YVC_logo_test_transparent

Minutes of the

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday 28 June 2017

4.00pm

Council Chambers
209 Comur Street, Yass

Table of Contents

1. Prayer 3

2. Apologies 3

3. Declaration of Interest/Disclosures 3

4. Confirmation of Minutes 4

5. Mayoral Minute. 4

6. Director of Planning Reports 4

6.1 Draft Feral Cat Trapping Policy. 4

6.2 Draft Plan of Management for the Yass Gorge. 7

6.3 Cities Power Partnership - A Climate Council Program for Local Government 7

6.4 Development Consent No 5.2011.208.1 - Residential Subdivision. 62 Cobham Street, Yass 8

6.5 Development Consent No 5.2013.101.1 - Residential Subdivision, Rossi Street, Yass 8

6.6 Development Application No. 5.2016.280.1 - Highway Service Centre, Yass Valley Way, Yass 9

6.7 Development Application No 5.2017.3.1 - Rural Subdivision, 271 Sibley Road, Gundaroo. 9

7. Director of Engineering Reports 10

7.1 September 2016 Natural Disaster Declaration. 10

7.2 Yass Valley Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan and Bike Plan. 10

7.3 Tender Evaluation Report - Cleaning Services for Council Buildings 11

7.4 Lease - Lot 96 of 116 Laidlaw Street Yass 11

8. Director of Finance & Corporate Reports 12

8.1 Pre-payment of Financial Assistance Grants Instalments 12

8.2 Council Committee Nomination - Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee. 12

8.3 Budget Increase: Yass Library, Yass Valley Home Living Support Service and Community Development 13

8.4 Investment Policy. 13

8.5 Digital Yass Valley - Smart Region. 18

8.6 Investment and Borrowings Report 18

9. General Manager Reports 19

9.1 CBRJO Board, Country Mayors Association and SEATS. 19

9.2 Draft Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes meeting of 8 June 2017. 19

10. Notice of Motion. 19

11. Questions with Notice. 19

12. Minutes and Recommendations of Council Committees 19

12.1 Minutes of the Murrumbateman Old School Grounds & Library Committee held on 9 May 2017. 19

12.2 Minutes of the Governance and Finance Committee Meeting held on 9 May 2017. 20

12.3 Minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee and Rescue Committee meetings held on 11 May 2017. 20

12.4 Minutes of the Southern Slopes Noxious Plants Authority held on 16 February 2017 and 20 April 2017 20

13. Confidential Matters 21

13.1 Tender Evaluation Report - Cleaning Services for Council Buildings & Amenities. 21

13.2 Council Committee Nominations - Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee. 22

13.3 Lease - Lot 96 of 116 Laidlaw Street Yass to Jones Transport Yass 22

Open Forum

Presentations to Council – Items on the Meeting Agenda

· Item 6.5 – Development Consent No 5.2013.101.1 – Residential Subdivision, Rossi Street, Yass

Simon Cassidy

· Item 6.6 – Development Application No 5.2016.280.1 – Highway Service Centre, Yass Valley Way, Yass

Steven Keir – City Plan Strategy & Development (on behalf of Farrell Heidelberg)

Paul Morgan – Farrell Heidelberg

David Walker, GEOLYSE (on behalf of applicant)

Rohan Arnold (Applicant)

· Item 6.7 – Development application No 5.2017.3.1 – Rural Subdivision, 271 Sibley Road, Gundaroo

Jamie Bush, DPS (on behalf of Applicant)

Dr Michael Gilligan (Applicant)

Council Meeting - The Mayor declared the meeting open at 4.45 pm.

Present

Councillors Rowena Abbey, Mayor, in the chair, Cecil Burgess, Geoff Frost, Nathan Furry, Jasmin Jones, , Mike Reid and Kim Turner.

Also present were the General Manager – David Rowe, Director of Planning – Chris Berry, Director of Engineering – Robert Fish, Director of Finance & Corporate – Sharon Hutch and Corporate Planning & Executive Support Officer – Shirree Garland.

1. Prayer

2. Apologies

RESOLVED that apologies be received from Councillors Harker and McManus and leave of absence be granted.

(Burgess/Frost) 131

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

3. Declaration of Interest/Disclosures

Councillor Jones declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary conflict of interest in 6.2 Draft Plan of Management for the Yass Gorge and stated that she did not believe her interest would preclude her from voting.

Reason: Councillor Jones declared the interest in relation to the provision of periodic assistance to Friends of Yass Gorge, but does not hold a position on the Executive.

Councillor Abbey declared a significant, pecuniary conflict of interest in Item 6.6 Development Application No 5.2016.280.1 – Highway Service Centre, Yass Valley Way and stated that she believed her interest would preclude her from voting.

Reason: Councillor Abbey declared an interest as a shareholder of Yass Industrial Park, the applicants for the Development Application.

Councillor Abbey declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary conflict of interest in Item 7.4 Lease – Lot 96 of 116 Laidlaw Street, Yass and stated that she believed her interest would preclude her from voting.

Reason: Councillor Abbey declared a perceived interest as part owner of industrial land where the lessee could possibly be located.

RESOLVED that late Items 8.6 Investment and Borrowings Report and 9.2 Draft Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes be dealt with in the appropriate Director’s section of the ordinary agenda.

(Turner/Furry) 132

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

4. Confirmation of Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 May 2017 covered by page numbers 5‑25 inclusive and resolution numbers 101-130 inclusive, copies of which had been circulated to all Councillors, be taken as read and confirmed.

(Furry/Burgess) 133

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

5. Mayoral Minute

6. Director of Planning Reports

6.1 Draft Feral Cat Trapping Policy

SUMMARY

To report on the outcomes of the public exhibition of the draft Feral Cat Trapping Policy and to recommend adoption.

RESOLVED that the revised Feral Cat Trapping Policy be adopted.

(Jones/Furry) 134

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.2 Draft Plan of Management for the Yass Gorge

SUMMARY

The Yass Gorge is located on the Yass River, between Flat Rock Crossing and Yass Dam. It is public land with significant environmental values and a Plan of Management will guide actions to protect the area into the future. A draft plan has been prepared in consultation with the Friends of Yass Gorge and South East Local Land Services. Public exhibition of the plan is recommended.

RESOLVED that :

1. The Draft Plan of Management for Yass Gorge be placed on public exhibition.

2. Steps be initiated to transfer land owned by H O’Brien into public ownership.

(Furry/Turner) 135

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.3 Cities Power Partnership - A Climate Council Program for Local Government

SUMMARY

Council have been invited to join the Cities Power Partnership, a Climate Council program to showcase and support the emission reduction and clean energy successes of Australian towns and cities. The program is free and requires the commitment of Council to five key actions, in return for access to a National network of expertise and support.

MOVED that the invitation be received and noted

(Frost/Burgess)

MOTION LOST

FOR: Councillors C Burgess and G Frost

AGAINST: Councillors R Abbey, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

RESOLVED that the invitation to enter into the Cities Power Partnership be accepted.

(Furry/Turner) 136

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Councillor G Frost

6.4 Development Consent No 5.2011.208.1 - Residential Subdivision. 62 Cobham Street, Yass

SUMMARY

Report deals with a request to defer payment of development contributions to the point of sale rather than at subdivision plan release stage and remove the requirement of footpath construction. The request is consistent with the previous similar arrangements and approval is recommended.

RESOLVED that a voluntary planning agreement be entered into for the deferred payment of development contributions associated with the residential subdivision at 62 Cobham Street, Yass subject to the agreement including:

· Payment of the required contributions (indexed in accordance with CPI as provided for in the plan):

- Upon settlement of the sale of the lot or

- Within 1 year if a sale has not taken place

· Any deferred payments being subject to interest equal to that for outstanding rates (i.e. currently 8.5% per annum)

(Jones/Frost) 137

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

6.5 Development Consent No 5.2013.101.1 - Residential Subdivision, Rossi Street, Yass

SUMMARY

Report deals with a request to defer the payment of development contributions to the point of sale rather than at the subdivision stage. The request is consistent with previous similar arrangements and approval is recommended.

RESOLVED that a voluntary planning agreement be entered into for the deferred payment of development contributions associated with the residential subdivision at 134 Rossi Street, Yass subject to the agreement including:

· Payment of the required contributions (indexed in accordance with CPI as provided for in the plan):

 Upon settlement of the sale of a lot or

 Within 18 months if a sale has not taken place

· Any deferred payments being subject to interest equal to that for outstanding rates (i.e. currently 8.5% per annum).

(Jones/Furry) 138

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

At 05:09 PM Councillor Abbey left the Chambers.

6.6 Development Application No. 5.2016.280.1 - Highway Service Centre, Yass Valley Way, Yass

SUMMARY

The proposed use is referred to Council as it involves a key question of permissibility. Legal advice has been obtained indicating the proposal is prohibited in the zone.

RESOLVED that :

1. Development Application No 5.2016.280.1 be deferred pending the outcome of any Planning Proposal.

2. The Director of Planning be authorised to seek a Gateway Determination and delegation to Council of the plan making functions under the EP&A Act 1979 for any request to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the Yass Valley LEP 2013 to include a ‘Highway service centre’ in the IN1 General Industrial zone subject to it being prepared in accordance with Council and Department of Planning & Environment guidelines and being supported by documents generally consistent with those lodged with DA 5.2016.280.1.

(Furry/Frost) 139

FOR: Councillors C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

At 05:21 PM Councillor Abbey returned to the Chambers.

6.7 Development Application No 5.2017.3.1 - Rural Subdivision, 271 Sibley Road, Gundaroo

SUMMARY

The proposal is referred to Council as it involves a variation to the average lot size development standard in the LEP. The application attracted three submissions.

RESOLVED that conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application 5.2017.3.1 for a subdivision of 271 Sibley Road, Gundaroo including requirements for:

· The vegetation on the north west portion of the site being included in a single lot (i.e. proposed lot 2)

· All fencing being in accordance with the Non-Urban Fencing Policy

· 300 metres of Back Creek Road be sealed

· Electricity to be supplied by the grid or other alternate arrangement as per Council policy.

(Jones/Frost) 140

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, G Frost, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Councillors C Burgess and N Furry

7. Director of Engineering Reports

7.1 September 2016 Natural Disaster Declaration

SUMMARY

The Yass Valley Council Local Government Area was declared a natural disaster zone following high rainfall and flooding during September 2016. This report provides an update on the status of claims made under natural disaster provisions and advice on planned repair works.

RESOLVED that Council:

1. Undertake a comprehensive review of Roads & Maritime Services assessment of the claim for repair to roads under natural disaster provisions, as a result of heavy rainfall and flooding in September 2016, to ensure Council roads are able to be restored to at least the condition prior to the event.

2. Should this review identify any locations where inadequate funding assistance has been provided, further justification be provided to Roads & Maritime Services to enable reassessment.

3. Invite tenders for unsealed road repairs arising from the claim approval via the open tendering method.

(Burgess/Furry) 141

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

7.2 Yass Valley Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan and Bike Plan

SUMMARY

Providing Council with details of the draft 2017 Yass Valley Bike Plan and Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP) and seeking approval to place the document on public exhibition.

RESOLVED that Council:

1. Place the draft 2017 Yass Valley Bike Plan and Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP) on public exhibition, and forward a copy for consideration to the Access Committee.

2. Adopt the 2017 Yass Valley Bike Plan and Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP) if no significant objections are received during the public exhibition period.

(Frost/Jones) 142

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

7.3 Tender Evaluation Report - Cleaning Services for Council Buildings

SUMMARY

Advice on the submission of tenders for the recently tendered Cleaning Services contract YVC/OP/BS/01.2017. This contract includes the cleaning and minor maintenance of specified Council buildings and amenities.

RESOLVED that this item of the Director of Engineering report’s be classified as confidential in accordance with section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

(Burgess/Furry) 143

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

7.4 Lease - Lot 96 of 116 Laidlaw Street Yass

SUMMARY

On 27 July 2016 Council resolved to seek expressions of interest for the sale of the above property which is currently leased to a local transport company. A request has been received from the lessee as to whether Council would continue leasing the property.

RESOLVED that this item of the Director of Engineering’s report be classified as confidential in accordance with section 10A(2)(d)(i), (d)ii) & (c) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public relating to commercial information of a confidential nature, that if disclosed, could prejudice the position of the person who supplied it.

(Burgess/Furry) 144

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

8. Director of Finance & Corporate Reports

8.1 Pre-payment of Financial Assistance Grants Instalments

SUMMARY

Considering the impact of the Federal Government’s announcement that 50% of the 2017/18 Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) will be paid to Councils by 30 June 2017, Council has written to the NSW Grants Commission urging that they maintain payments for Financial Assistance Grants to the year in which they are allocated. Council received pre-payment of 50% of the 2017/18 allocation on 8 June 2017 totalling $1,418,212.

RESOLVED that :

1. Council endorse the action of the Mayor in writing to the NSW Grants Commission urging that the payments of Financial Assistance Grants be made only in the year in which they are allocated.

2. Financial Assistance Grants received by Yass Valley Council be expended only in the year for which they are allocated.

3. Any prepaid Financial Assistance Grant received by Yass Valley Council be accrued to the year in which they are allocated.

(Frost/Turner) 145

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Councillor J Jones

8.2 Council Committee Nomination - Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee

SUMMARY

Nomination for user representative to become a member of the Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee.

RESOLVED that item is classified CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other and councillors).

(Turner/Jones) 146

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

8.3 Budget Increase: Yass Library, Yass Valley Home Living Support Service and Community Development

SUMMARY

Successful Grant funding, totalling $81,842 has been received. 2017/18 operational budgets for Yass Valley Home Living Support Service, Community Development and Yass Library required to be increased to reflect additional income.

RESOLVED that the 2016/17 operating income and expenditure budget by $81,842:

1. Public Library Infrastructure Grant of $66,842 (Library)

2. Marketing the NDIS of $10,000 (HLSS)

3. Reconciliation week and NAIDOC Week Grant of $5,000 (Community Development).

(Turner/Jones) 147

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

8.4 Investment Policy

SUMMARY

Review of GOV-POL-19 Investment Policy.

RESOLVED that :

1. the revised Draft Policy GOV-POL-19 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days

2. Comment be sought from the Finance & Governance and Audit, Risk and Improvement Committees.

(Frost/Turner) 148

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

8.5 Digital Yass Valley - Smart Region

SUMMARY

At the April 2017 ordinary meeting of Council, Council resolved to engage Delos Delta to prepare the Yass Valley Smart Community Plan and a project application for submission to the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. The draft Plan is being finalised concurrently with the development of the grant application to the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program.

RESOLVED that:

1. Council submit an application to the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program encompassing project objectives of:

· increasing the breadth, quality and integration of online services

· providing easier access to information that the community values

· enhancing engagement between the Council and community

· improving activation and vibrancy, and deliver an even better local experience for tourists and residents alike

· encouraging greater awareness and use of online services

· improving community satisfaction with online services

· establishing an open data initiative to support innovation and transparency

· improving emergency management communications and outcomes

· enhancing the management of customer service requests

· providing a template and lessons for implementation in councils across Australia

2. A copy of the application and the Yass Smart Communities Plan be distributed to Councillors upon completion.

(Furry/Jones) 149

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

8.6 Investment and Borrowings Report

SUMMARY

In Accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW) Section 212, this report provides a summary of Council’s investments as at 31 May 2017. In accordance with Section (1)(b), it can be certified that the investments listed have been made in accordance with the Act, the appropriate Regulation and Council’s Investment Policy (other than the variances discussed in this report).

RESOLVED that the Investment Report as at 31 May 2017 be received and it be noted that the summary has been prepared in accordance with the Act, the Regulation and Council’s Investment Policy (other than variances discussed in this report).

(Turner/Jones) 150

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

9. General Manager Reports

9.1 CBRJO Board, Country Mayors Association and SEATS

RESOLVED that the:

1. Draft Minutes of the Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CBRJO) Board meeting held on 30-31 May 2017 be noted.

2. Draft Minutes of the Country Mayors Association Meeting held 16 June 2017 be noted.

(Reid/Jones) 151

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

9.2 Draft Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes meeting of 8 June 2017

RESOLVED that Council note the Draft Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee minutes of 8 June 2017.

(Frost/Furry) 152

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

10. Notice of Motion

Nil

11. Questions with Notice

Nil

12. Minutes and Recommendations of Council Committees

12.1 Minutes of the Murrumbateman Old School Grounds & Library Committee held on 9 May 2017

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Murrumbateman Old School Grounds & Library Committee meeting held on 9 May 2017 be noted.

(Reid/Burgess) 153

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

12.2 Minutes of the Governance and Finance Committee Meeting held on 9 May 2017

RESOLVED that :

1. The minutes of the Governance and Finance Committee meeting held on 9 May 2017 be noted.

2. The Advisory Note on Council Reports/Meeting Packs project be noted and the following adopted:

a. Implement the revised reporting arrangements for Council meetings from July 2017 onwards;

b. General Manager propose how implementation of the recommendations be monitored and report to the Governance and finance committee on progress and results throughout 2017-18.

(Frost/Turner) 154

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

12.3 Minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee and Rescue Committee meetings held on 11 May 2017

RESOLVED that the Draft minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee and Rescue Committee meetings held on 11 May 2017 be noted.

(Furry/Turner) 155

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

12.4 Minutes of the Southern Slopes Noxious Plants Authority held on 16 February 2017 and 20 April 2017

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Southern Slopes Noxious Plants Authority held on 16 February 2017 and 20 April 2017 be noted:

Burgess/Frost) 156

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

13. Confidential Matters

RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 10A of the Local Government Act, 1993 the following items on the agenda be classified as CONFIDENTIAL and considered in the Closed Meeting of Council in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act for the reasons as specified:

13.1 Tender Evaluation Report - Cleaning Services for Council Buildings & Amenities.

Item 13.1 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(dii) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

13.2 Council Committee Nominations - Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee

Item 13.2 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors) and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

13.3 Lease - Lot 96 of 116 Laidlaw Street Yass to Jones Transport Yass

Item 13.3 is confidential in accordance with section s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business, section s10(A)(2)(di) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and section s10(A)(2)(dii) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council and discussion of the matter in an open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

(Furry/Turner) 157

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

Closed Council commenced at 6.20 pm.

