ATTACHMENTS TO VARIOUS REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2016
ATTACHMENT TO CM 13B – 02/2016
DRAFT AQUATICS STRATEGY
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Aquatics Strategy – SGL Consulting Group
Albury City Council Aquatic Strategy
FINAL DRAFT REPORT
January 2016
Prepared by SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd in association with FDG Architects Pty Ltd.
www.sglgroup.net
SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd
Adelaide 2a Mellor St West Beach SA 5024 Phone: +61 (08) 8235 0925 Fax: +61 (08) 8353 1067 Email: [email protected]
Brisbane PO Box 713 Mount Gravatt Queensland 4122 Mobile: +61 (0) 416 235 235 Email: [email protected]
Melbourne Level 6, 60 Albert Road South Melbourne VIC 3205 Phone: +61 (03) 9698 7300 Fax: +61 (03) 9698 7301 Email: [email protected]
Perth 19 Clayton Street East Fremantle WA 6158 Phone: +61 (0) 8 9319-8991 Mobile: +61 (0) 407 901 636 Email: [email protected]
Sydney 1/273 Alfred St Nth North Sydney NSW 2060 Phone: +61 (02) 8011 0725 Fax: +61 (02) 8011 0720 Mobile: +61 (04) 17 536 198 Email: [email protected]
SGL also has offices in:
• Auckland (NZ) • Christchurch (NZ) • Port Moresby (PNG)
Front Cover Photos:
Albury Swim Centre and Lavington Swim Centre Photos adopted from Bordermail.com.au
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Table of Contents 1 Background and Project Area Overview ...... 1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1 1.2 Project Methodology and Tasks ...... 2 1.3 Project Supporting Reports ...... 4 1.4 Stage One Key Findings ...... 5 1.4.1 Population and Demographic Profile ...... 5 1.4.2 Area Population Overview ...... 5 1.4.3 Albury Council Aquatic Facility Business Indicators ...... 6 1.4.4 Area Aquatic Facility Usage Trends ...... 6 1.4.5 Area Aquatic and Leisure Facility Provision ...... 7 1.4.5.1 Regional Aquatic Facility Usage and User Catchments Review ...... 7 1.4.6 Stage One Key Study Findings Summary ...... 8 1.5 Stage 2 Site and Aquatic Facility Options Review ...... 10 2 Future Aquatic Facility Options and Components ...... 11 2.1 Introduction ...... 11 2.2 Priority Facility Components ...... 11 2.2.1 Aquatic Facility User Market Trends ...... 12 2.2.2 Successful Facility Components ...... 12 2.2.3 Recommended Facility Components and Development Options ...... 13 2.3 Facility Option Schematic Plans ...... 14 3 Future Facility and Site Option Reviews ...... 15 3.1 Nominated Sites for Review ...... 15 3.2 Preliminary Site Reviews ...... 15 3.2.1 Albury Swim Centre Preliminary Site Review ...... 16 3.2.2 Lauren Jackson Sport Centre Preliminary Site Review ...... 17 3.2.3 Lavington Swim Centre Preliminary Site Review ...... 18 3.2.4 Lavington Sports Club Preliminary Site Review ...... 20 3.2.5 Summary of Preliminary Site Review Assessment Scores ...... 20 3.3 Detailed Site Reviews ...... 21 Primary Selection Criteria (Scored out of 10)...... 21 Secondary Selection Criteria (Scored out of 10) ...... 22 3.3.1 User Catchment Review ...... 23 3.3.2 Detailed Site Review Assessment ...... 24 4 Indoor Aquatic Facility Design Options ...... 25 4.1 Introduction ...... 25 4.2 Facility Site Conceptual Layout Plans ...... 25 4.2.1 LJSC Facility Site Conceptual Layout Plan ...... 25 4.2.2 LSC Facility Site Conceptual Layout Plan ...... 27 4.3 Conceptual Plans Indicative Capital Costs Review ...... 30 5 Aquatic Strategy Operational Financial Modeling ...... 31 5.1 Introduction ...... 31 5.2 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Assumptions ...... 31 5.3 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Financial Models ...... 32 5.4 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Comparisons ...... 33 5.4.1 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Usage Comparisons ...... 33 5.4.2 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Operating Cost Comparisons ...... 34 5.4.3 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Capital Cost Comparisons ...... 34 5.4.4 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Business Trend Comparisons ...... 35 5.5 Future Aquatic Strategy Options Funding Review ...... 36 5.5.1 Internal Funding Options...... 36
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page i Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 5.5.2 External Grant Funding Opportunities ...... 36 5.5.3 Servicing of Loans From New Centre Surplus/Swim Centre Closures ...... 37 5.5.4 Summary of Aquatic Strategy Option Funding Opportunities ...... 37 6 Final Draft Future Albury Aquatic Strategy ...... 39 6.1 Introduction ...... 39 6.2 Assessment of Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Options ...... 39 6.3 Where to From Here ...... 41
Directory of Tables
TABLE 1.1 ALBURY COMBINED AQUATIC FACILITIES BUSINESS INDICATOR REVIEW ...... 6 TABLE 1.2 REGIONAL POPULATION AND SWIMMING POOL VISITATION TRENDS ...... 8 TABLE 1.3 FUTURE PRIORITY FEATURES FOR SWIMMING POOLS ...... 9 TABLE 1.4 FUNDING FOR A FUTURE INDOOR AQUATIC CENTRE ...... 9 TABLE 3.1 ALBURY SWIM CENTRE PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW ...... 16 TABLE 3.2 ALBURY SWIM CENTRE PRELIMINARY SITE PRIORITY CRITERIA SCORE ...... 17 TABLE 3.3 LAUREN JACKSON SPORT CENTRE PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW ...... 17 TABLE 3.4 LJ SPORTS CENTRE PRELIMINARY SITE PRIORITY CRITERIA SCORE ...... 18 TABLE 3.5 LAVINGTON SWIM CENTRE PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW ...... 19 TABLE 3.6 LAVINGTON SWIM CENTRE PRELIMINARY SITE PRIORITY CRITERIA SCORE ...... 20 TABLE 3.7 LAVINGTON SPORTS CLUB PRELIMINARY SITE REVIEW ...... 20 TABLE 3.8 PRELIMINARY SITE PRIORITY CRITERIA SCORES ...... 20 TABLE 3.9 DETAILED SITE PRIORITY CRITERIA SCORES ...... 24 TABLE 5.1 FUTURE ALBURY CITY AQUATIC STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS ...... 31 TABLE 5.2 FUTURE ALBURY CITY AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTIONS KEY ASSUMPTIONS ...... 31 TABLE 5.3 FUTURE ACC AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTION 10-YEAR USAGE COMPARISONS ...... 33 TABLE 5.4 FUTURE ACC AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTION 10 YR OPERATING COSTS ...... 34 TABLE 5.5 FUTURE ACC AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTION 10 YR CAPITAL COSTS ...... 35 TABLE 5.6 FUTURE ACC AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTION 10 YR BUSINESS TRENDS ...... 35 TABLE 5.7 FUTURE ACC AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTION 10 YR CAPITAL FUNDING ...... 37 TABLE 6.1 FUTURE ACC AQUATIC STRATEGY OPTION PRIORITY CRITERIA ASSESSMENT .. 40
Appendices
APPENDIX ONE: Proposed Facility Options Component Schedules
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page ii Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 1 Background and Project Area Overview
1.1 Project Overview
Albury City Council (ACC) commissioned SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd (SGL) to undertake an aquatics strategy report that provides Council with short, medium and long-term recommendations for the existing and/or proposed aquatic facilities. The study included:
Project Scope
The project scope included: Market and demand analysis including consultation (Including local and regional demand for the length of the swim centre seasons) Audit of use and usage trends Review operations with a view to achieving efficiencies and meeting user demand Investigation of new technologies for future operations or developments Determine the feasibility of various development strategies Funding strategies (including grants, philanthropic, partnerships etc.)
Areas of Investigation
The studies areas of investigation will be informed by: Views of Advisory Committee and stated aims Existing usage data (memberships, casual, user group, bookings, events etc.) Previous feasibilities and reports The demographic profile Various Council plans and strategies
Required Outputs
The required outputs include recommendations on: Management and operations Asset Maintenance Introduction of technology Development options and feasibility
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 1 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 1.2 Project Methodology and Tasks In line with the project brief SGL developed and completed a detailed project methodology based on two key stages of investigation being:
Stage One: Background Review, Market Research and Consultation Stage Two: Future Albury City Council Aquatics Strategy
Stage One Research and operational reviews Stage Two Demographic reviews Facility benchmarking Stakeholder interview/focus groups/written Technical review submissions Draft Aqautic Strategy Facility user & school surveys Facility component review Telephone survey Capital cost review Trends and technology review Finacial modeling mangement and events review implementation plan Council Workshop Draft report Summary Stage One Findings Final report
The project stages and tasks are detailed in the following table.
STAGE TASK DETAIL
Stage One: 1. Project Upon appointment SGL met with the Study Manager and the Project Background Clarification Steering Group to confirm the project brief, finalise the study program, Review and obtain a background briefing, identify potential stakeholders to be Market Research consulted and discuss relevant reports and documents to be reviewed. 2. Review Relevant All relevant documents, strategies, plans and policies were reviewed, Strategic analysed and synthesised, and the implications and relevance to the Documents and Study were assessed. This included: Report Aquatic Feasibility Study and Strategy 2007 Lavington Swim Centre Technical Inspection Report 2012 Community Strategic Plan Council Plan Other relevant documents 3. Operational A review of the current operations of the two existing aquatic facilities Review was undertaken for a five-year period. The review identified usage by key activity and service areas, income, expenditure, maintenance.
The review also identified the cost of providing the service to Council, and assisted with identifying potential ways to achieve efficiencies and meet current and future user demands. 4. Demographic A detailed analysis of the demographics of the Albury Council area was Review completed to identify characteristics that may impact on the use of aquatic and leisure facilities and services across the City. 5. Review and An audit and review of existing and proposed competitor facilities in Benchmark of neighbouring Council areas was undertaken and an assessment of the Competitor likely future impact of these facilities on the aquatic facilities and future Facilities development options was identified. In particular a review of the redeveloped aquatic facilities in Wodonga was assessed. 6. Key Stakeholder Interviews were held with a nominated key stakeholders as listed in the Interview project brief and included:
Advisory Committee members Existing user groups (clubs, program providers, swimming/water polo and diving associations etc.); Health service providers; Current facility contract managers;
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 2 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net STAGE TASK DETAIL
Relevant Council staff Other LGA’s Other relevant individuals/organisations identified by the Project Group.
The aim of the consultation was to determine the needs of the existing and potential future users and assess the potential demand for the use and subsequent programs and activities to satisfy community demand. 7. User Survey Facility management identified a list of current members at each facility and these people were emailed a link to a facility user survey and invited to complete the survey. The survey was set up as a means of seeking information from current users of the facilities about both their current and future needs and issues. Given that the pools were closed this was considered the best way to survey a large sample of existing facility users. 8. School Survey As a major user of aquatic facilities all schools in the City were emailed an electronic survey to assist with identifying current and future needs. 9. Focus Group Two group sessions (1 internal and 1 external) were held with key groups identified by the Project Steering Group. These sessions were used to validate the information received through the key stakeholder interviews. 10. Public An opportunity was provided for groups and individuals to provide input Submissions into the project by written/email submission. This opportunity was promoted through articles in local papers, Council media releases and website and how you can be involved leaflets. 11. Industry Trend and A review of the aquatic and Leisure facility industry trends was Technology completed to assist in guiding the study. This included a review of other Review suitable facility developments with innovative components and programs in similar sized communities. As part of this review new technologies that are being included in aquatic facility design and management were identified and a range of facilities reviewed and summarised as case studies. 12. Review of Event Discussions were held with both Swimming Victoria and Swimming Opportunities NSW as well as local water sports clubs/associations to identify the potential and possible frequency of bidding for and hosting water sports events 13. Management A review of the current management and new management models Review was completed through interviews with existing management and Council representatives. 14. Council and Manex Report back summary workshops were held with Council and Manex Workshops representatives to identify key findings and current needs and future priorities. 15. Issues and Based on the background review and consultation a summary power- Opportunities point discussion paper will be prepared that provided a summary of key Report and issues and needs and identified any major issues, opportunities, Strategic Direction constraints and conflicts
Stage Two: 1. LSC Technical A detailed understanding of the Technical Inspection Report for the Review Lavington Swim Centre will be undertaken to determine the needs, Albury City issue and life span of the facility. Aquatics 2. Draft Aquatic Based on the Stage One Findings and Technical Assessment a draft Strategy Plan Strategic Options Aquatics Options Strategy Plan for the Albury City Aquatic Facilities Plan and Services will be set up for review and analysis. The plan will help identify the options and opportunities to either refurbish, renew, replace or rationalize the facilities.
The draft options plan will address the study outcomes of the Project Brief and included reviews to be completed to guide on:
Best practice facility development options Site opportunities/constraints review Management and operations Asset maintenance Introduction of technology Development of options and feasibility, including concept plans Funding strategy 3. Facility Based on the findings of the Draft Strategic Plan facility components Component schedules, where appropriate, will be developed for recommended Schedule developments.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 3 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net STAGE TASK DETAIL
4. Indicative An experienced aquatics architect will assist the project team with base Concepts layouts for agreed facility options. 5. Indicative Capital A quantity surveyor will be retained to provide advice on indicative Cost concept cost plan for any development recommendations and associated life cycle costs. 6. Business Case/ An assessment of income generation and operating costs over a ten- Financial Models year period will be completed for new or major redevelopment options. SGL will undertake computer modelling to assess the performance of the various components and priority business zones over a 10-year period.
A base case will be completed with business assumptions for: Usage/demand Operating hours Management/staffing systems Entry fees Operating costs including indicative service charges.
The business case will then tested for sensitivity analysis through development of:
Base Case Conservative Model Optimistic Model 7. Aquatic Strategy A detailed Aquatic Strategy implementation Plan with indicative costing Implementation of the Draft Strategic Plan and recommended actions will be Plan completed. 8. Draft Report A draft aquatics strategy and implementation plan will be presented to both Manex and the Project Steering Group for review and comment. Any necessary feedback and edits will then completed. Following this review a draft presentation will be made to Council and their feedback also included in report edits. 9. Final Draft Report Based on the comments and feedback received a final draft report will be prepared and put out for stakeholder/public consultation. 10. Final Report Council will complete a community consultation process and following agreement on feedback, SGL complete a final report.
1.3 Project Supporting Reports
As indicated in the project methodology the strategy has been completed in two distinct stages. Stage one findings were developed into a stage one summary report that was issued on the 10th of September 2015.
The stage one report was put on Council’s website and could be downloaded for interested people and organisations to review and provide comments on.
This report now covers the findings of stage one with the detailed facility site, component and options analysis and assessment. It provides a summary of stage one key findings and then covers: Preliminary and priority site assessment Facility and site options Facility option business and operational reviews Facility option financial modeling Future facility strategy option comparisons Recommended Future Final Draft Albury Aquatic Strategy In line with the project brief this report was forwarded to Council Officers for review in late December 2015 and further edits and reviews completed in January 2016. The updated draft strategy report is due for presentation to Albury City Council in February 2016 for consideration.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 4 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 1.4 Stage One Key Findings
This section provides a summary of key findings listed in the stage one report research and consultation and the key issues identified that needed to be considered in detail in the stage two study process of development of future aquatic facility strategies for the Albury Council area 1.4.1 Population and Demographic Profile
Albury’s current population is currently estimated at 51,082 people (ABS 2014). Figures from the ABS show that the City’s population over the past five years has grown by approximately 3.3%.
The population and demographic review completed in the Stage One Report - Section 3 indicates that Albury will have by 2036, a population of 66,838.
Importantly from a community aquatic, leisure, health and fitness facilities provision perspective Albury City Council has an ageing population however a large proportion of people are in their most active ages seeking high use of such facilities, programs and services. Future population projections indicate this young age profile will continue to grow.
The population profile of Albury is aging, reflecting a nationwide trend with more people aged over 65 years. However, nearly 7 out of 10 people (65.9%) are aged in their most active years of 0 – 49 years. This indicates that the current pressure and demands being placed on Council to provide a range of leisure activities and facilities to meet the needs of residents will continue.
These results indicate a need to consolidate existing operations whilst maximising potential facility usage by expanding and improving existing aquatic, leisure health and fitness and options within the City. This consolidation should be supported over the next 5 to 10 years by planning and developing new indoor facilities to meet current need and future projected population growth. 1.4.2 Area Population Overview
Albury City is also part of the Albury Wodonga area that includes a larger population base when Wodonga City Council residents are added into the regional population that could potentially also use future new aquatic facilities.
The following graphic highlights both Council areas current and projected future population to help identify the current and estimated future regional population.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 5 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The regional population review indicates in 2015 there were an estimated 90,983 people living in the combined Albury and Wodonga City Council areas.
Based on future population projections this was estimated to increase to 124,472 people by 2031. 1.4.3 Albury Council Aquatic Facility Business Indicators
The following table compares the past three years combined Albury Swim Centre and Lavington Swim Centre aquatic facility key business indicators.
Table 1.1 Albury Combined Aquatic Facilities Business Indicator Review Business Indicator 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Annual Combined Visits 217,863 151,675 162,038 Annual Combined Operating Costs $555,800 $467,200 $515,130 Less Management Fee $121,500 $124,645 $25,000 Total Net Operating Cost $434,300 $351,555 $490,130 Net Annual Cost/Visit $1.99/visit $2.31/visit $3.02/visit
The combined Albury aquatic facilities business indicators, for the past three years, show a range of negative operational business indicators including: Annual combined facility visits have dropped from 217,863 in 2012/13 to 162,038 in 2014/15 (-55,825 less visits). Annual combined facility operating costs (before management fees) have reduced from $555,800 in 2012/13 to $515,130 in 2014/15 (- $40,670) Management fees paid by the management contractor have reduced from $121,500 in 2012/13 to $25,000 in 2014/15 (-$96,500). The total net operating cost of the combined facilities that was met by Albury City Council has increased from $434,300 in 2012/13 to $490,130 in 2014/15 (+$55,830). The annual net operating cost per visit has increased from $1.99/visit in 2012/13 to $3.02/visit in 2014/15. The business indicator trends highlight the combined aquatic facilities are recording all negative business indicators with: Less users, Higher costs to operate facilities, Less fees paid to Council by contract management and Increase annual costs/visit 1.4.4 Area Aquatic Facility Usage Trends
Resident telephone survey respondents were questioned on their use of public swimming pools in the past 12 months. A total of fifty eight per cent (58%) of people had used or visited a pool in the past 12 months. Forty three per cent (43%) had not used of visited a pool in the past 12 months.
Usage of swimming pools/leisure centres does change by gender and age profile as the following facility usage results indicate that nearly 6 out of 10 people (58%) have used these facilities with highest use by females (60%) compared to males (55%), and people aged 15 to 34 years old (72%) and 35 to 54 years old (65%). Usage of facility is made infrequently with the majority of respondents indicating they used facilities less than once a month (25%) followed by 2-3 times per week (24%) and weekly (14%). Users of Albury Swim Center rated it highly with 73% of users rating it good or excellent, 28% rated it as average or poor and only 1% rating it as very poor.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 6 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Users of Lavington Swim Center rated it highly with 64% of users rating it good or excellent, 35% rated it as average or poor and only 1% rating it as very poor. The main reason for choosing the pool was because it was close to home (53%), range of pools available (13%), good facilities (11%), attend aquatic program (11%). Most people visited the centre by car (87%) and use the facility for recreation/fun swimming (40%), lap swimming (43%) and swim lessons (7%). To assist with identifying the level of demand for future use of swimming pools, respondents were asked if they would like to make greater use of these facilities in the future.
Seventy per cent (70%) of people indicated that they would like to make greater use of swimming pools/leisure centres in the future. 1.4.5 Area Aquatic and Leisure Facility Provision
A review of the aquatic facilities within both the Albury and Wodonga areas indicates that there are a total 8 aquatic facilities consisting of 5 indoor aquatic facilities and 3 outdoor aquatic facilities.
Of these facilities 4 are council owned facilities, 3 are private or commercial facilities and 1 is located on land owned by the Commonwealth Department of Defence.
A review of the provision of gym and health and fitness facilities within the Albury and Wodonga region indicates that there are a total of 24 identified gym/health and fitness facilities.
Of these facilities only 1 is a council facility, 1 an education provider and 22 are owned and run commercially.
While there is a large number of outdoor aquatic facilities providing access to competition water during the summer season there is a lack of suitable indoor pools to support year round access to programs and services.
The three privately operated facilities currently supported the winter aquatic activities however all of these facilities are at capacity and do not meet the training requirements of the swimming and water polo clubs. 1.4.5.1 Regional Aquatic Facility Usage and User Catchments Review
To help identify current public aquatic facility usage and user catchments for the project region SGL has reviewed facility usage and population statistics. Regional facility usages is summarized in the following graphic.
