to the GNB. The GNB with the supporting evidence and the community provides Guidelines for determining place names and engagement outcome. suburb boundaries at: www.gnb.nsw.gov.au. If approved, the GNB will advertise the adopted proposal, What are some possible options? providing a further opportunity for community input before Option A: Propose a prefix or suffix to the name the GNB makes a final determination. The full process is “Penrose” (example: Penrose Meadows) or suggest a outlined in the GNB Guidelines. new name for the suburb. It could reflect a natural

feature, have Aboriginal or historical significance, or other links to the current suburb location.

www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au

What happens if the suburb name or the boundary changes? Council will notify the owners of all properties affected by the determination. The existing house numbers and road names will not be affected, only the suburb name would change.

Council will make any required changes to signposting and maps and will modify its own records including rates information. Council will also notify the following:-

- Australia Post - Emergency Services - Utility and Telecommunication Services - Australian Electoral Commission - Valuer General’s Office NSW

Property owners will need to notify other agencies or persons of the change to their address.

How can I have my say? The easiest way to provide your feedback on the proposal to rename the suburb of Penrose is to complete a feedback form available on this website, or from Wollongong and Dapto libraries. For further questions please call 4227 7060 or email: [email protected]

We want to know what you think You can have your say by: Visiting www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/council/haveyoursay of the proposal. email [email protected] or fax 02 4227 7580 Now’s the time to have your say… For more information please phone 4227 7060

www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au

Proposal to Rename the Suburb of Penrose

Feedback must be received by 4 May, 2014

We would like to hear your thoughts on the proposal to rename the suburb of Penrose. Please note that all suggestions must meet the Geographical Names Board NSW Guidelines. The guidelines can be found at www.gnb.nsw.gov.au

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions sheet and provide your comments in the space below.

______

______

______PLEASE TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF - THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL

Question 4: In which suburb do you live? ______

□ □ Question 5: Your gender Female Male

Question 6: Your age (please tick category)

□ <18 years □ 19-25 years □ 26-35 years □ 36-45 years

□ 46-55 years □ 56-65 years □ 66 -75 years □ 76+

If you would like a reply to your feedback please fill in the section below. Name: Address: Suburb: Postcode: Telephone: Email:

Please return this feedback to Community Engagement Unit Telephone: 02 4227-7060 Organisational Improvement & Strategy Facsimile: 02 4227-7580 Wollongong City Council Email: [email protected] Locked Bag 8821 Wollongong NSW 2500

Information about your submission. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, your submission including any personal information such as your name and address, will be made available for public inspection. You may request, in the form of a statutory declaration, that Council suppress the personal information in your submission from public inspection, if you consider that the personal safety of any person would be affected if the information was not suppressed. Any such request will be dealt with in accordance with the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1988. You may also make an anonymous submission however if you choose to do so Council will be unable to contact you any further as to the outcome of your submission. Additionally, anonymous submissions will be considered however it should be noted that the lack of information as to the respondent’s place of living may affect Council’s consideration of the potential impact of the subject proposal. Note: If Council receives a submission from any person who is legally required to provide a disclosure of any reportable political donation and / or gift under section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council is legally required to publicly disclose all relevant details of the reportable political donation or gift onto Council's website. This will include the name and residential address of the person who provided the political donation or gift onto Council's website for full viewing by the general public.

We want to know what you think about the proposal to rename the suburb of Penrose.

Now’s the time to have your say… Not sure what to do? Scan the QR code or contact our Customer Service Team on (02) 4227 7111 and they’ll point you in the right direction.

Community Engagement - Proposed re-naming of Penrose

Table 1: Summary of new suburb name proposals

Proposed in n Proposed Name Submissions Reasons/Evidence provided Response of WCC Avondale Road di-sects Existing suburb - merge Avondale 11 suburb boundaries Existing suburb - merge boundaries - railway forms Area previously commonly logical boundary and GNB Dapto 6 known as Dapto may not support GNB guidelines - may not be related to distinct Retain historic link; viewed as natural feature, needs Penrose Valley 5 valley from Avondale Rd consultation Penrose Vale, Variation on Valley - as Penrosevale 4 Retain historic link above Probably acceptable to GNB if supported by Penrose Meadow(s) 4 Retain historic link community Existing suburb - merge Cleveland 4 Adjacent suburb boundaries Clash with local park name & GNB assigned name to reserve in Penrith, may be acceptable to GNB if Penrose Park 3 Retain historic link supported by community Probably acceptable to Retain historic link; as viewed GNB if supported by Penrose Gardens 3 from Avondale Rd community Probably acceptable to Like New Berrima in Sth GNB if supported by New Penrose 3 Highlands community Unclear if acceptable to Penrose Estate 3 Commonly know as GNB, needs consultation GNB guidelines - not related to natural feature, Similar to nearby Mt Brown, unlikely to be acceptable Penrose Hill, Heights 3 Marshall Mount to GNB No specific association to suburb, otherwise complies with GNB Elouera (aboriginal) 2 aboriginal meaning guidelines GNB guidelines - compass points not favoured, unlikely to be acceptable South Dapto 1 none to GNB Proposed in n Proposed Name Submissions Reasons/Evidence provided Response of WCC GNB guidelines - compass points not favoured, unlikely to be acceptable East Avondale 1 none to GNB May meet GNB guidelines, Henry Osborne, original land needs more evidence of Osborne 1 owner link GNB guidelines - not Mount Penrose, related to natural feature, Upper Penrose, unlikely to be acceptable Penrose Range 1 none to GNB GNB guidelines - not related to natural feature, assigned to a gully near Lithgow, unlikely to be Penrose Glen, Gully 1 Means valley acceptable to GNB Penrose Flats 1 none Penrose Field 1 none GNB guidelines - refers to point locality, Penrose assigned to village in Wingecarribeee, unlikely to Penrose Village 1 none be acceptable to GNB Penroseville 1 incorporates Penrose name Penrosia 1 incorporates Penrose name Rosedale, Rosebrook, Rosemount, Mountdale, Penavon, Roseavon, Rosevilla, Pendale, Avonrose 1 none Penrose Orana , Cooinda 1 none Used for street types, Penrose Place, unlikely to be acceptable Penrose Close 1 none to GNB St Penrose, La Penrose 1 none GNB guidelines - duplicate nearby suburb Huntley, unlikely to be acceptable Huntley Vale 1 none to GNB GNB guidelines - not Penrose Woods, related to natural feature, Grove 1 none unlikely to be acceptable Penrose Haven none

PENROSE RENAMING PROPOSAL ENGAGEMENT REPORT Penrose Renaming Proposal

October 2014

Penrose Renaming Proposal - 2014 Community Engagement Report Page 1

Executive Summary The Geographical Names Board NSW (GNB) has requested that Wollongong City Council engage with residents in Penrose to consider a name change for the suburb of Penrose because it conflicts with a suburb with the same name in the Shire of Wingecarribee.

Council has reviewed the community feedback and will provide this feedback to the GNB for consideration. Online and print media notifications, along with a letter outlining the proposal to stakeholders, were the key engagement techniques used during the exhibition period.

The first round of community engagement occurred in April and early May of 2014. A Frequently Asked Questions document was made available on Council’s engagement website and residents were contacted and asked to provide feedback on the following options.

Option A: Retaining the reference to Penrose by adding to it or by choosing an alternate name.

Option B: Merging the current suburb of Penrose into an adjoining suburb.

The information and an opportunity to provide feedback were exhibited on the WCC website and in local advertisements over a four week period. During this period N=51 submissions were received, with N=48 of those identifying as being residents of Penrose.

In August and September 2014 letters were sent to N=619 property addresses in Penrose asking residents to further consider six of the options that arose from the first round of feedback (See Attachment A - Name change for Penrose Letter to residents and postcard). Residents were asked to vote for their favourite option so the results could be sent to the GNB for consideration. There were N=239 postcards returned. Results were as follows:

Penrose Valley N=49

Penrose Meadows N=6

Penrosevale N=21

Avondale N=99

Cleveland N=11

Dapto N=46

None of the above N=7

Avondale was the most favoured option.

Penrose Renaming Proposal - 2014 Community Engagement Report Page 2

ATTACHMENT A «Owner» «StreetNoandAddress» «SuburbStatePostcode»

Dear NAME CHANGE FOR THE SUBURB OF PENROSE

The Geographical Names Board NSW (GNB) requested Wollongong City Council to engage with residents in Penrose to consider a name change for the suburb because it conflicts with a suburb of the same name in the Wingecarribee Shire. Your property is one of those that would be affected by this proposed change.

In April and early May 2014 Wollongong City Council sought community feedback on the following options.

Option A: Retaining the reference to Penrose by adding to it or by choosing an alternate name.

Option B: Merging the current suburb of Penrose into an adjoining suburb.

Letters were sent to 619 property addresses in Penrose asking residents for feedback on the options listed above. The information and an opportunity to provide feedback were exhibited on the WCC website and in local advertisements over a four week period. During this period 51 submissions were received, with 48 of those identifying as being residents of Penrose.

Council would like to thank all residents who took the time to provide this valuable feedback. The enclosed postcard shows the name options that were most frequently put forward in the submissions. As the owner and/or resident of a property affected, we would like to provide you with the opportunity to consider these options and to have your say by ticking your preferred option. Please select only one option as the choice you would most like to see implemented, and send the postcard back to Wollongong City Council. This information will act as a guide for Council in providing feedback to the GNB on the proposal to change the suburb name.

Postcards must be received by Wednesday, 10 September, 2014. If you have any enquiries about this stage of the process please contact Council at: [email protected] or ph: 4227 7111.

This letter is authorised by

Kim Batley Infrastructure Systems & Support Manager Wollongong City Council

Penrose Renaming Proposal - 2014 Community Engagement Report Page 3

Penrose Renaming Proposal - 2014 Community Engagement Report Page 4

Wollongong Section 94A

Development Contributions Plan (2014) Wollongong Section 94A

Development Contributions Plan (2014)

Document Control Document ID: Wollongong City Council Section 94A Plan Rev No Date Revision Details Typist Author Verifier Approver

1 March 2006 Draft for exhibition (2006 version) ZS ZS ZS ZS 2 June 2006 In force (2006 version) ZS ZS ZS ZS 3 December 2006 Ministers Direction under S94E added ZSZSZSZS 4 May 2007 Draft for exhibition (2007 version) ZS ZS ZS ZS 5 June 2007 In force (2007 version) ZS ZS ZS ZS 6 May 2008 Draft for exhibition (2008 version) DG DG DG DG 7 24 July 2008 In force (2008 version) DG DG DG DG 8 28 July 2009 Draft for exhibition (2009 version) DG DG DG DG 9 27 October 2009 Endorsed by Council DG DG DG DG 10 4 November 2009 In force (2009 version) DG DG DG DG 11 27 July 2010 Draft for exhibition (2010 version) DH DH JB RC 12 6 Sept 2010 In force (2010 version) DH DH DG DG 13 3 June 2011 Draft for exhibition (2011 version) DH DH DG DG 14 26 July 2011 In force (2011 version) DH DH DG DG 15 2 August 2012 Draft for exhibition (2012 version) DH DH DG DG 16 8 December 2012 In force (2012 version) DH DH DG DG 17 8 April 2013 Draft for exhibition (2013 version) DH DH DG DG 18 16 September 2013 In force (2013 version) DH DH DG DG 19 9 Sept 2014 Draft for exhibition (2014 version) DG DG DG DG 20 3 Nov 2014 In force (2014 version) DG DG DG DG Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 Table of Contents

Section Page

Part A - Summary Schedules 2 1. Schedule 1 - Summary of levy 2 2. Schedule 2 – Works schedule summary 3 Part B – Expected Development and Demand for Public Facilities 3 3. Expected Development and Demand for Public Facilities 3 Part C – Administration and Operation of the Plan 4 4. What is the name of this contributions plan? 4 5. Where does this plan apply? 4 6. What is the purpose of this contributions plan? 4 7. When does this development contributions plan commence? 4 8. Relationship with other development contribution plans 4 9. What does Section 94A of the Act provide? 7 10. Council may require payment of the levy as a condition of development consent 7 11. How will the levy be calculated 7 12. Development to which this plan applies 7 13. Are there any exemptions to the levy? 7 14. Complying Development Certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers 9 15. Construction certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers 9 16. How is the proposed cost of carrying out development determined? 9 17. Cost estimate reports must accompany an application for a development application or a complying development certificate 10 18. Who may provide a report for the purposes of clause 15 of this plan? 10 19. How will the Council apply money obtained from the levy? 11 20. What are the funding priorities from levies authorised by this plan? 11 21. Pooling of levies 11 22. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) 11 23. When is the levy payable? 11 24. Can deferred or periodic payments of levies be made? 11 25. Are there alternatives to payment of the levy? 12 26. How will the levy be adjusted? 13 27. Savings and Transitional Arrangements 14 28. Are refunds for payments of levies possible? 14 Part D – References 14 29. What definitions apply? 14 30. Schedule 3 - Detailed Cost Report 15 31. Schedule 4 –Detailed Works Schedule 16 32. Schedule 5 - Works Schedule – Maps 21

 PAGE 1 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 Part A - Summary Schedules

1. Schedule 1 - Summary of levy The rate of the levy is calculated as follows: Proposed cost of the development Maximum percentage rate of the levy (Determined in accordance with Clause 15) Up to $100,000 Nil $100,001 - $200,000 0.5% More than $200,000 1%

Within the B3 Commercial Core zone in the Wollongong City Centre an additional 1% levy is applied to all development with a cost of more than $250,000 and that increases the gross floor area (i.e. total levy of 2%). This contribution provides funding towards the Special City projects nominated in the Civic Improvements Plan for the Wollongong City Centre, reproduced below. The timing of the implementation of the projects will be determined through Councils Management Plan process as funding permits, and then detailed in Part D Schedule 4. Item Cost Estimate Crown Street Upgrade $14,200,000 City Beach Waterfront Improvements $11,000,000 Civic Precinct Revitalisation $21,000,000 MacCabe Park Landscape Improvements $12,000,000 Bus Transport Initiatives $20,000,000 Traffic Management Works $2,000,000 City Centre Car Park $8,000,000 Total $88,200,000

Note: Effective from 30 December 2009 in response to Council’s request, the NSW Government Minister for Planning issued a direction removing the additional 1% levy under Section 94EE of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for development with a cost of more than $250,000 in the Commercial Core (B3 zone), within the Wollongong City Centre. This special levy was applied to fund improvements to regional infrastructure, namely the Wollongong Railway Station and Wollongong Harbour. Council resolved at its meeting 2 March 2010 to refund all funds collected under this levy, refunds were finalized by 30 June 2010. As such the total levy payable is as per the table above.

 PAGE 2 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

2. Schedule 2 – Works schedule summary Section 94A contribution Project Cost (actual 2011-14 and (2011-12 to 2016-17) Project proposed 2014-17) Roads and bridges $ 4,976,000 $ 12,774,000 Footpaths and Cycleways $4,398,000 $ 22,129,609 Car parks $1,464,000 $ 2,437,000 Non-Commercial buildings $4,796,000 $ 6,454,000 Parks, Gardens and sports fields $3,597,000 $ 7,192,000 Land Acquisitions $2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 Administration $576,000 $ 996,000 Total$ 22,057,000 $ 54,232,609

For further details refer to Part D Schedule 4 – Detailed Works Schedule page 16.

Part B – Expected Development and Demand for Public Facilities

3. Expected Development and Demand for Public Facilities This part broadly discusses the relationship between the expected types of development in the Council’s area and the demand for additional public amenities and services to meet that development. That relationship is established through current demographic information.

The expected types of development include but are not limited to:

 Alterations and additions to existing development;  Dwellings of all forms;  Commercial development located primarily in commercial precincts;  Industrial development;  Subdivisions; and  Mixed use development.

The relationship between expected development and the demand for public facilities is established through:

 The population projections undertaken by Council, adopted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) information indicates that continued population growth in Wollongong is expected. A projected population of 234,000 is expected by 2026.  Accelerating housing costs in metropolitan Sydney contribute to certain pressures in Wollongong, particularly new housing developments, which will largely impact the future needs of the region.  The likely population growth will diminish the enjoyment and standard of public facilities for the existing population unless additional facilities are provided to meet the additional demand.  The likely growth will require the provision of additional public facilities to meet additional demands.

Wollongong City Council wants to ensure that it has a sustainable local government area, safeguarding the economic, social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing of present and future generations. The section 94A levy will assist Council to provide high quality and diverse public facilities to meet the expectations of the existing and new residents of Wollongong City Council.

The additional public facilities to be provided to meet the expected future development are set out in Part D Schedule 4.

 PAGE 3 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

The demand for facilities within the Wollongong City Centre is based on the growth and development projected for the Wollongong City Centre in the Illawarra Regional Strategy and Wollongong City Centre Plan. In particular, this includes the total developable floor space allowed under the Wollongong LEP 2009 and Wollongong DCP 2009.

Part C – Administration and Operation of the Plan

4. What is the name of this contributions plan? This Plan is called the “Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan”.

5. Where does this plan apply? This plan applies to all land within the local government area of Wollongong City Council excluding Stages 1 & 2 of the West Dapto Urban Release area as shown on Figure 1.

6. What is the purpose of this contributions plan? The purposes of this contributions plan are:

 To authorise the imposition of a condition on certain development consents and complying development certificates requiring the payment of a contribution pursuant to section 94A of the EP&A Act 1979.  To assist the council to provide the appropriate public facilities which are required to maintain and enhance amenity and service delivery within the area.  To publicly identify the purposes for which the levies are required.

7. When does this development contributions plan commence? This Development Contributions plan takes effect from the date on which public notice was published, pursuant to clause 31(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

This Section 94A Contributions Plan was adopted by Council at its Meeting of [24 November 204] and came into force on [insert date].

8. Relationship with other development contribution plans This plan repeals the following section 94 / 94A contributions plans applying in the Wollongong local government area:

 Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2013 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2012 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2011 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2010 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2009 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2008 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2007 version) – this plan repealed the following plan;  Wollongong Section 94A Contributions Plan (2006 version) – this plan repealed the following Section 94 plans: o CP No 1 Open Space Embellishment, Recreation Facilities, Community Facilities; o Amendment to CP No 1 Open Space; o CP No 2 Traffic Management & Road Works in City of Wollongong; o CP No 3 Car Parking in the City of Wollongong; o CP No 4 Studies & Administration; o CP No 6 Car Parking in Area between Fairy Creek & Georges Plan Nth Wollongong; o CP No 7 Open Space Dedication (Nth Side Kanahooka Road); o CP No 8 Roundabout at the intersection of Unara Road, Yalunga Street & Princes Highway, Dapto;

 PAGE 4 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

o CP No 9 Mount Brown Local Area Traffic Management Scheme; o CP No 10 Bank Street (Road Works & Intersection Upgrade); o CP No 11 Bank Street (Car Parking Facility between Bank & Stewart Sts); o CP No 12 Sandon Point Section 94 Land Acquisition; and o CP No 13 Library Resources.

