You are invited to attend the next Ordinary Meeting of Council:

 

Date:

Tuesday, 16 June 2020

Time:

6.30pm

Location:

Council meeting to be held remotely using audio visual link and open to members of the community via webcast.

 

AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

16 June 2020

 

 

 

 

Ben Taylor

Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

Order Of Business

1          Opening. 5

2          Recording of the Meeting. 5

3          Webcast Notice. 5

4          National Anthem.. 5

5          Acknowledgement of Country. 5

6          Apologies and Leave of Absence Requests. 5

7          Declaration of Interest 5

8          Confirmation of Minutes. 5

9          Items to be Tabled. 5

10       Mayoral Minute. 6

10.1          Mayoral Minute. 6

11       Sustainable and Balanced Growth. 7

11.1          Stonequarry Commercial Planning Proposal 7

11.2          Stilton Lane Planning Proposal 24

11.3          Improving the Infrastructure Contributions System.. 33

12       Management and Provision of Infrastructure. 37

12.1          Commemorative Naming – The Late John Corbett - Picton. 37

12.2          Adoption of Draft Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan. 40

12.3          Application to Transfer Crown Road to Public Road, - Government Road, Silverdale. 53

13       Caring for the Environment 55

13.1          Draft Biosecurity Policy and Strategy Exhibition. 55

14       Looking after the Community. 57

14.1          Adoption of the Social Media Policy. 57

14.2          Long Term Community Recovery and Resilience Plan and Grant Opportunities. 58

15       Efficient and Effective Council 63

15.1          Adoption of the Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists & Submitters Policy and the Conflict of Interests Policy. 63

15.2          Investment of Funds as at 30 April 2020. 65

15.3          Adoption of the 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget 69

16       Notice of Motion/Rescissions. 74

16.1          Notice of Motion - Community Committee & Regulatory Signs for Appin Skate Park. 74

17       Closed Reports. 75

17.1          Proposed Easement - Antill Park Country Golf Club Lot 4 DP 218270 Remembrance Driveway, Picton. 75

17.2          Update on Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates. 75

17.3          Proposed Land Transfer to Council from Planning Ministerial Corporation - Lot 2 DP 522044 Appin Road, Appin. 75

18       Questions for Next Meeting. 76

No reports this meeting

 


1            Opening

2            Recording of the Meeting

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice the electronic recording of the Council Meeting and the use of electronic media during the proceedings is not permitted. This includes devices such as laptops, mobile phones, tape recorders and video cameras.

3            Webcast Notice

Members of the public are advised, in accordance with Section 18 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIPA), that Wollondilly Shire Council records and webcasts live all Ordinary and Extraordinary Meetings of Council held in open session for the purpose of facilitating community access. The webcasts are publically available for viewing on Council’s website.

Video footage collected is of the decision making body only.

The webcasts and webcast recordings are protected by copyright and owned by Council. No part of the proceedings of a meeting of the Council may be recorded, copied or made available to others by members of the public without the authority of the Council.

Council may be required to disclose recordings pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

4            National Anthem

5            Acknowledgement of Country

The Mayor will acknowledge the traditional Custodians of the Land.

6            Apologies and Leave of Absence Requests

7            Declaration of Interest

8            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 May 2020

9            Items to be Tabled

Disclosure of Interests Register – 2019/20


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

10          Mayoral Minute

10.1       Mayoral Minute

File Number:           10619-2#284

 

Recommendation

That the Mayoral Minute be accepted.

 

 

The Mayor may put to a meeting (without notice) any matter the Council is allowed to deal with or which the Council officially knows about.

 

Attachments

Nil  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

11          Sustainable and Balanced Growth

11.1       Stonequarry Commercial Planning Proposal

File Number:           10619-2#132

 

 

Applicant:                              SLR Consulting

Proposal:                              Rezone the land to enable development of the site for Commercial, Public Recreation and Private Recreation Purposes.

Current Zoning:                   R2 Low Density Residential, RU4 Primary Production Small Lots and SP2 Cemetery

Address:                               Various land in Cliffe St, Margaret St, Warrington St, Elizabeth Street, and Menangle St West, Picton.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council formally determine that a planning proposal known as Stonequarry Commercial should not progress, given the proponent no longer wishes to proceed. The proposal seeks to amend the Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011 (WLEP 2011) to rezone 6.5 hectares of land for a mix of commercial and public and private recreation purposes.

On 25 May 2020, Council was advised that the landowner did not wish to proceed with the planning proposal and requested that it be withdrawn. A Council resolution recommending the proposal not proceed is still required given a Gateway determination has been issued.