13.1 Tender Evaluation Report - Cleaning Services for Council Buildings & Amenities.

SUMMARY

Results of the tender assessment for the recently tendered Cleaning Services contract YVC/OP/BS/01.2017. This contract includes the cleaning and minor maintenance of specified Council buildings and amenities.

RESOLVED that Council accept the tender of Robert McGregor Cleaning for the Cleaning Services of Council Buildings and Amenities contract (contract number YVC/OP/BS/01.2017) for three years commencing 1 July 2017 for the value of $375,063 excluding GST.

(Burgess/Reid) 158

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Councillor G Frost

13.2 Council Committee Nominations - Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee

SUMMARY

Nomination for a user representative to become a member of the Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve & Grounds Committee.

RESOLVED that Council adopt the nomination below, in line with the number of delegates required as per the Terms of Reference.

COMMITTEE

NUMBER OF DELEGATES REQUIRED AS PER ToR

COUNCILLOR DELEGATE

Nominee

Murrumbateman Recreation Reserve and Grounds Committee

12 – 1 Councillor, 1 MAPA representative, 1 Mens Shed representative, 2 community representatives and 7 user representatives

Clr Mike Reid

Greg Turrell

(Reid/Burgess) 159

FOR: Councillors R Abbey, C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

At 06.35PM Councillor Abbey left the Chambers.

13.3 Lease - Lot 96 of 116 Laidlaw Street Yass to Jones Transport Yass

SUMMARY

RESOLVED that Council give three (3) months’ notice of intent to terminate the lease to the tenant and proceed with expressions of interest for sale of the property as per July 2016 resolution (Min 195/2016).

(Jones/Frost) 160

FOR: Councillors C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

RESOLVED that the meeting move into Open Council.

(Furry/Burgess) 161

FOR: Councillors C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

RESOLVED that the recommendations in Closed Council be adopted.

(Jones/Furry) 162

FOR: Councillors C Burgess, G Frost, N Furry, J Jones, M Reid and K Turner

AGAINST: Nil

The meeting closed at 6.46 pm.

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.1 Gundaroo Masterplan & 'Kyeema' and 'Faithfull' Planning Proposals

SUMMARY

To present a report outlining the community consultation outcomes on the Draft Gundaroo Masterplan and Altered ‘Kyeema’ and ‘Faithfull Street’ Planning Proposals.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The Gundaroo Masterplan and Implementation Plan be endorsed

2. The amended ‘Faithfull Street’ Planning Proposal be endorsed and forwarded to the Minister for Planning to request an amendment to be made to the Yass Valley LEP 2013

3. The amended ‘Kyeema’ Planning Proposal be endorsed and forwarded to the Minister for Planning to request an amendment to be made to the Yass Valley LEP 2013

Financial IMPLICATIONS

The Masterplans have been funded from the Section 94 Contribution Administration Reserve.

POlicy & Legislation

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

REPORT

1. Background

In July 2015 Council considered a report outlining options for the resolution of two Planning Proposals to rezone land adjoining the northern and southern of the Gundaroo village. Council supported the rezonings and recommended an additional clause be included in the LEP requiring the preparation of a Development Control Plan (DCP) prior to any further development.

Elton Consulting were appointed to undertake the preparation of a Master Plan/DCP involving community workshops using independent facilitators. A copy of the draft Masterplan prepared by the consultants can be viewed at the following web links:

http://www.yassvalley.nsw.gov.au/sites/yassvalley/files/public/images/documents/December_2016_Council_Meeting/Pages%20from%2016003_gundaroo%20village%20master%20plan_v06%20Pub%20Ex_%201.pdf

http://www.yassvalley.nsw.gov.au/sites/yassvalley/files/public/images/documents/December_2016_Council_Meeting/Pages%20from%2016003_gundaroo%20village%20master%20plan_v06%20Pub%20Ex-2.pdf

http://www.yassvalley.nsw.gov.au/sites/yassvalley/files/public/images/documents/December_2016_Council_Meeting/Pages%20from%2016003_gundaroo%20village%20master%20plan_v06%20Pub%20Ex-3.pdf

While the draft Masterplan was being finalised, the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) issued Altered Gateway Determinations for the Planning Proposal as a result of the original public exhibition and referral to Public Agencies. The Department raised concerns with the ability to satisfy NSW Water’s recommended distances between onsite effluent disposal fields and domestic bores on the previously proposed smaller lots, despite the ability to vary this distance dependent on the site or soil characteristics.

To address this issue, the Department issued an altered Gateway Determination to require:

· Larger minimum lot sizes (i.e. 5,000m²) where reticulated sewerage and a sustainable water supply are not provided or

· A smaller minimum lot size (i.e. 2,000m²) if reticulated sewerage and sustainable water supply were provided.

There was also a recommendation to introduce an E2 Environmental Conservation zone over the area adjacent to the identified Superb Parrot habitat to the north of the village.

The zoning and lots size maps for the revised Gateway Determination are included as Attachments A and B.

It should also be noted that the Department did not endorse the inclusion of the additional LEP Clause requiring a DCP to be prepared within the Altered Gateway Determinations – partly because the process was already significantly progressed by Council.

It is therefore appropriate to consider the Gundaroo Masterplan and Altered ‘Kyeema’ and ‘Faithfull Street’ Planning Proposals together due to the concurrent public exhibition process and many of the issues being relevant to the three documents.

2. Public Exhibition

The three documents were placed on extended Public Exhibition from 16 January to 13 March 2017. A total of 66 submissions were received for the combined documents – noting that some submitters covered all three documents in their responses, whereas others lodged specific responses. Copies of the submissions can be viewed via the following web links:

http://www.yassvalley.nsw.gov.au/sites/yassvalley/files/public/2017/Planning/Gundaroo%20MP-Submissions-Part%201.pdf

http://www.yassvalley.nsw.gov.au/sites/yassvalley/files/public/2017/Planning/Gundaroo%20MP-Submissions-Part%202.pdf

http://www.yassvalley.nsw.gov.au/planning/lep-planning-proposals-yass-valley/gundaroo-planning-proposals-submissions-received-council

The issues raised and the planning responses are discussed as follows.

2.1 Purpose of Masterplan

Part of the community considered the Masterplan should have been an opportunity to revisit the two proposed rezonings. It was made clear from the outset that it was not the purpose of the Masterplan to revisit Council’s previous decisions on the Planning Proposals. The introduction of the Masterplan states:

‘In the case of Gundaroo, consideration needed to be given to the identification of design improvements, within the parameters of the decision by Council to support planning proposals adjacent to the village that would assist in incorporating the proposals into the village.’

The Masterplan gives context as to how the proposals can be incorporated with the existing village as well as setting some tangible actions to improve the village overall.

While the workshops with the community and outcomes were very useful and have shaped the final product, the draft Masterplan document, particularly the implementation recommendations, required substantial revision to ensure accuracy, ensure actions were achievable and had some ‘teeth’. The consultants are no longer engaged by Council however it was critical that the key spatial document, the ‘Indicative Masterplan’, was updated and modified to reflect issues raised by the community and reflect correct property ownership. As a result, the information within the ‘Indicative Masterplan’ and ‘Implementation Plan’ was copied into a final condensed document suitable for adoption and incorporation into a Development Control Plan (DCP).

It was also important to give a clearer picture as to how the design standards and elements of the Masterplan would integrate with the Comprehensive DCP currently being prepared by staff.

The revised Implementation Plan clearly sets out what will form a specific Appendix to the Comprehensive DCP. It also clearly sets out the changes required to the Yass Valley LEP 2013. In addition, it gives a clear pathway for incorporating actions into future Council Delivery Programs and Operational Plans.

2.2 Planning Process

The Friends of Gundaroo (FOG) group have continued to raise concerns about the planning process. It has been argued that the initial community consultation indicated that the majority of people from the village were opposed to the proposals and this was not portrayed accurately (e.g. number of members of a group).

Community consultation is not purely a numbers/voting exercise. Staff are well aware that submissions have been lodged – on both sides of the argument- from people living outside the village, multiple submissions from the same address, extended family members etc. Greater weight is given to submissions that raise specific issues rather than a general indication of whether they support a proposal or not.

FOG are also concerned that Council incorrectly gave the impression that re-exhibition was limited to comments on the proposed 2,000m²/5,000m² lot sizes and that this potentially distorted the feedback from the community. It should be remembered that Council has previously resolved to support the rezonings. The amendments were a result of the direction from the Department which specifically dealt with lot sizes and introduced an E2 Environmental Conservation zone. There was therefore no need to seek comment on issues which have already been considered and addressed previously by public agencies and Council.

The concern that financial impacts on Council and ratepayers have not been addressed does not have regard to the NSW Planning Framework in which development is considered. Every development in NSW will have both positive and negative financial impacts – depending on how the development is undertaken and when. Council manages financial risk by requiring developers to pay for associated infrastructure and to construct it to the required standard, and through the payment of Development Contributions for its proportional share of the infrastructure. It is envisaged that this Masterplan will inform the Works Schedule of the forthcoming revised Yass Valley Development Contributions Plan.

2.3 ‘Kyeema’ and ‘Faithfull Street’ Planning Proposals

Some submissions raised the same or similar issues that have previously been considered by Council, whereas, other submissions simply indicate continued support or rejection of the proposals.

One submission stated that the new lots should be 2,000m² to integrate better, however there was some preference for a 5,000m² minimum lot size rather than 2,000m² – believing it will result in a less suburban looking settlement pattern. Among some submitters who oppose the rezonings the ‘least worst outcome would be 5,000m²’.

Some conceded that development to the south (i.e. Faithfull Street) is more logical and connected than development to the north (i.e. Kyeema).

Another submitter suggests that there should be no transition in size of lots - village size lots should butt up against farming. The same submitter tabled an alternative rural residential option located on Sibley Road and Back Creek Road outside the village.

The main issue being considered within the altered Gateway is that of effluent disposal. Council previously explored the option of prohibiting the installation of new domestic bores within the two Planning Proposal sites to remove the risk of bores being located too close to effluent disposal fields and the risk of cross contamination. This mechanism was not supported by NSW Water, who are the licensing authority for groundwater. As such, the Department provided an alternative solution of larger lot sizes to mitigate this risk.

Further to the above, Council is now in receipt of a completed flood study and risk management plan for Gundaroo. The study details land which is affected in the 1% AEP event, Probable Maximum Flood event and also the High, Medium and Low Flood Risk Categories – which factor in hydraulic hazard. Appendix C to the Flood Risk Management Plan is the draft flood chapter of the Comprehensive DCP. It outlines land use risk categories, and development standards such as floor levels, building components, structural and soundness. These requirements would be applied to any future development.

2.4 Superb Parrot Trees

There was general support for the application of the E2 Environmental Conservation zone over and adjacent to the Superb Parrot nesting trees within the ‘Kyeema’ proposal. An issue was raised relating to how the dual zoning (i.e. E2 Environmental Conservation / E4 Environmental Living) would work with a suggestion that all land within the E2 Environmental Conservation area should remain within a single lot. The E2 Environmental Conservation zone application has been directed by the Department of Planning & Environment with input from Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH). Retaining the E2 Environmental Conservation zone within a single lot is not realistic – as this strip of land would be left in separate ownership – with extremely limited permitted land uses, and unlikely to be managed effectively.

Including a reference to these nesting trees within the Comprehensive DCP is supported, and the Masterplan includes an action to include a condition on any Development Consent for Subdivision requiring a Section 88B instrument on title requiring the E2 Environmental Conservation area to be landscaped with indigenous Eucalyptus species (likely to bear hollows when mature).

It has been questioned why the buffer around the nesting trees has been reduced from 100m to 50m. OEH advice in April 2014 recommended:

‘the preservation of the nest trees, and a buffer width of 50m be established around the nest trees, and this buffer be planted out with indigenous vegetation. This buffer width is a compromise to the usual 100m buffer applied to Superb Parrot nest trees and may still allow the proponent to realise the same number of residential lots without significant reduction in lot size.’

While the width of the E2 Environmental Conservation zone is proposed to be 50m, it does extend over 300m to the south along the eastern boundary of the site.

2.5 Coolawin Draft Planning Proposal

The proponent of the ‘Coolawin’ draft Planning Proposal requested his site to be included in the Masterplan. In October 2016 Council determined that consideration of the ‘Coolawin’ Planning Proposal be deferred until the completion of an options report examining feasibility of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for Gundaroo. The preparation of this report is one of the actions listed under ‘Effluent Disposal’ in the Implementation Plan, and is currently underway. The Masterplan can be adjusted should the options report identify the ‘Coolawin’ site as a potential STP location.

2.6 Yass River

During the Masterplan workshops with the community there was a significant focus on the Yass River. The consultants reflected this in a number of ways, from increased river restoration to a potential riparian walk and foreshore park. While these goals of the community were positive and aspirational – they overlooked the way in which the village was originally subdivided and hence the current land ownership. The majority of the proposed riparian walk is over privately owned land, and the establishment of public access has been objected to by some owners. There are also legal and liability implications of accessing this riparian land in private ownership.

This may change in the future, however it is important for the actions in the Masterplan to be achievable in the short - medium term. It is considered more appropriate to formalise the path over the Council owned land adjacent to the Yass River south from Rosamel Street and provide a loop back into the rear of Gundaroo Park through the Lind Street road reserve.

The same issue applies to the ‘Potential Yass River Foreshore Park’. Although this request has come from the community, this land is in private ownership. It is considered that Council and the community should focus its resources on maintaining and improving existing open space areas rather than acquiring additional land. The Lot Street Picnic Area has an opportunity to be better maintained and improve its facilities. At both of the points of public access to the Yass River, the community are encouraged to undertake Riparian Restoration and establish a volunteer Waterwatch program, with the support of Council.

2.7 Heritage

Overall there was positive support for the proposed design standards for development within the Heritage Conservation Area. It was suggested to include a standard regarding roof pitch, which was overlooked and should be included i.e. roof pitch should be similar to existing historic buildings (typically 35 – 40 degrees).

A couple of submitters disagreed with the proposed design standards considering it was an attempt by some residents to impose their tastes and preferences on new development – that development should allow for randomness and unpredictability. It is understood that this is a recurring tension in the Gundaroo community, however these are guidelines which are needed to give some level of certainty to the community, architects/designers and staff.

Other submissions wanted the standards extended to areas outside the Heritage Conservation Area or the Conservation Area extended to cover the new development. There was a request for Council to lobby the State Government to exempt Gundaroo from Exempt and Complying Development provisions. The suggestion to extend the Heritage Conservation Area cannot be supported as these can only be applied to areas of land which have heritage significance – not new development. Likewise, Department of Planning & Environment is focussed on increasing the uptake of Exempt and Complying Development across the State, and would be highly unlikely to exclude Gundaroo.

2.8 Butchers Shop Ruin

There was some concern regarding the phrasing of the ‘Action’ relating to the site on the corner of Lot Street and Cork Street. This action has been updated to encourage the stabilisation of the ruin, and ensure any future development of this key site integrates the ruin.

2.9 Street Trees

The Masterplan consultants included an element that focussed on only native street tree planting. There was little support for this, with submissions stating that street tree plantings should be a mix of native and exotic to both reflect heritage of the village and the climate (frost hollow). This approach is supported.

There was also a request which is understood to have some support within the community to plant an avenue of trees at the two entrances to the village. The element relating to the landscaped arrival gateways has been strengthened accordingly.

The prevention of any additional vehicle accesses to Gundaroo Sutton Road has also been strengthened by the proposed use of title restrictions requiring landscaping for the 10m abutting the rear/side boundary to that road.

An additional requirement has been added that Gundaroo should adopt the ‘informal’ planting configuration within village streets to reinforce the informal character of the village. The entrance avenue could be more formal and adopt a landmark or a patterned planting configuration.

2.10 Village Streets

There were some comments regarding the recommendation that 30m wide Road Reserves be extended into the new areas. The land owner adjacent to Lute Street (which will provide access to the ‘Kyeema’ proposal) wanted to ensure that the existing trees within the road reserve would be retained for privacy purposes. There is no reason to require the removal of these trees, and upgrade of this road would be limited to the 7m pavement width.

Another points out that there are exceptions to the 30m road reserves such as Gundaroo-Sutton Road and Faithfull Street (20m). Nevertheless, given the emphasis placed on the integration and retention of the heritage character of the village, the continuation of wide streets and linking into the grid pattern is important. In addition, wider street reserves will assist in offsetting any reduced front setbacks should Complying Development be pursued.

There are also issues with how the existing street grid has been rigidly depicted over the future development areas. Staff previously raised this issue with the Consultants in that some of the road alignments shown pass through existing dwellings and do not properly take into account site characteristics. As such the ‘Important links’ into the grid are just that- to provide a design framework for the connection of new roads.

2.11 Sewerage Treatment

There are strong opinions regarding whether an STP should be investigated – some see it as the only long term solution, others are vehemently opposed to it. As per the Department’s direction the Planning Proposals have an either/or option with the two lot sizes. One submission requested that new development should incorporate corridors for future servicing including sewer.

These matters will be dealt with through the STP feasibility currently being investigated by NSW Public Works. The Masterplan has however been amended to provide for both options however if on-site systems are used these are to be designed and/or located to reduce/remove pollution risk in flood events.

2.12 Village Car Parking

There were differing opinions on whether additional formal parking areas were required, with a suggestion that improved on street car parking would be sufficient. The suggestion that a future carpark be located between Cork Street and the Yass River was also questioned. As such, this element should be removed and replaced with a requirement to undertake weekend visitor traffic/parking counts on Cork Street to better understand the demand.

