coffs harbour city council ordinary …...2010/12/16 · parallel car parking spaces on the eastern...

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

COFF AND CASTLE STREETS, COFFS HARBOUR

16 DECEMBER 2010

Contents ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

NOTICE OF MOTION 1

NOM SENIORS PLAYGROUND 1

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 2

GM10/20 COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL - UPDATE ON PROGRESS: ACTIONS ARISING FROM REVIEW OR REFURBISHMENT AND ACCOMMODATION FOR RIGBY HOUSE AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICES

2

CORPORATE BUSINESS DEPARTMENT REPORTS 21

CB10/64 MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW FOR OCTOBER 2010 21

CB10/65 BANK BALANCES AND INVESTMENTS FOR AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2010

24

CB10/66 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING REFURBISHMENT OF GROUND FLOOR

51

CB10/67 PUBLICATION GUIDE 54

CB10/68 COFFS COAST STATE PARK TRUST AND WOOLGOOLGA BEACH RESERVE TRUST ANNUAL TRADING REPORT 2009-2010

77

mahmaureen

Sticky Note

Minutes for this meeting will be confirmed at the Council Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, Council Administration Building, on 10 February 2011 commencing at 5.00pm

CB10/69 CARAVAN PARKS TOURIST ACCOMMODATION TARIFFS 2011/2012

82

CB10/70 RALLY AUSTRALIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 85

CB10/71 PRIMARY PRODUCER RATE FREEZE 87

CB10/72 KEY FINANCIAL INDICATORS - 2009/10 92

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

A portion of this report is confidential for the reason of Section 10A (2):

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may be closed to the public.

CB10/73 TENDER: SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF PASSENGER, TRUCK AND EARTHMOVER TYRES AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES

132

CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS 137

CS10/46 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 5/2010 137

CS10/47 MULTICULTURAL POLICIES & SERVICES PROGRAM 160

CS10/48 COFFS HARBOUR FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM 162

CS10/49 PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN USE OF BAKKER DRIVE RESERVE, BONVILLE

167

CS10/50 EXTENDED ALCOHOL PROHIBITION FOR NEW YEARS EVE 2010 AND AUSTRALIA DAY 2011

200

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

A portion of these reports is confidential for the reason of Section 10A (2):

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may be closed to the public.

CS10/51 QUOTATION PLANT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM - SUPPLY ONE BROOM TYPE STREET SWEEPER, CONTRACT 10/11-449-QO USING LGP CONTRACT 1608-E1

206

CS10/52 QUOTATION - PLANT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM - SUPPLY ONE CCF CLASS 10 EXCAVATOR, CONTRACT 10/11-450-QO USING LGP CONTRACT 707-2.

212

LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 218

L10/18 COFFS COAST WASTE SERVICES WASTE PROCESSING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY OPERATIONS

218

L10/19 COFFS HARBOUR 2030 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN - COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP

228

L10/20 COFFS HARBOUR CITY CENTRE PLAN INCORPORATING DRAFT COFFS HARBOUR CITY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

236

ORDINARY MEETING 16 DECEMBER 2010 - 137 -

CITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS10/46 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 5/2010

Purpose: To confirm the minutes from the Traffic Committee Meeting held on Friday, 19 November 2010. Recommendation: T.50 - Pacific Highway / Bailey Avenue, Coffs Harbour (R.511410 / R.503810) That a 'No U Turn' sign be installed on the Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour, at the intersection with Bailey Avenue for northbound traffic, as per Plan T.50. T.51 - Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour (R.503800 [2642269]) That 'No Parking' signs be installed from driveway of No. 21 to 20m south on the western side of Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour, subject to property owner's consent, as per Plan T.51. T.52 - Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour (R.503800 [2644417]) That :

(a) 'Bus Zone' signs be installed on the eastern side of Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour, subject to property owner's consent, as per Plan T.52.

(b) 'No Stopping' signs be moved, as per Plan T.52.

(c) Existing 'Bus Zone' signs on western side have time restrictions removed, as per Plan T.52.

T.53 - Sherwood Creek Road, Corindi (2593974) That 'crest' warning signs be installed in Sherwood Creek Road, Corindi, in accordance with sight distance guidelines, from Pacific Highway to Duffus Road intersection. T.54 - Duke Street, Coffs Harbour - Motorcycle Parking (R.504350) That motorcycle parking be installed in Coff Street, Coffs Harbour, by converting one of the parallel car parking spaces on the eastern side of the entrance to Fitzroy Oval car park, to five motorcycle spaces, as per Plan T.54. T.55 -Ocean Parade, Coffs Harbour / Salamander Street, Coffs Harbour - Taxi Ranks (R.505540 / R.505860) That taxi ranks be installed at the following locations, as per Plan T.55:

Ocean Parade, Coffs Harbour (in front of Bottle Shop of Park Beach Hotel Motel).

Salamander Street, Coffs Harbour - in front of Coffs Harbour Primary School.


CS10/46 - Traffic Committee Report No. 5/2010 (Cont'd) T.56 - Ocean Parade / Prince Street, Coffs Harbour - 'No Stopping' signs (R.505540 [2633621]) That 'No Stopping' signs be installed in Ocean Parade and Prince Street, Coffs Harbour, on the southern side of Prince Street, as per Plan T.56. T.57 -Red Rock Road, Red Rock (2590823) That no action be taken in relation to traffic calming measures in Schafer Street, Red Rock. T.58 -Rigby Lane, Coffs Harbour - 'No Parking' signs (P/N 932600 [2615995]) That 'No Stopping' signs be installed on eastern side of Rigby Lane, Coffs Harbour, opposite the entrances to the Department of Community Services building, as per Plan T.58. T.59 -Minorie Drive, Toormina - Parking Strategies and Linemarking (R.502140 [2529859]) That BB lines and parking lane lines in Minorie Drive, Toormina, be extended to the intersection of Toormina Road, as per Plan T.59. T.60 - First Avenue, Sawtell - Temporary Road Closure - Super Fun Day (R.501520 [2637055]) (a) the temporary road closure of First Avenue, Sawtell , between Boronia Street and

Second Avenue, from 7.30am to 11.00am on Saturday, 1st January 2011, for the purpose of conducting the street parade associated with the Sawtell Super Fun Day, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers of the Fun Day liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval.

(c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using accredited traffic controllers.

(d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and clean up, including advertising.

(e) a temporary bus zone be established on the eastern side of First Avenue, Sawtell, north of Second Avenue to enable buses to continue to operate.

T.61 - Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour - Temporary Road Closure - Santa's Arrival and 'Lighting of the Christmas Tree' (R.501520 / 1618) (a) the temporary road closure of Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour , between Pacific Highway

and Gordon Street, from 4.00pm to 8.00pm on Thursday, 2 December 2010, for the purpose of 'Lighting of the Christmas Tree' and 'Santa's Arrival', be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval.




CS10/46 - Traffic Committee Report No. 5/2010 (Cont'd) T.62 - Jordan Esplanade, Coffs Harbour - Temporary Road Closure - New Year's Eve' (R.506100 / 1618) (a) the temporary road closure of Jordan Esplanade, Coffs Harbour , between Marina

Drive and carpark entry to Jetty, from 6.00pm on Friday, 31 December 2010 to 6.00am on Friday, 1st January 2011, for the purpose of holding New Years Eve Celebrations, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers, March's Amusements, liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval.

(c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using accredited traffic controllers, in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan.


T.63 - Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour - Nightrider Service (R.511420) That a temporary bus zone be installed at the following locations on Fridays (4pm - 6am) from 17 December 2010 to 7 January 2011, for the Nightrider Service over Christmas / New Year period:

Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour (western side) adjacent Jax Tyres.

Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour (eastern side) adjacent Ex-Services Club.

West High Street, Coffs Harbour (northern side) adjacent Coffs Hotel.

as per Plan T.63. T.64 - Forge Drive / Industrial Drive, North Boambee Valley - Cycle Criterium Racing (Forge Drive / Industrial Drive [2620636]) That :

(a) the temporary road closure of Industrial Drive and Forge Drive, Coffs Harbour, on Monday evenings between 6.00pm and 7.30pm during daylight saving times for the 2010/11 summer season, for the purpose of holding cycle criterium racing, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers to liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval.


(d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure.

- 140 -

Attachments:

MINUTES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Friday, 19 November 2010

VENUE: COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

Committee Room 1, Administrative Centre, Coff Street, Coffs Harbour

TIME: 10.30 am PRESENT:

Formal (voting) Members: Sgt David Vandergriend, Coffs Harbour Police Tara McAuley, Roads & Traffic Authority George Stulle, Coffs Harbour City Council Informal (non voting) Members: Robert Fletcher, Coffs Harbour City Council Anne Shearer, Coffs Harbour City Council Gordon Polkinghorne, Coffs Harbour City Council Ann Graham (Minute Taker)

APOLOGIES:

Cr Bill Palmer, Coffs Harbour City Council Andrew Fraser, MP, Member for Coffs Harbour Kevin McKenzie, Taxi Network

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Held on 2 September 2010

- 141 -

BUSINESS ARISING A. FORMAL ITEMS SECTION (Items for approval by Council under the delegation)

T.50 - Pacific Highway / Bailey Avenue, Coffs Harbour (R.511410 / R.503810) Background: Request from Police for a 'No U turn' sign to be installed on the Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour, at the intersection with Bailey Avenue for northbound traffic. Summary of Report: No accident history however anecdotal evidence suggests turning traffic is causing a road safety hazard. Recommendation to Committee: That a 'No U Turn' sign be installed on the Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour, at the intersection with Bailey Avenue for northbound traffic, as per Plan T.50. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That a 'No U Turn' sign be installed on the Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour, at the intersection with Bailey Avenue for northbound traffic, as per Plan T.50. __________________________________________________________________________ T.51 - Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour (R.503800 [2642269]) Background: A complaint was received from a resident of 21 Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour, stating that it is difficult to exit his driveway. Summary of Report: View of north bound traffic obscured from driveway because of vehicle parking and offset in kerb alignment. Site is adjacent an intersection (Meadow Street) warranting installation of parking restrictions. Recommendation to Committee: 'No Parking' signs be installed from driveway of No. 21 to 20m south on the western side of Azalea Avenue, subject to property owner's consent. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That 'No Parking' signs be installed from driveway of No. 21 to 20m south on the western side of Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour, subject to property owner's consent, as per Plan T.51. __________________________________________________________________________

- 142 -

T.52 - Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour (R.503800 [2644417]) Background: Request from Busways for 'Bus Zone' signs to be installed in Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour, on both sides of the road near St Joseph's Retirement Home. Summary of Report: Cars are continually parking where the J pole is situated opposite the Retirement Home. Parking spaces adjacent St Josephs Hostel are limited due to refuge and bus stops. St Joseph's has recently expanded numbers of residents and there is a new building works in this vicinity. Bus has requested bus zones on both sides to ensure access. Recommendation to Committee: 'No Parking' signs be installed from driveway of No. 21 to 20m south on the western side of Azalea Avenue, subject to property owner's consent. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That : (a) 'Bus Zone' signs be installed on the eastern side of Azalea Avenue, Coffs Harbour,

subject to property owner's consent, as per Plan T.52. (b) 'No Stopping' signs be moved, as per Plan T.52. (c) Existing 'Bus Zone' signs on western side have time restrictions removed, as per Plan

T.52. __________________________________________________________________________ T.53 - Sherwood Creek Road, Corindi (2593974) Background: Request to have Sherwood Creek Road, Corindi, linemarked for safety reasons. There is a high volume of traffic on the road due to the blueberries, with a lot of blind crests. Summary of Report: Bitumen seal from Highway for 7.3km, 5.6m wide. Rural - 40 properties front this section with four road intersections. First 3.0km through State Forest. Recommendation to Committee: Install 'crest' warning signs in accordance with sight distance guidelines. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That 'crest' warning signs be installed in Sherwood Creek Road, Corindi, in accordance with sight distance guidelines, from Pacific Highway to Duffus Road intersection. __________________________________________________________________________

- 143 -

T.54 - Duke Street, Coffs Harbour - Motorcycle Parking (R.504350) Background: Request from Centrelink for motorcycle parking in Duke Street, Coffs Harbour, in the vicinity of Rigby House. Summary of Report: Currently no motorcycle parking available near Rigby House, often motorcycles take up full car space. Recommendation to Committee: Convert one of the parallel car parking spaces near pool car park entrance to 5 motorcycle spaces. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That motorcycle parking be installed in Coff Street, Coffs Harbour, by converting one of the parallel car parking spaces on the eastern side of the entrance to Fitzroy Oval car park, to five motorcycle spaces, as per Plan T.54. __________________________________________________________________________ T.55 -Ocean Parade, Coffs Harbour / Salamander Street, Coffs Harbour - Taxi Ranks (R.505540 / R.505860) Background: Request for the installation of taxi ranks at the following locations: Outside the Hoey Moey (in front of the Bottle Shop) in Ocean Parade, Coffs Harbour.

Salamander Street, Coffs Harbour - in vicinity of Primary School. Summary of Report: 1. To encourage patrons to use the taxis as safe alternative transport options. 2. Taxis take children with disabilities to school. Recommendation to Committee: That taxi ranks be installed at the following locations: Ocean Parade, Coffs Harbour (in front of Bottle Shop of Park Beach Hotel Motel)

Salamander Street, Coffs Harbour - in front of Coffs Harbour Primary School. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That taxi ranks be installed at the following locations, as per Plan T.55: Ocean Parade, Coffs Harbour (in front of Bottle Shop of Park Beach Hotel Motel).

Salamander Street, Coffs Harbour - in front of Coffs Harbour Primary School. __________________________________________________________________________

- 144 -

T.56 - Ocean Parade / Prince Street, Coffs Harbour - 'No Stopping' signs (R.505540 [2633621]) Background: Request for 'No Stopping' signs to be installed at the intersection of Ocean Parade and Prince Street, Coffs Harbour. Summary of Report: Recommendation to Committee: That 'No Stopping' signs be installed in Ocean Parade and Prince Street, Coffs Harbour, on the southern side of Prince Street, as per Plan T.56. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That 'No Stopping' signs be installed in Ocean Parade and Prince Street, Coffs Harbour, on the southern side of Prince Street, as per Plan T.56. __________________________________________________________________________ T.57 -Red Rock Road, Red Rock (2590823) Background: Request for some traffic calming measures to be undertaken in Schafer Street, Red Rock, before entering Red Rock Road. Summary of Report: The western exit from Schafer Street into Red Rock Road has a restricted view to the blind curve south. Counter out, will have results for meeting. Recommendation to Committee: Speed surveys show 730 vehicles per day with 45.5km/h average speed. No action required. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That no action be taken in relation to traffic calming measures in Schafer Street, Red Rock. __________________________________________________________________________

- 145 -

T.58 -Rigby Lane, Coffs Harbour - 'No Parking' signs (P/N 932600 [2615995]) Background: Request for 'No Parking' signs to be erected in the laneway at the rear of Department of Community Services, Gordon Street, Coffs Harbour. Summary of Report: The property backs onto a laneway which has two driveways at the rear of the building, one to a basement carpark and another to a secured courtyard which is primarily utilised by service providers and deliveries. Department vehicles need to exit the carpark at all times to attend to emergency situations. Vehicles parking in the laneway have blocked the driveways making it impossible for vehicles to exit the carpark. Recommendation to Committee: Install 'No Stopping' zone on east side of laneway opposite the entrances to the Department of Community Services building. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That 'No Stopping' signs be installed on eastern side of Rigby Lane, Coffs Harbour, opposite the entrances to the Department of Community Services building, as per Plan T.58. __________________________________________________________________________ T.59 -Minorie Drive, Toormina - Parking Strategies and Linemarking (R.502140 [2529859]) Background: Request for linemarking and timed restricted parking adjacent the Toormina Community Preschool and Toormina Library. Summary of Report: Pre-school is concerned about volumes and speed of traffic generated by Toormina Shopping Centre. Heavy vehicles also access the centres from Minorie Drive. Other facilities in the vicinity such as the skate park, playing fields, the Guide Hall and the Library are used by children and elderly people. Recommendation to Committee: Recommend extension of existing BB lines to the intersection of Toormina Road. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That BB lines and parking lane lines in Minorie Drive, Toormina, be extended to the intersection of Toormina Road, as per Plan T.59. __________________________________________________________________________

- 146 -

T.60 - First Avenue, Sawtell - Temporary Road Closure - Super Fun Day (R.501520 [2637055]) Background: Consideration to a request for the temporary road closure of First Avenue, Sawtell, between Second Avenue and Boronia Street, on Saturday, 1st January, 2011 between the hours of 7.30am and 11.00am for the purpose of holding the Sawtell Super Fun Day. Recommendation to Committee: (a) the temporary road closure of First Avenue, Sawtell , between Boronia Street and Second

Avenue, from 7.30am to 11.00am on Saturday, 1st January 2011, for the purpose of conducting the street parade associated with the Sawtell Super Fun Day, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers of the Fun Day liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and clean

up, including advertising. (e) a temporary bus zone be established on the east side of First Avenue, Sawtell, north of

Second Avenue to enable buses to continue to operate. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: (a) the temporary road closure of First Avenue, Sawtell , between Boronia Street and

Second Avenue, from 7.30am to 11.00am on Saturday, 1st January 2011, for the purpose of conducting the street parade associated with the Sawtell Super Fun Day, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers of the Fun Day liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and

clean up, including advertising. (e) a temporary bus zone be established on the eastern side of First Avenue, Sawtell,

north of Second Avenue to enable buses to continue to operate. __________________________________________________________________________

- 147 -

T.61 - Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour - Temporary Road Closure - Santa's Arrival and 'Lighting of the Christmas Tree' (R.501520 / 1618) Background: Consideration to the temporary road closure of Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour, between Gordon Street and Pacific Highway on Thursday, 2 December 2010 between 4.00pm and 8.00pm. Recommendation to Committee: (a) the temporary road closure of Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour , between Pacific Highway and

Gordon Street, from 4.00pm to 8.00pm on Thursday, 2 December 2010, for the purpose of 'Lighting of the Christmas Tree' and 'Santa's Arrival', be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and clean

up, including advertising. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: (a) the temporary road closure of Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour , between Pacific Highway

and Gordon Street, from 4.00pm to 8.00pm on Thursday, 2 December 2010, for the purpose of 'Lighting of the Christmas Tree' and 'Santa's Arrival', be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and

clean up, including advertising. __________________________________________________________________________

- 148 -

T.62 - Jordan Esplanade, Coffs Harbour - Temporary Road Closure - New Year's Eve' (R.506100 / 1618) Background: Consideration to the temporary road closure of Jordan Esplanade, Coffs Harbour, between Marina Drive and carpark entry to Jetty, on Friday, 31 December 2010 between the hours of 6.00pm and 6.00am for the purpose of New Year's Eve celebrations. Recommendation to Committee: (a) the temporary road closure of Jordan Esplanade, Coffs Harbour , between Marina Drive and

carpark entry to Jetty, from 6.00pm on Friday, 31 December 2010 to 6.00am on Friday, 1st January 2011, for the purpose of holding New Years Eve Celebrations, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers, March's Amusements, liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers, in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and clean

up, including advertising. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: (a) the temporary road closure of Jordan Esplanade, Coffs Harbour , between Marina

Drive and carpark entry to Jetty, from 6.00pm on Friday, 31 December 2010 to 6.00am on Friday, 1st January 2011, for the purpose of holding New Years Eve Celebrations, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers, March's Amusements, liaise with affected traders and obtain traders

approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers, in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure and

clean up, including advertising. __________________________________________________________________________

- 149 -

T.63 - Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour - Nightrider Service (R.511420) Background: Request to install temporary bus zones on Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour, for the Nightrider Service over the Christmas / New Year period. Summary of Report: Late night buses are again scheduled to run from 17 December to 7 January on Fridays; 8 buses on New Years Eve from Pacific Highway adjacent Jax Tyres. Recommendation to Committee: Temporary bus zone on Fridays from 17 December to 7 January 2011 on Pacific Highway adjacent Jax Tyres. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That a temporary bus zone be installed at the following locations on Fridays (4pm - 6am) from 17 December 2010 to 7 January 2011, for the Nightrider Service over Christmas / New Year period: Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour (western side) adjacent Jax Tyres.

Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour (eastern side) adjacent Ex-Services Club.

West High Street, Coffs Harbour (northern side) adjacent Coffs Hotel. as per Plan T.63. __________________________________________________________________________ T.64 - Forge Drive, North Boambee Valley - Criterium Racing (Forge Drive [2620636]) Background: Request approval to run Criterium Racing at Forge Drive, Coffs Harbour, on Monday evenings from 6.00pm to 7.30pm during Daylight Saving times for the 2010/2011 summer. Summary of Report: The Criterium track at Toormina Cycling Complex is badly damaged due to the very wet weather in 2009. A Risk Assessment of the track was carried out in September and was deemed too dangerous to race on until remedial works have been completed. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That : (a) the temporary road closure of Industrial Drive and Forge Drive, Coffs Harbour, on

Monday evenings between 6.00pm and 7.30pm during daylight saving times for the 2010/11 summer season, for the purpose of holding cycle criterium racing, be advertised and providing no substantive objections are received, the closure be approved.