Any other section 94 contributions plans that are not repealed continue to apply to all areas and development to which they are stated to apply.

 PAGE 5 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

Figure 1

 PAGE 6 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

9. What does Section 94A of the Act provide? Section 94A of the Act provides as follows:

94A Fixed development consent levies

(1) A consent authority may impose, as a condition of development consent, a requirement that the applicant pay a levy of the percentage, authorised by a contributions plan, of the proposed cost of carrying out the development.

(2) A consent authority cannot impose as a condition of the same development consent a condition under this section as well as a condition under section 94.

(3) Money required to be paid by a condition imposed under this section is to be applied towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services (or towards recouping the cost of their provision, extension or augmentation). The application of the money is subject to any relevant provisions of the contributions plan.

(4) A condition imposed under this section is not invalid by reason only that there is no connection between the development the subject of the development consent and the object of expenditure of any money required to be paid by the condition.

10. Council may require payment of the levy as a condition of development consent This plan authorises the Council to grant consent to development to which this plan applies subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay to the Council a levy calculated as per clause 10.

11. How will the levy be calculated The levy will be determined on the basis of the rate as set out in Part A Schedule 1 Summary of levy. The levy will be calculated as follows:

Levy payable = %C x $C

Where:

%C is the levy rate applicable $C is the proposed cost of carrying out development as determined in accordance with clause 15.

Where an exemption is granted for a preceding application under Clause 12(q) “An application for demolition (where there is no replacement building or development)”. On the same subject site (irrespective of sub-division or consolidation occurring) the following application(s) for development, qualifying under clause 11, will be additionally levied the relevant proportion of the levy that would have applied if the cost of development included the “demolition, excavation and site preparation, decontamination or remediation” in accordance with Clause 25J of the Regulation that occurred under the preceding application.

12. Development to which this plan applies This Plan applies to all applications for development consent and complying development certificates required to be made by or under Part 4 of the Act in respect of development on land to which this plan applies.

13. Are there any exemptions to the levy? The following Directions under Section 94E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been made by the Minister for Planning that require that a Section 94A levy cannot be imposed on development:

a. for the purpose of disabled access (10/11/06); b. for the sole purpose of affordable housing (10/11/06) – (including Granny Flat/Secondary dwelling under 60m2); c. for the purpose of reducing the consumption of mains-supplied potable water, or reducing the energy consumption of a building (10/11/06);

 PAGE 7 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

d. for the sole purpose of adaptive re-use of an item of environmental heritage (note: the term “item” and “environmental heritage” have the same meaning as in the Heritage Act 1977) (10/11/06); e. other than the subdivision of land, where a condition under section 94 of the Act has been imposed under a previous development consent relating to the subdivision of the land on which the development is proposed to be carried out (10/11/06); f. Seniors living development under SEPP Seniors Housing 2004 by a Social Housing provider (14/9/07); g. Components of school development that is a Building Education Revolution (BER) project (9/9/09).

In addition, Council may allow for the following exemptions (partial or full):

h An application on behalf of the Council for community infrastructure, such as but not limited to libraries, community facilities, child care facilities, recreational areas, recreational facilities or car parks. i. An application on behalf of the NSW Government for public infrastructure, such as but not limited to hospitals, police stations, fire stations; education facilities and public transport infrastructure. j. An application for privately funded community infrastructure, such as but not limited to education facilities, universities, and private hospitals. k. Any other development for which Council considers an exemption is warranted, where the decision is made by formal ratification of the Council at a public Council meeting. l. An application by the Council for community infrastructure, such as but not limited to libraries, community facilities, child care facilities, recreational areas, recreational facilities or car parks. m. An application by the NSW Government for public infrastructure, such as but not limited to hospitals, police stations, fire stations; education facilities and public transport infrastructure. n. An application for an industrial, retail, commercial or residential development, where there is no increase in floor space within an existing building, such as but not limited to internal fit-out or alteration to existing structure. o. An application for the continued operation of a coal mine, where rail transport is used for the transportation of coal. p. An application for a place of public worship. q. An application for demolition (where there is no replacement building or development). r. An application for a residential care facility. s. An application for an industrial training facility.

Submission Requirements for an exemption claim to be considered For an exemption to be considered in accordance with points h to k above, any such application will need to submit a comprehensive submission arguing the case for exemption and including details of:

 Under which point the exemption claimed is to be considered  The mechanism ensuring that such development will remain in the form proposed in the future (i.e. Not to increase future demand on public amenities and services), NB: where a further development application or application for complying development under the EP&A Act is required for any change to the development no mechanism is necessary, however if a change of use is available by way of exempt development then the requirement for a mechanism remains.  Other items if applicable: o How the development will incorporate the maintenance of the item of heritage significance o How the development will contribute to the public benefit of the community o Works in the public domain included in the development

 PAGE 8 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

o How the residents/users will utilise existing private facilities attached to the development that replicate those types provided by council.

A comprehensive submission is not required for points a to g or l to s from the above list. Whilst assessment of any application will include consideration of the provisions of this plan for any exemption that may be warranted, where a comprehensive submission isn’t required, the application should clearly state which point an exemption is expected to ensure it is considered.

Exemptions (partial or full) listed under points h to j and l to s will only to be granted with approval of the Council Officer(s) whose position(s) holds the required Council delegations or in terms of point k by formal ratification of the Council at a public Council meeting.

14. Complying Development Certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers Development applications for Complying Development are also subject to the provisions of this plan, and the payment of a Section 94A contribution. The Complying Development Certificate is to include a condition that requires the payment of a Section 94A contribution (in accordance with the requirements of clauses 1 to 12 above).

As the construction certificate is issued concurrently, payment is to be made to Council within 7 days of the date of the Complying Development Certificate.

In particular, the certifier must ensure that the applicant provides a receipt(s) confirming that levies have been fully paid and copies of such receipts must be included with copies of the certified plans provided to the council in accordance with clause 142(2) of the EP&A Regulation. Failure to follow this procedure may render such a certificate invalid.

15. Construction certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers In accordance with Section 94EC of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and clause 146 of the EP&A Regulation 2000, a certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work or subdivision work under a development consent unless it has verified that each condition requiring the payment of levies has been satisfied.

In particular, the certifier must ensure that the applicant provides a receipt(s) confirming that levies have been fully paid and copies of such receipts must be included with copies of the certified plans provided to the council in accordance with clause 142(2) of the EP&A Regulation. Failure to follow this procedure may render such a certificate invalid.

The only exceptions to the requirement are where the Council has agreed to a works in kind, material public benefit, dedication of land, or deferred payment arrangement. In such cases, council will issue a letter confirming that an alternative payment method has been agreed with the applicant.

16. How is the proposed cost of carrying out development determined? Clause 25J of the Regulation sets out how the proposed cost of carrying out development is to be determined. That clause provides as follows:

“25J Section 94A levy—determination of proposed cost of development

(1) The proposed cost of carrying out development is to be determined by the consent authority, for the purpose of a section 94A levy, by adding up all the costs and expenses that have been or are to be incurred by the applicant in carrying out the development, including the following:

(a) if the development involves the erection of a building, or the carrying out of engineering or construction work—the costs of or incidental to erecting the building, or carrying out the work, including the costs (if any) of and incidental to demolition, excavation and site preparation, decontamination or remediation, (b) if the development involves a change of use of land—the costs of or incidental to doing anything necessary to enable the use of the land to be changed, (c) if the development involves the subdivision of land—the costs of or incidental to preparing, executing and registering the plan of subdivision and any related covenants, easements or other rights.

 PAGE 9 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

(2) For the purpose of determining the proposed cost of carrying out development, a consent authority may have regard to an estimate of the proposed cost of carrying out the development prepared by a person, or a person of a class, approved by the consent authority to provide such estimates

(3) The following costs and expenses are not to be included in any estimate or determination of the proposed cost of carrying out development:

(a) the cost of the land on which the development is to be carried out, (b) the costs of any repairs to any building or works on the land that are to be retained in connection with the development, (c) the costs associated with marketing or financing the development (including interest on any loans), (d) the costs associated with legal work carried out or to be carried out in connection with the development, (e) project management costs associated with the development, (f) the cost of building insurance in respect of the development, (g) the costs of fittings and furnishings, including any refitting or refurbishing, associated with the development (except where the development involves an enlargement, expansion or intensification of a current use of land), (h) the costs of commercial stock inventory, (i) any taxes, levies or charges (other than GST) paid or payable in connection with the development by or under any law.”

17. Cost estimate reports must accompany an application for a development application or a complying development certificate An application for a development application or a complying development certificate is to be accompanied by a report, prepared at the applicant’s cost in accordance with this clause, setting out an estimate of the proposed cost of carrying out the development for the purposes of clause 25J of the Regulation, per clause 16 above.

The following types of report are required:

 where the estimate of the proposed cost of carrying out the development is less than $10,000,000 - a suitable cost estimate as determined by Council;  where the estimate of the proposed cost of carrying out the development is $10,000,000 or more - a detailed cost report in accordance with Part D Schedule 3.

Applicants will be required to declare upon signing of application for development/building work that the cost of carrying out development as evidenced by their submitted estimate has been calculated in accordance with the provisions of this plan, in particular clause 16.

18. Who may provide a report for the purposes of clause 16 of this plan? For the purpose of clause 25J(2) of the Regulation and clause 16 of this plan, the following persons are approved by the Council to provide an estimate of the proposed cost of carrying out development in the following circumstances:

 where the proposed development cost is less than $10,000,000 - a person who, in the opinion of the Council, is suitably qualified to provide a cost estimate;  where the proposed development cost is $10,000,000 or more – a quantity surveyor who is a registered member of the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors.

Upon reviewing a cost estimate, the Council may require a further estimate to be provided by a registered quantity surveyor at the applicant’s cost. The Council may, at the applicant’s cost, engage a person referred to in this clause to review a report submitted by an applicant in accordance with clause 16.

 PAGE 10 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

19. How will the Council apply money obtained from the levy? Money paid to the Council under a condition authorised by this plan is to be applied by the Council towards meeting the cost of the public facilities that will be or have been provided within the area as listed in Part D Schedule 4.

20. What are the funding priorities from levies authorised by this plan? Subject to s93E(2) of the Act and clauses 18 and 19 of this plan, the public facilities listed in Part D Schedule 4 are to be provided in accordance with the staging set out in that Schedule.

21. Pooling of levies For the purposes of s93E(2) of the Act, this plan authorises money obtained from levies paid in respect of different developments to be pooled and applied by the Council progressively towards the public facilities listed in Part D Schedule 4 in accordance with the staging set out in that Schedule.

22. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) At the time this Plan was made, the position of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was that the payment of development contributions made under the EP&A Act is exempt from the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Items in the works schedule of this Plan have been calculated without any GST component.

23. When is the levy payable? A levy to be paid by a condition authorised by this plan must be paid to the Council at the time specified in the condition. If no time is specified, the levy must be paid in full prior to the first construction or subdivision certificate issued in respect of the development under Part 4A of the EP&A Act. Payment can be made by cash, credit card, EFTPOS or bank cheque (payable to Wollongong City Council) only. Payments can be made in person at Council’s Customer service centre located on the ground floor of Wollongong City Council Administration Building, 41 Burelli Street, Wollongong between 8.30am and 5pm Monday to Friday except public holidays during business hours. Bank Cheques will be accepted by mail to Wollongong City Council - Locked Bag 8821, Wollongong DC NSW 2500.

24. Can deferred or periodic payments of levies be made? Deferred or periodic payments may be permitted in the following circumstances:

 Deferred or periodic payment of the contribution will not prejudice the timing or the manner of the provision of public facilities included in the works program;  In other circumstances considered reasonable by Council.

For a deferred or periodic payment to be considered, the applicant must satisfy to Council that:

 There are valid reasons for deferred or periodic payment;  No prejudice will be caused to the community deriving benefit from the services being provided under this plan;  No prejudice will be caused to the efficiency and operation of this development contribution plan.

If council does decide to accept deferred or periodic payment, council may require the applicant to provide a bank guarantee for the full amount of the contribution or the outstanding balance on condition that:

a) The bank guarantee be issued by a bank for the amount of the total contribution, or the amount of the outstanding contribution, plus an amount equal to thirteen (13) months interest. b) Any charges associated with establishing or operating the bank security are payable by the applicant. c) The bank guarantee must carry specific wording identifying the exact obligation to which it relates (i.e. section 94A development contributions for development of Lot x DP xxx under Development Consent No. xxx)

 PAGE 11 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

d) The bank unconditionally pays the guaranteed sum to the Council if the Council so demands in writing not earlier than 12 months from the provision of the guarantee or completion of the work. e) The bank must pay the guaranteed sum without reference to the applicant or landowner or other person who provided the guarantee, and without regard to any dispute, controversy, issue or other matter relating to the development consent or the carrying out of development. f) The bank's obligations are discharged when payment to the council is made in accordance with this guarantee or when council notifies the bank in writing that the guarantee is no longer required. g) Where a bank guarantee has been deposited with council, the guarantee shall not be cancelled until such time as the original contribution and accrued interest are paid. Deferred or periodic payments may be permitted, in accordance with the above requirements, only with approval of the Council Officer(s) whose position(s) holds the required Council delegations .

25. Are there alternatives to payment of the levy? The council may accept an offer by the applicant to provide an “in-kind” contribution (i.e. the applicant completes part or all of work/s identified in the plan) or through provision of another material public benefit in lieu of the applicant satisfying its obligations under this plan. The decision to accept such offers is at the sole discretion of the Council.

Council may accept such alternatives in the following circumstances:

a) Offer made to the Council as part of a development application The applicant may include in the relevant development application or in an application for a modification under section 96 of the Act, an offer to carry out works or provide a material public benefit towards which the levy is to be applied. The Council will consider the offer as part of its assessment of the development application or as an application for a modification to a development approval under section 96 of the Act where a levy has been imposed pursuant to this plan. If the Council agrees to the arrangement and grants consent to the application, it will substitute a condition of consent under section 80A or section 96 of the Act (whichever is relevant) requiring the works to be carried out or the material public benefit to be provided for a condition requiring payment of a levy under section 94A.

In assessing the applicant’s offer, the Council will have regard to any relevant requirements of the current Practice Note issued by the NSW Government (DIPNR 2005) and such other matters as the Council considers relevant in the circumstances of the case including, but not limited to:

(1) the value of the works to be undertaken is at least equal to the value of the contribution that would otherwise be required under this plan, Council does not issue credits to applicants for works in kind which are provided in excess of the approved condition outside of a standard procedure involving approval by Council, such as staged development; and (2) the standard of the works is to council’s full satisfaction and the works are handed over to the Council without restriction of limitation; and (3) the provision of the material public benefit will not prejudice the timing or the manner of the provision of public facilities included in the works program.

b) Valuation of Offer made to the Council as part of a development application (“value of work”) The value of an offer to provide Works In Kind, or a material public benefit towards which the levy is to be applied, in lieu (in full or in part) of satisfying a condition of consent relating to payment of a Section 94/94A contribution will be valued utilising the following mechanism: (1) Any Credit will be calculated based on the actual cost of works or the agreed cost estimate, whichever is the lesser. The agreed cost estimate will be determined by a review of the costs submitted by the applicant via Council’s Infrastructure Team or a Registered Quantity Surveyor at Councils discretion);

 PAGE 12 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

(2) The agreed cost estimate can be amended by submission of a variation request by the applicant which will be reviewed and certified by a registered Quantity Surveyor; (3) The actual cost of works is required to be evidenced and verified by a registered Quantity Surveyor; (4) The Quantity Surveyor to act on the project will be chosen by Council from a list of 3 recommended by the applicant all of whom are to be members of Panels for The NSW Department of Commerce or Local Government Procurement; and (5) Quantity Surveyor service costs are to be borne by the applicant.

c) Legal agreements pertaining to works in kind All offers, should they be accepted, to provide Works In Kind, or a material public benefit towards which the levy is to be applied, in lieu (in full or in part) of satisfying a condition of consent relating to payment of a Section 94/94A contribution will be subject to a legal agreement between Council and the applicant. All agreements will include, but not limited to, the following:  The works to be undertaken;  The timing of the works;  The quality of the works;  The costs of the works;  the applicant’s rights and responsibilities; and  Council’s rights and responsibilities.

d) Offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement An applicant may offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement with the Council under s93F of the EP&A Act in connection with the making of a development application. This offer may include a monetary contribution, dedication of land, the carrying out of works, or another material public benefit for public purposes. Those purposes need not wholly relate to the impacts of the applicant’s development not to the items listed in Part D Schedule 4.

The applicant’s provision under a planning agreement may be additional to or instead of paying a levy in accordance with a condition of development consent authorised by this plan. This will be a matter for negotiation with the Council. The offer to enter into the planning agreement together with a copy of the draft agreement should accompany the relevant development application.

The Council will publicly notify the draft planning agreement and an explanatory note relating to the draft agreement along with the development application and will consider the agreement as part of its assessment of that application.

If the Council agrees to enter into the planning agreement, it may impose a condition of development consent under s93I (3) of the EP&A Act requiring the agreement to be entered into and performed. If the Council does not agree to enter into the planning agreement, it may grant consent subject to a condition authorised by this plan requiring the payment of a levy.

Applicants should refer to the Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements, which has been prepared having regard to the Practice Note on Planning Agreements (DIPNR 2005).

26. How will the levy be adjusted? As the date of the consent may vary to the actual time of payment of the contribution, Clause 25(4) of the EP&A Regulation allows council to adjust the contribution to reflect current between the date of the consent and the time of payment. Contributions required as a condition of consent under the provisions of this plan will be indexed quarterly in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index (All Groups Index) for Sydney issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 PAGE 13 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

The following formula for indexing contributions is to be used:

Contribution at time of payment = $C x (CP2/CP1)

Where:

$C is the original contribution as set out in the consent CP1 is the Consumer Price Index (all groups index for Sydney) used in the proceeding indexation calculation CP2 is the Consumer Price Index (all groups index for Sydney) at the time of indexation

27. Savings and Transitional Arrangements

A development application which has been submitted prior to the adoption of this plan but not determined shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this plan.

