Agenda
Ordinary Meeting
24 February 2022
An Ordinary Meeting of
Ballina Shire Council
will be held in the Ballina Shire Council
Chambers, 40 Cherry Street Ballina
on 24 February 2022 commencing at 9.00am.
1. Australian
National Anthem
2. Acknowledgement
of Country
3. Apologies
4. Confirmation
of Minutes
5. Declarations
of Interest and Reportable Political Donations
6. Deputations
7. Mayoral
Minutes
8. Planning
and Environmental Health Division Reports
9. Corporate
and Community Division Reports
10. Civil Services
Division Reports
11. Notices of Motion
12. Advisory
Committee Minutes
13. Reports from
Councillors on Attendance on Council's behalf
14. Confidential
Session
Paul
Hickey
General
Manager
A morning tea break is taken at 10.30am and a lunch break
taken at 1.00pm.
Due
to COVID-19 any relevant NSW Public Health Orders must be complied with.
Please contact Sandra Bailey (6686 1273) to clarify the ability to participate
in the meeting. You may access this meeting via our Live Streaming link
ballina.nsw.gov.au/agendas-and-minutes
Deputations to Council – Guidelines
·
Deputations by
members of the public may be made at Council meetings on matters included in
the business paper.
·
Deputations are
limited to one speaker in the affirmative and one speaker in opposition.
·
Deputations, per
person, will be limited to a maximum of two items on the agenda.
·
Requests to speak
must be lodged in writing or by phone with the General Manager by noon on the
day preceding the meeting.
·
Deputations are
given five minutes to address Council.
·
Deputations on the
same matter will be listed together with the opposition first and the speaker
in affirmative second.
·
Members of the
public are advised that any documents tabled or given to Councillors during the
meeting become Council documents and access may be given to members of the public
in accordance with the requirements of the Government Information (Public
Access) Act 2009.
·
The use of
powerpoint presentations and overhead projectors is permitted as part of the
deputation, provided that the speaker has made prior arrangements with the
General Manager’s Office at the time of booking their deputation.
The setup time for equipment is to be included in the total time of five
minutes allocated for the deputation.
·
To avoid conflicts
of interest, real or perceived, deputations will not be accepted from:
·
Tenderers during a
public tender or request for quotation
·
Persons or
representatives from organisations seeking financial support from Council that
involves an expression of interest
·
Consultants who
are engaged by Council on the matter the subject of the deputation.
Public Question Time
– This Session Does Not Form Part of the Ordinary Meeting
·
A public question
time has been set aside during the Ordinary meetings of the Council. The
Ordinary meeting will be adjourned from 12.45 pm for Public Question Time. If
the meeting does not extend to 12.45 pm Public Question Time will be held after
the meeting closes.
·
The period for the
public question time is set at a maximum of 15 minutes.
·
Questions are to
be addressed to the Chairperson. The period is set aside for questions not
statements.
·
Questions may be
on any topic, not restricted to matters on the Ordinary meeting agenda.
·
The Chairperson
will manage the questions from the gallery to give each person with a question,
a “turn”.
·
People with
multiple questions will be able to ask just one question before other persons
with a question will be invited to ask and so on until single questions are all
asked and, time permitting, multiple questions can be invited and considered.
·
Recording of the
questions will not be verbatim and will not form part of the minutes of the
Ordinary meeting.
·
The standard rules
of behaviour in the Chamber will apply.
·
Questions may be
asked from the position in the public gallery.
Recording and Livestreaming
of Council Meetings
·
The meeting (with the exception of
the confidential session) is being livestreamed and recorded for on-demand
viewing via Council’s website (ballina.nsw.gov.au/agendas-and-minutes)
and a person’s image and/or
voice may be broadcast.
·
Attendance at the
meeting is taken as consent by a person to their image and/or voice being
webcast.
·
All speakers
should refrain from making any defamatory comments or releasing any personal
information about another individual without their consent.
·
Council accepts no
liability for any damage that may result from defamatory comments made by
persons attending meetings. All liability will rest with the individual
who made the comments.
·
This meeting must
not be recorded by others without the prior written consent of the Council in
accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
DISCLAIMER
©NSW Spatial Services 2022. Although all care is taken in the preparation
of plans within Council’s business paper (both agendas and attachments),
Ballina Shire Council accepts no responsibility for any misprints, error, omissions
or inaccuracies. The information contained within each plan is for pictorial
representation only and not to scale. Accurate measurements should be
undertaken by survey.
8.1 Planning
Proposal - Alstonville Medium Density Zone Expansion
8. Planning
and Environmental Health Division Reports
8.1 Planning Proposal -
Alstonville Medium Density Zone Expansion
|
Section
|
Strategic Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To present the outcomes of the public
exhibition of Planning Proposal BSCPP 21/003 to amend Ballina LEP 2012 to
change the zoning of certain land in Alstonville from R2 Low Density
Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential, and seek direction on the
finalisation of the amendment.
|
Background
Council adopted
the Alstonville Strategic Plan 2017 – 2037 in December 2017, reflecting
the community’s vision for the future development of Alstonville village.
One of the key
objectives of the plan is to provide new housing opportunities that promote
affordability and provide choice for people to meet changing life needs.
Strategic Action
No.10 seeks to assist in meeting this objective stating as follows:
Initiate a planning proposal
for the rezoning of certain R2 Low Density Residential Areas to R3 Medium
Density located to the south-west of the Alstonville commercial centre as
identified in the Alstonville Planning and Environmental Study.
At the October
2021 Ordinary meeting Council resolved as follows:
1. That Council
endorses the Alstonville R3 Zone Planning Proposal, as contained in Attachment
1 to this report, for submission to the Department of Planning Industry and
Environment for a Gateway determination.
2. That upon an
affirmative Gateway determination being received from the Department of
Planning Industry and Environment, the procedural steps associated with
progression of the planning proposal be undertaken, including public
exhibition.
3. That draft
amendments to the Ballina DCP 2012 be exhibited concurrently with the Planning
proposal, including:
· Special
Area Controls to be included in Chapter 4 – Residential & Tourism
development as contained in Attachment 2 to this report, and
· A
Dwelling Density Map to nominate a dwelling density of 1 dwelling per 300m2
of site area for the area subject to the planning proposal.
4. That the Department
of Planning Industry and Environment be advised that Council is seeking to
exercise its delegated plan making functions for this LEP amendment.
5. That the planning
proposal and draft DCP amendments be reported to the Council for further consideration
following the completion of the public exhibition process.
A Gateway
determination enabling the proposal to proceed was issued by the Department of
Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on 22 November 2021, allowing the
proposal to proceed to public exhibition.
Given the
Christmas period the planning proposal was placed on exhibition for an extended
timeframe, commencing on 3 December 2021 and concluding on 2 February
2022.
Attachment 1
contains a copy of the exhibited planning proposal (with minor adjustments to
reflect the progression of the matter to the point of finalisation).
Attachment 2
contains a copy of the Special Area Controls proposed as an amendment to the
Ballina Development Control Plan 2012, and the proposed Dwelling Density Map
that is also proposed to be included in the DCP.
Three
submissions were received in response to the exhibition (Attachment 3). One
objecting to the proposed zoning change, one supporting the proposal, and the
third supporting the zoning change but not supporting the associated change to
minimum lot size.
The purpose of
this report is to present the outcomes of the public exhibition and address
issues raised in the submissions.
Key Issues
· Outcomes
of the public exhibition and agency consultation process
· Suitability of the
proposed LEP amendment and finalisation of the amendment
Discussion
Land to which
the planning proposal relates
The Planning
Proposal seeks to change the zoning of land near the Alstonville Village Centre
from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential.
The zoning
change will apply to existing lots fronting Daley
Street, The Avenue, Coral Street and Wardell Road (Figure 1), located in easy
walking distance to the Alstonville Village Centre.
The individual
lots are listed in Appendix 1 of the exhibited Planning Proposal (Attachment
1).
Properties
within this area that are listed as Heritage Items within BLEP 2012 have not
been included in the proposal.
In addition,
lots identified in a recent local heritage study as having local heritage value
have not been included.
The proposed R3
zoning will encompass 64 existing lots, as shown in Figure 1 and
highlighted by a red boundary line.
Figure 1 – Area proposed for R3 Medium Density Zone (outlined in
red)
Proposed
amendments
In addition to
rezoning the subject lots from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density
Residential, the proposed amendment also includes associated changes to the
minimum lot size for subdivision, to apply an 800m2 standard to the
proposed R3 zoned areas (up from 600m2).
This will match
the standard applied to land zoned R3 Medium Density located elsewhere in
Alstonville.
Given the
existing heritage character of parts of this area, Special Area Controls are
proposed to be added to the residential chapter of Ballina DCP 2012.
These provisions
apply to properties on the southern side of Daley Street, which are included in
the proposed rezoning, as well lots on the eastern side of The Avenue, which
are not proposed to be rezoned (Attachment 2).
The Special Area
Controls seek to ensure that future development of this locality will be
sympathetic to the character and form of the existing streetscape,
complementing the heritage character of The Avenue and Main Street.
Gateway
Determination
The NSW
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) issued a Gateway
determination on 22 November 2021 which allowed the planning proposal to
proceed to public exhibition.
A copy of the
Gateway determination is contained within the planning proposal which forms
Attachment 1 to this report.
The
Gateway determination specified a minimum 28 day public exhibition period, and
noted that consultation with State Agencies was not required.
The
timeframe for completion of the LEP amendment was specified as nine months
following the date of the Gateway determination (i.e. completion by September
2022).
The
Gateway also delegated authority to Council to finalise the LEP amendment.
Consultation
– public submissions
Three
submissions were received during the exhibition period. These are
summarised below:
Support: A submission of support was received from an owner of an
affected lot, noting:
It is a
perfect location for older people to have smaller houses which are more
manageable as they age.
It also has a
side benefit for freeing up larger 4-5 bedroom houses on bigger blocks of land
in the surrounding areas for younger families moving to Alstonville, as older
people down size and are able to move to these Medium Density houses closer to
facilities
These
comments reflect the findings and objectives of the Alstonville Strategic Plan.
Partial
Support: The submission notes
support for the proposed zoning change, but objects to the proposed change to
the Minimum Lot Size from 600m2 to 800m2, suggesting that
a minimum size of 600m2 would be more appropriate, being consistent
with the proposed dwelling density of 1 dwelling per 300m2.
A
minimum lot size of 800m2 currently applies to all other areas in
Alstonville that are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, as well as all areas
of R3 zoned land throughout the Shire.
This
800m2 development standard was applied in the translation of the
previous DCP Chapter 1 – Urban Land to the provisions in the current
DCP 2012 and LEP 2012.
In the
previous DCP, residential areas within the Shire were mapped within
“Control Plan Areas” of L1 Low Density (Large Lots), L2 Low Density
(Dwellings and Dual Occupancy), D Duplex, and M1 Medium Density.
The
minimum lot size of 800m2 was applicable in the D Duplex and
M1 Medium Density Control Plan Areas and was therefore applied within the
updated LEP and DCP framework for land zoned R3 Medium Density.
In the
current DCP, dwelling density of 1 dwelling per 300m2 is applied to
parts of Alstonville that are zoned R3 Medium Density (with 1 per 200m2
on Ballina Island and 1 per 250m2 in Lennox Head).
Having
regard for the historic dwelling density provisions and contemporary dwelling
design and construction, there may be merit in reviewing the 800m2
minimum lot size for land zoned R3 Medium Density.
Rather
than applying a smaller minimum lots size in this case, however, it is
considered that a review of the appropriate lot size should be undertaken on a
strategic shire-wide basis.
This
will be considered further in the context of routine reviews of the LEP and DCP
and the overall strategic planning work program.
Objection: The objector is of the view that the increase in
density would compromise the village atmosphere of Alstonville.
Concern
is raised that an increase in population would put unacceptable strain on
existing facilities and infrastructure, noting particular issues with parking
and the ability to get timely appointments with local professionals.
The
main practical effect of changing the zoning of these properties from
R2 Low Density to R3 Medium Density is to allow dual occupancy
development.
This
could theoretically lead to a doubling of the number of dwellings in the area.
There
are no vacant lots among those being rezoned, within the majority of lots
containing dwellings in good condition and occupying the bulk of the individual
lots.
This
means that full redevelopment of existing lots will be required through most of
the area, as opposed to a more simple addition of a dual occupancy dwelling.
As a
result, the change in population in the area will most likely happen slowly
over time, lessening the impact of such growth on infrastructure and facilities
in Alstonville Village Centre.
Also,
the areas being rezoned are located in close walking distance to the centre,
which will further minimise pressure on traffic and parking.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The
implementation of the Alstonville Strategic Plan aligns with the Delivery
Program and Operational Plan activity HE3.1b, which relates to the
implementation of place based strategic plans.
Community Consultation Policy
The planning
proposal and proposed DCP amendments were publicly exhibited from 3 December
2021 to 2 February 2022, consistent with Council’s Community
Participation Plan and the Gateway determination issues by DPIE.
The proposal was
placed on exhibition for an extended timeframe to account for the Christmas
holiday period.
Three
submissions were received. No amendments are recommended to the planning
proposal as a result of issues raised in these submissions.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The finalisation
of the planning proposal will be undertaken utilising existing resources within
the Strategic Planning Section.
In terms of risk
management it is considered that this planning proposal has an overall low risk
profile.
Options
Option 1
– Finalise the planning proposal
This is the
preferred option for the reasons discussed in this report including in
particular that it gives effect to strategic action 10 within the adopted
Alstonville Strategic Plan. Provision for additional housing in
Alstonville under the strategic plan is based on infill development rather than
lateral expansion of the village.
In summary, the
LEP amendment involves changing the zoning of nominated R2 Low Density zoned
land to R3 Medium Density zone consistent with the intent of the Alstonville
Strategic Plan.
The planning
proposal also includes associated amendment to minimum lot sizes for
subdivision to apply an 800m2 standard to the proposed R3 areas (up
from 600m2) to match the standard for medium density zoned land
elsewhere in Alstonville.
Under this
approach, Council would proceed to finalise the LEP amendment under delegation
from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
DCP amendments
accompany the proposed LEP amendment and it is recommended that these be
adopted to apply in conjunction with the change of zoning.
Option 2 – Discontinue
the planning proposal
This option is not recommended
as the proposed changes to the LEP give effect to an adopted strategic action
under the Alstonville Strategic Plan. Key issues such as consideration of
heritage values and accessibility of services and infrastructure have been
considered and addressed in preparing the planning proposal and associated DCP
provisions.
The implementation of this
option would also require Council to seek a determination from the Minister
that the matter not proceed.
Option 3 – Defer the consideration
of this matter to a Councillor briefing
Council may defer the matter to
receive additional information. This option is not recommended as there
are no outstanding technical matters or issues arising from the consultation
that have been identified as requiring further assessment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council authorises the General Manager to finalise and implement Planning
Proposal BSCPP 21/003 – Alstonville Medium Density, as detailed in
Attachment 1 to this report, under delegated authority, to apply an R3 Medium
Density Residential zone and 800m2 minimum lot size to lots close to
the Alstonville Village Centre.
2. That
Council adopts the draft amendments to the Ballina Shire Development Control
Plan 2012 relating to Special Area Controls for part of the subject land, as
per Attachment 2 to this report.
3. That
Council provide public notice of the adoption of the amendments to the Ballina
Shire Development Control Plan 2012, with the amended Development Control Plan
provisions to take effect from the date of publication on Council’s
website.
4. That
Council provide a copy of the amended Ballina Shire Development Control Plan
2012, once it comes into effect, to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry
and Environment as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation.
5. That
Council notes that minimum lot sizes for subdivision within the R3 Medium
Density Zone in Alstonville will be reviewed as part of a routine review of LEP
and DCP provisions in future.
Attachment(s)
1. BSCPP 21/003 - Alstonville R3
Medium Density Zone Planning Proposal (Exhibited and Final) ⇨
2. BSCPP 21/003 - Alstonville R3
Medium Density Rezoning - Draft Special Area DCP provisions ⇨
3. BSCPP 21/003 - Submissions ⇨
8.2 Planning
Proposal - Teven Road, Teven
8.2 Planning
Proposal - Teven Road, Teven
|
Section
|
Strategic Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To inform the Council of the outcomes of
the public exhibition of Planning Proposal BSCPP 20/001 and seek direction on
the finalisation of the LEP amendment.
|
Background
At the September
2020 Ordinary meeting, Council considered a report on an LEP amendment request
to reinstate a dwelling entitlement on Lot 3, Section 1, DP 758964, Teven Road,
Teven and to transfer the dwelling entitlement to an aggregate of lots located
along Teven Road under the same ownership.
The dwelling
entitlement transfer will enable a more suitable development site to be
available for the construction of a dwelling house.
Council
subsequently resolved as follows:
1. That Council endorses the proposed
amendments to the Ballina Local Environmental Plan 2012 as outlined in the
planning proposal (BSCPP 20/001 – Teven Road, Teven) contained in
Attachment 1 for submission to the Department of Planning, Industry and
Environment for Gateway determination.
2. That the Department of Planning,
Industry and Environment be advised that Council wishes to exercise its
delegated plan making functions for this LEP amendment.
3. That upon an affirmative Gateway
determination being received from the Department of Planning, Industry and
Environment, the procedural steps associated with progression of the planning
proposal be undertaken, including public exhibition.
4. That Council receive a further
report on the matter following the completion of the public exhibition of the
planning proposal.
Following the
issue of a Gateway determination, the planning proposal was publicly exhibited
during February 2021.
No submissions
were received.
A copy of the
exhibited planning proposal is included as Attachment 1 to this report.
The purpose of
this report is to outline the outcomes of the public exhibition and planning
proposal assessment and seek direction on the finalisation of the proposed LEP
amendment.
Key Issues
· Outcomes
of the public exhibition and agency consultation process
· Suitability
of the proposed LEP amendment and finalisation of the amendment
Discussion
Land
to which the planning proposal relates
The
proposed LEP amendment relates to twelve land parcels which are described in
Table 1 and shown outlined in black in Figure 1.
Lot 3 Section 1
DP 758964, the land that previously enjoyed a dwelling entitlement under
Ballina LEP 1987, is shaded green.
The land is
zoned RU1 Primary Production under the provisions of the Ballina Local
Environmental Plan 2012 (BLEP 2012) and is subject to a minimum lot size of
40ha.
The LEP
amendment transfers a previously acknowledged dwelling entitlement from Lot 3
Section 1 DP 758964 to an aggregation of lots located on Teven Road under the
same ownership by identifying these lots on the Dwelling Opportunity
Reinstatement Map as a group of lots having one dwelling opportunity (the lots
subject to the aggregation are the remaining lots listed in Table 1).
Table 1: Details of land parcels the subject of
this planning proposal
|
Lot
|
Section
|
DP
|
Area (m2)
|
|
3
|
1
|
758964
|
2757
|
|
353
|
-
|
755745
|
5109
|
|
295
|
-
|
755745
|
4211
|
|
2
|
5
|
758964
|
1618.7
|
|
3
|
5
|
758964
|
1618.7
|
|
4
|
5
|
758964
|
1618.7
|
|
5
|
5
|
758964
|
1618.7
|
|
1
|
-
|
721324
|
1003
|
|
18
|
-
|
1005893
|
1341
|
|
9
|
5
|
758964
|
1619
|
|
10
|
5
|
758964
|
1618.7
|
|
11
|
5
|
758964
|
1618.7
|
|
Total Area (ha)
|
2.575
|
Figure 1: Locality Map
Gateway
Determination
The NSW
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) issued a Gateway
determination on 4 December 2020 which allowed the planning proposal to proceed
to public exhibition.
The
Gateway determination required consultation occur with the NSW Rural Fire
Service (NSW RFS) and the DPIE’s Biodiversity and Conservation Division
(BCD).
A
summary of the responses received is as follows.
The
timeframe for completion of the LEP amendment was specified as six months
following the date of the Gateway determination. An altered Gateway
determination was issued on 23 June 2021 which extended the completion period
for a further six months.
A
further extension of time was requested in December 2021 however the DPIE
advised that a formal extension of time was not required as the altered Gateway
determination contained a typographical error that extended the timeframe for
completion to 4 December 2022.
The
DPIE also advised Council that the Department Secretary had agreed that no
further approvals were required in respect to the planning proposal’s
inconsistencies with section 9.1 Directions: 1.5 Rural Lands, 2.2 Coastal
Management, 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils, 4.3 Flood Prone Land and 5.10
Implementation of Regional Plans.
In
respect to Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection, following
consultation with the NSW RFS, advice was provided on 24 September 2021 that
the Department Secretary agreed that the inconsistency was justified in
accordance with the terms of the Direction.
A copy
of the altered Gateway determination and the Secretary’s agreement is
included as Attachment 2.
Consultation
– NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)
The NSW
RFS in their correspondence dated 3 June 2021 raised no issues or concerns in
relation to bush fire.
Correspondence
received from the NSW RFS is included as Attachment 3.
Consultation
– NSW DPIE’s Biodiversity and Conservation Division (BCD)
In
their correspondence dated 25 February 2021 (Attachment 4), the BCD advised
they object to the planning proposal due to the lots being identified as
‘Extreme Flood Risk’ or ‘High Flood Risk’ in Ballina
Development Control Plan (BDCP) 2012, Chapter 2b – Floodplain
Management.
The BCD
does not support residential development in high risk flood areas and
recommended a detailed flood assessment of the planning area and/or possible
flood mitigation (such as filling of lots) be undertaken to demonstrate the
suitability of the land for residential purposes.
To
address the issues raised by the BCD, the proponent submitted a Flooding Impact
Assessment letter prepared by Ardill Payne & Partners (APP), dated 16 March
2021 (Attachment 5).
This
letter was reviewed by Council’s Stormwater and Floodplain Engineer and
further information was requested to address the impacts of flooding.
The
proponent next submitted a ‘Detailed Flood Assessment and Emergency
Management Plan’ prepared by APP, dated September 2021 (Attachment
6).
Upon
review of the detailed flood assessment report the BCD, in correspondence dated
19 October 2021 (Attachment 7), advised it could not lift its objection as the
flood assessment has not adequately demonstrated that the planning area can
accommodate a dwelling whilst effectively mitigating flood risk both on and off
site.
In
addition, the BCD reviewed recent aerial imagery of the planning area and found
that construction works, including earthworks, have occurred on part of the
site and that these works appear to have not been included in the flood
assessment modelling.
The
proponent advised Council that a shed on one of the allotments was constructed
as exempt development and is a storage shed for storing building
materials.
Further
investigation by Council has revealed that fill has been placed on the property
to an approximate height of 1.2 metres for the construction of a shed measuring
approximately 17 metres by 14 metres. These works and associated use for
machinery storage are permissible in the subject zone with consent and as such
the land owners will be required to legitimise the works.
The
proponent submitted a further response, prepared by APP, dated 26 October 2021,
to clarify that the storage shed had in fact been included in the modelling
prepared in the previous flood assessment report dated September 2021
(Attachment 8).
The
BCD, in correspondence dated 2 December 2021 (Attachment 9), concurred that the
flood modelling undertaken did allow for filling of both the proposed dwelling
pad and shed area and subsequently removed their objection subject to
earthworks being limited to and undertaken in accordance with the report
prepared by APP dated September 2021 and the inclusion of a Probable Maximum
Flood (PMF) refuge for the proposed dwelling.
In
conclusion, it is considered that impacts associated with flooding are able to
be appropriately addressed and mitigated at the development application stage
for the proposed residential dwelling.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The
assessment of this planning proposal relates to action HE3.1j – Manage
LEP amendment requests in Council’s adopted Delivery Program and
Operational Plan.
Community Consultation Policy
The planning
proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with Council’s Community
Participation Plan. In response to the public exhibition no submissions
were received.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The processing
of this planning proposal can be accommodated within existing resources,
including through the receipt of applicable fees from the proponent.
Options
The following options are presented for the Council’s
consideration.
Option 1 – Finalise the
LEP Amendment
This is the recommended option.
The
finalisation of the proposed LEP amendment will facilitate the reinstatement of
a dwelling entitlement which was previously acknowledged in writing by Council.
The
transfer of the dwelling entitlement to a more suitable location is appropriate
given the site constraints, and in particular the flooding related characteristics
of the land.
Flood constraints are able to be
addressed and mitigated as outlined in the correspondence from NSW DPIE’s
Biodiversity and Conservation Division.
Adoption of this option will
result in the LEP amendment being finalised as exhibited utilising
Council’s delegated plan making functions.
Option 2 – Discontinue
the planning proposal
This option is not recommended
as the reporting has demonstrated that the planning proposal has sufficient
merit to warrant its finalisation.
The implementation of this
option if pursued requires Council to seek a determination from the Minister
that the matter not proceed.
Option 3 – Defer the
consideration of this matter to a Councillor briefing
Council may defer the matter to
receive additional information. This option is not recommended as there
are no outstanding technical matters or issues arising from the consultation
that have been identified as requiring further assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council authorises the General Manager to finalise Planning
Proposal BSCPP 20/001 – Teven Road Teven, as included as Attachment 1 to
this report, under delegated authority.
Attachment(s)
1. BSCPP 20/001 - Planning Proposal
(V2 Exhibition) ⇨
2. BSCPP 20/001 - Alteration of
Gateway Determination and Secretary's Agreement ⇨
3. BSCPP 20/001 - NSW Rural Fire
Service Consultation ⇨
4. BSCPP 20/001 - NSW Biodiversity
Conservation Division (BCD) Letter - Objection (25 February 2021) ⇨
5. BSCPP 20/001 - Flood Assessment
Letter - Ardill Payne & Partners (APP) (16 March 2021) ⇨
6. BSCPP 20/001 - Detailed Flood
Assessment & Emergency Management Plan - APP (September 2021) ⇨
7. BSCPP 20/001 - BCD Letter -
Objection Not Lifted (19 October 2021) ⇨
8. BSCPP 20/001 - Letter from APP -
Response to BCD (26 October 2021) ⇨
9. BSCPP 20/001 - BCD Letter -
Objection Removed (2 December 2021) ⇨
8.3 LEP
Amendments and Planning Proposals - Status
8.3 LEP
Amendments and Planning Proposals - Status
|
Section
|
Strategic Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To report on the status of Local Environmental
Plan amendment requests and planning proposals that are currently under
consideration.
|
Background
Council has an ongoing program of
processing requests to amend the Ballina Local Environmental Plans 1987 and
2012 (LEPs) and associated planning proposals. This report provides an update
of matters currently pending.
Key Issues
· Status of rezoning
and LEP amendment requests.
Discussion
LEP Amendment Requests and
Planning Proposals Status
Table 1 provides an overview of
the LEP amendment requests and planning proposals currently being considered
and processed by Council. The term planning proposal refers to the
documentation prepared to describe a request to amend the Ballina Local
Environmental Plan/s.
Requests are typically referred
to as planning proposals once Council has agreed to progress the initial LEP
amendment request and has prepared the required planning proposal documentation
for Gateway determination by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and
Environment (DPIE).
Table
1: Status of LEP amendment requests and planning
proposals
|
Item
|
Name and Status
|
Summary and Notes
|
Completion Due
|
|
|
|
18/004
|
Reservoir Hill Site, 20 North Creek Road, Lennox Head
(Complete)
|
Proposal to amend the Ballina LEP 2012 to make minor
zone boundary adjustments to reflect an amended subdivision design.
This amendment was completed via Map Amendment No. 1
to the Ballina LEP 2012 on 12 November 2021.
|
Completed
12/11/2021
|
|
|
20/001
|
Dwelling Entitlement Reinstatement, Teven Road, Teven
(Stage 6)
|
Proposal to transfer a dwelling entitlement on Lot 3
Section 1 DP 758964 to an adjacent aggregation of lots through identification
of these lots on the “Dwelling Opportunity Reinstatement Map” as
having one dwelling opportunity. The dwelling entitlement transfer will
enable a more suitable development site for a dwelling.
This proposal is the subject of a separate report
elsewhere in this business agenda.
|
4/12/2022
|
|
|
20/002
|
6-20 Fitzroy Street, Wardell
(Complete)
|
Proposal to amend the LEP to rezone the land from RU1
Primary Production to R3 Medium Density Residential and to apply a minimum
lot size of 800m2.
This amendment was completed via Map Amendment No. 2
to the Ballina LEP 2012 on 11 February 2022.
|
Completed
11/02/2022
|
|
|
20/003
|
Stage 1 – Southern Cross Expansion, Ballina
(Stage 6)
|
Ballina Shire Council proposal for the rezoning of
land northward of the existing Southern Cross Industrial Estate from its
current rural zoning to enable a mixture of industrial and employment-type
land uses.
Following public exhibition and State Agency
consultation, it is evident that issues associated with biodiversity will
result in an objection to the rezoning proposal from the Biodiversity and
Conservation Division of the Department of Planning, Industry &
Environment.
A separate report elsewhere in this business agenda
recommends a new approach, involving an application for Strategic
Biodiversity Certification and a concurrent new Planning Proposal, addressing
the whole of the land, which would enable some rezoning to go ahead, offset
by the application of an Environmental Conservation zone over a substantial
part of the property.
|
30/12/2021
|
|
|
21/001
|
Wildlife Hospital, Lindendale Road, Wollongbar
(Stage 7)
|
Proposal to amend the Ballina LEP 1987 to permit with
consent a veterinary hospital, and an information and educational facility on
part Lot 237 DP 755745, Lindendale Road, Wollongbar.
At its Ordinary meeting held in January 2022, Council
resolved to finalise the proposed LEP amendment.
Parliamentary Counsel opinion was received on 11
February 2022 allowing the LEP amendment to be finalised.
|
28/05/2022
|
|
|
21/002
|
Ballina Heights Neighbourhood Centre
(Stage 1)
|
The estate developers have foreshadowed a revised approach involving
the relocation of the commercial zone within the estate. This was the
subject of a Councillor briefing on 5 October 2021.
A report to Council assessing the revised planning outcome is
currently being prepared.
|
#
|
|
|
21/003
|
Alstonville R3 Zone
(Stage 6)
|
Proposal to amend the BLEP 2012 to apply the R3
Medium Density Residential zone to certain land at Alstonville.
The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 8
December 2021 until 2 February 2022.
This proposal is the subject of a separate report
elsewhere in this business agenda.
|
22/08/2022
|
|
|
21/004
|
Deferred Matters Integration into BLEP 2012
(Stage 3)
|
Proposal to integrate certain deferred matters into
the BLEP 2012. Proposal also seeks to amend clause 41 of the BLEP 1987 to
limit the temporary use of land to a maximum of 14 days per annum.
The planning proposal is currently with DPIE for
review and Gateway determination.
|
#
|
|
|
21/005
|
Epiq Estate, Sites 2, 6 & 12 Anchorage Ave,
Lennox Head
(Stage 6)
|
Proposal to amend the BLEP 2012 to apply the R3
Medium Density Residential zone and a minimum lot size of 450m2 to
the subject site as well as make other minor adjustments to align zoning and
lot size provisions to the final subdivision layout.
The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 27
January 2022 until 11 February 2022.
A report to Council on the finalisation of the
amendment is currently being prepared.
|
28/04/2022
|
|
|
21/006
|
BLEP 1987 Subdivision & Dwelling Provisions
(Stage 3)
|
Proposal to amend the BLEP 1987 to include additional
subdivision provisions to provide flexibility for minor boundary adjustment
subdivisions, and additions to clause 12 to clarify criteria relating to
permissibility of dwelling houses in rural and environmental zones. Proposal
also seeks reinstatement of an historic dwelling entitlement for a property
at McLeans Ridges.
At its Ordinary meeting held in January 2022, the
Council resolved to request a Gateway determination to allow public
exhibition of the draft proposal. The Gateway determination was requested on
28 January 2022.
|
#
|
|
|
LEP Amendment Request/Planning Proposal Processing
Stages
1. Initial Concept -
Proponent submits initial amendment concept for review and reporting to the
Council.
2. Planning Proposal
- Preparation of a planning proposal for the Council's consideration (if the
initial concept is supported by the Council).
3. Gateway
Determination - DPIE determination as to whether the planning proposal may
proceed (if the Council resolves to submit the planning proposal for
determination).
4. Study
Preparation - Relevant technical information to enable complete assessment
compiled and considered. This step may also involve pre-exhibition
public authority consultation.
5. Community
Consultation - Planning proposal and associated technical assessment material
exhibited for public comment.
5a. Public Hearing - Public
Hearing held, where required.
6. Submissions
Assessment and Council Decision - Reporting of community consultation
outcomes and Council decision regarding finalisation of the planning
proposal.
7. Finalisation
- DPIE finalisation (or Council finalisation under delegation) of the LEP
amendment based on the planning proposal. Note: the Minister for
Planning and Public Spaces may finalise, alter or terminate the amendment.
# Denotes
proposal number and due date subject to Gateway determination.
The completion due date is a date
determined by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
|
|
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
Processing of LEP amendment requests and
planning proposals is identified in Council’s adopted Delivery Program
and Operational Plan as follows:
· HE3.1 - Implement
plans that balance the built environment with the natural environment.
· HE3.1j - Manage LEP amendment requests.
Community Consultation Policy
Community
engagement (including Government agency referrals) in accordance with
Council’s Community Participation Plan and Gateway determinations issued
by the Department of Planning Industry and Environment has been, or will be,
undertaken in relation to individual planning proposals.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The work program
associated with LEP amendment requests and planning proposals is being
undertaken within existing resources. Fees are applied in accordance with
Council’s adopted fees and charges in relation to external requests for
amendments to the LEP and processing of subsequent planning proposals.
Options
The status of
the LEP amendments and planning proposals outlined is provided for information.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the contents
of this report on current LEP amendments and planning proposals.
|
Attachment(s)
Nil
8.4 Rezoning
and Biodiversity Certification - Southern Cross Estate
8.4 Rezoning
and Biodiversity Certification - Southern Cross Estate
|
Section
|
Strategic Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To seek direction on the rezoning of land
for the expansion of the Southern Cross Industrial Estate, including
Biodiversity Certification.
|
Background
Council has been
working for many years to rezone rural land adjacent to the Ballina Byron
Gateway Airport to provide additional employment land. At the May 2021
Ordinary meeting Council resolved to proceed to public exhibition with a
planning proposal for a reduced area (from that originally planned), as Stage 1
of the potential expansion.
This Stage 1
area is shown outlined in red in the figure below and is located directly
adjacent to the recently constructed Airport Boulevard.
The planning
proposal sought to implement a zoning of IN2 Light Industrial.
The remainder of
the previously identified industrial expansion area (Stage 2) was not included
in the proposal.
Figure 1: Southern Cross Precinct Expansion Staging Diagram from
2021 Planning Proposal
The planning
proposal was publicly exhibited in July 2021, and engagement with relevant
State Agencies was undertaken.
In response to
that engagement, the Biodiversity and Conservation
Division (BCD) within the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
provided a written response raising significant issues around the impacts of
the proposal on vegetation on the site which, in their view, constitute
Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC).
BCD recommended
that an environmental protection zone should be implemented over these
areas. This approach would effectively cover most of the Stage 1 site,
ruling out its future development for industrial / employment purposes.
In preparing the
Stage 1 planning proposal, Council obtained specialist ecological advice, which
included a review of numerous previous site investigations.
That advice
indicated that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Swamp Oak Forest
and Freshwater Wetland vegetation at the site satisfied all of the relevant
requirements for determination as being an EEC.
That advice was
based partly on soil assessment, which concluded that the soils are not typical
of a coastal floodplain, and the sand dominated soil profiles are not
consistent with any of the soil descriptions that are part of the criteria for
listing the EEC’s reported to occur at the site.
Additionally,
the degree of disturbance across the entire site, particularly associated with
the construction and then infilling of a large prawn farm across much of the
site, would suggest that vegetation distribution and composition is primarily
as a result of that previous site disturbance.
The specialist
advice concluded that it is unlikely that vegetation at the site would meet the
Scientific Committee’s requisite criteria to be considered an EEC.
This advice was
provided to BCD as part of the referral of the Stage 1 planning proposal.