(b) the organisers to liaise with affected traders and obtain traders approval. (c) the organisers be responsible for erection of traffic barriers and control of traffic using

accredited traffic controllers. (d) the organisers be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary closure.

- 150 -

B. INFORMAL ITEMS SECTION (Traffic Engineering Advice)

B11 Origin: Coffs Harbour Motorcycle Club -Traffic Management Plan for an event to be held at the Coffs Harbour Showground on Saturday, 22 January 2011. Summary of report: Committee advice: That the Traffic Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Motorcycle Club event to be held at the Coffs Harbour Showground on Saturday, 22 January 2011, be approved. __________________________________________________________________________ NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the Local Traffic Committee will be held on Thursday, 3 March 2011 commencing at 10.30am. Meeting terminated at 11.50am.

- 151 -

- 152 -

- 153 -

- 154 -

- 155 -

- 156 -

- 157 -

- 158 -

- 159 -


CS10/47 MULTICULTURAL POLICIES & SERVICES PROGRAM

Purpose: The Multicultural Policies and Services Program is a planning document which sets out Council’s responsibilities to better plan and implement the principles of multiculturalism locally. Description of Item: Local councils play a vital role in providing services and facilities to our culturally diverse community. In late 2003 the NSW Government requested the Department of Local Government and the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW work together to assist and assess the effectiveness of NSW local councils in observing the principles of multiculturalism in the conduct of their affairs. Based on this integrated approach a framework was developed, which replaced the Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement (EPAS). The Multicultural Policies and Services Program (separate attachment) sets out the framework to guide Council to identify and integrate relevant multicultural strategies within current procedures and services. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

This is not applicable to this report.

Social The Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 provides guidance to all public authorities, including councils, on recognising and promoting the benefits of cultural diversity in NSW.

Civic Leadership Council is well placed to lead the local community in promoting the principles of multiculturalism and reinforces this commitment by the adoption and implementation of the Multicultural Policies and Services Program. The Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan included the following: “ We enjoy a comprehensive range of community artistic and cultural opportunities.(LC3) We value, understand and celebrate our cultural heritage.(LC3.2) Promote opportunities for learning among people from diverse backgrounds (LC3.2.1) Promote opportunities to celebrate our diversity (LC3.2.2)”

Economic Broader Economic Implications Currently there are no budget implications in relation to the approval of this policy document.


CS10/47 - Multicultural Policies & Services Program (Cont'd)

In the 2011-2014 budget $10,000 annually has been allocated to run and develop the Multicultural Harmony Festival. Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications This will be addressed in the proposed Multicultural Action Plan 2011-2014.

Consultation: There will be broad consultation around the development of the proposed Multicultural Action Plan 2011-2014. Statutory Requirements: Legislation setting out the requirements for local councils in terms of ethnic affairs and multiculturalism includes:

Local Government Act 1993.

Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000.

Annual Reports (Departments) Regulations 2005. Issues: The aims of the Multicultural Policies and Services Program is to:

1. Ensure that people from CALD backgrounds have equitable access to Council services and to participate in Council’s planning processes; and

2. Ensure that Coffs Harbour actively promotes and supports its platform of being a "Welcome City" to new and existing migrants, including refugees, and international students.

Following adoption by Council of the Multicultural Policies and Services Program 2010-2014, a Multicultural Action Plan will be developed. This will be reported to Council in draft form and will outline an approach for community engagement to secure community input into the Multicultural Action Plan. Implementation Date / Priority: Implementation is immediate. Recommendation: 1. That Council adopt the Multicultural Policies and Services Program 2010-2014;

2. That Council note a draft Multicultural Action Plan, including a community engagement process, will be provided to Council in early 2011.


CS10/48 COFFS HARBOUR FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM

Purpose: To report to Council on the draft Concept Design for the Coffs Harbour Flood Warning System, Contract No: 09/10-419-QO and to gain Council approval of progression to next stage of development. Description of Item: Council issued a brief and received proposals for the concept design and costing of a flood warning system for the Coffs Creek and Boambee – Newports Creeks catchments. The project was awarded to Greenspan Technology. The system is to provide the maximum amount of warning to the SES, Council, key stakeholders, emergency agencies and the public of a possible flood event. It is preferable that the system be fully automated, including the communication of automated flood alerts, warnings and flood predictions to the key stakeholders. The system is to be robust and flexible. Council has received a draft Concept Design for the Coffs Harbour Flood Warning System from Greenspan Technology, with proposed stages of detailed design and construction and estimated costs. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

Flood events, large and small, are natural occurrences. Development of the floodplain can alter flooding behaviour as can flood mitigation measures. Changes to catchments can alter flow patterns, volumes and material transported and relocated by flood waters and impact on ecosystems in the catchment. A flexible warning system which can accommodate the changing natural environment will enable the continuation of warning services over a long term period.

Social Large flood events have a huge impact on the local community and on individuals affected by flooding. They are destructive, and can be very disruptive with peoples dwellings and personal belongings destroyed or damaged. People whose property isn’t directly affected can be indirectly affected through loss of power and other services plus closure of schools and commercial areas, damages to roads and interruptions to social services such as hospitals and medical facilities. These impacts can be lessened through the implementation of an early warning system that improves flood awareness, and enables the rapid mobilization of resources and preparedness measures by the community and emergency response agencies.


CS10/48 - Coffs Harbour Flood Warning System (Cont'd) Civic Leadership

The Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan under the ‘Looking After Our Community’ section has the objective of a ’strong and adaptable community’ with a strategy to ‘Develop community resilience to change including natural disaster preparedness and response mechanisms’ and lists Council's role as facilitator and provider. By Council undertaking the Flood Warning Project it is providing civic leadership in natural disaster management and fulfilling an objective, strategy and role under the 2030 Plan.

Economic Broader Economic Implications Locally and regionally major flood events have a very large impact on the local economy with many varied economic implications. Direct damage to private and public infrastructure and indirect costs, such as loss of trade and tourism are estimated to result in a bill of many millions of dollars. In the March 2009 storm event over 300 residential properties and 160 commercial premises were affected including damage to premises, loss of stock and loss of income. This was particularly notable within the CBD, Isles Drive, Park Beach Plaza, Homebase, and along First Avenue Sawtell. Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications Council has allocated $300,000 in the Flood Mitigation Program for Flood Warning and 2D flood modelling. Through the Natural Disaster Resilience Grant Scheme (NDRGS) Council has grant funding up to $70,000 for the design of the flood warning system and grant funds of $66,666 for flood warning system construction. The grants are 1:1:1 Federal: State: Council. The Concept Design Flood Warning system has an estimated total cost of $1.06M with four stages to the project, see table below. The majority of Stage 1 and part of Stage 2 of the project is the installation of the hardware that is required for the system consisting of rain gauges and water level recorders and associated telemetry and software. Part of Stage 2 and the majority of Stage 3 and 4 is the development of the predictive flood model and installation of warning stations.

Item 1 2 3 4 Total Description Rain Gauges 98,267 66,067 13,467 177,801 14 rain gauge stations Warning Stations 43,067 153,200 91,600 108,466 396,333 9 locations Water Level Gauges 22,467 32,333 - 57,267 112,067

4 Detention basins plus Newport's Ck

Radio Bases 23,375 23,375 - - 46,750 Macauley's and Boambee repeater sites

SCADA eng and software 120,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 160,000

Software licences, engineering hardware

Predictive Flood Modelling - 90,000 10,000 10,000 110,000

Flood modelling software development

Misc - 54,276 - - 54,276 Totals 307,176 439,251 125,067 185,733 1,057,227


CS10/48 - Coffs Harbour Flood Warning System (Cont'd)

Table 1: Flood Warning System Costs The draft also provides estimates of the annual maintenance costs for the system, see table 2.

Item Cost Comment Data acquisition system 34,000 Quarterly Maintenance of gauging

stations excl repairs after floods

Public Warning System 10,000 Telemetry and Communications 10,000 SCADA system 5,000 Licence fees

Modelling 10,000 Updates / licence fees Annual Total 69,000

Table 2: Annual Maintenance Costs The ‘Concept Design’ costs of the project are approximately $66,000 (grant $44,000: Council $22,000). With the current budget allocation and grants this leaves $344,666 for construction. This is enough funding to install the majority of the recommended hardware and associated telemetry for the flood warning system, a mix of most of Stage 1 and part of Stage 2. Council will be applying in future grants for additional funds construction of the Flood Warning System. The estimated annual maintenance on the hardware and telemetry is $39,000.

Consultation: Under the Disaster Management Plan the SES is the lead agency for flood events. The BOM is the authority that issues flood warnings based on rainfall and water level data or can do so on advice from the SES. Further, DECCW provide flood expertise and funding for flood studies and mitigation works. Council has been working with SES, BOM and DECCW through the project from development of the brief, meeting with the consultant and review of the Concept Design. One of the main objectives of the project is to provide better information for the SES and BOM so that they can perform their roles in flood warning and response more effective and efficiently and their support of the project is integral to its success. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Council has a ‘Floodplain Development and Management’ policy with the following aims: -

To minimise risk, both physical and economic, due to mainstream flooding;

To minimise the effects of development on flooding in natural watercourses;

To give developers clear guidelines for the requirements of particular developments on flood liable land.


CS10/48 - Coffs Harbour Flood Warning System (Cont'd) Statutory Requirements: Subject to the requirements and provisions of the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act, 1989 (as amended), and under the provisions of the State Emergency Service Act, 1989 (as amended), the overall control of response operations to flood, storms and tempest, including the coordination of evacuation and welfare of affected communities, is vested in the Director General of the State Emergency Service. The BOM and SES are the only Authorities in NSW with the power to issue flood warnings during a flood events and have existing arrangements with the media for disseminating information. Issues: The total estimated cost of the Flood Warning System as designed in concept form is $1.06M for the Coffs Creek and Boambee – Newports Creek catchments. The cost exceeds budgeted funds for the project and does not provide warning for other catchments such as Middle Creek (Sawtell). As a ‘first step’ the value of the Flood Warning System is to better equip those responsible for responding to the event, namely SES, as well as Council and BOM who also have a role to play in storm events. By installing the hardware (rain gauges and water level recorders) with associated telemetry, SES, Council and BOM will have access to far greater real time data in flood events. This information will be valuable to the SES in determining when and where to activate their response crews and assist the BOM on determining when to issue flood warnings. As a ‘second step’ the data collected by the hardware will provide a solid base for reviewing flood modelling and determine better relationships between rainfall intensity and distribution to the rate of rising flood waters and flood levels with the information being integral to the development of flood prediction models. A substantial portion of the cost of the concept designed system involves the ‘third step’ that includes audible public warning infrastructure comprising loudspeaker based systems located at each of the hotspots. The use of this type of warning will require extensive public consultation and education, both initially and annually, costs of which have not been included in the estimates. The use of audible warning is an aspect of the system that requires further assessment and consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of warning. There are a number of options to carry out the detailed design and construction of the Flood Warning System, including Council utilising its in-house expertise, particularly in telemetry systems such as has been utilised for its water and wastewater infrastructure. Staff will now proceed with a more detailed analysis of options for the Flood Warning System, including identifying the preferred method of procurement and construction. Staging of this project is also not a concern. By installing the hardware first, prior to installing a warning component, it allows the hardware to be tested and any problems in the system to be fixed, building confidence in the delivery and results from the system. Having better flood data and confidence in the hardware and data delivery provides a very solid base on which to add the Flood Warning component of the system at a later date.


CS10/48 - Coffs Harbour Flood Warning System (Cont'd) It is considered that the value of the Flood Warning System will provide more immediate benefits to the community than some other items (eg. CBD super pump investigations) so when a more detailed analysis of the preferred method of procuring a Flood Warning System has been completed, it is anticipated that a review of some other items in Council’s 9-point flood mitigation strategy will be recommended to Council. Implementation Date / Priority: Council staff to develop the preferred option for detailed design and construction, including procurement, of the Flood Warning System, in consultation with DECCW, SES and BOM by March 2011. Recommendation: 1. Council note that the concept design for the Flood Warning System has been

completed

2. A status report be prepared by March 2011 regarding the design and preferred procurement of the system, with a review of other priorities in Council’s 9-point flood mitigation strategy at that time.


CS10/49 PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN USE OF BAKKER DRIVE RESERVE, BONVILLE

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement to offer to the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club (BVEC) a licence for a 12-month trial period on a section of the Bakker Drive Reserve for Club activities for a maximum of 12 days per year. See attached plan of the proposed licence area – Appendix 1. Description of Item: Coffs Harbour City Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on 26 August 2010, as follows (Resolution No. 141):

1. That Council resolve to remove Bakker Drive Reserve from the Schedule of lands of the Sports ground Plan of Management and manage in accordance with the Parkland Plan of Management.

2. That Council makes a provisional offer of a licence (for a 12-month trial period up to 12 times per year) to the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club to use part of the Bakker Drive Reserve subject to the following:

a) An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) be prepared by the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club in respect to the equestrian proposal. This EMP will form part of the Licence agreement and will need to be approved by Council.

b) A satisfactory proposed licence arrangement be reached between Council and the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club on the basis of a nominal rental for a 12-month trial period. Trial to be reviewed after 12 months to determine ongoing usage.

c) That for the purposes of the above, the proposed licence be subject to community consultation for a period of no less than 28 days as detailed in the report.

d) That Council inspect the facility approximately every three months and advise Councillors by e-mail as to a condition report.

3. That following closure of the exhibition period, a report be referred back to Council for determination of the proposed licence.

The above conditions have now been investigated and this report details the outcomes of community consultation and associated investigations. The proposal for a licence was advertised in the Coffs Coast Independent newspaper on 9 September 2010. A notice was placed on the Reserve advising of Council’s intention to consider the licence. A letter was delivered to all residents adjoining the reserve on 2 September, advising of the proposal to issue a trial licence and inviting residents to attend a meeting to discuss the proposal. As Council received reports of letter tampering, the letter was reissued on 9 September. Council officers met on site on 8 September with a representative of BVEC and a representative of Bakker Drive Landcare group to discuss various issues associated with the BVEC proposal. A community consultation meeting was held with local residents on 11 September, and BVEC and the Bakker Drive Landcare representative were both given an opportunity to present their proposals.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) The exhibition period was extended and submissions were accepted until 22 November 2010. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been prepared by the BVEC. This Plan has been reviewed by Council and distributed to interested residents for comment. A copy of the plan is provided at Appendix 2. Sustainability Assessment: A sustainability assessment in respect to the proposed equestrian use is provided as follows: Environment

The licence proposal provides for a maximum usage of 12 days per year, with no use permitted during periods of damp weather. Assessment of the proposal indicates that there will be no significant impact on the environment as a result of the activity. An EMP outlines environmental controls around manure management, wet weather use, divot formation, amenities, setbacks to riparian areas, noise, etc. The Plan will form part of the licence conditions. A copy of the EMP is attached as Appendix 2. During the trial periods regular reviews will be undertaken to determine what, if any, impacts are occurring and to determine strategies to redress. The BVEC has requested that Council inspect the Reserve after each event and prepare a condition report. At this time Council proposes to inspect the Reserve every three months however the merit of the BVEC’s request will be considered after the first event, if the trial proceeds. Providing a local opportunity to undertake this activity will reduce the need to transport horses to Nana Glen or Bellingen to utilise an outdoor riding area. This reduction in vehicle trips will reduce the number of car trips and the production of greenhouse gases.

Social

Horse riding is a popular activity in the Bonville community, consistent with the rural and rural residential character of the area. Horse riding produces a range of benefits, particularly for children and young people including improved physical fitness, enhanced mental health, skill development, increased self esteem and opportunities for social networking. These are all key contributors to community health and well being. It is considered important to provide opportunities for people to access this activity without the need to move horses by motorised transport. The Bakker Drive Reserve is within riding distance for a large number of Bonville residents and provides a base to access surrounding State Forest horse trails. The Reserve will still be available for broad community use and this principle would be enshrined in the licence. The BVEC would require use of part of the Reserve for organised events on average eight to 12 times per year.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd)

Due to the size of the Reserve (approximately seven hectares) it is not anticipated that equestrian use will reduce the multi-use nature of the Reserve. During the trial periods regular reviews will be undertaken to determine impacts on community amenity. Equestrian events are by nature quiet, no amplification (loudspeakers, etc) is used, so there will be minimal noise impact on neighbours.

Civic Leadership This proposal works towards achieving the outcomes identified within the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan and is directly connected to the themes "Places for Living” and “Looking after our Community”. Relevant strategies include:

Develop inclusive community, sporting and recreational activities;

Promote healthy living;

Encourage the provision of facilities, services and resources which attract and support young people;

Create opportunities for enhancement of the community’s sense of well-being

Economic Broader Economic Implications Providing a local equestrian base will significantly reduce the fuel costs to local residents currently having to transport horses to Nana Glen for organised activities. Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The proposed change in use of Bakker Drive Reserve will have minimal impact on Council’s Management Plan. Any support infrastructure needed at the grounds would be at the Club's expense. This will be negotiated through the licensing process and included as conditions of use. Council will responsible for replacing the existing degraded Reserve sign advising users of the altered use arrangements. This cost will be absorbed by council within its current budgets. The estimated signage cost is $200.

Consultation: The community has been consulted in the following ways:

The Licence proposal was initially placed on public exhibition from 11 September 2010 until 28 October 2010. Due to delays in finalising the EMP the exhibition period was extended until 22 November to enable interested members of the community to view and comment on the EMP.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) An initial consultation (facilitated by Coffs Harbour City Council) was held onsite on 11

September 2pm–4.30pm. Residents adjoining the Reserve and in the immediate vicinity, including all properties along Bakker Drive, were invited. Approximately 100 people attended. The meeting included presentations from both the BVEC and the Bakker Drive Landcare Group.

A consultation meeting was held on 8 September, involving Council officers and representatives of BVEC and Bakker Drive Landcare Group.

The EMP was distributed to interested members of the community and comment sought. Formal submissions received are detailed in Appendix 3. Copies of all the submissions will be made available in the Councillors’ room. A staff presentation was made to Councillors on 2 December and was followed by a tour of the Bakker Drive Reserve. Council liaised with the BVEC during the exhibition period regarding preparation of the required EMP. Internal consultation has occurred with staff from City Services, Corporate Business and the Risk Co-ordinator. Comments from Property Branch The subject land is classified as Community Land in accordance with provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. Provided the grant of a licence to the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club is carried out in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act and associated Local Government (General) Regulations 2005, Property Branch offers no objection to the proposal. It is also noted that liaison has been maintained with Property Branch throughout the pursuit of this proposal. Comments from Recreation Services Operations This reserve currently has the grass cut on average six to seven times per annum. As currently set out the proposed activity of one day per month equestrian use will not include any permanent obstacles that would impact the efficiency of the current mowing program. The proposed Licence agreement will specify post use inspection to assess any level of damage to the grass surface that may pose a risk to the normal reserve user and require the Licensee to undertake suitable remedial action as directed by Council. The proposed equestrian activity will not have any impact on the current approved mapped Landcare site works on Burgess Creek at the opposite end of the reserve. Comments from CHCC Risk Coordinator The granting of the licence will identify the Bakker Drive Reserve with equestrian use; this will lead to increased use of the reserve for club (BVEC) and casual equestrian use. With increased use comes a greater potential liability risk expose for Council. The NGSREC has operated as the main equestrian centre in the region for many years. Council has no record of a claim at the NGSREC related to equestrian or associated activities, either at club events or from casual use. Riders seem to accept the inherent risks associated with their sport.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) Council does have legal protections under the The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 Division 5, 5L (1) which states’

‘A person (Council) is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff’.