28. Are refunds for payments of levies possible?

For a refund of levy payments to be considered, the applicant/landowner must:

 Submit a written request to Council  As a part of the request, demonstrate that the development that is the subject of the consent has not been commenced  Submit the request for a refund by the first working day after 31 January within the year following payment of the levy e.g. payment is made in April 2011 then refund request can be made until first working day after 31 January 2012; payment is made in January 2011 then refund request can be made until first working day after 31 January 2012.  Formally surrender the consent that applied the levy

In other circumstances considered reasonable by Council at its sole and unfettered discretion, where a formal request is made, part or full refunds may be provided. Part D – References

29. What definitions apply? In this plan, unless the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires, the following definitions apply:

 ABS means the Australian Bureau of Statistics  EP&A Act means the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979  Council means The Wollongong City Council  Development contributions means a development contribution required to be paid by a condition of development consent imposed pursuant to section 94 of the Act  Levy means a levy under section 94A of the Act authorised by this plan  Public facility & Public Infrastructure means a public amenity or public service  Regulation means the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 PAGE 14 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

30. Schedule 3 - Detailed Cost Report (Clause 17)

Registered* Quantity Surveyor’s Detailed Cost Report [Development Cost in excess of $10,000,000] *A member of the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION No. REFERENCE:

CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE No. DATE:

APPLICANT’S NAME: ______

APPLICANT’S ADDRESS: ______

DEVELOPMENT NAME: ______

DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: ______

DEVELOPMENT DETAILS:

Gross Floor Area – Commercial m2 Gross Floor Area – Other m2 Gross Floor Area – Residential m2 Total Gross Floor Area m2 Gross Floor Area – Retail m2 Total Site Area m2 Gross Floor Area – Car Parking m2 Total Car Parking Spaces Total Development Cost $ Total Construction Cost $ Total GST $

ESTIMATE DETAILS:

Professional Fees $ Excavation $ % of Development Cost % Cost per square metre of site area $ /m2 % of Construction Cost % Car Park $ Demolition and Site Preparation $ Costpersquaremetreofsitearea $ /m2 Costpersquaremetreofsitearea $ /m2 Cost per space $ /space Construction – Commercial $ Fit-out – Commercial $ Costpersquaremetreofsitearea $ /m2 Cost per m2 of commercial area $ /m2 Construction – Residential $ Fit-out – Residential $ Cost per square metre of residential area $ /m2 Cost per m2 of residential area $ /m2 Construction – Retail $ Fit-out – Retail $ Cost per square metre of retail area $ /m2 Cost per m2 of retail area $ /m2

I certify that I have:  Inspected the plans the subject of the application for development consent or construction certificate  Prepared and attached an elemental estimate generally prepared in accordance with the Australian Cost Management Manuals from the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors  Calculated the development costs in accordance with the definition of development costs in the section 94A Development Contributions Plan of the council of the City of Wollongong at current prices  Included GST in the calculation of development cost  Measured gross floor areas in accordance with the Method of Measurement of Building Area in the AIQS Cost Management Manual Volume 1, Appendix A2

Signed: ______Name: ______Position and Qualifications: ______Date: ______

 PAGE 15 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 31. Schedule 4 –Detailed Works Schedule The works listed in this schedule may be funded from a mix of sources, including contributions collected from this plan. (Clauses 19 & 20) Map Ref Project Timing of Section 94A expenditure Timing of other funding Actual Section 94A Total Project Cost contribution Forecast Section (2011-12 to 2016-17) Map (2011-12 to 2013-14) Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Budget Forecast Forecast 94A contribution No. Ref No. 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2014-15 to 2016-17 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Roads and Bridges City Centre Public Transport $50,000329,000 $$150,000 129,000 $72,000$ 100,000$ $-172,000 $ $7150,000 $-8,000$7$ 29,000 City Wide Public Transport $5125,000 $70,000$75,000$15,000$ 00,000100,000$ $7275,000 $75,000$55,000$-0,000$6$ 00,000 Traffic Facility Improvements (50% RTA) $-- $6$ 50,000490,000$ $-1,140,000 $ $4820,000 $ 50,000$3710,000 $ ,120,000 Roads & Bridges - New & Upgrade (bulk vote) $2- $-80,000$ 50,000$ $-330,000 $-$-$ $33,620,000 $ ,950,000

Church St, Wollongong - Roundabout, cnr Ellen St 16 3 $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Cliff Rd, North Wollongong - new pedestrian safety 13 4 facilities $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Parkes St/Princes Hwy,Helensburgh - New C roundabout $885,000 $-5,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 85,000 Denison Street/ThrosbyDrive, Gwynneville - 13 48 bypass $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Cordeaux Rd, Cordeaux Heights - Pedestrian 14 77 Refuge $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ 14 83 Cordeaux Rd, Cordeaux Heights - Bridges $-250,000 $ $ 250,000 $-515,000 $-$ $ 515,000 $-1,470,000 $-$-$2$ ,235,000 16 76 Gladstone Ave, Coniston -Pedestrian Crossing $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Compton Street, Dapto- Traffic Calming C augmentation $ 313,000 $ 313,000 $ 313,000 Burelli Street/Kenny Street, Wollongong - T raffic 22 38 Lights $ 6,000 $-6,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$6$ ,000 Burelli Street/Corrimal Street, Wollongong - Traffic 13,16 37 Lights $ - $-120,000 $-$ $-120,000 $-$-$-$1$ 20,000 Burelli Street/Auburn Street, Wollongong - Traffic 13,16 36 Lights $339,000 $ 9,000$-250,000 $-$ $-250,000 $-$-$-$2$ 89,000 Carters lane, FairyMeadow shoulder construct - C Pioneer to Elliots $-159,000 $ $-159,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$1$ 59,000 Squires Way, North Wollongong - kerb and gutter - C Elliots Rd to iC entry $-51,000 $5$-1,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 51,000 Cabbage Tree Lane, FairyMeadow - kerb, gutter 10 74 and drainage $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Parkes St/Vera St, Helensburgh - kerb, gutter and 139 drainage $-275,000 $2$ 5,000$-250,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$2$ 75,000 C Jarvie Rd, Cringlia - new kerb & gutter $550,000 $ 0,000 $ 50,000 Walker St, Helensburgh - Widen culvert, provide 284 pedestrian access $-70,000 $7$-0,000$-$-$-$ $-300,000 $-$-$3$ 70,000 Keira St, Wollongong - Road & Footpath 13 79 augmentation $-- $ $-400,000 $-$ $-400,000 $-$-$-$4$ 00,000 C Burke Street, Berkeley- New Traffic Island $-5,000 $ $-5,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$5$ ,000 C Ball Street, Woonona - New Traffic Island $-1,000 $ $-1,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$1$ ,000 785 Sturdee Ave, Bulli - Augmentation design options $-16,000 $ $79,000 $-,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 16,000 Sub total $51,774,000 $ 0,000$8872,000 $ 52,000$81,640,000 $ 22,000740,000$ $ 3,202,000 1,845,000$ $51,045,000 $478,000$ ,330,000$ 12,774,000

 PAGE 16 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 Footpaths and Cycleways Gloucester Bvde, Port Kembla - PrimarySchool to C DarcyRd -Shared pathway$ 99,000 94,000$ $-5,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 99,000 Foreshore Rd, Port Kembla - Old Port Rd to 22 38 Harbour - New on road Shared pathway $44,000 $-,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$4$ ,000 Southern cycleway- Port Kembla pool to Parkes C St & along Foreshore Rd $442,000 $ 2,000 $ 42,000 Five Islands Rd, Port Kembla - shared path 21 24 between Flinders St & Wattle St $22,000 $ ,000 $ 2,000 Princes Hwy,Dapto, Unara St to Northcliffe - New C Shared pathway $ 442,000 $ 135,000 $ 3,000 $-304,000 $-$-$-$ $-100,000 $-$-$ $ 542,000 Shellharbour Rd, Port Kembla - Parkes St to King 21 18 Street new on-road and off-road cycleway $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ C Amaroo Ave, Figtree - New footpath $ 9,000 $72,000 $-,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$9$ ,000 12 25 Grey St, Keiraville new footpath $119,000 $ 9,000 $ 19,000 T ramway Sea Wall and Path, North Wollongong - 13 13 Augmentation $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$

City Centre Crown St, Wollongong - Augmentation 13 14 $220,000 $10,000$-50,000$-$ $-150,000 $6$-,305,000$-$6$ ,475,000 C O'Briens Rd, Figtree - New shared pathway $555,000 $-5,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 55,000 17 15 Cordeaux Rd, Figtree - new on road cycleway $885,000 $25,000$ 00,000 $ 85,000 816 Channon St, Russell Vale - new footpath $447,000 $ 7,000 $ 47,000 Parkes St, Helensburgh - New shared pathway C connection $775,000 $ 5,000 $ 75,000 Brian St, Balgownie - new footpath and pedestrain C crossing $882,000 $ 2,000 $ 82,000 Unanderra Town Centre - Tallegalla Street - new C cycleway $225,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 Beach St to Hutton Ave,Bulli - New shared C pathway $225,000 $-5,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 25,000 C Brokers Rd, Balgonie - new footpath $443,000 $ 3,000 $ 43,000 10 71 Foothills Rd, Balgownie - New footpath $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Lawerance Hargrave Dr, Bartons Gully, Wombarra 560 - New footpath $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ C Gibson Rd, Figtree - widen footpath $885,000 $ 5,000 $ 85,000 Abercrombie St, West Wollongong - New C footpaths $ 274,000 $ 274,000 $ 274,000 McMillan St, Helensburgh - New north side C footpath $336,000 $-6,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 36,000 Princes Hwy, West Wollongong - New shared C pathway, London Dr to Abercrombie St $3113,000 $75,000$ 8,000 $ 113,000 Princes Hwy,Bulli - New shared pathway,Black C DiamondPltoPointSt $112,000 $ 2,000 $ 12,000 C Murphys Avenue, Keiraville - New footpath $660,000 $-0,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 60,000 C Mt Keira Rd, Mt Keira - New footpath $ 100,000 $-100,000 $-$-$-$4$-6,000$-$-$ $ 146,000 C Derribong Dr, Cordeaux Heights - New footpath $ 149,000 $-149,000 $-$-$-$3$-4,000$-$-$ $ 183,000 C Loftus St, Wollongong - New footpath $ 103,000 $-103,000 $-$-$-$3$-9,000$-$-$ $ 142,000 SmithSt,Wollongong-sharedpathHarbour to 13 5 Keira St $110,000 $ 0,000 $ 10,000 Gladstone Ave, Wollongong - cyclewaySwan St 16 6 underpass to Crown Street $88,000 $ ,000 $ 8,000 Pioneer Rd, Towradgi - New footpath & bridging C over culvert $882,000 $-2,000$-$-$-$ $-172,000 $-$-$2$ 54,000  PAGE 17 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

Squires Way, North Wollongong - Widen cycleway 11 49 $25,00025,000 $-$-$-$-$$- 520,000 $-$-$545,000$ Lakelands Dve, Dapto; Fowlers Rd to Parkside 18 7 Dve$ - $ 90,000 $ - 18 8 Cirrus St, Dapto; full length west side$ - $ 82,000 $ - Dumfries Ave, Mt Ousley; McMahon St to Foothills 12 9 Rd$ - $ 95,000 $ - 710 Point Street, Bulli new footpath$100,000 - $ $ - 611 RailwayLane,Thirroul new footpath$ - $ 33,000 $ - Grand Pacific Walk, North Wollongong to Otford - 412 Stage 1 Stoney Ck Bridge, Coalcliff $467,000 187,000$ $2280,000 $ 50,000150,000$ $ 400,000 $6150,000 $738,000$850,000$ 50,000$ 3,255,000 Village & Town Centre - Upgrades (bulk vote) $ - $ - 200,000$ $-200,000 $-$-$5$700,000$ 00,000 17 72 Unanaderra CBD upgrade $ - $ 10,000 $ - 21 70 Warrawong CBD upgrade $ - $ 90,000 $ - Shared (Cycleways) Pathways - New & Upgrade (bulk vote) - see Bicycle Plan $1- $200,000$ 00,000300,000$ $ 600,000 $2750,000 $200,000$ 00,000$ 1,100,000 $ 2,850,000

City wide Footpaths - New & Upgrade (bulk vote) $ - $ 150,000 300,000$ $-450,000 $-$ $ 3,721,067 $ 1,656,542 $ 5,827,609 Sub total $ 2,598,000 233,000$ $11,074,000 $9,291,000$650,000$ 00,000950,000$ $ 1,800,000 $71,811,000 $ ,143,000$ 4,671,067 $ 4,106,542 $ 22,129,609 Car parks C Station Street - Thomas Gibson Park $1110,000 $ 10,000 $ 110,000 Bank/Stewart Street, Wollongong - 4hr Car park - C Additional spaces $778,000 $-8,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 78,000

Campbell Street, Woonona - Ocean Park car park C $4144,000 $1,000$-40,000$-$-$-$4$-0,000$-$-$1$ 84,000 Lakeside leisure Centre, Kanahooka - Upgrade 19 54 and expansion $ 7,000 $-7,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$7$ ,000 C Market Street - Multi StoreyCar park - Upgrade $220,000 $ 0,000 $ 20,000 Windang Foreshore Park P2 car park - C augmentation $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 C George Street, Wollongong - Car park extension $ 140,000 $-140,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$1$ 40,000 C Stanwell Park shops Car Park - Upgrade $1243,000 $950,000$-3,000$-$-$-$ $-33,000 $-$-$2$ 76,000 C The Circle Car Park, Woonona - Upgrade $117,000 $-7,000$-$-$-$ $-110,000 $-$-$1$ 27,000 City wide car parks - New(bulk vote) $ - $ 500,000 200,000$ $-700,000 $ $2450,000 $200,000$150,000$ ,600,000 Sub total $4764,000 $4,000$349,000$-11,000$5$ 00,000200,000$ $1700,000 $ 83,000$2450,000 $200,000$ 50,000$ 2,437,000 Non-Commercial buildings Lifeguards facilities Designs $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Bald Hill Amenities, Stanwell Tops - augmentation 317 -Masterplan $333,000 $ 3,000 $ 33,000 North Beach Bathers Pavilion, North Wollongong - C augmentation (Inc. Retaining Wall) $ 4,433,000 4,301,000$ $3100,000 $-2,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 4,433,000 C Wollongong Town Hall augmentation $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Civic Plaza, Wollongong - Water Saving facilities 13 26 implementation $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ C Dapto Pool - Disabled Access Improvements $440,000 $ 0,000 $ 40,000 C Sandon Point Surf Club Expansion $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 Warrawong Multipurpose CommunityCentre & 21 20 Librarydesign $-13,000 $1$-3,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 13,000 C Windang Beach Lifeguard Tower - Design $-52,000 $5$-2,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 52,000 Coledale Lifeguard Tower $225,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 Non-Commercial buildings - bulk vote $-- $-$7$-5,000$ $ 75,000 $-283,000 $1$-,375,000$1$ ,733,000 Sub total $ 4,721,000 4,301,000$ 298,000$ $-122,000 $7$-5,000$ $ 75,000 $-283,000 $1$-,375,000$ $ 6,454,000

 PAGE 18 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 Parks, Gardens and sports fields 340 Stanwell Park - New Playground$- - $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ Bailey Park, Compton Street, Dapto - New C Playground$10,000 10,000 $ $ 10,000 C Penrose Park - New Playground$10,000 10,000 $ $ 10,000

Bramsen St Reserve, Bellambi - New Playground C $5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 C Corrimal Memorial Park - New Playground$50,000 73,000 $23,000$ $ 73,000 Waples Rd, Farmborough Heights - New C Playground$10,000 10,000 $ $ 10,000 Bruce Park, Oxlade St, Warrawong - New C Playground$10,000 10,000 $ $ 10,000 Keira Village Park,Keira Mine Rd - New C Playground$20,000 20,000 $ $ 20,000 C Holborn Park, Berkeley- New Playground$25,000 25,000 $-$-$-$-$$- 150,000 $-$-$175,000$

HappyValleyReserve, East Corrimal - playground 921 $- $ 25,000 $ - New Playground installations $ - $-25,000 $$ 25,000 300,000$ $1625,000 $-25,000$1$ ,075,000 Sports field Irrigation Infrastructure - New(bulk vote) $ - $-- $-$-$ $-190,000 $-$1$ 90,000 Thomas Dalton Park, Fairy Meadow - Sports field 11 28 Irrigation $ 297,000 $5140,000 $ 7,000$ 100,000 $-50,000 $-$ $-50,000 $-$-$-$3$ 47,000 Thomas Dalton Park, Fairy Meadow - fence C Carters Lane $115,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 Rex Jackson Oval (soccer), Helensburgh - Sports C field Irrigation $440,000 $-0,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 40,000 Fred Finch Park, Berkeley - Landscape and C Design & Infrastructure $ 200,000 $-200,000 $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$2$ 00,000

20 32 Southern Suburbs Skate Park, Berkeley - provision $139,000 $29,000$70,000$-30,000$-$ $-730,000 $-$-$-$7$ 69,000 Lake Illawarra Foreshore Improvements $1100,000 $100,000$ 70,000180,000$ $-350,000 $ $2210,000 $200,000$100,000$ ,060,000 13 26 Civic Plaza, Wollongong - Lighting augmentation $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ MacCabe Park, Wollongong - Design C Development - City Centre $112,000 $-2,000$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $ 12,000 MacCabe Park, Wollongong - Landscape 16 33 Improvements - City Centre $-- $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ 22 97 MM Beach, Port Kembla - Access Steps $-65,000 $6$-5,000$-$-$-$2$-5,000$-$-$ $ 90,000 C Puckeys Estate, Beach access $115,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 C Charles Harper Park, Helensburgh - Public toilet $440,000 $ 0,000 $ 40,000 15 22 Figtree Oval $ - $ 20,000 $ - King George V, Port Kembla, (main oval) - 22 98 irrigation $ - $ 30,000 $ - New Bridges, Boardwalks & Jetties - New $ - $ 250,000 300,000$ $-550,000 $-$2$ 50,000$1300,000 $ ,100,000 Bridges, Boardwalks & Jetties - Upgrade $-- $-$2$-50,000$ $-250,000 $-$5$-50,000$ $ 800,000 Beach facilities - New(bulk vote) $110,000 $-0,000$-$-$-$ $-125,000 $-$-$ $ 135,000 Skate Parks - New(bulk vote) $-- $5$ 50,00050,000$ $ 600,000 $-100,000 $2$-00,000$9$ 00,000 Sporting facilities - New (bulk vote) $ 26,000 $26,000 $-0,000$-$-$-$2$-5,000$-$-$ $ 51,000 Recreation facilities - New (bulk vote) $220,000 $-0,000$-$-$-$2$-0,000$-$-$ $ 40,000 Sub total $ 1,042,000 371,000$ 423,000$ $8248,000 $155,000$ ,245,000530,000$ $ 2,555,000 $1745,000 $1,025,000$5,325,000$700,000$ ,192,000 Land Acquisitions Land Acquisitions - See Wollongong LEP 2009 - Land Reservation Acquisition Maps $-- $7$750,000$ 50,000750,000$ $-2,250,000 $-$-$-$2$ ,250,000 Sub total $-- $-$-$7$750,000$ 50,000750,000$ $-2,250,000 $-$-$-$2$ ,250,000  PAGE 19 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

Administration S94 Administration & Studies $96,000288,000 $96,000$96,000$$96,000 96,000 $ 96,000$ $-288,000 $-$-$-$5$ 76,000 Capital Project Planning $-- $-$-$-$ $-420,000 $-$-$4$ 20,000 Sub total $9288,000 $96,000$96,000$ 6,000$996,000 $ 6,00096,000$ $4288,000 $-20,000$-$-$9$ 96,000

TOTAL $ 11,187,000 5,055,000$ 3,212,000$ $ 2,920,000 $44,291,000 $ ,088,0003,266,000$ $ 10,870,000 $95,287,000 $ ,663,000$ 8,149,067 $ 9,186,542 $ 54,232,609 C = completed project (not mapped)

 PAGE 20 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

32. Schedule 5 - Works Schedule – Maps Projects locations are noted as best as possible given their nature and scale of mapping. (Clauses 19 & 20)

 PAGE 21 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 22 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 23 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 24 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 25 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 26 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 27 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 28 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 29 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 30 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 31 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 32 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 33 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 34 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 35 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 36 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 37 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 38 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 39 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 40 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 41 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 42 Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

 PAGE 43

CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNCIL POLICY

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL: [TO BE COMPLETED BY CORP SUPPORT]

BACKGROUND Wollongong City Council strives to deliver standards of customer service at the highest level and this is reflected in our Community Strategic Plan and our Organisational Values. This policy details how Council delivers on the commitment to customer service and how we measure our performance. This policy and the Customer Service Charter form the Customer Service Framework. Council’s commitment to Customer Service includes an effective complaint handling system. It is recognised that this is one method of measuring customer and client satisfaction to provide a useful source of information and feedback for continual improvement of our service.