2.13 Dual Occupancy and Secondary Dwellings

The consultants included suggestions for amending the Yass Valley LEP 2013 which included amending Clause 5.4 (9) – secondary dwellings to better reflect the definition of a secondary dwelling as a granny flat. One submission expressly supported this –stating that the floor area should be limited to no more than 75-80m². The current clause already states that the floor area must not exceed 60m² or 100% of the total floor area of the dwelling (whichever is the greater). The ‘secondary dwelling’ provisions of the LEP are rarely used and to alter them further may restrict their use for legitimate ‘granny flats’.

Dual occupancy development was raised during the workshops as being a mechanism for ‘subdivision by stealth’. The Altered Gateway Determinations from the Department include a requirement for a minimum lot size for dual occupancy development of 1ha on land to be zoned R2 Low Density Development, where reticulated sewerage and sustainable water supply is not provided.

2.14 Electricity

There was a request to lobby to have the Yass–Queanbeyan Electricity switch activated during lengthy blackouts, which Gundaroo has recently been experiencing. While this is outside the scope of the Masterplan process, there is an action within the Masterplan to encourage retrofitting public buildings with renewable energy to reduce the power load of the village.

2.15 Gundaroo Park

A submission requested review of Recreation Vehicle (RV) facilities within Gundaroo Park. It is acknowledged that reviewing and upgrading short stay accommodation would be beneficial for the village. Gundaroo Park is managed through the Trustees, however Council could assist in reviewing the facilities available and determining requirements for possibly becoming an RV Friendly Destination.

2.16 Waste Disposal

There was an assertion that no further development should proceed until such time as an alternative tip site is secured. Council is currently investigating a kerbside collection service for the village, with the Gundaroo Transfer Station increasing its emphasis on recycling rather than landfill.

3. NSW Agency Responses

Copies of the submissions from the State Agencies can be viewed via the web links to submissions. The issues raised and the planning responses are discussed below. As required by the Department of Planning & Environment the amended proposals were also forwarded to Local Land Services, Environmental Protection Authority and Department of Education however no responses were received.

3.1 Heritage Council

The Heritage Council (refer to Submission Document 70) supports the proposed DCP controls within Heritage Conservation Area as they seek to retain existing village character whilst providing for new subdivision and development around the village that integrates with the pattern and character of existing village.

The Heritage Council indicated that the proposed rezonings are well considered in terms of siting and minimum lot sizes. Council should ensure that new development and public domain improvements will not adversely affect Heritage Items and Conservation Areas. The requirement that any works which uncover archaeological relics require an excavation permit under the Heritage Act 1977 was also emphasised

Comments:

Acknowledged.

3.2 NSW Health

NSW Health (refer to Submission Document 63) support Council commencing a feasibility study into a Sewage Treatment Plant to service Gundaroo. Installation of a private treatment plant at ‘Kyeema’ would require further information for review.

Where lots created under either Planning Proposal are not connected to a STP, it is recommended that OSSMS and effluent application areas be prohibited within a Medium or High Flood Risk Precinct. OSSMS in Low Risk Precinct should be above 1% AEP. Surface irrigation of effluent should be prohibited within Low Risk Precincts. These arrangements can be applied through title restrictions (i.e. Section 88B instruments).

The submission reiterated that Council commit to a comprehensive monitoring and enforcement program. Conditions can be included in any Consents that groundwater must not be used for drinking/domestic purposes. Residents should be provided information on rainwater tanks and OSSMS maintenance.

Comments:

There is some confusion as to the interpretation of Low, Medium and High Risk Precincts. The Plan provided within the Altered Planning Proposals details Medium and High Risk within the 1% AEP with the Low Risk Precinct identifying the area outside that which could be subjected to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The High – Medium- Low Risk Precincts reflect frequency, depth and hydraulic hazard.

Council currently requires treatment tanks/holding devices to be located above the 1% AEP flood level. Disposal areas should either be raised above the flood level (possibly within the mound of the dwelling), and /or require the effluent to be treated to a high level (i.e. secondary treatment with subsurface disposal) or install a mounded disposal area. Composting toilets or other systems which only offer primary treatment (e.g. traditional septics) will not be approved below the 1% AEP flood level.

3.3 Office of Environment & Heritage

In relation to the Masterplan the Office makes for following comments (refer to Submission Document 64):

· The Gundaroo Common should be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation rather than RE1 Public Recreation as primary use of the land is conservation

· Support proposed zoning over the superb parrot trees on Planning Proposal site to north

· Does not think the Masterplan addresses Aboriginal Cultural Heritage sufficiently and considers that flood extents under-represented

· Key outcome is the derivation of Flood Design Controls - consistent with the Gundaroo Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (FRMS&P)

In relation to the Planning Proposals the Office make the following comments (Refer to Submission Document 66):

· Satisfied that E2 Environmental Conservation zone provides sufficient protection for the superb parrot habitat and supports the trees being listed within DCP

· Unclear whether adequate consideration has been given to Gundaroo Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan (FRMP). Consideration should be given to configuration of layout, zoning and offset options to provide certainty of development outcomes - e.g. appropriate flood/riparian and geomorphic setbacks; Eliminating development encroachment into high flood hazard areas; Identifying strategies to facilitate flood evacuation, noting potential isolation at all existing and future properties.

Comments:

The suggestion to rezone the Gundaroo Common is questioned. While it is acknowledged that there is Threatened Species habitat present, it is understood that the Common is still used for grazing and recreational uses – neither of which are encouraged by the application of the E2 Environmental Conservation zone. It is considered that the present RE1 Public Recreation zone together with the Crown Ownership and management by Trustees is sufficient, however should the community wish to change the zoning then such a request may be supported.

Not sure what additional Aboriginal Cultural Heritage information should be included. It is proposed to include a section within the Comprehensive DCP to cover Due Diligence for Aboriginal Heritage. This has been attached to the Masterplan Implementation.

It is recognised that the Masterplan does not clearly depict the extent of the Gundaroo Flood Study, however it is also not its role to duplicate the FRMS&P. The updated Masterplan will include the flood information, however it needs to be read in conjunction with the FRMS&P.

Appendix C of the FRMS&P details the Draft Flood Management Controls which will be incorporated into a section of the Comprehensive DCP. The draft controls cover land uses within each of the Flood Risk Precincts, Floor Levels, Flood Compatible Materials, Structural Soundness and the requirement for a Flood Risk Report where development may increase flood affection on adjacent land. Flood evacuation requirements are again dealt with in the FRMS&P.

Layouts and development certainty are issues to be considered at the Development Application stage, not rezoning. Council cannot provide information which is dependent on what will eventually be built on the land when it is not known. It is also contended that the application of the E3 Environmental Management zone over McLeods Creek is an appropriate flood risk mitigation measure, particularly once it is applied in conjunction with the proposed development controls under the FRMSP.

3.4 Roads & Maritime Services

RMS (refer to Submission Document 65) advised that it is preferable Council policies restrict direct access to classified roads.

Vehicular access to the areas to be rezoned should be provided from the surrounding local road network to allow for integration with adjoining land uses and minimise impact on Classified Road Network.

RMS also requests that consideration be given to impact of additional traffic on the road network - especially to existing and proposed intersections and access points to Classified Roads.

Gundaroo Road needs protection from ribbon development by limiting new road junctions and direct access frontage to Gundaroo Road. RMS do not support creation of additional access points to Gundaroo Road.

Consideration also needs to be given to design and location of landscaping village arrival points in relation to road safety.

Comments:

Acknowledged. The Masterplan includes the requirement for landscape buffers to Gundaroo- Sutton Road to prevent new access points from future lots to Gundaroo Sutton Road. Development Applications for future subdivisions will require traffic assessments to be undertaken to determine whether upgrades are required to intersections or adjacent roads.

3.5 Department of Primary Industries - Water

The Department (refer to Submission Documents 72-1 & 2) supports the requirement for reticulated sewerage and a sustainable water supply for lots less than 5,000m² / 1ha Dual Occupancy. Sustainable potable and non-potable water supply also needs to be accessible for lots in excess of 5,000m².

If groundwater is proposed as a water source the Department indicate that a 250m distance is required between bore and OSSMS. Bore water should not be used for potable purposes unless tested/treated.

The Department also recommend Council review the 2007 Integrated Water Cycle Management Scheme (IWCMS) which proposed reticulated water and sewerage for Gundaroo. The Department noted that Council's investigation into a reticulated sewerage scheme is currently underway.

In the response to the Faithfull Street Planning Proposal the Department includes a recommendation for stabilisation of erosion gully but not supportive of proposed gabion blankets and cages. The Department suggest more natural measures such as rock rip rap and revegetation. Buffers from the high bank of the watercourse also need to be considered in lot layout design for the site.

Comments:

Acknowledged, and the proponent of the Faithfull Street Planning Proposal is accepting of these measures for gully stabilisation.

4. Conclusion

In relation to the Planning Proposals at this stage in the planning process Council can:

· Reject the proposals

· Defer the proposals pending finalisation of the sewerage feasibility

· Modify the proposals in response to issues raised in submissions

· Adopt the proposals as exhibited

The submissions received relating to the Planning Proposals have not raised any significant new issues warranting a rejection. Those that support the developments or are accepting of them proceeding have indicated a support for the larger lot sizes to manage the effluent disposal issue if reticulated sewerage is not available. The introduction of the E2 Environmental Conservation zone within the ‘Kyeema’ site is also generally supported.

Similarly the proposals are compliant with Council’s strategic planning policies (i.e. Towns & Villages Study 2010, draft Settlement Strategy 2017), the Sydney Canberra Corridor Strategy and the recently released South East and Tableland Regional Plan. If the proposals were contrary to these strategic documents then the Gateway Determination to proceed would not have been issued by the Department.

There are no sound planning reasons to reject the Planning Proposals. If the proposals are to be rejected then there needs to be sound planning reasons to support the decision.

The way in which the Department of Planning & Environment directed the Planning Proposals to be altered to provide different lot sizes depending on whether reticulated sewerage was provided or not means that the revised Planning Proposals can be adopted regardless of the outcomes from the sewerage feasibility.

Suggestions, particularly from the State Agencies to modify the proposals have been discussed in the report.

As there are no significant new issues since Council’s decision to support the rezonings in July 2015 and as there is sufficient flexibility with lot sizes to deal with wastewater management issues, the revised ‘Kyeema’ and ‘Faithfull Street’ Planning Proposals can be forwarded to the Minister to request an amendment to be made to the Yass Valley LEP 2013.

The draft Masterplan has been used as the background document, with the relevant information transferred into the revised spatial Masterplan and Implementation Plan (refer Separate Enclosure) and updated and refined to reflect the feedback of the community and government agencies.

The revised Implementation Plan clearly sets out what will form a specific Appendix to the Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP). It also clearly sets out the changes required to the Yass Valley LEP 2013. In addition, it gives a clear pathway for incorporating actions into future Council Delivery Programs and Operational Plans.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 3. Our Community

CSP Strategy CO5 - Maintain our rural lifestyle

Delivery Program Action CO5.1 - Ensure the community is attractive and vibrant while maintaining our village atmosphere

Operational Plan Activity CO5.1.2 - Develop and maintain CBD streetscapes and other village areas

Attachments: a. Altered Gateway Determination Zoning Map ⇩

b. Altered Gateway Determination Minimum Lot Size Map ⇩

c. Revised Gundaroo Master Plan (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.3 Development Application No 5.2017.117.1 - Dwelling House, 14 Drummond Street, Bookham

SUMMARY

To present the assessment of Development Application No. 5.2017.117.1 for the erection of a dwelling house on elevated land at 14 Drummond Street, Bookham. The proposal is referred to Council as it involves a variation to the side setback and for its visual impact assessment. The application did not receive any objections. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application No 5.2017.117.1 for a dwelling house at 14 Drummond Street, Bookham.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Local Government Act 1993

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP)

· Road Standards Policy

· Building Line – Rural and Rural Residential Land Policy

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	4 May 2017
Land	-	14 Drummond Street, Bookham
Area	-	9.788ha
Zoning	-	R5 Large Lot Residential

2. Site Description and Locality

The site is located at 14 Drummond Street, Bookham and is adjacent to the village. There is a large stand of trees along the Drummond Street boundary providing an effective screen between the village and the subject site. The site and surrounding area is used for grazing.

Access is via a driveway over the adjoin lot which is held in the same ownership. The site contains a large hill which is just to the south-west of Bookham. The hill is visible from the Hume Highway and rises approximately 90m above the highway. The peak of the hill is scattered with mature trees and contains a number of rocky outcrops.

A locality plan is included in Attachment A.

3. Proposal

The submitted proposal involves the erection of a dwelling house on the side of the hill approximately 20m below the peak and 30m from the western boundary.

The dwelling is proposed to have two levels with the ground level cut into the hill. The facade faces north-east towards Bookham and the Hume Highway.

Plans of the proposal are included in Attachment B.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to one adjoining landowner in the locality and no submissions were received.

The Applicant notified landowners in the locality and provided documentation signed by 15 landowners within the village supporting the development.

5. Assessment

An assessment of the proposal has been completed in accordance with the planning legislation. The proposal generally complies with the relevant planning controls, policies and guidelines with the exception of Council’s Rural and Rural Residential Land Setback Policy. The other key issue is development on elevated land.

The former Development on Elevated Land Policy, which provided general guidance for the assessment of Development Applications on elevated land has been rescinded. Without any policy the assessment relies on whether the proposal has a significant impact on the environment/landscape.

It is a widely held planning principle that development in elevated locations above ridgelines is avoided where possible to minimise the visual impact upon the landscape. However it must be noted that elevated positions support considerable infrastructure and buildings (e.g. wind turbines, telecommunication facilities, water reservoirs).

The rescinded policy required the consideration of the visual impact of development from any public road, public place, and adjoining lot, particularly its impact on the skyline or any significant views/vistas. The policy did not allow the application to be approved unless it had been demonstrated that all impacts had been mitigated. Mitigating impacts does not mean eliminating impacts.

The comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) currently being drafted proposes to restrict development on elevated land by prohibiting the erection of structures above ridgelines. The DCP has not yet been publically exhibited.

In this instance the hill is a prominent feature in the surrounding landscape and contributes to the rural character of the locality. Any structure on a hill top has a visual impact. The question is how significant this is. The Applicant has provided a visual assessment in support of the proposal (refer Attachment C).

A review of the visual assessment and a site inspection has indicated that the proposed dwelling will be most visible from the Hume Highway (especially on the 2.5kms approach to the Bookham village turn off from Yass). The visual impact from the Hume Highway has been of particular concern when considering the objective of protecting the rural character of the Yass Valley especially along a major entry into the Local Government Area. From the review and site inspection it is considered that the scale, location and design of the dwelling will have negligible visual impact when viewed as part of the larger landscape.

The proposed dwelling is considered to be well designed to meet the needs of the inhabitants and take full advantage of solar orientation and views. The building can generally be described as a simple and affordable design with the use of recycled shipping containers for the frame and bulk glazing on the front facade. The ground level is cut into the hill and the first floor will be above the existing natural ground level with the highest point being approximately 8.5m above the existing natural ground level.

The proposal also includes the construction of a new internal access track which has the potential to present as a scar on the landscape. However in discussions with the Landowner there is a future intention to plant trees along the track, which would assist in reducing its visual impact, as such standard conditions will be applied for the owner to provide a landscaping plan and have the landscaping completed prior to a Final Occupation Certificate being issued.

The proposed variation to the setback from the western boundary from 50m to 30m is not considered to have an impact to the adjoining lot. The adjoining lot to the north west does not have any existing structures and is currently used for grazing. The stand of trees along Drummond Street boundary also provides an effective screen to the proposed dwelling.

Based on the visual assessment and taking into account the distance of the proposed dwelling from the sensitive receivers and the general topography means that the proposed development is not considered to have a detrimental impact.

6. Conclusion

From the assessment of the proposal and consideration of the visual impacts it is recommended that conditional development Consent is issued.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN1 - Protect and enhance the existing natural environment, including flora and fauna native to the region

Delivery Program Action EN1.1 - Protect our natural assets in line with community values

Operational Plan Activity EN1.1.1 – Ensure assessment of development applications protects our natural environment

Attachments: a. Locality Plan ⇩

b. Submitted Plans ⇩

c. Visual Impact Assessment

⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.4 Development Application No 5.2017.120.1 - Dwelling House, 178 Whites Road, Yass River

SUMMARY

To present the assessment of Development Application No 5.2017.120.1 for a dwelling house at 178 Whites Road, Yass River. The proposal is presented to Council as it involves a variation to the minimum lot size for a dwelling house. No submissions were received. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application 5.2017.120.1 for a dwelling house at 178 Whites Land, Yass River including a requirements for the decommissioning of the existing dwelling house and septic tank

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Local Government Act 1993

· Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

· Building Line – Rural and Rural Residential Land Policy

· Enforcement Policy

· Road Standards Policy

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	9 May 2017
Land	-	178 Whites Road, Yass River
Area	-	36.41ha
Zoning	-	RU1 – Primary Production

2. Site Description and Locality

The development site is located on Whites Road (off Dicks Creek Road), Yass River. The site is a corner lot with Whites Road bounding the site to the east and south. The site is in a locality characterised as rural.

The site is 36ha and held in common ownership with the adjoining 56ha lot. The site currently has a number of structures erected without approval, including a primitive dwelling house. Earthworks have been previously commenced in the location of the proposed dwelling house.

A locality plan is included as Attachment A.

3. Proposal

The submitted proposal involves the installation of a new manufactured (transportable) dwelling house, an onsite waste water management facility, the installation of a solid fuel heater, and rainwater tanks. Proposal plans are included in Attachment B.

The application involves a variation to the development standard for a dwelling house on land in rural zones.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to seven adjoining and nearby landowners and no submissions were received.

5. Assessment

An assessment of the proposal has been completed in accordance with the planning legislation. The proposal generally complies with the relevant planning controls, policies and guidelines with the exception of the minimum lot size for the erection of a dwelling house development standard in the LEP.

5.1 Variation to the Development Standard

The minimum lot size for a dwelling in the RU! Primary Production zone is 40ha. The site is 36.4ha which is 3.6ha below the required 40ha minimum. This equates to a 9% variation.