This provides Council protection from claims arising from inherent or obvious risks associated with a dangerous recreational activity, such as horse riding. Other potential liability exposures from the BVEC club activities can be reduced through the licence conditions, requiring BVEC carry out and document risk inspections of the licence area prior to club event days, and that under the licence the BVEC indemnify the Coffs Harbour City Council for all claims arising from or associated with the club's activities at the reserve. Further protection is provided to Council under the Civil Liability Act 2002 where a warning of a risk is given. If the licence is granted the signage at the reserve must be upgraded to include a general risk warning and warn of the equestrian use. It should also include prohibitions and other warnings and information relevant to the reserve. It is recommended that Council’s insurers Statewide Mutual’s Best Practice Manual “Signage As Remote Supervising” be used to determine the signs content. Comments from Community Services This current proposal still leaves this space available for multi purpose community use by the broader community the majority of the time. It also seeks to make use of a public space for the purpose of connecting community members and providing access to an appropriate sporting/recreational activity that provides various benefits to community health and wellbeing. Comments from CHCC Road and Traffic Safety Officer Bakker Drive has an average of 200 vehicles per day; there have been no crashes from October 2004 - September 2009 and the 85th percentile speed is 63km per hour (posted speed limit is 70km/hr). Council has submitted a request to the RTA for a speed zone reduction to 60km/hr. This proposal is under consideration and we anticipate a decision within the next few weeks. From a traffic perspective, 12-15 vehicles once a month will have minimal impact on the road and other road users. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Horse riding at Bakker Drive is consistent with the Parkland categorisation of the land and will directly support several Council policies and Strategies including:

Community Vision 2030 and the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan

Open Space Strategy 2010

Sports Facility Plan 2010

Our Living City Settlement Strategy

The Peak Oil Action Plan


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) Statutory Requirements: The site is currently managed under the Parkland Plan of Management, prepared under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. The equestrian proposal is considered to be consistent with this Plan of Management. Section 46 (1) (b) (iii) of the Local Government Act 1993 Act provides for the granting of short-term licences for purposes prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 that are in accord with the Plan of Management. Regulation 116 (1) provides that –

For the purposes of section 46 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act, the use or occupation of community land for the following events is prescribed as a purpose in respect of which a council may grant a licence in respect of community land on a short-term, casual basis: (c) the playing of a lawful game or sport,

Regulation 116 (2) allows such occupation or use of community land only if it does not involve the erection of any building or structure of a permanent nature. Regulation 117 (1) provides for leases or licences granted for various purposes, including the playing of any lawful game or sport being exempted from the provisions of Section 47A of the Local Government Act.

(Note: Section 47A of the Act relates to granting of leases or licences for terms of five years or less and which includes a requirement to advertise the proposal and notify adjoining owners. It also provides that the Minister may request that the matter be referred to him/her for determination.)

Regulation 117 (2) (c) states that the exemption in respect of playing of any lawful game or sport only applies provided the period of time between the first and last occasion is not more than 12 months and that each occasion does not exceed three days. It is considered that the proposed trial licence period accords with these requirements. Consideration by Council of any licence beyond the 12-month trial period would be subject to further consultation and follow the due process prescribed by the Local Government Act. Under the LEP 2000, the site is currently zoned 6A public recreation. Issues: Summary of submissions received Two proposals were presented to the community during the exhibition period.

Proposal One: BVEC use of less than 50% of Reserve, one day per month, under a licence agreement with Council as presented to the community on September 11 2010. This proposal was developed by BVEC following Council’s resolution of 26 August.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) Proposal Two: Bakker Drive Landcare Group’s proposed Social Family Recreation Park

(SFRP) for the entire Reserve, with no provision for equestrian use. This proposal was developed as Landcare’s alternative to a trial licence to BVEC.

A total of 31 written submissions were received in relation to the equestrian trial, with 13 submissions representing 16 people in support of the proposal and 18 submissions representing 22 people opposing the trial. In addition, 25 feedback forms with 26 signatories were received in support of the trial and 21 feedback forms representing 21 signatories were received opposing the trial. One person lodged both a written submission and a feedback form supporting the proposal, and eight people lodged both written submissions and feedback forms objecting to the trial. When these duplications of representation are taken into account, feedback indicates that 41 people support the equestrian trial while 35 people oppose the trial. Bakker Drive Landcare Group’s alternate proposal for the SFRP resulted in community generation of two separate feedback forms, and during the exhibition period Council received a total of 45 feedback forms representing 46 signatories in relation to this proposal. A total of 16 people supported 100 per cent use of the reserve for the SFRP, two people opposed 100 per cent of the Reserve for SFRP, and 28 signatories made no statement about this extent of Reserve allocation for SFRP. A total of 18 people opposed use and development of the Reserve as per the Landcare proposal, while 12 supported the SFRP proposal and 16 signatories made no statement in relation to use and development of the Reserve as per the Landcare plan. Additionally, a petition type submission was supported by 99 people requesting that Council consider the SFRP as an alternative to an equestrian proposal. It should be noted that this petition was published and distributed prior to the equestrian club’s proposal being presented at the community meeting on September 11. The petition proposed the SFRP as an alternative to a proposal to “use the vast majority of the park for riding activities”. This was an inaccurate representation of the equestrian club’s proposal, tabled on September 11, which sought use of less than half of the Reserve space for a maximum of one day per month for a trial period of 12 months. Of the 99 signatories to this alternate proposal, 28 lodged a further submission during the public exhibition period objecting to the equestrian club’s proposed trial of use of a smaller portion of the reserve. EMP Council invited separate community comment on the EMP prepared on behalf of the BVEC. A total of two letters, and 34 pro forma letters representing 37 signatories, were received objecting to the BVEC’s EMP. The majority of signatories had previously lodged an objection in some form to the BVEC proposal. Reasons given for objections to the EMP were that the document did not quantify the number of riders and vehicles attending events and did not include a turf impact study. Comparisons to dual use facilities like Nana Glen were also rejected.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) Issues raised in submissions The issues raised in the submissions were wide-ranging. A summary of issues, including staff comment, is provided at Appendix 3. Support Factors raised in support of the trial licence generally covered the following:

The social and health benefits of horse riding.

Bonville is primarily a rural area and horse riding has traditionally been an integral part of rural lifestyles. Horse riding will add value to, and support rural lifestyles and help maintain the rural ambience of Bonville.

The incremental decrease in the number of safe areas available to ride around Bonville, particularly with tenure change of some State Forest areas to National Park means places like Bakker Drive are of increasing importance.

The benefit to horse riders of having a safe, local site to meet, particularly one that is within riding distance of participants.

The concern that the Reserve is presently under-utilised and that it would be good to see more activity on the Reserve, particularly as Council devotes resources towards its maintenance.

The expansive size of the Reserve lends itself to supporting a variety of uses,

The Reserve has a history of equestrian use with letters to this effect from CHCC

The BVEC should be given the chance, via the granting of the trial licence, to demonstrate its ability to use the grounds in a sustainable manner and in harmony with the local community.

The impracticality of travelling from Bonville to Nana Glen for equestrian activities, particularly if you don’t have access to a horse float.

One submission flagged the idea of forming a Management Committee or Reserve Trust to oversee the management of the reserve, with multi-use a key principle. Reserve Trusts are only applicable to Crown Lands; however council already has in place a number of Management Committees for reserves/facilities, formed under sec 355 of the Local Government Act 1993. This concept could be further explored, possibly through a Plan of Management process for the Reserve. Objections Key Issues raised in objection to the trial licence are discussed below. A summary of other issues raised is included at Appendix 3.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) Social Family Recreation Park Proposal A number of residents signed a petition and submitted feedback forms in support of an alternate proposal put forward by the Bakker Drive Landcare group to create an expansive Social Family Recreation Park (SFRP) across the entire 6.89 hectare Reserve. See Appendix 4 for details of the Submission and Site Concept Plan. The proposal suggested the formation of a “Friends of Park” group to progress the Park idea. It was further suggested that the Park could be developed at minimal cost to council and possibly through utilisation of Section 94 contributions and Grant funding. The current resolution of Council is the consideration of a 12-month trial licence to the BVEC and this proposal formed the basis of the community consultation. Council’s administration will respond to any revised resolution of Council in regards to the Reserve when and if this occurs, however the following is worth noting in relation to Landcare’s SFRP proposal. Bakker Drive Reserve was originally acquired by Council to service the active recreation needs ie. activities that require expansive outdoor space to participate in, for the wider Bonville locality. This is supported by documentation within the Property file. It was not acquired as, or intended to be, developed as a large local Passive Recreation Park. This intent is reflected in the size of the Reserve, equivalent to a large district level sporting facility. Council’s 1998 Open Space Strategy identified the Reserve as an area to investigate for future equestrian activity. While the merit of providing a local SFRP within Bakker Drive Reserve is open to discussion, the scale of the Landcare proposal is well beyond the Core Service Levels adopted within the Open Space Strategy 2010 for a local SFRP, particularly for a Park located within a rural/rural residential locale where ample private open space is available. In Rural/ Rural Residential areas it is not considered cost effective for Council to provide local parks and recreation facilities in the same manner as in urban settings. Lower population densities and larger lot sizes provide a higher level of private open space. It was suggested that the SFRP could be developed at minimal cost to Council. Whilst this may be the case, the maintenance burden of the park could become a cost to Council, particularly if community interest waned. Maintenance of a highly developed space, as per Landcares proposal, would be significantly higher than current maintenance costs. Should Council wish to develop a local SFRP in Bakker Drive, the average size of a local SFRP in Coffs Harbour is less than one hectare, servicing residential households generally within a 500m radius of the park. In broad terms this equates to about 750 households, significantly more households than surround the Bakker Drive Reserve. It is suggested that the 4.6 hectares proposed to remain outside the licence area would provide more than sufficient area to develop any future SFRP should demand warrant. The community has argued that the park would also service future residential development in Bonville. In relation to this, current proposals for the planned residential development of the BIG Resort, North Bonville Road, provide for extensive open space within the development footprint. Similarly a future Bonville township, post 2035 would also include provision for open space, including SFR spaces and playing fields within the development footprint of the new township. It is therefore highly likely that the Bakker Drive Reserve would not play a major role in contributing to the future local passive recreational needs of Bonville, beyond its current usage level.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) In respect of Section 94 contributions there is currently no approved development potential in the immediate area and therefore no possibility of collecting any Section 94 funds. There are no S94 funds available currently. Should lands be rezoned, then apportionment issues would arise that would require council to fund a large portion of the cost. There is no funding currently budgeted for any such works either in Council’s current Delivery Program or 10-year forward financial plan. A “Friends of the Park” group is a proposal that has great potential and would align with long-term strategic objectives of the Open Space Strategy for Reserves in Coffs Harbour. This concept could be explored with interested residents at Bonville in more detail at a later stage. It is recommended that a specific Plan of Management be prepared for the Bakker Dr Reserve, to determine the future function and use of the Reserve and an appropriate management model. The trial licence period would assist in informing this process in relation to the sustainability of equestrian use of the site. The PoM process would involve further community consultation with the wider Bonville community and give particular consideration to the SFRP proposal and the principles of shared use and inclusion. A Friends of the Park group, Management Committee or Reserve Trust could be investigated as part of this process. Loss of multi-use function of the Reserve The current proposal broadly creates two management areas on the reserve, equestrian and non- equestrian. See Appendix 1. The proposed equestrian area would comprise approximately 2.3 hectares of the available 6.89, leaving a residual 4.6 hectare horse exclusion area available for community use. The average size of a local recreation park in Coffs Harbour is less than one hectare so it is considered 4.6 hectares in a rural/ rural residential setting will adequately service local recreational needs. The licence area would be used by the BVEC no more than 12 times per year, leaving over 340 days per year available for general community use. It is acknowledged that while the community will be able to use the licence area, there may be some minor loss of amenity within the licence area (shallow divots at times and temporary car parking once a month). However the remaining 4.6 hectares will not be affected by the licence proposal and will be available for community use at all times. It is intended that no horse activity, casual or licensed, will occur within the residual 4.6 hectares and the Reserve will be signposted to this effect. Non compliance with the Parkland PoM One submission raised the concern that the current Parkland Plan of Management (PoM) would not permit licensing to the BVEC as the club does not form part of the general public - being a Club and therefore not consistent with the PoM’s objectives. The submission stated that the club’s activities constituted organised sporting activity and that this was not permitted under the PoM. The submission also put the view that licensing to the BVEC would also fail to satisfy the public interest intent within the PoM in regards to licensing.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) One of the nine objectives of the Parkland PoM is to “manage the land for the use and enjoyment of the general public”. “General public” is not a term defined by the Local Government Act nor is there a clear legal definition. It is therefore open to individual and situational interpretation as to who or what constitutes the general public, and under what circumstances you cease to be the general public. In this instance the intent of the objective could likely be interpreted as “for the use and enjoyment of the community’ The Parkland PoM permits licensing for activities sanctioned within the PoM. It also permits formal sporting activities with approval and informal sporting without approval. Horse riding is a permitted activity under the current Parkland PoM and it therefore considered that this activity could be licensed. The Property Manager agrees with the above view that the proposed licence can be granted by Council. The fact that granting of licences in respect of community classified lands, for approved activities, is permitted under the LG Act 1993 would appear to confirm that sporting groups or organised sporting groups are considered to be part of the general public, particularly in light of the references in Regulations 116 and 117 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 in respect of the “playing of a lawful game or sport”. Traffic/Safety Several submission raised concerns regarding the additional traffic that would be generated on Bakker Drive by the proposal, compromising the safety of residents. The proposal will generate additional 24–30 vehicle trips, one day per month. Council’s Road and Safety officer has advised that this is not considered to be a significant increase. Parking A number of submissions raised concerns with parking both on Bakker Dr and on the Reserve. It was suggested that parking on the Reserve would contravene the Local Government Act and the PoM. In relation to the Reserve, the licence proposal provides for the establishment of temporary car parking on the Reserve for use doing Club meets. Outside of Club meets vehicles will not be permitted on the Reserve. Council regularly establishes car parking on Community Land, and in this instance, the car parking is associated with a licence holder and forms part of the licence area. There is no inconsistency with the LG Act or the PoM. Outside of these times no parking would occur on the Reserve. In relation to parking on Bakker Drive, it is not envisaged that club participants would park on Bakker Drive as temporary car parking will be provided on the Reserve. The BVEC executive has indicated that they would request that members use the temporary Reserve car park. It has been noted that vehicles have recently been illegally entering onto the Reserve and causing damage. The BVEC proposal allowed for bollarding of the reserve entrance. This would resolve the problem of illegal vehicle entry. If the BVEC proposal does not proceed Council will still consider bollarding of the entrance, pending funding.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) Negative impacts on the Reserve Concerns were raised regarding impacts such as damage to turf, erosion, compaction, divots, weeds, manure, water quality, disposal of human waste and rutting. Council has required the BVEC to prepare an EMP to address potential impacts on the Reserve that may result from equestrian activity. The EMP will form part of the licence conditions. It is considered that any impacts that may ensue from the trial would be capable of remediation. To minimise potential impacts such as compaction and reduced grass cover through repetitive activity, the BVEC proposes to rotate its activities on an as-needs basis throughout the 2.3 hectare licensed area. Club meets will not occur on the Reserve during wet weather. It is understood that discussions have occurred between the BVEC and the Bonville Christian Community School regarding Club usage of the school’s indoor equestrian facilities on event days coinciding with wet weather. Negative impacts on the Landcare site Concerns were raised about potential negative impacts on the Landcare area adjacent to Burgess Creek. As the proposed licence area is situated over 250 metres from the approved Landcare site this is not considered to be a major risk or impediment to any future Landcare activity to strengthen the riparian corridor. Fencing of the Landcare planting site could be considered as an additional protection measure. This is not inconsistent with the approach of Council, Landcare groups, developers and private property owners in relation to protecting plantings, particularly for those sites located in rural areas where straying stock is a concern. In recognition of the importance and value of the riparian corridor, it is proposed to re-categorise the riparian area of Burgess Creek to “Natural Area’ within the draft Natural Area PoM currently being finalised. Horse riders should use private facilities rather than public land Horse riding is a legitimate recreational pursuit for which Council has traditionally made public land available. Participation rates are higher in rural and semi rural areas due to the land requirements for horse ownership, increasing the need for accessible facilities in these locations. Throughout NSW pony clubs and other equestrian groups use public land for their activities. In Coffs Harbour both Council and the NSW Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) have made public land available for equestrian use. Club/proposal will expand in size Several submissions were concerned with a possible increase in membership of the BVEC resulting in increased numbers of people riding on the Reserve and additional Club meets above the 12 times per year indicated.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) During the trial period the licence will cap the number of vehicles and participants utilising the Reserve at any one time. BVEC has indicated agreement to a cap of a maximum of 15 vehicles and 30 horses at any one meet, although it is likely the average participation for the majority of events would not reach this target. The trial allows for a maximum usage of the reserve of 12 days per year. Council is assessing the current proposal based on the parameters agreed to with the BVEC. Any substantial shift from these parameters would necessitate a re-evaluation of the proposal. It is not Council’s intention to create an additional competition standard venue within the local government area as it is Council’s view that the Nana Glen Sport, Recreation and Equestrian Centre meets this need, providing a high standard competition facility for the Region. Past horse activity at Bakker Drive Reserve has been minimal Exact usage levels are difficult to quantify retrospectively, however there is a long history of correspondence between council and various equestrian enthusiasts endorsing their use of the Reserve. From 2000 to 2006 Council agisted the southern portion of the Reserve for up to three horses. Council’s 1998 Open Space Strategy identified Bakker Dr Reserve as an area to investigate for equestrian activities. Toilet facilities Several submissions were concerned with the lack of toilet facilities at Bakker Drive and how waste generated by the BVEC would be dealt with. The BVEC will use chemical toilets brought in and removed for each event. This is outlined in the EMP and is consistent with the approach of other groups who hire Council reserves where toilet facilities are not present. EMP Submissions relating to the EMP raised the following objections:

It did not detail the number of participants and therefore impacts could not be properly assessed.

No turf impact study was undertaken in relation to the frail turf cover.

Lack of consideration given to increased traffic and the problematic access point off the end of Bakker Drive

Comparisons to Nana Glen were rejected and assertions made that cricket would prefer to relocate due to clashes with equestrians.

The BVEC has indicated in discussions with Council and the community that vehicle numbers would range up to 15 per event with up to 30 participants. The EMP was developed on this basis. Council successfully manages a variety of sports fields, including the Nana Glen Sport Recreation and Equestrian Centre (NGSREC), many of which are used on a daily basis throughout the year. Council has never undertaken, nor required lessees to undertake Turf Impact Studies in relation to any of these venues. At the low usage levels proposed by the BVEC a Turf Impact Study is not considered necessary.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd) During consultation this year in relation to the Sports Facility Plan, both Cricket and the NGSREC Management Committee indicated their ongoing support for the retention of Cricket at the Centre. Multi-use is a cornerstone of the Management Committee in relation to the facility. In terms of the access point of Bakker Drive, impacts will be assessed upon commencement of the trial and any remediation required worked out in conjunction with the Club. Remediation of any impacts to Council's satisfaction will be the responsibility of the BVEC. This will form a condition of the licence. Having reviewed and taken account of the various aspects of this proposal as outlined above, it is recommended that Council agree to grant a licence to the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club in respect of that section of Bakker Drive Reserve as indicated on the plan attached to the report (Appendix 1) in accordance with Sections 46 and 47A of the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations 116 and 117 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005. In accordance with general Council policy, the licensee will be required to confirm that it is an appropriately incorporated body and ensure its compliance with all licence provisions during the term of the agreement. General terms and conditions of the proposed Licence agreement are as follows: Licensee: Bonville Valley Equestrian Club Term: Maximum use of twelve (12) days during a period of up to twelve (12) months. Rent: $1 per annum (if demanded). Use: Equestrian/horse riding activities of the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club. Licensee covenants to:

- Hold public liability insurance cover in a minimum amount of $10 million (or such other amount as may be advised by Council from time to time), with Council being noted as an interested party.

- Hold Workers Compensation insurance cover in respect of any employees working at the premises.

- Hold Voluntary Workers Accident Insurance Cover in respect of any volunteers working at the premises.

- Comply with the provisions of the approved Environmental Management Plan developed in respect of the site.

- Ensure compliance with all relevant Council and statutory requirements relating to the operation and management of the Equestrian Club’s activities on and use of the subject licence area.

- Ensure compliance with noise control requirements and to not create a nuisance to neighbouring property owners.

- Be responsible for all costs associated with the Equestrian Club’s use of the land, including removal of horse manure after each use and any divot repair or remediation work necessary to the surface of the ground.

- Be responsible for the costs associated with granting the subject licence. - Comply with Council’s directions relating to the subject land arising from the regular

inspection regime to be implemented to ensure appropriate use of the land and avoidance/remediation of potential ground surface damage.

- Keep the licence area clean and tidy at all times, and ensure removal and disposal of all waste and rubbish after each use of the land.


CS10/49 - Proposed Equestrian Use of Bakker Drive Reserve, Bonville (Cont'd)

- Ensure membership of the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club is open to community member of good repute, and with a shared interest in the promotion of equestrian activities, within the Coffs Harbour local government area.

Any additional general terms or conditions as may be advised or required by Council’s solicitor.

Implementation Date / Priority: The BVEC would commence club meetings as soon as practicable after the licence is issued. Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the grant of a licence in accordance with the general terms and

conditions as indicated in the body of the report, to the Bonville Valley Equestrian Club in respect of part Lot 35 DP 825229 (Bakker Drive Reserve) and being generally that area as shown on the plan attached to this report at Appendix 1.

2. That Council approve the EMP prepared by the BVEC and that it form part of the licence conditions.

3. That Council inspect the facility approximately every three months and advises Councillors by e-mail as to a condition report.

4. That Council consider the prioritisation of preparing a specific Plan of Management for the Bakker Drive Reserve, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, giving consideration to Council’s other PoM priorities.

- 182 -

Attachments:

Appendix 1 Details of the proposed licence area

- 183 -

Appendix 2 – BVEC draft EMP for the activity

- 184 -

- 185 -

- 186 -

- 187 -

- 188 -

- 189 -

- 190 -

Appendix 3 - Summary of Issues raised in objection to the trial licence Issue No. Issue raised Action/Comment

1 Damage to the Reserve including divots, ruts and damage to the cul-de-sac head of Bakker Drive.

Addressed within the EMP.