The proposal was originally submitted to Council on 27 April 2012 and was reported to Council on 18 February 2013. Council resolved not to support the proposal until more details on flood impacts and traffic management were provided. This was later rescinded with Council resolving to support the proposal on 18 March 2013.  The planning proposal received a Gateway determination on 9 August, 2013.

The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Draft Stonequarry Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan, the Western City District Plan and a number of Ministerial Directions, including Direction 4.3 Flood Prone land.  The site plays a significant role in flood storage.  It is not considered appropriate to modify the site in the manner proposed in the proponent’s flood study.  These measures have been investigated in the draft Floodplain Study and found to contribute to only a very minor reduction in flood levels within the township. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) - now known as Environment, Energy and Science (EES) - has raised concerns regarding the planning proposal and flooding on the site on a number of occasions. The proponent has been unable to address these issues.

Council has written to the proponent on two occasions (8 August, 2018 and 5 August, 2019) suggesting the proposal be withdrawn.  On 26 March 2020, the Wollondilly Local Planning Panel (LPP) reviewed the proposal and concluded that the planning proposal does not have strategic merit.

Since the reporting of the proposal to the LPP, the Wollondilly Local Strategic Planning Statement has been made and this report notes that the proposal is also not consistent with Council’s strategic land use vision.

Council officers have met with the proponent to discuss this recommendation and alternative uses for the site that would be more compatible with the existing flood constraints.  Council officers have also identified this area for inclusion in the study area for the Picton town centre master plan.

The proponent has not requested a refund of fees paid.  However, given the significant investment of Council resources to date in the assessment of this proposal, any future request for a refund is not supported.

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1.       Notes that the proponent no longer wishes to proceed with the planning proposal to rezone land in Cliffe St, Margaret St, Warrington St, Elizabeth Street, and Menangle St West Picton.

 

2.       Notes the advice of the Local Planning Panel from the meeting of 26 March 2020.

 

3.       Notes that Council officers have met with the proponent to discuss alternative uses that would be more compatible with the flood constraints, and that this site will be included in Council’s Picton town centre master plan work.

 

4.       Agrees that the planning proposal should not proceed for the following reasons:

 

a.       The proposal is inconsistent with Ministerial 9.1 Directions including Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land, and SREP No. 20 Hawkesbury Nepean River;

b.       The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s Draft Stonequarry Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan;

c.       The proposal is inconsistent with the Western City District Plan; and

d.       The proposal is inconsistent with the Wollondilly Local Strategic Planning Strategy and the requirement for an evacuation management plan to be prepared.

e.       The proponent wishes to withdraw the proposal.

5.       Writes to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment to advise that  the planning proposal has been withdrawn and that the Gateway determination issued on 9 August 2013 should no longer proceed; and

 

6.       Notes that given the extensive investment of Council resources to date in the assessment of the planning proposal a refund of fees paid is not supported.

 

 

Background

Objectives of the Proposal

The intended objectives of this planning proposal are:

§  To provide opportunities for land uses that meet the objectives of the intended B2 Local Centre zoning;

§  To maintain the heritage values of the subject site

§  To ensure that the biodiversity assets of the site, in particular the riparian corridor of Stonequarry Creek are protected;

§  To plan for expected population growth in the Shire by extending commercial opportunities within the Picton Town Centre;

§  To provide appropriate integrated access to the subject site commensurate to the proposed zoning.

 

Request for withdrawal by the Applicant

On 25 May 2020, the applicant (SLR Consulting) advised Council in writing that the landowner did not wish to proceed with the planning proposal and requested that it be withdrawn.

 

The planning proposal was originally to be reported to Council with a recommendation to not proceed and was subject to a finalised report which had been prepared for the meeting to be held on 19 May 2020. The applicant requested that this report be held off until 16 June 2020 meeting to allow time for the land owner to review their options.

 

The matter had already been considered by the Wollondilly Local Planning Panel on 26 March 2020 in accordance with the Ministerial Direction, to seek advice prior to reporting to Council.

 

At this meeting the Panel noted that:

 

1.       The proposal is not consistent with Council’s land use vision as detailed in the endorsed Local Strategic Planning Statement.

2.       The proposal is not consistent with the Western City District Plan.

3.       The proposal would require the delivery of public infrastructure and services that are currently not forecast or funded to be provided.

 

The Panel also noted that:

 

1.       The consultants for the proponents did not challenge the technical outcomes of the flood studies recently exhibited by Council (insofar as they affected the subject site), nor had they lodged submissions in relation to the exhibition of those studies.