BCD do not agree
with that advice and maintain a position that there vegetation communities on
the site consisting of Swamp Oak Forest and Freshwater Wetland vegetation,
located on the coastal floodplain, that are considered to be EEC despite the
underlying geology.
They further
state that this relates to regenerating areas notwithstanding a history of
previous disturbance.
Subsequent
discussions with officers of BCD indicate very little likelihood of changing
their view which results in their opposition to the Stage 1 proposal.
The remainder of
the site, east of the Stage 1 area, contains vegetation that are likely to be
EECs, as well as some grassland paddocks that do not contain that vegetation.
This report
recommends that Council endorse an alternative approach to the rezoning of the
land, incorporating the whole of the site in a combined application seeking
rezoning of some parts together with Strategic Biodiversity Certification over
the whole of the land.
If granted, that
certification would allow development of a Stage 1 area, acknowledging the
associated impacts on EEC, offset by an environmental protection zoning and
vegetation management plan over at least half of the site to the east of
Stage1.
Importantly,
certification would mean that biodiversity issues would not need to be further
assessed in any subsequent development applications for the subdivision of the
site.
Details of this
proposal and the process required, is outlined below.
Council was
previously successful in securing a $3.91M Restart NSW grant to develop an
innovation precinct on the Stage 1 land. Staff have continued to inform
Restart NSW regarding the delays associated with biodiversity issues on the
site and the grant funding remains on hold.
The completion
date for the Project was previously extended to 30 June, 2022.
Given the
deadline has previously been extended, there is no certainty that further
requests for an extension will be granted.
Council staff
are however continuing to work with the grant body on a further extension due
to the complexities of the site.
Key Issues
· Protection and enhancement of high value biodiversity
· Flooding impacts and mitigation strategies
· Impacts on cultural heritage
· Flexible employment land zone land use table
Discussion
Strategic
Biodiversity Certification is a process established under the Biodiversity
Conservation Act 2016 to provide certainty around biodiversity issues at an
early stage in the planning process.
It addresses
impacts on biodiversity and associated mitigation and management measures at
the rezoning stage and on a holistic basis, so that there is no need for any
further biodiversity assessment during subsequent development applications.
In the Southern
Cross case, the certification application will seek to offset EEC impacts
associated with employment land development on part of the site, by protecting
and enhancing other parts of the property through environmental protection
zoning and a vegetation management plan.
While detailed
assessment has not yet been undertaken to define the internal boundaries, for
the purposes of this report, it can be assumed that at least half of the
property will need to be protected and enhanced, to offset development of the
area adjacent to Airport Boulevard.
The preliminary
vegetation mapping shown in Figure 2 indicates the extent of Freshwater Wetland
EEC across the site, with the darker blue assessed as having medium to high
biodiversity value and the lighter blue of lower biodiversity value.
The Biodiversity
Conservation Act 2016 aims to protect all of such EEC, regardless of its
condition, but provides for lower offsets where the biodiversity value is
determined to be low.
Figure 2: Southern Cross Precinct Expansion Preliminary
Vegetation Mapping
As shown in
Figure 2, virtually all of the previously identified Stage 1 (outlined in
yellow) is affected by EEC when applying the BCD approach. There is an
area to the east which is not constrained by EEC, but it is not located in a
suitable position to be developed for employment lands on its own.
The
certification application will propose an appropriate employment zone over the
previously identified Stage 1 area and the unconstrained land to its east. An
environmental protection zone would be proposed over the remainder of the
property.
Further detailed
site assessment will be required to determine the appropriate position of the
internal zone boundary.
The
certification will need to be supported by a detailed Biodiversity
Certification Assessment Report. The Biodiversity Conservation Act and
associated regulations and guidelines establish a rigorous methodology to be
followed for the preparation of that assessment report.
Strategic
Biodiversity Certification
The Act provides
for two levels of biodiversity certification, standard and Strategic.
Standard biodiversity certification is open to any land owner, while strategic
biodiversity certification is only available to councils.
Strategic
certification is intended for areas that are identified as being of regional
planning significance, providing a mechanism whereby regional planning outcomes
can be achieved while balancing the protection and enhancement of important
biodiversity.
Strategic
certification is undertaken in two steps:
1. The Minister for Energy and
Environment determines that the project can be declared ‘strategic’
for the purposes of biodiversity certification; and
2. Biodiversity
Certification is assessed and determined based on a detailed Biodiversity
Certification Assessment Report.
The Southern
Cross site is identified in the North Coast Regional Plan as a regionally
significant growth area for the provision of employment lands, which would
support a declaration by the Minister as ‘strategic’.
‘Biobanking’
is involved in the subsequent Biodiversity Certification, where biodiversity
‘credits’ are calculated in accordance with a standard assessment
methodology.
The loss of
areas of EEC come at a ‘cost’ of credits, which must be ‘paid
for’, either by generating credits on the same site (through protection
and enhancement of EEC areas) or another approved site, and / or purchasing
credits from another land owner who has an approved ‘biobanking
site’, or by payment to the NSW Government’s Biodiversity Conservation
Trust.
For standard
certification, this transaction of credits is the only mechanism available to
offset impacts, whereas for an area declared ‘strategic’, a deficit
of credits can potentially be made up by additional measures, including the
environmental protection zoning itself.
Application for
Strategic Biodiversity Certification is made to the Minister for Energy and
Environment. A detailed Biodiversity Certification Assessment report is
not required for that initial application, but would be required as a condition
of the certification if granted.
If the Minister
decides that the project does not meet the requirements of Strategic
Certification, an application for the standard certification can still be made.
It is
recommended that Council apply to the Minister for Strategic Biodiversity
Certification for the Southern Cross Industrial Estate expansion project.
Zoning
The property is
currently zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under BLEP 2012. The most recent
planning proposal sought to rezone the Stage 1 area (see Figure 1) to IN2
Light Industry.
The Department
issued a Gateway Determination for that planning proposal on 4 November 2020,
with a requirement that the LEP Amendment be finalised by June 2021.
That timeframe
was subsequently amended to have a final date of 31 December 2021.
Given the issues
with that proposal, this report recommends that the current planning proposal
be withdrawn and a new planning proposal be commenced dealing with the whole of
the property.
A new planning
proposal would be prepared concurrently with a Biodiversity Certification
Assessment Report, to allow rezoning and biodiversity certification to progress
together.
The planning
proposal would seek to apply an appropriate employment zone to approximately 15
ha of the western part of the property (area to be confirmed), with the
remainder being zoned environmental protection for conservation purposes.
In addition to
the detailed biodiversity survey and assessment, preparation of the new
planning proposal will require an update to previous flood assessment and
further investigation and assessment of potential impacts to cultural heritage.
The flood impact
assessment previously undertaken for the Stage 1 proposal identified the need
to provide a new floodway to mitigate local increases in flood level that would
otherwise result from filling of the development site.
It is assumed
that the floodway will still be required, and involves shallow excavation of
land along the southern boundary of the airport, to convey floodwater toward
North Creek.
This excavation
will itself generate potential biodiversity and cultural heritage impacts, and
it will therefore be important that the work undertaken for these issues
overlaps to identify, document and assess all potential implications of the
property development.
External
consultants would be engaged to undertake the assessments required. While
utilising firms previously involved in the Stage 1 proposal will maximise cost
efficiency, consultancy costs are likely to be in the order of $130,000 for the
preparation of a competent proposal.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
Council’s
2021 – 2025 Delivery Program and Operational Plan recognise that once
Airport Boulevard is completed it will facilitate the release of land within
the Southern Cross Industrial Precinct.
Prosperous
Economy direction PE3.1 Facilitate commercially viable industrial precincts,
and Activity PE3.1b Progress availability of land at the Southern Cross
Industrial Estate, relate directly to this proposal.
Community Consultation Policy
If Council
resolves to proceed with the direction proposed, the combined planning proposal
and biodiversity certification assessment would be exhibited for public
comment, consistent with Council’s Community Participation Plan,
following a successful Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning,
Industry and Environment.
Financial / Risk Considerations
Preparation of a
planning proposal and concurrent application for biodiversity certification requires
further detailed assessment of biodiversity, flooding and cultural
heritage. While specific fee proposals have not yet been sought from
experts in these fields, it is estimated that external consultancy costs are
likely to be in the order of $130,000 and potentially higher.
Council has a
Property Development Reserve which funds Council’s commercial property
activities. The reserve is currently forecast to have a cash balance of
$140,500 as at 30 June 2022. By the same date, it is also estimated that
Council will have approximately $13.6m in loan debt related to commercial
property dealings at Wollongbar Urban Expansion Area (Stage 3 –
Residential Development), Airport Boulevard Road Construction and Southern
Cross Industrial Land – Boeing Avenue - Lots 1 and 2.
A large
component of this loan debt will be repaid through the proceeds from the sale
of Boeing Avenue – Lot 2 for the expansion of the Harvey Norman homemaker
centre (sale approved by Council and likely to settle around 30 June 2022, if
not earlier)), and potential proceeds from the sale of residential land at
Wollongbar and industrial land at Lot 1, Boeing Avenue.
Even with these
sales, there is limited funding available for other projects from the Property
Development Reserve and rather than sourcing the full funding from this
reserve, the preference is to also source part of the funding from the
Strategic Planning Projects Reserve, as this is a strategic planning project
(estimated reserve balance of $375,100 as at 30 June 2022) and the Flat Rock
Tent Park Reserve, as this reserve is managed by Council’s Commercial
Services Section (estimated balance of $288,000 as at 30 June 2022).
The recommended
breakup of funding sources for a budget of $130,000 is as follows:
Reserve Amount
($)
Strategic
Planning Projects 30,000
Property
Development 50,000
Flat Rock Tent
Park 50,000
Total 130,000
Given the long
history of trying to get a rezoning on this land, and the issues that have
become apparent over that time, it is considered that the approach to pursue
biodiversity certification associated with the rezoning of part of the property
offers the least risk option and the best opportunity for development of part
of the site for employment purposes (whilst also recognising and protecting environmental
and cultural values associated with the overall site).
Essentially the
proposed approach represents a balancing of the strategic importance of the
area to the region from an employment and business activity perspective and the
environmental and cultural values of the land.
In considering
this matter, it is important to recognise that Council is the owner of the
land. Therefore, Council has a role as both a land manager from a
commercial development perspective as well as a separate role as a planning
authority.
This report is
presented to Council in its capacity as a planning authority based on the
strategic planning merit associated with the use of the site for employment
purposes. The planning proposal and biodiversity certification process
will be managed by the Strategic Planning Section.
Should Council
require further details about the commercial aspects of the development of the
land, these should be considered separately.
Options
Option 1 -
Strategic Biodiversity Certification followed by combined Biodiversity
Certification Assessment and Planning Proposal.
Biodiversity
certification addresses the biodiversity issues at the site at the rezoning
stage. Once certified, the need to further assess these issues at
subsequent DAs is ‘turned off’.
Strategic
certification provides the most flexibility in offsetting impacts on EECs on
the site, which, in this case, cannot be totally avoided if the Southern Cross
Industrial Estate is to be expanded.
This option
would result in a proposal for an employment land zone (and subsequent
development) over slightly less than half of the property. While this is
less than originally sought, it is evident from previous work that this is
likely to be the maximum scale of development that can be achieved under the
current legislative framework.
To proceed with
this option, the current planning proposal will need to be withdrawn (with the
Minister’s agreement to cease its progress), an application made to the
Minister to have the project declared ‘strategic’ and a combined
Biodiversity Certification application and new planning proposal prepared.
Further
reporting will be provided to Council as these steps progress.
Given Council is
the landowner, it is recommended that Council does not seek delegation to
complete any future LEP amendment process, but rather refer finalisation in
future to DPIE.
This is the
recommended option.
Option 2 -
Planning proposal for the whole of the site, without biodiversity
certification.
It is open to Council to prepare a new planning proposal addressing
the whole of the property, seeking employment land zoning over the Stage 1
western part of the land and an environmental protection zoning over the
eastern part.
With the appropriate supporting studies, it would be possible to get
BCD support for such a proposal. Without Biodiversity Certification,
however, biodiversity issues would then need to be assessed as part of a
subsequent development application.
This would require the ‘biobanking’ solution as described
in this report. However, because the protected part of the land would
already be zoned for environmental protection, the credits generated from that
part of the site would be discounted by 75%. The balancing of credits
would therefore be unlikely, requiring a monetary contribution to the
Biodiversity Conservation Trust (amount unknown at this stage, but potentially
up to $1M).
Essentially, this option is likely to be more costly and uncertain,
and does not not facilitate any better local environmental protection outcomes
when compared with option 1.
This approach is not recommended.
3. Continue to pursue the current
Stage 1 rezoning proposal.
The Stage 1
site is heavily constrained by the presence of EEC. The Biodiversity and
Conservation Division of DPIE have advised that the EEC area should be
protected by an environmental protection zone that would prevent site
development.
Continuing with
this Stage 1 area without a wider context is likely to result in BCD formally
objecting to the planning proposal.
The Gateway
period for the previously lodged planning proposal has expired, so Council
would need to resubmit the proposal to seek a new Gateway Determination.
This option is
not recommended.
Option 4
– Defer consideration of the matter
Council could defer a decision on this matter to seek additional
information through further reporting or a briefing.
Given that the existing planning proposal is unlikely to result in
the rezoning of the land, it is suggested that where a briefing is desirable,
that Council progress with option 1 with a briefing to be held once Council has
received a response from the Minister on the Strategic Biodiversity
Certification of the amended proposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council apply to the Minister for Energy and Environment for Strategic
Biodiversity Certification of the Southern Cross Industrial Estate expansion
property.
2. That
Council engage the relevant experts to prepare a Biodiversity Certification
Assessment Report, an updated Flood Impact Assessment, an Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Assessment and a Planning Proposal to support a proposed rezoning of
the property to provide for employment land development of the site adjacent to
Airport Boulevard and environmental protection zoning over the wetland
vegetation in the eastern part of the site, with the zone boundaries to be
determined by the Biodiversity Certification Assessment.
3. That
Council receive a report on the outcomes of the Strategic Biodiversity
Certification application and the subsequent assessments prior to seeking a
Gateway Determination for the site rezoning.
4. That
Council fund the estimated expenditure of $130,000 from the following internal
reserves:
Reserve Amount
($)
Strategic Planning Projects 30,000
Property Development 50,000
Flat Rock Tent Park 50,000
Total 130,000
Attachment(s)
Nil
8.5 State
Government LEP Amendments - Agritourism
8.5 State
Government LEP Amendments - Agritourism
|
Section
|
Strategic Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To provide a summary of policy and LEP
changes proposed by the State Government in relation to agritourism and seek
direction on the approach to be taken within the Ballina LEP 2012.
|
Background
The Department
of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) is proposing
amendments to the NSW planning system to better enable
‘agritourism’ and small-scale agricultural development. The
intention is to allow farmers to diversify their income from farming businesses
while maintaining primary production on the land as the principal use.
In early 2021,
the DPIE exhibited an ‘Explanation of Intended Effect’, outlining
the changes being considered by the State Government. Council made a
submission to that exhibition in April 2021. A copy of Council’s
submission is contained in Attachment 1 to this report.
Following
consideration of submissions, DPIE released an information package in December
2021. This information package forms the first stage in implementing the
recommended planning amendments.
The package outlines
proposed new land use definitions and contains draft Local Environmental Plan
(LEP) clauses that would apply across all councils in NSW. Councils are able to
choose whether to adopt these clauses in their local LEP and advise whether the
new land use definitions should be permitted or prohibited in rural zones.
By way of
context, Council has previously examined and implemented various initiatives of
its own to enable agritourism type outcomes in the Shire, including enabling
tourist and visitor accommodation in rural areas, enabling certain types of
roadside stalls as exempt development and providing for industrial retail
outlets for the sale of farm products associated with rural industry.
These
Council-initiated policy positions have been established with careful
consideration of the local context, community feedback and overarching
strategic planning policy for the Shire. The approaches suggested in this
report are mindful of Council’s existing policy arrangements and the
current local provisions within the LEP.
This report
outlines the changes that are now proposed to be implemented by DPIE, the
options that Council has in regard to adopting those changes, and makes
recommendations for a response to the Department.
Key Issues
· Additional permitted uses of rural land
· Farm stay accommodation
· Restaurants/ cafes in rural zones
Discussion
Following the
exhibition of the ‘Explanation of Intended
Effect’ related to agritourism in March-April 2021, DPIE have now issued
the draft Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment
(Agritourism) Order 2021.
Refer to
Attachment 2.
This Order, when
commenced, will amend the Standard Instrument LEP, and all associated LEPs,
including Ballina LEP 2012.
The Order will
not amend Ballina Local Environmental Plan 1987.
The proposed
changes in the LEP Order include:
· new land use definitions of ‘agritourism’, ‘farm
gate premises’ and ‘farm experience premises’
· changes to the definition of ‘farm stay accommodation’
· transferring the existing definition of ‘cellar door
premises’ to become a subset of ‘farm gate premises’
· optional LEP clauses for ‘farm stay accommodation’ and
‘farm gate premises’.
This is the
first stage of rolling out the Government’s proposed changes that were
outlined in the 2021 ‘Explanation of Intended Effect’.
The new
definitions are not optional and will be incorporated into all Standard
Instrument LEPs, including Ballina LEP 2012, when the Department finalises the
current package of updates.
Table 1
summarises the relevant existing, new and amended land use definitions, based
on the existing zoning tables in LEP 2012.
Table 1:
Summary of permissible land uses relating to agritourism
|
Land Use
|
RU1 Primary Production
|
RU2 Rural Landscape
|
|
Agriculture
|
|
|
|
aquaculture
|
c
|
c
|
|
extensive
agriculture
|
o
|
o
|
|
intensive
livestock agriculture
|
c
|
c
|
|
intensive
plant agriculture
|
o
|
o
|
|
agritourism
|
|
|
|
farm
experience premises
|
x
|
c
|
|
farm
gate premises
|
x
|
c
|
|
Tourist and Visitor Accommodation
|
|
|
|
farm
stay accommodation
|
c
|
c
|
Legend: o - permitted without consent, c -permitted with consent, x -
prohibited
LEP
Amendments Proposed:
Agriculture
Currently, agriculture
is a ‘parent’ definition, in that it includes a number of
‘child’ definitions.
Agriculture
means any of the following:
(a) aquaculture,
(b) extensive
agriculture,
(c) intensive
livestock agriculture,
(d) intensive
plant agriculture.
The definition
will be amended to add:
(e)
agritourism
In LEP 2012
currently, for land zoned RU1 Primary Production, extensive agriculture
and intensive plant agriculture are permitted without consent. Aquaculture
and intensive livestock agriculture and permitted with consent.
The parent
definition of agriculture is not listed. As the LEP currently stands,
agritourism will be prohibited in the RU1 Primary Production zone, because any
land use not specifically listed is prohibited.
As detailed
below, it is recommended that this situation remain.
Agritourism
This is not
currently a defined land use.
A new definition
is proposed:
Agritourism
means the following
(a) farm
gate premises
(b) farm
experience premises
As above, agritourism
will be prohibited in RU1 Primary Production and permitted with consent in RU2
Rural Landscape.
No change is
recommend to this situation.
Farm Gate
Premises
This is not
currently a defined land use.
A new definition
is proposed:
Farm gate
premises:
(a) means a building or place:
(i)
on a farm that is:
(A)
a primary production business, or
(B) on land categorised as farmland under the Local Government
Act 1995, section 515, and
(ii)
that is ancillary to the farm, and
(iii) that is used to provide visitors to the farm with
agricultural products predominantly from the farm or other farms in the region
or with services or activities related to the products, including-
(A) processing, packaging and sale of the products, but not
the processing of animals,
(B) a restaurant or café,
(C) a facility for holding tastings or workshops, or providing
information or education, related to the products.
(b)
includes cellar door premises.
Note – Farm
gate premises is a type of agritourism
Because farm
gate premises is a ‘sub-set’ of agritourism, it will be
prohibited in RU1 Primary Production and permitted with consent in RU2 Rural
Landscape.
DPIE’s
proposed changes offer councils the option of adopting the following new LEP
clause to regulate farm gate premises:
5.24 Farm
gate premises
(1) The
objectives of this clause are
(a) to allow for small
scale tourism and related commercial uses on land used for primary production
without adversely impacting the principal use of the land for primary
production, and
(b) to balance the impact
of tourism and related commercial uses with the use of the land for primary
production, the environment, scenic values, infrastructure and adjoining land
uses.
(c) [Council is able to
set out other objectives of the clause]
(2) Development
consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of farm gate
premises on a landholding unless the consent authority is satisfied that
(a) the gross floor area
of a building used for farm gate premises will not be more than [insert number
no more than 200] square metres, and
(b) the maximum number of
persons that will be permitted on the landholding at any 1 time for the
purposes of the farm gate premises will not be more than [insert number not
more than 50] persons
(3) Development
consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of farm gate
premises on land unless the consent authority has considered
(a) whether the
development will result in noise or pollution that will have a significant
adverse impact on the following on or near the land
i. residential
accommodation,
ii. primary production
operations,
iii. other land uses
(b) whether the
development will have significant adverse impact on the following on or near
the land
i. the visual amenity, heritage
or scenic values,
ii. native or significant flora
or fauna,
iii. water quality,
iv. traffic,
v. the safety of persons, and
(c) whether the
development is on bush fire prone land or flood prone land, and
(d) the suitability of
the land for the proposed development, and
(e) the compatibility of
the development with nearby land uses.
The new farm
gate premises definition includes:
· processing, packaging and sale of the products, but not the
processing of animals
· a restaurant or café
· a facility for holding tastings or workshops, or providing
information or education, related to the products
· cellar door premises.
The processing,
packaging and sale of agricultural products is currently permitted with consent
in both the RU1 and RU2 zone, as an additional permitted use (Item 10, Schedule
1 – see Attachment 3), being an industrial retail outlet
associated with rural industry. The proposed changes will make
this redundant in respect to the RU2 zone, as farm gate premises will become
permitted with consent in that zone.
To avoid
confusion it is recommended that the existing additional permitted use
provision be amended to apply only to land zoned RU1 Primary Production.
This will
maintain the current situation, where the processing, packaging and sale of
agricultural products will be permitted on land zoned RU1 (by way of the
amended additional permitted use provision) and on land zoned RU2 (by way of
the new farm gate premises definition).
The new farm
gate premises definition also includes restaurants or cafes, a land
use currently prohibited in the RU1 zone but permitted with consent in the RU2
Rural Landscape zone.
To avoid
confusion around this use, it is recommended that the LEP be amended to remove restaurant
or café as a stand-alone use permitted with consent in the RU2 Rural
Landscape zone, as it will become permissible by having farm gate premises
as a use permitted with consent in that zone.
On the basis of
these changes, it is recommended that Council also adopt the proposed farm
gate premises LEP clause, to incorporate considerations and development
controls within the LEP to regulate the use.
There is
opportunity for Council to add objectives to the clause as currently drafted,
however, that is not considered necessary in the local case.
Council is also
able to nominate two specific numerical controls for subclause (2) (see above):
· the maximum gross floor area of a building used for farm gate
premises (up to a maximum of 200m2): The existing
industrial retail outlet provision in Schedule 1 nominates a maximum of 100m2,
and this is considered appropriate for the new clause.
· the maximum number of persons permitted on the land holding at any
one time for the purposes of the farm gate premises (up to a maximum of 50
persons): As a development control, a limit on the number of people on
site is almost impossible to police, particularly in the form of “at any
one time”. In those circumstances, a maximum of 50 persons is as
good as any number.
Farm
Experience Premises
This is not currently
a defined land use.
A new definition
is proposed:
Farm
experience premises means a building or place:
(a) on a
farm:
(i) that is a primary production business, or
(ii) on land categorised as
farmland under the Local Government Act 1995, section 515, and
(b) that is
ancillary to the farm, and
(c) that is used to provide visitors to the farm with small
scale and low impact tourist or recreational services on a commercial basis
including the following-
(i) horse riding,
(ii) farm tours,
(iii) functions or conferences,
(iv) farm field days.
Note – Farm
experience premises is a type of agritourism
Because farm
experience premises is a ‘sub-set’ of agritourism, it
will be prohibited in RU1 Primary Production and permitted with consent in RU2
Rural Landscape. This will include functions or conferences as activities
included in farm experience premises.
The DPIE update
package does not include a clause (optional or otherwise) to regulate farm
experience premises.
There has been
previous community concern with functions in the rural hinterland, particularly
associated with commercial wedding venues.
Council
addressed this in 2020/21 by working with the local community to craft an
approval mechanism for rural functions, resulting in an amendment to the LEP in
mid-2021 to add clause 7.14 “Temporary use of land in Zone RU2 for
purposes of function centre” (refer to Attachment 3).
The clause
provides the ability for Council to approve the use of land zoned RU2 for the
purposes of a function centre for a maximum period of three years, and includes
provisions that limit the number of events per annum, the number of events that
can occur at a site on a weekend, and the number of guests per event.
Having functions
or conferences permitted with consent as farm experience premises would
allow land owners to by-pass the requirements of clause 7.14.
It is recommended
that the wording of clause 7.14 be amended to address development “for
the purposes of a function centre or for functions or conferences undertaken as
farm experience premises…..”.
It is also
recommended that farm experience premises not be permitted in the RU1
Primary Production zone.
In addition to restaurants
or cafes, the new farm experience premises definition includes horse
riding, farm tours and farm field days, which are activities that could be
supported in the RU1 zone.
While these uses
are reasonable, the inclusion of functions / conferences in the farm
experience premises definition undermines Council’s most recent
policy position and its efforts to address the associated issues in rural
areas, hence the recommendation to prohibit farm experience premises in the RU1
zone.
Horse riding,
however, could still be approved, under the existing definition of recreation
facilities (outdoor), which is permitted with consent in the RU1
zone. Farm field days and farm tours could also be supported, subject to
a merit assessment, as ancillary to farming.
Farm Stay
Accommodation
The existing definition is proposed to be
amended as outlined below:
|
Existing
definition
|
New definition
|
|
farm
stay accommodation means a building or
place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation to paying guests on
a working farm as a secondary business to primary production
|
Farm stay accommodation means a
building or place:
(a)
on a farm:
(i) that is a primary production business, or
(ii) on land categorised as farmland under the Local
Government Act 1995, section 515, and
(b) used to provide temporary
accommodation to paying guests of the farm including in buildings or moveable
dwellings.
|
Note –
Farm stay accommodation is a type of tourist and visitor accommodation
The main changes
to the existing definition are clarification that the accommodation must be on
a farm that is a business, and the option for accommodation to be in moveable
dwellings as well as buildings.
Farm stay
accommodation, which is a type of tourist and
visitor accommodation, is currently permitted with consent in both the RU1
Primary Production zone and the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. The amendments
to that definition do not alter that permissibility.
DPIE’s
proposed changes offer councils the option of adopting the following new LEP
clause to regulate farm stay accommodation:
5.23 Farm
stay accommodation
(1) The
objectives of this clause are
(a) to diversify the uses
of agricultural land without adversely impacting the principal use of the land
for a primary production business, and
(b) to balance the impact
of tourism and related commercial uses with the use of land for primary
production, the environment, scenic values, infrastructure and adjoining land
uses.
(c) [Council able to set
out other objectives of the clause]
(2) Development
consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of farm stay
accommodation on a landholding unless the consent authority is satisfied that-
(a) the maximum number of
guests accommodated in bedrooms at any 1 time will not be more than the greater
of-
i. 3 times the number of
bedrooms permitted under clause 5.4(5), or
ii. 20 guests, and
(b) the gross floor area
of a building used to accommodate guests will not be more than [insert number
no less than 60] square metres, and
(c) the maximum number of
guests accommodated in moveable dwellings on the landholding will not be more
than [insert number no more than 20] at any 1 time, and
(d) the maximum number of
moveable dwellings used for the accommodation of guests will not be more than
[insert number no more than 6], and
(e) all buildings or
moveable dwellings used to accommodate guests will be-
i. on the same lot as an
existing lawful dwelling house, or
ii. on a lot-
A. for which a
minimum size is shown for a dwelling house on the Lot Size Map, and
B. the size of which
is not less than the minimum size shown.
(3) Subclause
(2)(b) does not apply if the development is the change of use of an existing
dwelling to farm stay accommodation.
(4) Development
consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of farm stay
accommodation on land unless the consent authority has considered-
(a) whether the
development will result in noise or pollution that will have a significant
adverse impact on the following on or near the land
i. residential
accommodation,
ii. primary production
operations,
iii. other land uses
(b) whether the
development will have significant adverse impact on the following on or near
the land
i. the visual amenity,
heritage or scenic values,
ii. native or significant flora
or fauna,
iii. water quality,
iv. traffic,
v. the safety of persons, and
(c) whether the
development is on bush fire prone land or flood prone land, and
(d) the suitability of
the land for the proposed development, and
(e) the compatibility of
the development with nearby land uses.
Currently,
Clause 5.4(5) of the LEP applies to farm stay accommodation, limiting
the accommodation provided to guests to three (3) bedrooms. The proposed
changes will not alter this provision.
Clause 7.9 Rural
and nature-based tourism development also applies to farm stay
accommodation because it applies to all forms of tourist and visitor
accommodation. Clause 7.9 establishes a range of considerations to
ensure that such development is low scale and of minimal impact (see Attachment
3).
There is
‘overlap’ between clause 7.9 and the Department’s proposed
new clause 5.23, as the considerations in subclause (4) of the proposed new
clause are not significantly different to those contained in the existing
provisions.
There is no
history of land use conflict associated with development approved as farm
stay accommodation in the Ballina Shire, indicating that the existing
controls are sufficient.
It is
recommended that Council not alter the current permissibility of this land use
and decline to adopt this new clause relating to farm stay accommodation, and
continue to rely on the existing LEP provisions.
Working
Farm Requirement:
A key aspect of
the new definitions is that they all require that activity takes place on a working
farm - i.e. primary production business or land rated as farmland.
Primary
production business will be defined in the LEP to mean:
primary production
business has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 of the
Commonwealth and includes a business that-
(a) was a
primary production business, and
(b) has temporarily ceased to be a primary production business
because of a natural disaster, including a drought, flood or bushfire.
This will limit
the applicability of the new land uses, as rural residential properties, hobby
farms and the like will not meet the definition.
Applicants will
need to demonstrate their status as a primary production business in order to
apply.
Next Steps
As indicated,
the current proposed planning amendments are Stage 1 of the Department’s
proposals regarding agritourism.
Council has been
requested to advise the Department of intentions regarding these new provisions
by the end of February, including whether it is proposed to adopt the optional
clauses, and advice regarding changes to the permissibility of the new and
amended land use definitions.
Following the
response from councils across the State, the Department
will facilitate these changes by amending State Environmental Planning Policy
(SEPP), saving councils the time and resources required to progress individual
planning proposals.
Changes will
also be made to definitions in the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental
Plans) Order 2006.
At this stage,
it is not totally clear whether the Department’s amending SEPP will only
introduce the new definitions, or whether it will also amend LEP 2012 to insert
the farm gate premises clause.
If the SEPP only
deals with the definitions, Council will need to amend the LEP for that clause
by way of a planning proposal.
Further
information about this will be forthcoming.
In any case, the
amending SEPP will not facilitate the recommended changes to existing clause
7.14 of Ballina LEP 2012, changes to the additional permitted use schedule
relating to industrial retail outlets or the recommendation to remove restaurants
or cafes as a stand-alone permitted use in the RU2 zone.
If Council
resolves to make the suggested amendments to these clauses, a planning proposal
will need to be prepared and submitted to the Department for Gateway
determination.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
Maintenance of
and updates to the LEP are a central part of the work program for the Strategic
Planning Section, identified as an activity in Council’s adopted Delivery
Program and Operational Plan as HE3.1j – Review Local Environmental
Plan.
Community Consultation Policy
The changes
proposed by the Department follow the previous public exhibition of an
Explanation of Intended Effect in March-April 2021. It is not known at
this time whether the future amending SEPP will be publicly exhibited.
Should Council
decide to prepare a planning proposal to make consequential amendments to the
Ballina LEP 2012, consultation of the planning proposal would be consistent
with Council’s Community Participation Plan and consultation requirements
of the Gateway Determination.
Financial / Risk Considerations
Work required to
address the Department’s proposed changes is additional to the work
program outlined in the current Operational and Delivery Plan, but can be
accommodated within the Strategic Planning Section.
The new
provisions present the potential for an increase in future development
applications associated with agritourism proposals.
Options
Option 1
– Limited local change
The proposed
amendments present a potential for increased commercial activity in the rural
parts of the Shire. This can be limited by maintaining the existing focus
on farming and legitimate rural activities within the RU1 Primary Production
zone.
This would
involve no change to the existing land use tables for the RU1 and RU2 zones,
which would see agritourism (farm gate premises and farm
experience premises) prohibited in RU1 Primary Production and permitted
with consent in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone; and farm stay accommodation
permitted with consent in both zones.
For this
option, Council would decline to adopt the proposed new LEP clause relating to farm
stay accommodation, but adopt the proposed new LEP clause relating to farm
gate premises.
In addition to
the amendments made by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment,
Council would concurrently prepare a planning proposal to amend LEP 2012 to:
· delete restaurants or cafes as a land use permitted with
consent in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone;
· amend the wording within clause 7.14 “Temporary use of land in
Zone RU2 for purposes of function centre” to address development “for
the purposes of a function centre or for functions or conferences undertaken as
farm experience premises…..”;and
· amend Item 10 within Schedule 1 of the LEP such that it is
applicable only to land zoned RU1 Primary Production.
This is the
recommended option.
Option 2
– Maximise local change
It would be
possible to widen the applicability of the proposed changes by making agritourism
a land use permitted with consent in both the RU1 Primary Production and RU2
Rural Landscape zones.
This option is
not recommended as it would create potential for land use conflicts across the
rural parts of the Shire while diluting the importance of farming in these
areas.
While the
intention is for the changes to be supplementary to farming, the relatively
small lot sizes in the Shire, the high land values and the potential returns
from tourism activities would likely result in farmers shifting over time to
maximising tourism activities at the expense of farming.
Option 3
– Defer Consideration of the Matter
The DPIE has
asked councils to provide a response to the reforms by 25 February 2022.
Given this, deferral of the matter is not recommended.
Staff are able
to document Council’s decision from this meeting and provide the required
information to DPIE within the set timeframe.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That,
in response to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s
proposed agritourism reforms, Council advise the Department that:
(a) Council does not
intend to adopt draft clause 5.23 Farm stay accommodation
(b) Council does intend
to adopt draft clause 5.24 Farm Gate Activity and, in doing so:
- does not
intend to add other objectives in subclause (1),
- proposes to
apply a maximum floor space of 100m2 in subclause (2)(a), and
- proposes to
apply a maximum of 50 persons in subclause (2)(b),
(c) Farm stay
accommodation remain permitted with consent in zones RU1 Primary Production and
RU2 Rural Landscape, and
(d) Agritourism be
prohibited in RU1 Primary Production and permitted with consent in RU2 Rural
Landscape
2. That,
subject to finalisation of the Department of Planning, Industry and
Environment’s proposed agritourism reforms, Council prepare a planning
proposal to amend Ballina Local Environmental Plan 2012 to:
(a) amend the land use
table to zone RU2 Rural Landscape to remove restaurants or cafés from
the list of land uses permitted with consent,
(b) amend the wording
within clause 7.14 “Temporary use of land in Zone RU2 for purposes of
function centre” to address development “for the purposes of a
function centre or for functions or conferences undertaken as farm experience
premises…..”, and
(c) amend Item 10 within
Schedule 1 of the LEP such that it is applicable only to land within zone RU1
Primary Production.
3. That
Council submits the planning proposal to the NSW Department of Planning,
Industry and Environment for review and Gateway determination.
4. That
upon an affirmative Gateway determination being received from the Department of
Planning, Industry and Environment the procedural steps associated with
progression of the planning proposal, including public exhibition, be
undertaken.
5. That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment be advised that Council
wishes to exercise its delegated plan making functions for this LEP amendment.