Damage to road verges Horses are legally entitled to use roads and adjoining Road Reserves.

Loss of multi use nature of the Reserve

See Issue section of Report.

2 Impacts of Horse Manure


3 Increased vehicular traffic and parking on soft ground will reduce parts of the reserve to ugly ruts and create a dangerous park.

See Issues section of Report.

4 Inconsistent with Residential Character Surrounding Area is zoned Rural Residential and Rural. Lot sizes within the locale are consistent with these zonings. .

5 The Council should consult widely with the community on this matter before a decision is made

Consultations have been undertaken as detailed in this report

6 Increased weed incursion, in particular fireweed.


7 Horse riding in a Park type setting is dangerous.

Risk management will be addressed through signage and temporary fencing if required.

8 Leasing to the BVEC is inconsistent with the Parkland PoM and not in the public interest.

See issue section of Report.

9 Vehicles are not permitted on the Reserve.

See issues section of Report.

10 Bias of council officer/s.

A large number of Council Staff from various sections have been involved with the Project.

11 Proposal will prevent other uses of the Reserve , It will no longer be multi use.

See issues section of the Report.

12 Lack of Toilet facilities on the Reserve. Addressed within the EMP.

13 Proposal is socially divisive.

Bakker Drive Reserve is available for the use of the wider Bonville community and is of a size to accommodate a variety of uses. The BVEC proposal is adding another user group to the space.

14 Proposal has created rifts within existing equestrian clubs in Coffs Harbour.

No submissions received from any existing equestrian groups regarding concerns...

15 BVEC are a private Club and should use private facilities.

Council and the NSW LPMA currently accommodate equestrian clubs on public lands in other areas of the LGA. Club has undertaken some liaison with the Christian Community School regarding the use of their facility in wet weather.

- 191 -

16 Proposal will impact negatively on the Landcare site and undermine what they are trying to achieve across the Reserve.

See issues section of the Report. Note at this time Landcare only have Council endorsement to work on areas approved on the site plan; being those areas adjacent to Burgess Creek.

17 Preference expressed for an alternate SFR Park development over the entire Reserve..

See Issues section of the Report

18 Concerned proposal will prevent dogs being off leash in the Reserve.

Reserve is currently not a designated leash free area. Dogs must be on leads.

19 Cartage of human excrement and a requirement for a licence to do so.

Not a commercial operation therefore no license required. Cartage would be by the hire company.

20 Past horse usage of the Reserve overstated.

See Issues Section of the Report.

21 Horse Flu. Horse Flu would be a vet matter, the risk and containment measures are beyond Council expertise and area of concern. The Dept of Agriculture would have carriage of an outbreak. From the last, and only outbreak in Australia quarantine of some horse occurred as the first step with no movement allowed. If this occurred then a whole ‘camp’ situation may need to be established, depending on the directive of the relevant government minister, for an indefinite period on the site, to cater for both horses and owners.

22 Interested residents requested opportunity to comment on draft EMP.

EMP distributed to interested residents for comment.

23 Horse floats will speed on Bakker Dr. Equestrian Club has agreed to adhere to a voluntary maximum 50kmh on Bakker Drive approach, to reduce any risks/noise impacts.

24 Reserve established for the local residential community when Braford Estate built.

See Issues section of the Report.

25 Council should make other land available for equestrian use, in a rural setting, only when the equestrian community has outgrown its current venues.

Bonville is primarily a Rural/ Rural residential area. Council currently has no equestrian facilities to service Southern areas of the LGA.

26 EMP inadequate See Report

- 192 -

Appendix 4 – Bakker Drive Landcare Group’s alternate submission re Social Family Recreation Park concept for the Reserve (including Site Plan)

- 193 -

- 194 -

- 195 -

- 196 -

- 197 -

- 198 -

- 199 -


CS10/50 EXTENDED ALCOHOL PROHIBITION FOR NEW YEARS EVE 2010 AND AUSTRALIA DAY 2011

Purpose: To:

Report on the outcome of community consultation in relation to the proposed extended alcohol prohibition for Australia Day 2011 and New Years Eve 2010.

Recommend that the extended prohibition be implemented within all existing alcohol prohibited areas. See Attachment 1 for list of locations.

Description of Item: Council resolved (Resolution No. 170) at its meeting of 14 October 2010:

Exhibition of Council's intent to implement a 24 hour alcohol prohibition as follows:

New Years Eve – 6am New Years Eve to 6am New Years Day for the year 2010.

Australia Day – 6am Australia Day to 6am the following day for the year 2011.

For all of the Council managed Reserves that are currently alcohol prohibited 9pm - 9am (see Attachment 1).

Advertise the proposal for a minimum period of 28 days to gauge public support. Undertake positive media during this period to disseminate the proposal and gain community feedback.

Engage with the police to ensure commitment of an appropriate level of police resources to ensure the prohibitions are effective.

Prepare a further report for Council's consideration at the end of the 28 day exhibition period.

Review the prohibition for 2011. The above conditions have now been investigated and this report details the outcomes of community consultation and associated investigations. Council is continuing to liaise with the NSW Police regarding the proposal and the level of Police resourcing to be committed. The extended alcohol prohibition will be reviewed, in conjunction with the NSW Police, post Australia Day 2011 and a further report prepared for consideration by Council. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

No negative environmental concerns will occur as a result of the changed alcohol and behaviour controls. Positive benefits will ensue, as alcohol related broken glass is of particular concern to Reserve users including children and requires regular cleaning up by maintenance staff and locals. Local residents and staff put themselves at risk handling broken glass when cleaning up following disturbances involving alcohol


CS10/50 - Extended Alcohol Prohibition for New Years Eve 2010 and Australia Day 2011 (Cont'd) Social

Extended control on alcohol use in the nominated reserves will have a positive impact on the local amenity. The normal reserve users and local residents will be less likely to be confronted by intoxicated persons using these areas and smashing glass. This will increase the appeal of these areas to the wider community for holiday activities. A reduction in night time disturbance will improve the quality of life of adjacent residents through improved sleep patterns and reduction in stress levels. Police will have powers to act to control alcohol use.

Civic Leadership This proposal works towards achieving the outcomes identified within the Coffs Harbour 2030 Strategic Plan and is directly connected to the themes "Places for Living” and “Looking after our community”. The proposal will assist in ensuring that:

o We promote healthy living and safe communities; and

o We protect and expand public spaces and facilities and ensure they are accessible and safe for all.

These areas are identified as outcomes/objectives in the 2030 Plan and Council is specified as both provider and facilitator and additionally, in the case of safe communities, an advocate.

Economic Broader Economic Implications Tourism is a significant economic driver for Coffs Harbour. A reduction in alcohol fuelled violence and other anti social behaviour within our public spaces will increase Coffs Harbour’s appeal as a destination for visitors over the holiday period. Reducing the need to tie up limited Police resources on managing alcohol fuelled violence will create a net improvement in local policing outcomes. Reducing injuries to police officers will also improve local policing outcomes. Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The cost of installing new and replacement notices will be absorbed within current and future programs. Costs are estimated to be less than $3,000.

Consultation: The proposal was placed on public exhibition at Council's Administration building and at the three public libraries from 21 October to 18 November. Details of the proposal were displayed on Council's website. Media interest included local newspaper coverage and a nightly news segment on Prime TV on 20 October. The matter has been discussed internally with a range of staff from City Services, Corporate Business and the Executive.


CS10/50 - Extended Alcohol Prohibition for New Years Eve 2010 and Australia Day 2011 (Cont'd) External consultation has occurred with the NSW Police, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) the Coffs Coast Regional Park Trust Board, and the Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA). No concerns were raised and all agencies/ bodies indicated support for the proposal. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Council has previously used Section 632(1) (e) of the Local Government Act 1993 to prohibit the taking and/or consumption of alcohol in reserves controlled by Council between 9.00pm and 9.00am. Council has also used the Local Government Act 1993 (Sections 644, 644A, 644B, 644C, 645 and 646) to create Alcohol Free Zones in roads and car parks. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of the existing prohibitions in managing alcohol related anti social behaviour. Statutory Requirements: Due to different land tenures involved, Council has sought legal advice on implementing the extended prohibition. It is proposed that the extended prohibition be implemented as follows (for all Reserves currently Alcohol Prohibited) and that all current 9.00pm–9.00am signage be progressively updated to be consistent with the legislative requirements detailed below. 1. Council owned lands and Crown Reserves for which we are the appointed Reserve Trust

Manager It is proposed that Council use powers granted under the Local Government Act 1993 Section 632 and the newly amended Section 632A to regulate the bringing in and consuming of alcohol, by notice.

2. Coffs Coast Regional Park As Regional Parks are not “Public Places” as defined by the Local Government Act, this Act cannot be relied upon to regulate activities. The National Parks and Wildlife Act governs Regional Parks. Pursuant to Clause 4 of the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations a notice may be erected to regulate the carrying out of any activity within the Park. Notices will be erected prohibiting the bringing in or consuming of alcohol at specified times.

Issues: Summary of Community Consultation Council received a total of six submissions during the exhibition period. A copy of all submissions has been provided in the Councilors rooms. Two submissions objected to the proposal whilst four were in support. Issues raised in objection related to the negative impact of the proposal on reserve users who wished to consume alcohol in a responsible manner. Issues raised in support cited the need to make the reserve safer for families and other users and the need to control binge drinking and related anti social behaviour.


CS10/50 - Extended Alcohol Prohibition for New Years Eve 2010 and Australia Day 2011 (Cont'd) One supportive submission raised a concern that the prohibition would not apply to Crown reserves at Moonee Beach, Corindi and Red Rock as Council is not the Reserve Trust Manager. These issues are discussed in more detail below. Impacts on regular Reserve users Implementing a 24 hour prohibition would make it illegal for anyone to bring in, or consume alcohol, in the affected reserves. This would disadvantage those reserve users who wish to consume alcohol responsibly on these occasions. Australia Day, in particular has become an occasion for families and friends to gather, and moderate consumption of alcohol is often associated with these gatherings. It is noted however that due to the current high incidence of binge drinking and violence associated with New Years Day and Australia Day, responsible reserve users are being placed at risk of harm and thus are probably deterred from using these spaces. The prohibition would enable families to safely use these spaces without the risk of drunken violence. Current provisions that allow the consumption of alcohol in alcohol prohibited areas for Council licensed events would still be applicable under the proposal. Impact on Crown Reserves at Moonee Beach, Corindi and Red Rock Concerns were raised that, as the prohibition would not apply to the Crown recreation reserves at Moonee Beach, Corindi and Red Rock, there would be a translocation of drunken parties from Council Reserves to these “legal” locations. Assurance was sought from Council and the NSW Police that action would be initiated with LPMA to have a uniform ban across the LGA if the current proposal on exhibition is endorsed by Council. As Council is not the appointed Reserve Trust Manager for these Reserves we are not able to make management decisions in relation to these areas. Council has initiated contact with the LPMA regarding the concerns raised and has also passed on the concerns to the NSW Police. The NSW Police have indicated they would be supportive of a uniform ban and will seek to progress this with the LPMA and relevant Reserve Trusts. LPMA have agreed in principle to a uniform approach and will liaise further with Council regarding the matter. Confiscation of alcohol Concerns were raised that alcohol prohibited areas do not currently have “tip out” provisions. Council has received recent advice that a Private Members Bill to amend the Local Government Act to provide “tip out “ powers within all alcohol prohibited areas regardless of whether or not they fall within a precinct liquor accord has passed through both houses of Parliament (2/12/2010). Police will now have the ability to confiscate/tip out alcohol throughout all alcohol prohibited areas, for the upcoming holiday season. Implementation Date / Priority: Notices will be installed as soon as possible following Council’s approval by resolution of the amended control of alcohol at the locations listed in Appendix 1.


CS10/50 - Extended Alcohol Prohibition for New Years Eve 2010 and Australia Day 2011 (Cont'd) Recommendation: 1. That Council use the powers granted by Sec 632(1)(e) and section 632A of the Local

Government Act 1993 to amend the existing 9.00pm – 9.00am prohibition within the Council managed Reserves (exclusive of the Coffs Coast Regional Park) listed at Appendix 1 to further prohibit alcohol as follows:



Except for Council licenced events.

2. That Council, as the agency responsible for visitor and facility management under the Memorandum of Understanding for the CCRP, regulate by notice the bringing in or consuming of alcohol within the CCRP Reserves listed in Appendix 1 as follows:



3. That notices, to effect all of the above, be displayed at appropriate locations.

4. That Council review the amendment to the Alcohol Prohibition after 12 months

5. That Council continue to engage with LPMA regarding a uniform approach across the LGA in relation to alcohol prohibitions for the upcoming holiday season.

- 205 -

Attachments:

Attachment 1 - List of Reserves currently Alcohol Prohibited Coffs Harbour Diggers Beach Reserve (CCRP)

Jetty Foreshores Reserve (including Jetty Structure)

Korora Beach Reserve (CCRP)

Park Beach Reserve:

- Northern end (Macauleys)

- Between Hoey Moey and Bowling Club

- Southern end (Lower Park Beach)

Rotary Park

Shepherds Park

Vost Park

Brelsford Park Adventure Playground & surrounds

Bray Street Skate Park (24 hour prohibition) Southern Boronia Park, Sawtell

Lyle Rose Memorial RSL Park, Sawtell

Sawtell Surf Club - Public walkway and eastern reserve front of Club

Wonga Park, Sawtell

Toormina Skate Park (24 hour prohibition) Northern Arrawarra Beach Reserve - day picnic area (CCRP)

Emerald Beach Reserve - day picnic/playground area (CCRP)

Mullaway Beach Reserve - day picnic area (CCRP)

Ocean View Beach Reserve - day picnic area (CCRP)

Sandy Beach Reserve - day picnic/playground area (CCRP)

Woolgoolga Beach Reserve - day picnic area (9pm to 12 noon)

North Sapphire Beachfront Reserve Woolgoolga Skate park (24 hour prohibition) Corindi Beach Skate park (24 hour prohibition)


CS10/51 QUOTATION PLANT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM - SUPPLY ONE BROOM TYPE STREET SWEEPER, CONTRACT 10/11-449-QO USING LGP CONTRACT 1608-E1

Purpose: To advise Council of the result of going out to quotation for the purchase of a Street Sweeper and recommend approval to purchase in accordance with the 2010/2011 Plant Replacement Program. Description of Item: The sweeper is used by Coffs CityWorks to carry out litter removal, road maintenance and construction activities on Council’s infrastructure. It will be administered through Council’s Plant Fund, operated and maintained in accordance with general plant procedures. The sweeper is the only one of its type within CHCC and has become a standard plant item to meet Council's service grantee for road maintenance within Council. Quotes were called and closed on the 22nd October 2010 for the purchase of a new broom type street sweeper using Local Government Procurement Contract 1608-E1. Tenders were required to supply the following options:

(a) Supply with trade of Council's existing sweeper.

(b) Supply without trade.

(c) Outright purchase of Council’s existing sweeper without supplying new machines. Two conforming quotes were received for options (a) and (b) from the following:

1. Macdonald Johnston Pty Ltd.

2. Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd. No offers were received for option (c). Sustainability Assessment: Quotes for the street sweeper were called following adoption of the 2010/2011 Management plan. Sustainability issues have been considered in the specification and tender assessment, as follows Environment

Emission standards are required to be in accordance with Australian Standard ADR80-02 and European Standards, ‘Tier III’.

Service frequencies are considered as to reduce waste products such as oil and filters.

The percentage of bio fuel that the machines can operate on is a significant consideration so as to reduce Council's reliance on fossil fuels.

Noise levels.


CS10/51 - Quotation Plant Replacement Program - Supply One Broom Type Street Sweeper, Contract 10/11-449-QO using LGP Contract 1608-E1 (Cont'd) Social

A review was undertaken to determine the specific requirements for the street sweeper in the locations that it is to be operated. Council requires this capability to address the public health issues that would arise if cleaning was undertaken on a reduced frequency. The review of quotes included field performance testing to assess ergonomics, operator safety and the ability to carry out designated works

Economic Funds for the changeover have been allocated in the 2010/11 Plant Fund budget. Council's change over policy for the replacement of all plant is determined by:

o The continued need for the unit.

o The hiring of plant externally compared to the owning and operating plant items.

o Projected resale values.

o Projected repair and maintenance costs.

o Current operational downtime of the units to be replaced. Management Plan Implications Funds for the purchase have been allocated in the 2010/11 Plant Fund budget. The most advantageous method for the acquisition of a sweeper is that Council accepts the supply with trade option from the recommended supplier using the Local Government Procurement contract 1608-E1. Consultation: The quotation evaluation has included consultation with Council’s City Services, plant operators, workshop and operational staff. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Quoting procedures were carried out in accordance with Council's Purchasing Policy. Statutory Requirements: The calling, receiving, opening and reviewing of quotes was carried out in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 Part 7 tendering division 1 preliminary 163 application of part. Local Government Procurement (LGP) has been prescribed under section 55 of the Local Government Act, allowing councils to utilise supply arrangements coordinated by LGP without the need to go to tender in their own right. LGP and the Department of Commerce’s State Contracts Control Board are the two NSW entities who have this legislative requirement


CS10/51 - Quotation Plant Replacement Program - Supply One Broom Type Street Sweeper, Contract 10/11-449-QO using LGP Contract 1608-E1 (Cont'd) Issues: There are two suppliers with this type of machine in the Local Government Procurement contract 1608 E-1, both were invited to quote under this system. The Tender Value Selection System was applied to both quotes and the assessment details are contained in the attached confidential supplement. The two machines were subject to field evaluation and inspection at Council's Marcia Street Depot. Council’s sweeper operator, operational staff and workshop staff carried out the evaluation and submitted the relevant test reports accordingly. After the evaluation the recommended machine was deemed best overall package for Council's operational needs. Recommendation: That Council consider quotes received for the supply of one broom type street sweeper No. 10/11-449-QO using LGP contract 1608 – E1 and move the motion as detailed in the confidential attachment.


CS10/52 QUOTATION - PLANT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM - SUPPLY ONE CCF CLASS 10 EXCAVATOR, CONTRACT 10/11-450-QO USING LGP CONTRACT 707-2.

Purpose: To advise Council of the result of going out to quotation for the purchase of a excavator and recommend approval to purchase in accordance with the 2010/2011 Plant Replacement Program. Description of Item: The excavator will be used to carry out general maintenance and construction activities on Council’s infrastructure. It will be administered through Council’s Plant Fund, operated and maintained in accordance with general plant procedures. Quotes were called on 22nd October 2010 for the purchase of a new excavator using the Local Government Procurement Contract 7.07-2 - Supply of Heavy Plant and Equipment. Tenders were required to supply the following options:

(a) Supply with trade of Council's existing excavator.

(b) Supply without trade.

(c) Outright purchase of Council’s existing excavator without supplying new machines. Three conforming quotes were received for options (a) and (b) from the following:

1. WesTrac Pty Ltd.

2. Hitachi Construction Machinery Australia.

3. Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd. No offers were received for option (c). Sustainability Assessment: Quotes for the excavator were called following adoption of the 2010/2011 Management Plan. Sustainability issues have been considered in the specification and tender assessment, as follows Environment

Emission standards are required to be in accordance with European standards, ‘Tier III’.

Service frequencies are considered as to reduce waste products such as oil and filters.

The percentage of bio fuel that the machines can operate on is a significant consideration so as to reduce Council's reliance on fossil fuels.

Noise levels.


CS10/52 - Quotation - Plant Replacement Program - Supply One CCF Class 10 Excavator, Contract 10/11-450-QO Using LGP Contract 707-2 (Cont'd) Social

A review was undertaken to determine the specific requirement for the excavator in the Council fleet. The outcome was that Council needed to replace Council's existing unit with a smaller unit to best serve Council operations. The review of quotes included field performance testing to assess ergonomics, operator safety and the ability to carry out designated works.

Economic Funds for the changeover have been allocated in the 2010/11 Plant Fund budget. Council's change over policy for the replacement of all plant is determined by:

o The continued need for the unit.

o The hiring of plant externally compared to the owning and operating plant items.

o Projected resale values.

o Projected repair and maintenance costs.

o Current operational downtime of the units to be replaced. Management Plan Implications Funds for the purchase have been allocated in the 2010/11 Plant Fund budget. The most advantageous method for the acquisition of an excavator is that Council accepts the supply with trade option from the recommended supplier using the Local Government Procurement Contract 707-2. Consultation: The quotation evaluation has included consultation with Council’s City Services, plant operators, workshop and operational staff. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Quoting procedures were carried out in accordance with Council's Purchasing Policy. Statutory Requirements: The calling, receiving, opening and reviewing of quotes was carried out in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 Part 7 tendering division 1 preliminary 163 application of part. Local Government Procurement (LGP) has been prescribed under section 55 of the Local Government Act, allowing councils to utilise supply arrangements coordinated by LGP without the need to go to tender in their own right. LGP and the Department of Commerce’s State Contracts Control Board are the two NSW entities who have this legislative requirement.