The Applicant has requested a variation to the minimum lot size development standard (refer Attachment C).

It is noted that the Applicant is also the landowner of the adjoining lot which is an area of 56.6ha. Compliance with the development standard could readily be achieved by consolidating the two lots or via boundary adjustment or by re-subdivision. However, the Applicant did not consider these options to be necessary or reasonable due to the additional cost involved and given that it would not result in a different planning outcome.

Accordingly, the Applicant has pursued their request to vary the development standard on the following basis:

· The proposed variation will not adversely impact the character of the surrounding area or farming activities

· The existing subdivision pattern and development in the locality has resulted in lots being created which are already less than the 40ha minimum lot size

· The lot size is already under the size which is considered to be productive

· The land is located in an area which contains sensitive dry land salinity and biodiversity value and is therefore considered to be better suited for smaller controlled uses. The dwelling house will enable the owner appropriate management of the land

· Compliance would hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and LEP by resulting in the underutilisation of natural resources

· The proposal remains consistent with the zone objectives

· The proposal does not fragment or alienate resource lands and supports small scale primary production

· The outcome is essentially the same as if compliance was achieved through consolidation, boundary adjustment, or consolidation and re-subdivision

An assessment against the LEP and guidelines for varying a development standard has been completed. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the rural amenity and character of the area and is not inconsistent with the existing development pattern in the locality.

The Applicant’s argument that strict compliance with the development standard would hinder the objectives of the Act is tenuous given that compliance with the LEP could be achieved by other means. However, it is generally agreed that supporting the variation will result in a planning outcome which is equal to the other available options. It is noted that supporting the variation does not facilitate any additional subdivision potential of the adjoining lot and that a consolidation and re-subdivision would allow for two lots of 36.4ha and 55.4ha using the averaging provisions in the LEP.

The proposed variation is not considered to be against the public interest. In this instance, it is considered that requiring compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and there are sufficient planning grounds to support the variation.

5.2 Unlawful Building Works

A site inspection of the property indicated that substantial development has been undertaken at the site without approval having been obtained i.e.

· A shed partially converted into a dwelling house

· The installation of an onsite sewage management facility (septic tank)

· Installation of a solid fuel heater(s)

· Several other storage sheds and garages

· Earthworks and landform modification at the site of the proposed dwelling house

In response to a request for information on the development the landowner indicated that:

· There is no dwelling house and it is just a rough farm shed being used for emergency accommodation

· There were already some structures on the land when purchased

· The septic and heaters were originally installed for use when shearing

· The earthworks and landform modifications are minimal. The area of modification was badly affected by a rabbit warren which was ripped out and the site levelled

A building being used for accommodation, even emergency accommodation, is classified as a dwelling. Although the building is primitive, retaining it would result in a dual occupancy. A preliminary assessment indicates that substantial work would be required to formalise the use of this dwelling and ensure it meets the National Construction Code (NCC), BASIX requirements, etc. In addition, the payment of s94 development contributions for a dual occupancy would be applicable. The Applicant has responded by indicating the existing dwelling will be decommissioned and returned to a ‘farm building’ to ensure there is only a single dwelling on the site. This approach is generally considered to be satisfactory.

Further compliance and enforcement action is not considered necessary at this time.

6. Conclusion

From the assessment of the proposal, it is recommended that a conditional Development Consent be issued including a requirement for the existing dwelling house and septic tank to be decommissioned.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN1 - Protect and enhance the existing natural environment, including flora and fauna native to the region

Delivery Program Action EN1.1 - Protect our natural assets in line with community values

Operational Plan Activity EN1.1.1 – Ensure assessment of development applications protects our natural environment

Attachments: a. Locality Plan ⇩

b. Proposal Plans ⇩

c. Request to Vary Development Standard ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.5 Development Application No. 5.2017.122.1 - Function Centre & Serviced Apartment, Haskins Way, Gundaroo

SUMMARY

To consider Development Application No. 5.2017.122.1 for a Function Centre and Serviced Apartment on Haskins Way, Gundaroo. The proposal is being reported to Council as the application attracted four submissions. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That Conditional Development Consent is issued for Development Application No. 5.2017.122.1 for a Function Centre and Serviced Apartment on Haskins Way, Gundaroo.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP)

· Road Standards Policy

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	10 May 2017
Land	-	Haskins Way via 661 Shingle Hill Way
Area	-	20.9 ha
Zoning	-	RU1 Primary Production

2. Site Description and Locality

The development site is accessed via a Right of Carriageway (RoW) off Haskins Way, Gundaroo. Haskins Way is a recently created, sealed road reserve, accessed off Shingle Hill Way. Land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly agriculture, with the closest dwelling house located approximately 2km from the proposed facilities.

The site is rectangular in shape and has an area of 20.9ha. Improvements on the site consist of a dwelling house, machinery/storage shed and a shearing shed. The existing structures are located on a relatively flat part of the site, approximately 120m from the nearest boundary. Access to the structures, from the RoW, is via an existing, unsealed driveway.

A locality plan is included in Attachment A.

3. Proposal

The submitted proposal involves the use of an existing dwelling and machinery shed for the purpose of a function centre and two bedroom serviced apartment. It is proposed that the facilities can be used independently and hence not all bookings will include the use of the function centre.

Minor alterations and additions to the existing machinery shed will be undertaken, including the addition of a deck, bar and fireplace. A ‘servery area’ is to be constructed, separate to the function centre building, for the purpose of warming and serving food prepared off site. Sanitary facilities for function guests will adjoin the servery area. No construction work will be undertaken in relation to the serviced apartment.

Access to the facilities will utilise the existing, unsealed driveway and there is ample space on the site for the parking of vehicles.

Details of the proposal are included in Attachment B.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to three adjoining and nearby owners. Four submissions were received (refer Attachment C). No objections were received from the closest dwelling. The key issues raised in the objections are:

· The proposal is inappropriate for the rural setting and land use zone

· Lack of supporting documents

· Lack of community consultation

5. Assessment

An assessment of the proposal has been completed in accordance with the planning legislation. The proposal generally complies with the relevant planning controls, policies and guidelines.

The following is a response to the issues raised in submissions (refer Attachment C).

5.1 Site Suitability

Objections raise concerns that the proposal is not suitable for the rural locality. Comment is also made that the existing agricultural use and the land use zone (i.e. RU1 Primary Production) will change if the application is approved.

If approved, the use of individual structures will change, however the approval of the application will not change the land use zone applicable to the site. Both a ‘function centre’ and a ‘serviced apartment’ are uses that are permitted in the RU1 Primary Production zone.

The rural characteristics of the site are considered to create an appealing location for a wedding or other function. It is acknowledged that potential noise resulting from a function is uncharacteristic of a rural setting, however these impacts can be controlled through restricting hours of operation. Conditions can also be included in any Consent that may issue restricting the use of speakers and other sound related equipment after 11.30pm and require all guests are to have vacated the site by midnight. This is consistent with other function centre approvals in the rural areas.

5.2 Documentation

Objections raised concerns with the lack of details in the documents available during the notification period including:

· Location of buildings in relation to site boundaries

· Building alterations and additions

· New structures including function centre amenities

· Appropriate cost of works

· Fire risk management

· Water supply

· Effluent disposal

· Supply of alcohol

· Traffic management

· Road upgrades

A preliminary assessment of the application was undertaken after the notification period commenced and identified that additional information was required to enable further assessment. The information was requested and as such, the Applicant submitted a site plan indicating distances of structures to site boundaries and floor plans and elevations for the function centre and amenities/kitchen building.

In response to the other comments, the following is to be noted:

· A condition of consent can require a quote or invoice to be submitted which justifies the stated cost of works. If the cost of works exceeds the nominated value, additional fees will be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

· The site is not bushfire prone, however the lots which provide access to the site were recently subdivided and associated water, electricity, gas and accesses were assessed for compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. No issues were identified which enabled the lots to be formally created

· Two existing tanks will supply water to the facilities. Conditions can be included in any Consent that will require compliance with the Public Health Act 2010, Public Health Regulation 2012, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 and the NSW Health Private Water Supply Guidelines.

· The serviced apartment will be serviced by an existing on-site sewerage management facility (OSSMF). An additional OSSMF is to be installed to service the amenities associated with the function centre. A Site and Soil Assessment for Effluent Disposal has been prepared indicating the suitability of the site to adequately dispose of effluent. Standard conditions can ensure the proposed system meets the requirements of NSW Health

· Alcohol to be consumed at a function is to be brought to the site and therefore no liquor licence is required

· The existing road network, including Shingle Hill Way, is considered to be suitable for the traffic generated by the facilities

· The internal driveway is to be upgraded to ‘access’ standard in accordance with Council’s Road Standards Policy and the carpark is to be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890 – Off-Street Car Parking

· The number of guests on site at any one time can be restricted to 150. This will assist with controlling the number of vehicles attending the site

5.3 Community Consultation

Objections raised concerns with the lack of community consultation and in particular the exclusion of the Sutton & District Community Association and the Gundaroo Community Association. Comment is also made that given the controversy surrounding previous application at the site (i.e. caravan park) and should have been notified to more local residents.

Notification of the application was undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Development Control Plan which included notice to landowners immediately adjoining the site. Wider notification was not undertaken on the basis that the closest dwelling is more than 2km from the function centre building, a distance which is considered to be adequate given the nature of the proposal. The past site history is not relevant to the decision to place a proposal on public exhibition.

6. Conclusion

From the assessment of the proposal and the consideration of the issues raised in the submissions it is recommended that a conditional Consent be granted.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN4 - Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Delivery Program Action EN4.2 - Ensure development application assessment is thorough and efficient

Operational Plan Activity EN4.2.1 - Implement development process improvements to deliver quality and efficiency gains

Attachments: a. Locality Plan ⇩

b. Submitted Proposal ⇩

c. Submissions ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.6 Development Application No. 5.2017.134.1 - Rural Subdivision, 621 Elms Road, Yass River

SUMMARY

To present the assessment of Development Application No. 5.2017.134.1 for a subdivision of 621 Elms Road. The proposal is referred to Council as it involves a variation to the minimum lot size development standard in the LEP. The application attracted one submission. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application No. 5.2017.134.1 for a subdivision of 621 Elms Road, Yass River.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP)

· Road Standards Policy

· Non-Urban Fencing Policy

· Provision of Power Supply and Telephone Services in Rural Subdivisions Policy

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	30 May 2017
Land	-	621 Elms Road, Yass River
Area	-	87.7 ha
Zoning	-	RU1 Primary Production

2. Site Description and Locality

The development site is located on Elms Road, Yass River which is an unsealed road maintained by Council. Land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly agriculture.

The site is irregular in shape and has an area of 87.7ha and is split by Elms Road. The western boundary of the site has frontage to Corregans Creek. The site is undulating and improvements on the site consist of a dwelling house and ancillary outbuildings.

A locality plan is included in Attachment A.

3. Proposal

The submitted proposal involves a two lot subdivision of the site. The existing dwelling and ancillary outbuildings will be retained on proposed lot 1, with proposed lot 2 being a vacant lot with a dwelling entitlement. A proposed plan of subdivision is included as Attachment B.

The minimum lot size in this area is 40ha. Averaging of lots sizes is permitted provided the average lot size is 40ha and no lot is less than 20ha or greater than 70ha. The proposal relies on the averaging provisions. The proposed lots will have an average lot size of 43.9ha and the minimum lot size will be approximately 18.6ha and therefore a variation of the minimum lot size development standard is required.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to eight adjoining and nearby owners, two of which are located within the Upper Lachlan Shire. One submission was received (refer Attachment C). The submission raised concern about the impact of a future dwelling on the privacy of adjoining sites.

5. Assessment

The minimum lot size proposed is 18.6ha, which is 1.4ha less than the required 20ha minimum. This equates to a 7% variation to the development standard.

The Applicant has requested (refer Attachment D) a variation to the minimum lot size development standard in the averaging provisions on the following basis:

· Proposed lot 2 physically exists due to the location of Elms Road through the existing site. This will minimise the need for a new line of fencing and the disturbance of native vegetation

· Compliance with the development standard would result in a 1.4ha section of land on the opposite side of Elms Road. This would be an impractical and inefficient outcome

· Splitting the current site as proposed will reduce the movement of farm vehicles and pedestrians across Elms Road

· The lot sizes are conducive to agricultural land uses, which will maintain the character of the Yass Valley and the agricultural values of the site

· The subdivision will allow better management of the agricultural and environmental values of the site

· The proposed lots will have adequate land area to allow for future permissible uses which are compatible with existing development and the locality, without impacting on the amenity of neighbouring properties

In addition, the following comments further justify the variation:

· The variation is minor as it is only a 7% deviation from the development standard

· The LEP allows for minor variations such as that proposed

· The LEP also allows lots which vary in size, including lots which are less than 40ha

In this instance, compliance with the development standard is unnecessary, as the proposal meets the objectives of the zone, the objectives of the development standard and the proposal is not against the public interest. On this basis, there are sufficient planning grounds to support the variation. In varying the development standard the resultant subdivision offers a better subdivision design and planning outcome rather than strict compliance with the LEP requirement.

The impacts on privacy from a future dwelling cannot be assessed until an application is lodged and would be the subject of a merit based assessment. While a building envelope can be imposed in any approval there is a provision to permit a dwelling outside of the designated area.

In accordance with Council’s Road Standards Policy, Elms Road is to be upgraded to ‘access’ standard (unsealed) from the intersection of Yass River Road, for 500 metres. A review of this policy is being presented as a separate report in these Business Papers. This requirement can be amended should the road standards alter and produce favourable outcome for the Applicant.

6. Conclusion

From the assessment of the proposal and consideration of the issues raised in the submission, it is recommended that Consent be issued subject to standard conditions.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN4 - Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Delivery Program Action EN4.2 - Ensure development application assessment is thorough and efficient

Operational Plan Activity EN4.2.1 - Implement development process improvements to deliver quality and efficiency gains

Attachments: a. Locality Plan ⇩

b. Proposed Subdivision Plan ⇩

c. Submission ⇩

d. Development Standard Variation Request

⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.7 Development Application No 5.2017.144.1 - Rural Subdivision, 3795 Sutton Road, Gundaroo

SUMMARY

To present the assessment of Development Application No 5.2017.144.1 for the two lot subdivision of 3795 Sutton Road, Gundaroo. The proposal is referred to Council as the application involves the creation of additional riparian rights and has attracted three submission. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That upon submission of the revised due diligence assessment for the protection of Aboriginal objects, conditional Development Consent be issued for Development Application No. 5.2017.144.1 for the two lot subdivision of 3795 Sutton Road, Gundaroo including requirement for the portion of the site on the eastern side of the Yass River (between Rosamel and Lind Streets) to be set aside as road reserve or reserve.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Resources for development assessment are provided for in the current Operational Plan.

POLICY & LEGISLATION

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

· Water Management Act 2000

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands)

· Yass Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

· Road Standards Policy

· Gundaroo Flood Study 2016

· Gundaroo Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan 2016

REPORT

1. Application Details

Date Received	-	2 May 2017
Land	-	3795 Sutton Road, Gundaroo
Area	-	107.3ha
Zoning	-	RU1 – Primary Production

2. Site Description and Locality

The site is located on the western side of the Yass River near the Gundaroo village. Land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly agricultural.

The property is known as ‘Barinsdale’ is 107ha with three existing dwellings and associated outbuildings. The property is also identified as being a Heritage Item with a grave site and trees being of particular heritage value. The property gains access by an unnamed gravel road off Sutton Road and currently has frontage to the Yass River. A locality plan is included as Attachment A.

3. Proposal

The submitted proposal involves a two lot subdivision of the site. Two of the three existing dwelling houses will be retained on proposed Lot 1, whilst one will be retained on proposed Lot 2. The subdivision layout results in both proposed lots having frontage to the Yass River. Access is to be provided to proposed Lot 1 via a right of carriageway across the existing driveway on proposed Lot 2. A proposed plan of subdivision is included as Attachment B.

4. Public Exhibition

Public exhibition included notice to 17 adjoining and nearby owners, plus the Gundaroo Community Association. Three submissions were received (refer Attachment C). The key issues raised in the submissions relate to:

· Creation of additional rights (Basic Landholder Rights)

· Water quality and river corridor management

· Yass River public access

· Access road – dust

· Location of building envelope – visual impact

The Applicant has provided a brief response to the submissions and other issues identified during the assessment which is included as Attachment D.

5. Assessment

An assessment of the proposal has been completed in accordance with the planning legislation. The proposal generally complies with the relevant planning controls, policies and guidelines. The following is a response to the issues raised in submissions.

5.1 Creation of Additional Riparian Rights (Basic Landholder Rights)

The proposed subdivision layout results in both Lot 1 and 2 having direct frontage to the Yass River and Back Creek and would both enjoy Basic Landholder Rights (BLR) to the water resources. This will mean that each lot will have right to take water from the Yass River for stock and domestic purposes. Advice received from the Office of Water has indicated that the proliferation of BLR should be treated with caution, in that it creates additional demand of a limited resource, particularly given there are no regulatory controls within the BLR.

The Office of Water has stated that their policy position is against the increase or proliferation of BLR, however, this should be considered in relation to cumulative impact against resource availability (water flows), the current level of development in the locality, and any existing water resource issues.

Under the LEP Council must be satisfied that the pattern of lots will not significantly increase access to a watercourse for stock and domestic purposes.

The Rural Lands Planning Study, which led to the introduction of the new minimum lot size throughout the Local Government Area, identified this locality as being predominantly subdivided into the minimum lot size of 40ha. On this basis there are limited opportunities for further subdivision.

The Applicant argues that the demand will not be increased for water extraction as the result of the subdivision. This statement is challenged in one of the submissions, suggesting that retaining the existing level of demand cannot be ensured. The submitter indicates that there are no limits on stocking rates and that the LEP allows for intensive agriculture, both of which may involve the extraction of water resources. It should be noted that BLR are only applicable for stock and domestic purposes and with any additional extraction (e.g. irrigation) subject to licencing requirements.