OBJECTIVE The main objectives of this policy are to: • ensure we deliver the service as outlined in the Wollongong City Council Customer Service Charter and to outline customer rights and responsibilities; • provide customers with a choice as to how they provide feedback to Council about service provision; • provide a structure around responding to, recording, reporting and using feedback to improve service to customers; and • outline customer rights and responsibilities. Council’s Customer Service Framework includes an effective complaint handling system which aims to benefit both our customers and Council in a number of ways including: • responding to feedback/complaints equitably, objectively and in an unbiased manner, ensuring there is no loss of service to the customer; • creating a second chance to provide service and satisfaction to dissatisfied customers; • identifying areas of service delivery that need improving; • providing an opportunity to strengthen relationships between the community and Council; and • assist in the planning of and allocation of resources.

POLICY STATEMENT Commitment to Customer Service Wollongong City Council is committed to delivering a quality customer service that is consistent equitable for all customers. We understand that customers have an expectation that they receive the best possible service that can be practically achieved. Our service is reflective of our organisational values. We aim to deliver service in a friendly, knowledgeable and professional manner by: • Being respectful, courteous and impartial in all dealings; • Identifying ourselves when we talk to customers; • Listening carefully to customers; • Ensuring that personal information is kept confidential at all times; and • Having trained and professional staff who will uphold Wollongong City Council’s Values and Code of Conduct.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 1 Trim No: Z14/152751 CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNCIL POLICY

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Council is committed to providing a fair and equitable service and this Policy has been developed particularly in accordance with the following legislation, regulations, policies and standards: • Local Government Act • State Records Act • Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act • Government Information (Public Access) Act • NSW Ombudsman Better Service and Communication – Guidelines for Local Government • NSW Ombudsman Good Conduct and Administrative Practice Guidelines (2nd edition) • NSW Ombudsman Enforcement Guidelines for Councils • NSW Ombudsman Unreasonable Complainant Conduct

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES In order to meet the Customer Service commitment, Council will ensure that all staff have access to a range of training and materials to support their Service Delivery. We acknowledge the diversity of our communities and understand that all members of the public have individual rights and needs and we will act with proper regard and sensitivity. We aim to offer quality service by recognising this diversity and ensuring individual needs are met. We will provide clear and logical means for customers to access services, facilities and information including assistance where necessary to lodge requests or provide feedback. Wollongong City Council can be contacted via the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS 131 450) or via the National Relay Service (1800 555 660 or www.relayservice.gov.au). Additionally, Council has access to interpreter services where required including multi lingual staff. Customers may also appoint an advocate to deal with Council on their behalf, where practicable Council requires a written authority to provide information to an advocate. Wollongong City Council recognises that our customers may wish to contact Council in a variety of ways and we are committed to providing choice about how customers can access Council Services. Customers can contact Wollongong City Council in a variety of ways: • Via the Council Website – lodging a request online or making an enquiry via webchat; • ,by Telephone; • , by Email; • , In our Customer Service Centre; • by Mail; and • In our Libraries and Community Centres. Council will soon have an App available for use on smart phones and a portal to track progress of requests.

Commitment to Service Council is committed to better understanding the needs and expectations of the local community. Council will enhance its understanding of the needs and expectations of the local community by: • Carrying out periodic community surveys to learn about what the local community thinks about the areas where Council is performing well and the areas where Council needs to improve service; • Maintaining opportunities for feedback by encouraging the public to complete feedback forms that Council will record and analyse; • Maintaining a complaint handling system to respond to service failures and unsatisfied expectations and to enable Council to identify and rectify service failures; • Establishing guarantees of service in a number of areas and regularly measure the performance of Council against these guarantees; Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 2 Trim No: Z14/152751

CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNCIL POLICY

• Continuing to deliver information on the activities of Council through a variety of means including publishing regular community updates, publishing community information in local newspapers and on the Council website, placing on exhibition at Council offices and libraries plans and other documents relating to Council activities and, using public meetings and other open forms of consultation and dialogue where appropriate; • Provision of access to Council information under GIPA; and • Continuing to encourage input from the community on Council’s activities through a variety of means including encouraging the local community to attend and speak at Council meetings, encouraging the local community to contact Councillors to discuss concerns, publicising Council’s complaint handling and feedback systems and encouraging submissions on plans and other documents relating to Council activities.

Standards The importance of measuring how well we deliver customer service is recognised. Council has established a feedback handling process to ensure that customers are able to provide feedback and to enable improvement in Service Delivery. We will also measure how well we deliver our customer service through measurement against a number of standards. In relation to our Customer Service Centre, we aim to: • Answer 80% of telephone calls within 30 seconds; and • Attend to 80% of enquiries made in person within five (5) minutes. As an organisation, we aim to: • Respond to 85% of written correspondence within 10 working days; and • Achieve resolution* of customer feedback within five (5) working days. * Resolution is defined as providing the customer with all relevant information and/or outline of action required and timeframe for completion and/or completed all action required. Our performance is measured against the key performance indicators and reported in the Quarterly Management Report and the Annual Report.

Customer Request Management SystemRecords of Customer Service requests Council has an obligation to properly record and consider all Customer reports and complaints. The Customer Request Management System (CRMS) is utilised to enable the logging, allocating, tracking and reporting of all Customer Service Requests. The CRMS is integrated with all relevant organisational mandated systems.utilised to measure Council’s performance in the completion of service requests. Council is committed to: • Ensuring whole of Council utilisation of the CRMS. • Delivering control and tracking mechanisms to ensure service standards are being met. • The regular review of the CRMS and Customer Service On-line. • Upgrading the CRMS and Customer Service On-line when necessary and appropriate. • Provision of training and education to support cross organisational use.. It is recognised that at times, anonymous complaints/service requests may be made. For many service requests contact names, addresses or phone numbers are required to confirm information or if necessary to obtain additional information. Council may therefore determine not to accept or investigate anonymous requests for service; however it is dependent on the substance of the information provided, the severity of the situation or the service requested. In some cases Customers may contact Council with an expectation that specific action will be undertaken by Council. For example, according to Council’s Enforcement Policy there are some categories where Council has determined no action will be taken. In these circumstances Customer Service staff may record the complaint and provide information to the customer if it is clear the complaint is a ‘no action’ matter. Customer service staff will advise the customer of any means available through other agencies which may assist the customer to resolve the matter.

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 3 Trim No: Z14/152751

CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNCIL POLICY

Customer Feedback Quality customer service consists of providing an efficient, fair, impartial and responsive service. It is also about delivering the most appropriate and complete service at the outset. However, things can and do go wrong and can only be put right and a quality service delivered where Council becomes aware of the issue. Council’s feedback handling system provides an opportunity for service recovery. Customer feedback encompasses complaints, compliments and suggestions. Specifically a ‘complaint’ is an expression of dissatisfaction with Council’s policies, procedures, charges, employees, contractors, quality of service or goods sold or provided. Feedback does not include: • A request for service(unless it’s a second request, where there was no response to the first) • A request for information or explanation of policies or procedures • Reports of damaged or faulty infrastructure (ie potholes) • Reports of hazards (eg fallen trees) • Disputes concerning neighbours • The lodging of an appeal or request to review a decision • Complaints where Council has no jurisdiction

Lodgement of Feedback Customer feedback can be provided: • Via Council’s Website • On the Council form “Tell us what you think” available at Council facilities and Libraries • By telephone • In person at Council’s Customer Service Centre • By email • By Fax • By letter Council has trained staff dedicated to dealing with, and finalising, customer feedback.

Customer Feedback Review Process In cases where the customer is dissatisfied with the resolution of Customer Feedback, the customer should advise the Customer Service Manager in writing, the reasons for dissatisfaction within 28 days of the initial verbal or written advice. The Customer Service Manager will liaise with the relevant Senior Manager to investigate the matter. Further resolution processes may be implemented such as mediation or conciliation. The Customer Service Manager will provide a written response to the customer within 28 days. It is important to note that throughout the feedback handling process, Council expects that the customer will provide all relevant information. Additional reviews will not be undertaken. Complaints about Council can also be directed to the NSW OmbudsmanMembers of the local community who do not believe that Council has fulfilled any of its commitments should complain to Council in the first instance. If the complaint, and any subsequent review, does not resolve the matter, they can complain to: • The NSW Ombudsman (if the matter concerns maladministration or is related to child abuse); • The Office of Local Government (if the matter concerns a serious breakdown in Council operations, if Council as a whole, is not operating satisfactorily or the matter relates to pecuniary interest matters); or • The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) (if the matter concerns corrupt conduct). Each agency has a separate role in relation to the oversight of the conduct of councils. The NSW Ombudsman is responsible for complaints about a broad range of matters generally described as maladministration. The Office of Local Government is responsible for investigating pecuniary interest matters and will intervene if councils are Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 4 Trim No: Z14/152751

CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNCIL POLICY operating in an unsatisfactory manner or if council operations have seriously broken down. The ICAC is responsible for investigating corrupt conduct. Councils should be able to explain to the public, on request, these different roles.

Customer Responsibilities Council requires that customers assist Council staff in our service delivery by behaving in a fair and reasonable manner: • Treating staff with courtesy and respect • Respecting the rights of other customers • Being honest and accurate in information sought and supplied to Wollongong City Council • Working with us to resolve problems • Providing Council with feedback • Respecting our community At times some members of the public may act inappropriately toward Council staff or may make onerous demands on Council resources. Staff Guidelines have been developed to enable staff to deal effectively with customers in such situations.

Guidance Notes Councils Customer Service Charter is the overarching Statement of Commitment to the delivery of service to our community. Council delivers a range of services for which more specific service charters may be adopted. This is reflective of the varying Customer Service delivery models dependant on the type of service provided. All Service delivery charters comply with the overarching charter. This policy is applicable to the following persons: • All Council employees, including all contractors and volunteers • Customers defined as any person or organisation that engages with Council, or seeks product, service or information offered by Council A Customer Service Request is defined as a request for action to be taken in relation to a service or product of Council.

Related Policies Customer Feedback Handling Policy

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 5 Trim No: Z14/152751

CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNCIL POLICY

SUMMARY SHEET

Responsible Division Governance and Information

Date adopted by Council [To be inserted by Corporate Governance]

Date of previous adoptions August 2012, October 2010, September 2008

Date of next review [List date, eg July 2015]

Prepared by Customer Service Manager

Authorised by Manager Governance and Information

Adopted by Council: [Date] Page | 6 Trim No: Z14/152751

CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARTER

Wollongong City Council services Wollongong City Council’s Values Code of Conduct and Council’s Values approximately 200,000 residents. Wollongong City Council has established x Aiming to complete all of your business during your first contact. Wollongong City Council’s role values which form the core of our organisational culture. They define the We will improve our services by is to plan, maintain and deliver behaviours of all staff in the workplace x Continuing to enhance our information and strongly influence all interactions with a range of facilities and services and online service provision to enable you customers ensuring a consistent standard to our community and enforce to transact business with Council when of service for all of Council’s customers. you have time various laws. We will: x Wherever possible we want you to In doing this Council has a responsibility x Maintain integrity and earn trust complete your business via your to be responsive and accountable to the x Treat customers as we want to be treated community. Council must provide good preferred method: telephone, Internet, x Use the community’s money wisely leadership, supported by financial stability, personal visit, email or letter transparency and openness. x Bring out the best in each other x Listening to your feedback. Customer Service Standards Wollongong City Council’s Service A committed approach from all Commitment stakeholders will ensure that we will Wollongong City Council’s Customer deliver service in a friendly, knowledgeable Service Centre will respond efficiently and Wollongong City Council is committed and professional manner by: effectively to your enquiries. We aim to: to providing quality customer service to residents, business and visitors. x Being respectful, courteous and impartial x Answer 80% of telephone calls within in our dealings with you 30 seconds (you may have to wait longer This Charter identifies the minimum x Identifying ourselves when we talk to you during our busiest periods) standards you can expect from Wollongong x Listening carefully to what you say x Attend to 80% of enquiries made in City Council. It explains how information person, within 5 minutes can be obtained and outlines how you x Ensuring your personal information is • Organisationally, we aim to respond to can provide feedback for improving our kept confidential 90% of written correspondence within services. x Having trained and professional staff who will uphold Wollongong City Council’s 10 working days.

How will we know organisations to monitor how well we are x Working with us to resolve problems whether we have met doing. Feedback can be provided to Council x Providing Council with feedback (both if online at http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov. we haven’t met our service commitment our commitments to you? au/contact/feedback/Pages/default.aspx and also if we have exceeded your An assessment of our performance will be by using the Form “Tell Us What You Think” expectations in relation to our services) conducted annually to monitor compliance or by telephoning and asking to speak to x Respecting our community. with key elements of this Charter and our Customer Relations Officer. organisational performance indicators. We Contact also analyse all of the feedback directly from Assist us in delivering Website www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au customers and from the Community Survey. better service Telephone 4227 7111 You can assist us in delivering better Fax 4227 7277 Tell us what you think services by: Email [email protected] Wollongong City Council has a formal x Treating our staff with courtesy and Visit 41 Burelli St Wollongong Customer Feedback Handling Procedure respect Monday to Friday 8.30am - 5pm which outlines the standards for the x Respecting the rights of other customers actioning of complaints quickly and Write The General Manager

x Being honest and accurate in WCC©1248273.2.11 effectively. Council will be asking Wollongong City Council information sought and supplied to customers through surveys, listening Locked Bag 8821, Wollongong City Council to feedback, talking to community Wollongong DC, NSW 2500 WCC1388918 WOLLONGONG 2022 DRAFT QUARTERLY REVIEW STATEMENT September 2014

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 1 | Page

Table of Contents

MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER ...... 3

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT ...... 4

ANNUAL PLAN 2014/15 PROGRESS SUMMARY ...... 10

GOAL 1: WE VALUE AND PROTECT OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 14

GOAL 2: WE HAVE AN INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY ...... 17

GOAL 3: WOLLONGONG IS A CREATIVE, VIBRANT CITY ...... 21

GOAL 4: WE ARE A CONNECTED AND ENGAGED COMMUNITY ...... 24

GOAL 5: WE ARE A HEALTHY COMMUNITY IN A LIVEABLE CITY ...... 27

GOAL 6: WE HAVE SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT ...... 30

HOW WE PERFORMED AGAINST OUR BUDGETS ...... 33

REPORT OF MANAGER FINANCE ...... 35

BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT ...... 48

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 2 | Page

MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

This draft Quarterly Review Statement reports The organisational performance is also

the period from July – September 2014 and the reported by the inclusion of indicators which progress towards achieving the five Councillor monitor the status and progress of our Council Strategic Programs from the Delivery Program programs, activities, projects, finances, people with 2015 being the third year of a rolling five and key processes. year delivery program (2012-2017) and the This report also includes an overview of how Annual Deliverables from the Annual Plan Council is tracking against its budgets and 2014-15. Highlights and significant progress expenditure. It is a concise visual summary of with key projects from the Annual Plan 2014-15 Council’s financial situation for the quarter are reported by the six Community Goals from including the budget, capital budget and the Wollongong 2022 Community Strategic expenditure. Full budget details are included in Plan. the Budget Review Statement. Highlights from this quarter include: I would like to thank all staff and the . Wollongong’s Child Friendly Cities community for their contributions to the Initiative won a national award from the achievements identified in this draft Quarterly National Association for Prevention of Review and Budget Review Statement. Child Abuse and Neglect.

. Launch of the Illawarra Remembers Project. . Planting of 2,200 new seedlings for National Tree Day and over 19,000 additional plants distributed by Council’s

nursery. David Farmer . Financial Sustainability Annual efficiency General Manager targets launched.