Regional Area Aquatic Facilities 327,000 Visits
Albury City City of Wodonga Council Pools Pools 162,000 Visits 165,000 Visits
Wodonga Sports Albury Swim Lavington Swim Wodonga Waves and Leisure Centre Centre 80,000 Visits Centre 85,000 41,000 Visits 121,000 Visits Aquatic Visits
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 7 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The following table highlights public swimming pool visits by facility and local government area population to identify the current facility visits per head of population trends.
Table 1.2 Regional Population and Swimming Pool Visitation Trends LGA Swim Pool Visits Total Swim Pool LGA Population Visits Per Head of By LGA 2014/15 Visits June 2014 Population to Swim Pools Albury City Council ASC: 121,000 visits 162,000 51,319 3.15/visits LSC: 41,000 visits City of Wodonga WW: 80,000 visits 165,000 39,664 4.15/visits WSLC: 85,000 visits Combined LGA Areas 4 Facilities = 327,000 visits 327,000 90,984 3.59/visits
The review of pool visits and population indicates a low per head of population visits for both Council areas when compared to industry averages for regional areas. These currently range from 6 visits to 9 visits per head of population compared to the regional average of 3.59/visits (ACC 3.15/visits and COW 4.15/visits).
These results indicate a significant opportunity to attract a large number of visits to a new aquatic facility in the region if it provides the components that will attract people to use such facilities.
Based on the regional population of 90,984 the combined swimming pool visits in the region could range from 545,904 (6 visits/head of population) to 818,856 (9 visits/head of population). This is an increase of 218,904 to 491,856 more visits than currently achieved. 1.4.6 Stage One Key Study Findings Summary
The stage one key study findings are summarized under key headings as follows:
1. Aquatic Facility Provision and Usage There are 3 outdoor seasonal 50m pools in region that are only open 6 months/year but during this time are attracting 240,000+ visits. There is only 1 LGA public indoor facility open all year round that has limited water space supported by small commercial swim centers. This is located in Wodonga and has limited capacity to increase its usage due to small water area provision. Regional swimming pool visits estimated at 327,000/visits/year, which sees on average 3.66/visits/resident (ACC – 3.17/visits, WRCC 4.32/visits) compared to Australian Regional Area Aquatic Industry averages of between 6 to 9 visits/year. The resident household survey indicated compared to other regional areas SGL has surveyed that the Albury Council area is recording medium use of swimming pools by residents (58%) but, due to seasonal pools, sees very low frequency visits/year/per user. Since the last study was completed in 2007 the Albury City Council pools have recorded lower usage trends (-22%), especially since Wodonga Waves opened. At the same time Council’s aquatic facilities also had increased operating costs (+71%). Aquatic management fees paid to Council have also reduced from $107,000/year to $25,000/year and with increased operating costs now sees Council subsidising its two aquatic facilities at an annual $500,000 loss/year. ACC swim pools continuing to age and will requires significant capital replacement in the next 10 years. 2. Future Populations and Aquatic Facilities Provision Albury CC population is projected to increase by 15,000 people by 2036 to 66,838 people. Wodonga City population is projected to increase by 17,990 by 2036 to 57,634 people.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 8 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The combined cities population is estimated to be in excess of 125,000 people by 2036 (+32,990 people in area). Based on industry averages of 6 to 9/visits pools/year this could see a potential user market of between 750,000 to 1.125M/visits to pools a year (if facility provision/operational months could cater for this use). Currently the 4 Council aquatic facilities in the area attract only 327,000 visits, which sees averages 3.66/visits/year per head of population. Current usage trends indicate there is significant capacity to attract more use if a new aquatic facility was developed that meets maximum market user needs and is open all year i.e. competition/family/children’s/older adults water spaces. 3. Community Consultation Findings
The extensive community consultation undertaken to help guide the future aquatic and leisure facility needs and issues indicated: The current pools are aged, outdoor pools that only operate during a limited summer season The current pools are at capacity, particularly during peak usage times. There is a need for an indoor facility to enable all year round aquatic activities for range of users (not just sport). There is a need for major event and competition facility to support the large participation numbers in competitive swimming and water polo. The study attracted more than 228 public submissions so current and future aquatic facilities are a significant project interest for residents. The majority of submissions sought new indoor aquatic facilities but there was a lot of conflicting opinions on best location, cost of development and need to leave things as they are Respondents that indicated that they would like to make greater future use of swimming pools were asked to nominate features that would encourage this increased use.
There were a total of 60 different features/facilities nominated with the most common responses being:
Table 1.3 Future Priority Features for Swimming Pools Future Priority Features % Of Respondents Indoor recreation/leisure pools 13 Outdoor heated pools 9 Outdoor grassed/shaded areas 8 Indoor heated pool 8 Indoor competition pool 7 Membership packages/discount offers 7 Open all year round 7 More variety of activities/programs 6 More children’s activities/facilities 6 Longer opening hours 6
Respondents were also asked whether they support Albury City Council providing funding for a new Albury Indoor Aquatic Centre and the results are listed in table 1.4 below.
Table 1.4 Funding for a Future Indoor Aquatic Centre Previously Visited Pool in 15-34 35-54 55+ Total Males Females past 12 months Years Years Years Yes No Yes 89% 86% 91% 90% 86% 88% 88% 90% No 12% 14% 9% 10% 14% 12% 12% 10%
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 9 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The results indicated the majority of residents surveyed (89%) were in support of an indoor aquatic centre being funded by council whilst 11% said no they would not support Council funding for such a development. Further respondent analysis indicates females were more likely to support the idea (91%) than males (86%).
While those that had used swimming pools in the preceding 12 months recorded high support at (90%), those residents that had not used a swimming pool were still highly supportive of the project with (86%) supporting the funding of such a development. 1.5 Stage 2 Site and Aquatic Facility Options Review
Study findings clearly indicated a major gap in all year round aquatic facility provision in the project area. Aquatic Industry trends indicated most population areas over 100,000 people can sustain a major indoor aquatic leisure facility but such a facilities viability will be impacted by what has been identified as an oversupply in the area of 3 outdoor seasonal 50 metre pools (only open for up to 6 months of the year).
SGL recommended at the completion of stage one, testing the usage, financial feasibility and capital cost of development of a range of future aquatic leisure facility improvement options of new indoor water and associated activity and service support facilities including: Mix of indoor water areas to cater for a competition pool (25m or 50m that also may cater specifically for a range of water sports such as swimming, water polo and diving), Learn to swim pool, leisure/children’s pool, warm water program pool and associated areas. Commercial leisure and wellness development areas that can help reduce aquatic area operating costs i.e. health and fitness/wellness/retail. The stage two review listed in the next section developed schematic concept plans and financial models for a range of different sized aquatic leisure components and these were then developed at the nominated review sites.
The review of future major aquatic leisure facility site options indicated that the likely best locations for future aquatic development would be at either of the following existing high use community sport and recreation sites:
Albury Swim Centre - highest use aquatic facility but restricted site area for future development and car parking and located furthest away from future ACC population growth areas. Lauren Jackson Sports Centre – Opportunity to cluster and connect facilities and share management costs as well as service future northern population growth access. Manex and Council Stage One Review Forum participants recommended that stage two site option reviews also consider location of facilities at a high use regional event facility.
This was recommended to include Lavington Sports Complex– Consideration of a future aquatic facility added to a major event facility at the Lavington Sport Complex (Note - Council has in December received funding support for major facility upgrades at this site).
This site was thought to might benefit from such a facility mix for high performance sport and also services the new northern population growth area.
Manex and Council Stage One Review Forum participants further recommended that Jelbart Park (including Lavington Swim Centre facilities) also be considered as a stage two development option review site as this major sport and recreation reserve is located close to the future population growth area of the city as well as also being considered in the future as a major site for football (soccer) facilities.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 10 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 2 Future Aquatic Facility Options and Components
2.1 Introduction
This section of the report covers identification of priority facility components and facility option development so the future facility development area requirements can be determined. The priority facility components are identified from a range of study inputs and findings including: Community survey and user survey current high use components Community survey and user survey future priority facility components High use facility components identified from successful aquatic leisure facility development in similar population areas. Service and amenity areas required under planning, health and safety regulations. Following the development of priority components facility briefs are developed to enable the project architect to develop initial schematic design options to enable the identification of indicative building and site area requirements that then are used to help assess site options. 2.2 Priority Facility Components
The Stage One Report presented a detailed section (see section 3.10) on Industry Trends that showed that future successful aquatic leisure facilities needed to cluster and connect a range of community and commercial components/activities at the one site.
The main aquatic facility trends that can impact on selection of high use activity components are detailed in the following graphic.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 11 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 2.2.1 Aquatic Facility User Market Trends
Traditionally many local authority aquatic leisure facilities were built for specialist or limited market users (i.e. competitive swimmers/high level sport participants). The majority of aquatic facility market research indicates future facilities must equally cater for four distinct aquatic user markets being: Recreation and Leisure Market - usually made up of families, people coming with friends and groups for fun, relaxation, social activity and low level competition/participation.
Competitive/Training/Fitness Market - usually made up of people predominantly attending facilities alone for structured fitness or competition activities.
Education Market - usually made up of children and adults wishing to increase water safety and survival skills. Includes Learn to swim classes, school and club use and individuals improving their skills and techniques. They require hot water pools and water depths with some straight edges and water access.
Health and Therapy Market - usually made up of children, adults and older adults wanting to relax or exercise in hot water. This market also includes specialist health condition groups such as arthritis, asthma suffers, etc. They require hot water pools and associated health relaxation areas, i.e. Spa/saunas, etc. Industry benchmarking indicates that the recreation and leisure market will be the largest as it contains people of all ages, ability, types, interest and gender.
The competitive/ training/fitness market is a more specialist market as it usually contains younger, fitter and more active people who have made time to train and compete.
In many cases 60% to 70% of facility users come from the recreation/leisure sector with only 20% to 30% coming from the competitive/training/fitness markets.
The health/therapy and education markets can range from 10% to 20% subject to the age and health profile of the community in which the facility is located 2.2.2 Successful Facility Components
The key successful facility components that link to the range of user markets are listed in the graphic below:
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 12 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The most successful centres attract people across all user markets and should be set up to allow people to participate in a range of activities at the one site.
A review of the various successful centres' business indicates that these centres record: High visits per square metre High expense recovery ability including capital repayment High operating profits per visit Excellent program range returns and attendances High secondary spend (food/beverage/merchandise) returns Excellent range of attendance types (adult/child ratio) Draws users from a large catchment area High revenue returns from commercial activities such as health and fitness and wellness To ensure financial viability and high user across all age, gender and cultural grouping markets future facility development must be designed with the following business and facility directions in mind. One Stop Shop: Large range of activity areas at the one site to maximise use/help share the costs and share infrastructure – car parking, services, amenities etc. Reduce Operating Losses: Need a mix of community activity areas (public swim pools) and commercial activity areas (Health and Fitness and Retail) at the one site to help reduce the high operating cost of public swimming facilities. Programmable Spaces: Need to offer programs and memberships to keep users coming back. All Age and Interest Centres: Need to develop facilities for broad range of people. Community/Social Hub: Need to offer quality food, beverage, social and entertainment spaces. Population Catchments: Indoor 50m pools require a catchment population of 100,000+ people to be viable so needs to be best placed to attract people across the region. 2.2.3 Recommended Facility Components and Development Options
The consultant team developed a recommended list of priority components and then developed these into facility development options. The recommended detailed component list is highlighted in Appendix One of this report.
The two main facility options were developed around the need to test a regional indoor aquatic centre size model that included a 50 metre competition pool compared to a city indoor aquatic centre option that included a 25m x 25m completion pool.
A summary of the two facility options that would link the priority components together is listed in the following table on the next page and was based on: Option One: Regional Indoor Aquatic Leisure Facility Option Two: City Indoor Aquatic Leisure Facility
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 13 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
The two future facility options that were reviewed by Council and agreed to be compared in the future aquatic strategy saw the need for a building area footprint of: Option One: Regional Indoor Aquatic Leisure Facility – 6,290m2 Option Two: City Indoor Aquatic Leisure Facility – 5,313m2 To assist in also ensuring the nominated sites had capacity for the proposed development and could meet the likely daily user impacts it was agreed that the facility options would need to also have: 200 plus car park capacity. An area for future facility expansion to include the proposed water slides and water play area and capacity for other future development on site 2.3 Facility Option Schematic Plans
The Facility Design Group was appointed to provide schematic layout plans for the proposed two facility component options at each of the nominated facility sites to: Assist in determining if the site had capacity to meet the area requirements of the proposed development. Initial layout to help determine if the site may cause functional constraints or high operating cost impacts. Identify if any current on site facilities can be retained or linked or need to be redeveloped or demolished. Section three of this report looks at preliminary and detailed site and facility option reviews to assist with determining the best future sites for an indoor aquatic leisure centre in Albury and the schematic plans developed have been used in this site assessment process.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 14 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 3 Future Facility and Site Option Reviews
3.1 Nominated Sites for Review
Following review of the stage one research, consultation and facility operational and financial reviews Council nominated four Albury sites to be assessed for development of a future indoor aquatic leisure centre through a two phase site review process that included: Phase One: Preliminary site review utilising 5 site assessment criteria to identify up to two priority sites for detailed review. Phase Two: Detailed priority site review utilising all 19 site assessment criteria to compare the two priority sites with an aim to identifying the best site for future facility development. This section of the report highlights the preliminary site reviews and detailed priority site reviews and includes development of the schematic plans that have assisted in determining if sites can accommodate either facility option development. 3.2 Preliminary Site Reviews
The sites nominated by Albury Council for the preliminary site review were: Site 1: Albury Swim Centre (ASC) Site 2: Lauren Jackson Sports Centre (LJSC) Site 3: Lavington Swim Centre (LSC) Site 4: Lavington Sports Ground (LSG) The initial site reviews indicated that the Lavington Sports Ground did not have adequate land area available for the required facility development due to planned new future outdoor sport facilities take up. Council was briefed on this issue and it approved the Lavington Sports Club Site (former major sports club now closed) as an alternative close by site to replace the nominated Lavington Sports Ground in the preliminary site review.
The preliminary site review process first included an opportunities and constraints review of: Available development area Planning and zoning review Planning overlay Existing facilities Existing use Surrounding facility development Area for future development The following successful site assessment criteria were also reviewed and scored: Size of site to meet proposed development and future development.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 15 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 Highway Suitable Topography to minimise development costs Planning/Zoning – compatibility of proposed development Site Services – adequate to meet developments requirements Summary of opportunities and constraints To assist in assessing the preliminary sites each primary site success criterion was reviewed and scored out of 10 points under the following point score review scale: 9-10 – Meets criteria 7-8 – Meets majority of criteria 5-6 – Meets some of the criteria 3-4 – Partially meets criteria 1-2 – Limited capacity to meet criteria 0 – Does not meet criteria The preliminary site review conducted for the 4 nominated sites is detailed in the following sections. 3.2.1 Albury Swim Centre Preliminary Site Review
The Albury Swim Centre preliminary site opportunities and constraints review is detailed in the following table.
Table 3.1 Albury Swim Centre Preliminary Site Review Review Item Opportunity Constraint Available Development Approx. 9,120m2 level area inside Existing pools and buildings will need to be Site Area pool fence line. demolished for option 1 and 2 development. Approx. 3,800m2 of sealed car park No area for new car park area to front of site Planning/Zoning R1 Public Rec/RE2 Private Rec Land titles across other areas. Planning Overlay Land subject to flood 100/year ARI Existing Facilities May be able to retain outdoor 25m Development will require demolition of all pool in development existing facilities excluding 25m pool. Existing Use 120,000 visits seasonally use outdoor Lack of car parking at site and no area for pools 200 car park requirement. Surrounding Future Further activation and development of Development Riverside parks in accordance with MRE will see increased demand for existing parking. Area for future No future expansion with new facilities Expansion taking up available land
The preliminary site opportunities and constraints review indicated though the proposed new indoor aquatic leisure facility could fit on site, it would take up the majority of the site and not be able to meet the new car park area criteria or future expansion criteria.
The site is also subject to flooding and is land locked by major drain to the west, Albury Sports Ground to the east and the Murray River to the south and Smollett Street to the north.
The site and facility layout plan developed for the option one concept is listed on the next page.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 16 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
Albury Swim Centre Site – Regional Facility Option One Schematic Layout Plan
The site assessment score recorded against the 5 primary site criteria for this site was:
Table 3.2 Albury Swim Centre Preliminary Site Priority Criteria Score Priority Site Criteria Site Criteria Assessment Score (Out of 10 points) 1. Size of site to meet proposed development and future development. 2 2. Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 Highway 2 3. Suitable Topography to minimise development costs 4 4. Planning/Zoning – compatibility of proposed development 9 5. Site Services – adequate to meet developments requirements 7 Total Priority Site Criteria Score 24/50
3.2.2 Lauren Jackson Sport Centre Preliminary Site Review
The Lauren Jackson Sport Centre preliminary site opportunities and constraints review is detailed in the following table.
Table 3.3 Lauren Jackson Sport Centre Preliminary Site Review Review Item Opportunity Constraint Available Development Total site 27,743m3 with LJSC taking Long linear site with stadium building Site Area up 6,600m2. angled on site. Area to the east is approx. 15,300m2 (3 lots) and has Perimeter roadside parking Planning/Zoning RE1 Public Recreation Nil Planning Overlay Adjoins industrial/reserve Nil Existing Facilities Able to develop a further 3 Indoor Development will require building over sport courts on site existing asphalt parking area. Existing Use 160,000 visits annually use LJSC/ Nil high use by adjacent tennis/outdoor sport/PCYC. Surrounding Future Nil Nil Development Area for future Plan allows for a further 3,000m2 Nil Expansion future building area
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 17 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The preliminary site opportunities and constraints review indicated the proposed new indoor aquatic leisure facility could fit on site as well as being able to meet the new car park area criteria of 200 spaces and have capacity for future expansion.
The site meets all planning requirements and would have minimal residential impact due to its location close to adjoining industrial and recreation open space zones.
A schematic plan was developed by FDG Architects to determine if and how best that the proposed facility components could be developed on site.
The site and facility layout plan developed for the option one facility component option is listed as follows:
Lauren Jackson Sport Centre Site – Regional Facility Option One Schematic Layout Plan
Please note as part of future master planning of the site the design team has shown a range of future proofing developments including new 2 court events hall, redevelopment of existing 5 courts to be expanded to 6 courts and new amenities and foyer.
The site assessment score recorded against the 5 primary site criteria for this site was:
Table 3.4 LJ Sports Centre Preliminary Site Priority Criteria Score Priority Site Criteria Site Criteria Assessment Score (Out of 10 points) 1. Size of site to meet proposed development and future development. 9 2. Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 Highway 7 3. Suitable Topography to minimise development costs 8 4. Planning/Zoning – compatibility of proposed development 9 5. Site Services – adequate to meet developments requirements 8 Total Priority Site Criteria Score 41/50
3.2.3 Lavington Swim Centre Preliminary Site Review
The Lavington Centre preliminary site opportunities and constraints review is detailed in the following table on the next page.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 18 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Table 3.5 Lavington Swim Centre Preliminary Site Review Review Item Opportunity Constraint Available Development Approx. 9,213m2 level area inside Existing pools and buildings will need to be Site Area pool fence line with 5,477m2 demolished for option 1 and 2 development. adjoining car park. No area for new car park Perimeter road parking allows for approx. 30 car parks Planning/Zoning RE1: Public Recreation Nil Planning Overlay Adjoining residential area/west side Existing Facilities May be able to retain outdoor diving Development will require demolition of all pool in development existing facilities Existing Use 40,000 visits seasonally use outdoor pools Surrounding Future 387 car parks planned as part of Regional soccer facility planning for Development regional soccer centre adjoining playing fields. Area for future Approx. 2,000m2 available for future Expansion development
The preliminary site opportunities and constraints review indicated the proposed new indoor aquatic leisure facility could fit on site but was not able to meet the new car park area criteria of 200 spaces and only has capacity for limited future facility expansion.
The site does meet all planning requirements but would have residential impact due to its location close to adjoining residential zones and access by secondary local roads.
A schematic plan was developed by FDG Architects to determine if and how best that the proposed facility components could be developed on site.
The site and facility layout plan developed for the option one facility components is listed as follows:
Lavington Swim Centre Site – Regional Facility Option One Schematic Layout Plan
Please note as part of future master planning of the site the design team has tried to keep the outdoor diving pool as a future facility and this has seen the new building development be located to the north of the site and new car parks to the south.