CS10/52 - Quotation - Plant Replacement Program - Supply One CCF Class 10 Excavator, Contract 10/11-450-QO Using LGP Contract 707-2 (Cont'd) Issues: Local Government Procurement contract 707-2 was used to obtain quotations. As recommended under this process a minimum of three quotes from the contracted suppliers list was used for the required machine. The Tender Value Selection System was applied to all quotes and the assessment details are contained in the attached confidential supplement. The two highest ranked machines were subject to field evaluation and inspection. Council’s excavator operator and workshop staff carried out the evaluation and submitted the relevant test reports accordingly. After the evaluation the recommended machine was deemed best overall package for Council's operational needs. Recommendation: That Council consider quotes received for the supply of one CCF Class 10 excavator No. 10/11-450-QO using LGP contract 707-2 and move the motion as detailed in the confidential attachment. Ben Lawson Director, City Services


LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

L10/18 COFFS COAST WASTE SERVICES WASTE PROCESSING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY OPERATIONS

Purpose: To inform Council of the current status of waste processing and resource recovery operations following recent amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 and General Exemption provisions, and to seek resolutions as to the way forward. Description of Item: Coffs Harbour City Council, Bellingen Shire Council and Nambucca Shire Council operate in partnership to deliver joint waste management services and resource recovery operations under the banner Coffs Coast Waste Services (CCWS). The partnership is reinforced by a Tripartite Agreement between the three Councils, and a joint waste collection and recycling contract. CCWS provides a three-bin domestic waste collection service for organics including food waste, recyclables, and mixed waste, and processing of these streams at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and an Alternate Waste Treatment (AWT) facility to produce beneficial products. The contract for processing organics, mixed waste and biosolids was awarded to Biomass Solutions (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd in 2004. For the purposes of the Contract Biomass is referred to as the Waste Processing Contractor (WPC). The Biomass Solutions AWT facility was commissioned in two stages: Stage one – Processing of streamed Organics commenced March 2007; and Stage two – Processing of streamed Mixed waste commenced January 2008.

Under the waste processing contract streamed organics that includes food waste, green waste and biosolids are shredded and processed via an agitated composting bay process, and subsequently screened and mixed as necessary to produce “A” Grade compost that meets market and regulatory requirements. Streamed Mixed waste undergoes a process involving primary manual and mechanical sorting, autoclaving, secondary mechanical and manual separation of output fractions to produce recyclables, a screened organic fraction for reuse, and residual waste that is destined for landfilling. The sterilised organic fraction generally undergoes composting in the agitated bay system, followed by screening and mixing with other products as necessary to produce a product that met the then prevailing Biosolids Guidelines. On 24 April 2008, the NSW Government introduced amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 which took effect on 28 April 2008. The amendments, required, inter alia, that wastes including any products produced from wastes, must not be used without the benefit of a relevant General or Specific Exemption pursuant to Part 6, Clause 51 and 51A, of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.


L10/18 - Coffs Coast Waste Services Waste Processing and Resource Recovery Operations (Cont'd) These changes have created turmoil in the waste processing and resource recovery industry across NSW. Numerous AWT plants, and Councils throughout NSW have been affected, and contracts for new AWT facilities have been put on hold. Refer Attachments 1, 2, and 3. In particular the legislation was implemented without the benefit of a General Exemption with respect to AWT outputs from mixed waste. That Exemption was delayed for around two years. In January 2010, Coffs Harbour City Council, Nambucca Shire Council and Bellingen Shire Council submitted an Issues Paper to Hon. Frank Sartor, Minister for Climate Change, and the Environment. The Issues Paper highlighted the significant concerns of the councils and urged the Minister to take decisive action. In April 2010 the NSW Government released the “The organic outputs derived from mixed waste general exemption” pursuant to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 – General Exemption under Part 6, Clause 51 and 51A. The long awaited General Exemption introduced much more stringent requirements with respect to the use of AWT organic outputs for land application in terms of: processor and consumer responsibilities, chemical and other material concentrations, types of agricultural use, application rates and buffers, and sampling and testing requirements. The effect of this legislation was to significantly change the goal posts in respect to the processing of mixed waste and utilisation of beneficial organics. Sustainability Assessment: Environment

CCWS are designed to optimize recycling and resource recovery, beneficial reuse, and to minimize waste to landfill. The recovery of mixed waste organics to produce compost for land application has environmental benefits in terms of soil carbon levels, soil fertility, improved agricultural outputs, rehabilitation of sites, and avoided carbon emissions. As it stands, with the change in legal requirements and standards, processed mixed waste organics from the CCWS councils is being landfilled, that would otherwise be used for beneficial purposes.

Social

The community has demonstrated strong support for recycling and resource recovery as is evident by the high levels of recycling and low levels of contamination in the domestic green bin and yellow bin service. Surveys have demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with CCWS and the recycling and resource recovery systems.


L10/18 - Coffs Coast Waste Services Waste Processing and Resource Recovery Operations (Cont'd) Civic Leadership

Councils are obliged to provide sustainable waste services on behalf of their communities. It is important that the Bellingen, Nambucca and Coffs Harbour Councils continue to provide sustainable waste management services, recycling and resource recovery commensurate with community expectations. The change in laws has detrimentally affected numerous Councils and AWT operations across NSW. It is therefore appropriate that the Councils continue to voice concerns to the NSW Government both directly and in concert with the Local Government Association of NSW, the Waste Management Association of NSW, the AWT industry and other Councils.

Economic

The recovery of waste resources including organics reduces the quantities of waste that are directed to landfill. Landfilling is an expensive activity, more so since the introduction of the NSW governments Section 88 waste levy payment requirements. Effective from July 2009 mid north coast and north coast councils are required to pay a waste levy to the NSW government for waste that is directed to landfill. The rate for the 2010/2011 financial year is set at $20.40 per tonne. Further, NSW statute provides that the Levy is to rise cumulatively at the rate of CPI + $10 each year until 2015/16. Waste processing and the marketing and utilization of waste products generates local employment. The legislative changes in relation to mixed waste are currently resulting in reusable materials wastefully going to landfill, and therefore causing higher waste disposal costs to the councils, and additional waste levy payments to the NSW Government.

Broader Economic Implications

The impacts of the change in laws, and additional waste processing costs to satisfy the new laws needs to be fully evaluated in terms of short and long term implications taking into account sustainability criteria, the remaining 17 year contract term with Biomass Solutions, the rising Section 88 waste levy payments and landfill costs, landfill space and waste transport costs, government Policy and the legal framework now and going forward, community expectations, and projected long term waste processing costs and resource recovery rates. To this effect a consultant's brief is being prepared with a view to calling for quotations from reputable, duly qualified and experienced consultants to independently review the options being put forward by Biomass Solutions, to audit the contractors records and calculations and to provide recommendations to the Councils. It is expected that this investigation will be concluded late February 2011 and a report will be put to the Councils shortly thereafter.


L10/18 - Coffs Coast Waste Services Waste Processing and Resource Recovery Operations (Cont'd)

Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The matters discussed in this report will have financial implications in terms of the waste processing charges that will be reflected in higher annual domestic waste charges and higher gate fees at the Council’s waste disposal facilities. At this stage the financial implications have not been fully determined, however provision should be made in the 2011/2012 delivery program/operational plan and fees and charges for higher waste processing costs. At this preliminary stage allowance should be made for an increase in annual domestic waste charges attributable to this matter. Waste facility gate fees will also need to be increased by amounts to be determined.

Consultation: There has been extensive consultation, discussions and high level meetings concerning the regulatory changes and related issues, with Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), the Waste Management Association of NSW and AWT industry players. Related Policy and / or Precedents: The undertaking by the three councils to implement this integrated waste resource recovery system has been driven by NSW Policy and regulatory framework, including the Section 88 Waste Levy and the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy (updated 2007), excerpts of which are:

“Achieving a reduction in waste generation, and turning waste into recoverable resources is a priority for NSW” - NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy. “Regulatory mechanisms such as the waste and environment levy help drive waste avoidance and resource recovery by providing an economic incentive to reduce waste disposal and stimulate alternative waste technologies.” - NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy.

Statutory Requirements: Coffs Harbour City Council entered into the contract with Biomass Solutions (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd for the Coffs Harbour Regional Resource Recovery Project. Bellingen Shire Council and Nambucca Shire Council are party to the scheme by way of a binding Tripartite Agreement between the three Councils. With respect to the change of laws that has occurred the contractor argues that performance of the contract is being impeded, and is seeking relief. This matter remains the subject of legal argument and negotiation.


L10/18 - Coffs Coast Waste Services Waste Processing and Resource Recovery Operations (Cont'd) Issues: Whilst councils and the industry generally support the NSW Government’s efforts to enhance

controls regarding the use of waste materials on land or in thermal applications so as to protect the environment, the rationale for aspects of the new requirements is unfathomable, and lacks scientific basis. The effect of which is to unreasonably constrain of beneficial use of organics derived from mixed waste.

The General Exemption as gazetted introduced much more rigorous requirements than previously applied in respect to: - physical and other contaminant levels of mixed waste organics that can be land applied - sources of mixed waste that can be processed - the types of agricultural and non agricultural uses of such products - the application rates per hectare - testing and reporting requirements.

The manner in which the new regulatory requirements have been introduced by DECCW and

the NSW government has resulted in significant costs to the Coffs Coast Councils and their communities to date, that could have been largely avoided.

The requirements in respect to DECCW’s “Organic outputs derived from mixed waste General exemption” are excessively onerous and at this stage the DECCW has made no determination with regard to Biomass Solutions’ application for a Specific Exemption that pertains to the particular circumstances of local CCWS operations.

It should be noted that at this stage workable General Exemptions are in place with regard to

the Biomass’s Organics and Biosolids streams. The current impasse pertains to Biomass’s mixed waste processing stream, and similarly with other AWT operators across NSW.

Biomass advise that their current AWT mixed waste process cannot achieve the new more

rigorous product quality requirements without significant feedstock controls, and plant modifications that would entail further capital investment and increased labour and operational costs. Since the release of the General Exemption, Biomass Solutions (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd has been conducting detailed process trials and investigations, end use marketing studies and financial analysis to derive options that will conform to the new regulatory regime. In the meantime organics derived from mixed waste processing that would otherwise be applied to land are being directed to landfill.

The plant continues to process the Organics and Biosolids streams to produce high quality

compost for beneficial use, and these products are being successfully marketed. Biomass Solutions has now developed processing solutions that would achieve the new

standards, and has provided the Councils with the preliminary costs for various options. However the processing solutions require endorsement of DECCW by way of a Specific Exemption. The latter has been lodged with DECCW but is still under consideration.

These are concerns that DECCW may again change the goal posts when the current General

Exemption is up for review in 2013.


L10/18 - Coffs Coast Waste Services Waste Processing and Resource Recovery Operations (Cont'd) There is potential to beneficially use AWT organics as a fuel to produce Green Power, to

supplement feedstock requirements at large and small scale power stations, such as the Broadwater Sugar Mill and Harwood Sugar Mill, or coal-fired power stations. There are ready markets and heightened demand for AWT organics for this purpose. However DECCW has thus far prevented the use AWT organics for power generation, and has resisted industry and local government representations to unlock this market. As recently as last month, formal representations were made in this vein by the Waste Management Association of Australia to the Director General of DECCW, Lisa Corbyn, copied to the President of the Local Government Associations of NSW, Mayor Keith Rhoades.

In short the NSW government’s new regulatory requirements have significantly changed the goal posts and thus introduced major new costs to NSW Councils and their communities. Implementation Date / Priority: Over the coming months, options that are being distilled to satisfy the new regulatory requirements will be comprehensively reviewed, with the aid of independent external consultants and legal advisors. It is anticipated that a report will be presented to the Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Councils with recommendations as to the way forward, early in the new year. Recommendation: 1. Council make representations and lobby the NSW Government and DECCW, in

concert with Coffs Coast Waste Services partner Councils, the Waste Management Association of Australia, other NSW councils and the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, to seek to remedy elements of the new regulatory regime that unreasonably constrain waste resource recovery and which impose significant costs on our communities.

2. Council support the Waste Management Association of Australia in its representations to the Director General of the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, to collaboratively work to address and resolve barriers to enable the production and utilization of organic wastes for the production of renewable energy.

3. A further report be presented to Council early in the new year, with more detailed information, and independent expert advice, that will recommend the way forward for mixed waste processing to satisfy the new requirements under the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005, and Part 6, Clause 51 and 51A, of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

- 224 -

Attachments:

ATTACHMENT 1

Press Article – Inside Waste Magazine

Organic AWT outputs going to waste in NSW

Tuesday, 24 November 2009 Garth Lamb

Organic outputs from alternative waste treatment (AWT) plants are considered waste and cannot legally be applied to land in NSW until an exemption is granted through the government’s 3F “gateway” legislation. With stockpiles of useless product being landfilled, industry frustration about the regulator’s lethargic response has bubbled over. Operators claim it’s “crunch time,” and the industry will fall over unless an exemption is sorted, fast.

The Waste Management Association of Australia’s AWT DORF (derived organic rich fraction) working group was established to identify and work through the issues surrounding AWT outputs. A year ago that group submitted to government a detailed report on chemical contamination, undertaken by Hyder Consulting, which effectively found the issue was a non-event. Industry expected an exemption would be granted soon after, and products could be marketed and sold once they were no longer classified as “waste”. But while the regulator does appear convinced that chemical contamination is not a problem, it apparently remains concerned enough about physical contamination that no exemption has yet been forthcoming. The problem is, the NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water appears unable – or unwilling – to actually outline what it wants from industry to solve this impasse. It hasn’t given guidance on what it considers an acceptable level. But it hasn’t accepted industry’s proposals either. WMAA president Ron Wainberg claims the AWT DORF working group proposed “challenging” physical contamination guidelines for minesite rehabilitation uses, and even more stringent benchmarks for agricultural uses. One AWT operator told Inside Waste the guidelines are tough enough that no operators would currently meet them – but they would all be committed to working towards them, so long as the regulator actually agrees to that (or another) benchmark, rather than refusing to provide any guidance on what it expects. Of particular frustration is the fact products made from source separated organics (generally considered higher quality than those made from AWT outputs) do have a general exemption allowing them to be used. In a strange loophole, however, some material allowed through that gateway has been found with physical contamination of up to 22% - much higher than has been proposed for AWT outputs. There’s currently no legal outlet for AWT output, even if it did outperform source separate organic products. Despite several AWT facilities popping up in NSW, with more on the way, the issue of what to do with end products continues to drag on. Is the goal here to be the same as it is in Europe, where waste is treated just to stabilise it prior to landfill? That’s certainly not the outcome AWT proponents have been aiming for. Hanson’s outspoken landfill advocate Sam Bateman commonly derides AWT as “an expensive way to make something nobody wants”. As things stand in NSW, even if “they” wanted truckloads of the stuff, they wouldn’t legally be allowed to use it.

“It’s really disappointing that, despite everything that’s been going on over the last five years, we still don’t have an exemption,” said Wainberg.

- 225 -

He said it is now “crunch time” to solve the problem, especially with more councils – including Gosford – trying to tender for AWTs to help them increase resource recovery in line with the state’s 65% targets. “How can anyone enter into a financial commitment to build these things when there’s no certainty about [the outputs]?” he questions. He said the lack of progress on the AWT DORF exemption makes a mockery of the state’s public commitment to improving resource recovery, and puts in jeopardy the government’s own recycling targets: “if the exemption is not done and done soon, it will lock [the government] into failure”. Ironically, it appears the recently introduced “gateway” legislation – trumpeted by the government as a way to help improve resource recovery operations –is actually the very instrument that is causing grief for AWT operators. According to GRL’s John Lawson, “there was some regulatory uncertainty before the 3F regulations, but it was no worse for AWT composters than source separated composters”. “The EPA was issuing operations licences for AWT composting facilities, so you could see they supported the production of AWT compost to meet government waste diversion policies. “You couldn’t get formal advice on standards from the EPA (because there were none), but informally key staff would tell you that if your product could show beneficial use and it was not causing adverse environmental impacts, then it would be hard to imagine they’d successfully prosecute you for using recycled organics.” Indeed it wouldn’t have only been hard but also embarrassing for the regulator, given it would have had to have accepted the plant’s Environmental Assessment for its development approval before licensing the premises. But the problem here is not that the gateway legislation changed the playing field – it could well have changed if for the better. The problem is that DECCW has failed to provide clear advice on how the industry can secure an exemption under this “new” regime and, until it does, operators are left sitting under a dark cloud while material that many communities are willing to pay a premium to divert from landfill is ending up… in landfill.

- 226 -

ATTACHMENT 2

Press Article Sydney Morning Herald 14 January 2010

- 227 -

ATTACHMENT 3 Media Release Catherine Cusak MLC


L10/19 COFFS HARBOUR 2030 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN - COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP

Purpose: This report seeks Council endorsement to appoint members of the 2030 Community Advisory Group, as identified through an internal selection panel. It also seeks endorsement of the updated Terms of Reference for the group and confirmation of a specific nominated Councillor to be a member of the group. Description of Item: Council at its meeting of 22 July 2010 considered a report concerning the implementation stage of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan and resolved that:

1. Endorse the Project Plan – Implementation of Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan (presented as Appendix A to this report) to enable the development of a 2030 Monitoring and Reporting Plan and a council-wide Community Engagement Strategy.

2. Endorse the creation of a 2030 Community Advisory Group with functions, membership and roles as outlined in the Terms of Reference set out in Appendix B to this report.

3. Nominate a Councillor or Councillors for the 2030 Project Reference Group.

4. Nominate a Councillor or Councillors for the 2030 Community Advisory Group. To progress the formation of a 2030 Community Advisory Group (2030 CAG) applications were sought from interested members of the community. Advertising was via the existing 2030 newsletter, through advertisements in the media and through previous expressions of interest collected at various 2030 events. An internal selection panel was formed to assess the applications for the 2030 Community Advisory Group. There were a total of 23 applicants. The selection was made based on an assessment of applicants' ability to: i. Represent and consult with a diverse range of interests and backgrounds from across our

Coffs Harbour community.

ii. Represent the five themes of the 2030 Plan: Learning and prospering, Looking after our community, Looking after our environment, Moving around, Places for Living.

iii. Contribute to the roles of the group.

iv. Work in a team environment, make a contribution and share the group workload. The selection panel has identified the following 15 community members to form the 2030 CAG.

Becky Cole Scott Hollingsworth Jacob Sickinger (youth rep) Thomas Degens Sharon Poerio Tony Clegg Bryony Barber Bob Piper Jane Ireland Judy Quickenden John Donaldson Patricia Bride Lorraine Mouafi Tracey Adendorff Philip Curry Aboriginal representative


L10/19 - Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan - Community Advisory Group (Cont'd) Sustainability Assessment: The formation of the 2030 CAG is an important part of the implementation phase of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan. The fundamental purpose of the Plan is to advance social, environmental and economic sustainability through civic leadership. Environment

The membership of the 2030 CAG will seek to minimise environmental impacts of the group. The group will seek to operate in an environmentally sustainable way including minimising of waste and the use of recycled paper products.

Social

The group has the potential to have significant positive social impacts. The local community has already been closely involved in the development of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan. Extending that involvement to the implementation of the 2030 Plan through the formation of the 2030 CAG will build capacity within the community to engage in the decisions and actions that will deliver the outcomes identified in the Plan.

Civic Leadership

The membership of the group represents a diverse cross-section of civic leaders within our community i.e. those who have been, and are, involved in working with and for the community across a broad range of areas that fit the 2030 themes. The group includes youth representation. However there is currently no Aboriginal representation on the group and therefore it is recommended that a place be held open on the 2030 CAG to allow for Aboriginal representation in the future.

Economic

Broader Economic Implications

There are no broader economic implications associated with the membership of the group.

Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications The administration of the group is grant funded until February 2012. There is a small cost to Council associated with staff time to facilitate the group. Beyond February 2012 there will be a small budgetary implication associated with administration of the group.

Consultation: The members have been selected via consultation through an internal selection panel as outlined previously in this report. Related Policy and / or Precedents: Nil


L10/19 - Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Strategic Plan - Community Advisory Group (Cont'd) Statutory Requirements: There is no statutory requirement for the formation or membership of the 2030 Community Advisory Group. Issues: In order to allow for the 15 selected community members to become members of the 2030 CAG there is a need to update the Terms of Reference of the group; in particular section 3 Membership of the Group now states “Ten (minimum) community representatives to be appointed by Coffs Harbour City Council (to include youth and indigenous representatives)”. The updated Terms are included in this report (see Attachment 1). At this time there is no Aboriginal representation on the group. It is recommended that a place on the 2030 CAG be held open for an aboriginal representative to participate if they wish. In the previous report to Council of 22 July 2010 a recommendation was made that a Councillor be nominated to become a member of the 2030 CAG as per the Terms of Reference of the group. Whilst all Councillors are welcome to come to 2030 CAG meetings, it is necessary that one named Councillor is identified as being the ongoing member of the group, who can consistently attend meetings of the group. This is critical for the development of an effective group dynamic. Therefore this report recommends that whilst all Councillors can attend the meetings, that one Councillor be nominated to be the ongoing member of the 2030 CAG. Ex-officio members of the group have no voting rights as per the Terms of Reference for the group. Implementation Date / Priority: The CAG will hold its first meeting in February 2011 once members have been appointed. Recommendation: 5. That Council endorse the appointment of the identified community members to form

the 2030 Community Advisory Group.