6. That
Council receive a further report on the proposal following the completion of
the public exhibition of the planning proposal.
Attachment(s)
1. Submission to Agritourism and Small
Scale Agriculture Development Reforms April 2021 ⇨
2. Standard Instrument (Agritourism)
Order 2021 ⇨
3. Agritourism Reforms - Relevant LEP
2012 Clauses ⇨
8.6 Wollongbar
Sporting Fields - Planning and Classification
8.6 Wollongbar
Sporting Fields - Planning and Classification
|
Section
|
Strategic Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To report on options for rezoning of the
Wollongbar sporting fields and confirm the classification of the property as
community land.
|
Background
At the 27 August
2020 Council meeting, Council considered a report regarding the use of the
Wollongbar sporting fields by the Wollongbar Alstonville Rugby Club,
particularly in relation to an approved but not yet constructed sporting
clubhouse facility on the land.
In supporting
the Rugby Club’s transition to the Wollongbar sporting fields, Council
requested a report on options for rezoning of the land having regard for the
siting of the clubhouse and the desired future uses for the facility suggested
by the Club.
Construction of
the Wollongbar sporting fields was approved in February 2012 (DA
2011/373).
As part of the construction of
the sporting fields, change room and amenity facilities suitable to allow
organised sport to proceed were built. The current facilities include two
change rooms, showers, toilets and a referee’s room.
Subsequently
(and additional to the facilities currently in place) a proposed clubhouse/
amenities building was approved in October 2014 (DA 2014/345). This
building was not constructed.
In 2019, the
Rugby Club were applicants for DA 2019/269, which proposed construction of a
different clubhouse facility. The DA was approved in July 2019.
Construction of this facility has not yet commenced.
The Wollongbar
sporting fields property is zoned 7(i) Environmental Protection (Urban Buffer)
under Ballina Local Environmental Plan 1987 (it is ‘deferred’ under
BLEP 2012). The fields were approved as ‘open space’, a land
use permitted with consent in the 7(i) zone.
The clubhouse
proposed by the Rugby Club was approved as ancillary to open space, with the
Rugby Club’s application noting that it would only be utilised as part of
the sporting activities undertaken on the land.
Subsequent to
the approval, the Rugby Club have been in discussion with Council regarding
assistance with funding for construction of the facility, and in regard to
their planned usage of the building.
As outlined in
the report to the 27 August 2020 Ordinary meeting, “Council has
advised the Club that their planned usage upon completion, such as commercial
office space for employed rugby union development officers and the hosting of
private functions are not permissible as per Council’s Local
Environmental Plan, based on the zoning of the land”.
The 27 August 2020
Council resolution noted that “a sporting clubhouse is enabled in the
7(i) zone as development ancillary to the sporting fields”, and that
“elements that enable private functions, commercial events and food
preparation and service….change the nature of the building such that it
is not considered to be ancillary to the sporting fields...”.
Most recently,
the Rugby Club has indicated it intends to proceed with the approved building,
with this matter having been discussed by Council at the October 2021 Ordinary
meeting in relation to funding.
Land Classification:
Following
purchase of the land for sporting fields in October 2011, Council resolved in
December of that year to classify the land as Operational, for the purposes of
the Local Government Act.
At the 27 May
2021 Ordinary meeting, Council adopted an updated draft Plan of Management for
Community Land, subject to final advice from NSW Department of Industry –
Crown Lands Division in relation to Crown Land transitioning to Council.
As part of the resolution at that meeting
Council resolved as follows:
That Council
reclassify the Wollongbar Sports Fields as community land.
The land the
subject of the proposed reclassification is shown shaded blue in Figure
1. The sporting fields are shown in the aerial photo in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Wollongbar
sporting fields – current operational land classification (blue shading)
Figure 2: Wollongbar
sporting fields – aerial photo
Under the
provisions of the Local Government Act, Council is able to reclassify land from
operational to community by way of resolution. However, Section 34 of the
Act requires that prior public notice must be given of such a proposed
resolution.
In this case,
public notice was not given prior to the May 2021 resolution, hence the
reclassification has not formally taken effect.
To remedy this,
Public Notice was published on Council’s website on 20 October 2021
of Council’s intention to resolve to reclassify the sporting fields from
operational to community land.
In accordance
with the requirement of the Act, 28 days notice was given, with submissions
invited from the public in relation to the proposal. No public submissions were
received.
The purpose of
this report is to canvass options regarding the zoning of the land and outline
the approach to complete the classification of the land as community land.
Key Issues
Zoning:
· Equitable allocation of open space and sports fields
· Maintenance of the urban buffer between Wollongbar and
Alstonville
Reclassification:
· Preparation of a Plan of Management for the future use and
management of the sporting fields site
Discussion
Zoning:
As indicated, the land is zoned 7(i)
Environmental Protection (Urban Buffer) under Ballina Local Environmental Plan
1987 (Figure 3). The primary objective of this zone is:
to create a rural buffer in the locality
of Alstonville and Wollongbar and to prevent development of an urban character
within any part of the zone which is likely to be seen by existing or likely
future residents of the villages of Alstonville and Wollongbar or from a major
road in the locality
The following land uses are permitted with
development consent in this zone:
Agriculture (involving the erection of
buildings); bed and breakfast establishments; bush fire hazard reduction;
dwelling-houses; home industries; open space; roads; roadside stalls; rural
industries; rural workers’ dwellings; telecommunications facilities;
utility installations
Figure 3: Alstonville
Wollongbar 7(i) Environmental Protection (Urban Buffer) Zone extent (zone shown
shaded orange and Wollongbar sporting fields location denoted by white dot)
There is no
definition of open space within the LEP. Sporting fields, however,
would ordinarily be considered as open space, and a clubhouse and amenities
building can be ancillary to open space when used directly in conjunction with
the sporting fields use.
Land uses
previously suggested by the Rugby Club would be defined under BLEP 1987 as commercial
premises for the administration offices, or club for the private
function uses.
Neither of these
uses are permissible in the 7(i) zone, and neither would be consistent with the
primary objective of the zone.
To enable such uses, therefore, the LEP
would need to be amended by either:
1. Changing
the zoning of the land to a zone which permits such uses; or
2. Inserting a new clause into the LEP which
permits the uses only on this site.
Changing the zone:
The maintenance
of an urban buffer between Alstonville and Wollongbar has been a long standing
foundation of Council’s strategic land use planning and has been embedded
into the local environmental plan since 1987.
Council has
recently reiterated a commitment to this urban separation in the adoption of
both the Alstonville Strategic Plan 2037 (adopted December 2017) and the
Wollongbar Strategic Plan 2039 (adopted June 2019).
Council has also
previously committed to maintaining the existing 7(i) zone in considering the E
Zone (environmental protection zone) review process.
Applying an
alternate zoning to the land would not be consistent with the existing
commitment to the urban buffer and is not likely to result in any significant
gain that is in the broader public interest in terms of the recreational use or
management of the sporting fields.
If a change of
zone were to be pursued, the Department of Planning Industry & Environment
(DPIE) is highly likely to require that the land be zoned under the BLEP 2012,
rather than retaining it within BLEP 1987 under a different zoning.
Under BLEP 2012,
the type of uses suggested by the Rugby Club would be defined as commercial
premises, function centre, or registered club.
Given the dominant use of the property for
sporting fields, the most appropriate zone within BLEP 2012 would be RE1 Public
Recreation.
The objectives of that zone are:
· To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational
purposes.
· To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and
compatible land uses.
· To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational
purposes.
· To provide for a diversity of development that meets the social and
cultural needs of the community.
· To provide for public access to open space and natural recreation
areas.
· To protect and conserve landscapes in environmentally sensitive
areas, particularly in foreshore and visually prominent locations.
· To provide for development that is consistent with any applicable
plan of management.
· To encourage development that achieves the efficient use of
resources such as energy and water
Function centres
and registered clubs are permitted with consent in this zone, but commercial
premises are prohibited. This zone, therefore, would not enable all of
the uses that have been suggested previously by the Rugby Club.
It would,
however, significantly widen the range of uses that would be permissible with
consent, including caravan parks, entertainment facilities, restaurants/ cafes,
and take away food and drink premises.
While most
public sporting fields in the Shire are zoned RE1 Public Recreation, none are
located in the middle of an inter-urban buffer.
Rezoning the
site from its current zoning of 7(i) Environmental Protection (Urban Buffer)
under BLEP 1987 to RE1 Public Recreation under BLEP 2012 would likely have the
effect of eroding the policy foundations of the inter-urban buffer.
Further,
enabling these uses in this particular location is not consistent with
contemporary strategic planning policy for the locality.
Rezoning of the
site from the 7(i) zone to apply an RE1 zoning or equivalent is not
recommended.
New permitted use clause:
It may be
possible to leave the existing zoning of the property in place and insert a new
clause into BLEP 1987 specifying that commercial premises, function centre and/
or club are land uses permitted with consent on the subject land.
It is
considered, however, that DPIE could object to this approach as the uses are
not consistent with the objectives of the site’s zoning. As
indicated, they are likely to require that the site be zoned under BLEP 2012.
As a further
alternative it may be that a smaller scale amendment, for example office use by
1 or 2 Far North Coast Rugby Union administration staff could be enabled.
Regardless of
scale though, permitting additional uses which are predominately urban in their
nature within the designated urban buffer is counter to the intention of the
zone and is not recommended.
Further, whilst
the Rugby Club is the expected primary user of the new sporting clubhouse and
has made substantial commitment to delivery of the infrastructure, these
facilities are ultimately public assets for the benefit of the wider
community.
Land Classification
As outlined
above, Council’s resolution of 27 August 2020 was to reclassify the
sporting fields land from operational to community land.
To ensure
conformity with the terms of the Local Government Act, public notification of
the proposed reclassification has been given and it is now appropriate that
Council affirm its decision to reclassify the land to community land (if
Council wishes to proceed with the change).
As required, the
proposal was publicly notified for 28 days. No submissions were received.
Classification
of the land as community will not prevent or unduly restrict the use of the
site by the Rugby Club in line with the current sporting clubhouse approval
(nor is it expected to unduly restrict use of the fields by other sporting
groups).
It will require
the inclusion of the land, and details of its categorisation and management
arrangements, in the (draft) Plan of Management for Community Land 2021.
This can be accommodated as part of the finalisation of this draft plan (the
community land plan of management is currently being revised in accordance with
the requirements of the Crown Land Management Act reform process).
The community
land classification though may restrict the use of the sporting fields for
commercial type uses such as those previously proposed by the Rugby Club.
The community
land classification is consistent with the maintenance of the existing 7(i)
Environmental Protection (Urban Buffer) Zone.
It is important to note that Council can
also decide to retain the operational land classification. The
operational land classification was applied to this land upon its initial
acquisition as it provides for a more flexible management basis for Council
owned land (within the parameters of planning policy and instruments). If
Council wishes to retain this classification the suggested approach is to
replace point 2 in the recommendations below with:
That Council
does not proceed with the reclassification of the Wollongbar sporting fields to
community land, and retains the operational land classification for this site.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The management
of LEP amendment requests and the associated assessment and processing of such
requests is referenced in action HE3.1j of the Delivery Program and Operational
Plan 2020 – 2024.
The
classification of the property is consistent with adopted
DPOP 2020-2024 under the following strategy/action:
HE3.1 Implement
plans that balance the built environment with the natural environment
HE3.1n Prepare Plans of Management for Crown Reserves where Council
is Land Manager
Community Consultation Policy
Council staff
have previously consulted with Wollongbar Alstonville Rugby Club in relation to
the sporting clubhouse and its future use and will continue to do so.
Given that the
recommendation of this report is that no change be made to the existing zoning,
wider community consultation will not be required in relation to the zoning of
the land (if this option is endorsed). Should Council wish to proceed
with an LEP amendment, community consultation would occur in accordance with
Council’s adopted Community Participation Plan.
Classification
of the property as community land has been the subject of notification to the
community as outlined above.
Financial / Risk Considerations
Future actions
regarding the site zoning and classification can be undertaken within existing
available resources.
The two land
classifications identified in the Local Government Act for the management of
Council owned land are Operational and Community. Operational means that
Council can deal in the land, as per any freehold land parcel (i.e. sell,
provide leases, develop etc) whereas Community Land uses are limited by adopted
Plans of Management and specified uses consistent with the Local Government
Act.
As a general
guide Council’s commercial land holdings and land used for operating
purposes, such as the depot, water and wastewater treatment plants and pumping
stations, are classified as Operational, whereas open space areas are typically
classified as Community.
Also, the
classification of land as Operational or Community does not change the actual
zoning of the land for planning purposes.
Options
With respect to
the zoning and planning provisions applicable to the land, the following
options are available:
Option 1
– Retain the existing zoning of the property 7(i) Environmental
Protection (Urban Buffer).
This is the
preferred option.
The 7(i) zoning
covers a wide area of land and has been an important part of Council’s
Strategic planning for a number of decades. Changing the zoning of the
sports fields site, which is located mid-way between Wollongbar and
Alstonville, would allow range of potential land uses that are not consistent
with the intent of the buffer.
Option 2
– Prepare a Planning Proposal to rezone the property to RE1 Public
Recreation under BLEP 2012.
This option is
not recommended.
In addition to
inconsistency with the intent of the urban buffer and strategic intent for the
area. This approach also allows a wider range of land uses with the
potential to create local land use conflicts and the RE1 zone would not allow
all of the uses previously suggested by the Rugby Club.
The development
of the existing approved sporting clubhouse facilities can proceed without any
change to the land zoning.
Option 3
– Prepare a Planning Proposal to amend BLEP 1987 by inserting a new
clause allowing commercial premises and clubs as land uses permitted on the
property.
This option is
not recommended.
Similar to
option 2, enabling of commercial type uses on the land is inconsistent with the
intent of the urban buffer zoning and strategic intent for the area.
The development
of the existing approved sporting clubhouse facilities can proceed without any
change to the land uses permissible in association with the sporting fields.
In relation to
the reclassification of the land, the options are to apply to community land
classification or retain to operational land classification.
Council
resolved in May 2021 to reclassify the site as community land. It is
recommended that Council confirm this resolution to give effect to the change
in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act. This
approach is consistent with the use of the land for sporting purposes.
For clarity,
under this approach, the Elvery Lane road reserve would not be classified as
community land, but rather would remain designated as a public road.
Alternatively,
Council could also decide to retain the operational land classification.
This is not recommended.
Although not
recommended, with respect to both the classification of the land and the
planning framework, Council could seek further information to assist in
determining the preferred approach to this matter. This could be in the
form of additional reporting or provision of a briefing to Councillors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council retain the existing zoning of 7(i) Environmental Protection (Urban
Buffer) over the Wollongbar sporting fields.
2. That
Council reclassify the Wollongbar sporting fields as community land and
incorporate this classification within the Plan of Management for Community
Land.
Attachment(s)
Nil
9.1 Investment
Summary - January 2022
9. Corporate
and Community Division Reports
9.1 Investment
Summary - January 2022
|
Section
|
Financial Services
|
|
Objective
|
To provide details of Council's cash and
investments portfolio breakup and performance.
|
Background
In accordance
with the Local Government Financial Regulations, the Responsible Accounting
Officer of a Council must provide a monthly investment report setting out
Council’s cash and investments.
The report is to
be presented at the Ordinary Council meeting, immediately following the end of
the respective month. This report has been prepared to confirm the cash
and investments held as at 31 January 2022.
This report
provides details of the total funds invested, where the investments are held
and other related matters, to confirm that Council is complying with the
Investment Policy and to ensure transparency.
Key Issues
· Compliance with Investment Policy
Discussion
Council's
investments are in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy and the
Local Government Act and Regulations. A copy of the Investment Policy is
available on Council’s website.
The total
balance of investments as at 31 January 2022 was $97.5m
which compares to a balance of $99.5m as at 31 December 2021.
Council’s
investments, as at 31 January 2022, were invested at a weighted average
interest rate of 0.513%, which was 0.441% higher than the December average 90
Day Bank Bill Index (BBSW) of 0.072%.
The balance of
the Commonwealth Bank business account as at 31 January 2022 was $9,017,214
which compares to a balance of $8,004,285 as at 31
December 2021.
Total combined
cash and investments as at 31 January 2022 was $106,517,214, compared to
$107,504,285 at 31 December 2021.
The level of
cash inflows and outflows during January were comparable.
TCorp’s
monthly Economic Commentary report for January 2022 can be viewed using the
following link:
https://www.tcorp.nsw.gov.au/resource/010222_Sec.pdf
Restricted
Reserves
The majority of
Council’s investment portfolio is restricted by legislation (external)
and Council (internal) uses for specific purposes. The following table has been
updated to reflect the portfolio percentages based on reserve balances as at 30
June 2021.
|
Reserve Name
|
Restriction
|
% Portfolio*
|
|
Wastewater (incl developer contributions)
|
External
|
17.8%
|
|
Water (incl developer contributions)
|
External
|
19.8%
|
|
Section 7.11 Developer Contributions
|
External
|
14.2%
|
|
Bonds and Deposits
|
External
|
3.8%
|
|
Other External Restrictions
|
External
|
2.1%
|
|
Carry Forward Works
|
Internal
|
3.2%
|
|
Bypass Maintenance
|
Internal
|
3.4%
|
|
Management plans and studies
|
Internal
|
1.8%
|
|
Airport
|
Internal
|
2.8%
|
|
Landfill and Resource Management
|
Internal
|
2.1%
|
|
Employee Leave Entitlements
|
Internal
|
2.8%
|
|
Quarries
|
Internal
|
0.7%
|
|
Property
|
Internal
|
5.9%
|
|
Plant and Vehicle Replacement
|
Internal
|
1.3%
|
|
Road Works
|
Internal
|
3.4%
|
|
Open Spaces and Reserves
|
Internal
|
2.1%
|
|
Community Facilities
|
Internal
|
0.8%
|
|
Miscellaneous Internal Reserves
|
Internal
|
4.3%
|
|
Financial Assistance Grant in Advance
|
Internal
|
2.3%
|
|
Unrestricted
|
|
5.4%
|
|
Total
|
|
100.00%
|
Debtors
Throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic, Council has been receiving updates on our debtor balances.
The following
chart shows the monthly balance of rates and annual charges debtors for the 12
month period ended 31 January 2022 and the percentage variance, in comparison
to the prior 12 month period ended 31 January 2021.
Rates debtors as
at 31 January 2022 were 2.7% lower than the balance from the previous year.
The
rates and annual charges percentage outstanding for Council’s General
Fund, as at 30 June 2021, was 3.83%, which compares favourably to the Office of
Local Government benchmark of 10%.
This
percentage was 2.75% as at 30 June 2019 and 4.57% as at 30 June 2020. Whilst
debtors are now trending downwards, there was a noted increase during the last
two years of the pandemic.
Investments by Institution
|
Funds Invested With
|
Fossil Fuel Free / Green
|
Rating S&P
|
31 December $'000
|
31 January $'000
|
Quota %
|
% of Total
|
|
AMP Bank
|
No
|
BBB
|
3,000
|
5,000
|
10%
|
5.13%
|
|
Auswide Bank
|
Yes
|
BBB
|
2,000
|
2,000
|
10%
|
2.05%
|
|
Bank of Communications
|
No
|
A-
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
20%
|
1.03%
|
|
Bank of Queensland
|
No
|
BBB+
|
4,000
|
3,000
|
10%
|
3.08%
|
|
Bank of Us
|
Yes
|
BBB+
|
5,000
|
5,000
|
10%
|
5.13%
|
|
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank
|
Yes
|
BBB+
|
7,000
|
7,000
|
10%
|
7.18%
|
|
Commonwealth Bank
|
No
|
AA-
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
20%
|
1.03%
|
|
Commonwealth Bank (Green)
|
Yes
|
AA-
|
12,000
|
12,000
|
20%
|
12.31%
|
|
Defence Bank Ltd
|
Yes
|
BBB
|
6,000
|
6,000
|
10%
|
6.15%
|
|
Heritage Bank
|
Yes
|
BBB+
|
5,000
|
5,000
|
10%
|
5.13%
|
|
IMB Ltd
|
Yes
|
BBB
|
4,000
|
2,000
|
10%
|
2.05%
|
|
ME Bank
|
Yes
|
BBB+
|
6,500
|
6,500
|
10%
|
6.67%
|
|
MyState Bank Ltd
|
Yes
|
BBB+
|
5,000
|
6,000
|
10%
|
6.15%
|
|
National Australia Bank
|
No
|
AA-
|
2,000
|
-
|
20%
|
-
|
|
Newcastle Perm Build Society
|
Yes
|
BBB
|
2,700
|
2,700
|
10%
|
2.77%
|
|
Suncorp Limited
|
Yes
|
A+
|
17,300
|
17,300
|
20%
|
17.74%
|
|
Westpac Bank Corp
|
No
|
AA-
|
7,000
|
7,000
|
20%
|
7.18%
|
|
Westpac Bank Corp (Green)
|
Yes
|
AA-
|
9,000
|
9,000
|
20%
|
9.23%
|
|
Total
|
|
|
99,500
|
97,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Rating Summary
|
Maximum Allowed
|
Value
|
Value
|
%
|
%
|
|
as per the Investment Policy
|
%
|
Value
|
31 December
$’000
|
31 January
$’000
|
31 December
|
31
January
|
|
A- or Higher
|
100%
|
99,500
|
49,300
|
47,300
|
49.5%
|
48.5%
|
|
BBB
|
|
60%
|
59,700
|
50,000
|
50,200
|
50.5%
|
51.5%
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
99,500
|
97,500
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Fossil Fuel Free and Green Investments
|
Environmental Classification
|
31 December
|
31 January
|
|
($’000)
|
(%)
|
($’000)
|
(%)
|
|
Fossil Fuel Aligned and Non-Green Investments
|
18,000
|
18
|
17,000
|
17
|
|
Fossil Fuel Free Investments
|
60,500
|
61
|
59,500
|
61
|
|
Green Investments
|
21,000
|
21
|
21,000
|
22
|
|
Total
|
99,500
|
100
|
97,500
|
100
|
In January 2022,
four investments matured totaling $7m. Three new investments totaling $5m were
placed with one being with a fossil fuel aligned institution.
Council’s
Investments Policy has a focus on investing in non-fossil fuel aligned
financial institutions and “green investments” that are offered by
fossil fuel aligned institutions. The policy parameters addressing portfolio
level risks and external market factors can act to reduce or increase the
percentage of investments held with non-fossil fuel aligned institutions.
B. Monthly Comparison of Total Funds Invested
C. Comparison of Portfolio Investment Rate to 90 Day BBSW
D. Progressive Total of Interest Earned to Budget
E. Investments held as of 31 January 2022
|
Purch Date
|
Issuer
|
Type
|
Rate
|
Final Maturity Date
|
31 January
$'000
|
|
03/08/17
|
Westpac Banking Corporation
|
FRN
|
1.1000%
|
03/08/22
|
2,000
|
|
18/08/17
|
Westpac Banking Corporation
|
FRN
|
1.0900%
|
18/08/22
|
1,000
|
|
06/02/18
|
Newcastle Permanent Bld Society
|
FRN
|
1.4450%
|
06/02/23
|
700
|
|
30/07/18
|
Westpac Banking Corporation
|
FRN
|
1.0050%
|
31/07/23
|
1,000
|
|
31/07/18
|
Westpac Banking Corporation
|
FRN
|
1.0050%
|
02/08/23
|
1,000
|
|
06/09/18
|
Newcastle Permanent Bld Society
|
FRN
|
1.4450%
|
06/02/23
|
1,000
|
|
11/01/19
|
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
|
FRN
|
1.2000%
|
11/01/24
|
1,000
|
|
08/02/19
|
Westpac Banking Corporation
|
FRN
|
1.0950%
|
06/02/24
|
2,000
|
|
28/10/19
|
Bank of Communications
|
FRN
|
0.9650%
|
28/10/22
|
1,000
|
|
15/02/21
|
Commonwealth Bank - Green
|
TD
|
0.4100%
|
08/02/22
|
4,000
|
|
22/02/21
|
Commonwealth Bank - Green
|
TD
|
0.4300%
|
15/02/22
|
2,000
|
|
23/02/21
|
Defence Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.4400%
|
22/02/22
|
1,000
|
|
24/02/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
FRN
|
0.4950%
|
24/02/26
|
1,300
|
|
02/03/21
|
Defence Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.4500%
|
01/03/22
|
1,000
|
|
02/03/21
|
Defence Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.4500%
|
01/03/22
|
2,000
|
|
04/03/21
|
Newcastle Permanent Bld Society
|
FRN
|
0.6850%
|
04/03/26
|
1,000
|
|
20/04/21
|
ME Bank
|
TD
|
0.5000%
|
19/04/22
|
2,000
|
|
27/04/21
|
ME Bank
|
TD
|
0.5000%
|
26/04/22
|
1,500
|
|
04/05/21
|
MyState Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.5000%
|
03/05/22
|
1,000
|
|
11/05/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.3300%
|
10/05/22
|
3,000
|
|
18/05/21
|
Westpac Banking Corporation-Green
|
TD
|
0.3000%
|
17/05/22
|
2,000
|
|
24/05/21
|
ME Bank
|
TD
|
0.5000%
|
17/05/22
|
1,000
|
|
08/06/21
|
Westpac Banking Corporation-Green
|
TD
|
0.2800%
|
02/06/22
|
1,000
|
|
08/06/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.3300%
|
07/06/22
|
2,000
|
|
18/06/21
|
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank
|
FRN
|
0.7150%
|
18/06/26
|
1,000
|
|
25/06/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.3300%
|
22/06/22
|
2,000
|
|
29/06/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.3300%
|
28/06/22
|
2,000
|
|
30/06/21
|
Westpac Banking Corporation-Green
|
TD
|
0.3100%
|
14/06/22
|
2,000
|
|
05/08/21
|
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank
|
TD
|
0.3000%
|
08/03/22
|
1,000
|
|
05/08/21
|
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank
|
TD
|
0.3000%
|
08/03/22
|
2,000
|
|
17/08/21
|
Commonwealth Bank - Green
|
TD
|
0.3100%
|
16/08/22
|
4,000
|
|
18/08/21
|
Westpac Banking Corporation-Green
|
TD
|
0.2600%
|
16/08/22
|
2,000
|
|
23/08/21
|
IMB Bank
|
TD
|
0.2800%
|
22/08/22
|
1,000
|
|
25/08/21
|
Defence Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.3500%
|
24/08/22
|
1,000
|
|
01/09/21
|
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank
|
TD
|
0.3000%
|
29/08/22
|
2,000
|
|
03/09/21
|
Westpac Banking Corporation-Green
|
TD
|
0.2800%
|
01/09/22
|
2,000
|
|
06/09/21
|
Bank of Queensland
|
TD
|
0.4300%
|
01/09/22
|
3,000
|
|
14/09/21
|
ME Bank
|
TD
|
0.4000%
|
05/04/22
|
1,000
|
|
21/09/21
|
ME Bank
|
TD
|
0.4000%
|
12/04/22
|
1,000
|
|
01/10/21
|
MyState Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.4000%
|
27/09/22
|
1,000
|
|
05/10/21
|
IMB Bank
|
TD
|
0.3000%
|
04/10/22
|
1,000
|
|
13/10/21
|
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank
|
TD
|
0.3000%
|
11/10/22
|
1,000
|
|
26/10/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.4500%
|
25/10/22
|
2,000
|
|
28/10/21
|
MyState Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.5500%
|
19/10/22
|
2,000
|
|
03/11/21
|
MyState Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.7000%
|
02/11/22
|
1,000
|
|
09/11/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.5200%
|
08/11/22
|
2,000
|
|
11/11/21
|
AMP Bank
|
TD
|
1.0000%
|
08/11/22
|
3,000
|
|
17/11/21
|
Heritage Bank
|
TD
|
0.4700%
|
15/11/22
|
2,000
|
|
18/11/21
|
Heritage Bank
|
TD
|
0.5000%
|
15/11/22
|
3,000
|
|
30/11/21
|
Bank of Us
|
TD
|
0.4000%
|
02/02/22
|
3,000
|
|
30/11/21
|
Defence Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.6000%
|
29/11/22
|
1,000
|
|
01/12/21
|
Bank of Us
|
TD
|
0.4500%
|
22/03/22
|
2,000
|
|
09/12/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.5500%
|
06/12/22
|
2,000
|
|
14/12/21
|
Suncorp-Metway Limited
|
TD
|
0.5500%
|
13/12/22
|
1,000
|
|
15/12/21
|
Commonwealth Bank - Green
|
TD
|
0.5000%
|
08/12/22
|
2,000
|
|
18/01/22
|
Auswide Bank
|
TD
|
0.5500%
|
17/01/23
|
2,000
|
|
20/01/22
|
MyState Bank Ltd
|
TD
|
0.7500%
|
10/01/23
|
1,000
|
|
25/01/22
|
AMP Bank
|
TD
|
1.1000%
|
24/01/23
|
2,000
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
|
97,500
|
|
TD = Term Deposit
|
FRN = Floating Rate Note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the report of banking
and investments for January 2022.
Attachment(s)
Nil
9.2 Local
Roads and Community Infrastructure Program - Phase 3
9.2 Local
Roads and Community Infrastructure Program - Phase 3
|
Section
|
Communications
|
|
Objective
|
To confirm Council's priorities for Phase
3 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program.
|
Background
The Federal
Government introduced the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program
(LRCI) in May 2020. The program “supports local councils to deliver
priority local road and community infrastructure projects across Australia,
supporting jobs and the resilience of local economies to help communities
bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic”.
Council was
allocated $880,244 in Phase 1 and $1,759,958 in Phase 2. Phase 3 has recently
been announced with Council receiving an allocation of $1,760,488.
Projects are to
be delivered by 30 June 2023, with eligible projects classified under two main
categories, as sourced from the program guidelines; i.e.
Local Roads
Projects
Projects that
involve the construction or maintenance of roads managed by local governments.
Local governments are encouraged to consider works that support improved road
safety outcomes.
Community
Infrastructure Projects
Projects that
involve the construction, maintenance and/or improvements to council-owned
assets (including natural assets) that are generally accessible to the public.
‘Generally accessible to the public’ means that the project, or the
amenity provided by the project, is generally accessible to the public at
large.
Some areas are
clearly publicly accessible as they are areas that are open to all members of
the public such as parks, playgrounds, footpaths and roads.
Examples of
eligible works include:
· bicycle and walking paths
· painting or improvements to community facilities
· repairing and replacing fencing
· improved accessibility of community facilities and areas
· landscaping improvements, such as tree planting and beautification
of roundabouts
· picnic shelters or barbeque facilities at community parks
· community/public art associated with an Eligible Project
The next step is
for Council to confirm the priority projects.
Key Issues
· Equitable funding allocation
· Financial sustainability
Discussion
Council has
allocated the funding in Phase 1 and 2 as follows.
Phase 1 Funding
|
Projects
|
Allocation $)
|
|
1. Ballina Heights Sports
Fields – Lighting
|
200,000
|
|
2. Pat Morton Car Park
– Upgrade
|
40,000
|
|
3. Chesworth Lane –
Sealing
|
120,000
|
|
4. Pimlico Hall –
Improvements
|
50,000
|
|
5. Wardell Hall –
Improvements
|
20,000
|
|
6. Ross Park –
Playground Redevelopment
|
250,000
|
|
7. Wollongbar Sports Fields
– Drainage
|
200,000
|
|
Total
|
880,000
|
Phase 2 Funding
|
Projects
|
Allocation $)
|
|
1. Lanes - Amenity Upgrade
|
226,000
|
|
2. Road Reconstruction
– Eltham Road
|
186,000
|
|
3. Sporting Facilities
– Maintenance / Improvements
|
261,000
|
|
4. Community Halls /
Facilities – Maintenance / Improvements
|
157,000
|
|
5. Amenities / Open Space
Buildings – Maintenance / Improvements
|
50,000
|
|
6. Pat Morton Car Park
(reversal)
|
(40,000)
|
|
7. BBQs and Park Shade
Shelters
|
175,000
|
|
8. Administration Centre
Foyer – Lifts
|
75,000
|
|
9. Coastal Walk –
Safety Fencing
|
140,000
|
|
10. Public Amenities –
Improvement Program
|
180,000
|
|
11. Footpaths – Bagot Street
and Canal Road
|
140,000
|
|
12. Footpaths – Grandview
Street
|
70,000
|
|
13. Car Park Sealing –
Serpentine
|
50,000
|
|
14. Car Park Sealing – Rocky
Point Road
|
50,000
|
|
Total
|
1,760,000
|
Four main
criteria are applied in identifying priorities:
1. Core infrastructure works where Council has
insufficient recurrent revenue to adequately fund the renewal and maintenance
of the assets under Council’s management (i.e. roads, halls and
buildings, footpaths etc). Projects identified in years two, three and four of
Council’s adopted capital works program can be brought forward to
increase the funding allocated to an asset class.
2. Essential infrastructure where there is no recurrent
funding and Council struggles to find a funding source for the works.
3. Major projects where stages are incomplete, due to a
lack of funding (eg. Coastal Walk and Coastal Shared Path, Lennox Village
Vision Renewal).
4. The project can be delivered within the timeframe,
typically without the need for complex planning consents.
Priorities one
and two are especially important as Council should be maintaining or renewing
the existing asset base in a timely manner, before funding new infrastructure.
Based on
internal discussions and adopted Council priorities, as per the Delivery
Program and Operational Plan, the recommended allocation for the funding is as
follows.
1. Tamar Street Bus Shelter (opposite Council Chambers)
- $400,000
Asset
inspections of this structure has confirmed that the shelter requires
significant maintenance works and ideally replacement. Council does not have a
recurrent budget for works of this nature.
This project is
currently unfunded in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP) and ten
year long term financial plan.
Tamar Street is
a highly trafficked bus shelter, being the main bus stop in Ballina.
This level of
funding will allow a re-design of the shelter to ensure it is:
· functional and comfortable in all-weather
· furniture design supports personal space
· safe when using the bus stop and surrounding space, with plenty of
passive surveillance.
2. Rock Revetment Wall – River Drive - $680,000
Council has a
recurrent budget of approximately $80,000 for rock revetment wall works. River
Drive (South Ballina), is one area where there is substantial subsidence and
essential works are needed to maintain the integrity of River Drive.
The recommended
funding will not complete the entire scope of works however it will allow
Council to address the highest risk locations.
3. Lennox Village Vision – Byron Street - $480,000
This upgrade of
the Lennox Head Village Centre has received significant funding in 2021/22 and
2022/23, however there are still a number of components of this project
unfunded, including Park Lane, Byron Street and Lennox Park.
From an
infrastructure renewal perspective the improvements to Park Lane and Byron
Street, which include traffic calming, footpath upgrades, parking improvements
and landscaping, are the highest priority, with the cost estimated at $520,000
for Park Lane and $480,000 for Byron Street.
The
recommendation is to fund Byron Street from the Phase 3 funding as the
infrastructure is in poorer condition and traffic volumes are higher.
Further details
on the Lennox Village Vision are available at ballina.nsw.gov.au/Lennox-village-vision
and titled Future Stages.
4. Tanamera Reserve - Re-vegetation, Alstonville -
$200,000
Council has been progressively improving the hydraulic performance
and environmental amenity of the Tanamera Reserve and associated drainage with
Stages 1 and 2 of the project completed.
The drain
through the reserve was created as an open channel without any measures to
dissipate the energy and flow of the water in the drain. This means the water
arrives at downstream locations faster than what would have occurred prior to
the development within the catchment.
A court order
provided certain limits to the maintenance Council could undertake within the
open channel. The purpose of this was to encourage vegetation to be
present that would reduce the flow velocities, however without a formal design
there was amenity issues associated with the water retained in the drain.
These issues
included complaints to Council regarding vermin and insects.
Stages 1 and 2
have involved desilting the drain, improving the hydraulic performance in terms
of energy dissipation and maintaining healthy low level flow regimes, and the
planting of vegetation that creates a sustainable local environment.
This includes
the planting of a selection of native species with a long term canopy growth to
support the management of weeds and to provide an urban forest that contributes
to reducing the velocity of the flows generated by larger rainfall events.