An alternative layout which does not create additional BLR is not considered to be particularly conducive either. The alternative layout would involve the property boundary running along the existing access track and all land with river frontage being included in proposed Lot 1. This arrangement is not considered to be particularly conducive to management of this land and the river corridor and creates a generally awkward lot layout.

It is important that the creation of additional BLRs be considered cautiously. However, it is suggested that in this particular case that it is reasonable to support the proposed layout as it does not create a significant impact (either directly or cumulatively) by the additional BLR.

5.2 Water Quality & River Corridor Management

Water quality and river corridor management is raised as a concern in a submission received.

The submission suggests that doubling the number of landowners with river frontage can be expected to double the risk of bad land management which have consequences for the river. The submission also suggests that a requirement could be included in any approval requiring a riparian zone restoration as a way of mitigating the longer-term effects of the subdivision.

The LEP stipulates that Consent must not be granted unless Council is satisfied that the development will be designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or if the impact cannot be reasonably avoided, that the development minimise the impact. Accordingly it must be first determined whether the proposed subdivision results in any significant environmental impact.

The proposed development involves a two lot rural subdivision only in which there are already three dwelling houses on the site. Other than fencing upgrades no buildings or works are proposed.

While there are no restrictions on stocking rates the suitability of the land determines the stock capacity. This does not change with the proposed subdivision.

The subdivision will create the potential for a dual occupancy on proposed Lot 2, representing the potential for a maximum of one additional dwelling only. The potential impacts on water quality and the river corridor are also associated with the poor installation and maintenance of on-site sewerage management systems. Any new dwelling on proposed lot 2 will need to demonstrate an appropriate on-site system.

It is a generalisation that separate property rights will double the potential for poor river management.

Accordingly it is not considered that the proposed subdivision creates any significant environmental impact and is designed, sited and can be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact.

5.3 Yass River Public Access

A submission received echoes goals of the community identified as part of the Gundaroo Master Planning process and suggests that this subdivision could present the opportunity for a potential Yass River foreshore park and creating additional public access to the river. This issue has been largely considered and addressed through the Gundaroo Masterplan report which is also included in this business paper.

There is a small portion of the subject land on the eastern side of the Yass River between Rosamel and Lind Streets. This area is isolated from the balance of the site and a likely maintenance burden for the landowner. To overcome this issue the land could be set aside as a reserve or road reserve to facilitate assess to the river and the development of a small river walk (between Lind and Rosamel Streets). This would be consistent with the Gundaroo Masterplan.

Creating additional public access along the western side of the river is on the opposite side of the river to the village and therefore has limited access. The need to provide public river access on this side of the river as part of the proposed subdivision is not necessary or appropriate.

5.4 Access Road – Dust

The subdivision is accessed by an unnamed public road between Sutton Road and the subject land. This access road is unsealed and runs past an existing dwelling house which is approximately 45m from the road pavement.

A submission raises concerns in relation to the additional traffic generation exacerbating the existing dust issue as a result of vehicle movements to the subject land. The submitter indicated that vehicles travelling along the access road raise a significant amount of dust which impacts on amenity. The submitter suggests this issue could be addressed by a requirement to bitumen seal this section of road or alternatively by installing traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed.

Whist there is existing vegetation between the dwelling house and the road pavement, it is still considered that an adverse impact is currently being experienced by the occupants, particularly where vehicles are travelling at speed.

The access road past the dwelling house is utilised only by the occupants of the subject land (i.e. the three existing dwellings). A road upgrade can only be required where it is directly related to the impacts from the development. The proposed subdivision does not generate any additional traffic as there are already existing dwellings on the proposed lots. If an application for a future traffic generating development (e.g. intensive agriculture, dual occupancy) is received then the traffic impacts can be considered at that time.

5.5 Location of Building Envelope – Visual Impact

A concern was raised in relation to the potential for future construction on proposed Lot 2 being visible from their dwelling, seriously degrading their entirely rural views currently enjoyed by their property.

It is important to note that the subdivision itself does not result in any visual impact as there is no construction works proposed. The initial submitted plan included building envelopes (refer Attachment E) .The designation of building envelopes at subdivision stage shapes the location of future development on the site.

The building envelopes initially proposed were determined based upon the constraints of the site (i.e. location of the existing access track, flood levels of the Yass River and Back Creek) These envelopes were considered unnecessary considering each lot retains an existing dwelling(s) and there is generous opportunity to locate future development.

Future development will be subject to a merits based assessment, including consideration of Council’s setback policy and any visual impact.

5.6 Flooding

The Gundaroo Flood Study 2016 modelling indicates that there is sufficient area available on both proposed Lot 1 and 2 for new development to be located above the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) flood event. A restriction can be included in any approval that may be issued for future development to be located above the Flood Planning Level.

The flood study indicated that during a 1% AEP flood event that the existing access track which serves as primary access to both lots may be inundated in part. The Gundaroo Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan 2016 indicates that the access track is subject to a low to medium flood risk at various locations. The management plan generally requires that a driveway providing access from the road must be no lower than 0.3m below the 1% AEP flood event. The modelling from the flood study suggests that there may be one point along the existing access where this standard may not be met. As an existing driveway this is considered acceptable due to the rural nature of the subdivision, the existing access arrangement, and the existing development.

5.7 European Cultural Heritage

The LEP identifies the subject land as being a Heritage Item due to the presence of the Barinsdale Graves and associated elm trees which date back to the early 19^th century. The proposed subdivision will result in these trees being split between both lots. Council’s Heritage Advisor indicates this does not represent a significant adverse impact on the heritage values.

5.8 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage/Objects

The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW stipulates that certain landscape features (such as a watercourse) increase the likelihood of the presence of Aboriginal objects and a visual site inspection should be undertaken by a person with suitable experience in identifying Aboriginal Objects.

The Applicant has submitted a desktop due diligence assessment of Aboriginal Objects and has advised that a suitable person has visited the site and no objects have been found. This revised assessment has not yet been formally received. Finalising any Consent that may be issued should be contingent upon this assessment being submitted.

6. Conclusion

It is recommended that upon submission of the revised due diligence assessment for the protection of Aboriginal objects, conditional Development Consent be issued for the two lot subdivision of 3795 Sutton Road, Gundaroo including a requirement for any future development to be above the Flood Planning Level.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN1 - Protect and enhance the existing natural environment, including flora and fauna native to the region

Delivery Program Action EN1.1 - Protect our natural assets in line with community values

Operational Plan Activity EN1.1.1 – Ensure assessment of development applications protects our natural environment

Attachments: a. Revised Plan of Subdivision ⇩

b. Locality Plan ⇩

c. Submissions ⇩

d. Applicant's Additional Response ⇩

e. Initial Plan of Subdivision

⇩

6.10 Draft Donations Policy

Attachment a Draft Donations Policy

Policy:

DRAFT DONATIONS

CD-POL-19

Service: Community Development

Responsible Officer: Director Planning

1. OBJECTIVE

To ensure that Yass Valley Council has:

· A consistent, equitable and transparent process to respond to requests for donations

· A process that facilitates the provision of donations that represent value for money and help to build a strong and inclusive community

2. DEFINITION

A donation is a financial contribution toward the rates charges or cost of an event, project or initiative that support the objectives and actions of Council’s Delivery Program.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

Council in accordance with s356 Local Government Act 1993 annually allocates funds to provide financial assistance to community groups.

Council acknowledges the contributions made by community organisations in the Yass Valley Local Government Area and is willing to support these organisations to achieve their goals by committing limited funds in the budget for this purpose.

4. FUNDING PRINCIPLES

Implementation of this policy is dependent upon the Delivery Program & Operational Plan resource allocations made annually. Under the Donations Policy Council will make provision for:

· Rates contribution (recurrent for each year for Council’s 4 year term)

· Mayoral Discretionary Fund (max 5% of the total allocation)

· Non-recurrent financial assistance

Donations toward any of the following will be considered:

Funding Purpose

Eligible Applicants

· Capital works

· Provision of services

· Accessibility

· Purchase of equipment

· Provision of facilities

· Staging of a small community event

· Reimbursement of fees for regulatory approvals

· Reimbursement of charges for use of community facilities

· Not-for-profit organisations

· Charitable organisations

Donations are limited to a maximum of $500 (other than rate contributions) unless otherwise determined by Council.

5. SELECTION PRIORITIES

The following priorities apply to any donation request:

· Must relate to Council’s Delivery Program Action(s)

· Be a contribution to Council rates for:

Privately owned ‘open pace’ or ‘green space’ areas

CWA Rooms

Senior Citizen Halls

Community Halls

· Be for a charitable organisation, not-for-profit or community event

6. FUNDING GUIDELINES

4.1 Other than recurrent rate contributions and Mayoral Donations Council will call for applications to the Donations Program in May of each year, with notification on Council’s website and in the local media

4.2. Council will consider and determine the application for support annually in either June or July at an open Council meeting

4.3 Applications for financial assistance shall be considered on merit, taking into account the guidelines, eligibility and selection criteria of this Policy, the circumstances of each case and the availability of funds in Council’s budget. No application is guaranteed funding support or that the full amount requested will be donated

4.4 Selection criteria includes:

· Financial capacity of the organisation

· Whether previous donations have been given to the organisation

· Whether alternative sources of funding have been examined (e.g. increasing membership fees, grants)

· If the project/activity aligns with or complements a Council priority/commitment

4.5 Successful applicants will be advised in July or August of each year

4.6 If Council funding of a financial request is approved, it is not an ongoing commitment to funding for any following year, unless explicitly stated by Council. If a donation is granted over multiple years then the donation amount will be fixed for that period

7. MAYORAL DONATIONS

Up to 5% of the donations funding allocation shall be reserved for donations to charitable organisations, not-for-profit organisations and small community event. The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager will have discretion to make such donations up to the value of $100.

A request for a Mayoral Donations must be made in writing using an approved from and can be made at any time during the financial year.

8. RECURRENT DONATIONS

Donations, recurrent for each year for Council’s 4 year term, are available to the organisations included in Schedule A to this policy.

For privately owned ‘open space’ or ‘green space’ these contributions will be fixed at the level established in the first year of the contribution.

At the end of the Council term recipients will need to re-apply for a recurrent donation.

Where Council makes a donation for a funding facility for a facility (e.g. rates and charges) if Council requires the use of the facility (e.g. community meeting) then the use is to be at no charge.

9. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

9.1 All organisations applying for funding under this policy are to submit an annual application

9.2 Application organisations much be based in the Yass Valley Local Government Area or must be affiliated with, or service clients that are located in the Yass Valley Local Government Area

9.3 Federal or State funded initiatives will not receive assistance under this policy, nor will requests by organisations that are raising funds on behalf of another organisation which is the recipient of financial assistance from the State or Federal Government

9.4 Generally, Council will only provide financial assistance to incorporated, not for profit organisations or unincorporated not for profit organisations that are auspiced by an incorporated organisation

9.5 Applications for funding are required to demonstrate the financial viability of their organisation

9.6 Preference is given to organisations that provide a valuable service or benefit for which there are no alternative funding sources

9.7 The donation request must be for an activity or service to be provided within the financial year as approved by Council

9.8 If an organisation wishes to modify its request or alter the proposed project or event, the applicant should make this request in writing. It is at the discretion of the General Manager as to whether the intent of this modification meets Council’s objectives

9.9 Council will not make retrospective donations.

9.10 Council does not provide special funds for significant achievements that relate to ambassadorial roles in the community. Financial assistance to individuals or organisations raising funds on behalf of an individual are eligible under this policy

9.11 Activities ancillary to the functions of educational institutions such as Parents & Citizens organisations are not eligible for funding under this policy

9.12 Federal, State and Local Government organisations are not eligible for funding under this policy

9.13 Council will not refund DA fees where the applicant:

· Is providing a personalised service for fees e.g. nursing homes, preschools or childcare centres

· Is a profitable operation

· Operates a licenced premises

9.14 Council will not waive or refund development contributions unless specifically provided for in the Contributions Plan.

10.0 COMMUNITY EVENTS AND SPONSORSHIP

10.1 Financial support for community events (greater than $500) are to be submitted via a formal written application via the Community Event Program

11.0 IN-KIND DONATIONS

11.1 Council may consider providing material, equipment or human resources support to community organisations. Any such in kind donation would need to take into account the impact on the essential work of the Council through consultation with the relevant Director before being committed

12.0 DONATION OF LOW VALUE ASSETS

12.0 Low value Council assets and scrap materials with an estimated cumulative value under $2,000 which are unsuitable for new Council projects may be donated to charities of community organisations with the authority of the relevant Director

12.1 Council occasionally receives requests from community organisations and charities seeking the donation of concessional sales of surplus Council goods or materials. At times, Council may invite such organisations to submit proposals for the donation of surplus or obsolete goods or materials

13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

13.1 Where possible and appropriate recipients of the Donations Program are requested to give public recognition to the donation received from Council and acknowledge Council’s financial assistance on any related promotional material

14. ACQUITTAL

14.1 Council requires and acquittal of all donations

14.2 The recipient organisation is required to detail the manner in which the funds have been expended and a brief description of the outcomes

14.3 Council is to receive the acquittal by 30 May the following year

14.4 Organisations that do not complete an acquittal of the donation will not be eligible for a future donation

15 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS/LEGISLATION

Previously known as Donations Policy COP-POL-19.

HISTORY

Minute No	Date of Issue	Action	Author	Checked By
542	14 November 2007	Adopted		PP&R Meeting
	4 August 2011	Reviewed	Cathy Campbell	EMT
319	24 August 2011	Adopted		Council Meeting
453 339 188	24 October 2012 23 October 2013 27 August 2014	Adopted Adopted Adopted		Council Meeting Council Meeting Council Meeting
175	27 July 2016	Adopted		Council Meeting
	14 April 2017		Cathy Campbell	Council Meeting
	10 May 2017	Reviewed		Councillor workshop

Schedule A

Community Hall Donations:

*Organisation*	*Purpose*	*Donation*
Binalong Mechanics Institute	Rates and Charges	$1,298.56
Bowning Hall	Rates and Charges	$2,040.04
Bookham Hall	Rates and Charges	$813.38
Sutton Hall	Charges	$31.00
Gundaroo Hall	Rates and Charges	$1,128.80
Wee Jasper Hall	Charges	$31.00

CWA Rooms:

*Organisation*	*Purpose*	*Donation*
Binalong CWA	CWA Rooms	$603.05
Bowning CWA	CWA Land	$103.17
Yass CWA	CWA Rooms	$1,589.33

Green Space:

Gundaroo Police Paddocks	Green Space (Police Paddocks)	$644.25
Yass Golf Club	Green Space (Fairways and Greens)	$7,760.83
Lawn Tennis Club	Green Space (Courts)	$3,150.00
Yass Bowling Club	Green Space (Greens)	$3,497.73
Binalong Golf Club	Green Space (Fairways and Greens)	$5,981.32

Community Facilities Donations:

*Organisation*	*Purpose*	*Donation*
Yass Senior Citizens Club	Senior Citizens Hall	$1,120.00
Gundaroo Literacy Institute	Literacy Institute	$1,259.72
Bowning Tennis Courts	Vacant Tennis Courts	$116.38
Yass & District Historical Society	Yass Museum	$1,120.00

Other Donations:

*Organisation*	*Purpose*	*Donation*
NSW Rural Doctors	Scholarship	$3,300.00
Railway Heritage Group*	Operating Costs	$6,000.00

* Donation to be reviewed annually

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.11 2017/18 Community Grants Applications

SUMMARY

A total of 10 eligible applications were received under the 2017/18 Community Grant Program which has a budget of $46,900. Three applications were deemed ineligible as they did not provide evidence of the required 25% cash contribution from applicants.

From the assessment 10 of the submissions are recommended for funding.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The following funding applications under the 2017/18 Community Grant Program be granted.

*Organisation*	*Project Description*	*Recommended Funding*
Gundaroo Soldiers Memorial Hall Committee Inc.	Redevelopment and landscaping of an outdoor area at Gundaroo Soldiers Memorial Hall	$5,043
Turning Wave Festival Inc.	Purchase of reusable resources to enhance the festival atmosphere (e.g. street banners/signs)	$5,000
Yass & District Historical Society	Redevelop, expand and rejuvenate exhibition space and improve disabled access at the Yass Museum to be more attractive to residents and visitors alike	$5,000
Yass Early Childhood Centre Association	Fundraising market for YECCA in the Yass Memorial Hall. Targeting babies and kids.	$1,500
Yass Valley Men’s Shed Inc.	Install an insulated pitched roof over the top of two shipping containers at the Yass Men’s Shed.	$5,000
Gundaroo Music Festival Inc.	Raise funds the MND association for people dealing with Motor Neurone Disease	$5,000
Anglican Church	Raising of the level of the concrete to the front door of the church; building of two access ramps either side of the concrete frontage; construction of new steps at the front of the concrete porch area; construction of railings on either side of the ramps; construction of a new portico and construction of new garden beds.	$8,360
Berinba Primary School	To unite schools and community to promote a love of reading, writing and drawing to our children while encouraging everyone to access our local Yass Valley Library.	$2,240
Sutton & District Community Association Inc.	Purchase a lawnmower to assist with YVC mowing program in Sutton	$5,000
Yass Montessori Preschool	Provision of live theatrical event at the Celtic Market Place (markets held as part of the Turning Wave Festival	$2,300

2. The balance of the Community Grant fund (i.e. $2,457) be transferred to the 2017/18 donations budget and used to support Council works that are undertaken as part of the 2018 Yass Show

3. $3,750 be held in Reserve for a community project that is substantiated by quantitative community needs assessment that is undertaken by the Bowning Progress Association during 2017/18

Financial IMPLICATIONS

$46,900 included in the 2017/18 Operational Plan for Community Grants

POlicy & Legislation

· Community Grant Policy

REPORT

The opportunity for organisations to submit applications under the Community Grants Program (refer Attachment A) was advertised in the Yass Tribune newspaper, on Council’s website and Facebook Page during June 2017. A workshop for prospective applicants was held on the 8 June 2017.