6. That Council endorse the amended Terms of Reference of the 2030 Community Advisory Group.

7. That Council endorse the recommendation to hold one space open on the 2030 Community Advisory Group to allow for Aboriginal representation as per the Terms of Reference of the group.

8. That Council nominate a specific named Councillor to be a member of the 2030 Community Advisory Group.

- 231 -

Attachments:

ATTACHMENT 1

Proposed Terms of Reference for 2030 Community Advisory Group 1. Purpose of Group

To ensure the ongoing involvement from all sectors of the community in realising the Coffs Harbour 2030 Vision and Plan, Coffs Harbour City Council is seeking to establish a voluntary community advisory group whose members are drawn from a diverse cross-section of the Coffs Harbour community. The purpose of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Advisory Group will be to advise Council on how to maximise participation of, and action by, the community to turn the Vision and Plan into reality.

2. Functions of the Group The functions of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Community Advisory Group (CAG2030) will be to: a) Promote the community vision and the recognition of projects and community endeavours

that contribute to the achievement of the vision to the Coffs Harbour City community

b) Encourage community participation and support in delivery of the Plan by assisting the council with the design and implementation of consultation processes in subsequent stages of the project

c) Assist the council in monitoring and reporting on progress towards achievement of the Plan

d) Endeavour to faithfully represent the interests and preferences of the Coffs Harbour community rather than individual stakeholder organisations. This will ensure that the community vision remains relevant to the Council and the broader community.

3. Membership of the Group

a) The CAG2030 shall comprise of the following members:

i. Ten community representatives to be appointed by Coffs Harbour City Council (to include youth and indigenous representation)

ii. One Councillor appointed by Coffs Harbour City Council (ex-officio)

iii. General Manager or delegate nominated by the GM (ex-officio)

iv. One member of Council’s Corporate Management Team nominated by the GM (ex officio)

v. Council’s Sustainability Coordinator (ex-officio)

Ex-officio members shall not have voting rights and are not to move or second motions before the Chairperson.

Other key stakeholders can be invited to attend by the group as required by the business being considered. Other Council officers can be involved at the discretion of the GM. Such temporary members will not have voting rights.

The Council’s Sustainability Coordinator will attend meetings in order to provide continuing advice and support to the group.

b) The Chairperson will be elected from and by the majority of voting members of the advisory group on an annual basis.

- 232 -

4. Role of the Group Members

The group members are expected to: a) Act honestly and within the law at all times

b) Act in good faith and not for improper or ulterior motives

c) Act in a reasonable, just and non discriminatory manner

d) Undertake their role with reasonable care and diligence

e) Conduct their ongoing relationship with fellow group members, Council officers, Councillors and/or Council and the public with respect, courtesy and sensitivity

f) Use information in a careful and prudent manner

g) Endeavour to faithfully represent the interests and preferences of the Coffs Harbour community rather than individual stakeholder organisations at all times

h) Understand the importance of an holistic approach to the implementation of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan

5. Role of the Chairperson

a) The chairperson shall chair all meetings of the advisory group.

b) The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that the advisory group operates in an effective manner within these terms of reference.

c) The chairperson shall be available to liaise with group members, Council officers, Councillors and/or Council and may be required to attend Council meetings or briefings on occasions.

6. Role of the Council

In the implementation of the Plan, Council will have multiple roles;

a) Fostering the vision of the community as one of many organisations influencing the city’s quality of life,

b) Resourcing the advisory group and encouraging community support for the attainment of the vision and

c) Monitoring and reporting on progress in implementation of the Plan and movement towards the vision.

Council also plans to undertake community consultation from time to time to ensure that the 2030 Plan is regularly reviewed and whenever the 2030 Plan is updated.

7. Recruitment of the Group The Council or any member of the community may nominate potential candidates. Candidates can also self-nominate.

Community members will be selected based on their capacity to:

a) Contribute to the functions of the advisory group

b) Represent a broad spectrum of issues and consult with a range of stakeholders across the Council area

c) Work in a team environment, make a contribution and share the group workload

d) Focus on resolving issues

- 233 -

Community members will also be selected to represent a diverse range of interests and backgrounds from across the Coffs Harbour community.

The following procedure will be used to establish the initial members of the advisory

Group:

1. A notice will be included in the local newspapers calling for nominations.

2. Candidates will be assessed against the above listed criteria by a Council selection panel.

3. The short listed candidates may be interviewed.

4. The interviewing panel will make recommendations to the Council on the suitability of the candidate.

5. An appointment will be made where the Council supports the candidate’s nomination. 8. Terms of Appointment

a) Community representatives will be appointed for a period of two years having regard to the need to maintain continuity within the advisory group. A full recruitment process (section 7) will occur every two years. Existing members shall be eligible to nominate for additional terms.

b) The group will elect a chairperson for a one-year term. The chairperson may have up to two consecutive terms.

c) A member shall be deemed to have resigned if that member fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the advisory group. However, the advisory group may grant leave of absence for an extended period.

d) Resignations shall be submitted in writing to the Council through the chairperson.

e) The Council, as necessary will arrange reappointments and new appointments. Any vacancy on the group needs to be filled within four months.

9. Group Proceedings

a) Meetings will generally be held quarterly however in the early stages of the project they may be held more frequently if needed. Meetings will be held at the Community Village, Coffs Harbour unless otherwise resolved by the advisory group. Future meeting dates and times will be decided on at the initial meeting.

b) The advisory group shall aim to operate on a consensus model of decision-making. In the event of a vote occurring and that vote being tied, the chairperson shall, in addition to a deliberate vote, have a second or casting vote.

c) The advisory group may establish working groups for a specified purpose. Relevant key stakeholders will be consulted when establishing such a working group. Non-members may be co-opted to a working group. A member of the group shall chair such working groups. The group shall develop a statement of the role, responsibility and tasks to be achieved by the working group and the reporting procedures to be followed.

d) Council officers acting in an ex-officio capacity shall not be expected to attend working group meetings unless otherwise approved by the appropriate General Manager or Department Manager.

e) A quorum shall consist of a clear majority of the group voting members.

- 234 -

10. Administrating and Resourcing the Group

a) The Council will provide secretarial services and other resources (e.g., venue, preparation and distribution of minutes/agendas) to support the functions of the group. Secretarial services will not be provided for working groups unless otherwise approved by the appropriate General Manager or Department Manager.

The function of the group will be reviewed annually and the Council shall be provided with a report on the year's activities, including an update on the progress of the group and future recommendations for subsequent stages of the project, prior to the end of the calendar year.

- 235 -

ATTACHMENT 2


L10/20 COFFS HARBOUR CITY CENTRE PLAN INCORPORATING DRAFT COFFS HARBOUR CITY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to present the results of public exhibition of the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan documents. The report includes a summary of submissions received and issues raised by the community. A copy of all submissions has been made available for perusal by Councillors, as has the summary of matters raised. The Department of Planning’s (DoP) project team have also perused the submissions received. The draft Coffs Harbour City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011, once gazetted, will apply to the City Centre Plan area and will repeal the provisions of Coffs Harbour City LEP 2000 applying to that area. The draft Coffs Harbour City Centre Development Control Plan (DCP) will similarly apply only to the City Centre Plan area and will repeal the provisions of all current DCPs for that area. The report recommends that Council adopt draft Coffs Harbour City Centre LEP 2011 and the principle modifications prepared to draft Coffs Harbour City Centre DCP, with the amended DCP being reported to Council in February 2010. Background: The City Centre Plan applies to the following area:


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Council and DoP established the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan project in a similar process to those carried out for six other cities. The project involved the preparation of: 1. a Vision document; 2. an amending Local Environmental Plan; and 3. a Development Control Plan. The amending LEP was prepared in accordance with the Standard Instrument (LEPs) Orders (2006). Description of Item: In accordance with Council’s 12 March 2009 resolution the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan project (the three documents) were prepared to be placed on public exhibition. In November 2009, with the draft documents nearing completion, the DoP instructed Council that additional matters required resolution, this included: (a) Flooding and Sea Level Rise Impact on the City Centre

In accordance with the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005), Coastline Management Manual (1990), the updated Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) guide and in accordance with the draft NSW Coastal Planning Guideline - Adapting to Sea Level Rise, to finalise the City Centre Plan, Council was to undertake flood modelling of the 2050 and 2100 sea level rise predicted benchmarks of 40cm and 90cm to ascertain the impact of the flooding on land parcels within the City Centre Plan study area.

(b) Car Parking Provisions in the City Centre To encourage future development in the Coffs Central Business District (CBD) and to respond to the current flooding and future sea level rise, DoP suggested a reduction in car parking rates in the city centre, and requested this be investigated to assess safety and development feasibility.

(c) Contributions (CIP) More work was required on the Contributions Plan. Council was requested to follow the draft Local Development Contributions Guidelines (Part 5B) in the preparation of the draft Section 94A Development Contributions Plan for the Coffs Harbour City Centre.

Council has progressed appropriate studies and assessment to enable resolution of (a) and (b) above. With the State Government reviewing the Section 94 Contributions Plan legislation the CIP was not able to progress until this issue was resolved, and thus, the DoP determined that the CIP not progress as part of the City Centre Plan “package” of documents.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) As a result, three documents; being Vision, LEP and DCP; were prepared with input from Council and DoP and progressed to public exhibition. A Community Reference Group (CRG) was appointed by the Minister of Planning to assist with input into the preparation of the City Centre Plan. The CRG met on three occasions with the joint Council/DoP Project Team and assisted with feedback for inclusion in the draft documents. A Coffs Harbour City Council internal working group was previously established to progress the Comprehensive (Local Government Area (LGA) wide) Standard Instrument LEP. This group was also involved in the City Centre Plan to achieve a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to the review of the City Centre’s land use and development controls. A Strategic Management Plan (SMP) was prepared to set out details of changes in the new LEP and the rationale behind decisions made throughout the LEP preparation. The City Centre Plan (the three documents) was publicly exhibited from 12 August 2010 until 8 October 1010 with documents available for viewing at Council’s Administrative Building and Council’s three libraries. A free copy of the documents was available on CD and the documents were provided on Council’s website. To assist with providing simple clear information to the community, a series of four Fact Sheets and a summary brochure were prepared and freely made available to the community. A Business/Industry/Key Stakeholder Information Forum and an open Community Information Forum were held to assist with providing information on the plan to the community. These sessions were well attended, with 39 attendees at the business session and 31 attendees at the community session. Council received 391 submissions to the public exhibition. This included 212 “pro-forma” submissions. Of the submissions received 257 related to comments on land east of the railway, i.e. the Harbour. A copy of all the submissions was provided to the DoP to enable appropriate consideration, assessment and feedback. Copies of all the submissions, including a summary, matters raised and how these will be addressed, have been available in the Councillor’s Room, prior to this report being considered. The primary matters raised in submissions are addressed in the Issues section of this report. Sustainability Assessment: Any amendment to the Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan (LEP and DCP) has to address environmental, social and economic sustainability criteria.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Many of the Standard Instrument zones to be used in the City Centre Plan directly relate to existing zones in LEP 2000, others have no equivalent. Whenever possible zones were transferred to those that closely reflect existing zones but in some cases some changes to the zone nature or intent has been applied to better reflect the endorsed strategic policies of State Government and Council. In addition to previously prepared information Council and DoP have completed additional studies to identify/confirm appropriate zones for the subject lands and appropriate land uses permitted. Environment

The City Centre Plan (LEP and DCP) aims to ensure the City’s development is carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner. To do this the draft LEP and draft DCP: apply appropriate provisions for Koala Habitat; recognises appropriate zoning and control provisions for protection of riparian areas; apply appropriate protection to ecologically significant vegetation, State Environmental

Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 14 Wetlands and SEPP26 Littoral Rainforest; identify heritage items and includes provisions for culturally significant places; apply provisions for preservation of trees and vegetation; and apply provisions protecting terrestrial biodiversity. Further environmental work is being completed under the Priority Habitats and Corridors Strategy (PHACS), the Coffs Harbour Coastal Processes Hazards Definition Study and the revised Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) Study. Once these projects are completed it is expected a Planning Proposal to amend the LEP and incorporate necessary changes will be put to Council.

Social

The City Centre Plan seeks to promote equitable provision of social services and facilities for the community. This is achieved by including provisions and objectives which reflect Council’s long term strategic vision for the City as endorsed in the Our Living City (OLC) Settlement Strategy, Industrial Lands Strategy, Business Lands Strategy and the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan.

Civic Leadership

The preparation of the City Centre Plan will implement appropriate and relevant actions of the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan to achieve the following outcomes: Council has a strong and diverse local economy underpinned by sustainable business and

industry; our City is a lively and diverse place where people live, work and play; our built environment achieves sustainable living by only best practice urban design and

infrastructure development to create attractive buildings; Council has a diverse range of housing options that are affordable and adaptable for all the

community;


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd)

Coffs Harbour has urban spaces that are functional, accessible and useable by all the community to enjoy;

Coffs Harbour has integrated, accessible, eco focused transport system achieved by implementing plans and policies with cycleways, walking tracks and footpaths; and

Our transport system and road network is well maintained safe and functional. By implementing these community endorsed actions, as part of the City Centre Plan project, Council demonstrates a transparent decision making process.

Economic

The continued economic growth and development of the City is a primary aim of the City Centre Plan Vision. The process for the City Centre Plan has identified appropriate areas for proposed land uses to enable compatible development to prevail. The City Centre Plan reinforces the business hierarchy established in the endorsed OLC Settlement Strategy and Business Lands Strategy, leading to enhancement of functional smaller business centres whilst maintaining the primacy of the CBD and ensuring Council’s longer term strategic vision is achieved. Broader Economic Implications

The City Centre Plan (Vision, LEP and DCP) aims to improve our city centre area as a place to live, work and play. The aims, objectives and controls contained in the draft City Centre LEP and draft City Centre DCP seek to improve educational and employment opportunities; foster new business and industry opportunities while creating a highly livable urban place in both the built environment and public domain.

Delivery Program/Operational Plan Implications There are no immediate financial implications or impacts on Council by progressing the City Centre Plan. The implementation of a new LEP and DCP are key outcomes sought by the Council’s Delivery Program. Council’s resolution to progress the City Centre Plan will enable these outcomes to be achieved.

Consultation: Council staff have been working closely with the DoP and other Government agencies to finalise the City Centre Plan (LEP and DCP). Section 62 Consultation with Government agencies has been carried out and relevant matters raised have been incorporated into the City Centre Plan (LEP and DCP).


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Community consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act and Council’s Community Consultation Plan for the project has been carried out. Additionally, consultation with the Minister’s Community Reference Group has added further input into the project. A number of briefings with elected Councillors have been held, several with representatives of the DoP City Taskforce Team in attendance. Related Policy and / or Precedents: The draft Coffs Harbour City Centre LEP has been prepared in accordance with the Standard instruments (LEPs) Orders 2006, the EPA Act and Regulations. All statutory requirements of these instruments have been complied with. The City Centre Plan is consistent with the Strategic contents established in State, regional and local policy (including land use patterns and local character). The City Centre Plan is consistent with: the NSW State Plan; Mid North Coast Regional Strategy; SEPPs; the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan; the OLC Settlement Strategy; the Coffs Harbour Industrial Lands Strategy; and the Coffs Harbour Business Lands (Employments Lands) Strategy. Statutory Requirements: The City Centre Plan is consistent with: The DoP Standard Instrument (LEPs) Orders (gazetted March 2006, amended September

2006 and July 2008); Mid North Coast Regional Strategy; Various Ministerial 117 Directions; and Planning Practice Notes issued by the DoP. Issues: The following section addresses the major matters raised in the community consultation and Section 62 Government agency consultation process. The issues are related to the relevant component of the City Centre Plan, i.e. Vision, LEP or DCP. Vision Document General

Eight submissions totally supported the “Vision” for Coffs City Centre; Five submissions requested that the Vision document needs to include the Harbour area

into the Key Actions section and into Section 2.



Comments As the Harbour is subject to the endorsed Plan of Management (PoM), the eventual development will be guided using that document rather than the City Centre Plan Vision.

City Centre Plan does not fulfill principles of Vision document seeking urban consolidation and healthier living

This matter was raised in a group (JAG) submission and in 188 pro-forma letters.

Comment on Urban Consolidation: The City Centre Plan Vision reflects the Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan and the strategies provided in the OLC Settlement Strategy of higher density living (urban consolidation). This is achieved by: (i) providing higher density living around the three activity nodes of the CBD, the Jetty Strip

and Park Beach Plaza/Homebase; (ii) the highest density residential zones are located within 400 metres of the CBD; (iii) a higher density zone is proposed to replace currently lower density residentially zoned

land between the CBD and Jetty Strip; (iv) residential development above commercial/business zones of the CBD and Jetty are

actively permitted and encouraged; (v) appropriate Floor Space Ratios (FSRs) and heights are proposed to enable development

of the higher density zones. Comment on Healthy City The Vision (and City Centre Plan) does encourage healthier living by: (i) providing opportunities to create additional cycleway links; (ii) ensuring access to community facilities is maintained; and (iii) by preserving open space beaches and biodiversity in appropriate zones.

Public Transport not included in Vision

Comments The Vision provides ideas for strategic development of the City Centre Plan. Provision of “public transport”, while desirable, is ultimately in the jurisdiction of the State Government. No commitment to provision of public transport can be given outside metropolitan areas.

The Vision does not address Transit Oriented Design (TOD) Comments Currently Council has to address planning and development matters in accordance with prevailing legislation, State and Local Government policy. While consideration of TOD may be appropriate, Council is required to accord with statutory provisions.



Some principles embodied in the City Centre Plan do reflect the TOD ideology with increased business/activity nodes having increased residential densities, FSRs and heights – these are achieved in areas adjacent the CBD, Jetty Strip and adjacent Park Beach Plaza.

There is a perceived diminishing of public open space Comments The City Centre Plan does not provide any reduction of land currently zoned for public open space purposes.

Vision ignores community aspirations voiced in previous Harbourside proposals Comments The City Centre Plan, in particular the draft City Centre LEP, simply reflects the outcomes, objectives and permitted uses of the State Government’s 2008 approved PoM for this precinct. The draft City Centre LEP can not be inconsistent with that document.

Vision lacks cultural initiatives despite a strong multicultural community Comments The City Centre Plan Vision provides goals and actions that will assist in facilitating “cultural” aspects, e.g. public parks being “celebrated” through art installations, providing better access to Coffs Creek; Brelsford Park supporting recreational, cultural and sporting facilities.

Consultation process inadequate Comments Plan exhibition was carried out for a two month period, newspaper advertorial and media releases were used to notify the plan to the public and information sessions were held. Consultation was carried out in excess of the requirements of the EPA Act and Regulations.

LEP Document

The following are the significant matters, relating to the draft LEP, raised in submissions. Because of the legislative nature of preparing an LEP, submissions relating to the draft LEP have been further summarised and addressed in a table to accompany the Section 68 report to DoP. This summary is also available in the Councillor’s room and provides more details about submissions and how they have been assessed and addressed.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Technical changes to draft LEP required by Department of Planning’s Head Office

Comments Feedback has been received from various Departments in DoP’s head office that some clauses (such as design excellence) and some objectives (such as those protecting the primary commercial core of the CBD) should be removed from the Standard Instrument LEP for the whole LGA prior to exhibition of that document. This would also have been required for the draft City Centre LEP. After much discussion, DoP has agreed that these clauses and objectives may be retained for the City Centre Plan, after justification by Council staff. However, Council cannot control whether these items are retained by Parliamentary Counsel prior to gazettal of the draft City Centre LEP.

B6 Enterprise Corridor along Pacific Highway

Comments A number of submissions questioned the addition of a B6 zone along the Pacific Highway, whereas other submissions agreed to the zone, but said it was too restrictive and should allow significantly more development. It is considered that, with a balance of submissions received, that use limitations to be built into the draft LEP and draft DCP will be appropriate for this location. The issue of permissibility for shops within the Bailey Centre area (as mapped in Schedule 3 of LEP 2000) is being further investigated with the DoP to ensure shops remain permissible in this location.

Development in Foreshores area east of Railway Line

Comments Many submissions were opposed to development east of the railway line for tourist or residential development. However, planning controls have been formulated to reflect what is currently permissible under the approved State Government PoM.