The site assessment score recorded against the 5 primary site criteria for this site is listed in the table on the next page:
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 19 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Table 3.6 Lavington Swim Centre Preliminary Site Priority Criteria Score Priority Site Criteria Site Criteria Assessment Score (Out of 10 points) 1. Size of site to meet proposed development and future development. 6 2. Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 Highway 5 3. Suitable Topography to minimise development costs 8 4. Planning/Zoning – compatibility of proposed development 8 5. Site Services – adequate to meet developments requirements 8 Total Priority Site Criteria Score 35/50
3.2.4 Lavington Sports Club Preliminary Site Review
The Lavington Centre preliminary site opportunities and constraints review is detailed in the following table.
Table 3.7 Lavington Sports Club Preliminary Site Review Review Item Opportunity Constraint Available Development Approx. 48,520m2 level area. Quoted purchase cost $1.5M Site Area Existing building area 7,379m2 408 sealed car parks on site
Planning/Zoning R1 General Residential –would need to be changed to recreation facility Planning Overlay Private land/general residential Existing Facilities 408 car parks and site services and possible reuse of parts of existing building Existing Use Club has been closed a number of years Surrounding Future Adjoining Lavington Sports Ground Development redevelopment Area for future Significant area available for future Expansion facilities or sale
The preliminary site opportunities and constraints review indicated the site had very good capacity for the proposed development but due to it’s isolated location and likely high capital purchase cost it was not considered further as a potential development site and site assessment scoring was not completed. 3.2.5 Summary of Preliminary Site Review Assessment Scores
The three sites that had preliminary site assessment scoring completed recorded the following assessment scores.
Table 3.8 Preliminary Site Priority Criteria Scores Priority Site Criteria Albury Lauren Jackson Lavington Swim Centre Sports Centre Swim Centre 1. Size of site to meet proposed development 2 9 6 and future development. 2. Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 Highway 2 7 5 3. Suitable Topography to minimise 4 8 8 development costs 4. Planning/Zoning – compatibility of proposed 9 9 8 development 5. Site Services – adequate to meet 7 8 8 developments requirements Total Priority Site Criteria Score 24/50 41/50 35/50
The preliminary site assessment indicates that the Lauren Jackson Sports Centre has the highest priority site assessment criteria score at 41 out of a possible 50 points whilst the Lavington Swim Centre scored next highest at 35/50.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 20 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The Albury Swim Centre scored the lowest assessment score and therefore it was recommended to Council by the Aquatic Advisory Committee at the stage two site assessment review meeting that this site and the Lavington Sports Club sites were both regarded as not suitable for development of the proposed future Albury indoor aquatic centre.
It was further recommended that detailed planning and that the full site criteria assessment be completed on the two highest score sites being the Lauren Jackson Sport Centre and Lavington Swim Centre sites. 3.3 Detailed Site Reviews
In SGL Industry history we have come to know that the main success factors for high use aquatic leisure and recreation facilities (based on industry trends) can be listed under two key criteria groups being:
1. Primary Site Assessment Criteria Size of site to meet proposed development and future development. Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 Highway Suitable Topography to minimise development costs Planning/Zoning – compatibility of proposed development Site Services – adequate to meet developments requirements 2. Secondary Site Assessment Criteria
There are also 14 secondary supporting site selection criteria that include:
Site Access Commercial Potential of Site Land Ownership Future Facility Expansion Capability Cost to Purchase Capital Cost of Development Location to Catchment Population Shared Management Opportunities Impact on Current Users Compatibility of Existing Facility and Neighbourhood Effects Business Image/compatibility of Site Current Site Visitation Levels Potential of Part Land Sale or Lease
These are listed in detail below. Primary Selection Criteria (Scored out of 10)
1. Size of the site to fit the development Is the site of sufficient size to enable the efficient development of the required facility?
2. Visibility of the site/Accessibility to M31 Position of site from passing traffic and access to/from the M31 Highway
3. Suitable Topography The site should be relatively flat, have suitable stable soil conditions and be able to be protected from floods, high water table and not have a previous landfill or fill site history.
4. Planning/Zoning Includes capability of the site to meet all or the majority of current and proposed zoning and planning requirements and regulations.
5. Site Services Are services available on site or closely located to minimise cost and to ensure facility can be serviced and this includes key services of:
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 21 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net . Electrical . Water . Gas . Sewer . Storm water Secondary Selection Criteria (Scored out of 10)
6. Site Access Site Access and Traffic Impacts: Most site visitors (80% to 90%) will come by car so there needs to be adequate site access and provision of appropriate car parking, bus parking and group drop off and pick up.
7. Land Ownership Land is owned or controlled by Albury City
8. Cost to Purchase Cost to either purchase or create the development on the site can be compared to determine the likely development impost at each site.
9. Location to Catchment Population Central location to maximise use and how close it caters for the current and projected project area population (Primary and Secondary catchment zones).
10. Impact on Current Users Will the development impact or displace current site users?
11. Neighbourhood Effects Identify any negative neighbourhood impacts likely to occur from the development in relation to surrounding neighbourhood i.e. noise, traffic, lighting and amenity.
12. Image/compatibility of Site Does site image complement the proposed development? (i.e. visual aesthetics/environmental issues).
13. Potential of Part Land Sale or Lease Does the site have extra area suitable for sale/lease to assist with development/funding opportunities?
14. Commercial Potential of Site Is the site commercially attractive to other funding parties or commercial investors?
15. Future Facility Expansion Capability Future Redevelopment and Facility Expansion Opportunities: Does the site have surrounding available land for future facility expansion?
16. Capital Cost of Development Which site provides the project with the lowest development capital cost?
17. Shared Management Opportunities Are their opportunities to share the cost of management at the site
18. Compatibility of Existing Facility and Business Is the existing business and facilities compatible to the proposed development and business.
19. Current Visitation levels Current usage levels of the existing site facilities and likely use of new facilities.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 22 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net To assist in assessing the two nominated priority sites each criterion can be scored out of 10 points under the following point score review scale.
9-10 – Meets criteria 7-8 – Meets majority of criteria 5-6 – Meets some of the criteria 3-4 – Partially meets criteria 1-2 – Limited capacity to meet criteria 0 – Does not meet criteria 3.3.1 User Catchment Review
A key site selection criteria is the primary user catchment in the first 5km radius of the centre as this usually accounts for 70% to 75% of total facility users.
To assist identification and scoring of this criteria SGL has developed user catchment assessment maps using local aerial plans.
Priority Site Review - User Catchment and Site Location Graphic
The priority site user catchment graphic shows that the 5km user catchment for the Lauren Jackson Sports Centre (green circle) covers a larger existing population area than the Lavington Swim Centre site 5km user catchment zone (blue circle).
The Lavington Swim Centre 5km user catchment does cover the future Albury City Council residential growth area of North Albury/Thurgoona area than the LJSC catchment.
The aerial photos also show the approximate travel distance from the swim centres currently operating in the Albury and Wodonga area.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 23 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 3.3.2 Detailed Site Review Assessment
SGL completed site assessment rating and scoring for the two priority sites and the results are listed in the following table.
Table 3.9 Detailed Site Priority Criteria Scores Priority Site Criteria Lauren LJSC Review Lavington LSC Review Comments Jackson Comments Swim Centre Sports Centre 1. Size of site to meet proposed 9 Largest site with area for 6 Adequate site but cannot meet development and future development. future development all car parking area and limited future development area 2. Site Visibility/Accessibility to M31 7 Excellent accessibility 5 Location is not far from M31 Highway from M31 and short but further travel time to site travel time 3. Suitable Topography to minimise 8 Level site 8 Level site development costs 4. Planning/Zoning – compatibility of 9 Exiting use compatibility 8 Existing use compatibility but proposed development inadequate car parking issue needs resolution 5. Site Services – adequate to meet 8 Well serviced site 8 Well serviced site developments requirements Total Priority Site Criteria Score 41/50 35/50 6. Site Access 9 Easily accessible from 6 Accessed from residential main roads secondary road 7. Land Ownership 10 Owned by Council 10 Owned by Council 8. Cost to Purchase 10 No cost to purchase 10 No cost to purchase 9. Location to Catchment Population 8 5 km catchment covers 6 5km catchment covers slightly largest population area lower catchment population than LJSC site 10. Current Users on Site/Impact 8 Very compatible 9 Existing type use 11. Neighbourhood Effects 9 Minimal due to industrial 4 Major as located in residential are and parkland area with 500,000/visits/year surrounds 12. Image/compatibility of Site 9 Links well with indoor 9 Links well with outdoor swim sport centre 13. Potential of Part Land Sale or Lease 0 No land for sale 0 No land for sale 14. Commercial Potential of Site 8 High use commercial 5 Medium use commercial site site 15. Future Facility Expansion Capability 9 Significant area left for 5 Limited area for future future expansion expansion 16. Capital Cost of Development 7 Higher capital cost 9 Lower capital cost compared compared to LSC to LJSC 17. Shared Management Opportunities 9 Shared management 9 Shared management opportunity opportunity 18. Compatibility of Existing Facility and 9 Compatible 9 Compatible Business 19. Current Site Visitation Levels 9 160,000 annual visits 5 41,000 annual visits onsite onsite Total Secondary Site Criteria Score 114/140 95/114 Total Priority and Secondary Site Scores 155/190 130/190
The priority site assessment scores indicated that the Lauren Jackson Sport Centre site scored the highest of the two sites reviewed.
Following a Council Workshop to review the site assessment Council acknowledged the results of the priority site assessment but requested the inclusion of the Lavington Swim Centre site in facility concept development and financial modeling so a detailed final site selection could be completed.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 24 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 4 Indoor Aquatic Facility Design Options
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report looks at updating the schematic designs for both the Lauren Jackson Sport Centre (site A) and Lavington Swim Centre (site B) sites to a scale drawing to assist in taking the designs to the next layer of detail to conceptual layout level.
This allows for more accurate site placement, linkages to existing facilities and allows for an area order of capital cost to be estimated (using industry construction average rates by m2 for similar area and facility type construction). 4.2 Facility Site Conceptual Layout Plans
As requested by Council SGL and FDG have developed facility site concept plans for both priority sites for both the option one regional indoor aquatic leisure centre (as it will take up the biggest site footprint) and option two city wide indoor aquatic leisure centre. 4.2.1 LJSC Facility Site Conceptual Layout Plan
This site design has also included consideration to likely future expansion of indoor sport courts and new amenities including: Potential new future 2 indoor court extension to the north/west of the existing stadium entry. Internal redevelopment and extension of the 5 court area to include new retractable seating area for new show court and demolition of the internal fixed seating to create court 6 within available internal area under the existing roof line. New amenities and change areas to cater for the three extra courts. The existing facilities aerial photo shows the proposed development site to the east of the building.
Lauren Jackson Sport Centre Site Aerial Photo
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 25 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The scale concept plans developed by FDG for this site for both the option one regional facility (50m pool) and option two City facility (25m pool) are listed below.
Site A: Option One LJSC Facility Layout Concept Plan
LJSC Indoor Aquatic Centre Option 2
Site A: Option Two LJSC Facility Layout Concept Plan
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 26 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The site concept plans for both facility size options show: Adequate area for both indoor sport court and amenity extensions and future water play, water slide and extra aquatic area for possible diving facilities (extra end concourse) and more events based water – 25m warm up and cool down pool (as raised at the project advisory committee meeting). More than 260 car spaces onsite with further parking kerbside and adjoining PCYC and recreation and sporting playing fields. 4.2.2 LSC Facility Site Conceptual Layout Plan
This site design has also included consideration to likely retention of the existing outdoor diving pool and also assumes that in future adjoining sport field upgrades there will be increased off site car parking.
The existing facilities aerial photo shows the proposed development site will be over the existing 50M outdoor pool and with main facilities developed in the south west of the site.
Lavington Swim Centre Aerial Site Photo
The scale concept plans developed by FDG for this site for both the option one regional facility (50m pool) and option two City facility (25m pool) are listed as follows on the next page.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 27 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
Site B: Option One LSC Facility Layout Concept Plan
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 28 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
Site B: Option Two LSC Facility Layout Concept Plan
Both concept plans show that the indoor aquatic leisure facilities can fit on site if the existing entry and amenity building and 50 metre outdoor pool are demolished. They also show adequate space to: Retain the outdoor diving pool and springboards Allow future expansion space for water play and water slides. The site is constrained in area for onsite car parking with only 155 car parks able to be developed.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 29 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 4.3 Conceptual Plans Indicative Capital Costs Review
The priority site facility option concept plans have been developed to scale concept layouts and therefore are able to be measured and an indicative capital cost are estimated for each site/facility option.
Each site option plan area schedule has been measured and SGL has used an average order of construction cost and allowance rates using, industry average construction costs for similar developments in regional Australia.
This has been completed to provide a general order of capital cost to help with financial modeling and funding options. The project methodology had allowed for detailed quantity surveyor estimates of a recommended final site and concept but Council wanted to ensure all priority sites/facility options were able to be considered by the community prior to any detailed analysis so initial indicative cost estimates have been created and are listed in the following table.
The indicative capital costs for each priority site and facility option indicates that the Lavington Swim Centre has been assessed at a slightly lower capital cost than the Lauren Jackson Sport Centre site.
This is principally due to the extra cost of larger front of house areas (to cater for larger user entry to the centre to connect courts and aquatics and health and fitness zones) at the stadium site.
It should be noted these capital cost estimates are indicative and should be used as a guide only. They are based on October 2015 construction rates and a range of assumptions and allowances.
Detailed cost plans should be completed for the agreed construction period by an experienced leisure facility quantity surveyor as the next phase of cost planning.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 30 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 5 Aquatic Strategy Operational Financial Modeling
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report looks at developing business and financial modeling for the range of facility development options to be tested as part of the future aquatic strategy review.
SGL conducted a workshop with Council in October 2015 and this forum agreed to test the following future aquatic facility provision options:
Table 5.1 Future Albury City Aquatic Strategy Development Options No Option 1. Continue to operate ASC and LSC and no new indoor pools in area 2a. Develop new Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (51.5M) at LJSC and operate both Council Outdoor Swim Centres 2b Develop new City Aquatic Leisure Centre (25M) at LJSC and operate ASC and close Lavington Swim Centre. 3a Develop new Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (51.5M) at LSC and continue to also operate ASC as an outdoor seasonal pool. 3b Develop new City Aquatic Leisure Centre (25M) at LSC and continue to operate ASC as an outdoor seasonal pool. 4. Develop new Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (51.5M) at LJSC and operate ASC as an outdoor seasonal pool and close down LSC. 5. Develop new Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (51.5M) at LJSC and close all Albury Council outdoor swim centres 5.2 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Assumptions
The following table details the 7 future aquatic strategy options that were agreed by Council to be developed and there key usage and business assumptions.
Table 5.2 Future Albury City Aquatic Strategy Options Key Assumptions No Option Strategy Detail Business Assumptions 1. Continue to operate ASC Operate both pools as • +3% operating expenditure/year and 2% less use and LSC and no new indoor outdoor seasonal pools for • Management costs $25K yr 1 and increasing by pools next 10 years $5,000/year to year 10. 2a. Develop new Regional Assumes ASC and LSC • New management model operating all facilities. Aquatic Leisure Centre continue to operate with • Assumes 10% less use than stand alone regional (51.5M) at LJSC regional size ALC so lower centre (option 5) as existing outdoor pools open use. • Assumes 20% drop in ASC/LSC use than option 1 2b Develop new Aquatic Assumes ASC and LSC • Same as option 2 but reduced indoor centre use Leisure Centre (25M) at continue to operate with city and costs due to smaller indoor pool. LJSC size ALC 3a Develop new Regional Assumes ASC continues to • New management model operating all facilities. Aquatic Leisure Centre operate and LSC replaced • Assumes 15% less use than LJSC Regional (51.5M) at LSC by new indoor pools. Centre as operating from lower existing user base. 3b Develop new Aquatic Assumes ASC continues to • Same as option 3 but reduced use and costs due Leisure Centre (25M) at LSC operate and LSC replaced to smaller indoor pool and user capacity by new indoor pools. • Assumes 15% less use than LJSC Regional Centre as less existing users on site 4. Develop new Regional Assumes ASC continues to • Same as option 2 operations but LSC closure Aquatic Leisure Centre operate and LSC closed. assumes 5% increased use at ASC. (51.5M) at LJSC 5. Develop new Regional Assumes ASC and LSC • New management model operating one facility. Aquatic Leisure Centre closed as seasonal pools • Assumes 10% increased use at Regional Aquatic (51.5M) at LJSC and only new Regional Centre due to all ACC outdoor pools closed. Aquatic Leisure Centre operates.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 31 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 5.3 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Financial Models
Detailed 10 year electronic financial models have been developed for each of the major facility options at each site that covers either new regional or city indoor aquatic leisure facilities.
Option One ten year financial modeling forecasting has also been developed to retain existing pools using assumptions based on averages from the past 7 years Albury Swim Centre and Lavington Swim Centre that recorded reducing usage and increasing operating cost trends.
Key business staffing, usage, fees and charges and management model assumptions for the regional and city indoor aquatic leisure facility options are listed with each model’s performance summary.
The other business model reports for facility options that have been completed and are available for review include: Option 2A Regional Indoor Aquatic Centre at LJSC with both ASC and LSC operating as seasonal pools. Option 2B City Indoor Aquatic Centre at LJSC with both ASC and LSC operating as seasonal pools. Option 3A Regional Indoor Aquatic Centre at LSC with only ASC operating as a seasonal pool. Option 3B City Indoor Aquatic Centre at LSC with only ASC operating as a seasonal pool Option 4 Regional Indoor Aquatic Centre at LJSC with only ASC operating as a seasonal pool (LSC closed). Option 5: Regional Indoor Aquatic Centre at LJSC and both outdoor pools closed.
The following detailed global business assumptions have been developed for the new indoor aquatic leisure centre options (options 2a, 2b, 3a 3b, 4 and 5): Operating hours: Monday to Thursday 6am to 9pm, Fridays 6am to 8pm and weekends 8am to 6pm. Operating days: 363 a year (closed for Christmas Day and Good Friday). Management and staffing models - The new facility options have been set up under the key business management model areas of:
Centre Management
Café and Retail
Health and Aquatics Memberships Fitness
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 32 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Management and Staffing: Staffing model set up for each strategy option based on 2018/19 opening year and assumed average NSW LGA award salaries and overhead allowance of 25% on all salaries. Fees and charges based on average regional centre charges for 2018/19 year one commencement. Global financial model Impacts include: CPI Increases: Assumes on average 2.3% years 2 to 10. Business Growth: Assumes year 3 is base year at 100% and year 2 is discounted by 2% to 98% of year 3 and year 1 is discounted by 4% to 96% of year 3. Business growth year 4 101%, year 5 102%, year 6 103%, year 7 104%, year 8 105%, year 9 105% and year 10 105% Real Price Growth: Assumes 1.0% price increases from year 2 to year 10. Alternative Expense Adjustment: Assumes energy costs and maintenance increase by 2.5% annually so slightly higher than annual CPI. Annual Salary Increases: Allows for annual increases of 1.2% above CPI (to reflect likely EB increases). Expenditure Increases: Assumes annual expenditure increase of C.P.I as indicated. Salary On Costs: Assumes annual on costs on all salaries for superannuation, holiday pay/leave loading and sick leave. Salary Increases: Allows for annual increases through CPI. Pre Opening Expenses: No pre-opening expenses are included to cover set up costs in 2017/18 but can be added if required. Asset Management and Replacement Allowances: No allowances for asset management and renewals in the 10 year operating budgets in the models as they are operating models Depreciation or Loan Repayments: No allowances for annual depreciation or any loan repayments as they are operating models. 5.4 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Comparisons
SGL has completed detailed usage and financial operating projections for the 7 future aquatic strategy facility/mix of facility options. The key 10-year business results have been summarized in the following section. 5.4.1 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Usage Comparisons
The following table details the projected 10-year usage projections for each of the future aquatic strategy facility options.
Table 5.3 Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Option 10-Year Usage Comparisons 10 Year Facility Option ASC 10 Yr LSC 10 Yr Indoor Aquatic Combined Facilities Operational Models Projected Visits Projected Visits Centre 10 Yr Projected 10 Year Aquatic Strategy Options Projected Visits Visits 1. Retain ASC and LSC 1.075M 0.363M N/A 1.438M 2a ARALC (50M) at LJSC and 0.860M 0.290M 5.478M 6.628M Operate ASC and LSC 2b AALC (25M) at LJSC and 0.860M 0.290M 4.999M 6.149M Operate ASC and LSC 3a ARALC (50M) at LSC and 0.860M N/A 4.980M 5.480M Operate ASC 3b AALC (25M) at LSC and 0.860M N/A 4.772M 5.632M Operate ASC 4. ARALC (50M) at LJSC and 0.967M N/A 5.727M 6.694M Operate ASC and Close LSC 5 ARALC ((50M) at LJSC and N/A N/A 5.976M 5.976M close ASC and LSC Note: ASC and LSC usage drops by 20% in options with new indoor aquatic centre and 10% when LSC only is closed.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 33 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net The 10 year usage modeling of the 7 future aquatic strategy options indicates that option 1, keeping the existing two seasonal pools open and not developing an indoor aquatic leisure centre will return the lowest usage projections of all options with a total usage projection of 1.438M visits (average of 143,800 visits/year).