Ten funding applications have been submitted in accordance with the program.

The 2017/18 budget for the Community Grants Program is $46,900. The total requested in eligible applications was $69,433.

A Panel comprising of Council’s, Cr Burgess, Cr Harker and the Community Development Manager assessed applications against the policy criteria. There were no declarations of interest. A copy of resulting ranking which represents the combined scores of each panel member for each application is provided in Attachment B.

In order to ensure that funds are distributed as widely as possible the Panel has recommended that the applications by the Turning Wave Festival Committee, Yass & District Historical Society, Yass Valley Men’s Shed, Gundaroo Music Festival and Sutton & District Community Association be offered $5,000 to fund each of their projects rather than the requested $10,000. If this proposal is accepted the total expended will be $44,443.

A summary of the projects and suggested funding levels is provided in the following table:

Organisation	Project Description	Recommended Funding
Gundaroo Soldiers Memorial Hall Committee Inc.	Redevelopment and landscaping of an outdoor area at Gundaroo Soldiers Memorial Hall	$5,043
Turning Wave Festival Inc.	Purchase of reusable resources to enhance the festival atmosphere (e.g. street banners/signs)	$5,000
Yass & District Historical Society	Redevelop, expand and rejuvenate exhibition space and improve disabled access at the Yass Museum to be more attractive to residents and visitors alike	$5,000
Yass Early Childhood Centre Association	Fundraising market for YECCA in the Yass Memorial Hall. Targeting babies and kids.	$1,500
Yass Valley Men’s Shed Inc.	Install an insulated pitched roof over the top of two shipping containers at the Yass Men’s Shed.	$5,000
Gundaroo Music Festival Inc.	Raise funds the MND association for people dealing with Motor Neurone Disease	$5,000
Anglican Church	Raising of the level of the concrete to the front door of the church; building of two access ramps either side of the concrete frontage; construction of new steps at the front of the concrete porch area; construction of railings on either side of the ramps; construction of a new portico and construction of new garden beds.	$8,360
Berinba Primary School	To unite schools and community to promote a love of reading, writing and drawing to our children while encouraging everyone to access our local Yass Valley Library.	$2,240
Sutton & District Community Association Inc.	Purchase a lawnmower to assist with YVC mowing program in Sutton	$5,000
Yass Montessori Preschool	Provision of live theatrical event at the Celtic Market Place (markets held as part of the Turning Wave Festival	$2,300
	Total	$44,443

It is recommended that the remaining $2,457 be transferred to Council’s 2017/18 Donations budget to support Council works that are undertaken as part of the 2018 Yass Show.

The Bowning Progress Association has also returned $3,750 that was provided to the organisation as part of the 2014/15 Community Grant Program. The grant was originally provided to help facilitate a feasibility study for a proposed skatepark in Bowning (i.e. $2,500) and to install of tourism signs (i.e. $1,250).

The Bowning Progress Association has indicated that they are uncertain about the need for both projects. They have requested that the $3,750 be held in trust for a Bowning related project/s once community needs have been ascertained.

During the assessment process panel members noted that a number of improvements could be made to both Council’s Community Grant Policy and assessment processes. Some suggested improvements include automation of the grant administrative process using tailored software and a review of assessment criteria and weighting.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 3. Our Community

CSP Strategy CO2 - Encourage and facilitate active and creative participation in community life

Delivery Program Action CO2.5 - Support the growth of a diverse range of community events

Operational Plan Activity CO2.5.1 - Invest in the growth and development of community events

Attachments: a. Community Grant Policy ⇩

b. 2017/18 Ranked Community Grants

⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

6.13 Local Heritage Grant Program 2017/18

SUMMARY

To present a report on the completion of the 2016/17 Local Heritage Grants and the recommendations from the 2017/18 Local Heritage Grants Assessment Panel.

To seek Council’s endorsement of the Yass Valley Heritage Strategy 2017/20.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The expenditure and reimbursement for the 2016/17 Local Heritage Grants Program be noted

2. The following funding be provided under the 2017/18 Local Heritage Grant Program:

24 Grampian Street, Yass (Kerrowgair)	$725
29 Demestre St, Yass (Boree Log Cottage)	$1,210
St Clements Rectory, Yass	$1,000
33 Fitzroy Street, Binalong	$2,000
Yass Railway Heritage Centre	$2,000
St Peter’s Church, Sutton	$2,000
Clemenger Memorial, Gundaroo	$1,740
St James Anglican Church, Bowning	$2,000
*Total*	*$12,675*

3. The $3,325 balance of the Local Heritage Grants Fund be allocated towards site cleaning and weed removal for Crago’s Mill

4. The Yass Valley Heritage Strategy 2017/20 be adopted

Financial IMPLICATIONS

In May 2016, Council accepted a 1 year funding offer from the Heritage Branch of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for 2016/17 of 1:2 of up to $5,000 (ex GST), i.e. Council contributed up to $13,000 towards a total project budget of $18,000.

In May 2017, Council accepted a 2 year funding offer from OEH for 2017/18 and 2018/19 of 1:1 up to $5,500 (ex GST) per year i.e. in 2017/18 Council contributes $10,500 towards a total budget of $16,000.

POlicy & Legislation

· Yass Valley LEP 2013

REPORT

1. Background

Each year Council with assistance from OEH, facilitates an annual Local Heritage Grant program. The funding offered to Council from OEH varies from year to year.

In May 2016, Council accepted a 1 year funding offer from OEH for 2016/17 of 1:2 of up to $5,000 (ex GST), i.e. Council contributed up to $13,000 towards a total project budget of $18,000. In May 2017, Council accepted a 2 year funding offer for 2017/18 and 2018/19 of 1:1 up to $5,500 (ex GST) per year i.e. in 2017/18 Council contributes $10,500 towards a total budget of $16,000.

The Local Heritage Grant Program provides landholders and community groups within the Yass Valley the opportunity to gain funding for conservation projects relating to buildings, items of heritage significance.

2. 2016/17 Local Heritage Grant Program

As part of the 2016/17 Local Heritage Grants program, 12 grants were awarded with 10 works successfully completed. The types of work undertaken included painting, roof repairs/replacements, new fences and various internal works.

At the completion of the 2016/17 program, $12,995 was awarded to the 10 applicants that successfully completed the program as detailed below. Two applicants did not complete the program in 2016/17.

Applicant	Heritage Item address	Project description	Project cost	Applicant’s contribution	Local Heritage Funding
Brian and Penny Millet	14 Pritchett Street Yass	Hand railings on front steps	$600	$300	$300
St Augustine’s Parish Yass	110 Meehan Street Yass	Upgrade of steps and handrails to Lovat Chapel	$8,000	$6,000	$2,000
Steve Hogan	32 Comur Street Yass	Exterior paintwork of building	$9,438	$6,438	$3,000
Maree Firth	41 Church Street Yass	Replacement of guttering	$2,200	$1,100	$1,100
Cyril and Debby Cox	Former Bowning Stores - 4 Leake Street	Repair windows at Antique Shop	$885	$440	$445
Michael and Swee-Mee Levsen	108 Comur Stret Yass	Prepare and paint facade of building	$2,288	$1,138	$1,150
John and Judy Heggart	‘Kerrowgair’ 24 Grampian Street Yass	Repair paint work – house frontage	$800	$400	$400
Juan and Geneviere Maddock	31 Shaw Street Yass	Paint the front exterior of the house	$2,200	$1,100	$1,100
Rick Williams	‘Duoro” 5 Glover Drive Yass	Replace window	$5,118	$3,118	$1,500
Greg Weller	11 Queen Street Binalong	Remove trees from house / improve drainage	$5,690	$3,690	$2,000
Total			$37,219	$23,724	$12,995

3. 2017/18 Local Heritage Grant Program

The 2017/18 Local Heritage Program received 13 applications. A Panel comprising of Council’s Heritage Advisor, Council’s Strategic Planning Manager and Cr McManus assessed all applications on 4 July 2017 against a matrix corresponding to the 2017/18 Guidelines.

Declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests were determined prior to assessment. No interests were declared by Panel Members.

A summary of the Assessment Panel’s findings are included in Attachment A.

The Panel recommends that the following applications are offered funding under the 2017/18 Local Heritage Grants Program.

Heritage Item Address	Project Description	Proposed Project Cost	Requested Funding	Assessment Panel Score out of 24	Recommended Funding	Grant Contribution %
‘Kerrowgair’ 24 Grampian Street Yass	Repair and paint wall and bay window	$1,450	$725	20	$725	50%
‘Boree Log Cottage’ 29 Demestre Street Yass	Repointing of brickwork	$2,420	$2,000	22	$1,120	50%
St Clements Rectory 17 Church Street Yass	Replace existing boundary fence of the	$3,593	$2,000	19	$1,000	28%
33 Fitzroy Street Binalong	Replace old gutting pushing on concrete tank	$4,376	$2000	23	$2,000 (Pensioner Grant)	46%
Yass Railway Heritage Museum	Repaint the inside of the Museum in heritage colours	$4,265	$2,000	18	$2,000	47%
St Peter’s Church, Sutton	Prepare and paint interior of St Peter’s Church Sutton	$5,940	$2,000	21	$2,000	34%
Clemenger Memorial, Gundaroo	Restoration work on Clemenger Memorial and landscaping around the memorial	$3,480	$1,740	20	$1,7400	50%
St James Anglican Church Bowning	Replace damaged flooring and replacement of foyer door jam	$5,000	$2,500	19	$2,000	40%
Total					$12,675

There were five grant applications which were lodged that the Panel determined should not be eligible for funding in 2017/18. These were:

· ‘Duoro’ 5 Glover Drive, Yass

This was the owner’s third application for funding in consecutive years

· Clementine Restaurant, 104 Meehan Street, Yass

The property is within a Conservation Area – but not a Heritage Item. Proposed works to the rear of the building would not contribute to the streetscape

· Cooma Cottage, Yass

Three non-works applications were received from Cooma Cottage. The applications were incomplete and/or appear to be duplicating existing functions of the National Trust (e.g. training manual for visitor guides).

It was therefore agreed by the Panel to instead allocate the remaining balance of Council’s funds (i.e. $3,325) towards an urgent heritage project on a Council owned building- Crago’s Mill as per below.

4. Crago’s Mill

Council’s Heritage Advisor has prepared a preliminary Conservation Strategy for Crago’s Mill detailed in Attachment B including a building condition overview and a scope of works. This document has been prepared in the event that Council is able to source funding through NSW grants streams such as ‘Heritage Activation’.

The Heritage Advisor’s assessment of the interior condition of the Mill is constrained due to the rubbish and items stored inside as shown in Figure 1. The first stage of any works is therefore focussed on site cleaning and weed removal, and has been estimated to cost approximately $3,000.

Figure 1: Interior view of Crago’s Mill

In the event that Council agrees to allocate the remaining balance of funds towards this project, the project could be carried out by Council Works staff, or alternatively engage a volunteer group such as Conservation Volunteers Australia – who would need to hold the required insurances.

Any future funding applications for the restoration and adaption of Crago’s Mill are likely to be considered more favourably if this initial stage of site cleaning and weed removal has been undertaken.

5. 2017/20 Heritage Strategy

As a condition of receiving funding from the Heritage Branch, a strategy must be prepared every three years to guide heritage management in the Yass Valley LGA. Council’s Strategy is due for review this year, and accordingly a new strategy 2017/20 is provided in Attachment C. The strategy format is based on the NSW Template.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 3. Our Community

CSP Strategy CO4 - Recognise and celebrate our diverse cultural identities, and protect and maintain our community’s natural and built cultural heritage

Delivery Program Action CO4.3 - Continue the local Heritage Grants Program

Operational Plan Activity CO4.3.1 - Encourage owners of local heritage items to seek funding for small conservation projects

Attachments: a. Local Heritage Grants 2017/18 Scoring Matrix and Applicants ⇩

b. Crago's Mill Strategy 2016 ⇩

c. Heritage Strategy 2017/20

⇩

6.13 Local Heritage Grant Program 2017/18

Attachment a Local Heritage Grants 2017/18 Scoring Matrix and Applicants

Yass Valley Local Hertiage Grants - 2017/18 Assessment

Applicant	Property	Project	Inital project quote	Estimated Proportion of Cost	Local Heritage funding requested	Total score (%)		2017-2018 Funding priorities* disability access improvements to commercial buildings in the conservation areas* restoration of awnings on historic buildings in conservation areas* restoration of buildings in areas of high public visibilityHigh (3) - project meets one or more of the funding prioritiesMed (2) - project compliments a funding priorityLow (1) - project does not relate to a funding priority	Heritage Significance of the buildingHigh (3)- Listed in Yass Valley LEP 2013 Heritage ScheduleMed (2) - In Heritage Conservation Area or suported by the Heritage Advisor as being of heritage significanceLow (1) - low heritage value		Ability to undertake the work to a suitable conservation standardHigh (3) - works to be carried out by a recognised conservatorMed (2) - unknown or questionable Low (1) - of concern	Whether the project will encourage other conservation workHigh (3) - likely to encourage other conservation work either on the same building or surrounding buildingsMed (2) - may encourage other conservation work either on the same building or surrounding buildingsLow (1) - not likely to encourage other conservation work either on the same building or surrounding buildings		Degree of visibility to publicHigh (3) - highly visible item and project is for works on a highly visible part of the itemMed (2) - item visible to the public, or project is on a highly visible item but not to a visble part of the builsingLow (1) - not highly visible item or project	Extent of previous fundingHigh (3) - no funding provided in the last 5 yearsMed (2) - one funding offer in the last 5 yearsLow (1) - multiple funding offers in the last 5 years	Ability to complete the project within the appropriate time frameHigh (3) - Manageable project scale and/or previous evidence of timely project management Med (2) - Ambitious project or no previous evidence of project managementLow (1) - Excessive Project scale and/or previous evidence of delayed project management	Evidence of tradesmen's or supplier's quotesHigh (3) - Full/itemised quote showing materials to be usedMed (2) - Partial and/or unclear quoteLow (1) - no quote provided
John and Judy Heggart	24 Grampian Street Yass	Repair and paint wall and bay window	$1,450	50%	$725	83%		2	3		2	3		2	2	3	3
Sandra Lloyd & David Price	Boree Log Cottage - 29 Demestre Street Yass	Repointing of brick work	$2,420	83%	$2,000	92%		2	3		3	3		2	3	3	3
Yass Valley Angilcan Church	17 Church Street	Replace the existing boundary fence of the St Clements Rectory	$3,593	56%	$2,000	79%		2	3		2	2		2	3	3	2
Bill Arabin	33 Fitzroy Street Binalong	Replace old guttering pushing on concrete tank	$4,376	46%	$2,000	96%		3	3		2	3		3	3	3	3
Rick Williams	5 Glover Drive Yass	Window Replacement	$5,000	40%	$2,000	67%		1	3		2	2		1	1	3	3
Brooke Sainsbery & Adam Bantock	104 Meehan Street Yass	Repair and paint all timer surfaces of side of property inc windows, dorrs, fascias, eaves and gutters	$11,968	17%	$2,000	63%		1	1		2	1		1	3	3	3
Yass Railway Heritage Centre	Cargo Street Yass	Paint inside of the museum	$4,265	47%	$2,000	79%		2	3		2	3		2	2	2	3
Sutton Road Mission District	St Peters Church Sutton	Perpare and paint interior of St Peters Church Sutton	$5,940	34%	$2,000	83%		3	3		2	3		3	1	3	2
Gundaroo and District Historical Society	Clemengers Memorial	Restoration work on Clemengers Memorial and landscaping around the memorial	$3,480	50%	$1,740	88%		3	3		2	3		3	1	3	3
Bimbi Turner	St James Anglican Church Bowning	Replace damaged flooring and replacement of foyer door jam	$5,000	50%	$2,500	79%		2	3		2	3		2	2	3	2
Cooma Cottage Volunteer Management Committee	Cooma Cottage Volunteer Management Committee	Non- Works Project - Information Package	$410	50%	$205	42%		n/a	3		?	?		?	3	2	2
Cooma Cottage Volunteer Management Committee	Cooma Cottage Volunteer Management Committee	Non-Works Project - Cooma Cottage Garden Plan	$700	50%	$350	n/a	3			1	3		?	3	2		1
Cooma Cottage Volunteer Management Committee	Cooma Cottage Volunteer Management Committee	Non-works Project - Cooma Cottage Education Package	2475	51%	$1,250	n/a	3			2	?		?	3	2		1

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

7.1 Fixing Country Roads Round Three

SUMMARY

Applications for the third round of the Fixing Country Roads grant scheme are open until Friday 1 September 2017. This report provides advice on potential projects that funding may be sought for.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council submit an application for funding under round 3 of the NSW Government Fixing Country Roads program for:

1. Mulligans Flat Road Construction

2. Timber Bridge Renewal Program

Financial IMPLICATIONS

There is no set minimum or maximum funding amount for a single project under round 3 of Fixing Country Roads. Applicants for the scheme can apply for up to 100 percent of the value of the project, but co-contributions from Council, industry and Australian Government programmes are strongly encouraged. This includes programmes such as the Bridges Renewal Programme (BRP) or the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF).

Commentary on funding options is included with each option Council may wish to apply for later in this report.

To develop an application for this funding scheme a consultant may be required to assist. This will depend on the expertise required to complete the application and current work priorities. Should a consultant be required this will be funded through the 2017/18 Engineering budget.

POlicy & Legislation

Nil.

REPORT

1. Background Information for Fixing Country Roads Round 3

The NSW Government recently announced that it was seeking applications for eligible projects under the third round of the Fixing Country Roads grant scheme. Total funding under the third round is $100 million. Applications close Friday 1 September 2017.