. Completion of key infrastructure projects in West Dapto including Shone Avenue and Cleveland Road Bridge. . On Monday 25 August, Mt Keira Road was re-opened to traffic.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 3 | Page

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Our Councillors have made a commitment to support our organisation and the community in making Wollongong a better place to live, work, visit and play. To focus Council’s attention, Councillors have agreed to five Strategic Programs. These are outlined in the Delivery Program 2012-17. Progress made in each of the strategic program areas in the September quarter is presented below:

1 Financial Sustainability

Our Council is committed to improving the standards of community assets over the five-year Council term. This will be achieved by directing 85% of all capital investment into asset renewal, and a strong emphasis of cost effectiveness in service provision.

Project Sponsor: General Manager Project Manager: Executive Manager Strategy

Strategic Program Progress

 On Track

 Moderate risk in achieving the Strategic Program and/or impact on delivery timeframe

 Significant risk in achieving the Strategic Program

Program Achievements Council at its meeting of 23 June 2014 adopted a revised budget and annual plan that included a special rate variation, efficiency target, minor service adjustments and planned increases in fees and charges. This three year strategy commenced in July and increased income is reflected in the expansion of the capital works program to address asset renewal across the city. Annual efficiency targets have been built into the budget and across Council's service portfolio. Work is underway to identify improvement opportunities.

Program Risks With the approval of a special rate variation by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in June, and the adoption of a multi-faceted strategy, the risk rating for the Financial Sustainability Program has decreased. The focus is now to ensure ongoing business improvements resulting in efficiencies and the delivery of a significant capital works program.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 4 | Page

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT

2 West Dapto Urban Release

Council will work in collaboration with key agencies to provide the infrastructure needed to support growth within the West Dapto Urban Release Area. This will include improving access, infrastructure and local services which are needed to support the additional 17,000 future housing lots within the release area.

Project Sponsor: Director Planning + Environment Future City and Neighbourhoods Project Manager: Manager Project Delivery

Strategic Program Progress  On Track

 Moderate risk in achieving the Strategic Program and/or impact on delivery timeframe

 Significant risk in achieving the Strategic Program

Program Achievements

The following progress on the Access Strategy for the West Dapto Urban Release Area has occurred: • Shone Avenue Stage 1 Bridge replacement and road works - Complete • Shone Avenue Stage 2 Bridge replacement and road works - Commenced • Cleveland Road Bridge over Mullet Creek and associated road works - Complete • Intersection improvements Princes Highway and West Dapto Road Kembla Grange - Complete • Road improvements West Dapto Road and Wongawilli - Design Commenced

Program Risks

West Dapto Access – Fowlers Road to Fairwater Drive - Funding of $22.5 million has been allocated by the NSW State Government under the Restart NSW Illawarra Infrastructure Fund towards the project.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 5 | Page

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT

3 Waste Management

During Council’s term we will work to reduce the environmental impact of waste by improving waste management across the city. We will finalise and deploy Council’s Waste Strategy, assess the impacts of the carbon tax, and work toward the development of a new landfill cell at Whyte’s Gully to increase landfill capacity for the region.

Project Sponsor: Director Infrastructure + Works Connectivity Assets + Liveable City Project Manager: Manager City Works

Strategic Program Progress  On Track

 Moderate risk in achieving the Strategic Program and/or impact on delivery timeframe

 Significant risk in achieving the Strategic Program

Program Achievements The following progress has been made in waste management -

Helensburgh Waste Landfill Rehabilitation Project Key Milestones for this quarter include: • The landfill closure plan has been approved. • Detailed design is being completed as a priority. • Development modification has been submitted to Council to incorporate a landfill gas flaring unit. • Tender documentation has been prepared.

Whytes Gully New Landfill Cell Key milestones for this quarter include: • Stage 1A construction works physically completed. • EPA has commenced reviewing Quality Assurance and test plans for Stage 1A. Operational commencement is pending EPA approval. • Landfill gas collection infrastructure has been installed under stages 1A and 1B of the new landfill cell.

Program Risks

There are a number of risks associated with Helensburgh Waste Landfill Rehabilitation Project and the Whyte’s Gully New Landfill Cell; the major risks are that the Landfill gas flare at Helensburgh does not receive development approval, potential project delays, potential for landfill liner at Whyte gully to be installed incorrectly and the capital cost of both projects could exceed initial expectations.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 6 | Page

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT

4 City Centre Revitalisation

Council’s fourth aspiration in the Delivery Program is to improve the attractiveness of the Wollongong City Centre to work and visit, reinforcing its role as the region’s major hub for investment and jobs growth.

Project Sponsor: Director Corporate + Community Creative, Engaged and Innovative City Project Manager: Manager Project Delivery

Strategic Program Progress  On Track

 Moderate risk in achieving the Strategic Program and/or impact on delivery timeframe

 Significant risk in achieving the Strategic Program

Program Achievements During the quarter, significant progress has been underway with the City Centre Revitalisation. Highlights include: • Refurbishment works continued on the Crown Street Mall and the Keira Street Precinct. • Round 1 of the Crown Street and Inner City Building Façade Program continues to progress. Round 2 was officially launched during the quarter with applications closing early October 2014. There has been a strong level of interest from potential applicants in Round 2 of the Program. • The Public Spaces, Public Life Study has continued to gain momentum. Large amounts of data have been collected around the city to determine how our city is performing. The detailed analysis of this data is continuing and will be shared with the community to consider different approaches for continually improving our city centre. • At its meeting of 8 September 2014, Council endorsed a maximum of 10 major events per annum in each of the following areas to be exempt from alcohol prohibition subject to conditions: Upper Crown Street Mall, Lower Crown Street Mall, Globe Lane and the Arts Precinct. It also endorsed the suspension of the alcohol free zone in other areas to a maximum of two events per year approved by Council also subject to conditions. • The Creative Spaces Toolkit was launched. The Toolkit supports Council’s Creative Spaces initiative which aims to transform vacant shops in the CBD into temporary creative spaces. • Destination Wollongong progressed the development of a marketing and promotion campaign for the month of November for the opening of the newly refurbished Crown Street Mall. • The Spring Edition of the City Centre News was prepared and distributed to City Centre businesses and retailers.

Program Risks • Wet weather continues to be a risk impacting on the delivery program.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 7 | Page

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT

5 Connectivity/Walkability

Council’s fifth aspiration is to improve the connectivity of the Local Government Area (LGA) through the upgrade of our network of footpaths and cycle ways. This focus on our path and cycle network will ensure that necessary works are carried out to achieve an accessible and connected city.

Project Sponsor: Director Infrastructure + Works Connectivity Assets + Liveable City Project Manager: Manager Infrastructure Strategy + Planning

Strategic Program Progress  On Track

 Moderate risk in achieving the Strategic Program and/or impact on delivery timeframe

 Significant risk in achieving the Strategic Program

Program Achievements

Construction works commenced or completed in the September quarter include: • Completed construction (under tender) of the Stoney Creek bridge construction as part of Stage 1 of the Grand Pacific Walk. • Continued reconstruction of Keira Street under the Keira Street Precinct Plan. • Continued works on Flagstaff Hill Heritage Walk along Endeavour Drive. • Completion of replacement of the Squires Way cycle and pedestrian path (Elliotts Road to Fairy Creek), Fairy Meadow. • Commence tender process for the Cordeaux Road shared path. • Commence works completing Princes Highway shared path (Northcliffe Drive to West Dapto Road). • Complete reconstruction of the footpath along Princes Highway Woonona (Popes Road to Nicholson Street). • Construct new footpaths at Station Road, Horsley Drive and Lawrence Hargrave Drive (Thirroul). • Commence constructing new footpaths at Cirrus and Woodlawn Avenues. Design works under way for the ongoing delivery of the program include: • Detail designs for sections of Stage 1 of the Grand Pacific Walk (Coalcliff to Stanwell Park). • Continued detail design of Crown Street West footpaths. • Completion of detail design of Burelli Street footpath at Auburn Street to compliment traffic signals. • Commence traffic augmentation, pedestrian and footpath design for Warrawong CBD. • Commence detail design of Princes Highway footpath (Guest to Anama Avenues) Fairy Meadow.

As at the end of the September Quarter, Council had spent over $2 million of the $12.2 million allocated to capital programs supporting connectivity.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 8 | Page

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS PROGRESS REPORT

Program Risks

There are a number of sites on the network expansion program with significant geographical, technical, agency approval and community concerns that may impact on the design phase and hence construction timeframes. To minimise the impact from this risk, designs for projects further down the delivery program are also being progressed such that construction programs can be re-phased to ensure continued delivery of the improvement program.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 9 | Page

ANNUAL PLAN 2014/15 PROGRESS SUMMARY

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

The following section provides an overview of Council’s progress with delivering Wollongong 2022. It provides a summary of progress for 2014/15 annual deliverables [Council’s programs, projects and activities] and highlights significant progress with annual projects as outlined in the Wollongong 2022 community goals. This exception based reporting provides an overview of achievements for the September 2014 quarter. The organisations performance is also reported by the key performance indicators, budget summary information and Budget Review Statement.

The Annual Plan 2014/15 contains 335 annual deliverables across the six community goals. Table 1 below outlines how Council is tracking in the September quarter to achieve the annual deliverables for each community goal.

Not Goal On track Scheduled to Delayed Deferred Ongoing / Commence Complete 1 We value and protect our 32% 2% 3% 0% 62% natural environment

2 We have an innovative and 30% 2% 2% 0% 67% sustainable economy

3 Wollongong is a creative, 22% 3% 0% 0% 76% vibrant city

4 We are a connected and 41% 1% 0% 0% 57% engaged community

5 We are a healthy 27% 5% 5% 0% 62% community in a liveable city

6 We have sustainable, affordable and accessible 83% 4% 4% 4% 4% transport

Total Annual Deliverable 35% 3% 2% 0% 59% Progress* *Note: Each goal does not have equal number of Annual Deliverables, therefore the Annual Deliverable progress totals do not necessarily add together. For example – 4% of transport related deliverables are deferred not 4% of Annual Deliverables.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 10 | Page

ANNUAL PLAN 2014/15 PROGRESS SUMMARY

Overall 2% of annual deliverables were reported to be delayed, while 0% overall were reported to be deferred. Table 2 below outlines all annual deliverables that were reported as delayed or deferred at the end of September 2014.

Community Goal Annual Delayed Deferred Comment Deliverable

1 We value and Continue to Applications have been received for protect our deliver the Heritage Assistance Funding for 2014- natural Heritage Y 15 with grants to be allocated in the environment Assistance Grant second quarter which were due for Program allocation in first quarter.

Continue to Preliminary calculations to determine pursue the area and credits required for biodiversity Biocertification, and cost estimates for certification of the the proposed levy to support West Dapto Urban implementation of Biocertification have Release Area been completed. Preliminary including discussions have been entered into offsetting Y with landowners who have expressed provisions an interest in Biocertification. NSW Planning & Environment has been approached to seek support for the proposed levy. The project cannot proceed until a response is received from NSW Planning and Environment regarding a proposed levy.

2 We have an Participate in the Council continues to work with innovative and preparation of a Destination Wollongong in finalising sustainable Visitor Services the Visitor Services Strategy. This will Y economy Strategy establish the future plan of management for Visitor Information sites across the LGA.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 11 | Page

ANNUAL PLAN 2014/15 PROGRESS SUMMARY

Community Goal Annual Delayed Deferred Comment Deliverable

5 We are a healthy Assess rezoning 18 planning proposals were in progress community in a submissions and throughout the quarter. 11 proposals liveable city progress are under initial assessment, one supported proposal was supported by Council to Planning proceed for Gateway determination, Proposals one proposal is on exhibition, three proposals were exhibited and submissions are now being assessed, and one proposal is awaiting notification by the State government. Y One proposal (Flinders Street) was not supported by the Joint Regional Planning Panel. The assessment of planning proposals within statutory timeframes continues to be a challenge, with additional resources being allocated in the short term to address the backlog, and the development of a policy and a review of fees and charges to be undertaken in the future.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 12 | Page

ANNUAL PLAN 2014/15 PROGRESS SUMMARY

Community Goal Annual Deliverable Delayed Deferred Comment

6 We have Work with Awaiting detailed building condition sustainable, stakeholders to report of existing surf club building to affordable and plan for the assess viability of retention/renovation Y accessible renewal of North against costs of construction of a new transport Wollongong Surf surf club. Life Saving Club

Review the Hill 60 Council has engaged consultants to Reserve facilitate a review of the Conservation Conservation Management Plan. The key Management Plan stakeholders at Hill 60 have been Y and develop a identified and will be consulted Concept Master throughout the review. Community Plan for this site Engagement sessions are scheduled to commence 20 October 2014.

Finalise land title Current status remains on hold - requirements for awaiting feedback from Wollongong the transfer of land Coal to reopen negotiations. Golf Y occupied by Course operations continue as Russell Vale Golf programmed. Course

Commence The bridge replacement west of construction of the William James Drive is currently Cordeaux Road underway. Shareway Y The design of the shared path from Boorea Boulevarde to Bushells Bridge Mt Kembla is complete. Quotations are currently being sought from the construction industry for this project.

Work with No action this period. Shellharbour Forward planning of collaborative Council and others works around Lake Illawarra will be to extend the Lake Y the subject of discussions with Illawarra cycleway Shellharbour Council as the collaborative approach to Lake Illawarra management is developed.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 13 | Page

GOAL 1 WE VALUE AND PROTECT OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Continue to review the Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan in conjunction with the Escarpment Planning Reference Group.

The Illawarra Escarpment is an iconic feature of the Illawarra region. It spans across public and private tenures and has a complex history of use spanning tens of thousands of years; from Aboriginal occupation through to more recent history of agriculture, forestry, mining and residential use. The Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan is being prepared in order to maintain the conservation focus of the 2006 plan whilst reflecting results of additional studies and changes to planning instruments since 2006.

During the September quarter, work has been undertaken in collaboration with the Escarpment Planning Reference Group to progress the management plan. The Illawarra Escarpment Strategic Management Plan is planned for exhibition during the December quarter.

Continue implementation of priority actions from the Dune Management Strategy.

During the quarter, a number of priority actions from the Dune Management Strategy were implemented. These include: • Engagement of a consultant to prepare the design, coastal hazard assessment and review of environmental factors to reshape an area of Towradgi Dunes. • Vegetation surveys are underway at seven priority beaches as the basis of ongoing weed management and installation of appropriate species from Councils adopted planting list. • Council was awarded a Federal Government Green Army project. Three groups of participants will work over 18 months at seven beaches to remove weeds and install appropriate species from Council’s adopted planting list under the project. • The Lifeguard Tower at Corrimal Beach was moved seaward to facilitate a clear line of sight to the patrolled beach area. • Quarterly dune profile surveys and photo monitoring of beaches was conducted. • Vegetation vandalism has occurred at a number of dunal locations - vegetation vandalism signs will be erected and education of key user groups undertaken.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 14 | Page

GOAL 1: WE VALUE AND PROTECT OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Maintain key statistics on beach usage, incidents and preventative actions and manage service levels accordingly

Statistics for the September quarter reflect that North Wollongong Beach was attended by 34,263 visitors, whilst 693 preventative actions were undertaken and 2 rescues were performed. Council provides a year- round lifeguarding service for North Wollongong Beach, with the other beach seasons due to commence in 2nd quarter.

Continue to monitor gas wells at Whytes Gully.

During the quarter, phase 2 of the gas investigation and monitoring program at Whytes Gully became operational. When waste is placed in landfill and begins to decompose, landfill gas is generated. Much of the landfill gas generated at Whytes Gully is now captured through underground infrastructure that actively draws the landfill gas into a flare that combusts the gas to reduce its greenhouse potential. This process also reduces odour and helps Council better understand the quality and quantity of gas generated at the landfill site in view of a more beneficial end use.

Image: Gas flaring unit being utilised at Whytes Gully

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 15 | Page

GOAL 1: WE VALUE AND PROTECT OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Develop and deliver the Illawarra Remembers (ANZAC) project

On Thursday 25 September, an online archive detailing the Illawarra’s contribution to World War one was launched to 100 people.

The launch follows two years of digitising photographs, stories and more by Wollongong, Kiama and Shellharbour Council librarians as well as members of the community.

Image: Illawarra Remembers

Performance Measures

• Participation rate in environmental programs: 11,903 (Q4 = 7,473)

• Number of volunteers for Environmental Programs - Greenhouse Park: 405 (Q4 = 401)

• Plants Propagated: 11,749 (Q4 =13,235)

• Plants Distributed: 19,676 (Q4 = 17,835)

• Tonnes of Rubbish collected from clean-up activities: 12 (Q4 = 36)

• Number of volunteers worked at Bushcare and FIReady sites: 443 (Q4 = 443)

GOAL 2: WE HAVE AN INNOVATIVE AND draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 16 | Page SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY GOAL 2 WE HAVE AN INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Deliver the Economic Development Strategy In collaboration with the Economic Development Advisory Board, key activities from the Economic Development Strategy were implemented during the September quarter. Highlights include: • A joint regional submission, led by RDA Illawarra, and an individual Council submission was made in response to the NSW Government's Rebuilding NSW Plan. The submissions advocate for regionally significant infrastructure including faster road links, faster rail links and the Maldon to Dombarton Rail Line. • Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama local councils showcased the region by jointly hosting Economic Development Australia’s NSW Regional Conference in Wollongong on 19 September 2014. • The first intake for the 2014/15 Economic gardening program commenced in Shellharbour on 16 September 2014. Commence design of the refurbishment works for the Bald Hill Masterplan During the quarter, Council was successful under the Restart NSW Illawarra Infrastructure Fund Development for a $2.9m contribution towards the costs of the Bald Hill Refurbishment Project. Additional site investigations commenced during the quarter to develop a master plan based on the adopted Draft Concept Landscape Master Plan (2013).

Continue to implement the infrastructure delivery program to support the West Dapto Urban release area Further infrastructure has been delivered in West Dapto. In August the Cleveland Road upgrade works including a new bridge over Mullet Creek and widening of Cleveland Road have been completed. Works have also been completed at the intersection of West Dapto Road and the Princes Highway where a new access was created into the Illawarra Turf Club site and the intersection signalised.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 17 | Page

GOAL 2: WE HAVE AN INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

Implement the Crown Street Façade Project Round 2 of the Façade Rejuvenation Program opened on 26 August 2014 and closes 8 October 2014; $300,000 will be available. There has been a strong level of interest from both businesses and property owners.

Upgrades under Round 1 of the Façade Rejuvenation Program are continuing with six projects complete. Several projects are under construction, with more to commence shortly subject to the timing of works being complementary with surrounding construction works.

The program has also generated strong interest from other local councils, including Singleton, and urban design consultants as a model for best practice façade improvement.