The highest projected usage strategy option is option 4 where a new regional indoor aquatic leisure centre is developed at Lauren Jackson Sport Centre and the Albury Swim Centre continues to operate whilst the Lavington Swim Centre is closed (as the new centre will meet northern resident aquatic facility needs). This option has a projected 10 year visitation rate of 6.694M or an annual average of 669,000 visits. 5.4.2 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Operating Cost Comparisons
The following table details the projected 10 year operating cost projections for each of the future aquatic strategy facility options.
Table 5.4 Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Option 10 Yr Operating Costs 10 Year Facility Option ASC 10 Yr LSC 10 Yr Indoor Aquatic Combined Facilities Operational Models Operating Operating Centre 10 Yr Projected Aquatic Strategy Options Profit/(Loss) Profit/(Loss) Operating Operating Profit/(Loss) Profit/(Loss) 1. Retain ASC and LSC ($3.833M) ($2.249M) N/A ($6.557M) 2a ARALC (50M) at LJSC and ($4.216M) ($2.249M) ($1.878M) ($8.343M) Operate ASC and LSC 2b AALC (25M) at LJSC and ($4.216M) ($2.249M) ($1.608M) ($8.073M) Operate ASC and LSC 3a ARALC (50M) at LSC and ($4.024M) N/A ($6.018M) ($10.042M) Operate ASC 3b AALC (25M) at LSC and ($4.024M) N/A ($3.549M) ($7.573M) Operate ASC 4. ARALC (50M) at LJSC and ($4.024M) N/A $0.193M ($3.831M) Operate ASC and Close LSC 5 ARALC ((50M) at LJSC and N/A N/A $2.264M $2.264M close ASC and LSC Note: ASC and LSC operating costs increase by 10% in all options with new indoor aquatic centre due to less use and 5% when LSC only is closed.
The 10 year operating cost modeling of the 7 future aquatic strategy options indicates that option 5 returns a projected operating surplus of $2.264M (average $226,000 surplus/year).
Option 5 is predicted to return an operating surplus (after an establishment period) principally because the two high cost seasonal outdoor pools are closed and all users have to visit the new regional indoor aquatic leisure centre, which helps improve the viability of the centre.
This would see more than 50,000 residents plus extra surrounding LGA residents all required to use the regional facility and this will see higher usage and revenue to meet operating costs. It was noted this would not likely to be sustainable due to the high demand of water sport organisations in the area and certainly would be an issue as the area population increased in the future.
All other options record annual operating deficits with option 4 the next best performing at a 10 year projected operating deficit of $3.831M. The do nothing option 1 that keeps the existing seasonal swim centres open is the third lowest cost option at a projected 10 year deficit of $6.557M.
All other options record high 10 year operating deficits of $7.5M to $10M. 5.4.3 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Capital Cost Comparisons
The table on the next page details the projected 10-year capital cost projections for each of the future aquatic strategy facility options.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 34 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Table 5.5 Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Option 10 Yr Capital Costs 10 Year Facility Option ASC Capital LSC Capital Indoor Aquatic Combined Facilities Operational Models Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Centre Capital Cost Capital Costs Aquatic Strategy Options 1. Retain ASC and LSC $8M to $9M $10M to $11M N/A $18M to $20M 2a ARALC (50M) at LJSC and $8M to $9M $10M to $11M $36.044M $54M to $56M Operate ASC and LSC 2b AALC (25M) at LJSC and $8M to $9M $10M to $11M $31.619M $49M to $51M Operate ASC and LSC 3a ARALC (50M) at LSC and $8M to $9M N/A $35.250M $43M to $45M Operate ASC 3b AALC (25M) at LSC and $8M to $9M N/A $29.751M $38M to $40M Operate ASC 4. ARALC (50M) at LJSC and $8M to $9M N/A $36.044M $44M TO $46M Operate ASC and Close LSC 5 ARALC ((50M) at LJSC and N/A N/A $36.044M $36.044M close ASC and LSC Note: Capital replacement costs for option 1 projected to 2026 dollar values whilst options including a new indoor aquatic leisure centre use 2017/18 capital costs (estimated construction timeline). Please note demolition costs are not included in any relevant option as these are unknown.
Based on the age of the two outdoor seasonal swim centres and supported by the technical reports completed they indicate within 10 years both facilities will require replacement so the capital cost of retaining the lowest use facility option is $18M to $20M (2026 construction costs). Options that include a new regional aquatic leisure centre and replacement of one or two seasonal swim centres are the highest capital cost options including: Option 2A: $54M to $56M Option 2B: $49M to $51M Option 4: $44m to $46M Option 3A: $43M to $45M Option 5, which does not include any capital costs for replacing an outdoor seasonal swim centre had an estimated capital cost of $36.044M. 5.4.4 Future Aquatic Strategy Option Business Trend Comparisons
The following table details the projected 10-year usage, operating result, capital cost and profit/(loss) per visit projections for each of the future aquatic strategy facility options are compared.
Table 5.6 Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Option 10 Yr Business Trends 10 Year Facility Option Combined Facilities Combined Facilities Combined Facilities Average Operational Models Projected Projected Capital Cost Operating Aquatic Strategy Visitations Profit/(Loss) Profit/(Loss) Per Options Visit 1. Retain ASC and LSC 1.438M ($6.557M) $18M to $20M ($4.55/visit) 2a ARALC (50M) at 6.628M ($8.343M) $54M to $56M ($1.25/visit) LJSC and Operate ASC and LSC 2b AALC (25M) at LJSC 6.149M ($8.073M) $49M to $51M ($1.31/visit) and Operate ASC and LSC 3a ARALC (50M) at 5.480M ($10.042M) $43M to $45M ($1.83/visit) LSC and Operate ASC 3b AALC (25M) at LSC 5.632M ($7.573M) $38M to $40M ($1.34/visit) and Operate ASC 4. ARALC (50M) at 6.694M ($3.831M) $44M TO $46M ($0.57/visit) LJSC and Operate ASC and Close LSC 5 ARALC ((50M) at 5.976M $2.264M $36.044M $0.37/visit LJSC and close ASC and LSC
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 35 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Based on the projected 10 year results option 4 and option 5 both record high visitations, top 2 operating results and require medium level capital investment when compared to other options. 5.5 Future Aquatic Strategy Options Funding Review
A key requirement in the project brief was to consider the likely funding options and opportunities of proposed facility redevelopment or new facility development. This funding review is based on two likely funding scenarios: 1. If Council adopts option 1 and keeps the current seasonal swim centres open then it is unlikely to be able to bid for external funding as this strategy covers maintaining existing low use and restricted services and would not meet current external funding criteria. This option will cover existing asset renewal and not include new activity or services. 2. If Council adopts a strategy that will see the development of a new indoor facility (regional or city options) then there is currently a range of external funding schemes that could be applied for. The funding review therefore deals with the second scenario projects that would include options 2a through to option 5.
Review meetings indicate the likely timing for development of the Aquatics Strategy project would be impacted by time needed to obtain sufficient funding from other levels of government.
Funding can be sought through 2016/17 and subject to funding support being obtained, then design and construction could occur from 2017 and 2018.
To progress any future aquatic facility improvements a detailed funding strategy needs to be developed that allows Council to make decisions on the final aquatic strategy option development as well as closure of some or all existing swim centres.
To assist in identifying potential funding sources and strategies SGL in association with Council’s Finance team have developed a range of possible funding options/opportunities. 5.5.1 Internal Funding Options
The internal Council funding options could include: Project loan funding over an agreed timeframe. Annual budget project capital funding Section 94 Plan Contributions (subject to final option chosen). This will require updating of the Section 94 plan and would see subject to development a longer spread out funding contribution scheme timeline (subject to how the plan treats this project). 5.5.2 External Grant Funding Opportunities
The external grant funding options (need to be included in fund raising strategy actions) could include: Federal Government National Stronger Regions Grant (scheme has 1 Billion committed over 5 years and round one and two funding has been announced with approximately $400M remaining in scheme for rounds 3 and 4). A review of successful applications indicates the scheme has funded 5 major aquatic facility projects. The maximum grant that can be received from this scheme is $10M and if Council approved development of the regional indoor aquatic leisure facility and due to major project economic and social impacts we would assume for funding modeling purposes that Council could plan to budget to receive $10M. An example of a similar project in a regional area receiving funding from this scheme is the Bendigo Regional Indoor Aquatic and Wellness Centre (City of Greater Bendigo) that received $4,855M on the $31M value project.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 36 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net NSW State Government Sports and Cultural Fund Grant (scheme still being developed but has $500M committed to the scheme. Assuming in financial modeling and funding strategy $10.000M grant allocated to new regional centre. Estimated Total External Funding Opportunities: $20.0 million 5.5.3 Servicing of Loans From New Centre Surplus/Swim Centre Closures
The financial modeling indicates there is only one option (Option 5) that could see Council part fund loans from the new facility operating surplus and savings from seasonal swim centre closure.
Section 5.4.2 facility strategy operating results indicates that the option 5 is expected to generate annual operating surpluses that after the first few years of business establishment could provide annual surplus funds to service loans.
It should be noted that financial analysis indicates funds available to service loans only occur when savings from closure of existing swim centres is added to the new regional facility projected operational surpluses.
A detailed loan servicing strategy would need to be developed once future aquatic facility strategy options are reviewed and Council identifies which option/options it wants to consider in greater detail or adopt. 5.5.4 Summary of Aquatic Strategy Option Funding Opportunities
The table below provides a summary of a potential funding mix for each aquatic strategy option.
Table 5.7 Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Option 10 Yr Capital Funding 10 Year Facility Option Total Facilities Capital Potential External Total Cost To Be Estimated Operational Models Cost Funding Target Funded By Council Depreciation CAPITAL FUNDING ($M) COMPARISIONS 1. Retain ASC and LSC $18M to $20M $0 Up to $20M ($4M) 2a ARALC (50M) at LJSC and $54M to $56M $20M Up to $36M ($11.2M) Operate ASC and LSC 2b AALC (25M) at LJSC and $49M to $51M $5M Up to $46M ($10.2M) Operate ASC and LSC 3a ARALC (50M) at LSC and $43M to $45M $20M Up to $25M ($9.0M) Operate ASC 3b AALC (25M) at LSC and $38M to $40M $5M Up to $35M ($8.0M) Operate ASC 4. ARALC (50M) at LJSC and $44M TO $46M $20M Up to $26M ($9.2M) Operate ASC and Close LSC 5 ARALC ((50M) at LJSC and $36.044M $20M Up to $16.04M ($7.2M) close ASC and LSC
It is noted from this review that option 1 may not be eligible for grant funding support as it is maintaining existing assets and of regional significance so has been assumed would need to be funded from Council loans or capital funding allocations.
The capital funding comparisons indicate: If full funding were to be received option 5 would require the lowest capital funding by Council at $16.04M. This option also recorded a projected 10 year operating surplus of $2.264M so operational surpluses could contribute partially to loan repayments. Option 1 is the second lowest capital cost to Council but is not expected to receive any capital funding support. This option recorded the lowest use and a high operating loss of in excess of $6.55M over the 10-year period.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 37 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net If full funding were to be received for option 3a or 4 these options would require the next lowest capital funding by Council at $25M to $26M. These options both recorded projected 10 year operating losses so operational results could not contribute to loan repayments. All other options (2a, 2b and 3b) even if full funding is received require Council to fund in- excess of $35M to $46M. The additional significant contribution will be more difficult to prioritise within Council’s budget scenarios in the future.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 38 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 6 Final Draft Future Albury Aquatic Strategy
6.1 Introduction
This section of the report draws together the studies key findings to assist in forming the final draft Albury City Aquatic Strategy. This has been set up to be reviewed in detail by Council and may include a review process to seek community review and input.
This section covers: Assessment of future Albury City Council aquatic strategy options Final draft directions and recommendations for the Albury City Council Aquatic Strategy 6.2 Assessment of Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Options
Both the Stage One October 2015 Report and this draft aquatic strategy report contain a substantial amount of background and detailed information that have in section 5 now organised the future Albury City Council Aquatic Strategy to seven (7) distinct options.
The project brief requires the consultant team to develop a set of draft strategy recommendations and then to work through these with Council to help determine a final future aquatic strategy.
To assist this process a list of priority criteria have been developed by SGL in association with Council Officers to help compare and rank what SGL would assess as the most suitable, achievable and returning the best economic, social and financial impacts.
The strategy option priority review criteria include: 1. VISITATIONS: Which option/s provide for the highest capacity annual visitations? 2. OPERATING COSTS: Which option/s present the lowest operating costs over the 10 year review period 3. POTENTIAL FUNDING: Which option/s present the best partnership funding support potential? 4. CAPITAL COST TO COUNCIL: Which option/s present the lower capital costs to Council but also offer new participation opportunities. 5. ECONOMIC IMPACT: Which option/s presents the highest economic impacts for construction and ongoing operational jobs as well as ongoing local material, services and product purchases. 6. COMMUNITY ACCESS: Which option/s presents the best community access location to where people live in Albury to cater for the majority of residents. SGL has used a 10 point score ranking system to assess the priority criteria for each future aquatic facility strategy option.
These were based on
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 39 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net 9-10 – Meets criteria 7-8 – Meets majority of criteria 5-6 – Meets some of the criteria 3-4 – Partially meets criteria 1-2 – Limited capacity to meet criteria 0 – Does not meet criteria To complete the assessment SGL have used: Table 5.6 data to review criteria 1 to 2 which highlights the future ACC Aquatic Strategy options business trends for: Combined facilities projected visitations Combined facilities projected operating profit/(loss) Data in table 5.7 funding options to assess criteria 3 funding potential. Financial model data to assess operational jobs/economic impacts User catchment 5 km maps to assess community access The future aquatic strategy assessment is listed in table 6.1 as follows:
Table 6.1 Future ACC Aquatic Strategy Option Priority Criteria Assessment FUTURE AQUATIC CRITERIA 1: CRITERIA 2: CRITERIA 3: CRITERIA 4: CRITERIA 5: CRITERIA 6: TOTAL STRATEGY OPTIONS VISITATIONS OPERATING FUNDING COST TO ECONOMIC COMMUNITY SCORE (0 to 10 points) COSTS POTENTIAL COUNCIL IMPACTS ACCESS 1. Retain ASC and LSC 1 4 0 2 2 2 11
2a ARALC (50M) at LJSC and 8 2 8 6 7 8 39 Operate ASC and LSC 2b AALC (25M) at LJSC and 6 3 4 4 6 8 33 Operate ASC and LSC 3a ARALC (50M) at LSC and 5 1 8 6 6 6 32 Operate ASC 3b AALC (25M) at LSC and 4 3 4 4 6 6 27 Operate ASC 4. ARALC (50M) at LJSC and 10 8 8 7 7 7 49 Operate ASC and Close LSC 5 ARALC ((50M) at LJSC and 5 10 8 8 7 6 43 close ASC and LSC
The review of the seven future aquatic strategy options against the 6 priority review criteria indicate clearly that option 4 receives the highest assessment score at 49/60. This option is projected to return: Highest visitations of all options over the 1 year period at 6.694M visits as it provides the new regional indoor aquatic leisure centre at the high use Lauren Jackson Sports Centre and retains/improves the highest current use seasonal swim centre. Retention of the Albury Swim Centre is critical to ensuring the large number of water sports users have access to adequate water space at peak summer times and not restrict community use at the new regional aquatic leisure centre Is projected to operate at the second lowest operating cost of $3.831M as the regional indoor aquatic leisure centre operates at a small surplus but this is impacted by the 10 year projected operating loss of the Albury Swim Centre ($4.024M loss). Has potential to attract the maximum funding at $20M Disregarding option 1 (that does not provide new participation opportunities) it is the second lowest capital cost to Council at $26M. It provides significant economic impacts with equal highest number of construction and ongoing operational jobs and largest local purchases of materials, services and products
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 40 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Locating the new regional aquatic leisure centre at Lauren Jackson Sports Centre covers the largest existing Albury Council residential areas and including the Albury Swim Centre as a seasonal pool provides highest current use seasonal facility. Based on this assessment SGL recommends that Council adopt option 4 as its final draft future aquatic strategy option and following review and assessment it be developed up into a detailed future aquatic facility strategy for Albury and Region. 6.3 Where to From Here
The completion of this final draft report and supporting documents now allows Council to review all consultation, market research, facility options, financial modeling, capital cost and funding findings to help determine a final future aquatic strategy for Albury City.
In line with the project brief this is a project hold point to allow Council and officers adequate time to review all documentation, assumptions and analysis.
Following this review and completion of any required edits and further research/reviews Council may wish to circulate the draft report for community and stakeholder review and feedback. It also needs to seek formal input from the Project Advisory Committee once they have had an opportunity to review the strategy.
SGL were retained as part of this commission to provide Council with a definite recommendation on the best future aquatic strategy and this has been determined as option 4 at the final draft report stage.
The detailed process completed now provides Council with a large amount of information as to how this recommended final draft strategy has been identified.
SGL also accepts that there are a range of community organisations that also may wish to comment and modify or add to the proposed facility models. This has already been raised in meetings with the project advisory committee where they canvased a number of issues in relation to more facility components needed such as: Indoor diving facilities to replace LSC (1m, 3m and 5m springboard and platform diving to be added to the indoor pool). Additional 25m indoor pool for a competition event warm up and cool down facility so can attract major events (either as a core component or making sure future space is reserved for such a facility at a later date). SGL is sure there are a range of issues to be discussed and canvased on the final draft report and therefore the holding point the project now goes into will allow for this detailed review, input and debate for a major project decision that will impact on local residents and visitors to the area for the next 40 to 50 years.