Recently a
concept plan was finalised for Stage 3, the final stage.
This follows
consideration of the performance of the first two stages and community feedback
in respect of the preferences for the presentation of the drain.
Stage 3 is
longer in length compared to Stages 1 and 2.
The revised
concept for Stage 3 will require approval for the works with previous consents
issued for Stages 1 and 2 only.
The $200,000
estimate is a high level estimate only as the concept design is only in a
preliminary phase of development.
Once again there
is limited funding in the recurrent budget for works of this nature and the
$200,000 should allow this project to be completed in full.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The projects
mentioned align with the following Delivery Program Strategies:
· PE3.3 Deliver infrastructure that supports residential living
· HE1.2 Undertake and promote initiatives that improve our waterways
· HE3.2 Minimise negative impacts on the natural environment
Community Consultation Policy
Projects such as
the Lennox Village Vision are consistent with adopted projects of Council
following community engagement.
A number of
other projects, scheduled for 2023/24 onwards in the adopted Delivery Program
and Operational Plan were examined as part of this report.
On balance the
priorities recommended are considered to be the highest priorities for the
reasons outlined in the report.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The funds
allocated by the Federal Government have no matching funding conditions attached.
The LRCI funding
has assisted Council greatly in undertaking works that may not otherwise have
been funded in the short to medium term.
Options
The options
available to Council are to approve the allocation of the LRCI funds as set out
in the discussion section of this report, or amend the allocation based on
other priorities.
The
recommendations are consistent with the report.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council confirms that the following works program is
to be submitted to the Federal Government for approval under Phase 3 of the Local
Roads and Community Infrastructure Program for completion by 30 June 2023.
|
Project Name
|
Allocation
($)
|
|
Tamar Street Bus Shelter, Ballina
|
400,000
|
|
Revetment Wall Works, River Drive
|
680,488
|
|
Lennox Village Vision – Future Stages
|
480,000
|
|
Tanamera Reserve – Re-vegetation, Alstonville
|
200,000
|
|
Total
|
1,760,488
|
Attachment(s)
Nil
9.3 Club
Lennox - Lease Renewal
9.3 Club
Lennox - Lease Renewal
|
Section
|
Commercial Services
|
|
Objective
|
To confirm whether Council wishes to
approve new leases to the Ballina Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd for 10
Stewart Street and Part King Street, Lennox Head.
|
Background
At the
Commercial Services meeting held 16 November 2021, Council considered a request
from the Ballina Bowling and Recreation Club Limited (Cherry Street Sports Club
- BBRC) for a long-term lease over the site currently leased to the Lennox Head
Community Sports and Recreation Club (Club Lennox) being 10 Stewart Street and
part of the King Street road reserve in Lennox Head.
The new leases
are required to facilitate an amalgamation between the BBRC and Club
Lennox.
A copy of the
report and the recommendation from the minutes of the Commercial Services
meeting is included as Attachment 1.
The minutes from
the Commercial Services meeting were reported to the November 2021 Ordinary
meeting and the resolution adopted for this item was as follows:
“That Council
approves the public notification of the proposal to provide a new lease for
Council owned community land at 10 Stewart Street, Lennox Head for a term of 21
years, at 50% rent reduction for the first five years to the Ballina Bowling
and Recreation Club (BBRC) Limited, with that lease not requiring a General
Security Agreement on gaming entitlements due to the financial viability of the
BBRC. This public notice is also to include notification of the new lease for
the King Street Road Reserve for the maximum period permitted of five years.
That Council
provides landowner approval for an application for Club Lennox to temporarily
re-purpose their outdoor spaces such as car parks, bowling greens to serve food
and drinks consistent with the NSW State Government’s Alfresco Restart
Package to help with ensuring the current financial viability of Club
Lennox.”
Following the Council meeting, both
leasing proposals were publicly exhibited as required by the community land
provisions of the Local Government Act.
The purpose of
this report is to provide feedback on submissions received during the
exhibition period and to confirm whether Council wishes to proceed with the
leasing proposals.
Key Issues
· Leasing of community Land and lease terms and rental
· Community benefit from community owned land
Discussion
The leasing
proposals were placed on public exhibition from Tuesday 7 December 2021 to 11
January 2022.
A total of five
submissions were received during the exhibition period being two submissions
for the King Street proposal and three submissions for the Stewart Street
proposal.
Copies of the
submissions are included as Attachments 2 to 6 of this report.
A summary of the
submissions is as follows:
Part King
Street Road Reserve
One submission
was received in support of the King Street proposal and one objection.
The objector
stated that the road reserve should be developed as a wider roadway to provide
on street parking and pedestrian footpaths.
Council’s
Civil Services Division advise that Council has no plans, at this stage, to
widen King Street utilising the area occupied by Club Lennox nor does it have
any plans for a footpath in the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) on
King Street.
Footpath works
are proposed for Stewart Street for 2023/24.
10 Stewart
Street
Three
submissions were received in support of the leasing proposal with one
submission requesting that Council include specific conditions in the lease
relating to legally permitted noise levels.
In relation to
the management of noise, the existing lease over 10 Stewart Street contains the
following provision regarding the operations of the Club relative to matters
such as nuisance and noise.
Clause 6.02 – To conduct its activities in a
reputable and proper manner and not to carry on in any part of the premises any
annoying, noxious, offensive or illegal business, occupation or practice and
the Lessee shall in the course of its permitted use keep noise, odours,
vibration or otherwise to a minimum so as not to be an annoyance, nuisance,
grievance, damage or to neighbouring area or people.
The current
lease over part of King Street has a clause with similar effect (although it is
worded slightly differently).
To provide
Council with the opportunity to address noise related matters in its capacity
as land manager, it is recommended that a provision to the same effect is
included in the new lease.
With respect to
future activities, or proposed development at the site that require development
consent, potential noise impacts can be considered and Council can apply
conditions of consent relating to management of noise, when, and if, a
development consent is granted.
Some activities
of the Club may be defined as exempt development under State Environmental
Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes).
In these
circumstances Council cannot apply conditions from a planning perspective as no
development consent is required.
However, Council
can address noise related matters in its capacity as land manager (strengthened
by appropriate clauses in the lease) and under the terms of the Protection of
the Environment Operations Act (where noise is offensive within the meaning of
that Act).
On the matter of
exempt development, there are currently short term provisions put in place by
the State Government to encourage outdoor dining at registered clubs.
These provisions are currently scheduled to conclude at the end of April, 2022.
Notably though,
one of the requirements for these activities to meet the exempt development
provisions is that the outdoor dining use must not cause offensive noise,
within the meaning of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act
1997, or other nuisance that affects adjoining owners.
In one of the
submissions there is also specific reference to the building's air conditioning
and exhaust vent systems, and in particular recently installed roof top kitchen
extraction vents in relation to noise concerns.
This matter has
been referred to Council’s Public and Environmental Health Section to
determine whether any action is required by the Club.
The lease over
part of the King Street road reserve is a lease under the Roads Act 1993
and cannot exceed five years.
Clause 156 of
the Roads Act 1993 requires Council to consider any submissions that
have been received and may grant the lease, either with or without alteration,
or may refuse to grant the lease.
Given the site
has been occupied for over 20 years and Council has no plans within the next
five years to upgrade King Street, it is reasonable to consider a five year
lease with BBRC.
The lease over
10 Stewart Street Lennox Head is a lease under the Local Government Act
1993. Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council
to consider all submissions made and if any objections are received or the term
exceeds 21 years Council requires Minister’s Consent for the granting of
the lease.
As there were no
objections to 10 Stewart Street and the proposed term of the lease is 21 years,
it is reasonable to consider a 21 year lease with BBRC.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The contents of
this report are related to Delivery Program actions:
PE2.3 Operate
Council business activities that support economic development
PE2.3e
Proactively manage our commercial properties.
Community Consultation Policy
The leasing
proposal for 10 Stewart Street and part King Street road reserve, Lennox Head
was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. A total of five
submissions were received.
Financial / Risk Considerations
Council’s
previous resolution was to include a 50% rent reduction for the first five
years to BBRC.
The advice from
BBRC is they are proposing to undertake significant capital works to improve
the facilities, which will then improve trading and the 50% rent reduction will
assist in this regard.
The works will
include replacement of existing air conditioning system, securing the
boundaries of the premises, refurbishment of parts of the internal building
structure including the food and beverage outlets at the Club.
The rental for
10 Stewart Street lease is typically reviewed to market at the end of every
five years. The King Street road reserve lease would normally be reviewed to
market at the commencement of any lease renewal, as the maximum lease term is
five years.
The current
rental amounts for Club Lennox are:
Stewart
Street
Year 3 rent -
$67,153.71 p.a. + GST (50% discount - $33,576.86 p.a. + GST)
King Street
Year 3 rent -
$6,757.61 p.a. + GST (50% discount - $3,378.81 p.a. + GST).
The rental
figures reflect a 2019 valuation with annual CPI increases.
The 50% rent reduction has been
in place since 2013, including a 100% during the last two years due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The existing
leases expire on 31 December 2024 and Council has previously resolved to
provide a 50% discount for the current term of the leases.
The Stewart
lease is effectively a land lease in that clause 22.1 states that “The
Lessor (Council) acknowledges that all buildings, structures and other
improvements upon the Premises are the property of the Lessee”.
Clause 22.2 then
states that “The Lessee covenants that upon the expiration of this Lease
at any time and for any reasons it shall remove all buildings, structures and
other improvements from the Premises and leave the site clear and level to the
satisfaction of the Lessor”.
In reality it is
extremely unlikely that Council will ever want the lessee to comply with clause
22.2.
The last rental
valuation cost approximately $5,500 in January 2019 and Council could continue
with the current lease figures, indexed annually, for the next five years.
However, with
land values having moved upwards so much in recent years, to ensure
transparency in the new leases, the preference is to obtain a new valuation,
even though the community land market is limited and valuations are difficult
to gauge.
The
recommendations include a new valuation, however Council could amend that
recommendation to reflect the current rentals, indexed each year, if that is
the preferred approach.
Based on the
current rental figures, if the 50% discount is continued, this will equate to a
discount of approximately $185,000 in total for the next five years.
The other
important consideration from a financial and risk perspective is that Council
has traditionally not provided rental discounts where gaming machines form part
of the operations of a facility, albeit that Club Lennox has received a number
of rental discounts in recent years, due to on-going solvency issues.
Council has also
examined options that councils are implementing to manage the impacts of gaming
machines in their local government areas, with options limited as this is
largely a State Government issue. Club Lennox currently has 26 gaming machine
entitlements and 19 machines operating.
Previously
Council has resolved to obtain security over some of the gaming machines due to
concerns in respect to the financial stability of Club Lennox.
BBRC is a far
more financially sound organisation, with their 2020/21 Annual Report
confirming a “record profit of $2,198,763”, which was well in
excess of previous years (2019/20 - $262,289 and 2018/19 - $593,149), and total
equity valued at approximately $8.1m.
Therefore there
is a far lesser risk of default on the rental payments and no need for security
over the gaming machines.
10 Stewart
Street, which is approximately 6,000 square metres in size, has been classified
as community land by Council under the Local Government Act. This means the
land cannot be sold, unless it is reclassified to operational land.
Also, as
community land, the use of the land must be consistent with the community land
categorisation, which is park, as determined by Council.
Section 36G of
the Local Government Act states that the core objectives of community land
categorised as a park are:
a) to encourage, promote and facilitate recreational,
cultural, social and educational pastimes and activities, and
b) to provide for passive recreational activities or
pastimes and for the casual playing of games, and
c) to improve the land in such a way as to promote and
facilitate its use to achieve the other core objectives for its management.
Options
There are a number of options available to
Council in respect to this report.
Option One – Continue with the
November 2021 Ordinary meeting resolution.
Under this option Council grants the lease to BBRC over 10 Stewart Street Lennox Head (Lot 31
DP 119905) for a term of 21 years and over part of the King Street Reserve for
a term of five years with the market rental discounted by 50% for the first
five years. As part of this option, Council will formally release the General
Security Agreement on gaming entitlements.
The onus will be on the BBRC to complete a
reasonable level of capital improvements to the building to justify the 50%
discount for the first five years.
Option Two – Amend the November 2021
Ordinary meeting resolution.
As this is a new lease, Council could
change the magnitude of the rental discount, or the length of the lease, albeit
that this would need to be negotiated with the BBRC.
Club Lennox has advised Council that they
are not in a financial position to continue on with the lease in its current
form and BBRC advise they need a lengthy term, and a discounted rental for the
first five years, to recoup their capital investment in the property.
Any major changes may also need to be
re-exhibited to comply with the community land provisions of the Local
Government Act.
The one other option available to Council
is to call expressions of interest (EOI) for the long term lease of this land.
Council has not conducted its own process for the transfer or renewal of this
lease, as it has largely been a matter of negotiation between BBRC and Club
Lennox.
The proposed lease is for 21 years and a
Council managed EOI process would ensure transparency and also allow Council to
assess the market value of the site, along with all ideas for the site.
Any EOI would have set objectives as
agreed by Council, and there would be the opportunity to potentially remove the
gaming machines, although that would depend on the financial viability of any
EOI received.
The risk with this option is that Club
Lennox may well close while the EOI process is conducted due to their current
financial position. Also the current lease does not expire until 31 December
2024, so any process would need to be conducted in agreement with the current
lessee or delayed until 2024. This option was not supported at the November
2021 Ordinary meeting and is not recommended.
The recommendations that follow are
consistent with the current position of Council, as adopted at the November
2021 Ordinary meeting, including the need for a new valuation.
Point two includes a qualification on the
50% rental discount to ensure that an adequate level of capital expenditure is
undertaken to justify that discount.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council grants a new lease to the Ballina Bowling and Recreation Club Limited
over 10 Stewart Street Lennox Head (Lot 31 DP 119905) for a term of 21 years,
with the market rental discounted by 50% for the first five years of the lease,
with there being no requirement for a General Security Agreement on gaming
entitlements.
2. The
lease over 10 Stewart Street Lennox Head is to incorporate reasonable
conditions for the Ballina Bowling and Recreation Club Limited to demonstrate
progress in respect to the proposed capital improvements, during the five year
period of the market rental discount, with Council having the ability to remove
the discount within the five years, if progress is not achieved to Council’s
satisfaction.
3. That
Council grants a new lease to the Ballina Bowling and Recreation Club Limited
over part of the King Street Road Reserve, for a term of five years, with the
market rental discounted by 50%.
4. That
Council obtain a new market valuation(s) to ensure that the lease rental
figures reflect current market values.
5. The
Council seal is to be applied to all relevant leasing documentation.
Attachment(s)
1. Commercial Services meeting - 16
November 2021 - CLub Lennox report and recommendation ⇨
2. Submission - Proposal to Lease Part
King Street Road Reserve, Lennox Head - Gordon ⇨
3. Submission - Proposal to Lease Part
King Street Road Reserve, Lennox Head - B E Harrington ⇨
4. Submission - Proposal to Lease 10
Stewart Street, Lennox Head - Hargrave ⇨
5. Submission - Proposal to
Lease 10 Stewart Street, Lennox Head - Treasure ⇨
6. Submission - Proposal to
Lease 10 Stewart Street, Lennox Head - B E Harrington ⇨
9.4 Wigmore
Arcade Complex - Leases
9.4 Wigmore
Arcade Complex - Leases
|
Section
|
Commercial Services
|
|
Objective
|
To seek Council's agreement to lease renewals at Wigmore
Arcade.
|
Background
Council staff have been in
negotiations with two tenants in the Wigmore Arcade Complex regarding lease
renewals.
General information is included
in this report relating to these matters with specific rental and lease details
contained in a confidential report included in this meeting agenda.
Key Issues
· Lease terms and
conditions
Discussion
Council has 21 tenancies within
the Wigmore Arcade Complex. Council has been in negotiation with two incumbent
tenants whose leases have expired and have requested new leases.
Newcastle Permanent Building
Society
Newcastle Permanent Building
Society (NPBS) have been in occupation of 137 River Street Ballina since 2008.
The current lease expired 31 December 2021. NPBS have requested a new lease
with specific rental and lease details contained in the confidential report.
Creative Artisans
Creative Artisans occupy shops 1
and 8 within the Wigmore Arcade Complex. They have been in occupation since
2014. Creative Artisans have requested new leases over shops 1 and 8 with
specific rental and lease details contained in the confidential report.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational Plan Activity
The objectives
within this report are consistent with Delivery Program Strategy:
PE2.3 Operate
Council business activities that support economic development
PE2.3e
Proactively manage our commercial properties.
Community Consultation Policy
Council have been in negotiation
with both lessees.
Financial / Risk Considerations
All leases within the Wigmore
Arcade Complex must comply with the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW).
Both tenants have been long term
tenants of Council with good rental records.
Options
This report is provided for
general information purposes only. Detailed commercial and confidential
information is contained in a confidential report included in this meeting
agenda.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the contents of this report in respect
to the Wigmore Arcade leasing matters.
Attachment(s)
1. Wigmore
Arcade Leasing Plan ⇨
9.5 Council
Committees
|
Section
|
Governance
|
|
Objective
|
To respond to two Council resolutions
from the January 2022 Ordinary meeting in respect to the possible formation
of two new Council committees.
|
Background
A report on
Council Committees was submitted to the January 2022 Ordinary meeting, with
Council resolving to form a number of internal committees for this Council
term.
As a result of
that report, Council also resolved to seek further information on two
committees, with the resolutions as follows:
Resolution
270122/30 - That Council receive a report on options for a preferred structure
to undertake the engagement that formed the original terms of reference for the
Port Ballina Taskforce. This report will examine whether there are options to
integrate Council’s Healthy Waterways Program into that structure.
Resolution
270122/32 - That Council receive a report on the formation of a Business
Pandemic Recovery Taskforce (for this term of Council) which includes the
structure and terms of reference.
This report responds to the two
resolutions.
Key Issues
· Effective committee structure that delivers achievable outcomes
· Benefits and cost
Discussion
As mentioned in the January 2022
report, committees can provide a useful strategy for councils to manage the
wide range of information and responsibilities that are presented to the
elected Council.
At the same time committees can
consume resources and time and it is important that day to day operations do
not become tied down with an overly cumbersome committee structure.
Any new committees should be
resourced to achieve determined outcomes and the membership should support
those outcomes being achieved.
Resolution - Port Ballina
Taskforce and Healthy Waterways Program
The Port Ballina Taskforce was
formed in 2013 with the membership initially consisting of the Mayor,
Councillors (two), Ballina Chamber of Commerce (two), Ballina Fishermen’s
Co-operative (two), State Government – Department of Premier and Cabinet
and community representatives (two).
The membership has been altered
over the years with the most recent meeting having four councillors in
attendance, as well as representatives from Transport for NSW – Maritime,
Ozfish Unlimited (sustainable fishing group), Ballina Chamber of Commerce,
Ballina Fishermen’s Co-operative and community representatives. The two
community representatives are currently James Foster (from Env Solutions
Ballina) and Michael Cocks (Ballina Slipway and Marine Services).
Representatives from Crown Lands
and NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet occasionally attend meetings.
The current terms
of reference for the Taskforce are as follows:
The
objective of the Port Ballina Taskforce is to improve the overall marine
infrastructure and marine environment for Ballina, through the promotion and
lobbying of activities that result in improvements to:
a) Overall health of the Richmond River
b) Safer boating
c) Marine infrastructure both commercial and public
d) Tourism and business opportunities
e) Recognising and preserving Ballina's maritime history
f) Implementation of existing strategies and
studies such as the Ballina Foreshore Master Plan.
Since 2013, a key focus of this
Taskforce has been on pursuing major actions such as dredging the Ballina bar,
dredging North Creek, and supporting the implementation of the Martin Street
Boat Harbour Master Plan and the Ballina Marina Master Plan.
The difficulty for the Taskforce
has always been that many of these actions are the responsibility of the State
Government and there is little Council can do but to increase State Government
awareness of the projects, which has been achieved.
Another difficulty is that
Council has very little in the way of recurrent funding allocated in the long
term financial plan for these types of works, which again means there are
limited actions that can be implemented.
One positive note in recent years
has been Council obtaining State Government approval for a special rate
variation that now provides approximately $330,000 in recurrent funding for
Council’s Healthy Waterways Program.
Council last received an update
on this program at the November 2021 Ordinary meeting (copy of report available
on the Council website) and the attachment to that report, which provides a
good overview of the program, is included as Attachment 1.
A number of the original
objectives of the Port Ballina Taskforce align with the Healthy Waterways
Program (i.e. improved fishing, modern infrastructure to minimise environmental
impacts, improved water flow) and with the Healthy Waterways Program having a
recurrent budget and Council employees overseeing the program, there is an
opportunity to still engage with key stakeholders and achieve actual outcomes.
Based on these comments, a new
terms of reference could be as follows:
Title
Waterways Advisory Group
Terms of Reference
The primary objective is to
pursue the restoration of the waterways within the Ballina Shire to a healthy
state, while supporting social and economic benefits that a healthy and diverse
waterway system can bring to our community.
Key responsibilities include:
· Provide
input into Council’s annual healthy waterways program
· Assist
in on-going monitoring of the health of the Ballina Shire waterways
· Identify
opportunities to lobby industry, the State and Federal Governments and other
stakeholders for support in implementing actions that improve the health of our
waterways and benefit the local economy
· Monitor
the implementation of Council’s adopted plans for improving our
waterways, including but not limited to:
a) Lake Ainsworth Coastal Management Plan
b) Shaws Bay Coastal Management Plan
c) North Creek Coastal Management Plan (in
preparation)
d) Richmond River Estuary Coastal Zone
Management Plan (under review in conjunction with Rous, Lismore and Richmond
Valley councils)
e) Ballina Shire Coastline Management Plan
f) Martin Street Boat Harbour Master
Plan
g) Ballina Marina Master Plan
Authority
Advisory
Meetings
Council will co-ordinate meetings
of this group, at least twice per annum, to examine actions underway,
improvements made, and to recommend strategies to assist with enhancing the
health of our waterways.
Members
Councillors (two)
Community Representatives (two)
Transport for NSW –
Maritime
Department of Planning, Industry
and Environment – Fisheries
Department of Planning, Industry
and Environment – Crown Lands
Ballina Fishermen’s
Co-operative
Ozfish Unlimited
Ballina Environmental Society
With the Healthy Waterways
Program supporting environmental and economic outcomes, the proposed membership
tries to balance the relevant interest groups. Both community representatives,
who have been long standing members of the Taskforce, have indicated they wish
to remain as members of the new group and due to the shorter term of Council,
and their knowledge of the Taskforce, a continuation of their existing
membership is supported.
Business Pandemic Recovery
Taskforce
In respect to the second
resolution, the deputation from the Ballina Chamber of Commerce at the January
2022 Ordinary meeting, focused strongly on activating evening activities,
particularly in the Ballina town centre.
Council has been committed to enhancing
and promoting the town centres for many years, with some of the major actions
taken including:
· Town Centre
Redevelopment / Beautification Program – Council has completed
multi-million dollar beautifications of Alstonville and Ballina during the last
decade, with the current Lennox Village Vision Renewal program allocated close
to $8m. Improvements to the waterfront have also been implemented in Wardell,
along with a significant refurbishment of the Wigmore Arcade.
· In 2019 Council
completed an amendment to the Ballina LEP 2012 that enabled additional
residential housing within the Ballina CBD. Previously only shop top
housing was permitted in the commercial centre (meaning housing above ground
floor commercial premises). The amendment broadened housing options by
permitting residential flat buildings on specific sites (which enables housing
at ground floor as well as on upper stories) whilst also reinforcing the need
for active commercial street frontages.
The implementation of
this change arose from the Ballina Major Regional Centre Strategy which
includes an action to increase residential development in the Ballina
CBD. This came about for various reasons including supporting the
vibrancy of the CBD by having more people live in the area and enabling people
to live in close proximity to the services and facilities the CBD offers.
Objectives of the change also included encouraging increased investment in the
CBD, promotion of pedestrian traffic and supporting business and social outcomes
through an additional housing type in the CBD.
There is currently one
proponent pursuing this option, however it is likely to be five to ten years
before any long term benefits eventuate.
From a Council
perspective the difficulty is that Council can provide incentives or
opportunities however there is no guarantee that this will translate into
actions by the businesses or property owners.
In reviewing options for this
Taskforce, discussions were held with Business NSW (NSW’s peak business
organisation) who provided examples of Taskforces from other localities, with
three included as Attachments 2 and 4 to this report (Canmore - Canada, Hepburn
– Victoria and a framework applied by Central Coast - NSW).
Even though they relate more to
Taskforces and actions taken at the height of the pandemic in 2020, they are
good examples of the options available.
In discussions with the Ballina
Chamber of Commerce, the deputation to the January 2022 Ordinary meeting, was
focused on activating the Ballina Town Centre, not just in the evenings, but
also during the day, especially when town centres are negatively impacted by
employees working from home.
In summary, there are two main
options available:
Option 1 – Create a broader
pandemic recovery taskforce with a fixed term focused on the pandemic.
Option 2 - Create an on-going
town centre vitalisation group, initially focused on Ballina and then
potentially other town centres, subject to successful outcomes being achieved.
A broader pandemic recovery
taskforce could be based on the following terms of reference.
Title
Ballina Shire Business Pandemic
Recovery Taskforce
Terms of Reference
To monitor the local economy and
to share ideas and strategies underway or planned that support the business
community in recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Authority
Advisory
Meetings
Council will co-ordinate meetings
of this Taskforce, at least once every three months. The term of the Taskforce
for the current term of Council.
Members
Mayor
Business NSW
Ballina Chamber of Commerce
Lennox Head Chamber of Commerce
Alstonville Chamber of Commerce
(subject to operating)
Destination NSW
Regional Development Australia
Two industry representatives as
nominated by the Chambers of Commerce
The Ballina Town Centre
Vitalisation Group could be based on the following terms of reference.
Title
Ballina Town Centre Activation
Group
Terms of Reference
To bring together key
stakeholders in the Ballina Town Centre to share and promote ideas and
strategies that support:
· long term economic
sustainability of the Ballina Town Centre
· increased
diversity of activities with the Ballina Town Centre, both business and social
· actions that
increase day and night activities that optimise the benefits from the
infrastructure and businesses located in the Ballina Town Centre.
Authority
Advisory
Meetings
Council will co-ordinate meetings
of this group, at least once every three months.
Members
Councillors (two)
Ballina Chamber of Commerce
(nominate four industry representatives from key industry sectors)
Destination NSW or Visitor
Economy Representative
In respect to the Ballina Shire
Business Pandemic Recovery Taskforce, many of the key stakeholders mentioned
are already actively involved in consultation with Ballina Shire and other councils
across the region.
Destination NSW and Regional
Development Australia attend meetings of the Northern Rivers Joint
Organisation. Business NSW is active with the Chambers of Commerce and Council
holds regular meetings with the Chambers of Commerce, although they have been a
little inconsistent lately due to the pandemic.
From an economic activity
perspective the Ballina Shire continues to have one of the lowest unemployment
rates in the region, with the latest figures available confirming a rate of 3.4%,
compared to 4.9% for regional NSW, 5.5% for NSW, and 5.6% for Australia. These
figures and other economic data is available on Council’s website as per
the following link;
https://economy.id.com.au/ballina/unemployment
The feedback from Business NSW is
that the hardest hit areas for the
Northern Rivers are in the visitor economy, especially businesses related to
hospitality, accommodation and activities.
Both the State and Federal Governments are continuing to
provide stimulus programs for these sectors and as NSW and the rest of
Australia progressively move away from pandemic restrictions it is hoped that
these areas will recover to pre-pandemic levels of activity.
Many pandemic taskforces have
been wound up as Australia slowly moves away from the pandemic restrictions and
a key issue for the future is to plan for any long term impacts from the
pandemic.
One of the main issues that is
highlighted is the impact on office space and town centres as more and more
people move to regional areas and work from home, often in a hybrid model (part
of the week in the office and part from home).
There are a number of positive
stories about town centres (or high streets as they are often referenced) being
closed to traffic for a short period and a range of community activities then
taking place to encourage increased community use of the town centre. Sydney
City is one example of a council promoting this type of activity.
If “high streets’ are
going to survive and prosper, with more and more people working from home, it
will be essential for there to be a mix of business and social activity taking
place within the town centres.
On balance the initial creation
of the Ballina Town Centre Activation Group is the preferred approach, as this
is an area that Council can potentially gain the most traction and has the most
influence through planning controls and infrastructure.
It is also not duplicating other
consultation that is taking place on a broader level in respect to the
pandemic.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
This report is
consistent with Delivery Program strategy El1.2; i.e.
Involve our community in
our planning and decision making processes
Community Consultation Policy
The committees
outlined are aimed at improving and expanding Council’s consultations for
the areas identified (Waterways, Ballina Town Centre). Consultation has
occurred with Business NSW and the Ballina Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is
supportive of the proposed Ballina Town Centre Activation Group.
Financial / Risk Considerations
There are no
risk considerations in forming any new committees. The key issue is to ensure
that the benefits of establishing the committees more than offsets the
resources needed to service and support the committees.
It is also
important that a committee can deliver outcomes as otherwise members can become
frustrated with the process.
Options
There are a
range of options available in respect to the committees / taskforces discussed
within this report.
On balance
there is merit in restructuring the Port Ballina Taskforce to a Waterways
Advisory Group and recommendation one supports this approach.
This group
would be supported by staff from Council’s Public and Environmental
Health Section and there is a recurrent budget funding on-going activities by
Council.
In respect to
the impacts of the pandemic on business, as per the discussion section of this
report, the preference is to create a Ballina Town Centre Activation
Group.
This group is consistent with
the deputation from the Ballina Chamber of Commerce to the January 2022
Ordinary meeting, and town centres are one of the main areas that risk facing
long term negative impacts from the pandemic, due to a far greater number of
employees working in in a hybrid model (from the office and home).
This group can potentially be
expanded to other town centres, subject to a future review of the effectiveness
of the group.
This group would be supported by
staff from Council’s Corporate and Community Division, particularly the
Commercial Services Section, due to Council’s large commercial property
holdings in the Ballina Town Centre.
Recommendation
two supports this approach.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council approves the formation of the Waterways Advisory Group based on the
following terms of reference:
Terms
of Reference
The
primary objective is to pursue the restoration of the waterways within the
Ballina Shire to a healthy state, while supporting social and economic benefits
that a healthy and diverse waterway system can bring to our community.
Key
responsibilities include:
· Provide input into Council’s annual healthy
waterways program
· Assist in on-going monitoring of the health of the
Ballina Shire waterways
· Identify opportunities to lobby industry, the State
and Federal Governments and other stakeholders for support in implementing
actions that improve the health of our waterways and benefit the local economy
· Monitor the implementation of Council’s adopted
plans for improving our waterways, including but not limited to:
h) Lake Ainsworth Coastal Management Plan
i) Shaws Bay Coastal Management Plan
j) North Creek Coastal Management
Plan (in preparation)
k) Richmond River Estuary Coastal Zone
Management Plan (under review in conjunction with Rous, Lismore and Richmond
Valley councils)
l) Ballina Shire Coastline
Management Plan
m) Martin Street Boat Harbour Master Plan
n) Ballina Marina Master Plan
Authority
Advisory
Meetings
Council
will co-ordinate meetings of this group, at least twice per annum, to examine
actions underway, improvements made, and to recommend strategies to assist with
enhancing the health of our waterways.
Members
Councillors
(two as determined by Council)
Community
Representatives – Mr James Foster and Mr Michael Cocks
Transport
for NSW – Maritime
Department
of Planning, Industry and Environment – Fisheries
Department
of Planning, Industry and Environment – Crown Lands
Ballina
Fishermen’s Co-operative
Ozfish
Unlimited
Ballina
Environmental Society
2. That
Council approves the formation of the Ballina Town Centre Activation
Group based on the following terms of reference:
Terms
of Reference
To
bring together key stakeholders in the Ballina Town Centre to share and promote
ideas and strategies that support:
· long term economic sustainability of the Ballina Town Centre
· increased diversity of activities with the Ballina
Town Centre, both business and social
· actions that increase day and night activities that
optimise the benefits from the infrastructure and businesses located in the
Ballina Town Centre.
Authority
Advisory
Meetings
Council
will co-ordinate meetings of this group,
at least once every three months.
Members
Councillors
(two as determined by Council)
Ballina
Chamber of Commerce (nominate four industry representatives from key industry
sectors)
Destination
NSW or Visitor Economy Representative
Attachment(s)
1. Healthy Waterways Program - 2021 ⇨
2. Taskforce - Canmore (Canada) ⇨
3. Taskforce - Hepburn ⇨
4. Taskforce - Central Coast ⇨
9.6 Tender
- Coastal Recreational Walk Structure 1
9.6 Tender
- Coastal Recreational Walk Structure 1
|
Section
|
Engineering Works
|
|
Objective
|
To report the outcomes of the tender
evaluation for the Tender - Coastal Recreational Walk Structure 1
|
Background
Council
considered a tender report for the construction of the Coastal Recreation Walk
at the February 2020 Ordinary Meeting. As part of the tender process all
contractors provided pricing for the full scope of works.
Due to budgetary
constraints Council resolved not to accept any tenders and to enter into
negotiations with A.J. Bennett & V. Skewes t/a B&S Landscaping and
Earthworks.
In April 2020
Council awarded a contract for the construction of the Coastal Recreational
Walk. This contract excluded a number of components of the total project,
including the construction of ‘Structure 1’.
Structure 1 (a
viewing platform) is to be located to the north of Sharpes Beach car park and
includes approximately 60m of boardwalk/viewing platforms and a further 60m of
connecting asphalt path. An extract from the design plans is included as
Attachment 1 to this report.
Council was
successful in securing grant funding in October 2021 through the State
Government’s Bushfire Local Economic Recovery (BLERF) program to allow
the construction of ‘Structure 1’ as per the original plans.
This report
outlines the preferred approach to procuring the contractor to construct
Structure 1.
Key Issues
· Comply with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021
· Obtain value for money
Discussion
Council
has been undertaking the construction of the Coastal Recreation Walk and
Coastal Shared Path projects for a number of years. This has included the award
of the following contracts, including number of submissions received:
· Coastal Recreational Walk Stage 1 (RFT817) – two submissions
· Coastal Shared Path (RFT1164) – three submissions
· Coastal Recreational Walk Stage 2 (RFT1204) – two submissions
The
contracts included requirements to build structures made from a composite fibre
product supplied by Wagners CFT Manufacturing Pty Ltd. This product is
specified as it is made from recycled material, it is durable and achieves good
results from a whole of life cost perspective.
B&S
Landscaping and Earthworks was the successful tenderer for all three contracts.
Having regard to this history, Council initiated communications with B&S
Landscaping and Earthworks to determine their interest and availability to
re-price and deliver the construction of Structure 1 and the connecting asphalt
path.
This approach
recognises that B&S Landscaping and Earthworks are familiar with the
various constraints (vegetation, heritage etc.) of the area having worked on
the nearby shared path and coastal walk and their pricing has always been the
most competitive.
They have also
developed very effective professional relationships with Council’s
Heritage Consultants and the Registered Aboriginal Parties who are involved in
this project.
The current
submission from B&S Landscaping is 4.2% higher than the previous 2020
submission. This is a very reasonable price when considering the inflation
rates for material and labour costs.
By way of
comparison, Council has experienced a 26% increase in the contract rates for
the supply and laying of asphalt over the period between 2018 and 2021, albeit
it is noted that asphalt costs are only 20% of the scope of work for this
project.
The previous
tender from B&S Landscaping was approximately $50,000 less expensive than
the other submission received. The current price from B&S Landscaping
is still more competitive than the pricing submitted by the other tenderer in
the previous tender process.
In light of the
above, it is considered that a new public tender process would be unlikely to
yield a more competitive pricing to complete the works.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational Plan Activity
The works were
identified previously as part of PE1.1 – Promote our area as an
attractive place to visit. “Structure 1” forms part of additional
works for the Coastal Walk as per the capital works program for 2021/22, with
the additional works having a total budget of $770,000.