Image: Crown Street Façade Program- Jones Dental Building

Deliver the Wollongong Major Events Strategy with Destination Wollongong

During this quarter, a streamlined approval process for event organisers operating in the approved Development Application areas of MacCabe Park, Arts Precinct, Osborne Park, Wollongong Foreshore, Lang Park, Stuart Park, Botanic Gardens and Dalton Park has been developed and piloted. This process is expected to enable the attraction of events to Wollongong by making it simpler for event organisers seeking to plan for and host events in the city. This is expected to generate employment, investment and activation of the city.

Continue to implement the Mall refurbishment Work has continued on the refurbishment of Crown Street Mall which is part of a broader strategy to revitalise the City Centre. When the project is completed, the Mall will be a lighter, safer and more attractive space that meets the changing needs of the community. Elements such as free Wi-Fi, public art, and a dynamic program of events will enhance visitors’ experience. The focus of the works throughout the September quarter was on the completion of the suspended slabs over the tree trench and paving in northern Church Street and Crown Street- East. During the quarter, contractors commenced installation of light poles, street furniture and pavement of shop fronts. The refurbishment of Crown Street Mall is progressing with the official re-opening scheduled for 22 November 2014.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 18 | Page

GOAL 2: WE HAVE AN INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

Image: Crown St Mall Refurbishment

Promote and implement the Outdoor Dining Policy within the City Centre During the quarter, Council obtained Development Application (DA) consent for outdoor dining and street trading in Crown Street Mall. The DA will further promote activation of the Crown Street Mall and will support the Evening Economy Strategy. At its meeting of 8 September 2014, Council endorsed a maximum of 10 major events per annum in each of the following areas to be exempt from alcohol prohibition subject to conditions: Upper Crown Street Mall, Lower Crown Street Mall, Globe Lane and the Arts Precinct. It also endorsed the suspension of the alcohol free zone in other areas to a maximum of two events per year approved by Council also subject to conditions.

Continue the review of the City Centre Revitalisation Plan The review of the City Centre Revitalisation Plan progressed during the September quarter. Key highlights include: • Finalisation of work on the refurbishment of the Keira Street Precinct extending from Market Street to Smith Street Wollongong. • The Crown Street Mall refurbishment made significant progress and is expected to be complete in the December quarter. • Stage 2 of the Crown Street and Inner City Building Façade Program commenced during the quarter. • The Public Spaces, Public Life Study has continued to gain momentum. • Council has prepared and obtained a blanket Street Activity Development Application prepared for Crown Street Mall to streamline the process for street activities such as events, markets, festivals, kiosks. • During the quarter, The Lord Mayor, Director Planning + Environment Future City and Neighbourhoods and a member of the business community went on a 15 day tour of New York to obtain ideas about how Wollongong City Council could revitalise the square bordered by Market, Denison, Ellen and Keira Streets. The trip encouraged thinking around affordable housing and street activation.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 19 | Page

GOAL 2: WE HAVE AN INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

Performance Measures

• Occupancy rates of licensed car parks: 100% (Q4 = 100%)

• Number of visitations to the tourism information centres: 15,792 (Q4 = 14,890)

• Tourist park onsite average annual occupancy: 99% (Q4 = 97%)

• Tourist Park occupancy rate of cabins: 38% (Q4 = 46%)

• Occupancy rates of paid on street parking: 74% (Q4 = 80%)

• Tourist parks occupancy rate of unpowered sites: 15% (Q4 = 28%)

• Tourist parks occupancy rate of powered sites: 24% (Q4 = 15%)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 20 | Page

GOAL 3 WOLLONGONG IS A CREATIVE, VIBRANT CITY

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Deliver the Public Art Program During the quarter, progress has been made with the Migration Heritage Public Art project. Certified engineer drawings have been approved; and re-assessment documentation for Development Application has been submitted for approval.

In addition an information session was held on the 12 August on Public Art. Public Art forms an integral role for a number of deliverables including the Crown Street Mall Refurbishment and Playground renewals.

Deliver the Men's Spaces and Places Action Plan Council organised a “Recycled Building Materials Tour for Local Men's Shedders". The goal of the tour was to show shedders where they can obtain inexpensive local recycled building materials for their projects, create a networking opportunity and raise awareness about recycling and the environment. 19 shedders visited 9 sites on the day with the Port Kembla Men's Group providing wood fire pizzas at the Port Kembla Community Centre. There was positive feedback from the shedders in a post tour survey and feedback that shedders have already revisited some of the tour sites.

Coordinate the activation and accessibility of the Arts Precinct to support the delivery of a range of activities and programs

Council contributes to the activation of the Arts Precinct with involvement in the operational coordination meetings and capital program reviews. The event Development Application for the precinct is now active to further encourage activation of the site. Planning for the return of the lunchtime live music program was undertaken. Planning for Steel City Sounds is underway.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 21 | Page

GOAL 3: WOLLONGONG IS A CREATIVE, VIBRANT CITY

Collaborate with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) community to support community events and celebrations During the quarter, Council supported a number of community events and celebrations. Key highlights include: • The Lord Mayor and the Affinity Intercultural Foundation Wollongong hosted an Iftar dinner in July as part of Ramadan to build and strengthen cross cultural relationships. • Council supported the Spanish Latin American Festival which included a launch at the University of Wollongong, a three day film festival at the Town Hall and the Laneway Fiesta in Warrawong on 27 September. • Council continued to support the Migration Heritage Project Group in the development of Bi-Centenary Migrant Pioneer Panels.

Deliver Wollongong Art Gallery Education Program A range of education and access programs were delivered in the quarter including: • 26 Free Guided tours • 20 Children’s Art workshops • 8 ARTsmart programs • 3 Art Enrichment Programs • 3 Junior Art Trail's • 25 Integrated drawing courses • 6 Guide Training courses • 2 Friends events • 10 Artist/Curator talks • 9 Adult art workshops • 6 NIDA workshops • 3 Youth Art workshops • 3 Gallery Guides meetings • The Gallery also hosted 19 Community and other events in this period.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 22 | Page

GOAL 3: WOLLONGONG IS A CREATIVE, VIBRANT CITY

Refurbish Corrimal Library Refurbishment of Corrimal Library is nearing completion with excellent feedback being received from the community. Work continues to complete the refurbishment of the main kitchen within the community centre and the installation of shade umbrellas within the courtyard.

Image: Corrimal Library Refurbishment

Performance Measures

• Library visitations: 262,362 (Q4 = 241,248)

• Library – total number of loans: 351,600 (Q4 = 316,884)

• Library programs: number of programs: 451 (Q4 = 335)

• Library programs: number of participants: 7,880 (Q4 = 8,278)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 23 | Page

GOAL 4 WE ARE A CONNECTED AND ENGAGED COMMUNITY

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Implement the revised Community Engagement Policy and framework Council uses the principles set out in the revised Community Engagement Framework when planning community engagement strategies and activities. Final preparations for the release of the framework across the organisation are underway, including an electronic version available for staff, an awareness module and promotion of the framework via staff training.

Deliver the Bushcare Program Bushcare is a Council-run program that aims to encourage and support community participation in the conservation and restoration of natural areas on community land. The work carried out by Council, contracted bush regenerators and volunteers are making a significant contribution to the conservation and restoration of our valuable natural areas. During the quarter, the Bushcare program engaged 404 volunteers who contributed 3,947 hours of work in natural areas on community land. Key highlights for the quarter include: • Bushcare groups participation at four sites on National Tree Day. • A new Bushcare group established at Charcoal Creek Unanderra. • Consultants began their site assessment and project scoping for the Biobanking Project at Puckey’s Estate.

Deliver Rise and Shine Rise and Shine aims to increase civic pride, accelerate environmental improvement and increase quality of life for present and future generations. Rise and Shine is a campaign encouraging community participation in a range of activities to improve the environment that in turn will benefit the quality of life enjoyed by local residents. During the quarter, a total of 91 community groups registered to participate in the Rise & Shine Community Clean up. So far a total of 22 groups have completed their clean up, disposing of 1.8 tonnes of litter and rubbish. A highlight this quarter was National Tree Day on the 28 July 2014, which saw 2,200 new seedlings planted at Greenhouse Park, Bellambi Creek, Nyrang Park and Cringila Park. Wollongong Botanic Garden horticultural staff also visited eight schools across the city as a part of the celebrations to teach children about species selection and planting.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 24 | Page

GOAL 4: WE ARE A CONNECTED AND ENGAGED COMMUNITY

Develop and implement programs and projects that support intergenerational interaction and integration (e.g. Grandad's Story Time; Grandparent's Story Time in Seniors Week) Programs continue to be provided that support intergenerational interaction, such as grandparents story time and author talks that attract a broad audience. One such program is the outdoor reading room launched at the Botanic Gardens during the quarter. Outdoor cupboards have been filled with books donated by Wollongong City Council inspired by the idea of ‘book crossing’. The initiative encourages community connectedness and celebration of reading and the outdoors.

Expand Council’s on-line profile including increased use of digital media Council continued to grow its on-line presence throughout this quarter. Growth in the importance of digital communication is reflected in our growing social media audience: Facebook likes increased 3.2% to 6294, up from 6,100 in June; Twitter followers increased by 9.7% to 2,567, up from 2,340 in June; Instagram has also shown an increase of 23% bringing followers up to 563 . Council stories, media releases and newsletters are all available via our website as well as information about key services. Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, there were 545,911 unique page views on Council's website. The five most frequently visited pages were (in descending order) homepage, library, employment, sportsgrounds and development applications.

Image: Outdoor Reading Room at Botanic Gardens

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 25 | Page

GOAL 4: WE ARE A CONNECTED AND ENGAGED COMMUNITY

Performance Measures

• Sick Leave: 6.97 (Q4 = 6.77)

• Number of Twitter followers for Council: 2,567 (Q4 = 2,340)

• Carers Leave: 0.67 (Q4 = 0.66)

• Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate: 18.19 (Q4 =16.96)

• Number of media releases issued: 43 (Q4 = 49)

• Number of Council Facebook page ‘likes’: 6,294 (Q4 = 6,100)

• Workers compensation costs as a percentage of payroll: 1.80% (Q4 = 0%)

• Telephone calls are answered within 30 seconds: 77% (Q4 = 66%)

• Enquiries made in person are welcomed and attended to within 5 minutes: 91% (Q4 = 92%)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 26 | Page

GOAL 5 WE ARE A HEALTHY COMMUNITY IN A LIVEABLE CITY

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Implement the Positive Ageing Strategy Key highlights for the September quarter include: • Council in partnership with Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District continued to deliver physical activity sessions at the Nicholson Park Outdoor Fitness Equipment. A total of 25 people participated, with an average of 15 people attending each week and 9 people attending all eight sessions. A survey of participants provided some very positive feedback with 1 participant stating " Thank you to Wollongong City Council for this wonderful program, it works, 22 participants who are still meeting, this is community at its best. • Council contributed to the development of the "YOU ME US" Intergenerational Project brokered by the Smith Family. The project involved students from St Francis of Assisi Catholic School Warrawong interviewing residents from the Illawarra Multicultural Village Warrawong about their lives and messages for young people. The interviews were captured in a video which was launched in September 2014. • Council, the Shoalhaven Local Health District and the Diabetes Service are collaborating on the development and funding of the BEAT IT Physical Activity and Healthy Lifestyle program to be provided at Beaton Park Leisure Centre.

In partnership with the RID (Regional Illegal Dumping) Squad Program develop and implement an illegal dumping regulatory and educational program During this quarter Council continued to participate in the RID program with other regional councils. Procedural improvements were made with alignment of roles between Waste and Ranger Services sections of Council. A joint agency exercise was conducted with NSW Police, Sydney Catchment Authority and National Parks, identifying dumping hotspots. Kerbside dumping is now being dealt with by Council with recognition received that the new process is more efficient and successful in relation to removing waste. In this quarter 14 x $500 fines were issued for failing to comply with notice to attend interviews, 13 clean-up notices issued, 8 fines for not complying with clean-up notices and one fine for transporting waste.

Engage with children in key projects for 2014-15

Engagement activities during the quarter included consultation for the MacCabe Park play space renewal and the Stuart Park play space renewal.160 families and children provided feedback which will be considered as part of the play space designs.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 27 | Page

GOAL 5: WE ARE A HEALTHY COMMUNITY IN A LIVEABLE CITY

During the quarter, Wollongong’s Child Friendly Cities initiative, which engages children in planning for the future, has won a national award from the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. The award recognises Councils efforts to engage children in planning for the future. Children from Warrawong Public School and Warrawong High School attended the ceremony hosted by the Governor- General Sir Peter Cosgrove at Admiralty House on 5 September.

Image: National Award from the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Picture from Left to right: Richard Cooke, CEO NAPCAN, Teresa Scott, President NAPCAN, Lady Cosgrove, Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove, Tracey Kirk-Downey, Wollongong City Council, John Rosewarne, Chairman, White Ribbon Australia, Jennifer Mullen, White Ribbon Australia.

Implement the Wollongong Community Safety Plan 2012-2016 and Graffiti Management Policy

During the quarter the audit of all Alcohol Free Zones was completed. A report was presented to Council on 8 September 2014 where all seven Alcohol Free Zones were re-adopted by Council. Eight Community Safety/Graffiti audits were completed and the Perception of Safety Survey was conducted. The survey took place on-line and at 11 community kiosks with over 750 responses received. Community Safety assessment comments were completed on 36 Development Applications. Council received a total of 1,099 reports of graffiti for this quarter, of which 728 (66%) were on Council assets and 371 (34%) were on private residences or business premises and Council also completed 6 graffiti prevention murals on the Art on Boxes (RMS traffic signal boxes) project.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 28 | Page

GOAL 5: WE ARE A HEALTHY COMMUNITY IN A LIVEABLE CITY

Provide funding through the Neighbourhood Youth Work Program to locally based youth projects Council provides $240,000 through the Neighbourhood Youth Work Program (NYWP) to Community Management Committees to develop and deliver services for young people in their local areas. NYWP projects are currently delivered in Bellambi, Berkeley, Cringila, Dapto, Helensburgh, Koonawarra and Port Kembla. These projects are co-funded by the Department of Family and Community Services. In 2014-15 a review will be undertaken of all Council funded youth services. The review is likely to have a strong focus on innovative and dynamic future service delivery models.

Deliver community development programs for children and young people During this quarter there was a significant focus on the Paint the Gong REaD project with a range of activities delivered including: • The Annual Paint the Gong REaD Reading Day Event which was held at Westfield Warrawong on 21 August with 290 children and 170 families participating in the day. Survey results indicate that families felt the event changed how they understood the importance of reading, talking, singing and rhyming to children from birth. • "Bright Spark" the Paint the Gong REaD Mascot attended the Reading Day, Relay for life, the Launch of the 2nd phase of the Imagination Library at Barnardos South Coast, the National Child Protection Week Event at Berkeley and various child care centres during the last quarter. • The Paint the GONG REaD Website went live. • Planning is under way for the Paint the Town REaD National Conference to be held in Wollongong in March 2015. • Council also participated in the National Child Protection Day Family Fun Day held at Berkeley in September.

Performance Measures

• Community Transport trips: 31,699 (Q4 = 31,740)

• Direct-Run District Level Community Facilities visitation: 61,599 (Q4 = 62,948)

• Utilisation of Direct-Run District Level Community Facilities: 10,103 (Q4 = 9,000)

• Social Support hours of service: 17,277 (Q4 = 12,728)

• Total Visits commercial heated pools: Corrimal: 16,968 (Q4 = 16,311)

• Total Visits commercial heated pools: Dapto: 9,333 (Q4 = 11,422)

• Utilisation/visitation at pools: 47,840 (Q4 = 91,674)

• Utilisation/visitation at beaches: 34,263 (Q4 = 77,088)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 29 | Page

GOAL 6 WE HAVE SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Actively participate in the interagency Project Control Group (PCG) to oversee the delivery of infrastructure in the West Dapto Urban Release Area Council has supported an inter-agency working group involving the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, Transport for NSW, and Roads and Maritime Services. During the quarter one meeting was held to progress the West Dapto Access Strategy and 4 meetings/workshops were held to discuss the proposed Albion Park Bypass.

Commence construction of the Heritage Walk Stage 2 The Heritage Walk Stage 2A addresses the southern side of Endeavour Drive. This work commenced construction in April and is scheduled for completion in October 2014. This stage includes relocation of electrical services, new kerb and guttering, a 1.5m wide concrete footpath, retaining wall and new stair access to Flagstaff Hill with landscape treatment to the embankment. Stage 2B The Promenade addresses the north side of Endeavour Drive. This stage includes a boardwalk behind the heritage wall and former coal staithes, a pathway between 2 and 4.5 metres wide, new pedestrian balustrade and replacement of the kerb and guttering. Detail design documentation is currently underway in preparation for tendering. Construction is scheduled to commence in April 2015.

Promote access to community transport via forums with the Indigenous community and other target groups A Consumer Forum with Indigenous elders and service providers in the community was held in July, in line with the Community Transport: Wollongong-Shellharbour Strategic Plan. The forum was an opportunity to engage with Indigenous elders to identify their community transport needs and to increase awareness about our services. Feedback from the community members on the day was positive and will be incorporated into future service planning.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 30 | Page

GOAL 6: WE HAVE SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT Implement footpath and cycleway improvement programs and development of city wide pedestrian plans Footpath and cycleway improvement programs are being delivered as part of annual and rolling Capital Works Program. The draft 2014/15 to 2017/18 Capital Works program has been developed and includes projects at approximately 214 sites with a total budget of $66 million. Scoping of a Pedestrian Plan has commenced in association with the Active Transport Reference Group. Funding for development of the Wollongong City Pedestrian Plan has been identified for 2015/16.