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 Page 41 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net Appendix One: Recommended Facility Component Schedule
FACILITY ACTIVITY AREA TARGET MARKETS FACILITY OBJECTIVES AREA SCHEDULES TOTAL AREA (m2) COMPONENTS 2 Indoor Aquatic Option 1 ..Education ..Adjacent to spectator areas. ..Pool – 25m x 51.5m 1,996m Hall Main indoor ..Competition ..Deep pool areas located away from shallow water ..Wet Deck – 0.5m around pool (60.5m x 33m) competition 51.5 ..Health and fitness pools. edge Metre Pool with 10 ..Events ..50m pool needs to be isolated from other pools ..Concourse – 3.5m sides, 4.0m lanes (2.5m) and ..Training during competition use (noise factor). ends moveable boom ..Programs ..Water depth 1.4m to 2.0m ..Consider potential for part moveable floor 2 Option 2 ..Education ..Adjacent to spectator areas. ..Pool – 25m x 25m 1,122m Main indoor ..Competition ..Deep pool areas located away from shallow water ..Wet Deck – 0.5m around pool (34m x 33m) competition 25 Metre ..Health and fitness pools. edge Pool with 10 lanes ..Events ..25m pool needs to be isolated from other pools ..Concourse – 3.5m sides, 4.0m (25m wide) ..Training during competition use (noise factor). ends ..Programs ..Water depth 1.4m to 2.0m New warm water ..Aquatic programs .. Provide new program pool .. Warm water program pool 367m2 program pool ..Water exercise .. Pool to be part of pool hall with capacity to be 15m x 10m (1m to 1.4m (15.5m x 21m) closed off. deep) .. Ramp access (1.5m wide) .. Concourse average 3m around pool area New LTS Pool with ..Learn to swim .. Provide children’s activity areas beach entry .. Free form leisure water with Pool 410m2 free form leisure ..Water familiarization through to 1m deep. beach entry 250m2 Concourse approximately water area connected .. LTS 600mm to 1m .. LTS Pool 10m x 10m 164m2 2 .. Toddlers pool access to deeper water restricted .. Toddlers Pool 60m Total area 564m2 by clear vision barrier – can only access deeper .. Wet deck 0.5m water byback onto concourse to beach entry. .. Concourse average 3m New Water slide ..All customers .. Development of a single water slide attractor ..100m2 for flume drop off area 180m2 ..Younger people potential second stage in pool hall. .. Internal flume to exit ride ..Tower footplate to be designed .. Slide and tower external to the building but say 8m x 10m =80m2 2 New Spa/Saunas ..Older adults ..Provide hot water pool, steam room and dry sauna ..Spa – 35m² 75m ..Social for social / relaxation and therapy ..Sauna – 20m² dry ..Therapy ..Capacity for approx. 16 people ..Sauna – 20m2 steam ..Sports recovery ..Close to change facilities ..Non-organised leisure ..Zone away from children’s areas (planter areas) ..Spa saunas close to or linked to warm water program pool. 2 Filtration plant and ..New filtration plant room for .. To service new water space Option 1 (50m pool) Option 1 - 425m 2 storage program pool and water .. Plant room 400m 2 slide including storage. .. Storage room 25m Option 2 2 .. Plant room 300m 2 2 .. Storage room 25m Option 2 - 325m Subtotal Indoor Aquatic Hall Option 1: 3,607m² Option 2: 2,630m²
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 APP 1- 1 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
FACILITY 2 ACTIVITY AREA TARGET MARKETS FACILITY OBJECTIVES AREA SCHEDULES TOTAL AREA (m ) COMPONENTS 2 Outdoor Aquatic Outdoor aquatic play ..Leisure activities .. Develop outdoor aquatic splash pad 200m Area area ..Social groups ..Entertainment ..Infants ..Families Outdoor 50m Retain and upgrade ..Swimming Club .. Upgrade 50m pool including the provision of wet .. Provide an allowance. N/A Pool 50m pool ..Leisure activities decks along eastern and western walls. (Albury and ..Social groups .. Assess plant and pipework. Lavington Pool ..Entertainment site option only Subtotal Outdoor Aquatic Area 200m² Health and Gymnasium / weights ..Health and fitness .. Develop new gym/fitness area incorporating .. Gymnasium area 700m2 700m2 for active space 2 2 Fitness room ..Therapy weights, cardio equipment and circuit area .. Office 8m 34m for storage, office, ..Competition / clubs .. .. Assessment office 8m2 assessment and ..Industry training .. Accessible amenity 8m2 accessible amenity 2 ..Health and fitness .. Storage 10m ..Wellness ..Social groups 2 Group Fitness ..Health and fitness ..Provide multi-use timber floor area suitable for Program rooms: 490m ..Therapy classes and functions. .. 1x 200m2 group fitness room ..Competition / clubs .. 1x 150m2 group fitness room ..Industry training .. 1x 100m2 dedicated spinning ..Social group room 2 ..Events/social .. Storage 40m .. Allow for future expansion as part of design. Subtotal Dry Facilities 1,224m² 2 Front of House Foyer / Reception / ..All customers .. Provide new or renovate entry area (indoor ..Foyer – 70m² 170m Areas Merchandising stadium site option) to provide welcoming entry ..Reception – 30m² redevelopment area that allows users to relax and socialise ..Merchandising – 50m² before entering central areas. ..Store – 20m² .. Introduce electronic member’s entry systems to reduce overcrowding at reception. .. Provide controlled access to aquatic and health and fitness areas. .. Provide area with foyer for merchandise. 2 Food and beverage ..All customers .. Provide new food and beverage area to improve ..Dry lounge – 70m² 180m secondary spend opportunities and provide ..Café serveries – 30m² internal/external access ..Kitchen – 40m² ..Store – 30m² ..Other –10m² 2 Offices / ..Staff .. Provide areas for staff and administration. ..Offices x 4 – 70m² 210m Administration / Staff ..Work area – 40m² Rooms ..Storage – 40m² ..Staff room – 40m² ..Staff amenities – 20m² Subtotal Front of House 560m²
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 APP 1- 2 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
FACILITY 2 ACTIVITY AREA TARGET MARKETS FACILITY OBJECTIVES AREA SCHEDULES TOTAL AREA (m ) COMPONENTS 2 Amenities Main Pool Hall / ..Aquatics hall users .. Provide modern amenities easily maintained ..Male – 100m² 220m Change rooms and ..Female – 100m² Amenities ..Service areas – 20m² School/Event Change ..Schools .. Provide separate group change areas 1 x male, 1 ..2 x Group change – 50m² + 100m² Rooms ..Event Users x female 50m² = 100m2 ..Swim Club Program Pool Change ..Program Pool users .. Provide separate change for Program Pool ..Male Program Pool change – 80m² users. 40m² ..Female Program Pool change – 40m² 2 Dry Change Rooms ..Health and fitness users .. Provide modern amenities easily maintained ..Male – 60m² 140m and Amenities ..Meeting room users ..Female – 60m² ..Café users ..Service areas – 20m² 2 Family Change ..Families .. Provide range of family/disabled cubicles .. 4 cubicles @ 15m² 60m ..People with disabilities ..Older adults ..Special needs Subtotal Amenities 600m² 2 Other Outdoor seating areas ..All customers .. Provide outdoor seating areas at the front of the ..Provide an allowance 99m building servicing the new kiosk and café. .. Provide outdoor seating areas adjacent to the waterslide. General Circulation ..All customers ..Includes circulation and foyer for new dry ..Allowance m2 Allowance programing area. 2 Subtotal Other Areas 99m Total Development Area Option 1:6,290m2 Option 2: 5,313m2 2 Car Parking create new car parking area to suit facility needs – minimum 250 parking bays TBDm
Albury CC Aquatics Strategy Final Draft Report 03-02-2016 (NSW 07.2015) - 3 February 2016 APP 1- 3 Commercial in Confidence. SGL Consulting Group Australia Pty Ltd www.sglgroup.net
ATTACHMENT TO CM 13B – 02/2016
DRAFT AQUATICS STRATEGY
ATTACHMENT 2
AlburyCity Draft Aquatics Strategy – Community Engagement Plan
AlburyCity Stakeholder Engagement Plan
STEP 1. The required detail for your plan Complete the information below:
AlburyCity Aquatics Strategy – Community Engagement Project Name FIL14/02055
Kate de Hennin; in consultation with Michael Stanton and Engagement Plan Author Melinda Grigg Date of Engagement Plan 9 December 2015 TRIM Number DOC15/115695 Objective 1: Ensure a maximum engagement reach through wide dissemination of the engagement opportunity through proven communication channels and stakeholder groups; Objective 2: Educate the community on the details of the aquatics strategy; Objective 3: Encourage key stakeholders and the general Stakeholder Engagement community (including non-users) to review the options provided in Objectives the Aquatics Strategy, provide feedback to council on their top priority and include any general comments; Objective 4: Use the feedback to formulate a report to Manex and Council identifying the top priorities for the community; Objective 5: Inform the community of the results of the consultation and how the information will be used – ‘close the loop’. The objective of the Aquatics Strategy is to provide Council with short, medium and long term recommendations for existing and/or proposed aquatic facilities. The engagement component of the project is to assist Council with its decision-making by ascertaining community priorities.
Stakeholders: - Current pool users including families, swimming squads,
water polo, diving and general ‘swim for fitness’ public. Project Overview and - Fish out of Water group Stakeholders - Aquatics Advisory Group
- Albury Swim Centre - Lavington Swim Centre - Media - AlburyCity staff - AlburyCity Councillors - Sports Albury - The broader Albury community - Surrounding residents eg Wodonga, Indigo, Greater Hume,
AlburyCity- Stakeholder Engagement Plan - 2014 Page 1 of 4
Towong
The inability to access a swimming pool during the swim season would have a major impact on stakeholders, however this has been considered within the Aquatic Strategy. If any swimming pools were to be closed either indefinitely or to renovate, this would be done through a staged process that ensured ongoing access through the swim season.
There is considerable community interest in the aquatics strategy and this has been a passionate subject for many years. There is potential for negative reaction to the draft strategy regarding: Diving facilities not being included in the seven base options The options not providing all inclusions expected by some aquatic users (warm-up pools, spectator seating for events etc.) Some non-aquatic users are totally opposed due to the total capital investment required.
AlburyCity staff involved in the engagement process include: - Director Community and Recreation - Team Leader Leisure Facilities - Group Leader Communications - On-line Communications Officer - Corporate Planner
Timeline A six-week engagement process commencing 9 February 2016 CONSULT with stakeholders and general community Level of Engagement (including non-users) to determine option priority (IAP2 Spectrum) INFORM stakeholders and passive observers of results of consultation and how the information will be used.
Aquatics in Albury is a passionate topic and no matter what the outcomes and recommendations of the strategy there will be both a negative and positive reaction from users of Media interest aquatic facilities and the general public. A corporate risk is that the engagement is not seen as a transparent process and that the decision has already been made by AlburyCity (‘token engagement’).
Consultation expense will be provided through strategy Budget project costs. The evaluation of the engagement process will be Evaluation measured against the objectives of the engagement. Specifically, a number of indictors can be used to assess
AlburyCity- Stakeholder Engagement Plan - 2014 Page 2 of 4
engagement success including: - No. of visits to Have a Say page - No. document downloads - No. of form submissions - No. of shares on social media - No of video views (you tube) - % eDM open rate - % eDM click throughs to website Determining targets for each of these indicators would make the assessment more measurable and meaningful. Stakeholder Engagement Plan approved by: James Approval Jenkins 10/12/15
STEP 2. Add to Stakeholder Engagement Plan register Register this approved plan by going to DOC14/86321 or forwarding TRIM link to Corporate Planner. This must occur prior to speaking with Communications Team, and/or commencing any engagement activity.
STEP 3. Consult with the Communications Team Discuss the different techniques to engage with stakeholders (internal or external) and your anticipated deliverables. Consider the implementation timeframe for your Engagement Plan. Add information to Step 4.
STEP 4. Deliverables and techniques. When you have consulted the Communications Team and determined the techniques and timing for your engagement process, please detail below:
Engagement Techniques and Timeframe
TECHNIQUES/DELIVERABLES ESTIMATED DATES FOR ENGAGEMENT DELIVERY It is anticipated that the entire engagement campaign will be Engagement Campaign conducted from 9 February for approximately six weeks. AlburyCity website - Have A From Tuesday 9 February Say page eDM to all relevant AlburyCity Week ending 12 February databases Newsletter Content that can be Week ending 12 February shared with 3rd parties Facebook content that can be Week ending 12 February shared with 3rd parties Video content of Mike King From Tuesday 9 February (Consultant) Information to be located at both Week starting 15 February swim centres, Library/Museum
AlburyCity- Stakeholder Engagement Plan - 2014 Page 3 of 4 and Lavington Library Communications Approval Melinda Grigg – 20/01/16
STEP 5. Evaluation of the engagement process
At the conclusion of the engagement activity (either internal or external), review the process and consider the following questions:
Did you identify the correct stakeholders? Were their needs Evaluation of the process met? Were the correct techniques / deliverables used and were they implemented correctly?
What was the result of the engagement? How many people did it reach? Were the community / stakeholders satisified? Evaluation of the outcome What was the stakeholder impact on the decision process and final decision?
STEP 6. Close the loop.
Go back to the community and/or targeted stakeholders and let them know the final outcome of your engagement activity.
1. Summarise the main findings of your stakeholder engagement. 2. Place the summary back on ‘Have a Say’ under ‘Past items’. Please liaise with the Communications Team to undertake this process.
AlburyCity- Stakeholder Engagement Plan - 2014 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT TO CM 13C – 02/2016
INQUIRY INTO REGIONAL PLANNING PROCESSES IN NSW – LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT 1
Submission to Standing Committee on State Development
ATTACHMENT TO CM 13D – 02/2016
ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010 – PLANNING PROPOSAL: DUAL OCCUPANCY SUBDIVISION (CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSSIONS)
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning & Development Committee Report – 6C Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 – Planning Proposal: Exceptions to Minimum Subdivision Lot Sizes for Certain Residential Development (Dual Occupancy Development) dated Monday 19 October 2015
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * " + , - . % ( , / 0 , 1 * " 2 " * , 3 4 5 4 6 2 " * , , . , 7 2 % ( 8 ( 9 * " : + ; ) 0 8 1 . ( , 9 1 (
< . , . / $ / = $ # > . - . 9 . ( , ' ( 1 = . ? 0 9 @ ( % 0 % 1 * . , A 0 9 . > 0 , 1 . * " B 0 - 0 " ( 8 / 0 , 1 C B $ * "
D
) ) $ 8 * , ) & B 0 - 0 " ( 8 / 0 , 1 E F G H I J K L M N O J N P
Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ U `
a b c d e c e
Q T S R f g h i j k
n o p q r o s p o t u v w x y o x m t z o m x r r x { u y | } o s p x y p
R l m
i
~ ~
o } p x y y o r s t t o } p x o } v u s r o | s r o } p x y s r s } p z u q o v } u t n
e d b a e e b c e d b c b e c
T Q T S T S
S R
o o t u y | s t o o o t u y | s t o
d c e e b b c
S T T T S Y Y Z Z T © _ ^ V ª U « V
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y ¨
¨ ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ¯ ² ± ® ¯ ³
´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ · º » ¶ º ¼ ½ µ ¾ » ¹ ¶ · º ¹ ½ ¾ » ½ º » ¶ ¶ ¿ À º ¸ Á Â ¾ Ã Ä » » ¸ · · º ¹ ½ ¼ º ¹ Å ¹ ¶ Æ ¾ » ¾ º Á ½ º Å ¹ ¶ Â ¶ Á ½ Ã Ç ¶ Á È º ¹ » ¶ È É Ã Å Á Á ¾ Á Ê
] Z Ë Z ¡ Y Y \ \ Ì Y Z § \ Í Y \ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â á ã ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ æ Y Z ç X ¢ ¡ ¢ Y Y \ Y \
è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í ç Z ] Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ê ë \ ] \ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ¢ Y \ ] \ è ¡ Y Z ç ç è ] Y \ ] Í ¦ ¢ X \ Í
Í ¢ ] \ X Y ¢ Z ç ] Z § Y \ Í \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ Í ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y ê
ë \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡ \ \ Ì Y Z § \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Ø î Ö Ý ï ÞÛ Õ Ù ð ÞÕ Ü Û Ù Û Ü Ñ Ü ð Ñ Ð ñ Û Ú Û ð Û Õ Ù Ï Õ Þ ð Û ò Ý ð ó Õ Ò Ö Ý Ò Þ × Û Ù
Ò Ý ð Û ñ Ý Ù ÞÛ × Ï ñ Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ X è ] ] \ Y ¡ é X Z Y ¢ \ Í ô ¢ Y ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ê ä X Z Ë é Z ç Y \ § \ Í \ Í X ¡ è \ ¢
Ë ] Z ¦ ¢ Í \ Í Î Þ Þ × Ö õ Ü Ý Ù Þ â ç Z ] ì Z è X ¢ ¡ ¡ Z ] ¢ ç Z ] § Y ¢ Z ê
ö Í Í ¢ Y ¢ Z ÷ X Z Ë é Z ç Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¡ [ ¡ \ ø ù ú ì Z è X ¢ ¡ ¡ Z ] ¢ ç Z ] § Y ¢ Z û ü Î Þ Þ × Ö õ Ü Ý Ù Þ ý þ
ä ] \ è ¡ Y Z ç Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ÷ \ ¦ \ ] ¡ X Z \ ÿ è \ Y ¢ ¡ X £ \ ô ¢ ¡ ¡ ¡ Z \ \ Í Y Z [ \ § Í \ Y Z Y \
Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ ¡ Õ Ù ÞÒ Õ Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â á ã ä ¢ ì ^ _ U _ æ Í Y \ \ ] \ ¡ Z Í \ Y ¢ ¡ \ Í ô ¢ Y ¢ Y ¢ ] \ Ë Z ] Y ê
£ ¤ ¥ ¦ §
¨ ©
¯ ¬
ö Y ¢ Z Y \ Í Y Y ì Z è X ¢ ¡ Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é \ Í Z ] \ Í Y \ Í Z Ë Y ¢ Z Z ç \ ô X ¡ è \ ô ¢ Y ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ÷ [ \ ¢ £
ì ¡ è \ í ê U ì Ø î Ö Ý ï ÞÛ Õ Ù ð ÞÕ Ü Û Ù Û Ü Ñ Ü ð Ñ Ð ñ Û Ú Û ð Û Õ Ù Ï Õ Þ ð Û ò Ý ð ó Õ Ò ñ Ñ × Ï Õ Ö Ö Ñ ï × Ù Ö Û Ý ð ä Z è Y ¡ ¢ \ Z ç Y \
Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í § \ Í § \ Y Í ] Y ¢ Z ¡ \ ç Z ] Y \ Í Z Ë Y ¢ Z Z ç Y ¢ X ¡ è \ ô Y \ è [ \ X Y Z ç Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é
] \ Ë Z ] Y Y Z Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¢ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ì Z § § ¢ Y Y \ \ § \ \ Y ¢ £ \ ¡ Í Z Z Í é U í \ Ë Y \ § [ \ ] ^ _ U `
Î Þ Þ × Ö õ Ü Ý Ù Þ â
Z ô \ ¦ \ ] ÷ ¢ X \ ] \ X \ ¢ ¦ ¢ £ ì Z è X ¢ ¡ \ Í Z ] \ § \ Y ÷ ç è ] Y \ ] Í ¦ ¢ X \ Í Í ¢ ] \ X Y ¢ Z [ \ \ ] \ X \ ¢ ¦ \ Í ç ] Z §
Y \ ¢ \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y ã ¢ ¥ æ Y Z § \ Í Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡ Z Y Y ¢ Y ô ¢ ¡ ¡ [ \
X Z ¢ Y \ Y ô ¢ Y ¢ ¥ ÷ ì Z è X ¢ ¡ ¢ Z ô \ \ Ì ¢ £ Y Z § \ Í \ ¢ Y ¢ £ X ¡ è \ ô ¢ Y ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _
] Y \ ] Y Í Z Ë Y ¢ £ \ ô X ¡ è \ ê