Community
Consultation Policy
A public tender
process was conducted in 2020. The coastal walk and coastal shared path
projects were subject to significant community consultation during the design
and planning consent phases.
Financial / Risk
Considerations
Funding has been
provided from the Bushfire Local Economic
Recovery (BLERF). The total cost of the
preferred tender is $375,538 (excluding GST).
Options
Excerpts from
Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to tendering are as
following, with the recommendation reflecting clause 3 (i).
(1) A
council must invite tenders before entering into any of the following
contracts:
(a) a
contract to carry out work that, by or under any Act, is directed or authorised
to be carried out by the council
(b) a
contract to carry out work that, under some other contract, the council has
undertaken to carry out for some other person or body
(c) a
contract to perform a service or to provide facilities that, by or under any
Act, is directed or authorised to be performed or provided by the council
(d) a
contract to perform a service or to provide facilities that, under some other
contract, the council has undertaken to perform or provide for some other body
(e) a
contract for the provision of goods or materials to the council (whether by
sale, lease or otherwise)
(f) a
contract for the provision of services to the council (other than a contract
for the provision of banking, borrowing or investment services)
(g) a
contract for the disposal of property of the council
(h) a
contract requiring the payment of instalments by or to the council over a
period of 2 or more years
(i) any
other contract, or any contract of a class, prescribed by the
regulations.
(2) This
section does not apply to the following contracts:
(i)
a contract
where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the
unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by
resolution (which states the reasons for the decision) that a satisfactory
result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council in accordance with Section 55 clause 3 (i) of the Local Government Act,
resolves not to invite tenders for the Coastal Recreational Walk - Structure 1,
due to extenuating circumstances. The extenuating circumstances relate to the
proposed pricing being reasonably consistent with the original tender process,
the contractor has extensive experience in this location and the pricing is
still below the second tender pricing from 2020, recognising that that there
have been significant construction cost increases during the last two years.
2. That
Council, in accordance with Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Section
178(3)(e) authorises the General Manager to enter into negotiations with
B&S Landscaping Pty Ltd, with a view to enter into a contract for the Tender - Coastal Recreational Walk Structure 1 based on the
contents of this report.
3. That
Council authorises the General Manager to sign the contract documents.
Attachment(s)
1. Extract from Coastal Recreational
Walk Plans - Structure 1 Locality ⇨
9.7 Tender
- Geotechnical Consultancy Services
9.7 Tender
- Geotechnical Consultancy Services
|
Section
|
Engineering Works
|
|
Objective
|
To report the outcomes of the tender
evaluation for the Tender - Geotechnical Consultancy Services
|
Background
The works to be
undertaken under this contract are for Geotechnical
Consultancy Services.
The procurement
of geotechnical consultancy services is an essential step in delivering road
construction projects within Council’s capital works program.
These services
are procured on a regular basis and are necessary to ensure that
Council’s construction crews have a thorough understanding of site
conditions and enables roads to be constructed to the required design life.
Tenders were
called in September 2021 and at
the close of tenders on 14 September 2021, two tender submissions were received.
This report
outlines the results of the tender process.
Key Issues
· Comply with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021
· Obtain value for money
Discussion
Eleven companies downloaded the documentation with tenders received from:
· Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
· CMW Geosciences (NSW) Pty Ltd
The tender
submissions were assessed to ensure conformance with the conditions of tender
and the mandatory criteria, being:
· Insurance
· Required registrations or accreditations
Both tender
submissions met the mandatory assessment and were assessed using the following
weighted assessment criteria:
· Pricing structure 70%
· Local and community 15%
· Experience and capability 15%
Details of the
assessment and pricing options have been provided to Councillors by a
confidential memorandum.
Delivery Program
Strategy / Operational Plan Activity
Geotechnical
services will be procured as part of delivering Council’s capital works
program as outlined in the Delivery Program and Operation Plan.
Community
Consultation Policy
Council has
undertaken a public tender process in accordance with the Local Government
(General) 2021.
Financial / Risk
Considerations
The services will
be funded directly from the respective project budgets to which they relate.
Options
The options for
Council are set out in Part 7 Section 178 (1) of the Local Government (General)
Regulation 2021, which requires that:
(1) After considering the tenders submitted for a proposed contract,
the council must either:
(a) accept the tender that, having regard to all the
circumstances, appears to it to be the most advantageous, or
(b) decline to accept any of the tenders.
Based on the
tender evaluation, it is recommended that Council declines to accept any
tenders.
Sections 178(3)
and (4) of the regulations provide direction in the circumstances where a
Council declines to accept any tenders in accordance with section 178(1)(b);
i.e.
(3) A council that decides not to accept any of the tenders for a
proposed contract or receives no tenders for the proposed contract must, by
resolution, do one of the following:
(a) postpone or cancel the proposal for the contract,
(b) invite, in accordance with clause 167, 168 or 169,
fresh tenders based on the same or different details,
(c) invite, in accordance with clause 168, fresh
applications from persons interested in tendering for the proposed contract,
(d) invite, in accordance with clause 169, fresh
applications from persons interested in tendering for contracts of the same
kind as the proposed contract,
(e) enter into negotiations with any person (whether or
not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in
relation to the subject matter of the tender,
(f) carry out the requirements of the proposed
contract itself.
(4) If a council resolves to enter into negotiations as referred to
in subclause 3 (e), the resolution must state the following:
(a) the council’s reasons for declining to
invite fresh tenders or applications as referred to in subclause (3)
(b)–(d),
(b) the council’s reasons for determining
to enter into negotiations with the person or persons referred to in subclause
(3) (e).
This approach
will enable staff, prior to the issue of a letter of award, to resolve any
outstanding points in the contract and confirm the final scope of works with a
preferred contractor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021
Section 178(1)(b), declines to accept any tenders for the Tender
- Geotechnical Consultancy Services as the tendered amounts do not
represent value for money and the tender process did not capture a number of
services providers within the local area.
2. That
Council, in accordance with Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 Section
178(3)(e) authorises the General Manager to enter into negotiations with any
person (whether or not the person was a tenderer), with a view to enter into a
contract for the Tender - Geotechnical Consultancy Services.
3. That
in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 Section
178(4)(a) the reason Council has declined to invite fresh tenders is that the
tender process has established sufficient market interest through the
downloading of tender documentation, and it is more efficient and timely for a
contract of this nature, to negotiate with interested parties than call for new
submissions.
Attachment(s)
1. Confidential Memorandum - Tender
Assessment - Geotechnical Consultancy Services (Under separate cover)
(Confidential)
9.8 Legal
Matters - Update
9.8 Legal
Matters - Update
|
Section
|
Governance
|
|
Objective
|
To provide an update on Council legal
matters.
|
Background
This is a regularly quarterly report that provides an
update on legal matters to ensure that the community is informed on Council
litigation.
Key Issues
· Type, outcomes and
cost of litigation
Discussion
A brief summary of recent legal
case details follows, including an overview of the case and costs incurred. The
actual costs incurred relates to external payments for legal representation and
expert witnesses and does not include the value of the significant staff time
incurred in litigation involving Council.
|
Council Legal Rep
|
Applicant
|
Description
|
Estimate ($)
|
Actual
($)
|
|
Parker and Kissane
|
Palmlake Works Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council
|
Land and Environment Court – Class 1 Appeal
Proceedings – Challenge deemed refusal of development application
2018/321.
|
750,000
|
766,000
|
|
Comment
DA 2018/321 was for an extension to an existing
Seniors Housing Development (Palm Lake Resort) for 156 self-care dwellings,
recreation facilities, car parking, infrastructure works, site filling and
associated works.
The applicant lodged Class 1 proceedings in the Land
and Environment Court for a deemed refusal. A decision was handed down on 4 October 2019 with
the amended development application approved with conditions. Council
appealed the decision and the appeal was upheld on 29 April 2020.
As part of the decision, it was ordered that the
proceedings be remitted back to the original Commissioner for judgment.
On 26 June 2020 the Commissioner ruled that the case
would not be reopened. On 30 June 2020, Council received advice from the
applicant discontinuing the proceedings.
This concluded the matter except for costs, with
Council recently having received $181,700 in costs reimbursement.
Links to the appeal and the ruling that the case
would not be re-opened are as follows:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5ea78eeee4b0f66047ed8da3
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1727c7b2f327f15eaed37d83
|
|
Lindsay Taylor
Lawyers
|
Jason and Joanne
White v Ballina Shire Council
|
Land and
Environment Court - Class 1 Appeal Proceedings – Challenge
Council’s Refusal of development application 2018/381.
|
100,000
|
96,000
|
|
Comment
DA 2018/381 involves the decommissioning of an
existing dwelling and construction of a new two-storey dwelling and swimming
pool as well as upgrading of an existing internal access way at 404 Old Byron
Bay Road, Newrybar. Council refused the application at the December 2019
Ordinary meeting and the applicant lodged an appeal.
A third party joined the proceedings, with this
party raising issues additional to those set out in Council’s statement
of facts and contentions.
The hearing was finalised on 4 December 2020 and on 29 October 2021 the Court ruled that
the refusal was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
A link to the judgement is as follows:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17b098435bc9edc17ae32aaa
This matter involved some detailed and complex
elements relating to the application of LEP provisions and biodiversity
provisions.
The application of the relatively new Biodiversity
Conservation Act and its intersection with land use planning formed a central
part of the hearing and judgement.
Case law is now progressively providing clarity as
to how the Court sees the new biodiversity laws and how they should be
applied in a planning context.
Following on from the Court hearing and judgement,
Council has sought legal advice in relation to options for action for
vegetation restoration on the land. Staff are currently reviewing
advice provided by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. This is a fairly complex
matter requiring consideration of potential costs, possible environmental
benefits, opportunity for the landowner to lodge new development applications
and the context of the issues relative to the Court action undertaken in
relation to this property. Staff intend to address the matter of the
vegetation restoration in line with the legal advice received.
|
|
Parker and
Kissane
|
Monica and Allan
Anderson v Ballina Shire Council
|
Land and
Environment Court – Class 1 Appeal Proceedings –
Challenge to Council’s refusal of DA 2020/49.
|
50,000
|
47,000
|
|
Comment
DA 2020/49 is
for the proposed subdivision of two existing rural zoned lots to create three
lots, including one split lot. Council staff determined the application by
way of refusal under delegated authority on 22 July 2020. This
determination was appealed by the applicant.
On 22 October
2020 the applicant was granted leave by the Court to amend the proposed
plans. A Section 34 Conciliation Conference was held on 24 March 2021
with the matter not resolved through the conference.
The hearing was
held 27 – 28 July 2021. Council was advised in early August that the
refusal had been upheld by the Court.
A link to the judgement
is available as follows:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17b0fb7f86bd21a0e164dadf
|
Lindsay Taylor
Lawyers
|
Griffani and
Griffani v Ballina Shire Council
|
Land and
Environment Court - Class 1 Appeal Proceedings – Challenge to
Council’s refusal of development application 2019/30.
|
100,000
|
53,000
|
|
Comment
DA 2019/30
involves the erection of eight holiday cabins and the temporary use of the
land for wedding ceremonies. Council refused the application at the December
2019 Ordinary meeting. A third party (closest neighbour) joined the appeal
and attended the Section 34 Conciliation Conference on 11 November 2020.
The applicant
provided further material in the shape of turning circles and a traffic
management plan, which was satisfactory to Council. This was subject to
agreement on the conditions.
The third party
was not in agreement with the material, with additional issues raised as to
permissibility of the acoustic impact of the temporary use, and the use of
the communal facility.
Further
suggestions were made as to the possible relocation of the communal facility,
closer to the tourist and visitor accommodation, in order to resolve the
third party concerns.
The third party
did not accept this, insisting upon the removal of the facility and the
reduction in tourist cabins from eight to three. The applicant rejected this.
Subsequently,
the Commissioner terminated the conciliation conference. The proceedings were
adjourned to allow the applicant to put on a notice of motion to amend the
Griffani’s application so that it incorporates the traffic management
plan and changes to the access way, which are the basis for the resolution of
the traffic issues from Council’s perspective.
On 17 December
2020, the applicant was successful in obtaining leave of the Court to amend
the development proposal.
The applicant
deleted the temporary use of the land for wedding ceremonies from the
proposal.
The third party
objector remained unsatisfied with the amended proposal and the matter was
heard from 22 – 24 June 2021.
On 29 October
2021 the Court ruled that the appeal was upheld and DA 2019/30 is determined
by the grant of consent for “the staged development of eight holiday
cabins (maximum 24 guests) and extension to existing shed for use as a
communal area. Staging of the development is proposed as follows - (a) Stage
1 – Tourist and Visitor Accommodation – Three cabins and
associated civil works (driveway and car park) and Communal Area; and (b)
Stage 2 – Tourist and Visitor Accommodation – Five cabins”.
The third party
to the proceedings initially lodged an appeal to this decision but shortly
after filed a notice of discontinuance.
A link to the
judgement is as follows:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17cbf7745606e8fe0dd65a39
|
Lindsay Taylor
Lawyers
|
Intrapac
Skennars Head Pty. Ltd. v Ballina Shire Council
|
Land and
Environment Court - Class 1 Appeal Proceedings – Challenge to
deemed refusal of modification application relating to developer
contributions payable under conditions of consent for development application
2017/244.
|
250,000
|
243,000
|
|
Comment
The applicant
lodged an appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court on the basis of
deemed refusal of a modification to the development consent that would have
the effect of reducing the developer contributions payable by Intrapac in
relation to the Aureus development. The matter was heard by the Court in
November 2020.
The appeal was
dismissed by the Court on 8 January 2021 with an order that the subject
modification application to reduce the developer contributions be refused.
Intrapac
subsequently lodged an appeal against the Court’s decision. The appeal
hearing was held 21 July 2021. The appeal was dismissed by the Court on
10 August 2021 with the costs of the appeal awarded to Council. Council was
subsequently paid $30,700 in costs recovery.
A link to the
appeal judgement is as follows:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17b290a7c3d2beb6fc9b4805
|
|
Lindsay Taylor
Lawyers
|
Planners North
vs Ballina Shire Council
|
Land and
Environment Court – Class 1 Appeal Proceedings – Challenge deemed
refusal of development application DA 2020/192 for a 300 home Manufactured
Home Estate, River Street, West Ballina
|
250,000
|
564,000
|
|
Comment
Development application 2020/192 (as originally
lodged) is for the establishment of a 300 home manufactured home estate at
550-578 River Street, West Ballina, including extensive earthworks and
drainage works.
Shortly after re-exhibition of an amended
application, the applicant lodged Class 1 proceedings in the Land and
Environment Court for a deemed refusal of the development application. A
Section 34 Conciliation Conference was held on 12 November 2020.
The matter was set down for hearing on 3 - 7 May
2021.
These dates were subsequently vacated as the
applicant sought to make a number of late amendments to the proposal.
The appeal was held on 2-6 August 2021 and the
applicant made further amendments prior to the hearing.
Council successfully obtained orders for costs
thrown away, with those costs still to be paid.
In early November Council was advised that the Court
had dismissed the appeal and DA 2020/19 is determined by refusal of the
consent.
A link to the judgement is available as follows:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17cde1089492c806d6d2b34d
|
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
Legal cases are
linked to Delivery Program strategies such as:
· HE3.2 - Match
infrastructure with development to mitigate any impacts on the environment
· HE3.3 - Minimise
negative impacts on the natural environment
Community Consultation Policy
This report is provided in open
Council to ensure the community is informed on legal matters.
If Council wishes to discuss any
details it may be necessary to resolve into confidential session to ensure any
legal advice is not discussed in open session.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The following table provides a
summary of planning related legal costs for recent years, with costs for
2021/22 for the period to 31 January 2022.
Table
1 – Legal Expenditure 2017/18 to 31 January 2022
|
Description
|
2017/18
|
2018/19
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22
|
|
DA 2016/184, 2018/616 - CURA
A – Intrapac (Planners North / Northern Rivers Land Solutions)
|
832,100
|
78,400
|
337,000
|
3,600
|
0
|
|
Seabreeze Caravan Park
|
104,500
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
DA 2017/244 - Skennars Head
– Aureus – Intrapac
|
1,100
|
31,100
|
28,000
|
150,500
|
32,000
|
|
DA 2017/557 - Byron
Highlander (Function Centre)
|
2,800
|
9,500
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
DA 2017/321 – 34
Willowbank Drive (Michael Young)
|
0
|
22,600
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
DA 2017/600 – 19-21
Northcott Crescent (Gibbs)
|
0
|
0
|
7,000
|
98,400
|
0
|
|
DA 2017/707 - 5 Rayner Lane
(Ardill Payne)
|
0
|
9,300
|
37,000
|
0
|
0
|
|
Ballina Sands –
Newrybar Swamp Road
|
4,000
|
22,100
|
15,000
|
0
|
0
|
|
The Beach House
|
0
|
31,600
|
16,000
|
6,000
|
3,000
|
|
DA 2018/189 – 4 Page
Court (Millar)
|
0
|
0
|
6,000
|
0
|
0
|
|
DA 2018/321 - Palm Lake
|
0
|
256,600
|
497,000
|
9,600
|
3,000
|
|
DA 2018/381 - 404 Old Byron
Bay Road (White)
|
0
|
900
|
22,000
|
69,300
|
3,900
|
|
404 Old Byron Bay Road
(Kenny NCAT)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
7,500
|
0
|
|
DA 2018/597 – Water
Extraction
|
0
|
6,400
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
DA 2019/30 – 43
Tuckombil Lane (Griffani)
|
0
|
0
|
17,000
|
32,100
|
3,600
|
|
DA 2019/170 – 937/987
Wardell Road (Veronesi )
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
11,200
|
0
|
|
DA 2020/49 – 38
Newrybar Swamp Road (Anderson)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
33,600
|
13,700
|
|
DA 2020/192 – GemLife
(Planners North)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
277,800
|
286,400
|
|
DA 2020/568 – Midgen
Flat Road
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3,300
|
0
|
|
Compliance – 19 Old
Pacific Highway, Newrybar
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
21,000
|
|
Misc including insurance and
planning agreements
|
22,700
|
34,600
|
60,000
|
33,100
|
28,100
|
|
Total Actual Expenditure
|
967,200
|
503,100
|
1,042,000
|
736,000
|
394,700
|
|
Legal Expenditure Budgets
|
1,005,000
|
290,000
|
1,036,000
|
725,000
|
415,000
|
|
Expenditure Budget Result
– Surplus / (Shortfall)
|
37,800
|
(213,100)
|
(6,000)
|
(11,000)
|
20,300
|
|
Legal Actual Income from
Costs Recovered / Fines
|
108,000
|
61,000
|
157,000
|
539,000
|
233,900
|
|
Legal Income Budget
|
85,000
|
70,000
|
140,000
|
550,000
|
160,000
|
|
Income Budget Result
– Surplus / (Shortfall)
|
23,000
|
(9,000)
|
17,000
|
(11,000)
|
73,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income and
Expenditure Budget Result
|
60,800
|
(222,100)
|
11,000
|
(22,000)
|
94,200
|
As per this summary, expenditure
for 2021/22 is under budget by $20,300, with costs recovered currently $73,900
in excess of budget, resulting in an overall budget surplus for the year to
date of $94,200.
Pleasing Council has recovered
costs from court cases and compliance action of $233,900 with the major costs
recovered to date for the year, being from:
· Intrapac for the
Aureus Contributions case, with $30,704 received and
· Palmlake Works (DA
2018/321) with $181,700 received
Council still has the following
matter where costs are outstanding:
· 2020/192 –
Planners North (Gemlife)
Legal expenditure can vary
significantly from year to year as shown in the following table, which provides
an eight year summary of actual results, with the last four years having been
exceptionally high in respect to expenses.
Table
2 – Legal Expenditure – Period 2013/14 to 2020/21 ($’000)
|
Year
|
2013/14
|
2014/15
|
2015/16
|
2016/17
|
2017/18
|
2018/19
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
|
Expense
|
266
|
103
|
88
|
353
|
967
|
503
|
1,042
|
736
|
|
Income
|
34
|
5
|
20
|
90
|
108
|
61
|
157
|
539
|
|
Net
|
232
|
98
|
68
|
263
|
859
|
442
|
885
|
197
|
Also touched on in recent Legal
Matters – Update reports, the most expensive cases are typically where,
from a Council perspective, the original development application is deficient
in a number of areas, and the applicant then appeals on the basis of a deemed
refusal.
Again, from a Council
perspective, this occurs as it becomes clear that the processing time for the
application will be lengthy due to the difficulties facing Council in
processing the application.
The application is then amended a
number of times during the court process before the formal hearing, resulting
in a development application significantly different from the original
application that was appealed.
Recent examples of this include:
· CURA A, DA
2016/184 (applicant – Mr Stephen Connelly, Planners North – owners
– Vixsun Pty. Ltd, Intrapac Co-ops Pty. Ltd, Smith, Barlow and Barlow for
a 633 residential lot subdivision, with the court consent issued for 457 residential lots, three residual rural lots, six open space lots,
four reserve lots and nine key site (future development) lots.
Council
expended $1.2m on this case with approximately $500,000 recovered largely due
to the number of amendments made to the original application through the court
case
· DA 2018/321
(applicant and owners - Mrs Suzanne Jensen on behalf of Palmlake Works Pty.
Ltd.) for 156 self-care dwellings associated facilities. The applicant was
initially successful in the Land and Environment Court with a consent for 75
self-care dwellings, however this was ultimately refused by the Court following
an appeal by Council and costs are still being pursued.
Total Council
expenditure was approximately $766,000 excluding staff time, with $181,700
recently paid to Council for costs recovered.
· DA 2020/192
(applicant – Mr Stephen Connelly, Planners North - owners – Ballina
Waterways Pty. Ltd. (Gem Life)) for a 300 site manufactured home estate. The
costs for this matter to Council are in excess of $500,000 with the court proceedings
now finalised resulting in the appeal being dismissed and refusal of the
application. The application was amended to 234 sites during the proceedings.
Unfortunately the current court
process allows applications to be amended during the legal process and this can
result in significant costs being incurred. As mentioned earlier, pleasingly
there are currently no planning applications before the court.
Council also has a number of
compliance and enforcement related matters underway. The major compliance
matter to date has been for 19 Old Pacific Highway, Newrybar, with $21,000
expended to date. There are also swimming pool and unauthorised development
matters ongoing.
Options
This report is provided for
public information as there is public interest in legal matters involving
Council.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the contents of this Legal Matters
– Update report.
Attachment(s)
Nil
9.9 Australia
Day - Review
9.9 Australia
Day - Review
|
Section
|
Communications
|
|
Objective
|
To review the format of the Australia Day
ceremony, awards structure and determine if there are to be any changes for
2023.
|
Background
Council
coordinates an Australia Day event each year that includes a citizenship
ceremony, awards program and generally a special music performance and special
guest address. This is a free public event that is promoted via council’s
communication channels. The ceremony format concludes with a morning tea with
the guest speaker, new citizens and award nominees.
The purpose of
this report is to provide Council the opportunity to review the format of the
ceremony and the awards structure for 2023.
Key Issues
· Award category review
· Event program
· Community feedback
Discussion
In 2019, Council
completed a major review of the award categories and added the Environmental
Award and changed the Local Hero to a Volunteer Award. The current award
categories include:
· Young Citizen of the Year (30 years or under)
· Senior Citizen of the Year (60 years or over)
· Volunteer Award
· Sports Award
· Community Event of the Year
· Arts and Cultural Award
· Environmental Award
The Australia
Day Committee selects the Citizen of the Year from all the nominations received
across all categories.
The 2022
ceremony was held in the Lennox Head Cultural Centre (LHCC). Due to the
increasing rate of COVID-19 infections in the region, the event delivery was
changed to a hybrid ceremony of livestreaming and reduced physical attendees.
Promotion of the
event focused on the livestream, and physical attendance was restricted to new
citizens (plus a guest), award nominees (plus a guest), Councillors, staff and
contractors.
Other community
members who arrived to the Lennox Head Cultural Centre were welcomed to stay as
the 140-Covid safe seating capacity was not fully occupied by invitees only.
The livestream
was published to Council’s website and Facebook page and attracted over
1,800 views during and post the event, an increase of 360% from the 2021
livestream.
Liz Ellis, AO
who has been involved in previous Ballina Shire Australia Day Ceremonies,
co-hosted the event with staff member, Sandra Jackson. The event did not include
a special guest address.
The Welcome to
Country by Aunty Julia Paden and the announcement of the Citizen of the Year by
last year’s recipient Barbara Swain were pre-recorded and incorporated
into the ceremony and livestream.
We welcomed 11
new citizens from Canada, Vietnam, Philippines, United Kingdom, India and South
Africa. Thirty award nominees were recognised with 11 of these celebrated as
award winners. A show of gratitude for our front line workers was provided with
a one-minute applause by those in attendance.
Entertainment
was provided by Katie Rutledge, Dean Doyle and Narelle Harris performing The
Seekers classic, “I Am Australian”.
The morning tea
that normally follows the ceremony was cancelled and guests were urged to exit
after the ceremony and avoid gathering in the auditorium and foyer.
Feedback
received and online commentary indicate that the 2022 Australia Day program was
well received.
Council’s
Australia Day Committee, consisting of all Councillors, was re-established at
the 27 January 2022 Ordinary meeting, as part of the review of all Council
committees with the newly elected Council. The Committee determine the award
recipients for Australia Day.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The event
relates to the Delivery Program Strategy:
CC2.1 - Create
events and activities that promote interaction and education, as well as a
sense of place
CC2.2 -
Encourage community interaction, volunteering and wellbeing
Community Consultation Policy
The 2022
ceremony was the 41st year of the Ballina Shire Australia Day Awards. An
extensive promotional campaign inviting award nominations and attendance at the
ceremony was undertaken.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The 2021/22
budget for the Australia Day event was $20,000.
Up to $20,000 in
funding from the National Australia Day Council (NADC) COVID-19 safe program
was granted. This additional funding assisted with meeting our COVID safety
risk plan requirements, livestreaming, photography, COVID marshals and cleaning.
Council will receive 50% of the actual expenditure of $34,500 in NADC funding.
Therefore the total cost to Council will be $17,250.
Options
The options
available relate to changing the Award categories, location and structure of
the ceremony.
Council has, at
times, changed the categories, with items such as the Volunteer Award and
Environmental Award being a new category in 2020.
Due to the
categories undergoing an extensive review in 2019, together with the positive
response received, it is recommended that Council retain the current award
categories for 2023.
The LHCC has in
recent years been the permanent location for the Australia Day Awards due the
excellent facilities, air-conditioning, and protection from adverse weather.
LHCC is recommended for the 2023 event as Australia Day is typically a very hot
day.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Council confirms the categories for the 2023
Ballina Shire Australia Day Awards are to remain unchanged, with citizen of the
year selected from one of the categories; i.e.
· Young Citizen of the Year (30 years or under)
· Senior Citizen of the Year (60 years or over)
· Volunteer Award
· Sports Award
· Community Event of the Year
· Arts and Cultural Award
· Environmental Award
2. That Council host the 2023 Australia Day event at the
Lennox Head Cultural Centre.
Attachment(s)
Nil
9.10 Delegations
- Review
9.10 Delegations
- Review
|
Section
|
Governance
|
|
Objective
|
To review the Council delegations in
accordance with the Local Government Act.
|
Background
A council is structured to
operate by delegating responsibilities to the General Manager, and possibly
other bodies, leaving the elected council to focus on policy related matters.
The authority of a council to
delegate is governed by Section 377 of the Local Government Act (LGA), which
states, in summary, a council may by resolution delegate to the general
manager, or any other person or body (not including another employee of
council) any of the functions of the council other than those listed.
The items excluded from being
delegated, are:
a) the
appointment of a general manager
b) the
making of a rate
c) a
determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate
d) the
making of a charge
e) the
fixing of a fee
f) the
borrowing of money
g) the voting
of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations,
h) the
compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or
other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment)
i) the
acceptance of tenders to provide services currently provided by members of
staff of the council
j) the
adoption of an operational plan under section 405
k) the
adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report,
l) a
decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of
Chapter 6
m) the fixing of
an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land
n) the
decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the
amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work
o) the
review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the
council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed
under section 82A of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979
p) the power
of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of
gaining entry to premises under section 194
q) a
decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial
assistance to persons
r) a
decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic
office
s) the
making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or
Minister
t) this
power of delegation
u) any
function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised
by resolution of the council.
Once the general manager is
provided with delegations, the general manager, under Section 378 of the LGA,
has the authority to delegate any of the delegations, excluding the power of
delegation.
The delegations from the general
manager are provided on an individual basis to employees, with the level of
delegation reflecting the person’s, or position’s, functions within
the council.
Adequate delegations are
essential for the effective operation of a council, as employees need to have
adequate authority to undertake their duties efficiently.
As delegations are important in
the functioning of a council, Section 380 of the LGA states as follows:
Each council must review all
its delegations during the first 12 months of each term of office.
The purpose of this report is to
comply with Section 380 of the LGA.
Key Issues
· Compliance with Local Government Act
· Appropriate level of delegations for effective functioning of
Council
Discussion
Section 335 of the LGA, outlines
the functions of the General Manager; i.e.
(a) conduct the
day-to-day management of the council in accordance with the strategic plans,
programs, strategies and policies of the council
(b) implement,
without undue delay, lawful decisions of the council
(c) advise
the mayor and the governing body on the development and implementation of the
strategic plans, programs, strategies and policies of the council
(d) advise the
mayor and the governing body on the appropriate form of community consultation
on the strategic plans, programs, strategies and policies of the council and
other matters related to the council
(e) prepare, in
consultation with the mayor and the governing body, the council’s
community strategic plan, community engagement strategy, resourcing strategy,
delivery program, operational plan and annual report
(f) ensure
that the mayor and other councillors are given timely information and advice
and the administrative and professional support necessary to effectively
discharge their functions
(g) exercise any
of the functions of the council that are delegated by the council to the
general manager
(h) appoint staff
in accordance with the organisation structure determined under this Chapter and
the resources approved by the council
(i) direct
and dismiss staff
(j) implement
the council’s workforce management strategy
(k) any
other functions that are conferred or imposed on the general manager by or
under this or any other Act.
A copy of the existing delegation
to the General Manager is included as Attachment 1 to this report.
The format of the General
Manager's delegations is based on the position receiving, essentially total
delegation from Council, subject to some limitations. Those limitations are
listed in Schedule 2 of the delegation.
The Schedule 2 limitations
largely relate to ensuring decisions are consistent with Council policies and
procedures and not modifying consents for conditions imposed by Council.
The Called-up definition
mentioned in the delegation is important as it allows three Councillors to
“Call-up” a development application for reporting to Council for
determination.
This is occasionally used where
three Councillors may have a particular interest in a delegation for reporting
to Council.
The existing delegations have
been reviewed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers to ensure they reflect contemporary
legislation and based on that review an updated delegation is included as
Attachment 2.
The main changes to the existing
delegation relate to:
· Existing clauses
three and four have been deleted as Section 332 of the LGA now states that the
Council must determine the senior staff and the reporting lines for senior
staff and then the General Manager (clause 332 1(A)) must, after consulting the
council, determine the positions with the organisation structure of the council
(the Council must also review the organisation structure within 12 months of an
election). The wording in the previous delegation is no longer considered
necessary.
1)
· Since the General
Manager’s delegation was last reviewed in 2017, there has been a change
to the LGA, in that it is now possible to delegate the acceptance of
tenders. As per the background information, Section 377(i) of the LGA
currently states as an exception to what can be delegated:
the acceptance of tenders to
provide services currently provided by members of staff of the council
Historically the exclusion in LGA
Section 377(i) stated
the acceptance of tenders
which are required under this Act to be invited by the council
This change to Section 377(i)
occurred around 2017 and technically this has meant that the current delegation
provides the General Manager the authority to accept tenders, (excluding those
relating to the provision of services currently provided by members of staff of
the Council) without the need to report tenders to Council meetings for any
decision.
Prior to this amendment to the
LGA, the acceptance of tenders could not be delegated, however this is no
longer an excluded item. This increased delegation has not been exercised to
date, and all tenders have continued to be reported to Council.
Section 55 of the LGA outlines
the requirements for tendering, with one key condition being an expenditure
threshold of $250,000 (i.e. a tender process must be carried out for contracts
involving expenditure of $250,000 or more), subject to some exceptions, as
listed in Section 55.
The $250,000 has incrementally
increased from $100,000 to $150,000 to $250,000 since the LGA was legislated in
1993.
There are exceptions to the
requirement to call tenders, as listed in Section 55, with a key exception
allowing councils to utilise contracts co-ordinated by “prescribed
organisations” without the need to go to tender.
Prescribed organisations have
already carried out a public tender for a wide range of services and this then
allows councils to purchase services and equipment without duplicating the
tender process. A large number of items in Council’s plant fleet are
purchased through “prescribed organisations”.
Based on the current wording of
Section 377 (i), unless an exclusion is listed in the General Manager’s
delegations, the General Manager could determine all tenders without the need
for reporting to Council. Some councils may prefer this approach, as tenders
are entirely an operational process that requires detailed tender
documentation, public advertising, evaluation and a recommendation.
Tender recommendation reports to
Council are very rarely, if ever, amended due to their operational contents.
Tender reports to Council can sometimes cause delays in commencing contracts
due to the timeframes needed to prepare the report, preparation of the Council
meeting business paper and the scheduling of Council meetings, however it also
helps to provide greater transparency in the process.
The preference is still to
provide tender reports to Council and the key issue is what amount should be
included in the delegation as the threshold for reporting to Council.
Options include the $250,000
tender threshold in the LGA or a higher figure. A review of tenders valued from
$250,000 to $500,000, as reported to Council since January 2020 was completed
as per the following table.
Tenders
Reported to Council from January 2020
Valued
at $250,000 to $500,000
|
Value Range ($)
|
Number
|
Description
|
|
250,000 to 300,000
|
3
|
· Basalt Court Reservoir Access
· Surf School Licences
· Dredging works Ballina Quays
|
|
301,000 to 350,000
|
2
|
· Design Services – Alstonville Cultural Centre
· Under Boring Works for Water Mains
|
|
350,001 to 400,000
|
3
|
· Airport Wildlife Management Services
· Waste Centre – Transfer Station Roof
· Lennox Head WWTP Membrane Replacement
|
|
401,000 to 450,000
|
1
|
· Alstonville Pool Amenities
|
|
450,001 to 500,000
|
2
|
· Airport Passenger Screening Equipment
· Design Runway Overlay and Apron Upgrades
|
With only 11 tenders reported to
Council, for up to $500,000 since 2020, from an operational perspective, the
$500,000 is considered a reasonable threshold, recognising that tender reports
can still be reported to Council where there may be a level of public interest
in the proposed contract.
For example, the Surf School
licences would still have been reported to Council due to a high level of
interest in those licences. Similarly the Alstonville Cultural Centre –
Design Services and the Alstonville Pool Amenities may have been reported as
well, to ensure Council was satisfied with the experience of the preferred
contractors.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
Effective
delegations are linked to Delivery Program Strategy EL3.3;
Deliver
responsive and efficient services
Community Consultation Policy
The Council
delegations are a public document.
Financial / Risk Considerations
Section 380 of
the LGA requires Council to review all delegations in the first 12 months of an
election. This report ensures compliance with this obligation.
The proposed
delegations have been reviewed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers to ensure they are
consistent with contemporary legislation.
Options
The options available relate to
the level of delegations provided, with the tender threshold able to be varied
from $250,000 upwards.
Some councils provide limited
delegations to the Mayor, although this has not been the practice of Ballina
Shire Council and operationally there has not been a need for such a
delegation.
Finally, as this resolution
rescinds all previous delegations, Council did resolve at the January 2022
Ordinary meeting, to provide delegated authority to the Australia Day Committee
to determine the award winners, so point three reaffirms that authority.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council rescinds all previous delegations.
2. That
Council delegates to the position of General Manager the functions and
authorities of Schedule 1 and 2, as per Attachment 2 to this report.