Under the grant scheme there are three streams:

1. Roads and Bridges Construction;

2. Bridge and Route Load Assessments; and

3. Truck Washes.

Eligible projects under each stream include:

Roads and Bridges Construction

· Road pavement repair and strengthening to allow higher mass limits (HML)

· Sealing of an unsealed road

· Road widening to allow longer and heavier vehicle combinations

· Replacement of a timber bridge with a new structure

· Strengthening and widening of an existing bridge

· Road and floodway reconstruction to improve access during flood events

· Construction of a new road to shorten distances

· New roads such as access roads to industrial areas

· Culvert replacement

· Intersection realignment and upgrades

· Construction of a heavy vehicle rest area and inspection bay.

Bridge and Route Load Assessments

· Bridge and culvert assessments that confirm or determine the load rating of the structures assessed. Generally, the structures should be assessed for load rating up to at least B-Double high mass limit (HML) standard

· Route load assessments that confirm or determine the suitability of pavement for higher mass limits.

Truck Washes (Both upgrades to existing and new truck washes or effluent disposal points are eligible)

· Construction of new bays or extending existing bays to accommodate the largest vehicle size on the route

· Construction of effluent disposal point bay

· Water pump upgrade to increase pressure and decrease wash time

· Drainage upgrade

· Effluent disposal treatment system upgrade to improve biosecurity measure

· Installation of reticulation system to utilise captured rainwater to be used at the truck wash

· Lighting upgrade or installation to improve safety and extend operating hour

· Toilet and shower facility upgrades to improve safety and reduce fatigue.

To be eligible projects must start within 12 months of the funding being made available and delivery should be able to be completed within 2 years of commencement.

There is no limit on the number of applications Council can submit. However, applicants are advised to prioritise and put forward their most well developed projects as Fixing Country Roads is a competitive program.

Eligible applications will be assessed against four program criteria:

1. Access, Productivity and Safety Benefits (freight is an important part of this)

2. Growth and Economic Benefits

3. Strategic Alignment

4. Deliverability and Affordability

Under the Truck Washes stream, biosecurity benefits will also be part of the assessment.

2. Eligible Council Projects

2.1 Roads and Bridges Construction Stream

Under the Roads and Bridges Construction Stream Council may wish to consider applying for the following:

1. Mulligans Flat Road Construction

Mulligans Flat Road is the highest trafficked unsealed road in the Yass Valley local government area and provides a key link for regional commuters into the north of the ACT. 2km of the road remains unsealed. This unsealed section includes a timber bridge. The unsealed section of the road is often in poor condition and requires regular maintenance grading due to the traffic volume. Mulligans Flat Road currently has a 10 tonne load limit.

Based on contracts recently completed for Council the total cost of constructing and sealing the 2km of unsealed road and replacing the timber bridge with a concrete structure is estimated to be $1.3 million (allowance of $300,000 for the bridge structure).

Council at it’s April 2017 Ordinary Meeting endorsed Mulligans Flat Road Construction as a regional priority project in the draft infrastructure matrix for the Canberra Region Joint Organisation.

Based on the road being a key link, and if the load limit were to be removed (once the road is sealed) thereby providing freight access, ensures this project strongly aligns with the Fixing Country Roads assessment criteria.

2. Fairlight Road Construction

2.5km of Fairlight Road is unsealed between Mountain Creek Road and the ACT border. The road provides an important link for local commuters into the ACT and for tourism. The road has a moderate to high traffic volume for an unsealed road. Due to traffic volume and condition the road requires regular maintenance grading.

Council has allocated $500,000 in the 2017/18 Operational Plan for the project to construct and seal Fairlight Road. Subject to detailed design, availability of a locally sourced gravel and detailed estimate, this amount is expected to seal 50-60% of the unsealed road. To construct the full project to a 6m seal width this is estimated to cost $1 million, although some saving is possible on this amount if suitable locally sourced gravel can be identified.

Council at it’s April 2017 Ordinary Meeting endorsed including Fairlight Road Construction as a regional priority project in the draft infrastructure matrix for the Canberra Region Joint Organisation.

An expression of interest (EOI) for funding under the NSW Government Regional Growth – Environment & Tourism Fund for this project was submitted earlier in 2017. No advice on the outcome of this EOI has been received.

3. Timber Bridge Renewal Program

There are currently 11 timber bridges in the Yass Valley local government area that have a load limit in place. Council bought 3 bailey bridges in 2016/17 and also has one in place at Dicks Creek that is redundant. These are currently planned to be installed progressively to replace selected priority timber bridges.

Council adopted a priority program for replacing load limited timber bridges at it’s Ordinary Meeting in December 2016. Delivery of this program would address the need to put load limits on bridge crossings at a number of sites, thereby providing economic benefit to the regions agriculture sector in particular.

Based on the Timber Bridge Renewal Program being linked with freight, the program of bridge renewals strongly aligns with the Fixing Country Roads assessment criteria.

The preliminary estimated cost of the priority program is $4,950,000. Applications for funding under the Australian Government Bridge Renewal Programme and Building Better Regions Fund for this program of works were submitted earlier in 2017. No advice on the outcome of these applications has been received.

To deliver this program Council could seek grant funds under the Fixing Country Roads grant scheme to cover 50% of the cost. Council, or another grant scheme if successful, would then be required to fund the remaining 50% ($2,475,000). In relation to the Building Better Regions Fund application, Council at it’s March Ordinary Meeting resolved:

That if Council is successful in obtaining grant funding under the Building Better Regions Fund for the purposes of timber bridge replacement, a further report be brought back to Council detailing options to fully fund Council’s required contribution under the grant scheme.

If Council is successful in one of the three grant schemes only then the source of funding of the required Council contribution would need to be determined as per the above resolution.

2.2 Other Streams

Under this current round of Fixing Country Roads Council may consider making application for funding to undertake load testing of Council’s bridges and major culverts under the Bridge and Route Load Assessment stream. As this has been undertaken recently for all timber bridges, Council’s higher risk structures have already had this occur. This process facilitated the development of priority programs for timber bridge rehabilitation and replacement. Given this process was undertaken it is not recommended that Council apply for any projects under this stream. In future, once Council’s timber bridges have been addressed, Council may wish to consider undertaking load testing of concrete structures on selected roads or routes.

It is not proposed that any applications be submitted under the Truck Washes Stream as there is no immediate priority in this regard and the other streams under the scheme are considered of higher priority.

3. Recommendation for Fixing Country Roads Grant Application

Guidelines for Fixing Country Roads advise applicants to prioritise projects. It is therefore recommended that Council apply for one road and one bridge project under the Road and Bridge Construction Stream.

The Timber Bridge Renewal Program closely aligns with the grant assessment criterial. The program is recommended for application as it may provide Council with the opportunity to bring a large amount of work forward to be undertaken over a period of two years. There is also opportunity for this program to be fully funded if Council is successful in one of the Federal Government grant schemes applied for earlier in 2017. If successful in one or more of the grant applications, as the amount being applied for is significant, it may allow Council funds to be freed up for other priority road projects. Given grant applications for this program of works have been submitted earlier in 2017 much of the necessary preparation work for the application has been undertaken.

Of the two road construction projects suggested it is recommended that Council apply for the Mulligans Flat Road Construction project. This project best aligns with the assessment criteria for the grant given it is a regional commuter route and once complete will open the road up to freight uses, if Council were to remove the load limit. Mulligans Flat Road is also of higher overall cost meaning that if Council is successful a higher grant amount would be obtained.

Should Council be successful in obtaining funding for Mulligans Flat Road, Council would need to consider options for funding a Council contribution to the project. There are various options for this and may include:

· Reallocation of funds within the 2016/17 Operational Plan;

· Allocation of funds in the 2018/19 Operational Plan;

· General reserves;

· Income generated from commercial activities, such as land sales;

· Loans; and

· Combination of the above.

For the purposes of the grant application a contribution by Council of $360,000 will be assumed.

With regard to the Fairlight Road Construction project as Council already has funding of $500,000 included in the 2017/18 Operational Plan, a lesser amount to that of the Mulligans Flat Road Construction project would be applied for under this grant. A higher grant amount is sought as Council will then be able to bring a greater amount of works forward in the future. It is therefore recommended that the Mulligans Flat Road Construction project be applied for in this instance.

It is not recommended that Council submit any applications under the Bridge and Route Loads Assessment Stream or Truck Washes Stream. This is because there are no immediate priorities in this regard and the other stream under Fixing Country Roads is considered of higher priority. It may also be a risk that funding may be received under these streams if applied for, rather than the priority major construction projects outlined above. It is noted that there is not a pre-determined proportion of the $100 million of Fixing Country Roads funding being allocated to each stream.

Preliminary work has commenced on the applications for the projects recommended in this report given the timeframe for submission and the detail required in the application.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 4. Our Infrastructure

CSP Strategy IN3 - Maintain and improve road infrastructure and connectivity

Delivery Program Action IN3.1 - Deliver transport asset infrastructure, maintenance, renewal and enhancement programs for urban, rural and regional roads to maintain or improve overall condition

Operational Plan Activity IN3.1.1 - Develop and deliver annual programs for urban, rural and regional road renewal and construction, including bridges and stormwater

Attachments: Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

7.3 Yass to Murrumbateman Water Transfer System

SUMMARY

This report provides an update on the progress of the Yass to Murrumbateman Water Transfer System project.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the progress of the project and the land acquisition process

2. Endorse completion of the Concept Design and commencement of the Detailed Design phase

Financial IMPLICATIONS

Funds have been allocated in the 2017/18 Operational Plan for the investigation, design and land acquisition processes for this project.

The following grant funding is available for the construction of the project:

· $6.1 million from the Australian Government (National Stronger Regions Fund)

· $3.735 million from the NSW State Government (Restart NSW Fund). Granted for Improvements to the Yass Water Treatment Plant and approval given to utilise funding on this project

The estimated total project cost is approximately $14 million.

Council will be seeking additional funding via an application under impending State grant funding programs. If the application is successful then this would deliver an opportunity to bring forward the Improvements to the Yass Water Treatment Plant.

POlicy & Legislation

State Environment Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP).

REPORT

1. Background

The current Murrumbateman Water Supply System provides water drawn from ground water sources. This system was developed in 1984 using a shallow bore located in the Murrumbateman Recreation Ground. A second bore was developed in 2007 following intensive investigations. The water undergoes a disinfection treatment process prior to household supply. The bore water is occasionally of below average quality and does not provide a secure water supply for the current Murrumbateman Village nor any future growth.

The project to raise the Yass Dam wall means the dam can cater for up to 15,000 people. At present it caters for approximately 7,600 people in Yass and the villages of Bowning and Binalong.

The Yass to Murrumbateman Water Transfer System project will deliver water from the Morton Avenue Reservoir, Yass, via a 250mm pipeline to Murrumbateman.

The project not only allows for growth in Murrumbateman, but also allows a reverse water transfer from Murrumbateman to Yass in the future if water from the ACT is ever supplied to the Murrumbateman Region.

Council has received grant funding for the project as per the information provided in the Financial Implications section of this report.

The project program is as follows:

· 2016 / 17 Land Negotiation (Pipeline Route and Reservoir sites) and Concept Development

· 2017 / 18 Survey & Design, Environmental Studies and Land Negotiation/Agreements

· 2018 /19 Calling and Awarding Tender and Commence Construction

· 2019 / 20 Construction and Commissioning

· 2020/ 21 Finalisation of Easement Creation

· 2021/ 22 Extension of Water Mains to the Border of Future Development Areas.

2. Pipeline Alignment Selection

NSW Public Works Advisory determined the Yass to Murrumbateman water pipeline alignment following a workshop with Council staff in January 2017. The route options were assessed using a Multi – Criteria Assessment (MCA) method, with the preferred pipeline alignment selected accordingly. The preferred alignment is shown in green in Attachment A. The selected pipeline route runs alongside the electricity easement for much of the length.

3. Land Acquisition

The pipeline alignment selected traverses through thirty properties in total. Cleah Consulting Pty Ltd has been engaged to liaise with land owners on behalf of Council for creation of a 6m wide easement for the pumping main and a 20m wide corridor for construction phase activities.

Cleah Consulting has commenced meeting with land owners discussing the easement land acquisition process and obtaining agreement for survey, environmental and geotechnical investigations to occur on the private land.

A Land Owner Agreement has been developed as the instrument for creation of the easement. Legal advice is currently being sought on this document. A quotation process is also commencing to engage a land valuer to undertake valuations where the easements are required. A report to Council on the overall easement acquisition process is expected to be provided to the August 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting.

It is noted that the easement creation process is critical in the overall context of the project program. This process takes time and any delay would affect the overall project timeline. The program for the project is of great importance because of the timeline associated with the Federal Government grant under the National Stronger Regions Fund. Should any delays be experienced Council will need to request an extension of time from the managing authority, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

4. Design Phase

NSW Public Works Advisory were engaged to develop the Concept Design for the project, which has now been completed (refer to Attachment B).

The Detailed Design process will commence by August 2017. Major components of the design phase are:

· 300mm inlet from Morton Avenue Reservoir and Pump Station;

· Upgrade power supply to Morton Avenue Reservoir site;

· 18km long 250mm diameter trunk pumping main from Yass to Murrumbateman;

· 2ML reservoir at Murrumbateman; and

· Gaseous chlorine based chlorination system to Murrumbateman water supply.

In order to have better quality assets and a longer life span, it has been decided to carry out a detailed design and then call tenders for construction. An alternative would have been to have a contractor design and construct the project. This approach however is likely to deliver substandard assets and will have associated higher ongoing maintenance costs for Council. As a result the design and construction processes will be completed in isolation.

NSW Public Works Advisory are planned to be engaged to undertake the detailed design and to prepare tender documents for the project. NSW Public Works Advisory has in-house capability, technical knowledge and experience to deliver appropriate solutions suitable to large scale rural and regional capital projects and for operational and maintenance scenarios.

The following major projects were delivered successfully by NSW Public Works Advisory for Yass Valley Council:

ü New Sewage Treatment Plant in Yass March 2010 ($7.6M)

ü Raising Yass Dam Wall by Three Metres August 2013 ($16.8M) – Total Cost was $22M

ü Murrumbateman Sewerage Scheme June 2016 ($8.6M)

5. Murrumbateman Reservoir

Earlier plans were to have a smaller size balance tank at the existing Murrumbateman reservoir site and to have another reservoir at an elevated location on a hill at Hillview Drive, Murrumbateman (4.5 km away from the balance tank).

A 15m high, 2ML reservoir at the location of the existing elevated 90KL steel reservoir (15m high) is now planned. This proposed arrangement shall service the existing village and around ninety percent of potential future development sites without the need for any pressure boosting arrangements.

Should there be any additional reservoir requirements needed at a later date, a second reservoir shall be constructed either near to the existing site or at another location where future development occurs.

During the current transition phase, a temporary pressure system will be installed to service the existing high level zones that are currently serviced by the 90KL high level reservoir (refer to Attachment C). Installation of the temporary system will allow removal of the current high level reservoir and ultimate construction of the new 2ML reservoir.

6. Pump Station at Morton Avenue, Yass

The Reservoir at Morton Avenue is the largest holding Reservoir (4.5ML) within the Yass Water Supply System. It is proposed to draw water from this Reservoir to supply Murrumbateman.

A Pump Station will need to be constructed at this location to supply water to Murrumbateman. This is planned to be constructed in a portion of land from Lot 11, DP 777721 adjoining to the Reservoir. This portion of land will need to be acquired during the land acquisition process (refer to Attachment D and Concept Report).

When acquiring the land for this proposed Pump Station, an additional area of land will also be acquired for a second reservoir to meet the future growth needs of Yass (refer to Attachment D and Concept Report).

7. Development and Environmental Approval

The relevant environmental planning instrument for the proposal is SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. This removes the requirement for compliant activities to obtain development consent. Clause 125(1) of the SEPP allows works for the purpose of a water reticulation system carried out by or on behalf of a public authority to proceed without development consent on any land. Therefore, the proposed Yass to Murrumbateman Water Supply Project is permissible without Development Consent.

The proposal will therefore be assessed under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Yass Valley Council is the proponent and will be the determining authority for the development.

A Review of Environmental Factors (REF) will be prepared in accordance with Section 111 of the EP&A Act, which requires that the proponent take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment due to the proposed activity. Consideration of the factors listed under Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) will be used to assist in assessing the significance of the proposal and will be included in the REF.

8. Communication Strategy

· All affected land owners where an easement requires creation were informed in March 2017;

· Residents near the proposed Pump Station site and Reservoir site at Morton Avenue are currently being notified; and

· Murrumbateman Village Residents are currently being notified on the progress of this project.

Strategic Direction

Theme IN Our Infrastructure

Long Term Goal IN5 - Ensure high quality water supply options for the towns in the region

Strategy IN5.1 - Council to supply quality water, cater for growth and quality enhancements that addresses the community needs

Strategic Action IN5.1.1 Council to supply quality water, cater for growth and quality enhancements that addresses the community needs

Attachments: a. Proposed Pipeline Route ⇩

b. Concept Design Report (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c. Temporary Pressure System at Murrumbateman ⇩

d. Proposed Pump Station Layout at Morton Avenue, Yass ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

7.5 Road Standards Policy Review

SUMMARY

A review of the Road Standards Policy has been undertaken following concerns being raised with the policy associated with road upgrade requirements triggered by development. Arising from the review a draft policy is recommended to be placed on public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the draft revised Road Standards Policy RD-POL-9 to be placed on public exhibition and if no significant objections are received the policy be adopted.

Financial IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

POlicy & Legislation

Roads Act 1993

Yass Valley Council Road Standards Policy.

REPORT

1. Background

Council’s Road Standards Policy (RD-POL-9) provides minimum standards for roads and property accesses associated with the assessment of development. The current policy was reviewed late 2016, which was in response to the amendment of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to reduce the minimum rural allotment from 80Ha to 40Ha. The current policy is included in Attachment A.

Some concern has been raised with regard to the extent of the road upgrade requirements the current policy places on development. In addition, some anomalies have arisen in the application of the current policy which may lead to undesirable planning outcomes.

In light of this the policy has been reviewed and a draft revised policy developed (see Attachment B). Within this Attachment amendments are highlighted so that changes can be easily identified.