ë \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡ Y ¢ ¡ ¡ \ \ Ì Y Z X ¢ \ ¦ \ Y \ § \ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y Z è Y X Z § \ Y Z \ Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é Z è £ Y ÷
[ \ ¢ £ Y \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í [ \ ¡ Z ô Y Y Z ô Z Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ § Ë ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ç Z ] Í è ¡
Z X X è Ë X é Ë è ] Ë Z \ ê Z ô \ ¦ \ ] ÷ ] Y \ ] Y Í Z Ë Y \ ô X ¡ è \ Ë ] Z ¦ ¢ Í \ Í ¢ Y \ \ ] ¡ ¢ \ ] ¡ ¢ £
] Z Ë Z ¡ ÷ Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í § \ Í § \ Y \ \ Ì Y Z § \ Í \ ¢ Y ¢ £ X ¡ è \ ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ¢ Y \ Í ê
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ £ £ © £ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¨ ¢ £ © ¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¢ § ¥ ¡ ¢
ä Y \ Ë ] Z ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ¦ \ X £ \ Í ÷ \ Ë ] Y \ ì Z è X ¢ ¡ \ Í Z ] \ § \ Y ¢ ] \ ÿ è ¢ ] \ Í ÷
Í ¢ Z ô Z è £ Y ê
e
° ° ¬ ± °
ë \ Ë ] \ Ë ] Y ¢ Z Z ç Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ¢ X Z ¢ Y \ Y ô ¢ Y Y \ Y ] Y \ £ ¢ X X Y ¢ Z Z ç Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó
à á á Í Í Z \ Z Y Í \ ] Z £ Y \ ç ] Z § Y \ ¢ § Í Z [ \ X Y ¢ ¦ \ Z ç Y \ Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù
Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ Î Ö Þ â ½ µ ¶ ¶ · Å ¹ ½ ¶ Á ½ º ¼ É Ã Å Á Á ¾ Á Ê Ä » ! Ñ Û ñ Ý ÞÕ ß Ò Ý ï × Ò Û Ù Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï
ß Ï × Ù ð Í ! Ñ Û ñ Ý ÞÕ ß Ò Ý ï × Ò Û Ù ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù ß Ò Õ ï Õ ð × Ï ð ô \ ¡ ¡ [ Z Y Y \ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó × Ù ñ Ô × Ú Û Ù ÞÕ Ù ¡ "
# × ð ÞÝ Ò ï Ï × Ù ð ã ^ _ _ $ æ Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é ] \ Ë Z ] Y \ Í Y Z Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¢ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ì Z § § ¢ Y Y \ \ \ \ Y ¢ £ Z
Z Í é U í \ Ë Y \ § [ \ ] ^ _ U ` ê
Q % ¥ %
¨
° ¬ ° ° ¯
ä Z è Y ¡ ¢ \ Í [ Z ¦ \ ÷ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é \ Í Z ] \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Y Y Z è £ Y Y Z ¢ X ¡ è Í \ ì ¡ è \
í ê U ì Ø î Ö Ý ï ÞÛ Õ Ù ð ÞÕ Ü Û Ù Û Ü Ñ Ü ð Ñ Ð ñ Û Ú Û ð Û Õ Ù Ï Õ Þ ð Û ò Ý ð ó Õ Ò ñ Ñ × Ï Õ Ö Ö Ñ ï × Ù Ö Û Ý ð ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ë ¢ X ¡ è \
Z è £ Y Y Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ç Z ] Y \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í [ \ ¡ Z ô Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ã ç Z ] ë Z ] ] \ ë ¢ Y ¡ \ Ë è ] Ë Z \ æ
Ë ] Y Z ç Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ÷ ô \ ] \ ¢ Y ô X X Z § Ë ¢ \ Í [ é Í ô \ ¡ ¡ ¢ £ Í \ ¢ £ ç Z ] \ X Z ç Y \
Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í ¡ Z Y ê
& Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ \ Í Z ] \ § \ Y Z ç Y ¢ ì ¡ è \ [ é ì Z è X ¢ ¡ ÷ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ç Z ] ô ] Í \ Í Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Y Z Y \
'
¢ ¥ Í ] \ ÿ è \ Y \ Í Y Y Y \ ô é ¢ \ Y \ ] § ¢ Y ¢ Z [ \ ¢ è \ Í ¢ X X Z ] Í X \ ô ¢ Y Y \
Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ Î Ö Þ â
'
Z ô \ ¦ \ ] ÷ Ë ] ¢ Z ] Y Z ¢ è ¢ £ Y \ ô é ¢ \ Y \ ] § ¢ Y ¢ Z ÷ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ô \ ] \ Í ¦ ¢ \ Í [ é ¢ ¥ Y Y Y \
Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í X ¡ è \ ô è ¡ ¢ Ì \ ¡ é Y Z [ \ è Ë Ë Z ] Y \ Í ç Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ ] \ X \ Y ¡ \ £ ¡ Í ¦ ¢ X \ Í Y \ ç X Y Y Y ¢ Y ô
§ Z Í \ ¡ ¡ \ Í Z Z ô ] \ Ë \ ¡ \ Í X ¡ è \ ÷ [ \ ¢ £ ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Ø î Ö Ý ï ÞÛ Õ Ù ð ÞÕ Ü Û Ù Û Ü Ñ Ü ð Ñ Ð ñ Û Ú Û ð Û Õ Ù Ï Õ Þ ð Û ò Ý ð
ó Õ Ò Ö Ý Ò Þ × Û Ù Ò Ý ð Û ñ Ý Ù ÞÛ × Ï ñ Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ X Z Y ¢ \ Í ô ¢ Y ¢ Y \ Ô × ( Ý # × Ö ) Ñ × Ò Û Ý Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù
à á â * ê
ö Y ¢ X Ì Z ô ¡ \ Í £ \ Í Y Y Y \ Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è X ¡ è \ ô Ë ] \ Ë ] \ Í ç Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ ô Z ç å ¥ ç Z ] è § [ \ ] Z ç
Z Y \ ] ] è ] ¡ ÷ ] \ £ ¢ Z ¡ Í § \ Y ] Z Ë Z ¡ ¢ Y X Z è X ¢ ¡ ÷ ô \ ¡ ¡ Í ¢ X è ¢ Z Í Í ¦ ¢ X \ ] \ X \ ¢ ¦ \ Í ç ] Z §
¢ ¥ ] \ £ ¢ Z ¡ Y ç ç ê ë \ X ¡ è \ ô è [ \ ÿ è \ Y ¡ é § Z Í \ ¡ ¡ \ Í Z ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Z ç Y \ Ô × ( Ý # × Ö ) Ñ × Ò Û Ý
Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â * ê Z Y ô ¢ Y Y Í ¢ £ ÷ ¢ X \ Y \ Ë ] \ Ë ] Y ¢ Z Z ç Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ÷
ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä X Z Y ¢ \ Í ô ¢ Y ¢ Y \ å Ì \ X ÿ è ] ¢ \ ¡ [ \ \ ] \ Ë \ ¡ \ Í Í ] \ Ë ¡ X \ Í ô ¢ Y \ ô
X ¡ è \ ê ë \ \ ô ì ¡ è \ [ \ \ \ Í Z ] \ Í Í Í Z Ë Y \ Í [ é ¢ ¥ ê
ä X X Z ] Í ¢ £ ¡ é ÷ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ¦ \ [ \ \ ] \ ÿ è \ Y \ Í Y Z § \ Í ¢ Y X ¡ è \ X Z ¢ Y \ Y ô ¢ Y Y ¢ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ¦ \ ] ¢ Z ê
ä ] \ ¦ ¢ \ ô Z ç ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í X ¡ è \ í ê U ä Z ç Y \ Ô × ( Ý # × Ö ) Ñ × Ò Û Ý Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â * ÷ ¢ Í ¢ X Y \ Í Y Y
¢ Y ¢ ¦ \ ] é ¢ § ¢ ¡ ] Y Z ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä X è ] ] \ Y ¡ é X Z Y ¢ \ Í ô ¢ Y ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ÷ ô ¢ Y Y \ \ X \ Ë Y ¢ Z Y Y ¢ Y
Ë Ë ¡ ¢ \ Y Z [ Z Y Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ã [ \ ¢ £ ^ Í ô \ ¡ ¡ ¢ £ Z Y \ Z \ ¡ Z Y æ Í § è ¡ Y ¢ Í ô \ ¡ ¡ ¢ £
Z è ¢ £ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ã [ \ ¢ £ V Z ] § Z ] \ Í ô \ ¡ ¡ ¢ £ Z Y \ Z \ ¡ Z Y æ ê
W Y ¢ [ ¢ Y Y ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ¢ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¢ £ Y Y ì Z è X ¢ ¡ § \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Z ç ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ X Z ¢ Y \ Y
ô ¢ Y Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í \ § Ë ¡ \ ÷ ] Y \ ] Y Í Z Ë Y ¢ £ \ ô X ¡ è \ ê ö Y ¢ Z Y \ Í Y Y [ Z Y X ¡ è \ X ¢ \ ¦ \ Y \
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ £ £ © £ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¨ ¢ £ © ¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¢ § ¥ ¡ ¢
§ \ Z [ \ X Y ¢ ¦ \ Í Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y Z è Y X Z § \ ÷ [ \ ¢ £ Y \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í [ \ ¡ Z ô Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ÷
Ë ] Y Z ç Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ê
ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ¢ Z ô \ \ Ì ¢ £ Y Z ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Y \ Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é \ Í Z ] \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Z Y Z § \ Í ì ¡ è \
í ê U ä Z ç ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ] Y \ ] Y Í Z Ë Y Í ] ç Y ì ¡ è \ í ê U ì Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é Z è £ Y ê + é § \ Í ¢ £ ì ¡ è \
í ê U ä Y ¢ ô ¢ ¡ ¡ \ è ] \ X Z ¢ Y \ X é ô ¢ Y Z Y \ ] ] \ X \ Y ¡ é \ Í Z ] \ Í X Z è X ¢ ¡ \ § Ë ¡ \ ÷ § \ ¡ é å Ì \
X ÿ è ] ¢ \ ÷ ¢ ¥ Í ¦ ¢ X \ Í Í ¢ ] \ X Y ¢ Z
ö Y ¢ ] \ ¢ Y \ ] Y \ Í Y Y Y \ \ ½ Ç · ¶ » º ¼ ¹ ¶ » ¾ È ¶ Á ½ ¾ Å Ã È ¶ Æ ¶ Ã º · ¶ Á ½ Å ¹ ¶ Å Ã ¹ ¶ Å È Ç · ¶ ¹ ¾ ½ ½ ¶ È , ¾ ½ µ ¾ Á - Ã . ¸ ¹ Ç Ä »
] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í § ¢ \ Í è \ Z \ Í ¦ \ [ \ \ Ë Ë ] Z ¦ \ Í Ë ] Y Z ç \ ¢ Y \ ] ì Z § § è ¢ Y é ë ¢ Y ¡ \ Z ] Y ] Y
ë ¢ Y ¡ \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ê ì Z \ ÿ è \ Y ¡ é ÷ Y \ ¢ § Ë X Y Z ç Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡ ] \ X Z ¢ Í \ ] \ Í § ¢ ¢ § ¡ Í
Y ¢ ¡ ¡ ] \ ÿ è ¢ ] \ X Z § Ë ¡ ¢ X \ ô ¢ Y Y \ ] \ ¡ \ ¦ Y X Z Y ] Z ¡ Z ç Y \ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ ¡ Õ Ù ÞÒ Õ Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â á ê
¡ Õ Ù ð Ý ) Ñ Ý Ù ÞÛ × Ï Ö õ × Ù Ý ð ÞÕ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ ¡ Õ Ù ÞÒ Õ Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â á
ä ] \ è ¡ Y Z ç Y ¢ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ÷ è § [ \ ] Z ç X Z \ ÿ è \ Y ¢ ¡ X £ \ ô ¢ ¡ ¡ ¡ Z \ \ Í Y Z [ \ § Í \ Y Z
\ X Y ¢ Z U _ ê V ê U Í U _ ê $ Z ç ä ¢ ì ^ _ U _ ã \ \ Î Þ Þ × Ö õ Ü Ý Ù Þ * æ ÷ Y Z ] \ ç ¡ \ X Y Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í § \ Í § \ Y Í
\ è ] \ X Z ¢ Y \ X é [ \ Y ô \ \ Y \ Y ô Z Í Z X è § \ Y ê ë \ \ X £ \ ] \ X Z ¢ Í \ ] \ Í § ¢ Z ] Í ô ¢ ¡ ¡ [ \ Y \
è [ \ X Y Z ç \ Ë ] Y \ Ë è [ ¡ ¢ X \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z Ë ] Z X \ Í ô ¢ ¡ ¡ [ \ \ ¢ [ ¢ Y \ Í X Z X è ] ] \ Y ¡ é ô ¢ Y Y \ ¡ ¢ £
] Z Ë Z ¡ ê
% ¦
°
è ¢ \ / ¢ Ì
+
ë \ ¡ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z ç + è ¢ \ ] ¢ Ì Z X ¢ Y \ Í ô ¢ Y Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ¢ X Z ¢ Í \ ] \ Í ¡ Z ô ê + é
§ \ Í ¢ £ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ÷ Y ¢ ô ¢ ¡ ¡ ] \ Ë Z Í Y Z è § [ \ ] Z ç ] \ X \ Y \ ÿ è ¢ ] ¢ \ Í ç \ \ Í [ X Ì ] \ X \ ¢ ¦ \ Í
¼ ¹ º - Ã . ¸ ¹ Ç Ä » È ¶ Æ ¶ Ã º · ¶ Á ½ ¾ Á È ¸ » ½ ¹ Ç ¼ º ¹ ½ µ ¶ Â ¹ ¶ Å ½ ¾ º Á º ¼ Ã º ½ » Ã ¶ » » ½ µ Å Á Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ]
Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Ë è ] Ë Z \ ÷ Ë ] Y Z ç ë Z ] ] \ ë ¢ Y ¡ \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ê ë ¢ ¡ Z ] \ ç ¡ \ X Y è § [ \ ] Z ç
] \ X \ Y Ë Ë ] Z ¦ ¡ ¢ è \ Í [ é ì Z è X ¢ ¡ Y Y Z è £ Y ¦ ] ¢ Y ¢ Z Z ç Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y Y Í ] Í ê
è [ ¡ ¢ X / ¢ Ì
ë \ ¡ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z ç è [ ¡ ¢ X ] ¢ Ì Z X ¢ Y \ Í ô ¢ Y Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ¢ X Z ¢ Í \ ] \ Í ¡ Z ô ê
Z \ Y \ ¡ \ ÷ Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡ \ \ Ì Y Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ç Z ] Y \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í ã ë Z ] ] \ ë ¢ Y ¡ \ æ ô ¢ Y ¢
- Ã . ¸ ¹ Ç Ä » ¹ ¶ » ¾ È ¶ Á ½ ¾ Å Ã Å Á È ¾ 0 ¶ È ¸ » ¶ 1 º Á ¶ » Ã ¶ » » ½ µ Å Á ½ µ ¶ ¾ Á ¾ ¸ Ã º ½ » ¾ 1 ¶ ¼ º ¹ È ¸ Å Ã º Â Â ¸ · Å Á Â Ç
Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y Ë è ] Ë Z \ ÷ ô ¢ X ¢ Y è ] X Z è ¡ Í ¡ \ Í Y Z Y \ Z ¦ \ ] 2 Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y Z ç ¡ Í Í Z X ¢ Y \ Í
§ \ ¢ Y é ¢ § Ë X Y Z \ ¢ £ [ Z è ] ¢ £ Ë ] Z Ë \ ] Y ¢ \ ã ¢ ê \ ê Z ¦ \ ] ¡ Z Z Ì ¢ £ ÷ Z ¦ \ ] Í Z ô ¢ £ ÷ X ] Ë ] Ì ¢ £ \ Y X æ ê
Z Y ô ¢ Y Y Í ¢ £ ÷ £ ¢ ¦ \ Y \ ç X Y Y Y Y \ \ Y é Ë \ Z ç ] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ] \ ¡ ] \ Í é
· ¶ ¹ ¾ ½ ½ ¶ È , ¾ ½ µ ¾ Á - Ã . ¸ ¹ Ç Ä » ¹ ¶ » ¾ È ¶ Á ½ ¾ Å Ã Å Á È ¾ 0 ¶ È ¸ » ¶ 1 º Á ¶ » Å Á È µ Å Æ ¶ . ¶ ¶ Á Å · · ¹ º Æ ¶ È Å » · Å ¹ ½ º ¼
\ ¢ Y \ ] ì Z § § è ¢ Y é ë ¢ Y ¡ \ Z ] Y ] Y ë ¢ Y ¡ \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ÷ Y \ ¢ § Ë X Y Z ç Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡
] \ X Z ¢ Í \ ] \ Í § ¢ ¢ § ¡ ê ö Y ¢ ¡ Z Z Y \ Í Y Y é Ë Ë ¡ ¢ X Y ¢ Z ¡ Z Í £ \ Í è Í \ ] Y ¢ ì ¡ è \ ô ¢ ¡ ¡ Y ¢ ¡ ¡
[ \ è [ \ X Y Y Z \ Ë ] Y \ ¢ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ä Ë Ë ¡ ¢ X Y ¢ Z \ § \ Y Ë ] Z X \ Í ô ¢ ¡ ¡ \ \ Í Y Z Y ¢ ç é
Y \ Ë ] Z ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ä ¢ ì ^ _ U _ ÷ ô ¢ Y ] \ Ë \ X Y Y Z Y \ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y X Z Y ] Z ¡ Z ç Y ¢ ¡ ã ¢ ê \ ê X ]
Ë ] Ì ¢ £ ÷ Z Ë \ Ë X \ ÷ \ Y [ X Ì ÷ [ è ¢ ¡ Í ¢ £ \ ¢ £ Y \ Y X æ ê
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ £ £ © £ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¨ ¢ £ © ¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¢ § ¥ ¡ ¢
a
% T § ¤ §
¨ ¨ ¨
¯ 3 3 ¬ ³ 4 ± 3 ± ³
ë \ Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í X £ \ ] \ X Z ¢ Í \ ] \ Í Y Z [ \ Z ç Ë è [ ¡ ¢ X ¢ Y \ ] \ Y Í X X Z ] Í ¢ £ ¡ é Ë Ë ] Z Ë ] ¢ Y \ ¡ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z ç
X Z § § è ¢ Y é \ £ £ \ § \ Y ¢ ô ] ] Y \ Í ê ë \ ç Z ] § ¡ Ë è [ ¡ ¢ X \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z Ë ] Z X \ ô ¢ ¡ ¡ [ \ [ \ Í Z
\ Ë ] Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ì Z § § è ¢ Y é ¥ £ £ \ § \ Y ¡ ¢ X ¡ è ¢ ¦ \ Z ç Y [ ¡ \ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ ¢ £ \ £ £ \ § \ Y Y \ X ¢ ÿ è \
Í Y ¢ § \ ç ] § \ ê ä X Z Ë é Z ç Y ¢ ë [ ¡ \ [ \ \ ¢ X ¡ è Í \ Í ô ¢ Y Y ¢ ] \ Ë Z ] Y Í § ] Ì \ Í Î Þ Þ × Ö õ Ü Ý Ù Þ 5
ç Z ] Y \ ] \ ç \ ] \ X \ Í ¢ ç Z ] § Y ¢ Z Z ç ì Z è X ¢ ¡ ¡ Z ] ê
ë \ X Z § § è ¢ X Y ¢ Z Y [ ¡ \ ¢ X ¡ è Í \ Ë ] Z ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ç Z ] Y \ ç Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ X Y ¢ ¦ ¢ Y ¢ \ 6
Z Y ¢ ç ¢ X Y ¢ Z ¡ \ Y Y \ ] Í ¢ Ë Y X \ Í Y Z Ì \ é Y Ì \ Z ¡ Í \ ] Í ¢ Y \ ] \ Y \ Í Ë ] Y ¢ \ Ë ] ¢ Z ] Y Z \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z
X Z § § \ X \ § \ Y 7
è [ ¡ ¢ X Z Y ¢ X \ Ë è [ ¡ ¢ \ Í ¢ Y \ + Z ] Í \ ] ¢ ¡ 7
Y Y ¢ X Í ¢ Ë ¡ é X Z Y ¢ ¢ £ ¡ ¡ \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z § Y \ ] ¢ ¡ ç Z ] ¦ ¢ \ ô ¢ £ Ë è ] Ë Z \ ¢ Y \ ç Z é \ ] Z ç Y \ ì Z è X ¢ ¡
ä Í § ¢ ¢ Y ] Y ¢ Z + è ¢ ¡ Í ¢ £ ÷ å ¢ [ ] ] é è \ è § Í å ¦ ¢ £ Y Z å ¢ [ ] ] é 7
¡ ¡ \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z § Y \ ] ¢ ¡ [ \ ¢ £ § Í \ ¦ ¢ ¡ [ ¡ \ Z Y \ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ô \ [ ¢ Y \ ¢ X ¡ è Í ¢ £ Y \ [ ¢ ¡ ¢ Y é Y Z
ä
§ Ì \ \ ¡ \ X Y ] Z ¢ X è [ § ¢ ¢ Z ¡ Z [ \ ¢ £ § Í \ ¦ ¢ ¡ [ ¡ \ Z Y \ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ô \ [ ¢ Y \ 7
'
Z è ¡ Y Y ¢ Z Í Í ¢ X è ¢ Z ô ¢ Y ] \ ¡ \ ¦ Y Z ¦ \ ] § \ Y ä £ \ X é ] \ Ë ] \ \ Y Y ¢ ¦ \ 7 Í
ì
Y ] Y \ £ ¢ X ¡ ¢ £ Y ç ç ¦ ¢ ¡ [ ¡ \ ã Z Í \ § Í Z ] [ é Ë Ë Z ¢ Y § \ Y æ Y Z ¢ Y ô ¢ Y é ¢ ÿ è ¢ ] ¢ \
] \ ¡ Y ¢ £ Y Z Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ê
b
%
¨
® ³ ¯ °
ë \ ì Z § § ¢ Y Y \ \ Y \ ç Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ Z Ë Y ¢ Z ¢ ] \ ¡ Y ¢ Z Y Z Y ¢ ] \ Ë Z ] Y 6
U ê ¥ Í Z ] \ Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Y Y \ \ Ì Y Z § \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Z ç ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ¢ Y ] \ ¡ Y \ Y Z
\ X \ Ë Y ¢ Z Y Z § ¢ ¢ § è § è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] X \ ] Y ¢ ] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ã ¢ X ¡ è Í ¢ £ Y \
è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í ¡ \ Y Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Ë è ] Ë Z \ æ Í ç Z ] ô ] Í
'
Y ¢ Y Z Y \ ¢ \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y \ \ Ì ¢ £ Y \ ô é ¢ \ Y \ ] § ¢ Y ¢ Z ÷
ô \ ¡ ¡ § Ì ¢ £ è § [ \ ] Z ç X Z \ ÿ è \ Y ¢ ¡ X £ \ Y Z ä ¢ ì ^ _ U _ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ \ Í ô ¢ Y ¢ Y ¢ ] \ Ë Z ] Y 7
b
^ ê ë Ì \ Z ç è ] Y \ ] X Y ¢ Z ô ¢ Y ] \ £ ] Í Y Z Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Í Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í § \ Í § \ Y Y Z
ä ¢ ì ^ _ U _ ê
ö Y ¢ ¢ Y X \ ÷ ¢ Y ¢ ] \ X Z § § \ Í \ Í Y Y Y \ ì Z § § ¢ Y Y \ \ Ë ] Z X \ \ Í ô ¢ Y W Ë Y ¢ Z U ç Z ] Y \ ] \ Z Z è Y ¡ ¢ \ Í
¢ Y ¢ ] \ Ë Z ] Y ê
a
¥ 8 %
¨ ¨
¯ ¬ ° ¯
& Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ ] \ X \ Y Í ¦ ¢ X \ Í Í ¢ ] \ X Y ¢ Z ç ] Z § Y \ ¢ \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y ÷
ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é ¢ \ \ Ì ¢ £ Y Z § \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Ø î Ö Ý ï ÞÛ Õ Ù ð ÞÕ Ü Û Ù Û Ü Ñ Ü ð Ñ Ð ñ Û Ú Û ð Û Õ Ù Ï Õ Þ ð Û ò Ý ð ó Õ Ò Ö Ý Ò Þ × Û Ù
Ò Ý ð Û ñ Ý Ù ÞÛ × Ï ñ Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ Z ç ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ÷ ô ¢ X ô ¢ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ Z ô ç Z ] Y \ º ¹ ¶ ¼ Ã ¶ 0 ¾ . Ã ¶ ¸ » ¶ º ¼ Ã Å Á È , ¾ ½ µ ¾ Á - Ã . ¸ ¹ Ç Ä »
] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í § ¢ \ Í è \ Z \ ã è [ \ X Y Y Z ì Z è X ¢ ¡ X Z \ Y æ ê
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ £ £ © £ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¨ ¢ £ © ¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¢ § ¥ ¡ ¢
ö Y ¢ Z Y \ Í Y Y ì Z è X ¢ ¡ Í Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é Z è £ Y Y Z ¢ X ¡ è Í \ \ ô Ë ] Z ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ô ¢ Y ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ¦ ¢ Y \
¢ X ¡ è ¢ Z Z ç ì ¡ è \ í ê U ì Ø î Ö Ý ï ÞÛ Õ Ù ð ÞÕ Ü Û Ù Û Ü Ñ Ü ð Ñ Ð ñ Û Ú Û ð Û Õ Ù Ï Õ Þ ð Û ò Ý ð ó Õ Ò ñ Ñ × Ï Õ Ö Ö Ñ ï × Ù Ö Û Ý ð Z ô \ ¦ \ ] ÷
ç Z ¡ ¡ Z ô ¢ £ § Z Y ] \ X \ Y ¡ \ £ ¡ Í ¢ \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y Í ¦ ¢ X \ ÷ ä ¡ [ è ] é ì ¢ Y é
Í \ X ¢ Í \ Í Y Z § \ Í \ ¢ Y ¢ £ X ¡ è \ ô ¢ Y ¢ ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ¢ Y \ Í Z ç Í Z Ë Y ¢ £ \ ô X ¡ è \ ê ë \
Ë ] Z Ë Z \ Í § \ Í § \ Y ô ¢ ¡ ¡ X ¢ \ ¦ \ Y \ § \ Z è Y X Z § \ Ë ] \ ¦ ¢ Z è ¡ é Z è £ Y ê
ä X X Z ] Í ¢ £ ¡ é ÷ ì Z è X ¢ ¡ è Ë Ë Z ] Y ¢ Z ô Z è £ Y Y Z \ Í Z ] \ Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Í Y Z \ \ Ì
¢ \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y è Y Z ] ¢ Y é Y Z Ë ] Z £ ] \ Y \ Ë ] Z Ë Z ¡ § \ Í § \ Y Y Z
ä å ¥ ^ _ U _ ÷ Ë è ] è Y Y Z ] Y V Z ç Y \ Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ Î Ö Þ â Å » Å 9 È ¶ Ã ¶ Ê Å ½ ¶ È
· Ã Å Á Á ¾ Á Ê · ¹ º · º » Å Ã Ä :
ö Y ¢ ¡ Z ] \ ÿ è \ Y \ Í Y Y ì Z è X ¢ ¡ è Ë Ë Z ] Y [ \ £ ¢ ¦ \ Y Z Y \ § Ì ¢ £ Z ç X Z \ ÿ è \ Y ¢ ¡ X £ \ Y Z ä ¢ ì
^ _ U _ ] \ è ¡ Y Z ç Y ¢ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Z Y Z \ è ] \ X Z ¢ Y \ X é [ \ Y ô \ \ Y \ Y ô Z Í Z X è § \ Y ê
¥ % ¤
¨ © ¨
± ¯ 3 3 ± ³ ¯
ë Y ì Z è X ¢ ¡ 6
ê ¥ Í Z ] \ Y \ ] \ ¦ ¢ \ Í ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ Í ç Z ] ô ] Í ¢ Y Y Z Y \ ¢ ¢ Y \ ] ç Z ] ¡ ¢ £ \ \ Ì ¢ £
§ \ Í § \ Y Y Z Y \ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â á Z Y Z § \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Z ç Y ¢
¡ ¢ Y ] \ ¡ Y \ Y Z \ X \ Ë Y ¢ Z Y Z § ¢ ¢ § è § è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] X \ ] Y ¢ ] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡
Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ã ¢ X ¡ è Í ¢ £ Y \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í ¡ \ Y Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] Í è ¡
'
Z X X è Ë X é Ë è ] Ë Z \ æ Í ] \ ÿ è \ Y Y Y Y \ ô é ¢ \ Y \ ] § ¢ Y ¢ Z [ \ ¢ è \ Í ÷ ¢ X ¡ è Í ¢ £ Y \
Í \ ¡ \ £ Y ¢ Z Z ç ¡ § Ì ¢ £ Ë Z ô \ ] ÷ Z Y Z \ [ ¡ \ Y \ Ë è [ ¡ ¢ X \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z Z ç Y \ ¡ ¢ £
] Z Ë Z ¡ Ë è ] è Y Y Z Y \ Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ Î Ö Þ â 7 Í
[ ê ¥ Í Z ] \ Í ] ç Y § \ Í § \ Y Y Y \ \ Ì Y Z § \ Í \ X Y ¢ Z U _ ê V ê U Í U _ ê $ Z ç Y \ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó
Ý Ú Ý Ï Õ ï Ü Ý Ù Þ ¡ Õ Ù ÞÒ Õ Ï ß Ï × Ù à á â á Y \ é ] \ ¡ Y \ Y Z ] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z X Z Y ] Z ¡ Í Í è ¡
Z X X è Ë X ¢ \ 7 Í
'
X ê ; Ë Z ] \ X \ ¢ Ë Y Z ç ì Z è X ¢ ¡ \ Í Z ] \ § \ Y Í Y \ ô é ¢ \ Y \ ] § ¢ Y ¢ Z è Í \ ] \ X Y ¢ Z ` © Z ç Y \
Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ Î Ö Þ â ÷ ì Z è X ¢ ¡ Ë ¡ X \ Y \ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ ÷ Í ] ç Y