3. That
Council delegates to the Australia Day Committee the authority to determine the
Australia Day award winners each year.
Attachment(s)
1. Delegations - General Manager -
Current ⇨
2. Delegations - General Manager - New
⇨
9.11 Policy
(Review) - Councillor Expenses and Facilities
9.11 Policy
(Review) - Councillor Expenses and Facilities
|
Section
|
Governance
|
|
Objective
|
To review the Councillors Expenses and
Facilities Policy
|
Background
The objective of
the Councillor Expenses and Facilities policy is to ensure that Councillors are
provided with the appropriate reimbursement of expenses and are provided with a
reasonable level of facilities to ensure that they can effectively perform
their functions as a Councillor.
The most recent
review of the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy was completed in July
2021. The focus of that review was to revise the type of standard equipment
provided to Councillors, in preparation for the upcoming elections and new
council onboarding process.
The changes
approved to the equipment supplied to Councillors have enabled staff to achieve
a more consistent level of support and to align the services with established
information technology security and support requirements, as currently
implemented for Council staff.
Clauses 252 to
254 of the Local Government Act (LGA) outlines how the payment of expenses and
the provision of facilities to Councillors is managed.
Clause 252 (1)
states as follows:
(1) Within
the first 12 months of each term of a council, the council must adopt a policy
concerning the payment of expenses incurred or to be incurred by, and the
provision of facilities to, the mayor, the deputy mayor (if there is one) and
the other councilors in relation to discharging the functions of civic office.
The focus of
this report is to ensure it is contemporary and reflects the aims and
objectives of the current Council.
Key Issues
· Whether the policy meets the current needs of Councillors
· Policy is equitable, fair and transparent
Discussion
The objectives
of having a Councillor expenses and facilities policy include:
a) ensuring that no person is disadvantaged and
incurring additional private expenses by performing their role as a Councillor
- the policy should ensure a Councillor is reasonably reimbursed for activities
they are required to perform as a Councillor
b) ensuring fairness and equity in the operation of the
policy – all Councillors should be treated fairly and equally with no Councillor
being disadvantaged over another in the application of the policy
c) the policy should reflect community standards in
respect to the provision of facilities and the reimbursement of expenses.
The Office of
Local Government (OLG) created a “Better Practice Template” for
Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policies in 2017 to ensure greater
consistency between councils and to help address areas of non-compliance
identified following an audit of a number of council’s policies.
The link to the OLG
website and information on Councillor Expenses and Facilities is as follows.
https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/councils/policy-and-legislation/guidelines-and-policy-information-resources-for-councils/councillor-expenses-and-facilities/
Council’s
current policy reflects the Better Practice Template.
A review of the
current policy has been completed and a copy of the amended policy is included
as Attachment 1.
Outside of minor
administrative wording changes, the key areas that have been identified as
beneficial for review are:
1. Clause 6.37 - Carer expenses. This
current provision of $2,000 per annum has not been increased during the most
recent reviews of the policy.
The
current allocation is considered insufficient to support a Councillor with
carer responsibilities in attending monthly Ordinary Council meetings and the
various committee meetings and briefings.
It is
important that the policy provides for a reasonable level of support for
Councillors to meet their civic responsibilities and it is recommended that the
allowance be increased from $2,000 to $4,000 per annum. The $4,000 is based on
an average of two hours per week for briefings and one Council meeting per
month, paying approximately $25 to $30 per hour for a carer.
2. Clause 9.1 - Facilities. This clause has been
changed to reflect the current online access to the Daily Telegraph which
includes local Northern Star news.
3. Clause 10 - Mayoral Vehicle – The current
process of a log book and reconciliation of private usage is not in alignment
with how we internally manage the private usage of other Council fleet vehicles
and is administratively cumbersome.
The
preferred approach is to bring the Mayor’s vehicle in alignment with
standard internal practices and to establish a lease fee that fairly reflects
the duties and responsibilities of the Mayor.
To
achieve this, new wording has been inserted to clarify the terms on which the
vehicle is to be provided and maintained.
In
recognition that the Mayor’s role operates both within and outside of
normal business hours, and that the Mayor is not an employee of Council for the
purposes of FBT, a proposed lease fee has been calculated at 25% of the
standard lease fee paid by Council staff.
The
25% reflects the fact that the Mayor is effectively acting as the Mayor at all
times and has very little downtime.
Tweed
Shire Council’s Expenses and Facilities Policy has a similar clause and
it has been subject to an external audit process and found to comply with the
OLG guidelines.
The remaining
allowances seem reasonable and no changes are recommended.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The proposed
changes to the Councillors Expenses and Facilities Policy align with Delivery
Program strategy EL1.2 Involve our community in our planning and decision
making processes.
Community Consultation Policy
Section 253 of
the Local Government Act 1993 states as follows:
Requirements
before policy concerning expenses and facilities can be adopted or amended:
1) A council must give public notice of its
intention to adopt or amend a policy for the payment of expenses or provision
of facilities allowing at least 28 days for the making of public submissions.
2) Before adopting or amending the policy, the
council must consider any submissions made within the time allowed for
submissions and make any appropriate changes to the draft policy or amendment.
3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a council need
not give public notice of a proposed amendment to its policy for the payment of
expenses or provision of facilities if the council is of the opinion that the
proposed amendment is not substantial.
4) A council must comply with this section when
proposing to adopt a policy in accordance with section 252 (1) even if the
council proposes to adopt a policy that is the same as its existing policy.
The revised
policy will need to be reported back to Council for adoption.
Any submissions
received during the public exhibition process will form part of that report.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The proposed
changes can be accommodated within existing budgetary provisions.
Council is
required to ensure that the policy complies with Local Government Act and the Local
Government (General) Regulation 2021 and the OLG Guidelines for payment of
expenses and provision of facilities for Mayors and Councillors. The
proposed changes align with these requirements.
Section 403 of
the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 is of particular importance in
that it states as follows:
1) A policy under section 252 of the Act must not
include any provision enabling a council--
a) to pay any councillor an allowance in the nature of a
general expense allowance, or
b) to make a motor vehicle owned or leased by the
council available for the exclusive or primary use or disposition of a
particular councillor other than a mayor.
2) (2) A policy under the Act, section 252 must provide
for the making of payment of expenses associated with carer responsibilities
that are adequate or reasonable.
The key points
being Council cannot pay a general allowance to Councillors for expenses, only
the Mayor is entitled to the exclusive use of a vehicle, and the carer expenses
allowance should be reasonable.
Clause 4.6 (k)
of the Code of Conduct also states that a Councillor does not have to disclose
an interest relating to the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities
under section 252 of the Local Government Act.
This means
Councillors do not have a pecuniary interest in this policy, even though it
relates to the payment of expenses and provision of facilities.
Options
Council can
endorse, amend, or not approve the proposed changes to the revised policy.
It is
recommended that Council approve the revised policy for public exhibition as
per Section 253 of the Local Government Act.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approves the exhibition of the amended
Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy, as per Attachment 1 to this report,
for public comment, with a report to be presented back to Council following the
exhibition period.
Attachment(s)
1. Policy (Review) - Councillors
Expenses and Facilities ⇨
9.12 Financial
Year 2021/22 - 31 December 2021 Review
9.12 Financial
Year 2021/22 - 31 December 2021 Review
|
Section
|
Financial Services
|
|
Objective
|
To provide a quarterly review of the
2021/22 financial year based on the known results to 31 December 2021.
|
Background
In accordance with Clause 203 of
the Local Government (General) Regulations, the Responsible Accounting Officer
of a council must, not later than two months after the end of each quarter,
prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows a
revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year. This report
provides the review for the second quarter of the 2021/22 financial year.
Key Issues
· Variations to the
budget and financial performance of Council
Discussion
The purpose of this report is to
provide information on how the financial forecast is tracking compared to
budget and to confirm any known budget variances, as at 31 December 2021. The
format of the report complies with the Quarterly Budget Review Statement
Guidelines set down by the Office of Local Government (OLG). To comply with
these guidelines an Operating Statement, Capital Budget, Cash and Investment
Statement, Key Performance Indicators, Contractors, Consultants, Legal
Information and Certification by the Responsible Accounting Officer are
required.
A brief overview of the
information provided in the report is as follows:
Section One – General
Fund Long Term Financial Plan
This section provides an overview
of the General Fund including a high level summary of the Ten Year Long Term
Financial Plan.
Section Two - Operating Income
and Expenditure Budgets 2021/22
Outlines the 2021/22 operating
income and operating expenditure budgets for the Funds (General, Water and
Wastewater).
Section Three - Capital
Budgets 2021/22
Outlines the 2021/22 capital
expenditure budgets.
Section Four - Cash and
Investment Statement
Provide details of the projected
movements in the cash reserve balances.
Section Five - Key Performance
Indicators
The ratios provide an indication
of the financial health of the organisation.
Section Six -
Contractors/Consultants/Legal Expenses
Details expenses incurred.
Section Seven –
Certification
This is a Statement by the
Responsible Accounting Officer as to whether the current year's estimated
financial performance is or is not satisfactory.
Section
One – General Fund Long Term Financial Plan
The following tables provide an
overview of how the General Fund Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) has changed
since the September quarterly budget, as reported to the October 2021 Ordinary
meeting.
LTFP Forecasts September 2021 Review ($’000)
|
Year
|
2021/22
|
2022/23
|
2023/24
|
2024/25
|
2025/26
|
2026/27
|
2027/28
|
2028/29
|
2029/30
|
2030/31
|
|
Operating Income
|
77,487
|
76,112
|
77,909
|
79,829
|
81,679
|
83,562
|
85,743
|
87,794
|
89,977
|
92,031
|
|
Operating Exps
|
63,563
|
59,401
|
61,228
|
62,351
|
63,393
|
64,236
|
65,788
|
67,268
|
68,258
|
69,862
|
|
Result before
Non-Cash items
|
13,923
|
16,712
|
16,681
|
17,478
|
18,286
|
19,326
|
19,956
|
20,527
|
21,719
|
22,169
|
|
Less Depreciation
|
18,565
|
18,787
|
19,130
|
19,482
|
19,839
|
20,203
|
20,576
|
20,956
|
21,342
|
21,737
|
|
Surplus/(Deficit)
|
(4,641)
|
(2,075)
|
(2,449)
|
(2,004)
|
(1,553)
|
(877)
|
(621)
|
(430)
|
377
|
432
|
|
Work Cap Result
|
(414)
|
(805)
|
(843)
|
(727)
|
(517)
|
(301)
|
(99)
|
328
|
591
|
883
|
|
WC Balance
|
5,582
|
4,777
|
3,934
|
3,207
|
2,690
|
2,389
|
2,290
|
2,618
|
3,209
|
4,092
|
LTFP Revised Forecasts December 2021 Review ($’000)
|
Year
|
2021/22
|
2022/23
|
2023/24
|
2024/25
|
2025/26
|
2026/27
|
2027/28
|
2028/29
|
2029/30
|
2030/31
|
|
Operating Income
|
77,260
|
75,462
|
77,425
|
79,065
|
80,916
|
82,789
|
84,960
|
87,008
|
89,181
|
91,337
|
|
Operating Exps
|
63,766
|
59,015
|
61,046
|
62,042
|
63,050
|
63,918
|
65,461
|
66,934
|
67,914
|
69,510
|
|
Result before
Non-Cash items
|
13,494
|
16,448
|
16,379
|
17,023
|
17,865
|
18,872
|
19,499
|
20,075
|
21,267
|
21,826
|
|
Less Depreciation
|
18,565
|
18,777
|
19,119
|
19,470
|
19,828
|
20,191
|
20,564
|
20,944
|
21,330
|
21,724
|
|
Surplus/(Deficit)
|
(5,071)
|
(2,329)
|
(2,740)
|
(2,448)
|
(1,962)
|
(1,320)
|
(1,065)
|
(869)
|
(63)
|
103
|
|
Work Cap Result
|
(646)
|
(811)
|
(839)
|
(713)
|
(490)
|
(269)
|
(56)
|
392
|
670
|
947
|
|
WC Balance
|
5,350
|
4,539
|
3,700
|
2,987
|
2,497
|
2,228
|
2,172
|
2,564
|
3,235
|
4,182
|
The future year forecasts
indicates the General Fund not reaching an operating surplus until 2030/31. The
long term forecast has deteriorated as the current forecast for increased rate
revenue for 2022/23 is 0.7%, consistent with the IPART determination. This has
had a negative compounding impact on future years.
In order to maintain a reasonable
level of working capital, which is a measure of short term liquidity (net
unrestricted current assets), it has been necessary to reduce the capital
funding allocated to roads by approximately $470,000 per annum for 2022/23
onwards. Council undertook a similar process in 2020/21 and 2021/22 as a result
of the downturn in revenue from the COVID-19 pandemic.
This December quarterly review
forecasts a deterioration of $421,000 to the operating deficit for 2021/22.
The following section provides
commentary in relation to the forecast changes impacting on the General Fund.
Section Two – Operating
Income and Expenditure Budgets 2021/22
General
Fund – Operating Income and Expenses
This section deals with the
General Fund operations.
The Forecast Operating Result
as at December is a loss of $5.071m. This compares to a forecast loss of
$4.641m following the September 2021 quarterly review as reported to the October
2021 Council meeting.
The estimated movement in Unrestricted
Working Capital shows a deterioration, with a forecast deficit as at
December now of $646,100. This compares to a forecast deficit of $414,000
following the September quarterly review.
The next two tables detail
operating income and operating expenses including recommended variations to
budget, as per “Changes for Approval” column.
General
Fund – Operating Income ($’000)
|
Operating Income
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Planning and Environmental Health Division
|
|
Strategic Planning
|
96
|
130
|
0
|
130
|
0
|
130
|
38
|
|
Development Services
|
2,922
|
2,772
|
100
|
2,872
|
(50)
|
2,822
|
1,541
|
|
Environment / Public Health
|
717
|
720
|
0
|
720
|
0
|
720
|
274
|
|
Public Order
|
277
|
289
|
0
|
289
|
0
|
289
|
127
|
|
Community Gallery
|
106
|
100
|
0
|
100
|
0
|
100
|
38
|
|
Open Spaces
|
607
|
595
|
0
|
595
|
0
|
595
|
394
|
|
Open Spaces Buildings
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Sports Fields
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Cemeteries
|
428
|
398
|
0
|
398
|
(30)
|
368
|
165
|
|
Vegetation Management
|
242
|
242
|
0
|
242
|
0
|
242
|
10
|
|
Sub Total
|
5,395
|
5,246
|
100
|
5,346
|
(80)
|
5,266
|
2,587
|
|
Civil Services Division
|
|
Asset Management
|
333
|
339
|
0
|
339
|
(20)
|
319
|
140
|
|
Stormwater and Env Protect
|
596
|
621
|
0
|
621
|
0
|
621
|
487
|
|
Roads and Bridges
|
931
|
967
|
0
|
967
|
0
|
967
|
969
|
|
Ancillary Transport Services
|
183
|
183
|
0
|
183
|
11
|
194
|
42
|
|
Transport NSW
|
1,040
|
980
|
0
|
980
|
0
|
980
|
520
|
|
Ferry, Wharves and Jetties
|
579
|
641
|
0
|
641
|
(100)
|
541
|
225
|
|
Emergency Services
|
118
|
118
|
0
|
118
|
(4)
|
114
|
113
|
|
Quarries and Sandpit
|
69
|
69
|
0
|
69
|
0
|
69
|
48
|
|
Landfill and Resource Mgmt
|
7,969
|
10,308
|
0
|
10,308
|
493
|
10,801
|
5,217
|
|
Domestic Waste Mgmt
|
8,557
|
8,626
|
0
|
8,626
|
29
|
8,655
|
8,181
|
|
Sub Total
|
20,375
|
22,852
|
0
|
22,852
|
409
|
23,261
|
15,942
|
|
Corporate and Community Division
|
|
Governance
|
20
|
20
|
0
|
20
|
0)
|
20
|
1
|
|
Comms / Customer Service
|
15
|
15
|
0
|
15
|
20
|
35
|
21
|
|
Financial Services
|
31,676
|
31,488
|
0
|
31,488
|
54
|
31,542
|
27,723
|
|
Information Services
|
247
|
317
|
0
|
317
|
0
|
317
|
122
|
|
People and Culture
|
151
|
151
|
0
|
151
|
(2)
|
149
|
179
|
|
Property Management
|
2,352
|
2,320
|
(2)
|
2,318
|
0
|
2,318
|
1,293
|
|
Flat Rock Tent Park
|
463
|
463
|
0
|
463
|
0
|
463
|
169
|
|
Airport
|
7,425
|
7,425
|
0
|
7,425
|
(595)
|
6,830
|
3,376
|
|
Community Facilities
|
708
|
700
|
(6)
|
694
|
(125)
|
569
|
274
|
|
Facilities Management
|
44
|
44
|
0
|
44
|
0
|
44
|
13
|
|
Library Services
|
116
|
177
|
0
|
177
|
0
|
177
|
0
|
|
Swimming Pools
|
1,105
|
1,035
|
0
|
1,035
|
0
|
1,035
|
514
|
|
Tourism
|
62
|
62
|
0
|
62
|
0
|
62
|
70
|
|
Plant Operations
|
5,172
|
5,172
|
0
|
5,172
|
0
|
5,172
|
2,587
|
|
Sub Total
|
49,556
|
49,389
|
(8)
|
49,381
|
(648)
|
48,733
|
36,342
|
|
Total Operating Income
|
75,326
|
77,487
|
92
|
77,579
|
(319)
|
77,260
|
54,871
|
General Fund
– Operating Expenses ($’000)
|
Operating Expenses
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Planning and Environmental Health Division
|
|
Strategic Planning
|
459
|
1,097
|
0
|
1,097
|
0
|
1,097
|
295
|
|
Development Services
|
3,220
|
3,220
|
100
|
3,320
|
80
|
3,400
|
1,989
|
|
Environment/ Public Health
|
2,423
|
2,678
|
0
|
2,678
|
0
|
2,678
|
1,007
|
|
Public Order
|
669
|
671
|
0
|
671
|
0
|
671
|
387
|
|
Community Gallery
|
416
|
436
|
0
|
436
|
0
|
436
|
165
|
|
Open Spaces
|
3,873
|
3,873
|
0
|
3,873
|
0
|
3,873
|
1,927
|
|
Open Spaces Buildings
|
935
|
941
|
0
|
941
|
0
|
941
|
464
|
|
Sports Fields
|
534
|
534
|
0
|
534
|
0
|
534
|
301
|
|
Cemeteries
|
302
|
302
|
0
|
302
|
0
|
302
|
167
|
|
Vegetation Management
|
898
|
959
|
0
|
959
|
0
|
959
|
163
|
|
Sub Total
|
13,729
|
14,711
|
100
|
14,811
|
80
|
14,891
|
6,865
|
|
Civil Services Division
|
|
Asset Management
|
1,304
|
1,313
|
0
|
1,313
|
0
|
1,313
|
690
|
|
Stormwater and Env Protect
|
1,407
|
1,474
|
(282)
|
1,192
|
0
|
1,192
|
685
|
|
Roads and Bridges
|
3,041
|
3,049
|
0
|
3,049
|
0
|
3,049
|
1,802
|
|
Ancillary Transport Services
|
1,096
|
1,152
|
0
|
1,152
|
(30)
|
1,122
|
429
|
|
Transport NSW
|
749
|
749
|
0
|
749
|
0
|
749
|
385
|
|
Ferry, Wharves and Jetties
|
817
|
1,053
|
282
|
1,335
|
40
|
1,375
|
587
|
|
Emergency Services
|
446
|
446
|
0
|
446
|
0
|
446
|
220
|
|
Quarries and Sandpit
|
88
|
88
|
0
|
88
|
10
|
98
|
95
|
|
Landfill and Resource Mgmt
|
7,793
|
9,843
|
0
|
9,843
|
467
|
10,310
|
4,420
|
|
Domestic Waste Mgmt
|
8,221
|
8,221
|
0
|
8,221
|
0
|
8,221
|
3,785
|
|
Sub Total
|
24,962
|
27,388
|
0
|
27,388
|
487
|
27,875
|
13,098
|
|
Corporate and Community Division
|
|
Governance
|
1,348
|
1,348
|
0
|
1,348
|
17
|
1,365
|
897
|
|
Comms / Customer Service
|
561
|
573
|
0
|
573
|
(118)
|
455
|
215
|
|
Financial Services
|
730
|
755
|
0
|
755
|
43
|
798
|
473
|
|
Information Services
|
2,997
|
3,036
|
0
|
3,036
|
34
|
3,070
|
2,298
|
|
People and Culture
|
339
|
370
|
0
|
370
|
(162)
|
208
|
542
|
|
Property Management
|
1,310
|
1,340
|
0
|
1,340
|
15
|
1,355
|
670
|
|
Flat Rock Tent Park
|
361
|
361
|
0
|
361
|
0
|
361
|
197
|
|
Airport
|
4,699
|
4,699
|
0
|
4,699
|
(312)
|
4,387
|
2,047
|
|
Community Facilities
|
1,141
|
1,151
|
(32)
|
1,119
|
7
|
1,126
|
534
|
|
Facilities Management
|
594
|
594
|
44
|
638
|
17
|
655
|
453
|
|
Library Services
|
1,650
|
1,680
|
0
|
1,680
|
0
|
1,680
|
1,212
|
|
Swimming Pools
|
1,826
|
1,816
|
0
|
1,816
|
0
|
1,816
|
808
|
|
Tourism
|
520
|
540
|
(12)
|
528
|
(6)
|
522
|
260
|
|
Plant Operations
|
3,201
|
3,201
|
0
|
3,201
|
0
|
3,201
|
1,792
|
|
Sub Total
|
21,277
|
21,464
|
0
|
21,464
|
(465)
|
20,999
|
12,398
|
|
Total Operating Expense
|
59,968
|
63,563
|
100
|
63,663
|
102
|
63,765
|
32,361
|
|
Op Result Before Dep
|
15,358
|
13,924
|
(8)
|
13,916
|
(421)
|
13,495
|
22,510
|
|
Depreciation and Non-Cash
|
18,565
|
18,565
|
0
|
18,565
|
0
|
18,565
|
9,283
|
|
Net Operating Result
|
(3,207)
|
(4,641)
|
(8)
|
(4,649)
|
(421)
|
(5,070)
|
13,228
|
The larger adjustments to the
General Fund Operating Result include:
· A net
deterioration of $283,000 for the Airport operating result. The operating
result from the Airport is transferred to the Airport reserve, so this adjustment
decreases the forecast Airport reserve and does not impact on the working
capital result
· A decrease of
$125,000 to forecast Community Facilities income
· A decrease of
$100,000 to forecast Ferry income
· An increase of
$80,000 to expenditure within the Development Services Section, of which
$30,000 negatively impacts on working capital
· A decrease of
$162,000 for expenditure on Defined Benefits Superannuation, within the People
and Culture section. This is a favourable adjustment to the operating deficit
and working capital position
· A decrease of
$118,000 to expenditure for the Community Events program, within the
Communications and Customer Service section. This is also a favourable
adjustment to the operating deficit. These funds are placed into reserves and
do not impact the working capital position.
General
Fund Working Capital Movements ($’000)
|
Item
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Other Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Increase / (Decrease)
|
(6)
|
(414)
|
(6)
|
(420)
|
(226)
|
(646)
|
N/A
|
Working capital is a
measure of short-term liquidity and as a rule Council aims to target a
break-even result for the General Fund.
Comments on the main budget
variations are as follows.
General Fund - Operating
Income
Planning and Environmental
Health Division
Development Services
Total income for this section is
trending closer to budget, noting that the September quarterly review revised
income down by $150,000, with the report noting that as a conservative
adjustment, which may be subject to further review. A further decrease of
$50,000 is proposed to the budget for Building Construction Certificates.
Cemeteries
Forecast income
for cemetery fees has been decreased by a further $30,000, to $368,000
following a decrease in the September quarter, based on trend. A corresponding
adjustment is made to the transfer to Cemeteries reserve.
Civil Services Division
Asset
Management
The largest
income item in this section is Development Engineer Inspection Fees, with a
budget of $235,000. This income was noted as trending low for the
September budget review, however no adjustment was made as this income is not
received in a linear fashion, with large inconsistent payments
As this income
continues to trend poorly, a decrease of $40,000, to $195,000, is recommended.
Budgeted income
for the Section 7.11 Administration Fees has been increased by $20,000, to
$80,000, based on trending. This income is transferred to the Section 7.11
Reserve for Plan Reviews.
Ancillary
Transport Services
An income budget
of $11,000 has been raised for the NCBA (National Carbon Bank of Australia)
street lighting rebate received. This rebate is a new initiative from
Essential Energy for LED streetlights.
Ferry, Wharves
and Jetties
Operating income
for this section includes ferry income of $529,000 and an operating grant of
$112,000 for the Martin Street Boat Harbour Concept Design.
The budget for
ferry income was revised down by $50,000 in the September budget review, noted
as particularly trending low and most likely impacted by the Queensland border
restrictions.
Actual ferry income at the end of December is still trending well under the
revised budget. The daily toll fees, with a budget of $400,000 are trending
at only 35%.
A further
downward revision of $100,000 is recommended.
Emergency
Services
The budgeted
income in this section relates to the funding that Council receives, as partial
reimbursement of the Rural Fire Service contribution.
These amounts
have now been received, with actual funding of $113,000 compared to budgeted
income of $117,000.
Quarries and
Sandpit
Operating income
in this section relates to rental income for the quarry sites, for which the
first three quarters of the year have been invoiced.
Landfill and
Resource Management (LRM)
Income budgets increased by a net
$493,000 in total.
Expenditure budgets, noted later
in this report, have been increased by $467,000, resulting in a net improvement
to the operating result of $26,000.
As part of the September budget
review, income budgets had been increased significantly, by $2.3m in
total.
It had been noted in that review
that Council had secured commercial agreements with commercial
waste collection contractors in the Ballina Shire and neighbouring council
areas.
This had
resulted in a significant increase in the volume of waste managed through the
Waste Management Centre, resulting in identified increases in gate fee revenue
(and associated transport and disposal costs). Adjustments made in this
review recognise the continued increase in commercial waste volumes.
The proposed increases to income
budgets include an increase of $200,000 to Waste Disposal Fees, with revised
budget of $4.2m, and an increase of $100,000 to Inert Waste Disposal Fees, with
revised budget of $1.1m.
An increase to the budgeted
income generated from Council Jobs of $150,000 is also proposed, to a revised
budget of $1m, with an increase in waste material from Council’s capital
works projects and general operations.
The income
budget for Recyclable Metal sales has been further increased by $50,000, to a
revised budget of $250,000, following an increase to the budget of $40,000 last
quarter.
This follows
continued strong commodity prices for scrap metal coupled with increased
volumes received at the Waste Management Centre since the gate fee was reduced
to zero charge at the beginning of the financial year.
Domestic
Waste Management (DWM)
Annual charges
income has been increased by $29,000, based on actuals from the Rates
and Charges second instalment.
Corporate and Community
Division
Communications
and Customer Service
Grant funding of
$20,000 was confirmed from the National Australia Day Council (NADC).
Financial
Services
Rates revenue
has been increased by $16,000, based on actuals from the rates and
charges second instalment.
The income budget for legal cost
rates recovered has been increased by $33,000, to $53,000, to meet
actuals. The budgets had been set conservatively and require adjustment
following the reintroduction of debt recovery actions.
The income budget for interest on
rates and charges has been increased by $5,000, to $47,000, based on trend. The
revised budgets for legal costs recovered and interest on rates and charges are
now consistent with pre-Covid-19 levels.
Flat Rock
Tent Park (FRTP)
It was noted in
the September budget review that income for FRTP was trending well down,
impacted by the Queensland border restrictions as well as local lockdowns
having detrimental impacts on the school holiday periods.
Actual income
for the period ending 31 December remains low and well short of budget.
The original
adopted income budgets remain unchanged in this review, as there is still
uncertainty around estimates, however is noted here, with notice that revisions
may be required in the March budget review.
The remainder of
the financial year is still difficult to predict, however with the Queensland
border having opened up, the position is likely to improve.
The net cash
result of this business unit is transferred to the Flat Rock Tent Park reserve
at the end of each year, so any changes to budgets will have a corresponding
impact on the transfer to that reserve.
Ballina Byron
Gateway Airport
It was noted for
the September 2021 quarterly budget review that Airport operations were
experiencing a lot of unpredictability and so no budget adjustments were made
for that review.
The largest
income items for the Airport are the Airline Passenger Charges and Security
Charges.
Actual income
for Airline Passenger Charges for the six months ended 31 December were at
$1,790,000, compared to the adopted annual budget of $3,400,000.
Actual income
for Airline Security Charges for the six months ended 31 December were at
$712,000, comparing to the adopted annual budget of $1,400,000.
For the months
of July to October 2021, income streams were hit hard with lockdowns within the
Northern Rivers and Sydney and NSW more generally.
The months of
November and December 2021 have been, very pleasingly, record breaking.
Although still a
difficult one to predict, the remainder of this financial year is expected to
continue at more moderate levels. This being the case, the adopted
budgets for Airline Passenger Charges and Security Charges look to be
reasonable and no budget adjustments are made, at this time.
Car Parking Fees
had an adopted budget of $700,000. This budget is being revised downward
by $200,000, to $500,000.
There has been
significant interruption to car parking income due to car park reconstruction
works. It is not expected to return to more normal operations until
March.
The income
budget for Shuttle Bus Fees is being revised downward by $45,000, to
$40,000.
There is now
only one shuttle Bus Company in operation since 31 January 2022.
An income
stream, which also has a corresponding expenditure stream, is for the Certified
Air Ground Radio Operator (CAGRO), with adopted budgets of $370,000.
These budgets
are no longer required, as this service has been replaced by the Surveillance
Flight Information Service (SFIS) that is managed and run by Air Services
Australia.
Any costs
associated with SFIS are directly between Air Services Australia and the
airlines.
The last of the
income and expenditure for CAGRO was incurred in August 2021. The income budget
is reduced by $350,000, to meet actual income for the period ended August 2021.
This is matched
by a similar reduction in operating expenses.
Community
Facilities
Income budgets
have been reduced by $125,000 in total.
It was noted in
the September budget review that income budgets for the various facilities had
been set conservatively and were tracking reasonably with the exception of the
Lennox Head Cultural Centre and the Ballina Indoor Sports Centre.
No revisions
were made in that review, subject to further monitoring.
For the Lennox
Head Cultural Centre, actual income for the period ending December 2021 is $46,100
compared to budget of $198,000. This budget has been revised down by $88,000,
to a revised budget of $110,000.
For the Ballina
Indoor Sports Centre, actual income for the period ending December 2021 is
$47,900 compared to budget of $157,000. This budget has been revised down by
$37,000, to a revised budget of $120,000.
Swimming
Pools
Income budgets
for the Ballina and Alstonville pools were reduced in the September budget
review. Both pool incomes may be trending a little under.
No further revisions
are proposed at this time.
Tourism
Income for this
section includes advertising income and souvenir sales.
The adopted
income budget for advertising, which consists of the co-op advertising as well
as airport brochure advertising, looks to be overly optimistic. This budget has
been reduced by $18,000.
Souvenir sales have exceeded expectations with the budget increased by $20,000
to $45,000.
General Fund - Operating
Expenses
Planning and Environmental
Health Division
Development
Services
As noted to the
January 2022 Ordinary meeting, this section is experiencing a large volume of
work.
The budget for
salaries has been increased by $50,000, to $2,817,000. This increase is funded
by the Division’s Salaries and Legals reserve.
The budget for
consultants has been increased by $30,000, to $55,000.
Vegetation
Management
Current year
budgets for Indigenous Area Repair Bushfire Recovery and Asset Protection Zone
Bushfire Recovery, of $297,000 and $171,000 respectively, are largely unspent.
It is currently
uncertain as to whether these amounts will be expended in full prior to the end
of this financial year.
If they are
unexpended by year end the funds will be rolled forward to the 2022/23
financial year.
Civil Services Division
Ancillary
Transport Services
A reduction of
$20,000 has been made to Road and Traffic Signs budgets, reducing these budgets
to $92,000.
A reduction of
$10,000 has been made to the Alstonville Town Centre lighting and furniture
budget, reducing this budget to $10,000.
These two
reductions have been offset by an increase in the Ferry operating expenditure
budgets as follows.
Ferry,
Wharves and Jetties
Budgeted
operating expenditure includes $228,000 for the ferry’s annual slippage
and overhaul, with those works substantially completed in September 2021.
The budget had
been revised in the September budget review based on the expected costs
outstanding
An additional
budget of $40,000 is now required, with late invoices for auto electrician
works. Total actual costs for the overhaul amounted to $270,000.
Savings of
$30,000 towards this increase is identified in the Ancillary Transport Services
section.
Budgeted
operating expenditure also includes $168,000 for the Martin Street Boat Harbour
Concept Design, which is part funded by the NSW Boating Now program. No
expenditure has been incurred to date.
The tender
process was completed and a consultant appointed in late 2021.
Progress with
the investigation/concept design is expected to continue into late 2022.
Emergency
Services
This
section’s expenditure includes Council’s contribution to Fire and
Rescue NSW and Rural Fire Services and the State Emergency Services.
The total of
these contributions is $330,200, with the first two quarters paid.
Quarries and
Sandpit
The adopted
budget included $40,000 for the Tuckombil Quarry, for a consultant to prepare a
review of strategic options for the rehabilitation and future use of the
site.
A consultant has
since been engaged through a competitive process. An increase of $10,000 to
this budget is required, to a revised total budget of $50,000. A corresponding
adjustment is made to the transfer to the Quarries reserve.
The
consultant’s final report has now been received and is expected to be
reported to the March 2022 Finance and Facilities Meeting.
Landfill and
Resource Management (LRM)
Expenditure budgets, as noted
earlier in this report, have been increased by $467,000. These increases are
consistent with the increase in volumes at the Waste Management Centre.
The budget for the Transport of
Mixed Waste has been increased by $400,000, with a revised budget of $4.7m.
The budget for Solid Waste
Leachate Treatment has been increased by $36,000, to $150,000.
The budget for the maintenance
and repair of the Ballina Transfer Station has been increased by $18,000, to
$45,000. This increase is required to cover the cost of a replacement
waste oil tank.
The budget for Solid Waste
Sampling and Testing has been increased by $13,000, to $25,000.
Corporate and Community
Division
Governance
The budget for
Public Risk Insurance has been increased by $14,000, to $733,000, to meet the
actual costs of the policy.
The budget for
the Insurance Excess and Claims Public Risk has been decreased by $3,000, to
$37,000. Costs have been trending low for the current year and for the
prior year, although it is noted that these costs can be unpredictable and not
linear.
The budgets for
the subscriptions to Local Government NSW (LGNSW) and Northern Rivers Joint
Organisation (NRJO) have been increased by $3,000 each, to meet the actual
costs for the annual subscription, now paid.
Communications
and Customer Service
Expenditure
budgets in this section includes a budget of $120,000 for the community event
program. As at December, only $2,000 has been expended. The unspent
budget of $118,000 has been placed into reserve until the outcomes are known.
Financial
Services
The budget for debt recovery
legal expenses has been increased by $43,000, to $53,000, to meet actuals. As
noted for the legal costs recovered income budget, the budgets had been set
conservatively and require adjustment following the reintroduction of debt
recovery actions.
Information
Services
The budget for
Cyber Security has been increased by $34,000, to a revised budget of $134,000.
Due to a
significant increase in malicious cyber activity, the current Application
Whitelisting software solution in use by Council, whilst effective, was deemed
to not have the required security features to be able to provide the increased
level of functionality required to protect Council systems.
The new product,
whilst more expensive, offers a very high level of protection against malicious
activity and meets the requirements of the Australian Cyber Security Centre
Essential Eight cyber security mitigation strategies framework, as well as the
Cyber Security NSW Mandatory 25 Cyber Security Guidelines for Local Government.
People and
Culture
Council’s
total budget for employee superannuation contributions consists of two
components, the first being contributions for employees in a Defined Benefit
Scheme and the second being Superannuation Guarantee payments made to other
funds for all other employees.