2. Draft Revised Road Standards Policy – Key Points

The following is a summary of the main changes that have been made in the draft revised Road Standards Policy. Further information is provided on selected proposed changes in the Key Considerations section of this report.

· Right of Way / Right of Carriageway – Listing of a requirement that they shall only be used where it is not practical to have direct vehicular access to an existing or new public road. Quality of materials used for construction now also specified.

· Battle-Axe Handle Access – Listing of a requirement that they shall only be used where it is not practical to have direct vehicular access to an existing or new public road.

· Sight Distance for Property Access – Revision of the sight distance requirements where the posted speed limit is 50km/hr in urban and rural areas. The revised listing is a more practical outcome for urban areas. The previous requirement was not achievable for many lots in urban areas.

· Materials Used for Road Construction – Quality of materials used for road construction have now been specified. Previously the material specified was not suitable for an unsealed road and there was insufficient detail of the quality of material required, meaning sub-standard materials may have been used in road construction.

· Cul-de-sacs – Listing of a requirement that these shall not be used unless they are the only available option.

· Kerb – Listing that flush kerb (as per Fairley subdivision) in Murrumbateman may be used as an alternative to layback or upright kerb.

· Road Upgrade Requirements for Small Subdivisions and Development – Amended so that for such development only unsealed roads that are substandard will require upgrading.

· Section of Road for Upgrade – Listing that the length of road for upgrade shall start from the nearest section of road that is deemed to meet the appropriate road standard, or the end of the nearest section of road that has a current development consent to upgrade (i.e. so two developments are not conditioned to upgrade the same section of road, unless unavoidable).

· Legal and Physical Access – More specific definition now provided. Should a development be constructed on an unformed road then in addition to the length to be upgraded under the provisions for substandard access, the remaining length of unformed road shall be constructed to a 3.5m width with 100mm thickness of gravel.

· Guidance on Road Upgrade Costs – A ready reckoner has been included to provide a guide on likely road upgrade costs.

· Selection of Administrative Changes – Minor changes throughout the policy have been made to improve clarity, including refining the definitions listed.

3. Key Considerations

3.1 Road Upgrade Requirements

As outlined above in general the draft revised policy places lesser requirements on small developments in terms of road upgrade needs where substandard roads exist. Refer to section 11 of the draft revised policy. For such development, the draft revised policy only requires substandard unsealed roads to be upgraded. In addition, where there is a requirement to upgrade there is no change in the category (i.e. for small scale development if a substandard road is unsealed it will only require upgrading to access road standard, which is unsealed).

Council needs to consider whether the requirements in the draft revised policy are appropriate, or whether a higher requirement for development to upgrade substandard roads is preferable, as per the current policy. It is noted that for large development, equivalent of greater than 15 additional lots, the requirements are largely unchanged from the current policy. The draft revised policy has been developed in response to concerns that the current policy has placed excessively onerous requirements on small developments in particular.

The length of substandard road requiring upgrade as a result of development outlined in section 11 has also been reviewed. The current policy requires a 500m length per additional lot for an unsealed road and 300m per additional lot for a sealed road. These distances were determined based on the potential number of additional development entitlements with the new minimum lot size of 40Ha and the length of Council’s rural network.

Further review of the length of road to be upgraded considered the Yass Local Environmental Plan 1987 (now repealed) and the typical and desired layout of a 40Ha lot. Within the LEP 1987 40Ha lots were also then the minimum rural lot areas. This LEP included a requirement that allotments fronting main or arterial roads were to have a frontage of not less than 400m. Consideration of the geometry of a 40Ha lot in terms of a sound planning outcome (i.e. long thin lots being undesirable) would suggest that a frontage of 400m to 500m would is desirable. As a result of this and previous consideration the draft revised policy is unchanged in terms of the length of substandard road requiring upgrade.

Council may wish to review the length requiring upgrade for unsealed roads in particular outlined in Table 6 of the draft revised policy. Should Council wish to reduce this length then at minimum a length of 300m is recommended to be considered.

3.2 Legal and Physical Access

The current policy defined physical access as being met if:

· Access at minimum can accommodate the passage of a 2-wheel drive vehicle; and

· Road upgrade requirements of the development as required by the policy are undertaken (i.e. the length of substandard road to be upgraded based on the number of new lots being generated).

Under this condition it is possible that a development could occur on a length of road where the standard only needs to meet the requirement to be passable for a 2-wheel drive vehicle. This is of concern in relation to emergency access and also creates an undesirable planning outcome (i.e. development on an unconstructed road). The definition of a road passable by a 2-wheel drive vehicle is also unclear and may be subject to interpretation.

The draft revised policy has been updated to more clearly define physical access. This outlines that should development occur on an unformed road then in addition to the length to be upgraded under the provisions for substandard access, the remaining length of unformed road shall be constructed to a 3.5m width with 100mm thickness of gravel. This standard aligns with the specified standard for a right of way to a single property.

This standard is recommended as it ensures the road is passable by all vehicles and satisfactory emergency access is provided. It is noted that this requirement may make some development unviable, however sound planning principles would suggest that such lots should not be developed unless suitable road access is provided.

The draft revised policy also outlines that where unformed roads are constructed to a 3.5m width Council will not maintain the road. Council will only maintain roads where they are constructed in accordance with the requirements of Table 3 of the draft revised policy.

3.3 Right of Ways / Battle-Axes / Cul-de-sacs

During development of the current policy criteria in relation to right of ways and battle-axes were relaxed to permit their use to access a defined number of lots. The policy prior to that essentially did not permit them. This had been on the basis that Council was often requested to maintain right of ways for which it was not responsible and Council was often becoming involved where neighbourhood disputes occurred related to access and maintenance. There was also concern with them on planning grounds.

When the current policy was developed for right of ways and battle-axes it was specified that Council would not accept the transfer of them to public road status and that appropriate conditions needed to be included in the 88B instrument in relation to responsibilities and dispute resolution. These conditions are effective and remain in the draft revised policy.

Recent subdivision submissions have raised concern with regard to the unnecessary use of right of ways and cul-de-sacs in particular. These have typically been included to maximise saleable lots or to minimise or avoid road upgrade costs. However, their use does not necessarily provide sound long-term planning outcomes, nor provide an appropriate outcome in terms of the developments impact on the road network.

The draft revised policy states that right of ways and battle-axes shall only be used where it is not practical to have direct vehicular access to an existing or new public road. Where this situation arises, approval would be subject to assessment via the Director of Engineering.

In relation to cul-de-sacs the draft revised policy states that they shall not be used unless they are the only available option. Similarly, such determination shall be via assessment by the Director of Engineering.

It is recommended that these changes remain in the policy for public exhibition.

4. Conclusion

The draft revised Road Standards Policy has been developed for endorsement to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days. There are significant changes within the revised policy which have been based on providing a balance between development/growth and the impact on Council’s current and future road expenditure liability. In addition, changes have been made to resolve some anomalies that are arising in the application of the current policy.

Should no significant matters be raised during the public exhibition period it is recommended the policy be adopted at the completion of the exhibition period.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 1. Our Environment

CSP Strategy EN4 - Maintain a balance between growth, development and environmental protection through sensible planning

Delivery Program Action EN4.1 - Ensure Council's statutory planning instruments are up to date and reflective of the community needs

Operational Plan Activity EN4.1.1 – Undertake ongoing strategic land use planning and reviews of existing instruments

Attachments: a. Current Road Standards Policy RD-POL-9 ⇩

b. Draft Revised Road Standards Policy

⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

8.1 Making of the 2017/18 Rates & Charges

SUMMARY

This report proposes the making of Ordinary Rates, Waste Management Charges, Water and Sewer Charges for the 2017/18 rating and financial year.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council makes the annual Ordinary Rates for 2017/18 as detailed in the following table and in accordance with the Statement of Revenue Policy (adopted 24 May 2017 with the 2017/18 Operational Plan) and in accordance with Special Rate Variation awarded by the Minister for Local Government of 8.5% (inclusive of 1.5% rate peg) per annum cumulative for 4 years.

CATEGORY	SUB - CATEGORY	AD VALOREM	MINIMUM CHARGE	BASE CHARGE	TOTAL YIELD
Farmland		0.0024702		$560.00	$3,600,856
Residential	Non Urban	0.0021062		$370.00	$2,741,472
Residential	Yass	0.0037211	$565.00		$1,505,128
Residential	Binalong	0.0032053	$565.00		$110,399
Residential	Bowning	0.0032053	$565.00		$61,835
Residential	Wee Jasper	0.0032053	$565.00		$25,425
Residential	Bookham	0.0032053	$565.00		$9,040
Residential	Murrumbateman	0.0022561	$565.00		$125,905
Residential	Gundaroo	0.0014706		$306.00	$140,391
Residential	Sutton	0.0020033		$306.00	$68,989
Business	Sutton & Gundaroo & Nanima Road	0.0021062		$370.00	$14,426
Business	Yass & Other Villages	0.0088902	$565.00		$682,970
ESTIMATED YIELD					$9,086,836

2. That Council make each annual and consumption charge for water, sewer, liquid trade waste and waste for 2017/18 as detailed in the following table and in accordance with the Statement of Revenue Policy (adopted 24 May 2017).

DESCRIPTION	ANNUAL CHARGE	CONSUMPTION CHARGE (per kilolitre)
WATER CHARGES
Water Availability Charge 20mm-32mm	$460
Water Usage Charge		$3.20
SEWER CHARGES
Sewer Residential Charge	$660
Sewer Non-Residential Charge (based on previous years' water consumption)	Minimum $660	$2.80
LIQUID TRADE WASTE CHARGE
Liquid Trade Waste Charge (based on water consumption)		$1.90
WASTE MANAGEMENT CHARGES
Domestic Kerbside Collection Charge	$359
Vacant Properties	$30
Business Waste Collection Charge	$359
Waste Management Environmental Charge	$110

Financial IMPLICATIONS

51% of Council’s revenue is derived from Rates and Annual Charges. Compliance with legislation requires Council to ‘make the rates’ by 31 July each year and this power cannot be delegated.

POlicy & Legislation

Local Government Act 1993 – Section 533

Local Government General Regulations 2005.

REPORT

1. Report

The Operational Plan for the 2017/18 financial year contains Council’s operational activities and projects, associated budgets, statement of revenue and fees and charges, as required by the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act). The Operational Plan publicly exhibited and adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 24 May 2017.

In addition to the adoption of the annual Operational Plan Council must resolve to ‘make’ rates and charges, before those rates and changes can be levied: s.535 of the LG Act.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 5. Our Civic Leadership

CSP Strategy CL1 - Effect resourceful and respectful leadership and attentive representation of the community

Delivery Program Action CL1.6 - Maximise Council’s ability to generate income

Operational Plan Activity CL1.6.1 - Increase revenue by increasing rates above the rate peg by 8.5% p.a. for 4 years from 2016/17

Attachments: Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 July 2017

8.6 Live Audio Streaming of Council Meetings

SUMMARY

This report provides additional information on live audio streaming of council meetings.

RECOMMENDATION

That due to the costs associated with producing quality audio streaming of Council meetings, Council not proceed with audio streaming

Financial IMPLICATIONS

Council allowed $10,000 in 2017/18 budget for audio streaming. None of the options considered in the report are costed within this budget. Without reducing any other project budget, installation of audio streaming will negatively affect Councils financial position with the extent dependent on the type of solution installed and the ongoing annual charges.

POlicy & Legislation

NSW State Records Act 1988, Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

REPORT

1. Background

At the ordinary council meeting 26 April 2017, Council resolved that:

1. Legal advice be sought in regard to the development of a policy on live streaming of meetings.

2. Quotations be sought for a ‘design and quote’ for a single microphone option and be considered as part of the 2017/18 Budget.

3. That Council consider the recommendation of the CBRJO findings with the view to implement a full video conferencing solution with the ability to live stream council meetings via audio and/or video once installed.

4. That quotations be sought for a hosted streaming service to record and manage the storage of the data.

2. Legal Advice

With regard to item 1, the legal service tender being run by the Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CBRJO) is currently being evaluated and is likely to be reported to Council in the August 2017 meeting. Policy advice on live streaming will be sought on completion of the tender. A policy can be developed following the legal advice.

3. Quotations

Attached is a report from a specialist and independent audio visual and video conferencing company who was provided with detailed plans of Council chambers and asked to provide options and high level costings for various microphone options. It should be noted that the costings provided in the report are recommended retail pricing and do not include installation.

The options considered were:-

3.1 Wired Gooseneck Microphones – 1 per participant ($30,000)

Any wired solution will require a false floor in Council to manage the cabling requirements of the system at a cost of approximately $7,000. The total cost of this solution is estimated at $30,000. This solution offers the best quality audio signal and the most reliability.

3.2 Wireless Gooseneck Microphones – 1 per participant ($62,000)

At a cost of $62,000, this solution was not considered feasible.

3.3 Wired Boundary Microphones – 1 between 2 participants ($17,000)

A false floor is required for this option to manage the cabling requirements of the system at a cost of approximately $7,000. The total cost of this option is estimated at $17,000. Participants would be required to share a boundary microphone. Boundary microphones are designed to pick up audio from multiple participants and have and higher possibility of signal distortion and can be obstructed by objects such as papers or iPads. These devices may pick up side conversations and background noises.

3.4 Wireless Boundary Microphones – 1 between 2 participants ($18,000)

The total cost of this option is estimated at $18,000. Boundary microphones are designed to pick up audio from multiple participants and have and higher possibility of signal distortion and can be obstructed by objects such as papers or iPads. These devices may pick up side conversations and background noises.

3.5 Ceiling Microphone ($14,000)

A single microphone option or a ceiling microphone array was costed at approximately $14,000. While this was Council’s preferred option there are a number of risks associated with this option including:-

· the quality of the sound is not as good as a wired microphone;

· it may be difficult for listeners to be able to differentiate voices and determine who is speaking;

· it must be positioned and configured to targeted zones only;

· it cannot be muted;

· It will pick up side conversations and background noises;

4. CBRJO Findings

CBRJO recently issued a request for quote for a video conferencing solution for member councils. Following the response, the scope of the project was reviewed and CBRJO will no longer be seeking a full video conferencing solution.

5. Streaming Service

While the consultant provided a number of audio streaming services including Facebook Live and YouTube, the audio streams are considered an official council record and are subject to the NSW State Records Act 1998. Council must enter into an agreement with the streaming provider and ensure that Council retains ownership of the data. A number of CBRJO councils are using a local government approved contractor service at a cost of $1260 per month.

6. Key Issues

Increasing and expanding public access to Council meetings through the use of audio or video streaming can enhance the ability of Council to meet open government obligations of transparency and accountability. However, a poorly designed or low end of the market solution will produce a poor quality output and will likely impact the reputation of Council.

Key issues that need to be considered by Council include:-

· Audience size – the benefits of live streaming depend on audience size. In November 2016, a local council with a population of 40,000 had 72 live viewings of their Council meeting (audio and visual) or 0.18% of their population. A Victorian council with a population of 12,000 stream their council meeting via YouTube. They get on average 94 views per meeting or 0.78% of their population. Clarence Valley Council with 52,000 residents provide an audio only stream and have 47 followers or 0.09% of the population. Based on 0.1% of the population audience size, Yass Valley Council could expect less than 20 viewers per meeting.

· Cost – Along with the hardware installation costs, the ongoing annual costs of managing, storing and archiving the data must also be considered. Installation costs range from $17,000 to $61,000 with annual ongoing fees estimated at $15,000 per year.

· Privacy and legal risks – The risk of disclosure of personal information without consent could lead to a breach of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 leading to litigation against Council. Council would need to ensure that members of the public consent to being broadcast or have the ability to not record.

Its is considered that audio streaming is not be value for money at this stage and on balance it is recommended that Council not proceed with live audio streaming of Council meetings. In the event the Council considers proceeding with live audio streaming, the preferred solution which mitigates the most risks, but not all, is the Wired Gooseneck Microphones which is consistent with all other Councils identified currently live streaming meetings.

Strategic Direction

Key Pillar 5. Our Civic Leadership

CSP Strategy CL2 - Encourage and facilitate open and respectful communication between the community, the private sector, Council, and other government agencies

Delivery Program Action CL2.1 - Make doing business with Council easier

Operational Plan Activity CL2.1.2 - Develop Council’s online presence that is user friendly and accessible for our customers

Attachments: a. Audio Stream Consultancy Report

⇩

	Rates and Charges Levied (includes interest)	Paid 1 July to 30 June	Balance Outstanding	% Paid 1 July to 30 June
Arrears to 30/6/2013	$840,887.38	$641,223.57	$199,663.81	76.26
Arrears to 30/6/2014	$893,622.64	$740,812.81	$152,809.83	82.90
Arrears to 30/6/2015	$617,120.63	$496,579.75	$120,540.88	80.47

Arrears to 30/6/2016	$583,513.66	$446,936.08	$136,577.58	76.59
Current Years Rates and Charges billed since 1/7/16	$14,228,461.53	$13,740,387.69	$488,073.84	96.57
TOTALS	$14,811,975.19	$14,187,323.77	$624,651.42	95.78

Year	No of Assessments	Amount
2004/2005	1	$201.52
2005/2006	1	$309.09
2006/2007	1	$342.02
2007/2008	1	$437.26
2008/2009	5	$2,791.12
2009/2010	5	$3,497.44
2010/2011	5	$3,408.90
2011/2012	6	$4,366.34
2012/2013	6	$6,547.15
2013/2014	10	$11,178.00
2014/2015	23	$32,044.46
2015/2016	63	$71,454.28
	TOTAL	$136,577.58

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2017/20 be placed on public exhibition and, if no significant objections are received, be adopted

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

· Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

· CR-POL-8 – Public Communications Policy

· Copyright Amended Act 2006

· Privacy Legislation Amendment Act 2006

· Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

· State Records Act 1998

REPORT

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

Financial IMPLICATIONS

POlicy & Legislation

REPORT

REPORT

Recommendation

REPORT

Recommendation

REPORT

Recommendation

REPORT

Recommendation