ä § \ Í § \ Y Y Z ä ¢ ì ^ _ U _ Í é è Ë Ë Z ] Y ¢ £ § Y \ ] ¢ ¡ Z Ë è [ ¡ ¢ X \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z Ë è ] è Y Y Z é
'
] \ ÿ è ¢ ] \ § \ Y Z ç Y \ Y \ ô é ¢ \ Y \ ] § ¢ Y ¢ Z ÷ \ X Y ¢ Z ` « Z ç Y \ Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù
Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ Î Ö Þ â Í Y \ Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ < Ý Ñ Ï × ÞÛ Õ Ù à á á á = Í
Í ê Z è ¡ Í Z Z [ \ X Y ¢ Z [ \ ] \ X \ ¢ ¦ \ Í Í è ] ¢ £ Ë è [ ¡ ¢ X \ ¢ [ ¢ Y ¢ Z ÷ ç è ] ¢ X Z Ë é Z ç Y ¢ ] \ Ë Z ] Y Í é
Z Y \ ] ] \ ¡ \ ¦ Y ¢ ç Z ] § Y ¢ Z Y Z Y \ ¢ \ Ë ] Y § \ Y Z ç ¡ ¢ £ Í ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y Í > Z ]
] ¡ ¢ § \ Y ] é ì Z è \ ¡ W ç ç ¢ X \ ÷ ¢ X X Z ] Í X \ ô ¢ Y Y \ Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï ß Ï × Ù Ù Û Ù Î ð ð Ý ð ð Ü Ý Ù Þ
Î Ö Þ â ÷ Í ] \ ÿ è \ Y Y \ ¢ ¢ Y \ ] ç Z ] ¡ ¢ £ ã Z ] Í \ ¡ \ £ Y \ Z Y \ ¢ ] [ \ ¡ ç æ è Í \ ] Y Ì \ Y \
Ë Ë ] Z Ë ] ¢ Y \ X Y ¢ Z Y Z \ X è ] \ Y \ § Ì ¢ £ Z ç Y \ § \ Í § \ Y Y Z Y \ Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ï Ø Ù Ú Û Ò Õ Ù Ü Ý Ù Þ × Ï
ß Ï × Ù à á â á Y Y \ \ Ì Y Z § \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä Z ç Y ¢ ¡ ¢ Y ] \ ¡ Y \ Y Z \ X \ Ë Y ¢ Z Y Z § ¢ ¢ § è §
è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] X \ ] Y ¢ ] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ã ¢ X ¡ è Í ¢ £ Y \ è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z Z ç ¡ Í ¡ \
Y Y \ § ¢ ¢ § è § ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] Í è ¡ Z X X è Ë X é Ë è ] Ë Z \ æ ê
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ £ £ © £ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¨ ¢ £ © ¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¢ § ¥ ¡ ¢
R ¤ ¥ ?
¨
³ ³ 3 ± ³ °
U ê ¢ ] ç Y ä § \ Í \ Í ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä ¥ X \ Ë Y ¢ Z Y Z § ¢ ¢ § è § è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] X \ ] Y ¢
] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y 7
^ ê ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ 6 ä § \ Í § \ Y Y Z ä ¡ [ è ] é å Z X ¡ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y ¡ ¡ ^ _ U _ @ ] Y í
] ¢ X ¢ Ë ¡ ¢ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y Y Í ] Í @ ä § \ Í § \ Y Y Z ì ¡ è \ í ê U ä ¥ X \ Ë Y ¢ Z Y Z § ¢ ¢ § è §
è [ Í ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ Z ¡ Z Y ¢ \ ç Z ] X \ ] Y ¢ ] \ ¢ Í \ Y ¢ ¡ Í \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ã W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ U ` æ 7
V ê ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¢ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ì Z § § ¢ Y Y \ \ / \ Ë Z ] Y @ © ä ä ¡ [ è ] é å Z X ¡ ¥ ¦ ¢ ] Z § \ Y ¡ ¡ ^ _ U _
@ ¡ ¢ £ ] Z Ë Z ¡ 6 ö X ¡ è ¢ Z Z ç ¢ è ¡ W X X è Ë X é ì ¡ è \ Í Y \ Í Z Í é U í \ Ë Y \ § [ \ ]
^ _ U ` 7
í ê ¢ ] ç Y ä § \ Í § \ Y Y Z ä ¡ [ è ] é ¢ \ ¦ \ ¡ Z Ë § \ Y ì Z Y ] Z ¡ ¡ ^ _ U _ @ ¢ è ¡ W X X è Ë X é ì ¡ è \ 7
` ê ì Z § § è ¢ Y é ¥ £ £ \ § \ Y ¡ ê
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¥ £ £ © £ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¨ ¢ £ © ¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¢ § ¥ ¡ ¢
ATTACHMENT TO CM 13D – 02/2016
ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010 – PLANNING PROPOSAL: DUAL OCCUPANCY SUBDIVISION (CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSSIONS)
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Proposal: Amendment to Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 – Part 4 Principal Development Standards – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development (October 2015)
PLANNING PROPOSAL
Planning Proposal
Amendment to Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010
Part 4 Principal Development Standards
Amendment to Clause 4.1A Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development
Prepared by AlburyCity Council
October 2015
AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
CONTENTS
PART 1 – OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES ...... 2 PART 2 – EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS ...... 2 PART 3 – JUSTIFICATION ...... 3 Section A - Need for the planning proposal...... 3 Section B - Relationship to strategic planning framework ...... 5 Section C - Environmental, social and economic impact ...... 6 Section D - State and Commonwealth interests ...... 8 PART 4 – MAPPING ...... 9 PART 5 – COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...... 9 PART 6 – PROJECT TIMELINE ...... 10 Table 1 – Project Timeline ...... 10 APPENDIX A ...... 11 Table 2 – Consideration of State Environmental Planning Policies ...... 11 Table 3 – Consideration of Section 117(2) Ministerial Directions ...... 16 APPENDIX B ...... 22 Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2014 – Clause 4.1A ...... 22 Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 – Land Zoning Map ...... 23
AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
PART 1 – OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES
AlburyCity Council has resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal as per Section 55 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The proposal seeks an amendment to the Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP 2010) so as to amend Clause 4.1A: Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development as currently contained within Part 4 of this Plan, which will provide for a diversity of residential development (namely via dual occupancies) on lots less than the minimum lot size shown on the lot size map, within designated residential and mixed use areas (subject to council consent).
This Planning Proposal applies to the R1 General Residential Zone, R3 Medium Density Residential Zone and B4 Mixed Use Zone, which all permit these forms of residential development.
PART 2 – EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS
As per Part 4 – Principal Development Standards of ALEP 2010, it is proposed to amend Clause 4.1A of the LEP as follows:
4.1A Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development
(1) The objective of this clause is to encourage housing diversity without adversely impacting on residential amenity. (2) Despite clause 4.1, development consent may be granted to development on land in Zone R1 General Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or B4 Mixed Use that is both of the following: (b) the erection of a dual occupancy, (a) the subdivision of the land into 2 lots if the size of each lot resulting from the subdivision is at least 300 square metres. (3) Despite clause 4.1, development consent may be granted to development on land in Zone R1 General Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or B4 Mixed Use that is both of the following: (a) the subdivision of land into 3 or more lots that each have frontage to a road, (b) the erection of an attached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling or a dwelling house if the size of each lot resulting from the subdivision is at least 300 square metres. (4) If a lot is a battle-axe lot or other lot with an access handle, the area of the access handle is not to be included in calculating the lot size.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 2 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
PART 3 – JUSTIFICATION
Section A - Need for the planning proposal.
1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?
The planning proposal is not the result of any strategic study or report and the amendment seeks to amend local Clause 4.1A: Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development as contained within Part 4 of this Plan.
This request follows a number of recent enquiries and feedback received from the Albury development industry (builders, developers and surveyors) at a ‘Developers Forum’ held on 23 April 2015 by AlburyCity. These requests sought a reduction in the minimum lot size currently permitted under ALEP 2010, so as to allow for the construction of dual occupancy developments that could then be individually subdivided, as part of a Torrens Title subdivision. Many cited the previous Albury Local Environmental Plan 2000 controls that allowed for this form of development (previously known as ‘Integrated Housing’), as well as similar allowances available within neighbouring Wodonga.
This request also follows a number of recent development applications received by Council for dual occupancies on lots less than the minimum lot size as part of a Torrens Title subdivision. At present the subdivision of land less than the current minimum lot size for this type of development, can only be approved as part of a Community Title or Strata Title subdivision. It is noted that this ability is currently already available for multi dwelling housing (MDH) under the current version of Clause 4.1A of ALEP 2010 and the purpose of the proposed amendment is to expand this ability to cater for dual occupancies, which Council considers to be smaller scale and have less off-site impacts.
Recently Council has approved a number of dual occupancies on undersized lots as part of a clause 4.6 variation, where they have complied with the relevant standards of the Albury Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP 2010). These variations have been reported by Council to the NSW DPE as part of its quarterly reporting.
The proposal therefore seeks to amend ALEP 2010 by amending an existing local clause that allows for the subdivision of land less than the minimum lot size shown on the minimum lot size map of ALEP 2010, as it relates to dual occupancy developments. These forms of development are currently permissible with consent in the R1 General Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use Zones and are generally consistent with the objectives of these zones, whilst not departing from the intent of ALEP 2010.
It is noted that the subject Planning Proposal has been prepared following a review of a number of other rural, regional and metropolitan councils, as well as discussions and advice received from NSW DPE regional staff. The amended clause has been modelled on Clause 4.1A of the Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2014 (see Appendix B) and has been adapted for local purposes.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 3 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
It is noted that the subject Planning Proposal only relates to the R1 General Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use zones. These zones have been established to encourage residential development, alternative forms of residential development and increased residential densities in close proximity to commercial centres and for this reason are appropriate zones to apply this clause to.
As a consequence, AlburyCity is now seeking to amend ALEP 2010 by amending an existing local clause to allow for exceptions to minimum lot size requirements for dual occupancy developments (subject to Council consent). The implications of not proceeding with this Planning Proposal are variable, but include restricting the diversity of housing within Albury; perpetuate/exacerbate the number of applications that depart from a development standard as per Clause 4.6 of ALEP 2010 and add unnecessary complexity to the development process.
It is noted that many of these developments have already been approved as part of either a Community Title or Strata Title subdivision development and the impacts of the proposal are considered minimal. It is also noted that any applications lodged under this revised local Clause will still be subject to a separate Development Application assessment process and will need to satisfy the provisions of ADCP 2010, with respect to the development controls of this Plan (i.e. car parking, setbacks, building heights etc).
Alternatively, these forms of development can also be approved as part of a Complying Development Certificate under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, where no subdivision is proposed and the development complies with a number of pre- determined conditions.
It is also relevant to note that ADCP 2010 contains a number of objectives and provisions, which encourage a diversity of housing, particularly where the site is located close to basic amenities and services such as parks, public transport and shopping facilities. The Proposal is also consistent with a number of other strategic plans and policies including: draft Murray Regional Strategy, Council’s strategic Plan – Albury 2030, as well as being consistent, or where applicable, justifiably inconsistent with a number of State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117(2) Ministerial Directions, as detailed later in this proposal.
As a result of this Planning Proposal, a number of consequential changes will need to be made to ADCP 2010 to reflect the proposed amendment and ensure consistency between both documents. These changes will be the subject of a separate process and will be exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.
2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?
AlburyCity is of the view that the current restriction on dual occupancies is creating a constraint on the efficient development of land, as currently permitted under the land use tables of the relevant residential and mixed use zones.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 4 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
By amending ALEP 2010 by amending clause 4.1A, this will allow for the more flexible use of residential and mixed use zoned land and will encourage a variety and diversity of residential development types within Albury’s established residential and mixed use areas.
Section B - Relationship to strategic planning framework
3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?
The draft Murray Regional Strategy (yet to be adopted) is Council’s relevant Regional Strategy as set out by the NSW DPE and includes as part of its aims:
Cater for a housing demand of 13,900 new dwellings by 2036 to accommodate the combined pressure of the forecast population increase, the needs of a significantly changing population and growing tourism demands for new dwellings; Prepare for and manage the significantly ageing population and ensure that new housing meets the needs of smaller households and ageing populations by encouraging a shift in dwelling mix and type; Protect the rural landscape and natural environment by limiting urban sprawl….
The Planning Proposal seeks to provide greater flexibility in the development of residential and mixed use zoned land and to encourage and provide for alternative forms of housing on smaller lots, currently permitted under the land use tables of these zones, which is consistent with the draft Murray Regional Strategy.
4. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?
The Albury 2030 Community Strategic Plan is Council’s local community strategic planning document. The Albury 2030 Plan includes the following strategic aims under the theme of ‘a growing economy’:
• Support and encourage a diversity of residential and commercial development in the Albury and Lavington CBDs;
• Support Albury’s population growth – ensure policies facilitate sustainable growth and housing choice without compromising Albury’s values;
• Review and monitor the Local Environmental Plan and the Development Control Plan with regard to outcomes within Albury 2030; and
• Albury Land Monitor (residential, commercial and industrial sectors) - which includes as a Target for 2016:
o Maintain a diversity of options amongst all sectors and continue to meet demands for opportunities of land development; and o Maintain existing development with opportunities for infill development.
• Promote Albury as a major regional economy and the regional choice for lifestyle, career and investment opportunities
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 5 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
The proposed amendment of local Clause 4.1A in ALEP 2010 is consistent with the above objectives and targets, as it seeks to encourage a diversity of residential development, support sustainable population growth and housing choice within Albury and encourages opportunities for infill development.
5. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies?
The Planning Proposal is consistent, or where applicable, justifiably inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policies , as set out in Table 2 of Appendix A.
6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?
The Planning Proposal is consistent, or where applicable, justifiably inconsistent with Section 117(2) Ministerial Directions, as set out in Table 3 of Appendix A.
Section C - Environmental, social and economic impact
7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?
There is no change in land use zoning proposed under the subject Planning Proposal with all existing environmental zones to remain untouched.
It is noted that ALEP 2010 has received biodiversity certification under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The primary effect of conferring certification under this Act is that any development in an ‘area proposed for development’ (including the residential and business zones) that requires development consent under Parts 4 or 5 of the EP&A Act is taken to be development that is not likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats. This is due to the fact that elsewhere across the city, land designated as ‘natural areas’ has been zoned E2 Environment Protection or E3 Environmental Management for the ongoing maintenance and improvement of this land.
In this instance, residential and business zones are classified as ‘Areas proposed for development’ and the Native Vegetation Act does not apply and has been offset elsewhere within the Albury LGA. It is also noted that these zones are generally cleared and contain very little environmental attributes. Notwithstanding, any tree removal within these zones to facilitate a particular development, will be subject to approval as part of a Tree Preservation Order.
Accordingly, no threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats will be adversely affected as a result of this proposal.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 6 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
8. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
The proposal seeks to permit the subdivision of land less than the minimum lot size for dual occupancy developments in the residential and mixed use zones, which as previously outlined in this report, are already highly fragmented in terms of extant vegetation, which will therefore not have any adverse environmental effects.
Notwithstanding, any future development of land (including subdivision) less than the minimum lot size, will be subject to a separate development application, which will require a more detailed investigation and assessment so as to manage/limit any likely environmental effects.
9. Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?