No new employees
have been taken into the Defined Benefit Scheme since 1992, other than
employees already in the Scheme transferring across from another local
government authority.
Council still
has a number of existing employees, for which superannuation contributions are
paid into the Defined Benefit Scheme, with these employee numbers diminishing
over time through retirements or resignations.
The Defined
Benefit Scheme, by its nature, determines the contribution rates required by
member councils in order to fund the future liabilities of the fund.
Some years back,
an actuarial review of the fund determined that the fund was insufficient to
meet expected future liabilities.
As a
consequence, all participant councils have been required to contribute
additional contributions, referred to as “Past Service”
contributions, in addition to the usual contribution for its current member
employees.
These additional
contributions were designed to bring the fund back to a position where it would
be able to meet its future obligations.
Council received
advice from the Defined Benefit Scheme in January 2022 advising that, following
a recent actuarial review of the position of the fund, the position of the
scheme has significantly improved.
This has
resulted in a reduction to the required “Past Service”
contributions, both for the current financial year and future years.
The current
budget for Defined Benefits Superannuation has been reduced by $162,000, to a
revised budget of $368,000.
This adjustment
has a significant favourable outcome on Council’s deficit and cash
position.
Property
Management
The lift
maintenance budget for Council’s investment property at 89 Tamar Street
has been increased by $15,000, to $25,000 for this year. This required
expenditure was for the replacement of machine brake lining. This adjustment
impacts on the transfer to the Community Infrastructure Reserve.
Ballina Byron
Gateway Airport
As noted, the
budgets for the Certified Air Ground Radio Operator (CAGRO) are no longer
required. The expenditure budget is reduced by $345,000, to meet actual
expenditure for the period ended August 2021.
The budget for
consultants has been increased by $40,000, to $81,000. This increase is
to cover commitments for the benchmarking of car rental operations.
The budget for
Lighting Maintenance and Repairs has been increased by $30,000, to $50,500, to
meet actual costs incurred for the year to date.
To partially
offset the increases noted above, savings of $25,000 and $15,000 have been
identified within the Building Maintenance and Building Area/Roads/Services
budgets.
Community
Facilities
Expenditure for
the Ballina Surf Club has been increased by a net $7,000.
The budget for
AV/Wi-Fi has been increased by $8,000 for this year only, to meet expenditure
for the installation of a MATV System HDMI Matrix switch.
The Surf
Club’s Cleaning contracts have been reduced by $3,000, whilst the budget
for insurance has increased by $2,000 to meet actual costs.
Facilities
Management
The maintenance
budget for the Marine Rescue Tower has been increased by $10,000, to $15,000,
for this year only.
Actual costs
incurred for the tower include $5,000 for air-conditioning costs and $4,000 for
roof flashing required for a roof leak.
Swimming
Pools
No revisions to
expenditure budgets are proposed in this review.
Expenditure for
Ballina pool is trending high. As a general observation, maintenance costs are
trending high due to the coastal location. Plant equipment runs 24/7 and
servicing costs have increased to reduce the breakdown cycle. Overs for Ballina
pool look to be offset with Alstonville pool expenditure trending low.
Tourism
As a consequence
of the reduction in the income budgets for advertising, the expenditure budgets
have been reduced by $6,000.
Water Operations
This
next section of the report deals with Council's Water Operations. The following
table details the forecast operating result for the Water Fund.
Water
- Statement of Operating Income and Expenses
|
Item
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Operating Income
|
13,956
|
13,886
|
0
|
13,886
|
(180)
|
13,706
|
8,427
|
|
Operating Expenses (excl. dep)
|
11,839
|
11,880
|
0
|
11,880
|
35
|
11,915
|
6,658
|
|
Operating Result Before Dep
|
2,117
|
2,006
|
0
|
2,006
|
(215)
|
1,791
|
1,769
|
|
Depreciation and Non-cash
|
1,820
|
1,820
|
0
|
1,820
|
0
|
1,820
|
910
|
|
Net Operating Result
|
297
|
186
|
0
|
186
|
(215)
|
(29)
|
859
|
The Forecast
Operating Result (inclusive of depreciation) as at December is a
deficit of $29,000, a deterioration of $215,000 from the forecast surplus of
$186,000 following the September quarterly review as reported to the October
meeting.
Forecast operating income has
been decreased by $180,000 in total.
The most significant source of
operating revenue for the Water Fund is the water consumption charges, budgeted
at approximately $8.5 million and representing approximately 60% of total
budgeted operating income.
Billing for the first two
quarters has now been completed and is trending under budget for residential
and non-residential consumption.
Total potable water consumption
for the first two quarters of the 2021/22 year is 1,471,000 kilolitres. This is
5% to 7% lower than the same periods for 2020/21 and 2019/20.
The budgets for residential and
non-residential consumption have been reduced by $100,000 each.
The budget for Tapping Fee income
has also been reduced, by $50,000, to a revised budget of $378,000, based on
trend.
The budget for Annual Charges has
been increased by $70,000, based on actuals from the Rates and Charges second
instalment. This represents less than a 2% variation.
Expenditure budgets have been
increased $35,000, being an increase to the Water Meter Reading budget for this
year only, to a revised budget of $130,000. This increase is to accommodate a
contract adjustment from Council’s smart metering provider. The
adjustment relates back to 2017.
Water main maintenance expenses
are trending high. There has been increased maintenance with additional works
identified through investigations conducted under the water loss reduction
program (eg valve replacements), and additional vehicle hire, with the trial of
a second vacuum excavation truck, and other short term vehicle hire to support
operational activities.
Potential savings are anticipated
in the reservoir operating and maintenance budgets, due to an accelerated
program of work in the previous financial year. This will help offset any
potential increase in mains maintenance.
Wastewater
Operations
This
next section of the report deals with Council's Wastewater Operations.
The
following table details the forecast operating result for the Wastewater Fund.
Wastewater
- Statement of Operating Income and Expenses
|
Item
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Operating Income
|
21,308
|
21,525
|
0
|
21,525
|
36
|
21,561
|
19,365
|
|
Operating Expenses (excl. dep)
|
13,433
|
13,524
|
0
|
13,524
|
10
|
13,534
|
6,322
|
|
Operating Result Before Dep
|
7,875
|
8,001
|
0
|
8,001
|
26
|
8,027
|
13,043
|
|
Depreciation and Non-cash
|
4,700
|
4,700
|
0
|
4,700
|
0
|
4,700
|
2,350
|
|
Net Operating
Result
|
3,175
|
3,301
|
0
|
3,301
|
26
|
3,327
|
10,693
|
The Forecast Operating Result (inclusive
of depreciation) as at December is a surplus of $3,327,000, an improvement
of $26,000 from the surplus forecast of $3,301,000 following the September
quarterly review as reported to the October meeting.
The most significant source of
operating revenue for the Wastewater Fund is access charges at approximately
$19 million, representing 88% of total operating income. Of this,
residential access charges account for approximately $16.9 million and
non-residential access charges account for approximately $2.1 million.
Residential access charges are
levied in the first instalment for the year in quarter one. Based on the
actual amounts levied for the second instalment, an increase to budgeted income
of $136,000 is proposed.
Non-residential usage charges
follow suit with water consumption charges. A decrease to this budget of
$100,000 is proposed, with the revised budget at $1.2 million.
The expenditure budget for
insurance has been increased by $10,000, to meet actual costs.
Section Three – Capital
Budgets 2021/22
This section of the report looks
at capital expenditure.
General Fund - Capital Budget
- Source and Application of Funds
|
Capital Funding /
Expenditure
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
General Fund Capital Funding
|
|
General revenue
|
7,055
|
7,055
|
0
|
7,055
|
0
|
7,055
|
7,055
|
|
Reserves
|
11,261
|
17,359
|
(1,160)
|
16,292
|
50
|
16,342
|
16,342
|
|
Loans
|
9,234
|
11,389
|
1,000
|
12,389
|
0
|
12,389
|
0
|
|
Section 7.11 contributions
|
4,020
|
5,025
|
0
|
4,932
|
0
|
4,932
|
4,932
|
|
Grants and contributions
|
13,817
|
13,846
|
(1,505)
|
12,341
|
607
|
12,948
|
4,050
|
|
Total Funding
|
45,387
|
56,674
|
(1,665)
|
53,009
|
657
|
53,666
|
32,379
|
|
General Fund Capital Expense
|
|
Planning and Environmental Health Division
|
|
Environment and Public Health
|
395
|
566
|
(245)
|
321
|
0
|
321
|
139
|
|
Community Gallery
|
0
|
19
|
0
|
19
|
0
|
19
|
2
|
|
Open Spaces
|
2,565
|
4,049
|
137
|
4,186
|
0
|
4,186
|
1,744
|
|
Open Spaces Buildings
|
170
|
250
|
0
|
250
|
0
|
250
|
139
|
|
Sports Fields
|
661
|
991
|
100
|
1,091
|
0
|
1,091
|
436
|
|
Civil Services Division
|
|
Asset Management
|
0
|
22
|
0
|
22
|
0
|
22
|
2
|
|
Stormwater and Env Protection
|
825
|
1,919
|
0
|
1,919
|
0
|
1,919
|
682
|
|
Roads and Bridges
|
21,993
|
25,110
|
(873)
|
24,237
|
607
|
24,844
|
8,628
|
|
Ancillary Transport Services
|
976
|
2,506
|
(137)
|
2,369
|
0
|
2,369
|
623
|
|
Transport NSW
|
291
|
231
|
0
|
231
|
0
|
231
|
80
|
|
Ferry, Wharves and Jetties
|
150
|
178
|
0
|
178
|
0
|
178
|
31
|
|
Emergency Services
|
1,070
|
1,187
|
(587)
|
600
|
0
|
600
|
19
|
|
Waste Management
|
500
|
534
|
0
|
534
|
50
|
584
|
437
|
|
Corporate and Community Division
|
|
Property
|
3,675
|
4,176
|
70
|
4,246
|
0
|
4,246
|
1,109
|
|
Flat Rock Tent Park
|
120
|
120
|
0
|
120
|
0
|
120
|
2
|
|
Ballina Byron Gateway Airport
|
8,768
|
9,195
|
0
|
9,195
|
0
|
9,195
|
2,366
|
|
Community Facilities
|
100
|
446
|
0
|
446
|
0
|
446
|
87
|
|
Facilities Management
|
1,101
|
1,436
|
(130)
|
1,306
|
0
|
1,306
|
942
|
|
Swimming Pools
|
100
|
100
|
0
|
100
|
0
|
100
|
0
|
|
Plant Operations
|
1,927
|
1,639
|
0
|
1,639
|
0
|
1,639
|
861
|
|
Total Expenditure
|
45,387
|
54,674
|
(1,665)
|
53,009
|
657
|
53,666
|
18,329
|
General Fund
A review of the capital works
program was presented in the report titled “Capital Expenditure Program
– 31 December 2021 Review” to the January 2022 Ordinary meeting.
Further adjustments to capital budgets proposed in this report are as follows:
Civil Services Division
Roads and Bridges
Net increase of $607,200 to
capital budgets, follow Council being allocated State Government grant funding
through the Fixing Local Roads Round 3 (FLR3) program. The additional works are
as follows:
|
Works
|
Change ($)
|
Comments
|
|
Friday Hut Road Segment 30
|
124,500
|
New budget
|
|
Dalwood Road Segment 10
|
162,900
|
New budget
|
|
River Drive Segment 50
|
196,800
|
New budget
|
|
Dalwood Road Segment 110
|
114,200
|
New budget
|
|
Gap Road Segment 20
|
211,800
|
New budget
|
|
Rural Roads Reseals
|
(110,000)
|
Reallocation of budget for new budgets. Revised
budget $426,000.
|
|
Urban Road Heavy Patching
|
(93,000)
|
Reallocation of budget for new budgets. Revised
budget $316,000.
|
|
Total
|
607,200
|
|
Waste Management
A new budget of $50,000 is also
proposed for the current year, with a further $350,000 to $400,000 required
budget anticipated for 2022/23 for the installation of a second weighbridge at
the waste management facility. The budget of $50,000 is for the initial project
planning.
Water Fund
Water
- Capital Budget - Source and Application of Funds ($’000)
|
Capital Funding / Expenditure
|
Original Budget
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserves
|
3,082
|
3,798
|
(250)
|
3,548
|
0
|
3,548
|
3,548
|
|
Section 64
contributions
|
200
|
200
|
0
|
200
|
0
|
200
|
200
|
|
Total Funding
|
3,082
|
3,998
|
(250)
|
3,748
|
0
|
3,748
|
3,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main Renewal
|
3,282
|
932
|
0
|
932
|
0
|
932
|
273
|
|
Reservoirs
|
500
|
791
|
0
|
791
|
0
|
791
|
350
|
|
Water pump and
bores
|
100
|
100
|
0
|
100
|
0
|
100
|
2
|
|
Trunk mains
|
830
|
690
|
0
|
690
|
0
|
690
|
4
|
|
Treatment Plant
|
530
|
530
|
(250)
|
280
|
0
|
280
|
0
|
|
Plant
|
22
|
195
|
0
|
195
|
0
|
195
|
34
|
|
Connections
|
540
|
638
|
0
|
638
|
0
|
638
|
397
|
|
Other
|
60
|
122
|
0
|
122
|
0
|
122
|
19
|
|
Total Expenditure
|
3,282
|
3,998
|
(250)
|
3,748
|
0
|
3,748
|
1,079
|
A review of the capital works
program was presented in the report titled “Capital Expenditure Program
– 31 December 2021 Review” to the January 2022 Ordinary meeting.
No further adjustments are proposed
in this report.
Wastewater Fund
Wastewater -
Capital Budget - Source and Application of Funds ($’000)
|
Capital Funding / Expenditure
|
Original Budget
|
Sep Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
Actual to Dec
|
|
Funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserves
|
3,996
|
4,727
|
(58)
|
4,669
|
0
|
4,669
|
4,669
|
|
Section 64
contributions
|
650
|
711
|
58
|
769
|
0
|
769
|
769
|
|
Total Funding
|
4,646
|
5,438
|
0
|
5,438
|
0
|
5,438
|
5,438
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pumping Stations
|
529
|
590
|
15
|
605
|
0
|
605
|
163
|
|
Treatment Plants
|
2,534
|
3,096
|
255
|
3,351
|
0
|
3,351
|
454
|
|
Mains Renewals
|
510
|
510
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
|
Plant
|
376
|
531
|
(180)
|
330
|
0
|
330
|
0
|
|
Reuse Program
|
681
|
638
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
108
|
|
Other
|
16
|
73
|
0
|
531
|
0
|
531
|
32
|
|
Total Expenditure
|
4,646
|
5,438
|
0
|
5,438
|
0
|
5,438
|
769
|
A review of the capital works
program was presented in the report titled “Capital Expenditure Program
– 31 December 2021 Review” to the January 2022 Ordinary meeting.
No further adjustments are
proposed in this report.
Section
Four – Cash and Investment Statement
The next table shows the forecast
for externally and internally restricted reserves.
Forecast Restricted Reserves
as at 30 June 2022 ($’000)
|
Reserve Title
|
After Carry Forward
|
Sept Budget
|
Approved Changes
|
Revised Budget
|
Changes for Approval
|
Dec Budget
|
|
Externally Restricted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 7.11
|
12,943
|
12,933
|
0
|
12,933
|
2,000
|
14,933
|
|
Domestic Waste
Management
|
1,211
|
1,246
|
0
|
1,246
|
29
|
1,275
|
|
Section 64 Water
|
11,614
|
11,584
|
0
|
11,584
|
0
|
11,584
|
|
Water
|
7,642
|
7,524
|
250
|
7,774
|
(215)
|
7,559
|
|
Section 64 Wastewater
|
10,555
|
10,525
|
(58)
|
10,467
|
0
|
10,467
|
|
Wastewater
|
12,278
|
12,735
|
58
|
12,793
|
26
|
12,819
|
|
Total Externally
Restricted
|
56,243
|
56,547
|
250
|
56,797
|
1,840
|
58,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internally Restricted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council Elections
|
75
|
75
|
0
|
75
|
0
|
75
|
|
Financial
Assistance Grant
|
2,418
|
2,418
|
0
|
2,418
|
0
|
2,418
|
|
Legal/Audit/Revaluations
|
275
|
275
|
0
|
275
|
0
|
275
|
|
Employee Leave
Entitlements
|
2,994
|
2,994
|
0
|
2,994
|
0
|
2,994
|
|
Risk
Management/Insurance
|
181
|
181
|
0
|
181
|
0
|
181
|
|
Community
Infrastructure Reserve
|
1,420
|
1,411
|
257
|
1,668
|
(17)
|
1,651
|
|
Property
Development Reserve
|
250
|
210
|
(68)
|
142
|
(2)
|
140
|
|
Wigmore Arcade
|
626
|
603
|
0
|
603
|
0
|
603
|
|
Crown Properties
Rental
|
77
|
77
|
0
|
77
|
0
|
77
|
|
Flat Rock Tent
Park
|
287
|
287
|
0
|
287
|
0
|
287
|
|
Airport
|
2,540
|
2,540
|
0
|
2,540
|
(283)
|
2,257
|
|
Community
Facilities
|
889
|
689
|
0
|
689
|
0
|
689
|
|
Libraries
|
220
|
247
|
0
|
247
|
0
|
247
|
|
Plant Replacement
|
1,069
|
1,069
|
0
|
1,069
|
0
|
1,069
|
|
Administration Building and Depot
|
34
|
34
|
130
|
164
|
0
|
164
|
|
Communications
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
118
|
118
|
|
Strategic
Planning
|
382
|
382
|
0
|
382
|
0
|
382
|
|
Section 7.11 Plan
Reviews
|
445
|
374
|
0
|
374
|
20
|
394
|
|
Public Art
|
110
|
110
|
0
|
110
|
0
|
110
|
|
Public Order
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
|
Quarries
Compliance
|
43
|
43
|
0
|
43
|
0
|
43
|
|
Healthy Waterways
and Projects
|
873
|
873
|
0
|
873
|
0
|
873
|
|
Coastal
Management Plans
|
349
|
349
|
0
|
349
|
0
|
349
|
|
Vegetation Works
|
655
|
689
|
0
|
689
|
0
|
689
|
|
Public and
Environmental Heath
|
230
|
230
|
0
|
230
|
(50)
|
180
|
|
Public Amenities
|
146
|
146
|
0
|
146
|
0
|
146
|
|
Open Spaces
|
503
|
503
|
0
|
503
|
0
|
503
|
|
Sports Fields
|
19
|
19
|
0
|
19
|
0
|
19
|
|
Cemeteries
|
330
|
300
|
0
|
300
|
(30)
|
270
|
|
Stormwater
Capital
|
261
|
261
|
0
|
261
|
52
|
313
|
|
Stormwater
and Env Mgmt Plans
|
214
|
214
|
0
|
214
|
0
|
214
|
|
Canal Dredging
|
30
|
30
|
0
|
30
|
0
|
30
|
|
Bypass Funds
|
3,192
|
3,168
|
320
|
3,488
|
0
|
3,488
|
|
Roadworks
|
893
|
824
|
553
|
1,377
|
0
|
1,377
|
|
Other Civil
|
60
|
60
|
0
|
60
|
0
|
60
|
|
Footpaths and
Shared Paths
|
259
|
259
|
0
|
259
|
0
|
259
|
|
Boat Ramps and
Infrastructure
|
25
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Rural Fire Service
|
30
|
30
|
(30)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Quarries
|
711
|
711
|
0
|
711
|
(10)
|
701
|
|
Landfill and
Resource Management
|
1,783
|
2,122
|
0
|
2,122
|
(24)
|
2,098
|
|
Total Internally
Restricted
|
24,900
|
24,809
|
1,162
|
25,971
|
(226)
|
25,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Restricted
|
81,143
|
81,356
|
1,412
|
82,768
|
1,614
|
84,382
|
Statements
1. Council's
investments are all in accordance with the Local Government Act, the
regulations and Council's investment policy.
2. As
per the investment summary for 31 December 2021, funds invested amounted to $99,500,000. All restricted monies are included in
these investments.
3. Cash
has been reconciled to the bank statement as at 31 December 2021 to the amount of $8,004,285.
4. Actual year to date cash
and investments amounted to $107,504,285 at 31 December 2021.
This amount
includes cash at bank of $8,004,285 and funds invested of $99,500,000 which has
been reconciled to the bank statements and investment reports.
Comment on Cash and Investment
Position
The changes in this report
increase the reserves by a net $1.614 million resulting in the current forecast
restricted reserves of $84.382 million.
The majority of changes to
reserves made as part of this review have been noted earlier in this report
within either ‘Section One-Operating Income and Expenditure’ or
‘Section Two – Capital Budgets’.
The changes made as part of this
review are summarised as follows.
Section 7.11 Reserves
Based on amounts received for the
year to date, the adopted budgets for developer contributions for roads and
open spaces have been revised up.
Net reserves have been increased
by $2,000,000, with a revision made to section 7.11 capital income budgets.
Domestic Waste Management
There is an increase of $29,000
to this reserve being the adjustments made to operating income as noted earlier
in this report.
Water Reserves
Net reserves decreased by
$215,000 being the adjustments to the operating result noted within this
report.
Wastewater Reserves
Reserves increased by $26,000
being the adjustments to the operating result noted within this report.
Community Infrastructure
Reserve
This reserve is decreased by
$17,500 with net increase to expenditures, the largest being the $15,000 for 89
Tamar Street Lift Maintenance budget.
Airport
This reserve is decreased by
$283,000, being the net changes to operating budgets within this report.
Communications
Community Event Programs unspent
budget of $118,000 has been placed into reserves.
Section 7.11 Plan Reviews
There is an increase of $20,000
to this reserve, being the increase to the budget for the section 7.11 Plans
Administration Fee income, as noted within this report.
Other Planning and
Environmental Health Division
There is a decrease of $50,000
from the Division’s Salaries and Legal reserve, to fund
an increase to salaries budgets.
Cemeteries
This reserve is decreased by
$30,000, being the adjustments made to operating income earlier within this
report.
Stormwater Capital
There is an increase of $52,000
to this reserve for capital income received, being a claim on a bank guarantee
for Tanamera Drain works. This income is placed into this reserve for
future works to be carried out.
Quarries
There is a decrease of $10,000 to
this reserve, for the required increase to the budget for the
Tuckombil Quarry strategic review.
Landfill and Resource
Management (LRM)
There is a decrease of $24,000,
being an improvement of $26,000 to the LRM operating result offset by the
raising of a $50,000 capital budget, as noted earlier in this report.
Section Five - Key Performance
Indicators
This section of the report takes
selected financial benchmarks and compares the 30 June 2020 and 2021 ratios
with the forecast at December to 30 June 2022.
The performance indicators have a
short-term focus, which suits the quarterly review. Each ratio typically
contains numerous variables, and the forecast should be viewed as a guide only.
Key Performance Indicators -
Description
1. Operating
Performance Ratio – Total continuing operating revenue (excluding
capital grants/contributions and fair value adjustments) less operating revenue
(excluding capital items and profit or loss on sale) as a percentage of
continuing operating revenue (less capital items and fair value adjustments).
Purpose: this percentage
measures whether the Council is sustainable in terms of its operating result.
Council should not be recording
recurring operating deficits or funding operating results from capital revenue.
Indicator
type: Financial Performance
Benchmark:
= > 0 (NSW Code of Accounting Practice)
2. Unrestricted
Current Ratio - Unrestricted current assets divided by unrestricted current
liabilities.
Purpose: this ratio is used to
measure Council's ability to meet short term liabilities with available short
term assets.
Indicator
type: Financial Position
Benchmark: >1.5 (NSW Code of
Accounting Practice)
3. Debt
Service Cover Ratio – Operating result (excluding fair value
adjustments, capital grants/contributions, depreciation/amortisation, interest
expense and profit or loss on sale) as a percentage of loan interest and
capital payments.
Purpose: The purpose of this
percentage is a measure of whether Council has excessive debt servicing costs
relative to the adjusted operating result.
Indicator type: Financial
Position
Benchmark: >2 (NSW Code of
Accounting Practice)
Benchmark Indicators –
General Fund
1. Operating
Performance Ratio – General Fund
Benchmark: >0
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
-1.51%
|
-0.70%
|
-4.23%
|
|
Fail
|
Fail
|
Fail
|
Comment
This
is a key ratio for “Fit for the Future” assessments and has
historically been a difficult benchmark to achieve. The ratio is affected by
many variables.
The
General Fund failed this benchmark in 2019/20 and 2020/21. The current LTFP
forecasts that this benchmark will not be met for a number of years.
The
strategy to improve this ratio is to maintain and even reduce operating
expenses and increase income.
2. Unrestricted
Current Ratio – General Fund
Benchmark: >1.5
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
2.53
|
2.64
|
1.59
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Comment
The
General Fund is expected to continue to meet this benchmark.
This
ratio is lower than previous years as a result of the extensive capital works
program scheduled for 2021/22. Any future deferrals of capital projects will
improve this ratio accordingly.
3. Debt
Service Cover Ratio – General Fund
Benchmark: > 2
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
3.76
|
4.06
|
3.25
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Comment
The
strategy to continue to meet the benchmark is to limit further borrowings,
unless matched by offsetting revenues, and strengthen the operating result by a
combination of increasing income and decreasing expense.
Benchmark Indicators –
Water
1. Operating
Performance Ratio - Water
Benchmark: > 0
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
8.14%
|
0.50%
|
0.67%
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Comments
The
Water Fund achieved a positive operating performance ratio in 2020/21, despite
a small operating deficit, as this ratio is adjusted for losses on disposal.
2021/22
and future years are anticipated to achieve positive ratios.
2. Unrestricted
current ratio - Water
Benchmark:
>1.5
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
81.76
|
79.08
|
44.04
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Comments
The ratio meets the benchmark
comfortably as the Fund has reasonable reserves and no debt.
3. Debt
Service Cover Ratio - Water
Benchmark: >2
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Comments
The Fund has no external
borrowings.
Benchmark Indicators –
Wastewater
1. Operating
Performance Ratio - Wastewater
Benchmark:
>0
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
12.95%
|
25.00%
|
15.43%
|
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Comments
The Wastewater Fund has achieved a positive operating performance ratio and
this trend is expected to continue for future years.
2.
Unrestricted current ratio - Wastewater
Benchmark:
>1.5
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
1.45
|
2.83
|
2.26
|
|
Fail
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
Comments
The
Wastewater Fund met this benchmark in 2020/21 and it is anticipated that the Fund
will meet the benchmark in future years.
3. Debt Service Cover Ratio -
Wastewater
Benchmark: > 2
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22 Dec
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
|
1.35
|
2.15
|
1.86
|
|
Fail
|
Pass
|
Fail
|
Comments
This
benchmark was met in 2020/21 as a result of higher than anticipated
developer’s contributions.
It is
anticipated that this ratio will fail the benchmark for several years due to
the high level of borrowings.
The
forecast is that the ratio will gradually improve year on year as the operating
surplus continues to grow, with current projections indicating that the fund
will meet the benchmark in 2026/27.
Section Six –
Contractors/Consultants/Legal Expenses
Contractors
Contracts entered into during the
quarter are as follows.
|
Contractor Name
|
Purpose
|
Amount (GST Excl)
|
Award Date
|
Contract Duration
|
Incl in Budget
|
|
The Trustee for the Greenwood Trust t/a Greenwood
Landscape Management
|
Lennox Head Village Vision – Ross Park Landscape
Works
|
$762,920
|
13/12/21
|
3 months
|
Yes
|
|
CDS Worldwide Pty Ltd
|
Supply and installation of access control management
system (ACMS) for the management of public parking (general/premium)
|
$595,976
|
15/10/21
|
12 months
|
Yes
|
|
Pro Bore Sheriff Pty Ltd
|
The supply, horizontal directional drilling, installation
and pressure testing of HDPE potable water trunk and service mains in the
Lennox Head village area
|
$275,791
|
13/10/21
|
2 months
|
Yes
|
|
R&B Dredging Pty Ltd t/a Coastal Dredging Services
|
Ongoing dredging management of the Ballina Quays Canals
|
$132,000
|
29/10/21
|
6 months
|
Yes
|
|
Renewal Pebblecrete Insitu Pty Ltd
|
Supply of pavers Lennox Head Village Centre
|
$720,735
|
8/11/21
|
5 months
|
Yes
|
|
SoilCo Pty Ltd
|
Processing of organic waste material
|
Schedule of rates
|
1/7/22
|
36 months
|
Yes
|
|
Rico Family Trust t/a Solo Resource Recovery
|
Food organics and garden organics kerbside collection
|
Schedule of rates
|
1/7/22
|
84 months
|
Yes
|
|
Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd
|
Angels Beach Drive and Bangalow Road intersection upgrade
|
$2,587,003
|
17/11/21
|
8 months
|
Yes
|
Consultants
The Office of
Local Government defines a consultant as:
A consultant
is a person or organisation engaged under contract on a temporary basis to
provide recommendations or high level specialist or professional advice to
assist decision making by management. Generally it is the advisory nature of
the work that differentiates a consultant from other contractors.
Expenditure to 31 December 2021
on consultants is as follows:
|
Item
|
Expenditure YTD (excl GST) ($)
|
Included in Budget
|
|
Consultancies
|
359,700
|
Yes
|
Legal
Expenses
The next table summarises the
expenditure incurred to the end of December 2021 on legal fees. Legal fees have
been included where there is a dispute situation. This includes, for example,
recovery of rates not paid but excludes processing of infringement notices (no
dispute at this point) and amounts paid to legal firms that may be related to
the creation of a lease or sale of land.
|
Item
|
Expenditure YTD (excl GST) ($)
|
Included in Budget
|
|
Legal Fees
|
482,400
|
Yes
|
Section Seven - Certification
The following statement is made
in accordance with clause 203(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulations
2005.
It is my opinion that the
Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Ballina Shire Council for the quarter
ended 31 December 2021 indicates that Council’s projected financial
position at 30 June 2022 will be satisfactory at year end, having regard to the
projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income
and expenditure.
The satisfactory position is
based on the short term (twelve month) outlook.
Signed Linda Coulter, Responsible
Accounting Officer
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The content of
this report relates directly to the financial sustainability of Council. This
is identified within Council’s adopted Delivery Program, under Direction
4: Engaged Leadership.
EL2.1g - Pursue
compliance with the Fit for the Future Program.
Community Consultation Policy
This report has been prepared to
inform the community of budget variations. Staff have been consulted in the
preparation of this report.
Financial / Risk Considerations
This report details financial
results to date in comparison to budget.
The on-going impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic remains a financial risk facing Council for this financial
year with continuing impacts on the operations of the airport, community facilities
and ferry operations.
Options
Council may approve the budget
amendments proposed or make further changes.
The proposed changes reflect
Council resolutions or adjustments based on the trending of actual income and
expenses.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the contents of this report for the
December 2021 Quarterly Financial Review and approves the budget changes
identified within the report.
Attachment(s)
Nil
10.1 Property
Acquisition - Pearces Creek Bridge, Eltham Road
10. Civil
Services Division Reports
10.1 Property
Acquisition - Pearces Creek Bridge, Eltham Road
|
Section
|
Engineering Works
|
|
Objective
|
To obtain Council approval for the
acquistion of Private Land as part of the Pearces Creek Bridge renewal
project.
|
Background
Pearces Creek
Bridge is an ageing timber bridge on Eltham Road over Pearces Creek. Due to its
current condition the bridge is subject to load limits and is restricted to
single lane traffic flow, replacement of the structure is now required.
Pearces Creek is
located on the boundary between Ballina Shire Council (BSC) and Lismore City
Council (LCC) with both councils sharing maintenance obligations of the
existing bridge.
Ballina Shire
Council obtained grant funding to undertake bridge replacement works from both
the State Government (under the Fixing Country Bridges Program) and the Federal
Government under the Bridge Renewal Program Round Two.
The new bridge
is to be constructed downstream of the existing bridge and on a slightly
altered alignment. The changes will allow for a slightly improved road geometry
and mean the existing bridge can remain in operation as much as possible whilst
the new bridge is being constructed.
Land acquisition
will be required within both the Ballina and Lismore local government areas
(LGAs) to facilitate this project.
A location
diagram is included within Attachment 1.
Key Issues
· Acquisition of private land
Discussion
The land
required within the Lismore LGA to facilitate the project is private property
and identified as part of Lot 1 DP 250120 (1078 Eltham Road, Pearces Creek).
The acquisition process for this land will be managed by LCC with the
assistance of BSC, who are administrating the grant funding, which will fund
this acquisition.
The land
required, for the proposed bridge, within the Ballina LGA is private property
and identified as part of Lot 2 DP 837122 (1115 Eltham Road, Pearces Creek).
Refer to
Attachment 2 for a plan of the proposed area of acquisition.
The area of land
to be acquired will be determined from the final road and bridge designs, which
is in progress, and then confirmed by survey.
The estimated
areas are:
· 2,004 m2 – Lot 1 DP 250120 (LCC acquisition)
· 224 m2 – Lot 2 DP 837122
The proposal is
to acquire part of Lot 2 DP 837122 by deed of agreement and plan of subdivision
signed by all parties. The alternative is to acquire the land by compulsory
process or to redesign the project on the existing alignment (with total road
closure during construction).
Council as roads
authority is empowered under Section 177 of the Roads Act, 1993 to
acquire land for any purpose of that Act.
Section 377 of
the Local Government Act, 1993 provides that a council’s power to
acquire land is ‘non-delegable’. This means that only the council
can decide to acquire land by an appropriate resolution.
The procedure
which must be followed by an authority acquiring any land other than land offered
for public sale is set out in the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation)
Act, 1991
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The Pearces
Creek Bridge Renewal Project aligns with
EL3.3(f) –
Provide road maintenance intervention actions in accordance with response
actions and is included as a capital works project to be completec by 2022/23.
Community Consultation Policy
Council has been
in discussion with the relevant landowners, who are in agreement in principle
with the process to negotiate on the proposed acquisitions. A resolution of
Council is required to make the acquisition and progress with formal
negotiations and finalise an agreement.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The project is jointly funded through the
State’s Fixing Country Bridges Program and the federally funded Bridge
Renewal Program. A property valuation will be obtained as part of the
acquisition process.
A decision not to proceed with the
acquisition of Lot 2 DP837122 may jeopardise the bridge
renewal project which has timelines associated with the grants and is a key
route between the Lismore and Ballina LGAs with a failing bridge
structure.
Options
The only valid option is to proceed with
the acquisition to ensure the project is completed and the recommendation
supports that approach. The affected land within Ballina Shire is part of Lot 2 DP837122.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council resolves to acquire private land as part of the Pearces Creek Bridge
renewal project in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisitions
(Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 1993. The
affected land is part of Lot 2 DP837122 (1115 Eltham Road, Pearces Creek) as
per Attachment 2 to this report.
2. That
Council notes that grant funding will be utilised to assist Lismore City
Council in acquiring the necessary land within the Lismore City Council Local
Government Area to facilitate the project. The affected land is part of Lot 1
DP250120 (1078 Eltham Road, Pearces Creek).
3. That
Council authorises the General Manager to execute all relevant documentation as
required by point one, and attach the Council seal to same.
Attachment(s)
1. Pearces Creek Bridge - Site
Location ⇨
2. Proposed Acquisition - Lot 2 DP
837122 ⇨
10.2 Rous
Mill Road and Youngman Creek Bridge - Road Safety Review
10.2 Rous
Mill Road and Youngman Creek Bridge - Road Safety Review
|
Section
|
Engineering Works
|
|
Objective
|
To report the outcomes of an assessment
of Rous Mill Road and Youngman Creek Bridge, Rous Mill.
|
Background
Council resolved at the October 2021
Ordinary meeting as follows:
“That Council receive a report
assessing the options, cost estimates and possible funding sources to rectify
the intrusion of drainage infrastructure into the road pavement on the eastern
approach to the Youngman Creek Bridge on Rous Mill Road.”
The purpose of
this report is to respond to this resolution as well as to discuss on other
issues that were identified at the site.