Image: Shone Avenue Works, West Dapto Urban Release

Mt Keira Road Re-Opening On Monday 25 August, Mt Keira Road was re-opened to traffic following $2.4 million of stabilisation and hazard reduction work. The project involved work on the lower embankment and upper slopes of the roadway. The work on the lower embankment involved implanting five rows of rock anchors, fixing it to the bedrock. The road was widened 1.5 metres enhancing safety and line of sight. The work on the upper slope was primarily focused on reducing rock fall hazard through vegetation clearing; rock bolts and building catch fences.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 31 | Page

GOAL 6: WE HAVE SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT

Performance Measures

• Delivery of council’s Capital Program: 19%

Image: Mt Keira Road Re-Opening

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 32 | Page

HOW WE PERFORMED AGAINST OUR BUDGETS

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

Budget 2014/15

The graph below shows Council’s expenses from ordinary activities by expense type for the quarter

Expense Type ($M) YTD Actual Proposed budget Employee Costs less Internal Charges 23.29 97.62 Borrowing Costs 0.97 3.83 Materials & Contracts 17.40 88.10 Depreciation 15.57 61.77 Loss on Disposal of Assets 0.17 0.00 Total 57.40 251.32

The graph below shows Council’s revenue from ordinary activities by revenue type for the quarter

Income Type ($M) YTD Actual Proposed budget Rates & Annual Charges 40.17 165.85 Other Revenue 2.53 9.33 Profit on disposal of Assets 0.00 0.87 Grants &Contributions 7.14 29.01 User Fees & Charges 7.59 31.90 Interest &Investments 1.24 5.38 Total 58.67 242.34

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 33 | Page

The graph below shows Council’s funding sources for the capital project budget for the quarter:

Income Type ($M) YTD Actual Proposed budget Restricted Cash 6.43 17.31 Capital Grant 1.81 14.90 DeveloperContributions 0.63 5.75 Loan Borrowings 0.00 0.00 AssetSales 1.55 4.98 Operational Funds 5.85 41.76 Total 16.27 84.70

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 34 | Page

BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT REPORT OF MANAGER FINANCE

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL

The following table provides a summary view of the organisation’s overall financial forecast and proposed variations for the full year 2014/15 based on year to date and anticipated performance to September 2014.

Original Proposed FORECAST POSITION Budget Budget Variation

KEY MOVEMENTS 1-Jul 26-Sep Q1

Operating Revenue $M 241.8 242.3 0.5 Operating Costs $M (251.1) (251.3) (0.2) Operating Result [Pre Capital] $M (9.3) (9.0) 0.3 Capital Grants & Contributions $M 32.6 32.5 (0.1) Operating Result $M 23.3 23.5 0.2

Operational Funds Available for Capital $M 41.8 41.0 (0.8)

Capital Works 83.7 84.7 1.0 Transfer to Restricted Cash 1.0 2.8 1.8 Contributed Assets - - -

Funded from: - Operational Funds $M 41.8 41.0 (0.8) - Other Funding $M 40.3 42.9 2.6

T otal Funds Surplus/(Deficit) $M (2.7) (3.5) (0.8) The revised projections at the September Quarterly Review for the year ending 30 June 2015 indicate an improvement of $0.3M in the Operating Result [pre capital] that is mainly due to the impact of the carbon tax repeal and timing of projects. The impact of these major items is as follows with less significant adjustments discussed further in this report: • Repeal of the carbon tax legislation $1.2M (F). The repeal of the carbon tax on 17 July 2014 has resulted in the reduction in expenditure budget of $2.3M that is partially offset by reduction in waste income and internal recoveries of $1.1M. Revenue from domestic waste management has not been reduced at this time as this had already been levied through the annual rates and charges process. As previously reported to Council the intention is to make an adjustment in the DWM price for 2015-16 to reflect this cost reduction. Anticipated surplus of $1.2M will be transferred to restricted assets. This action only impacts the Fund Result.

• Introduction of projects funded from prior year grant income $1.5M (U). While these are reflected as deterioration in the operating result they are offset by transfers from restricted assets and therefore do not impact the Fund Result.

• Adjustment for timing of operational grant income and funded projects $1.3M (F). Traditionally the first quarterly review includes the reintroduction of projects that were in progress at the end draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 35 | Page

of the previous year but not yet finalised. This would normally result in deterioration in the current year projections. At the end of the year the opposite usually occurs. To budget for this cycle, it is proposed that an increase in grant income of $0.6M and allowance of $0.65M for uncompleted funded projects be introduced during this quarter in anticipation of end of year adjustments. These values are based on the average of these transactions over the last two financial years. This adjustment does not impact on the Fund Result.

• Reintroduction of Council funded projects in progress at 30 June 2014 $0.6M (U). As highlighted in the June Quarterly review a number of projects including the Crown St Façade and some IT projects were in progress at the end of last financial year and would be reintroduced in the current year where necessary.

The Operating Result inclusive of capital grants and contributions has improved $0.2M. The improvements in the Operating Result [pre capital] have been impacted by an anticipated reduction in developer contributions $0.3M and an increase in capital grants $0.2M The Funds Result shows a proposed deterioration of $0.8M that is due to the re-introduction of the Crown St Façade and IT projects and the transfer to restricted cash of Southern Phone 2012/13 dividend of $0.2M that was received in 2013/14. It is proposed that dividend proceeds be held for work associated with natural areas as discussed at the Council workshops earlier this year. The combined transfer of current and past year dividend will create a restricted asset balance of $0.5M.

Further information in relation to the variations proposed in this Quarterly Review is outlined below. 1 Income & Expense The primary variations and issues are discussed below with favourable changes identified as (F) and unfavourable as (U). A more comprehensive list is provided in Table 7.  Rates Income $0.2M (F). This adjustment relates mainly to the change in timing of rating of new properties.  User Charges and Fees $0.6M (U). Cessation of the carbon tax has resulted in a reduction in Waste disposal income of $1.0M that is offset by an increase in income from Cemeteries and Tourist Park ($0.2M) based on prior and current year trends and City Centre parking as a result of an extension of lease of the Dwyer’s site ($77K).  Interest and Investment Income $0.1M (F). The increase in income is due to the confirmation of 2013/14 dividend from the Southern Phone Company of $0.3M that is offset by a reduction in investment earnings due to reduction in the Carbon Tax cash holdings ($132K). These are both offset by transfers to restricted cash and hence do not impact on the fund Result.  Other Revenue $0.2M (F). This increase in income is from Commercial property ($106K) and proceeds of prior year Workers Compensation insurance claims ($70K).  Grants & Contributions Operating – $0.9M (F). Introduction of additional grant income ($600K) discussed above, and the confirmation of Financial Assistance Grant ($186K) along with other minor adjustments has contributed to this improvement.  Grants & Contributions – Capital $0.1M (U). This variation is due to timing of developer contributions and grants. Developer contribution forecasts include a reduction for West Dapto ($3.8M) resulting from an expected decrease in lot releases for 2014/15 that is partially offset by recognition of contribution for the GTP development ($3.1M) and broader citywide contributions ($0.3M). This reduction is partially offset by additional RMS grants ($0.2M).  Profit/Loss on disposal of Assets – $0.2M (F). This variation is due to the introduction of land sales that were not able to be completed in 2013/14. This is reflected as an increase in proceeds of $1.718M and a carrying value of $1.89M. The net proceed will be transferred to restricted cash to meet existing commitments to future capital works. It is also expected that two additional properties may be sold during 2014-15 (Underwood St and Watts Lane) that together are expected to deliver proceeds in the vicinity of $7M. The sale proceeds have not been included at this stage as the existing approach has been to only recognise these in the budget once the sale process is sufficiently confirmed. draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 36 | Page

 Employee Costs $1.0M (U). The increase in employee cost projections is mainly due to additional short term resources for specific projects ($0.3MK) including work health & safety initiatives, EA renewal preparations and transition to new structures; reintroduction of funded projects ($0.2M), change in resourcing some service deliveries from external providers ($0.1M) and correction of budget for penalties associated with delivery of aquatic services ($0.3M) . These have been partially offset by a reduction in FBT relating largely to motor vehicles ($0.1M) resulting from modified lease arrangements.  Materials, Contracts & Other Expenses $0.9M (F). Favourable variation is largely due to the removal of Carbon Tax ($2.3M), adjustment for timing of funded projects that may not be completed in the current financial year ($0.7M) and use of additional labour for service deliveries ($0.1M). This is offset by introduction of funded projects from the prior year ($1.34M), reintroduction of the Crown St Façade ($0.3M) and IT projects ($0.3M) projects and other items offset by income ($0.3M).  Internal Charges $0.1M (U). This negative variation is due to the Internal Waste Disposal charge resulting from the removal of in Carbon Tax in pricing.

2 Capital Budget The capital works program is reviewed on a continuous basis to monitor progress and reflect planned delivery dates. The budgeted capital works program has increased from $83.7M to $84.7M during the first quarter through the addition of funded projects. Changes to the capital budget are reported to Council for endorsement as part of the monthly financial reporting process. At the end of September, Council has expended $16.2M of the revised budget.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 37 | Page

3 Cash & Investments The increase in projected cash and investments of $3.4M at September compared to the original budget is largely due to the impact of the favourable 2013/14 end of year result that is offset by the impact of the repeal of carbon tax on projected cash holdings and timing of projects. Carbon tax was collected through waste facility gate fees in the current period with cash outgoings made over future years that was linked to annual emissions. Available Funds excludes movement in externally and internally restricted cash such as timing of special purpose grants, progress of funded projects and land sales and reflects only the impact of operational improvements. The Available Funds have increased by $5.1M compared to original budget mainly due to the favourable 2013/14 year result ($5.8M) that is offset by reintroduction of general revenue funded projects in progress at 30 June 2014 ($0.6M).

CASH, INVESTMENTS & AVAILABLE FUNDS

Actual Ytd Original September 26 Actual Budget QR September 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 2014 $M $M $M $M Total Cash and Investments 117.9 109.5 112.9 123.6 Attributed to: External Restrictions Developer Contributions 14.0 11.7 11.2 14.9 Specific Purpose Unexpended Grants 11.6 17.8 20.8 12.3 Special Rates Levy City Centre 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 Unexpended Loans 25.3 16.8 15.7 22.0 Domestic Waste Management 8.1 9.5 10.4 8.4 Private Subsidies 3.3 2.3 4.3 3.4 West Dapto Home Assistance Prog 5.8 5.8 Stormwater Management Charge 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 Total External Restrictions 63.0 64.6 68.6 61.6

Internal Restrictions Property 1.5 3.7 4.2 3.0 Future Projects 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Sports Priority program 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 Car Parking strategy 0.2 (0.2) (0.1) 0.3 MacCabe Park Development 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 Darcy Wentworth Park 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Garbage Disposal Facility 13.8 16.4 13.1 12.1 Telecommunications Revenue 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 West Dapto additional 0.3 - 0.0 0.4 Natural Areas 0.5 Carbon Pricing 4.5 6.6 4.5 4.8 Total Internal Restrictions 27.0 33.5 29.2 27.5 Available Cash 28.0 11.3 15.2 34.4

Net Payable & Receivables (3.6) 4.5 5.9 (3.0) Current payables (29.1) (22.6) (22.6) (31.0) Receivables 18.6 21.2 21.4 18.4 Other 1.6 0.9 1.7 4.4 Non current Receivables 5.2 5.0 5.4 5.2 Available Funds 24.4 15.9 21.0 31.4

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 38 | Page

4 Securing Our Future Outcomes An Efficiency target was developed as part of the Securing Our Future program and was endorsed by Council in the adoption of the 2014-15 Annual Plan along with the special rate variation, revenue increases and service adjustment targets.

Securing Our Future EFFICIENCY SERVICES REVENUE TOTAL Lower Impact High Impact Rates * Other Adopted Outcomes $,000 $,000 $,000 $,000 $,000 $,000 2014/15 1,000 1,000 4,950 120 7,070 2015/16 1,000 200 4,560 250 6,010 2016/17 1,500 500 200 4,990 130 7,320 2017/18 500 100 600 2018/19 -

TOTAL 3,500 1,000 1,500 14,500 500 21,000

The long term financial projections include efficiency targets of $1.0 million 2014-15, $1.0 million 2015- 16, $2 million for 2016-17 and $0.5 million 2017-18 that are indexed thereafter. The lower impact targets for improvements have been proportionally allocated to individual services based on the level of discretionary expenditure in each. Managers are working towards the short and medium term targets. Progress will be reported through the Quarterly Review. Where improvements in income or non- discretionary cost can be achieved ahead of schedule it is intended that the additional funds may be used to initiate further actions required to achieve future improvement targets or offset individual targets that may not be achieved in the planned timeframe.

As at the September Review budget improvements of $0.4M has been identified. In line with the efficiency target intent these changes are not intended to impact on service delivery. The following table shows where improvements have been identified to date.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 39 | Page

Securing Our Future Improvement Targets 2014-15 2015-16

Adopted In Adopted In Adopted In Service Budget Achieved Balance Advance Budget Achieved Balance Advance Budget Achieved Balance Advance $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's $000's Allocated Efficiency Targets - Lower Impact Aquatic Services (65) 58 (6) (129) 60 (69) (233) 35 (198) Botanic Garden and Nursery (23) (23) (46) (46) (82) (82) Community Facilities (20) 20 0 (39) 39 0 (71) 71 0 Community Programs (11) (11) (22) (22) (40) (40) Corporate Strategy (8) 1 (7) (17) 1 (16) (30) 1 (29) Crematorium and Cemeteries (18) 12 (5) (36) 13 (23) (64) 11 (53) City Centre Management (6) (6) (12) (12) (22) (22) Cultural Services (19) (19) (39) (39) (70) (70) Integrated Customer Service (33) (33) (66) (0) (66) (119) (119) Development Assessment and Certification (49) (49) (98) (0) (98) (177) (177) Stormwater Services (20) (20) (39) (0) (39) (71) (71) Economic Development (6) (6) (13) (13) (23) (23) Emergency Management (7) 1 (6) (14) 2 (12) (25) 3 (22) Environmental Services (16) 11 (5) (32) 11 (21) (57) 11 (46) Financial Services (40) 40 0 63 (79) 79 0 32 (143) 113 (30) Governance and Administration (42) 4 (38) (84) 4 (79) (151) 2 (149) Public Health (7) (7) (15) (0) (15) (27) (27) Human Resources (42) (42) (84) (84) (151) (151) Information and Communications Technology (19) (19) (38) (38) (69) (69) Infrastructure Planning & Support (94) 138 44 (189) 148 (41) (340) 158 (182) Internal Charges Service (2) (2) (4) (0) (4) (8) (8) Leisure Services (29) 23 (6) (57) 27 (30) (103) 30 (73) Libraries (57) 57 0 (114) 114 0 (206) 106 (100) Natural Area Management (13) 7 (6) (26) 7 (19) (47) 7 (40) Land Use Planning (17) 8 (9) (33) 8 (25) (60) 8 (52) Property Services (10) (10) (21) (0) (21) (37) (37) Public Relations (20) (20) (41) (41) (73) (73) Parks and Sportsfields (87) 19 (68) (174) 20 (154) (314) 20 (294) Regulatory Control (22) (22) (44) (44) (80) (80) Tourist Parks (30) 30 0 (61) 31 (29) (109) 32 (77) Transport Services (98) 4 (94) (195) 4 (191) (352) 4 (348) Waste Management (61) (61) (122) (122) (219) (219) Youth Services (8) (8) (16) (16) (29) (29) (1,000) 433 (567) 63 (2,000) 570 (1,430) 32 (3,602) 613 (2,989) 0 High Impact Efficiency Target, Income & Service Adjustments Efficiency Improvements (500) (500) Service Adjustments (200) 0 (200) (400) (400) Additional Revenues (26) 0 (26) (151) (151) 0 0 0 0 (226) 0 (226) 0 (1,051) 0 (1,051) 0 September 2014 - additional Procurement 200 207 215 Legal 141 85 88 Income 111 (1,000) 433 (567) 515 (2,226) 570 (1,656) 324 (4,653) 613 (4,040) 303

5 Long Term Financial Projections Key Performance Information shown below is based on the financial forecasts that are contained in the Revised Delivery Program 2012-17 and Resourcing Strategy 2012-22 that were adopted by Council on 17 February 2014 and changes identified in the Adopted Annual Plan 2014-15. Council has a continuous budget process that revises the long term forecasts in line with quarterly changes and resets assumptions and indices annually or where new information leads to an immediate requirement to change the indices. The revised long term forecasts that these indicators are based on are reviewed on a continuous basis through the year and as part of the annual management planning process.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 40 | Page

Long Term Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) [pre capital] The Operating Result [pre capital] provides an indication of the long term viability of Council. In broad terms, a deficit from operations indicates that Council is not earning sufficient revenue to fund its ongoing operations (services) and continue to renew existing assets. The improvement to the forecast for 2014/15 is mainly due to timing impacts that include the repeal of carbon tax in July 2014 offset by the re-introduction of projects that were in progress at the end of last financial year. The deterioration in the years beyond 2014/15 has also been impacted by the repeal of the carbon tax and some relatively minor operational adjustments. The 2015/16 projections include the planned “refund” of the carbon tax that was collected through the domestic waste management charge during 2014/15 of $1.2M The carbon tax adjustments do not impact on Fund Result or the Operational Funds Available for Capital. From an Operating Surplus/(Deficit) perspective the carbon tax was reflected as an expense that was recovered through the waste fee structure. The carbon price model was based on the assumption that putrescible waste collected today would create emissions over a period in excess of seventy years and the carbon tax would be paid annually based on actual emissions for each of those years. To ensure that Council had sufficient fund to meet the future payments the price was set on the assumption that collected funds would be held as a restricted asset and invested so interest earnings would be sufficient to meet future payment obligations. The revised Operating Result reflects a reduction in investment earnings attributed removal of carbon tax cash holdings. This deterioration does not flow on to the Funds Result as there is a corresponding reduction in transfer to restricted assets.

Table 3

Operating Surplus / (Deficit) [pre capital]

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

$ M -15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24

Adopted Annual Plan 2014-15 September 2014 QR

Long Term Operational Funds Available for Capital An increase in Operational Funds available for capital remains the primary objective of Council to provide for effective renewal of assets. Timing issues such as early receipt of grant income or deferral of externally funded projects do not impact on Operational Funds available for Capital projections.

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 41 | Page

Table 4

Operational Funds Available for Capital 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0

$ M 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Adopted Annual Plan 2014-15 September 2014 QR

Available Funds Available Funds are the uncommitted funds of an organisation that assist in meeting the short term cash requirements, provide contingency for unexpected costs or loss of revenue, and to provide flexibility to take advantage of opportunities that may arise from time to time. Council’s Financial Strategy has a target to achieve and maintain an Available Funds position between 3.5% and 5.5% of operational revenue [pre capital]. The Available Funds remain above Council’s Financial Strategy target of 3.5% to 5.5% of operational revenue [pre capital]. Based on the Adopted 2014-15 Annual Plan the target range for Available Funds is between $7.7 million and $12.0 million (lower range) and between $11.3 million and $17.7 million (upper range) over the life of the current Long Term Financial Plan. The result for the year ended 30 June 2014 has resulted in an improvement of $5.8 million in Available Funds. This has reduced during the first quarter to $5.0 million due to the reintroduction of a number of projects that were in progress at year end. An additional $5.2 million was transferred to restricted asset for future projects during 2013-14. As discussed during the adoption of the 2014-15 Annual Plan and the June Quarterly Review the Available Funds and Future Projects position offers the opportunity to review delivery programs or projects in the short term. Council will review this position during the first half of 2014-15 and consider options for future plans.