The Planning Proposal has the potential to have an overall positive social and economic impact upon the wider Albury area as detailed below.
As outlined above, the proposal seeks to allow the subdivision of land less than the minimum lot size for dual occupancy development in response to feedback from Albury’s development industry (builders, developers and surveyors), as well as being reflective of a number of recent development applications assessed and approved by Council for these forms of residential development.
It is noted that the subject proposal does not seek to change the land use permissibility’s of the residential or mixed use zones, but rather seeks to accommodate and support a variety of residential uses already permitted within Albury’s residential and mixed use areas.
The overall benefits of including this exception for dual occupancy developments is therefore seen as positive, due to the potential demand for such development types given Albury’s position within the wider regional and rural catchment area of the Murray and Riverina, as well as reflecting a number of demographic and social changes.
It is acknowledged however that there could be some potential off-site impacts associated with subdividing land less than the minimum lot size, which could result in the over-development of land and associated issues regarding amenity impacts on neighbouring properties (i.e. overlooking, overshadowing, car parking etc).
Notwithstanding the above, given the fact that these types of residential development are already permitted within Albury’s residential and mixed use zones and have been approved as part of either a Community Title or Strata Title subdivision development, the impacts of the proposal are considered minimal. It is also noted that any applications lodged under this local Clause will still be subject to a separate Development Application assessment process and will need to satisfy the provisions of ADCP 2010, with respect to the development controls of this Plan (i.e. car parking, setbacks, building heights etc).
Alternatively, these forms of development can also be approved as part of a Complying Development Certificate under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, where no subdivision is proposed and the development complies with a number of pre- determined conditions.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 7 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
The Planning Proposal will also have a positive social impact as it reflects anecdotal advice received from members of Albury’s development industry that alternative forms of housing are becoming more popular. This is confirmed by data contained within the draft Albury Development Monitor 2014-15 , which shows a 90% increase in the number of dual occupancies/secondary dwellings (being 2 dwellings on the one site) that have been constructed since 2009-10, as well as a 16% increase in the number of multi dwelling housing developments (3 or more dwellings on the one site) that have been approved during this same period.
There are a number of reasons for the increasing demand for this type of housing including; a reduction in household sizes, an ageing population (‘ageing in place’), an increase in overseas migration and their housing preferences, better utilisation of infrastructure and services, the costs involved in creating/providing new vacant land, a need to limit urban sprawl, and the benefits associated with infill development located within close proximity to amenities and services such as parks, public transport and shopping facilities.
As a consequence, AlburyCity is now seeking to amend ALEP 2010 by amending an existing local clause that will allow for exceptions to minimum lot size requirements for dual occupancy developments (subject to Council consent). The implications of not proceeding with this Planning Proposal are variable, but include restricting the diversity of housing within Albury; perpetuate/exacerbate the number of applications that depart from a development standard as per Clause 4.6 of ALEP 2010 and add unnecessary complexity to the development process.
Section D - State and Commonwealth interests
10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?
The planning proposal is seeking to allow the subdivision of land (for torrens title purposes) less than the minimum lot size for dual occupancy development purposes, within Albury’s established residential and mixed use areas. The proposal does not change the zoning of the land or the land use types that are permitted within these zones, which accordingly will have an overall negligible impact on infrastructure and services.
It is also noted that Council will levy developer contributions as part of any development consent issued to cater for the additional demands placed upon Council’s infrastructure.
11. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?
No consultation has been carried out at this stage with any State and/or Commonwealth Public Authorities (with the exception of the NSW DPE) or service providers; however, any consultation will occur in accordance with the Gateway Determination.
It is noted however that as per s.117(2) Ministerial Direction 4.4(4) – Planning for Bushfire Protection, requires that where a Planning Proposal affects land identified as being bushfire prone, that consultation must be undertaken with the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS).
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 8 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
Whilst several of Albury’s residential zones are identified as being bushfire prone, it is noted that for the most part, these only relate to bushfire buffers associated with nearby hazards and only affects a very small portion of this land. Given that the proposal does not seek to change the zoning of the land and any proposed developments involving subdivision are still subject to assessment and referral by the NSW RFS under s.100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 for the issuing of a Bushfire Safety Authority, consultation with this agency is considered unnecessary in this instance due to the minor impacts of the proposed amendment.
AlburyCity believes that the proposal will have a low impact on existing residential development and will be generally consistent with surrounding land uses.
PART 4 – MAPPING The proposal does not seek a change in LEP mapping as it only seeks to amend Clause 4.1A as contained within Part 4 of ALEP 2010, as it relates to exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for dual occupancies.
Notwithstanding, Appendix B of this report contains a city wide land zoning map, showing all areas zoned R1 General Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use for information purposes.
PART 5 – COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The planning proposal will be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 57 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the NSW Department of Planning’s: A guide to preparing local environmental plans (April 2013).
As outlined above, AlburyCity considers the planning proposal to be a ‘low impact proposal’ for the purposes of public exhibition and would seek a public exhibition period for a minimum of 14 days only, due to the relatively minor nature of the proposal and the fact that the proposal does not change the zoning or permitted land uses of the existing zones, whilst also not having an adverse impact on services, infrastructure or the environment.
Written notification of the community consultation will be provided in a local newspaper and on Councils’ website. In addition to this, any affected landowner/s will be notified in writing.
The written notice will contain: • A brief description of the intended outcomes of the planning proposal; • An indication of the land which is affected by the proposal; • Information on where and when the planning proposal can be inspected; • The name and address of Council for the receipt of submissions; • The closing date for submissions; and • Whether the Minister has chosen to delegate Plan Making powers to Council.
During the public exhibition period the following documents will be placed on public exhibition: • The Planning Proposal; • The Gateway determination; • Relevant council reports.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 9 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
PART 6 – PROJECT TIMELINE
Table 1 provides a project timeline for the proposed amendment to ALEP 2010.
Table 1 – Project Timeline
No. Description of Tasks Task Commencement Task Completion
1. Gateway Determination Late September 2015 Early October 2015
Anticipated Gateway Determination (including any delegated authority)
2. Public Exhibition Early October 2015 Late October 2015
Agency and community consultation to be undertaken as part of the formal public exhibition of the Planning Proposal in accordance with any conditions of the Gateway Determination.
3. Consider Submissions & Late October 2015 November 2015 Document Finalisation (only if submissions received)
Post public exhibition, AlburyCity officers to consider, respond and report on submissions received and issues raised to Council (if any) and make any relevant changes to the Planning Proposal.
4. Submission to the Department Late November 2015 Early December 2015 and/or Parliamentary Counsel
RPA to forward Planning Proposal to the department and/or Parliamentary Counsel (if delegated) for finalisation following public exhibition (including any changes made)(if required).
5. Notification December 2015 December 2015
Anticipated date LEP will be notified.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 10 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
APPENDIX A Table 2 – Consideration of State Environmental Planning Policies
No. SEPP Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
1 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – land in the Albury Development Standards LGA since gazettal of ALEP 2010 14 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Coastal the Albury LGA Wetlands 15 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Rural the Albury LGA Landsharing Communities 19 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – the Albury LGA Bushland in Urban Areas 21 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Caravan Parks 26 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Littoral the Albury LGA Rainforests 29 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – the Albury LGA Western Sydney Recreation Area 30 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Intensive Agriculture 32 State Environmental Not applicable Although this SEPP is not relevant in that Planning Policy – Urban it does not relate to land no longer Consolidation needed or used for the purposes for (Redevelopment of Urban which it is zoned, nonetheless, it does Land) seek to encourage infill development and urban consolidation of land for dual occupancy development in established areas. 33 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Hazardous & Offensive Industry
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 11 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. SEPP Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
36 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Manufactured Home Estate 39 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Spit the Albury LGA Island Bird Habitat 44 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Koala Habitat Protection 47 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Moore the Albury LGA Park Showground 50 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Canal Estate Development 52 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Farm the Albury LGA Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas 55 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Remediation of Land 59 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Central the Albury LGA Western Sydney Regional Open Space and Residential 62 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Sustainable Aquaculture 64 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Advertising & Signage 65 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 12 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. SEPP Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
70 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – the Albury LGA Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)
71 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy – Coastal the Albury LGA Protection
State Environmental Applicable The Planning Proposal does not derogate Planning Policy from the aims and objectives of this (Affordable Rental SEPP. It is acknowledged that this SEPP Housing) 2009 allows for the construction of a secondary dwelling as Complying Development under this SEPP, where no subdivision is proposed. It is noted that the proposed amended clause does not prevent an owner wishing to construct a development for Affordable Rental Housing purposes and the provisions of this SEPP shall continue to apply.
It is also noted that the proposed revised local clause also seeks to encourage dual occupancies on appropriately sized and zoned sites, which is also generally consistent with the aims and objectives of this SEPP.
State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
State Environmental Not applicable This SEPP allows for a number of Planning Policy (Exempt residential developments to be & Complying undertaken as Complying Development Development Codes) (including dwelling houses and secondary 2008 dwellings). The subject Planning Proposal does not alter compliance with this SEPP and rather provides an alternative option for dual occupancy developments as part of a development application.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 13 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. SEPP Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
State Environmental Not applicable Although the subject proposal does not Planning Policy (Housing specifically relate to housing for seniors for Seniors & People with and people with a disability, it does a Disability) 2004 encourage a diversity of housing and infill development in close proximity to existing services that could cater for a number of household types and users groups (including for seniors or people with a disability), which is consistent with the aims of this Policy. State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy the Albury LGA (Kosciuszko National Park–Alpine Resorts) 2007 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy (Kurnell the Albury LGA Peninsula) 1989 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production & Extractive Industries) 2007 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy (Penrith the Albury LGA Lakes Scheme) 1989 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (SEPP 53 Transitional Provisions) 2011
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 14 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. SEPP Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011
State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy (Three the Albury LGA Ports) 2013 State Environmental Not applicable N/A Planning Policy (Urban Renewal) 2010 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy (Western the Albury LGA Sydney Employment Area) 2009 State Environmental No, does not apply to N/A Planning Policy (Western the Albury LGA Sydney Parklands) 2009 Murray Regional Yes applies to the Consistent, as the Planning Proposal Environmental Plan No. 2 Albury LGA does not derogate from the aims, – Riverine Land objectives, development consent, general
(Deemed SEPP) and specific planning principles and consultation requirements as provided in the REP.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 15 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
Table 3 – Consideration of Section 117(2) Ministerial Directions
No. Direction Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
1. Employment and Resources
1.1 Business & Industrial Yes , as the planning Consistent, because the planning proposal Zones proposal will affect does not reduce the area of land zoned for land within a business business or industrial purposes and does zone, being the B4 not reduce the total potential floor space for Mixed Use Zone employment, public service or industrial uses.
This Direction applies as the B4 Mixed Use zone allows for a variety of residential accommodation in close proximity to both the Albury and Lavington CBDs. The outcomes sought within the Planning Proposal are considered satisfactory in this instance and will support the objectives of this Direction by encouraging infill development, which in turn will have positive impacts upon the business zones of Albury. 1.2 Rural Zones Not applicable as the Proposal does not relate to rural zoned land 1.3 Mining, Petroleum Not applicable N/A Production & Extractive Industries 1.4 Oyster Aquaculture Not applicable N/A 1.5 Rural Lands Not applicable
2. Environment and Heritage
2.1 Environmental Not applicable as the N/A Protection Zones Proposal does not relate to land zoned for environment protection purposes 2.2 Coastal Protection No (does not apply to N/A land in Albury LGA)
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 16 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. Direction Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
2.3 Heritage Conservation Not applicable Not applicable as the subject Planning Proposal does not change a provision relating to heritage items or heritage conservation areas, nor does it specifically relate to a heritage item or heritage conservation area.
Nonetheless, it is noted that a number of Albury’s residential and mixed use zones are either identified as individual heritage items or as part of a heritage conservation areas.
This is considered satisfactory in this instance, however as any form of residential accommodation (other than a single dwelling house) will require the lodgement and assessment of a development application against the provisions of Part 7 – Heritage Conservation of the Albury Development Control Plan 2010 as well as the requirements of the Heritage Act 1977.
2.4 Recreation Vehicle Not applicable N/A Areas
3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development
3.1 Residential Zones Yes , as the planning Consistent, as the Planning Proposal seeks proposal will affect to allow dual occupancy developments on land within a lot sizes, less than the minimum lot size residential zone, being shown on the minimum lot size map in the R1 General ALEP 2010 (subject to Council consent). Residential and R3 Medium Density This Planning Proposal achieves the Residential Zones objectives of this Direction as it:
• Encourages a variety and choice of housing types for existing and future housing needs; and • Makes the more efficient use of existing infrastructure, services and land, by encouraging infill development.
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 17 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. Direction Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
3.1 Residential Zones The proposal is also consistent with this Cont. Direction as it does not seek to reduce or alter the existing boundaries of residentially zoned land, broadens the choice of housing types, makes more efficient use of infrastructure and seeks where possible to limit the level of urban sprawl.
It is noted that Albury’s existing zoned residential areas are generally already serviced and can accommodate additional development with any additional demands placed on existing infrastructure, which can be offset by the payment of developer contributions.
3.2 Caravan Parks & Not applicable N/A Manufactured Home Estates
3.3 Home Occupations Not applicable N/A
3.4 Integrating Land Use Yes because the Consistent because the planning proposal and Transport planning proposal has regard for the two DUAP documents affects urban land referenced in this Direction with the zoned for residential General Residential, Medium Density and business Residential and Mixed Use zones all purposes already serviced by the local road network and public transport services in the area.
By encouraging a greater density of residential development within established areas this will also support existing public transport systems and will encourage walking and cycling in areas located in close proximity to facilities and services.
3.5 Development Near Not applicable N/A Licensed Aerodromes
3.6 Shooting Ranges Not applicable N/A
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 18 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. Direction Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
4. Hazard and Risk
4.1 Acid Sulphate Soils No (does not apply to N/A land in the Albury LGA)
4.2 Mine Subsidence & No (does not apply to N/A Unstable Land land in the Albury LGA) 4.3 Flood Prone Land Yes because the The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent planning proposal with the objectives of this Direction, being creates a provision to ensure development of flood prone land relating to land is consistent with the NSW Floodplain classified as flood Development Manual 2005. It is noted that prone this Direction only applies, due to the fact that several of Albury’s residential and mixed use zones are located within a flood prone area.
It is anticipated that the impacts of flooding on owners and occupiers of flood prone land will be minimal as these properties are already zoned for these purposes and have been the subject of a number of approvals for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings as part of either a community title or strata title subdivision.
The proposal also maintains normal assessment, referral and concurrence requirements for development of land in flood prone areas and likewise, Clauses 7.2 – Water and 7.4 – Flood Planning of ALEP 2010 will also appropriately control development that is subject to flooding or that will have a potentially deleterious effect upon riparian areas.
4.4 Planning for Bushfire Yes because the The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent Protection planning proposal with the objectives of this Direction, being affects land classified to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards by as bushfire prone discouraging the establishment of land incompatible land uses in bushfire prone areas .
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 19 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. Direction Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
4.4 Planning for Bushfire It is noted that this Direction only applies, Protection due to the fact that several of Albury’s Cont. residential zones are located within a bushfire prone area associated with nearby hazards, which only affect a very small portion of this land.
Furthermore, the proposal also maintains normal assessment, referral and concurrence (if required) requirements for development of land in bushfire prone areas, whilst still requiring compliance with the aims, objectives and controls of the RFS Guideline: Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the Rural Fires Act 1997.
5. Regional Planning
5.1 Implementation of No (there is no N/A Regional Strategies gazetted regional strategy applicable to the AlburyCity LGA) 5.2 Sydney Drinking Water No (does not apply to N/A Catchment the AlburyCity LGA)
5.3 Farmland of State & No (does not apply to N/A Regional Significance the AlburyCity LGA) on the NSW Far North Coast
5.4 Commercial and Retail No (does not apply to N/A Development along the the AlburyCity LGA) Pacific Highway, North Coast 5.5 Development in the No (does not apply to N/A Vicinity of Ellalong, the AlburyCity LGA) Paxton and Millfield (Cessnock LGA) (Revoked 18 June 2010)
5.6 Sydney to Canberra No (does not apply to N/A Corridor (Revoked 10 the AlburyCity LGA) July 2008. See amended Direction 5.1)
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 20 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
No. Direction Title Applicable to Consistency Planning Proposal
5.7 Central Coast No (does not apply to N/A (Revoked 10 July 2008. the AlburyCity LGA) See amended Direction 5.1)
5.8 Second Sydney Airport: No (does not apply to N/A Badgerys Creek the AlburyCity LGA)
5.9 North West Rail Link No (does not apply to N/A Corridor Strategy the AlburyCity LGA)
6. Local Plan Making
6.1 Approval and Referral Yes, applies to all Consistent, as the planning proposal is not Requirements relevant Planning proposing to add any provisions which Authorities require referral of development applications to the Minister.
6.2 Reserving Land for Not applicable as the N/A Public Purposes proposal does not relate to public land
6.3 Site Specific Provisions Not applicable N/A
7. Metropolitan Planning
7.1 Implementation of Not applicable N/A Metropolitan Strategy
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 21 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
APPENDIX B
Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2014 – Clause 4.1A
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 22 AlburyCity AMENDMENT TO ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010
Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 – Land Zoning Map
Planning Proposal – Amendment to Clause 4.1A Page 23
ATTACHMENT TO CM 13D – 02/2016
ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010 – PLANNING PROPOSAL: DUAL OCCUPANCY SUBDIVISION (CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSSIONS)
ATTACHMENT 3
Copies of all Correspondence/Submissions Received
Dr Dirk HR Spennemann 2/755 Fellowes Crescent ALBURY NSW 2640 11 December 2015
Mr F Zaknich General Manager AlburyCity PO Box 323 ALBURY NSW 2640
Dear Mr Zaknich
RE: PLANNING PROPOSAL—Amendment to Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 —Amendment to Clause 4.1A Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development
I have viewed the Planning Proposal for the amendment of Clause 4.1A of Albury Local Environmental Plan 2010 to permit the subdivision of dual occupancy development, currently on exhibition for comment.
I support the objective and intent of the amendment; however, I note that Clause 4.1A(2) states “...development consent may be granted to development ... that is BOTH of the following: (b) the erection of a dual occupancy, (a) the subdivision of the land into 2 lots if the size of each lot ....
As a consequence of the current wording (‘BOTH’), the planning proposal does not extend to permit the freehold subdivision of existing dual occupancies in the same manner. As the potential impacts of any dual occupancy development are related to the built form, the freehold subdivision of existing dual occupancies would have no greater impacts upon the adjoining neighbours or the surrounding area.
I am the owner of 2/755 Fellowes Crescent, a dual occupancy development that has been strata subdivided in the past and which has sufficient land area to provide allotments compliant with the allotment sizes referenced in the Planning Proposal. In the future, I will be investigating the opportunities to convert the strata subdivision of this property to freehold title.
In my view, amending the clause to permit the freehold subdivision of existing dual occupancies (subject to the same minimum allotment size), would benefit all owners of existing dual occupancies and will assist in providing opportunities for a variety of housing sizes and types to cater for the needs of the diverse population of Albury.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the planning proposal.
Dr Dirk HR Spennemann
Caitlin Campbell
From: David Christy
David Christy Town Planning Team Leader AlburyCity ______
553 Kiewa Street Albury NSW 2640 t 02 6023 8290 m 0400 485 429 www .alburycity .nsw.gov.au
From: David Hunter [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Monday, 14 December 2015 9:37 AM To: David Christy Subject: Submission to Planning Proposal seeking to amend clause 4.1A
Dave,
We wish to make a submission regarding the Planning Proposal seeking to amend clause 4.1A relating to Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development.
It is noted that the purpose of the Planning Proposal is to allow for more efficient development of residential land, however further consideration should be given to ensuring dual occupancy and/or multi dwelling housing involving existing dwellings are also permissible under the revised clause 4.1A provisions.
Many proposals for dual occupancies involve retention of an existing dwelling and establishment of a new dwelling elsewhere on the lot. This is particularly evident in more established areas of Albury, including in many of the areas applied with an R3 Medium Density zoning (i.e. South Albury, East Albury, Lavington), where specific zone and DCP controls already encourage a higher density of new development to be established. Such proposal's often require smaller lot sizes
However, the provisions of clause 4.1A at present appear to allow only new dual occupancies to be considered, which would impact upon a significant proportion of dual occupancy proposals in Albury and exclude situations where smaller lot sizes may be required and appropriate.
It is therefore requested that consideration be given to ensuring that clause 4.1A is applicable to dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing involving retention and incorporating of existing dwellings into such proposals.
Regards,
David Hunter
Senior Planner | Urban Designer | Habitat Planning
Suite 1, 622 Macauley Street | Albury NSW 2640 t 02 6021 0662 | m 0439 325 993 | f 02 6021 0663 e [email protected] | w www.habitatplanning.com.au
______This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com
1