Strong opposition to development of Brelsford Park – total building coverage should not

exceed 20% Comments The draft LEP proposes an RE1 Public Recreation zoning for the Brelsford Park site, this is equivalent to the current (LEP 2000) open space zoning for this site and is the most appropriate template zone for the site. The range of land uses are limited to those listed in the Land Use Table to the draft LEP – these are considered appropriate. Council has resolved that, subject to further investigation regarding the location of a regional skate facility, the current Masterplan for Brelsford Park be reviewed prior to the commencement of the next stage of planned capital works. This Masterplan process is separate to the provisions of this draft LEP. The draft DCP will be amended to include a reference to site coverage on Brelsford Park.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Heights Proposal

Comments Heights proposed under the Height of Buildings map of the draft LEP would appear to be a significant issue within the community. Proposed height limits for the sites at Ocean Parade, Corrambirra Quarry/East of Railway, Arthur Street East and West, Jetty Strip, ‘Highrise’ development (generally), and ‘O’ height limit for general Jetty area (residential) have been challenged within public submissions on their potential for view impact and overshadowing. It is likely that some of this concern may be related to a lack of understanding regarding the transition from storeys to metres and from eave height to total building height under the draft LEP. People are also generally opposed to ‘high-rise development’ however this is necessary within the city core to facilitate urban consolidation to support future population growth. The balance of submissions support consolidation within the established city centre area. Ocean Parade: The heights at Ocean Parade have been increased within Park Beach area of the draft LEP and many submission makers have objected to this. DoP’s Urban Design Team modelled this area and are satisfied there won’t be unacceptable overshadowing issues. Corrambirra Quarry: Whilst there were a significant number of submissions that objected to the 22 metre height limit, there were also a number of respondents who agreed the site would benefit from development of an international hotel type development allowed under Schedule 1. DoP and Council staff referenced height for this site directly from the existing, minister endorsed, PoM for the site. This was a specific instruction from DoP and Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA), that existing provisions of the PoM be retained. On this basis, no change is warranted. Jetty Area east of railway generally: DoP and Council staff referenced height for this area directly from the existing, minister endorsed, PoM for the site. On this basis, no change is warranted. Arthur Street East: DoP’s Urban Design Team is confident that heights proposed in this area will be acceptable. A section on view sharing for assessment at the development application (DA) stage will be added to the draft DCP. Arthur Street West: It is considered that this area is consistent with the surrounding height limit to achieve densities proposed in the Plan and Vision. No change proposed to draft LEP. Jetty Strip and general Jetty Area: Submissions related to both heights at the rear of the existing restaurant strip on the south side of Harbour Drive, as well as heights on lands north of Harbour Drive and west of Orlando Street. DoP’s Urban Design Team is confident that heights proposed in this area will be acceptable. A section on view sharing for assessment at the DA stage will be added to the draft DCP. With regard to the Forestry site, a design competition applies. Development will be checked against items in the design excellence clause. It is also proposed to add a cross–section to Figure 8.6 of the draft DCP to require overshadowing to be addressed at DA stage.



Heights around the CBD’s City Square: It is considered that sufficient controls have been built into the draft LEP in this location to ensure solar access to outdoor dining and public domain areas in this locality. Former base hospital: The submission requests no more than two storey development in this location. It is considered that this is inappropriate, given the medium density zoning and surrounding development and permissibilities to the east and west of the site. Council staff have been guided by the Urban Design Taskforce team members with regard to height issues in various locations. Concerns, particularly in view sensitive locations like the Jetty can be addressed with the preparation of shadow diagrams and view impact analysis to illustrate the extent of impacts. This will be incorporated into the provisions of the draft DCP, rather than requiring amendments to the draft LEP.

Zoning of Richmond Drive site – environmental and recreation value

Comments This site is presently zoned for medium-high density residential purposes under LEP 2000; the proposed R3 Medium Density zoning reflects this entitlement as the appropriate equivalent standard instrument zone. The Arthur Street East area is not subject to any mapped environmental restrictions and is presently already zoned for Medium-High Density Development under LEP 2000. Any DA lodged in relation to this plan will be subject to the Environmental Management Section of the draft DCP and heads of consideration under Section 79c of the EPA Act which will require applicants to address environmental considerations. Given that the site is currently vacant a few submissions suggested that development of this site would remove an area of open space – from the aerial photography there appears to be a number of informal tracks through the site that provide connectivity to the foreshore. The site is privately owned land and has not been zoned for open space purposes and there is no justification for the site to be retained as such.

City Hill – Zone for Special Uses and Environmental Protection, protect cultural value,

and use site for provision of performance centre, promote uses consistent with existing cultural functions Comments City Hill zonings are equivalent to what currently exists under LEP 2000 (Amendment No. 21). It is pre-emptive to change the zone before the final use of the various components of the land are determined. Similarly, once ground truthing of vegetation is completed under the PHACS project, it may be appropriate to zone part of the land E2, via a planning proposal at a future date.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Opposition to Council preparation of two separate LEPs for the Coffs Harbour LGA

Comments Council staff has requested that the two Standard Instrument draft LEPs (Coffs Harbour City Centre LEP and LGA wide LEP) be progressed from this point as a single comprehensive LEP for the whole LGA. However DoP has not agreed to this request stating that they require delivery of the draft City Centre LEP as soon as possible.

Opposed to residential zoning for Walter Morris Close and land near Burke Street which

fronts Park Beach Road Comments The zoning of this location was considered by both Council and the DoP as part of the draft City Centre LEP preparation process in response to request for business zoning, it was also informed by the findings of the Coffs Harbour Business Lands Strategy. The tourist residential zoning in this location was proposed to be retained as R1 General Residential zone in lieu of insufficient demand for additional commercial land stocks. However, given the nature of existing uses on the land, Council staff would not object to extending the B2 zone to just the Walter Morris Close location (two lots), as a minimal extension of the B2 zone, to reflect the existing uses at the site the draft LEP maps have been modified accordingly. However it is not considered appropriate to rezone the other two lots in isolation, nor is it appropriate to wholly extend the B2 zone to either Burke Street or to the public reserve to the east, as this would undermine the integrity of the R1 and B2 zone.

FSR and height in Park Beach Plaza additional Office Floorspace/Homebase needs to be relaxed to allow future development Comments The proponent for this site has attached a Masterplan for Park Beach Plaza with their submission to illustrate the rationale for increased FSRs and height. Review and formal response to this Masterplan is requested by reflecting its contents in amendments to the draft LEP. The Masterplan shows heights of 15 metres for the medium term period to allow a Myers development to be built, with 25 metres heights in the longer term (2030) to allow for three additional layers of car parking. After consideration of the Park Beach Plaza Masterplan submission the DoP and Council team consider the most appropriate option to accommodate future short term development of the site would be to allow a 15.5 metre height limit and a 1:1 FSR. With regard to the request for additional office space in the Homebase location, it is not considered appropriate that the existing office facility there be expanded by another 2000m2, as this will create further competition with office space provisions in the city centre core.



Discussions with Council staff and DoP during the preparation of Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses within the comprehensive Standard Instrument LEP, has revealed that the Homebase site has already been built to the maximum 5000m2 of office space which is listed in Schedule 1 of the City Plan. Therefore, Item 1 can be deleted from Schedule and the site removed from the Additional Permitted Uses map.

Use of FSR is not in the best interest of future good development Comments A number of submissions objected to the introduction of FSR provisions on the basis that it would constrain the ability to provide attractive site based design; Council’s existing development control plans generally do not impose FSR restrictions. Development in other regional centres and major towns is controlled with use of FSRs and as it is a component of the Standard LEP Regulation, Council need to include provisions on FSRs. DoP’s Legal Team have advised Council may need to revise the wording of this clause. Council staff are currently working towards this.

Opposed to development of Beryl Street for Court House Police and public administration building Comments Council considers that the identified site for redevelopment of the State public administration building is not ideal or desirable and would more appropriately be located within the CBD area, however, the State Government has expressed that it is unable to locate land suitable for the facility within the existing CBD core and has requested Council to make provision for the development on this site under the draft LEP. To address this, the site was listed as Item 4 in Schedule 1 of the draft LEP, with height and FSR for the site on the relevant maps. A minor mapping error on the Height of Building map for the site boundary requires correction and it is now considered more appropriate to include additional height and FSR in the Schedule rather than on the map in case the development does not proceed. The draft LEP has been modified to provide for these changes.

Midway Motel site Comments A proposed development concept Masterplan for the site was lodged with Council for consideration that the draft LEP and draft DCP be modified to allow for development in accordance with the Masterplan. Items included office, serviced apartments, and function centre.



This Masterplan was presented to Council at a Councillor briefing on 24 November 2010. It was explained that the landowner has three possible options to proceed to a DA at this time (lodgement of a DA immediately to comply with provisions of LEP 2000, lodgement of a Part 3A DA with DoP because of its size in proximity to the coastal zone, and delayed lodgement of a DA once the City Centre Plan is completed, to comply with provisions of that Plan). If the developer still wishes to proceed with the concept as shown on their Masterplan this should be via a planning proposal to allow proper assessment of environmental and design issues at the site.

Bray Street Complex Comments

This submission states that the Bray Street Complex does not relate to other uses along the B6 Enterprise Corridor, and requests that a B2 Local Centre zone be provided. It also notes that entertainment facilities are prohibited in the draft Plan. Objective (a) of the B6 zone encourages a mix of compatible uses, Objective (b) allows for a range of employment uses (including business and retail uses) as part of a mixed use development. This is considered a very appropriate zone for the location based on uses which already exist on the site. The applicant has requested a B2 zone (not appropriate as it is severed from Park Beach Plaza by the Pacific Highway and State Rail line), a B4 zone (not considered appropriate as this zone is set up in the Business Lands Strategy hierarchy as being used in the Jetty, Sawtell and Woolgoolga locations as main street uses) and a B5 zone (not appropriate for bulky goods as the site is severed from the B5 zone to the north by the Railway Line and the adopted Industrial Strategy says that Homebase is the only appropriate location for the B5 zone north of the City Centre). Enterprise facilities were omitted from the Land Use Table, and should have been included. The draft LEP Land Use Table has been amended to ensure that entertainment facilities are permitted with consent in the B6 zone.

Seeking rezoning for commercial purposes (Lots 10, 11 and 1 corner Hogbin Drive,

Harbour Drive and Glenreagh Street, Coffs Harbour) Comments This property is proposed to be zoned R3 in the City Centre Plan to continue the Jetty zone to link to the CBD and to provide for medium density housing. The submission requests development for an office type node. This development would conflict with the primacy of the CBD for office/commercial development and is inconsistent with Council’s Business Lands Strategy in this regard. Other issues raised of noise conflict for residential land uses are considered no different for the surrounding properties. It is possible to address such concerns through design and physical attenuation mechanisms. It is not considered appropriate to introduce a further isolated pocket of business zoning in a large R3 zone.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Seeking rezoning for commercial purposes (7 Earl Street, Coffs Harbour)

Comments: This property is proposed to be zoned R4 in the City Centre Plan. The landowner has requested a rezoning for similar business purposes to those which surround his property. However businesses listed on the eastern side of Earl Street will be permissible in the R4 zone (community facilities and health consulting rooms), and businesses on the western side of Earl Street are already zoned Mixed Use and will be included in the B4 zone. Therefore it is not appropriate to further extend the B4 zone east along Albany Street. It is considered Earl Street is an appropriate termination point to the zone.

Lots 8 & 9, Section D, DP17053 located at 83 Ocean Parade Comments This submission proposes that equal height restrictions of 40 metres and FSR 3 be applied to the site and Park Beach North so as to provide a distinctive and balanced gateway. Park Beach Road provides an appropriate location for a separation between tall buildings. Land uses north of Park Beach Road have been proposed to be increased to blend with the existing height of Pacific Towers. It is not appropriate to extend this further to the south. It is true that this site previously shared the same height as the property adjoining to the north under Park Beach DCP. The height proposed in the draft LEP is consistent with the height currently permitted for the land. No change to the draft LEP is proposed.

Government Agency Comments The submissions received from Government agencies are addressed as below: RailCorp

Issues Supports B4 zone for RailCorp’s land. Supports 15.5 metre maximum height of RailCorp’s land. Request RailCorp land to be contained in a single character precinct in DCP. Request DCP be amended to remove reference on page 81 to “Railway land – possible

future development”. Comment Relevant changes made to draft DCP.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Land and Property Management Authority

Issues raised in submission Support IN4 zoning but seek inclusion of additional permissible uses as per PoM. Support W3 zoning but seek inclusion of additional permissible uses as per PoM.

Comments DoP has issued drafting advice on wording for items in the draft LEP. It is considered that the draft LEP adequately addresses land uses, and that other items could be considered ancillary to the listed items. As such no amendment is proposed to the land use tables. Additionally SEPP (Infrastructure) allows all items included in the PoM on Crown Land to be undertaken without the consent of Council.

Support SP2, but concern over complexity from Schedule 1 overlays overlaying SP2 sites.

Comments It is inappropriate to extend the SP2 zones, and inappropriate to extend these land uses in the RE1 zone across the LGA. Therefore use of Schedule 1 in this manner for these sites is considered appropriate. Regardless, development in accordance with the PoM will not trigger a DA.

Support RE1 zoning but seek inclusion of signage and car parking as additional permitted

uses.

Comments

Signage and car parking are able to be developed using SEPP (Infrastructure) without the consent of Council.

Schedule 1 – support inclusion of sites 2 and 3 and additional uses however no definition of

Port Activities as distinct from Port Facilities – this needs clarification. Comments DoP has issued drafting advice on wording for items in Schedule 1. It is considered that the draft LEP adequately addresses land uses, and that other items could be considered ancillary to the listed items. Port facilities - Coffs Harbour Port is not a designated Port under the Ports and Maritime

Administration Act and so the definition does not apply to port activities in Coffs Harbour.

Comments

DoP is aware of this issue with definitions and is seeking to make amendments either through the SEPP (Infrastructure) or the Standard Instrument at a later date. The Standard Instrument definitions cannot be changed. Regardless, port activities can be undertaken in accordance with an approved PoM.



Height limits generally accord but limiting maximum FSR and height may be problematic for assessing development proposal and viability.

Comments

Development in accordance with the PoM will not require consent of Council. Inclusion of FSR and Height maps would simply be triggered for development for any items not included in the PoM. Three heritage sites in Schedule 5, but LPMA consider the extent of heritage mapping is

unnecessary. Suggest the area mapped should be reduced.

Comments

It is acknowledged that Heritage Item 11 boundary area is larger than the tram lines and buried trestle bridge listed as heritage. The SEPP (Infrastructure) allows development to proceed consistent with the PoM without reference to Council. However, should development be proposed outside of the PoM, this clause would be triggered. This is considered appropriate.

Disagree with extent of biodiversity mapping.

Comments The SEPP (Infrastructure) allows development to proceed consistent with the PoM without reference to Council. However, should development be proposed outside of the PoM, this clause would be triggered. This is considered appropriate.

LPMA does not support use of RE2 zones over Crown land which is public land and is not

appropriate for surf clubs.

Comment

DoP has advised this is procedurally the correct approach.

Draft land use strategy has been prepared for showground and further discussions are required.

Comments

The showground PoM was not provided to Council as a submission to the City Centre Plan, however it is now available. The draft LEP accords generally with the draft PoM for the Showground. It is noted that the IN1 zone in the PoM is slightly larger, however it is considered more appropriate to broaden the zone via a planning proposal at a future date if the land is no longer needed for public use.

Relating to 20 Moore Street:

- Requests FSR for entire site be amended to 4.5:1. - Requests height provisions for entire site be amended to 40 metres. - Supports making site a “key site”. - Supports proposed B3 Commercial Core zoning.



Comments

20 Moore Street sits within a locality proposed as 1.8:1 FSR and Height of Buildings 15.5 metres and within a R3 zone. It is not considered appropriate to amend height and FSR provisions for this lot in isolation from its surroundings.

Relating to Corner Beryl Street and Pacific Highway:

- Site identified as preferred site for Coffs Harbour Government Services Precinct (Court House, Police Station and Government Agency office accommodation).

- Request clarification/confirmation that Council KPoM does not apply to subject land. - Inappropriate for Court House and Police Station to accord with draft DCP Clause 3.3

Building Depth and Bulk; request inclusion of a provision in draft LEP or draft DCP to specifically exclude Beryl Street site from requirements of Clause 3.3 or provide exclusion clause for uses such as Court Houses and Police Stations.

Comments This site is not adjacent to the city centre, so is not appropriate to zone it from R3 to B3. Council’s existing Koala PoM applies to all lands within the Coffs Harbour LGA. Clause 3.3 of the draft LEP relates to Exempt and Complying Development. The courthouse and Police Station will be developed using the SEPP (Infrastructure) provisions, therefore there is no need to exclude Clause 3.3 from applying to this site. In any case, Clause 3.3 is part of the Standard Instrument as gazetted. Relating to Lot 1, DP 1097861, Orlando Street, supports proposed FSR and heights. TS Vendetta site is a key site for development yet FSR and Building Height maps don’t

seem to apply. Comments The draft LEP has reflected the contents of the PoM in relation to the TS Vendetta site (height of buildings proposed at 5.4 metres, no FSR required). Development in accordance with the PoM will not require consent of Council. Inclusion of FSR and Height maps would simply be triggered for development for any items not included in the PoM.

Solitary Island Marine Park/Marine Park Authority Issues raised in submission Plan needs to adequately address impacts of climate change.

Comments Additional flood and climate change modelling was prepared as part of the City Plan process – guidelines for development to respond to flooding and climate change levels are detailed under Section 6.9 Design Response to Developments in Flood Affected Areas of the draft DCP. Council considers the existing provisions are sufficient in this regard.



As stated previously, further work on coastal hazards for the length of the LGA is currently being prepared by Council’s City Services Department, it is necessary that this work be subject to separate public consultation and endorsed by the elected Council prior to being incorporated into the draft LEP. It has been agreed that once this work is finalised Council will incorporate the final coastal hazards ‘line’ and associated clauses via a planning proposal amendment to the draft LEP.

Ensure riparian vegetation is maintained along Coffs Creek by providing room for a

recession zone of the riparian area as sea levels rise.

Comments Draft model Clause 6.13 addressed development within 40 metres of the top of bank of Coffs Creek. It is considered that this provision will ensure riparian vegetation is maintained along Coffs Creek. Additional studies (Coffs Harbour Coastal Hazards Definition Study, PHACS and KPoM) being prepared and their outcome will be integrated through Planning Proposal process. The draft LEP/DCP is not the major criteria used to determine State land tenure/location selected by the relevant agencies.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

Issues raised in submission It is pertinent to include reference within aims to potential impact of climate change.

Comments

Aim 2(d) of the draft LEP references “responsible sustainable management and conservation of...natural and environmentally sensitive areas.” It is considered that this encompasses the issue of climate change and that it does not need to be separately referenced as an aim of the Plan. Clause 6.8, Objective 1(b) recognises climate changes issues for consideration at the DA stage. Furthermore, further work on coastal hazards for the length of the LGA is currently being prepared by Council’s City Services Department, it is necessary that this work be subject to separate public consultation and endorsed by the elected Council prior to being incorporated into the draft LEP. It has been agreed that once this work is finalised Council will incorporate the final coastal hazards ‘line’ and associated clauses via a planning proposal amendment to the draft LEP.

Recommend “Little Muttonbird Island” be zoned E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves.

Comments

It is not appropriate to zone ‘Little Muttonbird Island’ E1, as it sits outside of the Mean Low Water Mark (MLWM), which is the eastern most extremity of the Coffs Harbour City LGA boundary.



Concern with Items 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 and the additional uses specifically allowed/permitted east of the railway line or lands to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation.

It is not desirable to have a permitted height of 11 metres in Area 2 or a height of 8.5 to 22 metres in Area 3 due to these areas being in close proximity to the harbour and Muttonbird Island Nature Reserve.

DECCW recommend that hotel, motel or serviced apartments should not be permitted in areas zoned W4 Working Waterways or the Jetty Foreshore area to be zoned RE1 located on the eastern side of the railway line.

Comments

DoP and Council staff referenced Items 2 and 3 of Schedule 1, as well as building heights, plus tourist and visitor accommodation, directly from the existing, minister endorsed, PoM for the site. This was a specific instruction from DoP and LPMA, that existing provisions of the PoM be retained. It is therefore not desirable to remove them from the Schedule or Land Use Table or to adjust the Height of Buildings map.

“Earthworks” should always require consent in environmentally sensitive areas or “E” zones

– suggest broadened definition of “environmentally sensitive areas” and a clarification of “earthworks of a minor nature” in dictionary.

Comments

Council is not able to adjust the Standard Instrument dictionary. Clause 2.6C requires consent for earthworks in all zones that are not exempt development or of a minor nature. However, it is recommended that the draft DCP include a reference to what constitutes earthworks of a minor nature.

Request additional objectives be included in R1, R2, R3 and R4 zones – relating to

ecologically sustainable development, development compatible with flood risk and consideration to climate change and sea level rise.

Need to insert objectives relating to ESD, hazard management, energy and water efficiency, flood risk and climate change in B1, B2, B3, B4 and B4 and IN1 zones.