Table 5

Forecast Available Funds Balance

35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0

$ M 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24

Adopted Annual Plan 2014-15 Target ( Low) Target ( High) September 2014 QR

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 42 | Page

WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL September Qtr 2014 Original Proposed Proposed Actual YTD Budget Variation Budget $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Income Statement Income From Continuing Operations Revenue: Rates and Annual Charges 165,699 40,174 150 165,849 User Charges and Fees 32,487 7,592 (633) 31,854 Interest and Investment Revenues 5,238 1,243 144 5,382 Other Revenues 9,143 2,531 184 9,327 Grants & Contributions provided for Operating Purposes 28,146 7,141 862 29,009 Grants & Contributions provided for Capital Purposes 32,604 3,139 (134) 32,470 Other Income: Profit/Loss on Disposal of Assets 1,040 (185) (172) 868

Total Income from Continuing Operations 274,357 61,636 401 274,758

Expenses From Continuing Operations

Employee Costs 107,212 26,139 1,008 108,219 Borrowing Costs 3,830 974 (0) 3,830 Materials, Contracts & Other Expenses 90,424 17,802 (956) 89,467 Depreciation, Amortisation + Impairment 61,767 15,569 (0) 61,768 Internal Charges (labour) (10,606) (2,853) 12 (10,593) Internal Charges (not labour) (1,536) (405) 114 (1,423)

Total Expenses From Continuing Operations 251,092 57,226 177 251,268

Operating Results From Continuing Operations 23,265 4,410 224 23,489

Net Operating Result for the Year 23,265 4,410 224 23,489

Net Operating Result for the Year before Grants & Contributions provided for Capital Purposes (9,338) 1,271 358 (8,980) NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) [Pre capital] % (3.4%) 7.2% 89.3% (3.3%)

Funding Statement

Net Operating Result for the Year 23,265 4,410 224 23,489

Add back : - Non-cash Operating Transactions 78,059 19,776 (2,106) 75,948 - Restricted cash used for operations 14,413 1,593 690 15,103 - Income transferred to Restricted Cash (58,334) (8,141) 274 (58,060) - Payment of Accrued Leave Entitlements (10,145) (2,876) 0 (10,145) - Payment of Carbon Contributions (427) 0 164 (263)

Funds Available from Operations 46,832 14,762 (755) 46,072

Advances (made by) / repaid to Council (135) 0 0 (135) Borrowings repaid (4,914) (525) 0 (4,914)

Operational Funds Available for Capital Budget 41,782 14,237 (755) 41,023

CAPITAL BUDGET Assets Acquired (83,693) (16,248) (966) (84,659)

Transfers to Restricted Cash (1,040) (1,545) (1,718) (2,758) Funded From :- - Operational Funds 41,782 14,237 (755) 41,023 - Sale of Assets 3,263 1,545 1,718 4,981 - Internally Restricted Cash 5,126 2,560 1,294 6,420 - Borrowings 0000 - Capital Grants 13,914 1,714 (1,664) 12,250 - Developer Contributions (Section 94) 5,858 629 (106) 5,752 - Other Externally Restricted Cash 10,136 3,865 749 10,885 - Other Capital Contributions 1,955 98 692 2,647 TOTAL FUNDS SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (2,700) 6,855 (756) (3,460)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 43 | Page

Offsetting Net by MAJOR VARIATIONS YTD compared to Budget $'000s Items for type Fund Surplus Deficit REVENUES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Rates & Annual Charges Rates income adjustments 150 150 User Charges & Fees Impact of carbon tax removal for waste facilities income (994) Recreation & C ommercial income - C emeteries & Tourist Parks 223 City Centre Casual Parking extension of Dwyer's site lease 77 Koonawarra centre management reverted to council 28 Commercial Lease Income & other 33 (633) Interest and Investment Income Southern Phone Company dividend for 2013/14 financial year 276 Interest income - Carbon Reserve (132) 144 Other Revenue Workers compensation insurance prior year claim recovery 70 Commercial Property Income 52 Library Service Late Fees (32) Reimbursement for work performed on behalf of utility providers 40 Commercial Property City Beach outgoings 54 184 Library Service Late Fees EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Employee Costs FBT 90 Introduction of externally funded projects (242) Short term additional resources for specific projects (316) Aquatic services recognition of penalty rates (277) Reallocation to/from Other C ategories (92) Koonawarra Community Centre management reverted to Council (28) Various other adjustments (143) (1,008) Materials, Contracts & Other Expenses Reduction in expenditure from repeal of Carbon Tax 2,305 Reintroduction of Crown St Façade Rejuvenation project from 2013/14 (294) Reintroduction of IT projects in progress 2013/14 (270) Mt Keira Generator operations (107) Introduction of externally funded projects (1,343) City Centre Casual Parking extension of Dwyer's site lease (77) C ommercial Property Income Land Rates (54) Work performed on behalf of utility providers (40) Rates Postage (31) Adjustment for potential work in progress at eoy 650 Reallocation to/from Other C ategories 92 Contingency/other savings applied to support specific short term proje 161 Various other adjustments (36) 956

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 44 | Page

Offsetting Net by MAJOR VARIATIONS YTD compared to Budget $'000s Items for type Fund Surplus Deficit Internal Charges Removal of carbon tax on Internal Waste Disposal Charge (114) Labour (12) (126) Grants & contribution - Operating Financial Assistance Grant - Indexation Adjustment 186 Community Development Salary Subsidy 25 Estimated potential additional grant receipts based on prior years 600 Other 51 862 Profit/Loss on Disposal of Assets Land Sales proceeds - settlement delayed from 2013/14 1,718 Carrying value of deferred land sales (1,890) (172) Operating Variation [pre capital] 885 366 (894) 358 Capital Grants & Contributions Developer Contributions City Centre & City Wide 3,378 West Dapto (3,751) RMS Grants Supporting C apital Works Program 239 (134) Operating Variation [post capital] 751 366 (894) 224

FUNDING STATEMENT Non Cash Expenses Carbon Tax (2,305) Leave Liability 26 Land Sales 2014/15 Proceeds (1,718) Land Sales 2014/15, Carrying Value 1,890 (2,106) Restricted Cash Used for Operations Externally funded project adjustments 1,585 (11) Adjustment for potential work in progress at eoy (650) Carbon Tax (164) 760 Income Transferred to Restricted Cash Carbon Tax Reserve 2,305 Transfer of carbon tax value relating to DWM (1,197) Transfer of Southern Phone Company Dividend received 2013/14 (243) Interest on Carbon Tax 132 Adjustments to reflect timing of capital & operational grant 83 Southern Phone Company Dividend confirmed for 2014/15 (276) Estimated notional additional grant receipts based on prior years (600) 204 Payment of Carbon Contributions 164 164 OPERATIONAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CAPITAL 0 392 (1,148) (756) CAPITAL BUDGET Increase in capital program (966) Increase in associated funding 966 TOTAL FUNDS SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 0 392 (1,148) (756)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 45 | Page

CAPITAL PROJECT REPORT QR 2014-2015 Year Financials September 2014

$'000 $'000 $'000 YTD Original Budget Current Budget Expenditure variation Program Expenditure Other Expenditure Other Expenditure Other Funding Funding Funding

Asset Class:Roads And Related Assets Traffic Facilities 2,426 (1,591) 2,118 (1,253) 1,047 (308) 338 Public Transport Facilities 250 (75) 250 (75) 104 (0) 0 Roadworks 4,949 (649) 5,676 (911) 1,011 727 (262) Bridges, Boardwalks and Jetties 3,620 (1,840) 3,620 (1,840) 771 0 0

Total Roads And Related Assets 11,245 (4,155) 11,664 (4,079) 2,933 419 76

Asset Class:West Dapto West Dapto Infrastructure Expansion 9,048 (9,048) 8,725 (8,725) 1,665 (323) 323

Total West Dapto 9,048 (9,048) 8,725 (8,725) 1,665 (323) 323

Asset Class:Footpaths And Cycleways Footpaths 4,540 (4,020) 5,323 (4,233) 478 783 (213) Cycle/Shared Paths 8,648 (6,801) 7,698 (5,907) 1,321 (950) 893 Commercial Centre Updages - Footpaths 13,897 (2,815) 13,827 (2,815) 3,613 (70) 0

Total Footpaths And Cycleways 27,085 (13,636) 26,848 (12,955) 5,412 (237) 681

Asset Class:Carparks Carpark Construction/Formalising 750 (500) 773 (500) 28 23 (0) Carpark Reconstruction or Upgrading 200 0 425 0 386 225 0

Total Carparks 950 (500) 1,198 (500) 415 248 (0)

Asset Class:Stormwater And Floodplain Management Floodplain Management 1,150 (400) 1,239 (489) 466 89 (89) Stormwater Management 1,200 (700) 1,200 (700) 419 (0) (0) Stormwater Treatment Devices 200 (200) 200 (200) 60 0 (0)

Total Stormwater And Floodplain Man 2,550 (1,300) 2,639 (1,389) 945 89 (89)

Asset Class:Buildings Cultural Centres (IPAC, Gallery, Townhall) 800 0 800 0 22 0 0 Administration Buildings 2,220 0 2,270 0 401 50 0 Community Buildings 6,505 (736) 6,175 (961) 553 (330) (225) Public Facilities (Shelters, Toilets etc) 571 0 956 (135) 87 385 (135)

Total Buildings 10,096 (736) 10,201 (1,096) 1,062 105 (360)

Asset Class:Commercial Operations Tourist Park - Upgrades and Renewal 700 0 700 0 17 0 0 Crematorium/Cemetery - Upgrades and R 200 0 200 0 4 0 0 Leisure Centres & RVGC 150 0 150 0 5 (0) 0

Total Commercial Operations 1,050 0 1,050 0 27 (0) 0

Asset Class:Parks Gardens And Sportfields Play Facilities 2,110 (755) 2,110 (755) 6 0 0 Recreation Facilities 456 (33) 549 0 47 93 33 Sporting Facilities 510 (250) 889 (712) 8 379 (462) Lake Illawarra Foreshore 150 0 225 0 1 75 0

Total Parks Gardens And Sportfields 3,226 (1,038) 3,773 (1,467) 61 547 (429)

Asset Class:Beaches And Pools Beach Facilities 575 0 553 0 75 (22) 0 Rock/Tidal Pools 615 0 675 0 210 60 0 Treated Water Pools 475 0 1,152 0 137 677 0

Total Beaches And Pools 1,665 0 2,380 0 422 715 0

Asset Class:Natural Areas Environmental Management Program 170 0 220 0 6 50 0 Natural Area Management and Rehabilitat 120 0 165 (45) 37 45 (45) Total Natural Areas 290 0 385 (45) 43 95 (45)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 46 | Page

CAPITAL PROJECT REPORT QR 2014-2015 Year Financials September 2014

$'000 $'000 $'000 YTD Original Budget Current BudgetExpenditure variation Program Expenditure Other Expenditure Other Expenditure Other Funding Funding Funding

Asset Class:Waste Facilities Whytes Gully New Cells 1,250 (1,250) 3,850 (3,850) 2,493 2,600 (2,600) Whytes Gully Renewal Works 200 (200) 200 (200) 19 0 0 Helensburgh Rehabilitation 2,000 (2,000) 500 (500) 46 (1,500) 1,500

Total Waste Facilities 3,450 (3,450) 4,550 (4,550) 2,558 1,100 (1,100)

Asset Class:Fleet Motor Vehicles 2,886 (1,773) 2,886 (1,773) 8 (0) 0

Total Fleet 2,886 (1,773) 2,886 (1,773) 8 (0) 0

Asset Class:Plant And Equipment Portable Equipment (Mowers etc) 400 (300) 400 (300) 10 (0) (0) Mobile Plant (trucks, backhoes etc) 2,000 (150) 2,000 (150) 0 0 0 Fixed Equipment 260 0 260 0 31 (0) 0

Total Plant And Equipment 2,660 (450) 2,660 (450) 40 (0) (0)

Asset Class:Information Technology Information Technology 790 0 790 0 74 (0) 0

Total Information Technology 790 0 790 0 74 (0) 0

Asset Class:Library Books Library Books 1,200 0 1,200 0 414 (0) 0

Total Library Books 1,200 0 1,200 0 414 (0) 0

Asset Class:Public Art Public Art Works 260 0 282 (22) 9 22 (22) Art Gallery Acquisitions 100 0 100 0 0 0 0

Total Public Art 360 0 382 (22) 9 22 (22)

Asset Class:Emergency Services Emergency Services Plant and Equipment 2,030 0 830 0 45 (1,200) 0

Total Emergency Services 2,030 0 830 0 45 (1,200) 0

Asset Class:Land Acquisitions Land Acquisitions 175 0 225 0 61 50 0

Total Land Acquisitions 175 0 225 0 61 50 0

Asset Class:Non-Project Allocations Capital Project Contingency 1,826 0 1,161 0 0 (665) 0 Capital Project Plan 1,111 (366) 1,111 (366) 53 0 0

Total Non-Project Allocations 2,937 (366) 2,272 (366) 53 (665) 0

Asset Class:Loans West Dapto Loan 0 (2,760) 0 (2,760) 0 0 0

Total Loans 0 (2,760) 0 (2,760) 0 0 0

GRAND TOTAL 83,693 (39,211) 84,659 (40,177) 16,249 966 (965)

draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 47 | Page

The Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) requirements issued by the Department of Local Government in December 2010 require Council to provide additional information that is included in the following schedules and this report should be read in conjunction with these. The (QBRS) guidelines require councils to provide a listing of contracts that have been entered into during the quarter that have yet to be fully performed. Details of contracts, other than contractors that are on a council’s preferred supplier list, that have a value equivalent of a 1% of estimated income from continuing operations or $50K, whichever is the lesser, are required to be provided.

Contract Listing Budget Review for Quarter ended September 2014

Contract Commencement Duration of Budgeted Contractor Contract Detail & Purpose Value $000's Date Contract Y/N Programmed Facilities Management Cleaning of City Gallery 119 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2016 YES BTW Communications Pty Ltd Beach Lifeguard Network Access & Radio Servicing 56 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2017 YES Forms Express Billing Notice Processing and Mailing Service 70 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2015 YES Powerdirect Small Site Electricity & Natural Gas 1,620 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2017 YES Soilco Pty Ltd Organics Processing Contract 23,741 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2021 YES REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd Waste Collection Services 73,700 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2021 YES Visy Paper Pty Ltd trading as Visy Recycling Recyclables Processing Contract 10,992 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2026 YES Convic Skatepark Pty Ltd Design and Construction of Holborn Park Playground 770 1/07/2014 FY 2014/2015 YES Jetco Engineering Pty Ltd Beach Cleaner Implement 97 23/07/2014 FY 2014/2015 YES Orica Australia Pty Ltd Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite 13% 55 1/08/2014 FY 2014/2016 YES Martin Morris and Jones Pty Ltd and Real Estate Services 100 1/09/2014 FY 2014/2019 YES Warehouse King Pty Ltd Upgrade to Shone Avenue at Horsley, including a 4 span bridge and Abergeldie Contractors 5,763 15/09/2014 FY 2014/2015 YES Channel works

The QBRS guidelines also require councils to identify the amount expended on consultancies and legal fees for the financial year. Consultants are defined as a person or organisation that is engaged under contract on a temporary basis to provide recommendations or high level specialist or professional advice to assist decision making by management. Generally, it is the advisory nature of the work that differentiates a consultant from other contractors.

Consultancy and Legal Expenses Budget Review for Quarter ended September 2014 Expense Expenditure YTD Budgeted (Y/N) $000's Consultancies 224 YES Legal Fees 240 YES

Statement of Responsible Accounting Officer

All investments held at the 30 September 2014 were invested in accordance with Council’s investment policy. Bank reconciliations have been completed as at 30 September 2014. Year to date cash and investments are reconciled with funds invested and cash at bank. Budget Review Statement - Revision To Full Year Estimates

The following statement is made in accordance with Clause 203(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. It is my opinion that the financial statements and schedules contained within the Quarterly Review Statement for Wollongong City Council for the quarter ended 30 September 2014 indicate that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2015 will be satisfactory having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure. The overall year to date position is within expectations of the adopted budget across the broad range of indicators and on a budget outcome basis is acceptable.

BRIAN JENKINS RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER draft Quarterly Review Statement September 2014 48 | Page

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ROAD CLOSURES FOR STREET PARTIES

1 Each road affected by the closure approval shall be restored to full and uninterrupted traffic flow prior to the end of the closure.

2 The road shall be cleared sufficiently to allow an emergency vehicle access to a property within the closure area. For this reason, no barbeques, heavy tables or other heavy equipment is to be set up on the road pavement.

3 You are required to advertise the road closure in the local newspaper (eg) Temporary Road Closure – Owen Street, Bulli Date: 6 December 2014 Time: 2 pm – 7 pm Event: Street Party

4 Council will notify emergency services and the Police Service.

5 NSW Police Service directions are to be strictly adhered to.

6 Council will endeavour to make available to you the following equipment for the closure

Regular Street Equipment Requirements Cul - De - Sac Street Equipment Requirements 6 Barrier legs 3 Barrier legs 12 Road Barriers 6 Road Barriers 2 Road Closed Signs 1 Road Closed Signs 4 Flashing Lights 2 Flashing Lights

It should be noted that Council does not supply 9 volt batteries for flashing lights, however batteries can be made available for approximately $3.40 each. The flashing lights must be fixed to the barriers and operating prior to sunset. It is your responsibility to collect this equipment from Council’s Works Depot Store, Montague Street, North Wollongong, prior to 2.00 pm on the last working day prior to your proposed road closure, and return same on the next working day following the closure. Please ensure you sign a receipt when collecting and returning this equipment.

Equipment, which is returned damaged beyond use or not returned at all, will be replaced at your cost.

A sufficient number of people (at least 2), together with a vehicle suitable for the purpose of transporting the relevant equipment, are to be provided by the organisers for the loading and unloading of this equipment at the Depot.

7 You are requested to email Council’s Events and Functions Coordinator [email protected] two weeks prior to pick-up to ensure availability of the equipment.

8 If Council’s Store does not have sufficient equipment to lend, you are to obtain equipment from another source (e.g. hire firm), at your expense.

Z13/180770