Key Issues
· Road safety
· Budget constraints
Discussion
The resolution
above followed a notice of motion which was concerned with the table drain
infrastructure for Rous Mill near Youngman Creek Bridge.
A desktop review
and site investigation was carried out for Youngman Creek Bridge (culvert) and
the approaches to the bridge. This review identified three potential issues,
which are discussed as follows, along with potential treatments and their
associated cost estimates.
Carriageway
Width – Eastern Approach of Bridge
The width of the
existing carriageway on the eastern approach is approximately five metres.
This width does
not meet contemporary design standards of Austroads Guide to Road Design Part
3: Geometric Design or with the Northern Rivers Local Government Design Guidelines
(AUS-SPEC), which call for a sealed carriageway width of greater than 6m.
However, much of Council’s existing low traffic
rural road network does not meet contemporary design standards.
The risks
associated with a narrower carriageway are exacerbated at this location by the
absence of a road shoulder. The concrete / rock dish drain abutting the road
pavement prevents eastbound bound vehicles from being able to safely pull off
the road when passing oncoming vehicles.
The
configuration of this drain is illustrated in Attachment 1.
The pavement
width could be increased by removing the existing rock/concrete dish drain and
replacing it with kerb and gutter. This treatment would be similar to that
previously provided on the western approach.
This treatment
is illustrated in Attachment 2.
The works would
require a budget of approximately $90,000.
Water
flowing Over Road – Eastern Approach
The concrete /
rock dish drain on the northern side of the road does not have a suitable
outlet.
During periods
of high rainfall, this will result in a significant amount of water sheeting
across the road at the termination point of the drain, approximately 40 metres
east of the bridge.
This water
flowing over the road is a potential hazard to vehicles.
There may have
been a previous discharge point, now blocked, where water would flow from the
drain through the southwest corner of Lot 22 DP 875269 before entering Youngman
Creek.
This issue could
be resolved by confirming the property boundaries and negotiating with the
landowner to re-establish the previous overland flow path, to ensure stormwater
is able to flow freely to Youngman Creek.
Alternatively, a
stormwater pipe and pit could be constructed to convey water below Rous Mill
Road, where it could discharge to Youngman Creek on the southern side of the
road.
The cost of each
options is approximately $20,000.
The piped
stormwater option is the least preferable as it represents a higher maintenance
liability.
Carriageway
Width – Culvert Crossing
The existing
bridge / culvert at Youngman Creek is located on a bend with poor sight
distance and has an insufficient carriageway width (approximately 5m) with
inadequate shoulders.
This existing
configuration is undesirable and represents a potential traffic hazard.
Attachment 3
provides a photograph of the road bend / culvert.
Raising the
northern headwall of the culvert will allow the pavement to be extended by
approximately 1.5 metres.
This treatment,
in conjunction, with guardrails and line marking will improve safety for road
users.
This treatment
is estimated to cost $40,000.
Summary
Attachment 4
provides a concept plan of the treatments discussed.
This section of
Rous Mill Road has a relatively low traffic volume of approximately 300
vehicles per day. A review of crash history for this segment of road did not
identify any reported traffic incidents within the past 20 years.
Many of
Council’s existing rural roads do not meet contemporary design standards.
The costs of the various options outlined need to be assessed against the low
traffic volume, the identified hazards, and the absence of any documented crash
history for this section of road.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The objectives
within this report are consistent with Delivery Program Strategy CC1.1 to actively promote safety and wellbeing strategies.
Community Consultation Policy
No consultation
has occurred to date with respect to this matter.
Financial / Risk Considerations
The costs for
the treatment options are discussed in the report.
The report
considers identified hazards and treatment options. The next step is to
determine whether these hazards represent a priority for funding.
Given the
absence of any crash history for the site, the adoption of all of the discussed
treatments does not represent the best allocation of Council resources and
consideration should be given to whether there are other works which are of
higher priority.
There is
currently no funding allocated to undertake any of the works.
Options
Option 1 Maintain
the road as per current arrangements
This option
represents a ‘do nothing approach’ and is not recommended given
that the investigation has identified road hazards that should be rectified.
Addressing the
water flowing over the road due to the observed non-functioning drainage outlet
is considered a priority and the treatment is a relative low cost.
Option 2 Adopt
a combination of the discussed treatments
a) Remove the existing concrete / rock dish drain
and replace with kerb and gutter to facilitate road widening ($90,000).
b) Rectify stormwater flow over the road by either
constructing a culvert OR undertaking a survey and possibly negotiating with
the adjacent landowner to drain runoff through their property ($20,000).
c) Raise headwall of the Youngman Creek culvert to
allow pavement widening and install guardrail ($40,000).
It is
recommended, in the short term, that Council undertake the reinstatement of the
drainage outlet, item b).
The funding for
this project can be provided by a budget reallocation of $20,000 from the
2021/22 Stormwater Capital Expenditure budget.
The stormwater
program has an allocation for asset data collection of $94,000 for 2021/22,
which has sufficient funds to accommodate this budget transfer.
With respect to
the remaining items a) and c), the cost of the works should be assessed against
the wider range of road funding needs and priorities and the appropriate time
for this assessment is during the development of the Delivery Program and
Operational Plan for 2022/23.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That
Council, in respect to the potential treatments along Rous Mill Road near
Youngman Creek Bridge, as outlined in this report, reallocate $20,000 from the
2021/22 Stormwater Asset Data Collection budget to provide a solution so that
the existing concrete / rock dish drain can discharge freely to Youngman Creek
without flowing across Rous Mill Road.
2. That
Council note other treatments for this location, including the replacement of
the existing concrete / rock dish drain ($90,000) along Rous Mill Road and the
widening of Youngman Creek culvert roadway ($40,000), will improve road safety
at this site, however a source funds is not currently available, nor has
Council assessed the priority for these works against other road safety
projects.
3. That
options for funding the outstanding works form part of the reporting for the
preparation of the 2022/23 Delivery Program and Operational Plan, along with
balancing the priority for these works against other road and stormwater
projects.
Attachment(s)
1. Eastern Approach to Youngman Creek
Bridge - Concrete / Rock Drain ⇨
2. Western Approach to Youngman Creek
Bridge - Previous Kerb and Gutter Installation ⇨
3. Youngman Creek Bridge - Culvert
Headwall ⇨
4. Rous Mill Road - Preferred
Treatments ⇨
10.3 Road
Closing Proposals - Lennox Head and Ballina
10.3 Road
Closing Proposals - Lennox Head and Ballina
|
Section
|
Infrastructure Planning
|
|
Objective
|
To determine Council's response to the
proposed closing of currently unformed sections of Council public roads.
|
Background
Council has a
Road Closing Applications for Public Roads Policy. Under this policy
applications are received, from time to time, typically from adjoining
landowners who are interested in purchasing part of the adjoining road reserve.
The road reserve
is usually unformed and the reason for the application(s) can vary from it
helps to align the property boundaries, there may be significant landscaping on
the road reserve, the adjoining owner maybe undertaking significant
maintenance, or it may assist with a planning issue or inconsistency.
A copy of the
policy is included as Attachment 1.
Council has
received two applications that comply with the provisions outlined in the
policy and this report seeks Council direction on whether the applications
should proceed.
Key Issues
· If closed, the land will vest in Council and then be disposed of to
the adjoining land owner(s) and be consolidated with the adjoining land
· Community benefit
· Long term impacts
Discussion
Council has
received applications to close sections of unformed Council public road reserve
adjacent to:
· 37 Castle Drive, Lennox Head – Lot 18 DP 261848
· 162 Tamarind Drive, Ballina – Lot 2 DP 537560
Location
diagrams are included as Attachments 1 and 2.
The assessment
of these applications is discussed as follows.
37 Castle
Drive, Lennox Head
This site is in
an established urban residential area. The land in front of the existing
property at 37 Castle Drive contains an area of approximately 175m2
(subject to survey).
As shown on the
location diagram (Attachment 1), the existing Castle Drive road carriageway and
kerb alignment is located in a wide road reserve and is not parallel with the
property boundary.
This has created
an area of land which appears to be part of the front yard of 37 Castle Drive.
The land is
maintained by the property owner as if was part of their front yard.
The proposed
private ownership of this land is beneficial to the adjoining landowner.
This proposal
excludes a 4.5m wide strip of land behind the existing kerb to retain a typical
verge / pedestrian area for existing services and public access.
The bulk of the
existing vegetation currently on the road reserve would be included in the land
shown as road proposed to be closed.
There are no
apparent Council or other service utilities located on the land proposed to be
closed.
Should any
services be located, easements are to be created or service relocations will be
required at the applicant’s expense.
The road
proposed to be closed will not affect the public use or functioning of Castle
Drive and is not currently required by Council for road improvements or
necessary for future strategic road use.
The land has
value as public land, which can be utilised as open space, road, service
location or other public use. There is also community benefit in retaining
public land for future use.
The neighbouring
property also has the same area of public space at the front of the property
and adjoining the land proposed by the applicant for closure. They have not
approached Council to close that section of road reserve.
162
Tamarind Drive, Ballina
162 Tamarind
Drive is rural zoned land on the urban fringe and opposite the Ferngrove
residential development. The land is in front of the existing property and
contains an area of approximately 100m2 (subject to survey).
As shown on the
location diagram (Attachment 2), the existing Tamarind Drive road carriageway
is located in a wide road reserve, which was the old Pacific Highway.
The existing
property boundary is parallel with the existing road carriageway.
The road reserve
is partly enclosed by a recently erected fence, which is located forward of the
property boundary.
The enclosed
area is being used and maintained by the property owner as if it is part of
their front yard.
This recently
erected fence could be relocated to be consistent with the outcome of this road
closing request (e.g. back onto the existing boundary if request refused or
onto the new boundary if an area of road is closed).
There are no
apparent Council or other service utilities located on the land proposed to be
closed.
Should any
services be located, easements are to be created or service relocations will be
required at the applicant’s expense.
The road
proposed to be closed will not affect the public use or functioning of Tamarind
Drive in its current location. However, Tamarind Drive is included in
Council’s Roads Contribution Plan to be upgraded and widened to include
four lanes of traffic from Ballina to Cumbalum.
These works are
listed in Council’s Roads Contribution Plan to be completed by 2036.
As no road
design plans are available at this time, it may be premature to sell any
sections of road reserve adjacent to a planned road upgrade between Ballina and
Cumbalum.
This is because
the final location of the new carriageway, services, pathways or vegetation
areas have not been determined, albeit the reason this is reported to Council
is because it is highly unlikely the road upgrade will need a corridor as wide
as the current road reserve.
General
Council is the
Roads Authority for these public roads.
Any request to
close a section of Council public road must first be endorsed by Council before
any public advertising and road closing can occur. Upon closure the land would
vest in Council. This is consistent with the provisions of the Roads Act 1993.
If a road
closing is approved, the land valuation and negotiated sale terms are matters
for the owner / applicant and Council to resolve.
Following the
closure and sale of the land, the land is consolidated with the adjoining
property.
The road closing
application requires the applicant to provide all the necessary information and
to meet all costs throughout this process.
Delivery Program Strategy / Operational
Plan Activity
The Delivery
Program Strategy PE3.2 is to facilitate residential land and includes an
operational plan activity PE3.2c to monitor infrastructure to support growth.
The Delivery
Program Strategy HE1.3 is to beautify and protect our streetscapes and open
spaces.
The closing and
sale of unnecessary sections of public road can provide additional residential land area when the land is consolidated with
the adjoining residential land. However, this land would now have changed from
public land to private land.
When land is in
public ownership, Council has the opportunity to use the land for future
community, infrastructure and environmental projects.
Community Consultation Policy
Community
consultation is yet to be undertaken. If there are any objections to a road
closure the proposal would be reported back to Council.
The Castle Drive
land can be considered a local interest issue for nearby residents.
The Tamarind
Drive land is on a significant road corridor and has some potential strategic
value to the entire shire.
If Council
supports a road closing request, the necessary advertising and notifications
are part of the road closing process and are undertaken prior to a road closing
application being determined.
Financial / Risk Considerations
All costs
associated with a road closing, including application, survey, legal and other
fees are to be met by the applicant. The application processing is undertaken
by Council.
Upon closing the
road, the land would vest in Council until it is transferred to the adjoining
land owner. The proceeds from the sale of the land remain with Council.
If the requests
are not supported, the land remains as a Council owned asset. The public
liability and maintenance obligations remain as is and do not change.
Options
There are two main options available to
Council.
Option 1 - Approve one or both applications
As per the discussion section of this report 37 Castle Drive does
not appear to have any long term strategic use and it is recommended that
Council commence the road closing process, recognising that there is still a
public exhibition process and commercial terms to be agreed.
162 Tamarind Drive does have the potential to be of long term
strategic benefit and on that basis the recommendation is not to commence the
road closing process for that application.
This option is consistent with the current policy.
Option
2 – Not approve both applications
Once a portion
of unformed road is sold it is effectively lost as a community asset in
perpetuity.
Council staff
have discussed internally whether applications for road closures in urban areas
should be approved at all, as it is uncertain what may happen in the very long
term (i.e. 50 to 100 years plus).
A conservative
approach would be not to approve the applications.
If this was the
position of Council it would then be timely to undertake a further review of
the existing policy to reflect that position.
The
recommendation that follows is consistent with the current Council policy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Council supports the request for a road closing
application to proceed for the section of
public road adjacent to
37 Castle Drive, Lennox Head.
2. That the Council authorises the General Manager to
enter into negotiations with the adjoining land owner(s) to determine the land
sale value.
3. That Council authorises the Council seal and
signatures to be attached to the documents necessary for the road closing and
disposal of the land in point one, if the closure proceeds.
4. That
the closed road be consolidated with the adjoining land being Lot 18 DP 261848
5. That
Council not approve the request for a road closing application to proceed for
the section of public road adjacent to 162 Tamarind Drive,
Ballina, as the land may have strategic value in respect to the future
upgrading of Tamarind Drive.
Attachment(s)
1. Policy - Road Closing Applications
for Public Roads ⇨
2. 37 Castle Drive - site diagram of
proposed road closing ⇨
3. 162 Tamarind Drive - site diagram
of proposed road closing ⇨
11.1 Notice
of Motion - DPIE Planning Reforms
11. Notices
of Motion
11.1 Notice
of Motion - DPIE Planning Reforms
|
Councillor
|
Cr Eoin Johnston
|
I move
That Council
write to the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Local Government to
express the importance of the following in relation to the NSW planning reform
agenda:
· That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment undertake consistent
engagement with local government in a way that recognises that local government
is a key stakeholder and essential in the delivery of planning services and
outcomes in NSW.
· That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment structures its reform
agenda and engagement to provide local government with sufficient time to
properly consider reforms and provide feedback. This includes recognition
of Council meeting cycles, opportunities for regional collaboration and the
current pressures on local government arising from unprecedented increases in
development activity and the effects of Covid on operating conditions.
· That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment recognises the importance
of local strategic planning, local planning history and local character in the
reform process to support planning outcomes that reflect the values and
circumstances of different communities.
Councillor Comments
The catalyst for
this motion arose from our recent Planning and Environmental Health Division
briefing. Mention of a "significant State Government planning
agenda" attracted questions relating to the detail and scope of that
process and senior staff have provided further information.
A recent
multi-unit development in Alstonville has raised community concerns
regarding the State Government's powers under its "complying
development" provisions.
Effectively this
legislation provides a pathway for development approval without the input of a
local council’s planning division, or, indeed, the opportunity for
community consultation. However, the cost of investigating alleged compliance
breaches or enforcing remedies is met by the local council.
This motion
seeks clarity and details of the State's agenda and assurances that the unique
and specific aspects of our diverse local government areas are not condensed
under an insensitive "one size fits all" philosophy.
Staff
Comments
The DPIE
planning reform agenda is extensive and includes a variety of reforms, many of
which provide, or have the potential to provide for, positive outcomes.
At times though,
optimal outcomes rely on careful consideration and implementation of changes
and there are occasions where the reforms are not considered to be beneficial
to Council and local government more generally.
The situation
with the reforms can be summarised as follows from a staff perspective.
· The DPIE planning reform agenda includes multiple changes to the
EP&A Act, the EP&A Regulation, local environmental plans and planning
controls, LEP amendment processes, State Environmental Planning Policies,
exempt and complying development and processes for the assessment and determination
of development applications.
· The reforms are significant and typically have local planning
implications that need to be considered to align outcomes to local strategic
planning or otherwise adjust to implement substantial changes.
· The reforms have been constantly rolling for several years and it
has been difficult for councils to resource ongoing engagement and feedback.
· The DPIE engagement with local government has been inconsistent and
often does not have regard for Council meeting cycles to enable reporting or
the overall demands of the reform agenda on councils.
Ultimately,
engagement in the reform agenda is both necessary and beneficial but the
program would be better if the DPIE had more recognition for the needs and
interests of local government, and acknowledged that meaningful involvement in
the reform agenda means the application of resources – resources which
are currently fully engaged in managing the current development boom.
Councillor Recommendation
That Council
write to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Minister for Local
Government to express the importance of the following in relation to the NSW
planning reform agenda:
· That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment undertake consistent
engagement with local government in a way that recognises that local government
is a key stakeholder and essential in the delivery of planning services and
outcomes in NSW.
· That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment structures its reform
agenda and engagement to provide local government with sufficient time to
properly consider reforms and provide feedback. This includes recognition
of Council meeting cycles, opportunities for regional collaboration and the
current pressures on local government arising from unprecedented increases in
development activity and the effects of Covid on operating conditions.
· That
the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment recognises the importance
of local strategic planning, local planning history and local character in the
reform process to support planning outcomes that reflect the values and
circumstances of different communities.
11.2 Notice
of Motion - Ballina Ocean Pool
11.2 Notice
of Motion - Ballina Ocean Pool
I move
That
Council confirms that it does not support the construction of an ocean pool on
the Shelly Beach / Lighthouse Beach marine rock platform area, due to the
negative environmental impact that the construction of such a facility would
have, as well as the negative impacts on Council’s finances in respect to
funding the construction and on-going maintenance of the ocean pool.
Councillor
Comments
The
construction of an ocean pool on the Shelly Beach marine rock platform has been
the subject of various Council resolutions since 2015.
The
most recent resolution (March 2020) saw Council disband the ‘Council
Ocean Pool Committee’ but ‘continue to endorse the preparation of
an application to seek the necessary planning approval’.
The
relevant planning, environmental and technical assessments were to be completed
by an interested community group. To this point in time, the required planning
assessments and related documentation have not been presented to Council.
A parallel
development with the proposed ocean pool has been the use of it as an election
promise at the 2016 and 2021 local government elections, as well as the 2019
NSW state election.
Ballina
Shire Council is now taking its environmental and climate responsibilities very
seriously. We have moved forward since 2015 when the elected Council first
indicated its support for the ocean pool concept.
Council
has declared a “Climate Emergency’, clearly recognising the reality
and threat of global warming and sea-level rise.
We have
commenced a program to have Council operations ‘carbon neutral’ by
2030. Plans are being developed to counter the impacts of rising sea-levels in
our coastal zones and river-side areas. There is much more being done and much
still to do.
The
time has come when Ballina Shire Council must stand up for its beaches and
marine rock platform areas in a demonstrative, environmentally supportive way.
The
excavation of the Shelly Beach marine rock area for an ocean pool and the
depositing of many hundreds (thousands) of cubic metres of concrete in the
inter-tidal zone to construct it, should not be in our planning. Surely it does
not fit with the environmental actions and aspirations of this Council.
There
are numerous other reasons why the concept of an ocean pool should not be
supported by this Council:
· No liaison with and no current support about the concept,
from our local Aboriginal Community, particularly Jali LALC.
· No current inclusion in Council’s current and
long-term financial planning for construction or on-going maintenance.
· No need for an additional swimming facility in the area.
Shaws Bay is now a fantastic and very popular saltwater swimming area.
· No ocean pools have been constructed in NSW for 50 years.
Times have changed, most ocean pools were constructed before councils built
community swimming facilities such as the Ballina Memorial Olympic Pool.
· An ocean pool constructed in the suggested location/s will
fill with sand and seaweed in large wave conditions.
· The suggested location, adjacent to the Richmond River,
will see an ocean pool filled with dirty river water and brown froth in wet
times.
· The ocean pool will disappear beneath the ocean surface if
predicted sea-level rises occur.
In the
end, many people who live where ocean pools have previously been constructed do
love them. But the pools come with large impacts and costs.
In
Ballina, when weighing up all the pros and cons, an ocean pool is just not
necessary, and its construction will have a dramatic man-made impact on what is
now (largely) a natural marine environment.
In
finishing I ask councillors to support this notice of motion by stating to our
community and other levels of government that this Council does not support the
construction of an ocean pool in Ballina Shire.
We put
our environment first and recognise that our community has many high-quality
swimming facilities and venues already available to them.
Staff Comments
The last
resolution on the ocean pool was in March 2020 as follows:
1. That
Council approves the dissolution of the Council Ocean Pool Committee.
2. That
Council continues to endorse the preparation of an application to seek the
necessary planning approval for the Ballina Ocean Pool project at Shelly Beach,
Ballina, subject to the application being inclusive of appropriate planning and
technical assessments, consistent with resolution reference RT270918/3.
3. That
Council confirms that the endorsement in point two does not provide approval to
lodge a planning application, with that decision to be made by the elected
Council, once the documentation is at a point where the General Manager, or
nominated delegate, is of the opinion that satisfactory information is
available for the planning assessment.
4. That Council continue to provide in-kind
assistance to the Ballina Ocean Pool Committee Inc, through the provision of
the Council Committee meeting room for meetings, and access to staff, as and
when required, within reasonable limits as determined by the General Manager.
Council
has no funding for the ocean pool in the ten year long term financial plan, and
the underlying principle has been that the project will only proceed if it is
fully funded by grants.
Councillor Recommendation
That
Council confirms that it does not support the construction of an ocean pool on
the Shelly Beach / Lighthouse Beach marine rock platform area, due to the
negative environmental impact that the construction of such a facility would
have, as well as the negative impacts on Council’s finances in respect to
funding the construction and on-going maintenance of the ocean pool.
Attachment(s)
Nil
11.3 Notice
of Motion - Shire Koala Population
11.3 Notice
of Motion - Shire Koala Population
|
Councillor
|
Councillor Chate
|
I move
1. That
Ballina Shire Council openly declare the preservation and protection of our
entire Koala population to be a Council priority.
2. That
Council receive a report on the current Koala habitat in comparison to the most
recent Koala plan, showing: -
· Existing habitat - percentage increase or
decline since previous study
· Possible areas / locations where we can actively
increase our koala habitat
· Existing koala corridors - location and options
for expansion.
3. That
Council embark upon an active campaign to increase Koala habitat within Ballina
Shire by 10 - 15% within the course of this electoral cycle.
4. That
Council look into appropriate funding such as available grants, etc for the
purpose of planting Koala habitat.
5. That
Council look at possible incentives for land holders to set aside portions of
their land for the expansion of wildlife and especially Koala habitat.
6. That
Koala habitat protection and expansion be prioritised in the Ballina Shire
Council Biodiversity Strategy that is currently under consideration.
Councillor Comments
The plight of NSW’s declining koala population has
been evident for some years now, however, this week’s upgrading from
“vulnerable” to “endangered” for this iconic Aussie
animal highlights the urgency with which we must view our Shire’s koala
population.
Koalas are predominantly vulnerable to habitat loss, dogs,
roads, disease and bushfires and the 2019/20 bushfire storms killed more than 3
billion wild creatures and decimated the koala populations statewide. In
Ballina Shire, we lost between 30 - 40% of our koala population during these
fire storms while other parts of the state lost up to 70%.
With this week’s reclassification from
“vulnerable” to “endangered”, it is critical that we do
everything we possibly can to ensure the health and longevity of this species.
We need to act now - not in 5 years - not in 3. Koala’s are currently
projected to be extinct in NSW before 2050.
Staff Comments
The Ballina Shire Koala Management Strategy incorporates a
number of actions that align with the sentiments expressed in the notice of
motion.
In particular various actions in the strategy seek to
preserve existing koala habitat in the shire and support habitat restoration
projects.
There are also actions that seek to manage threats to
koalas aside from those associated with habitat loss (e.g. dogs and vehicle
strike). Council has implemented a number of projects in line with the
strategy and has received grant funding in a number of these instances.
Implementation of the strategy is action HE3.2(h) under the
current Delivery Program and Operational Plan.
Council has previously expressed its view on the importance
of koalas and koala habitat in the shire through the adoption of its strategy
and the projects implemented to date.
With respect to mapping and habitat provision, Council
established a koala habitat map and associated core koala habitat mapping as
part of the koala management strategy (Figure 1 koala habitat shown
green). A review of koala habitat in the shire can be undertaken. A
mapping review of this type on a shire wide scale will likely take at least
several months to incorporate into the existing work program and complete.
Figure 1: Koala Habitat Map –
Extract from Ballina Shire Koala Management Strategy
With respect to land holder incentives, habitat expansion
and priorities for projects, consideration of these types of issues from an
overall biodiversity perspective forms part of the biodiversity strategy that
is currently in preparation.
The preparation of a biodiversity strategy for the shire is
action HE3.2(i) under the current Delivery Program and Operational Plan.
Staff are currently in the project scoping and background
documentation phase. The project will include community engagement to
inform its content, including actions and policy relating to biodiversity in
the shire. It is expected the biodiversity strategy will take a further
12-15 months to complete.
The suggested approach from a staff perspective is to build
the elements of this motion (if endorsed) into the overall biodiversity
strategy process (including aligning the biodiversity strategy to the current
koala management strategy).
Point 3 has funding implications and that information will
need to be included in the report mentioned in point 2.
Councillor Recommendations
1. That
Ballina Shire Council openly declare the preservation and protection of our
entire Koala population to be a council priority.
2. That
Council receive a report on the current Koala habitat in comparison to the most
recent Koala plan, showing: -
· Existing habitat - percentage increase or
decline since previous study.
· Possible areas / locations where we can actively
increase our koala habitat.
· Existing koala corridors - location and options
for expansion.
3. That
Council embark upon an active campaign to increase Koala habitat within Ballina
Shire by 10 - 15% within the course of this electoral cycle.
4. That
Council look into appropriate funding such as available grants, etc for the
purpose of planting Koala habitat.
5. That
Council look at possible incentives for land holders to set aside portions of
their land for the expansion of wildlife and especially koala habitat.
6. That
Koala habitat protection and expansion be prioritised in the Ballina Shire
Council Biodiversity Strategy that is currently under consideration.
Attachment(s)
Nil
11.4 Notice
of Motion - Highway Bypass Signs
11.4 Notice
of Motion - Highway Bypass Signs
I move
1. That Council receive a report on the
process to replace the two Ballina Highway bypass signs to improve the overall
image and to encourage more visitors to the Ballina Shire.
2. This report is to include, but not be
limited to:
· the approval process with Transport for NSW
· estimated cost
· options to determine the preferred signage including the staging of
a local competition
· the possibility of recognising local Aboriginal culture as part of
the signage.
Councillor Comments
There are mixed
feelings in respect to the current imaging for Ballina as part of the Bypassed
Town signage.
There is general
agreement that the images could be improved and a report outlining the process
to be followed would assist Council in planning and potentially funding
replacement images.
The Pacific
Motorway signage is the only image that many travellers up and down the highway
would see of Ballina.
The current
image of north and south wall don't reflect the beauty of our area and do
little to encourage highway travels to make further enquires.
Ballina should
be known as the 'Gateway to the Northern Rivers' and we should be promoting the
fact that we have some of the best beaches on the coast.
There has been
some feedback on this issue online and I've seen much better images from local
photographers.
As part of a new
selection process we could ask for images/designs from local photographers and
artists.
I would also
like a sign at the entrance to the Ballina Shire to acknowledge that people are
entering Bundjalung Country and have a welcome message like other areas up and
down the coast.
The Ballina
Shire has a large and active Indigenous community with many significant cultural
sites throughout the Shire.
Staff Comments
The Bypassed Town
signage is a State Government initiative which aims to encourage travellers to
stop and visit bypassed towns in rural and regional NSW.
Additionally,
the installation of Bypassed Town and Technical Direction signage has road
safety benefits through fatigue management by encouraging drivers to take
regular driving breaks.
This initiative
has been endorsed by the State Government and aligns with the Tourism and
Transport Plan and Visitor Economy Industry Action Plan 2030
The 30-metre
square directional signs are positioned on the highway at the northbound and
southbound approaches to the bypassed town. Ballina Shire has Bypassed Town
signage installed at Ballina and Wardell.
In 2019, Ballina
was included in the first stage of the Transport for New South Wales (TNSW)
signage initiative rolled out along the Princes and Pacific highways.
The signage
displays service symbols to highlight available services and facilities to
assist travellers on their journeys and encourage rest breaks. The signs
display a colour photo to promote the town and entice road users to explore the
local community.
Consultation
with Councillors and the Ballina Chamber of Commerce was undertaken prior to
the image being selected. The priority for all consulted was to ensure the
image reflected Ballina’s waterways and the mouth
of the Richmond River (including north wall and south wall).
Anecdotal
evidence suggested many travellers to the Ballina Visitor Information Centre
are unaware that Ballina is located on a river mouth or on the coast.
The shortlisted
image was provided to Councillors, by a Councillor Bulletin on 29 November
2019. TNSW consulted with Jali Aboriginal Land Council and sought concurrence
from the Member for Ballina, Tamara Smith.
Replacement
signs
On investigation
of costs to replace the existing signs, TNSW advised costs would be borne by
Council.
In working with
TNSW, staff expect the time to attend to this request would be lengthy as the
TNSW have already completed highway signage works in the region. Signage
replacement logistics would require TNSW approvals and equipment to access the
signage infrastructure to remove and replace or reskin.
TNSW advised
that replacement costs are in the order of $50,000 (an estimate from 2020). A
supplementary quotation sourced from a private contractor for printing and
installation is significantly cheaper however it excludes traffic control,
equipment hire, and permissions to access TNSW assets. This revised quotation
may still significantly reduce the estimated cost.
Signage selection
criteria
TNSW has specific
criteria for signage image selection and arranged a professional photographer
to supply the image due to the complexity of the subject matter and the size of
photo of the feature once a decision was made so that the image supplied:
· is simple with
contrasting colours are best and is easily interpreted at a glance by drivers.
Images should be as simple as possible and should not
include a large amount of detail as these cannot be interpreted at high speed
· is suitable for
cropping or enlarging to sign specifications 5,306mm x 5,668mm.
· does not contain
people, especially if they are the main detail
· does
not include commercial advertising or logos
· is high resolution and in RAW format to be hand adjusted by
a professional photographer to give the best colour gamma and clarity.
Visitation
to Ballina Shire
Visitation
levels to the Ballina Shire exceeded one-million in 2018. The COVID-19 pandemic
has had an impact on travel including domestic tourism, which accounts for a
large majority of the total visitor economy. Domestic overnight visitors
dropped by 12% in 2020 and international overnight visitors dropped by 100% in
2021 (source: Tourism Research Australia).
The recovery is
underway with the domestic visitor economy forecast to return to its
pre-pandemic level by the end of 2023/24. Visitation is expected to return to
2018/19 levels by this time (source: Tourism Research Australia).
Not all feedback
on the signage has been negative, Council received positive feedback when the
sign was unveiled in May 2020. It has been observed that the Bypassed Town signage
further south is starting to deteriorate and fade and TNSW will need to start
looking at replacing or updating the signage.
Councillor Recommendations
1. That Council receive a report on the process to
replace the two Ballina Highway bypass signs to improve the overall image and
to encourage more visitors to the Ballina Shire.
2. This report is to include, but not be limited to:
· the approval process with Transport for NSW
· estimated cost
· options to determine
the preferred signage including the staging of a local competition
· the possibility of
recognising local Aboriginal culture as part of the signage
Attachment(s)
Nil
13. Reports
from Councillors on Attendance on Council's behalf
13.1 Mayoral
Meetings
|
Councillor
|
Sharon Cadwallader
|
Activities I have
attended, or propose to attend, as at the time of writing this report, since
the January 2022 Ordinary
meeting are as follows:
|
Date
|
Activity
|
Purpose
|
|
31/1/22
|
Meeting Rev Cathy Ridd
|
Concerns regarding the
basic needs for people in our community
|
|
31/1/22
|
Meeting Lucinda Bourke
|
Enquiry regarding the use
of community facilities to assist women in neeed “Two Good
Program”
|
|
1/2/22
|
Meeting with Minister for
Regional Transport & Roads, Hon Sam Farraway and Traffic for NSW
|
Proposed new works on the
Alstonville intersection. I also raised the need for funding Ross Lane &
Tamarind Drive flooding issues, the Cumberland Interchange & the need for
upgrading the Bruxner Highway particularly at Lindendale Road.
|
|
2/2/22
|
Meeting with Patrick Deegan
Labor candidate for Page at the next Federal election
|
Discussion on the housing
crisis and the need for firm commitments to fund projects
|
|
3/2/22
|
Interview with Jo
Shoebridge ABC
|
Regarding meeting with
Minister Farraway
|
|
4/2/22
|
NRJO Extraordinary Meeting
|
Elected as Chair
|
|
4/2/22
|
Zoom meeting with Danielle
Mulholland
|
Update on Joint
Organisation
|
|
9/2/22 to 11/2/22
|
LGNSW Water Conference
Narrabri
|
Attended as a Rous County
Council delegate
|
|
14/2/22
|
Meeting Peter Plummer
|
Shaws Bay redevelopment
|
|
14/2/22
|
Zoom meeting Australian
Coastal Councils Association
|
Re-elected as NSW
representative and Chair
|
|
14/2/22
|
Meeting with NRJO Executive
Officer
|
Organisational matters
|
|
14/2/22
|
Meeting with David Mallam
and Matthew Wood
|
Innovation Hub discussion.
Asked for a prospectus.
|
|
14/2/22
|
Meeting with NR Regional
Manager Jane Laverty
|
Opportunities for
collaboration of business activities through Council’s Post Pandemic
Recovery Taskforce
|
|
15/2/22
|
Meeting Chris Burrows and
staff
|
Community BBQs
|
|
16/2/22
|
Rous County Council meeting
|
First meeting of the term
|
|
16/2/22
|
Zoom meeting with ALGWA and
LGNSW Presidents
|
Discussion on matters
affecting local councils ie FAG grants, housing crisis, ratepegging etc
|
|
16/2/22
|
Ballina Players AGM
Returning Officer’s role
|
New committee elected
|
|
17/2/22
|
Ballina Lions Club Youth of
the Year meeting
|
Annual competition
|
|
18/2/22
|
Opening of Wollongbar
District Park
|
|
|
19/2/22
|
Ballina Lions Club Youth of
the Year interviews
|
|
|
22/2/22
|
Ballina Youth of the Year
Judging
|
|
|
24/2/22
|
Ordinary meeting
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council notes the contents of the
report on Mayoral meetings.
Attachment(s)
Nil
14. Confidential
Session
In accordance with Section 9 (2A)
of the Local Government Act 1993, the General Manager is of the opinion that
the matters included in the Confidential Business Paper, and detailed below are
likely to be considered when the meeting is closed to the public.
Section 10A(4) of the Local
Government Act, 1993 provides that members of the public are allowed to make
representations to or at a meeting, before any part of the meeting is closed to
the public, as to whether that part of the meeting should be closed.
A brief summary of each of the
reports recommended for consideration in confidential session follows:
14.1 Wigmore
Arcade Complex - Leases
Refer to Item 9.4 of this agenda.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council moves into committee
of the whole with the meeting closed to the public, to consider the following
items in accordance with Section 10A (2) of the Local Government Act 1993.
14.1 Wigmore Arcade Complex -
Leases
Reason for Confidentiality
This report is confidential in accordance with
Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993. which permits the meeting
to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-
c) information
that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom
the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business
and in accordance with 10D(2)(c),
on balance, the discussion of the matter in an open meeting is not considered
to be in the public interest due to the ongoing commercial negotiations and the
release of any information could prejudice those negotiations, as well as
disclosing private and commercial information.