Comments

DoP protocol does not endorse additional objectives in each of the residential and business zones for various types of environmental considerations. These matters are instead addressed via Aim 2(d) and various clauses in Parts 5 and 6 of the draft LEP. It is considered they are adequately addressed in this manner.

Protection of visual qualities of the foreshore.

Comments

Protection of visual qualities of the foreshore is addressed by Clause 5.5 of the draft LEP, where development consent is required. Much development within the foreshores area is able to be undertaken by the LPMA in accordance with their approved PoM without the consent of Council.



Suggest “environmental facilities” and environmental protection works should require consent in SP1, SP2 and SP3 zones.

Comments

These items are listed as requiring consent.

Consider that native vegetation should be zoned environmental protection. Current public

uses in these areas should be zoned E2 or E3 and privately held areas E4. Recommend extensive native vegetation remnants be zoned in an E zone. Core koala habitat and EECs should be zoned E2 or E3. Recommend forested area of City Hill be zoned E2.

Comments

Council’s biodiversity officers have advised there are no EECs located within the foreshores area. As stated earlier, once ground truthing of vegetation is completed under the PHACS project, it may be appropriate to zone part of the land E2, via a planning proposal at a future date. This same process applies for City Hill and all other localities within the City Centre Plan area.

Suggest 50m buffers to Coffs Creek where existing building line allows, and this be zoned

E2.

Comments

Rather than zoning 50 metres environmental protection zones along the bank of Coffs Creek, Council has chosen to utilise a model clause in the draft LEP (Clause 6.13) which will act as a ‘heads of consideration’ at the DA stage for all development within 40 metres of the top of the bank of Coffs Creek.

Supports exclusion of exempt and complying development from environmentally sensitive

areas but suggests broader definition be included in dictionary. Clause 3.3(2)(h) should include all land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act

including land to which Part 11 of that Act applies. Clause 3.3 should apply to other formal areas set aside for conservation e.g. under a PVP

or formal biodiversity offsets. Additional clauses should be included relating to protection of steep slopes, land subject to

coastal erosion or instability and exclude them from exempt and complying development.

Comments

Council is not able to adjust the Standard Instrument dictionary. Similarly, Council is not able to amend Clause 3.3 as it is gazetted in the Standard Model Instrument, or to add additional matters such as steep slopes to the list of exemptions.

Need to provide a footnote in the draft LEP referencing DECCW’s “Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (April 2010)”.



Comments

The Standard Instrument LEP does not allow reference to other instruments. However, this note can be added to an appropriate location of the draft DCP.

Concern that Bush Fire Hazard Reduction clause could be interpreted as permitting for

hazard reduction without consent, according a footnote should be inserted to reflect Section 100C(4) of the Act.

Comments

The bushfire hazard reduction clause is a compulsory Standard Instrument clause. Council is not permitted to make edits to this clause, or to add footnotes.

Suggest use amended clause relating to climate change on new and existing development

on flood prone land.

Comments Council has used the standard model clause provided by DoP for flooding. It is not permitted to amend the clause. It is Council’s understanding DECCW and DoP are working together to address this issue on a Statewide basis to address this in the Standard Instrument.

Recommend Core Koala Habitat, EECs, threatened species (koala and shorebird (and

wildlife corridors be included in E zones. Natural Resources overly may be more useful for areas of potential high conservation value

but that are too small or fragmented for an E zone.

Comments Again, once ground truthing of vegetation is completed under the PHACS project to determine the location of core koala habitat and EECs, it will be appropriate to zone these E2 (except in the location of public open space areas, which will retain an RE1 zone), via a planning proposal at a future date. Council would prefer to ensure the zone boundaries are correct.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

Issues raised in submission The City Centre Plan should provide clear indication of whether the land is “excluded land”

and thus exempt from the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

Comments

Excluded land is as defined in the Native Vegetation Act.

Support mapping of Natural Resource/Biodiversity Areas and recommends active management for biodiversity conservation.

Supports zoning of land adjoining Coffs Creek and Brodie Drive to E2. Recommend Council audit conservation values within reserves and develop and implement

management plans with CMA to achieve long term biodiversity outcomes.



Comments The PHACS process will provide the audit suggested and outcomes of that process can be added via a planning proposal.

Department of Housing Issues raised in submission Despite flooding issues recommends Bray Street Precinct is suitable for lower scale

medium density residential development with 11 metre height limit and an R1 zone may be appropriate.

Comments Council cannot, in accordance with Section 117 Directions increase the development capacity of lots within the vicinity of Bray Street prior to the submission of information demonstrating consideration of flood levels and risk. Council is prepared to consider such studies in the form of a planning proposal at some future date should the Department of Housing provide such information.

The draft LEP and draft DCP do not include specific objectives or measures addressing the

need for affordable housing. Comments The inclusion of specific housing affordability objectives was sought at Section 62 stage, whilst there is limited scope for additional objectives to be included within the draft LEP, this may be achievable within the draft DCP, whilst this is evidently the intent of 7.2 Housing Choice and Mix, some additional mention of housing affordability will be included to address this concern.

NSW Rural Fire Service Issues raised in submission RFS does not support development of home based child care, without consent in R1, R2,

R3, R4, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B5, IN1 and SP3 zones as proposed in draft LEP unless they comply with Special Fire Protection Purpose requirements of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

Site 4 (252 Pacific Highway) is bush fire prone on Coffs Harbour Bush fire Prone Maps and therefore development will be required to comply with Section 79BA of the EPA Act 1979 or Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

No issues with City Vision document or draft City Centre DCP. Comments Provision of Special Fire Protection to be referenced in draft DCP.



Department of Planning – Heritage Branch Issues raised in submission Wholly support heritage initiatives included in the draft LEP. Only wish to be contacted if amendments are made as a result of submissions, which may

have adverse effects on heritage issues. Comment Noted

NSW Maritime

Issue raised in submission Do not intend to make a submission regarding draft LEP/DCP at this time. Comment Noted

Civil Aviation Safety Authority Issues raised in submission Section 6.14 should be expanded to include clause for protection of Air Services

Procedures for Air Navigation Systems – Operations Surfaces. Should provide clause for protection of navigation aids and tower.

Comment

The standard model clause has been amended to address CASA’s concerns regarding protection of their navigation systems.

Any development subject to lighting limitations.

Comment This will be added to provisions in draft DCP.

Any development which may result in an increase in bird activity should be subject to

Airport Bird and Animal Hazard Management Program.

Comment This will be added to provisions in draft DCP.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Roads and Traffic Authority

Issue raised in submission Requests that roads are permissible without consent in SP2 Infrastructure zones.

Comments This request is completely contrary to advice received from the RTA prior to exhibition of the City Centre LEP (letter dated 8 July 2010, IR2558399). At that time, Council was specifically requested to zone roads permissible with consent in the SP2 zone, since it was recognised by RTA that works undertaken by RTA or its consultants would be permissible without consent under provisions of SEPP Infrastructure, and requiring consent would then ensure any private access points would need approval.

DCP Document The major matters raised in submissions, relating to the draft DCP, are addressed below: Request for FSR to be defined in glossary to draft DCP

Comment Floor Space Ratio is defined in Clause 4.5 of the draft LEP – this will be reproduced in the draft DCP glossary for ease of use.

Housing Choice 7.2 (10% studio apartment requirement in a development) is unfeasible and counterproductive. Claims that the market wants three bedroom and two bedroom/office apartments Comment The 10% or 1 dwelling requirement for studio apartments was introduced to support an element of housing affordability, this will be more clearly reiterated in the draft DCP and the trigger for this will be changed to 10 dwellings.

Density 7.4 – Large Dwellings Comment Table 7.4 to be modified with insertion into the R3 column – a definition of Large Dwellings (85-125m2).

Object to draft DCP limitations of office floor space to 120m2 per lot (B6). Comment This DCP provision was established to reinforce the primacy of the Coffs Harbour CBD area as the principle location for provision of office space and limit the potential for the B6 zone to promote out of centre office development.



Draft DCP is to be modified to include restrictions to also apply to business premises and to be on a “per lot” basis i.e. 120m2 per lot.

Lot 406 , DP 752817, No.14 Market Street Coffs Harbour - Do not support the proposal for a 6m setback to be applied to the site and recommend a zero setback to Market and Grafton Street Comment Introduce a new DCP provision to allow consideration to a variation of setbacks on a site by site basis if allotment configuration or other factors are excessive impediments to development.

B6 Zone along Pacific Highway – land owner seeks reduction of setback area Comments This required further discussion with Internal Working Group and DoP. Eleven metre maximum height limit under draft LEP, page 23 of draft DCP sets three metre front, side and rear setback requirement. Introduce a DCP provision to allow a variation on setbacks on a site by site basis as part of a DA process.

RTA Comment – conflict as the draft DCP states that “driveways should be located a minimum of six metres from the perpendicular of any intersection of any two roads”. AS28920.1 Figure 3.1 indicates that driveways should be not located within six metres of the tangent point of the kerb for intersecting streets Comment This matter has been discussed with Council’s City Services Department and it is considered appropriate that the draft DCP reflect the Australian Standards in this regard. The draft DCP should be changed to read ‘Driveways not be located within six metres of the tangent point of the kerb for intersecting streets’.

RTA Comment - the RTA considers variable message signs suitable only for messages that are promoting driver safety. Signs placed near any intersection or driver decision point should be subject to a site specific safety assessment Comment Council has reviewed this comment and the following changes will be made to this section: Remove reference to variable message signs and Incorporate additional section:

(l) Signs not for road purposes should not be used adjacent classified roads (m) Variable message signs are not suitable for purposes not related to the function and

safety of motorists


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Improve energy efficient housing requirements in draft DCP

Comments Section 6.1 of the draft DCP establishes the requirements for energy efficiency and conservation in new developments. Residential development is required to comply with SEPP- BASIX. No change to requirements is warranted.

Remove potential for new buildings to Overshadow Jetty Strip; Block out proposed Harbour Drive public plaza; and Harbour Drive sight lines Comments The DoP have done an assessment in relation to overshadowing and profiles/shadow diagrams were prepared. A new cross section diagram will be prepared by DoP and inserted in the draft DCP to demonstrate the negligible effect of overshadowing along the Jetty Strip in order to address these concerns.

View impact – Richmond Drive & Jetty area in relation to increased height (some submissions seek the provision of additional view corridors to protect existing views) Comments Include in the draft DCP a new statement relating to retention of views and the need for applications which may impinge upon existing views to include view impact analysis and erection of building profiles during notification process. Council’s assessment team has required erection of building profiles for a number of multi-unit developments at the Jetty within the existing 2C area, currently this is initiated in relation the Land and Environment Court planning principles of view sharing.

Jetty Village Special Area – Parking Comments A number of submissions queried the capacity for parking areas within this locale – specifically in relation to the area behind the Jetty Strip in terms of manoeuvring etc. The diagram will be modified by DoP to clarify parking provisions.

ARTC Comment – request that railway land be separate special area Comments Provisions for the railway land are incorporated into the Jetty Village special area, it is not appropriate to treat this site in isolation from the remainder of the special area.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Jetty Foreshores should be it’s own Special area within the draft DCP

Comments This comment was made in a number of submissions, the significance of the Foreshore area suggests that it warrants special area status and be accompanied by specific objectives that seek to maintain the public recreation value of this land; however these are contained in the LPMA’s 2008 PoM for the area.

Richmond Drive link up – dangerous, impact to amenity, Arthur Street East development – potential to affect land values generate negative environmental and amenity impacts Comments This issue received significant attention from residents within the Macauley Headland area, many believe the development should be serviced by an internal road. The plan for redevelopment of the Arthur Street East shown in Figure 8.4 of the draft DCP is just a concept – further detail will need to be prepared to ensure road safety is achieved and this will likely be a significant aspect of any future development proposal for the site. Impacts on view amenity will be reviewed as part of any future application. The Arthur Street East is not subject to any environmental restrictions and is presently already zoned for Medium-High Density Development under LEP 2000. Any DA lodged in relation to this plan will be subject to Section 6 Environmental Management of the draft DCP which will require applicants to address environmental considerations.

Provision of adequate general parking and parking generated by tourism Comments New development will be required to provide on site car parking in accordance with Table 5.1 of the draft DCP. Adequate parking facilities will be provided for increased demand associated with redevelopment/ increased density. It seems excessive to increase these requirements under the plan given the difficulty encountered in relation to new developments meeting parking requirements on typical sites. Council received a number of verbal complaints in relation to this additional requirement for bike and motorbike parking being excess to on our existing controls. It is deemed appropriate to provide for other healthier forms of transport.

Building Form/ Setbacks Comments To avoid congestion it is recommended to insert in draft DCP a statement in relation to minimum frontage requirements for subdivisions in cul-de-sac heads (10 metres per lot).


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Densities – request that in R1 zone have same densities apply as R3

Comments Insert into draft DCP in R3 requirements of the following dwelling sizes:

Small – 1:80m2 Medium – 1:100m2 Large 1:150m2

Need better integration to improve access and pedestrian movement between Jetty Strip

and Harbour Comments Many submissions reiterate the importance of promoting pedestrian movement between the Foreshore and Jetty Strip and this important in relation to future development. DoP to provide modified plan for inclusion in draft DCP.

Consistency with existing Council documents and strategies Comments Consistency of draft LEP is detailed in Council’s Section 64 report prepared prior to exhibition of the plan. The City Centre Plan (LEP and DCP) is consistent with higher order strategies such as Coffs Harbour 2030 Plan, OLC Settlement Strategy, Industrial Lands Strategy, Business (Employment) Lands Strategy etc but will repeal existing DCPs and LEP for the area the plan is subject to.

Concern that public transport only mentioned in Vision document Comments This was raised in a number of submissions and also in a submission from a Councillor. The Vision provides ideas for strategic development of the City Centre Plan, provision of “public transport”, while desirable, is ultimately in the jurisdiction of the State Government. No commitment to provision of public transport can be given outside metropolitan areas.

Increase cycle linkages Comments This is a matter separate to this draft DCP and more relevant to Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy and PAMP, there is nothing in this draft DCP to restrain the provision of cycle linkages in the future.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Mixed Use buildings - draft DCP too prescriptive with ground floor, retail, commercial

above and residential above that (Figure 3.14) Comments This seems to be the logical layout – there is nothing in the actual controls that enforces this, this diagram is indicative and will be modified by DoP to be clearer.

Opposition to Firman Drive to join Hogbin Drive link Comments There is no plan to link Firman Drive to Hogbin Drive under the draft City Centre Plan; plans circulated to this effect within the local community were not prepared by Council or Council endorsed. This is a matter to be considered with any development proposal for the site.

Vegetation concerns (littoral rainforest) – Jetty Foreshore Comments No mapped SEPP 26 littoral rainforest exists at the Jetty Beach however the area is proposed to be zoned RE1, Public Recreation – the objectives of this zone include protecting and enhancing the natural environment for recreational purposes.

More attention should be paid to flooding Comments Additional flood and climate change modelling was prepared as part of the City Centre Plan process – guidelines for development to respond to flooding and climate change levels are detailed under Section 6.9 Design Response to Developments in Flood Affected Areas of the draft DCP. There are objectives in this section seeking the mitigation of flood risk, within the draft LEP, a number of plan aims also relate to ensuring development is within the environmental capacity of land – flooding is an inherent consideration in this regard.

Impact of development Arthur Street East with basement parking on water table and Acid Sulfate Soils, drainage Potential impact on Solitary Island Marine Park Comments Consideration of acid sulfate soils, drainage and impact to the SIMP will be required as part of any application for development and will need to be assessed with any DA – Figure 8.4 is only a concept at this stage. SEPP 71 applies in addition to the provisions of this plan.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Include commitment and incentives for on site low scale power generation, water

collection, sewer treatment and reuse Comments Section 6 of the draft DCP establishes the requirements for energy efficiency and water use and conservation in new developments. Residential development is required to comply with SEPP- BASIX. The objectives for Section 6 of the draft DCP encourage energy efficiency, water use and conservation and there are no barriers to developers who are seeking greater standards of efficiency to doing so under the proposed planning controls – incentives are not a matter relevant to this plan.

Opposes open space/deep soil provisions and GFA controls for upper level of buildings as per draft DCP Comments These provisions have been “tested” on development in other regional cities and developing areas and are appropriate for Coffs Harbour.

Opposes building depth and bulk controls of draft DCP due to urban design outcomes – a case by case approach should occur Comments DoP urban design experts have provided this criteria and it is appropriate for Coffs Harbour.

Proposes building setbacks, pro rata with height, impose constraints on smaller land parcels Comments Incentives are provided in draft LEP to encourage allotment amalgamation that provides “bonuses” for larger lots. Smaller lots are always difficult to redevelop.

The character statement in Clause 2.4 of the draft DCP should be reworded as follows: “This precinct functions well as a regional retail centre serving community. The scale of development in the precinct and its proximity to the City Core means this centre can contribute to the regional status of Coffs Harbour and its economic vitality.” Comments The existing character statement under Clause 2.4 reflects the findings of the Local Growth Management Strategy – Business Lands Component and should be retained.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Arthur Street East (Richmond Drive)

Issues Proposed height controls work against market forces with opportunities for sea views,

which provide higher economic returns, being negated by the proposed controls. The draft DCP is counter intuitive providing for taller buildings on the lower slopes and

lower buildings on the upper slopes. Height controls outlined in submission provide a balance between preserving scenic qualities and providing incentive measures for redevelopment of the site.

Concerned about blanket setback of six metres in draft DCP as it provides no incentive for activating the street frontage and should be amended to reflect submission.

Comments Appropriate clauses on view sharing have been included in the draft DCP. A development proposal will need to be assessed on its merits. As discussed in an above topic, impacts on view amenity will be reviewed as part of any future application. The Arthur Street East is not subject to any environmental restrictions and is presently zoned for Medium-High Density Development under LEP 2000. Six metre setbacks are consistent with requirements currently applied and deemed appropriate for streetscape, amenity and visual impact purposes.

Incorporate coastal erosion study results

Comments This is mentioned in a few submissions – initially Section 6.6 Erosion and Sediment Control/Foreshore building line requirements are sufficient in this regard, once Council’s Coastal Hazard Study is complete, any new provisions will be incorporated into draft LEP/DCP.

Plan fails to adequately consider the impact of climate change Comments Additional flood and climate change modelling was prepared as part of the City Plan process – guidelines for development to respond to flooding and climate change levels are detailed under Section 6.9 Design Response to Developments in Flood Affected Areas of the Development Control Plan. Again any additional outcomes from studies will be included in the draft DCP as relevant.

Plan fails to address Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Comments Consideration of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage is required under Clause 5.10 of the draft LEP


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) Midway Motel site and proposal for mixed tourist and commercial development: Have

already referred Masterplan to Council and DoP for review and reiterate importance of the site being designated as “Special Area” under the draft DCP Comments The development proposed by the Masterplan is prohibited by current and draft LEPs, as such the proponent can only progress this project using the options detailed previously in this report under the LEP section.

The draft DCP needs to provide and apply appropriate criteria to enable Wind Effects reports to be prepared for buildings greater than 35 metres in height. Comments Wind forcing would be an essential consideration under Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia for any construction of such buildings, and appropriate provisions are contained in the draft DCP.

Department of Housing comment Issues The draft LEP and draft DCP do not include specific objectives or measures addressing the need for affordable housing. Comments There is limited scope for additional objectives to be included within the draft LEP; this is the intent of Section 7.2 Housing Choice and Mix, of the draft DCP. The provisions of the SEPP Affordable Housing also prevail.

Two submissions cited that there is some discrepancy between setbacks (identified in Figure 3.1) and street frontage height diagrams (Figure 3.4 – 3.11) Comment The anomalies identified have been corrected in the draft DCP.

Implementation Date / Priority: As the City Centre Plan project is subject: (i) to a signed Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the DoP; and (ii) required to be progressed to achieve actions within Council’s Delivery Plan, it is appropriate to progress the draft Coffs Harbour City Centre LEP and draft Coffs Harbour City Centre DCP as a priority matter. The draft LEP should be progressed to the DoP to allow the Plan to formally be ‘made’.


L10/20 - Coffs Harbour City Centre Plan Incorporating Draft Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan (Cont'd) The amended DCP can be finalised and reported back to Council in February to enable its implementation upon gazettal of the LEP. Recommendation: 1. That Council adopt the amended Coffs Harbour City Centre Local Environmental Plan

2011 (as circulated separately to Councillors).

2. In accordance with Section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Coffs Harbour City Centre Local Environmental Plan (as circulated separately) be submitted to the Department of Planning for gazettal.

3. That Council adopt the recommended actions to modify the Coffs Harbour City Centre Development Control Plan and that once the Development Control Plan is amended it be reported back to Council’s February 2011 meeting for further consideration.

4. That parties who made a submission to the City Centre Plan be informed of Council’s decision.

Jeff Green Acting Director Land Use, Health & Development

coffs harbour city council ordinary …...2010/12/16 · parallel car parking spaces on the eastern...

Documents