2.       The proposal is not compatible with the flood hazard of the land.

3.       The extent of earthworks required to render the site flood compatible are excessive in terms of its impact on the riparian environment, public amenity, flood storage and the potential cultural and archaeological heritage values of the site.

4.       Given the advanced nature of Council’s flood studies and the advice by Council staff that there is a strong likelihood the studies will be recommended for endorsement by Council in a similar form to that which was exhibited. The Panel did not consider it necessary to wait for formal adoption of the flood studies before proceeding with a decision in relation to the planning proposal, particularly as the consultants for the proponent apparently did not lodge any comment on, or objection to, the studies.

5.       There are a number of strategic studies underway (including Rural Lands Strategy, Local Housing Strategy, Employment Lands Study and Centres Study) which could have an impact on the desired development of the site in its setting close to the Picton Town Centre and affect the nature of the locality.

 

The Panel also provided the following advice to Council:

 

The Wollondilly Shire Local Planning Panel advises Council that the draft planning proposal does not have strategic merit for the reasons outlined in the Council Assessment report as outlined above.

 

Copies of the Panel report and advice are at Attachments [10] and [11].

 

In accordance with Council’s Planning Proposal Policy (Clause 4.13 Subclause 1), a draft planning proposal can only be withdrawn by the proponent prior to a request for a Gateway determination. A departure from the policy (clause 4.14) can be considered where there are extenuating circumstances and must be justified in writing by the Proponent.  Variations must be approved by Council’s Director Planning or CEO where there is a conflict of interest.

 

As this planning proposal had already been issued with a Gateway determination (on 9 August 2013), a departure from the policy was considered and justification was provided by the proponent. The proposal has already been reported to the Wollondilly Local Planning Panel and so all that is required now is for Council to resolve to recommend that the Gateway Determination be altered to reflect that the proposal not proceed.

Site Description

The site is approximately 6.5ha in area and comprises 16 allotments located off Argyle Street as well as part of Cliffe and Elizabeth Streets, Picton. The site adjoins the Picton Bowling Club and recreational grounds (north), an existing commercial area of Picton (south and east) and a recreational and large lot residential area (west). Stonequarry Creek adjoins the northern, western and southern boundaries of the site.  Refer to the Location Map provided in Figure 1 below.

Collectively, the site is considered to have heritage significance and is contained within the Picton Heritage Conservation Area listed on Schedule 5 of WLEP 2011. In addition to a “blanket” conservation area that applies to a large majority of the Picton town centre, there are a number of individual heritage items of local significance.

 

FIGURE 1: Location map of subject site at Elizabeth, Menangle Street West and Cliffe Streets

Description of proposal

This Planning Proposal seeks to enable development of the land for commercial and recreation purposes. It seeks to do this through the following amendments to the Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2011:

§ Amend the WLEP 2011 Land Zone Map (Sheet LZN_008F) by rezoning the site from B2 Local Centre, R2 Low Density Residential, RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, SP2 Infrastructure (Road) and SP2 Infrastructure (Cemetery) to:

B2 Local Centre

SP2 Infrastructure (Road)

RE1 Public Recreation

RE2 Private Recreation

§ Amend the WLEP 2011 Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008F) by removing the current, applicable minimum lot sizes (thereby, no lot size would apply to the subject site).

§ Amend the WLEP 2011 Height of Building Map (Sheet LSZ_008F) by changing the maximum building height from no maximum to a maximum height of 9 metres for land in Zones B2 Local Centre and RE2 Private Recreation.

§ Undertake any necessary amendments to the Natural Resources Water Map and Natural Resources Biodiversity Map depending on the outcomes of the specialist studies.

§ Amend the Local Reservation Acquisition Map as necessary to retain land for future acquisition (if necessary) and remove land currently zoned RE1.

 

Although the intent of the B2 zone is to allow for commercial development, it is important to note that the zone does allow some forms of residential development in the form of Shop Top Housing, Boarding Houses and Hostels. It was also proposed to amend Part 2 (Land Use Table) of WLEP 2011 for the B2 Local Centre zone (the B2 zone) by changing the land use “cemetery” from a prohibited use, to a use that is permissible with consent. However the Gateway determination specified that a “cemetery” shall not be permissible in the B2 zone.

The proposal seeks to introduce an RE2 Private Recreation zone to land adjoining the Picton Bowling Club. A small portion of this land forms a corridor land currently zoned RE1 Private Recreation and is identified for acquisition under the Land Reservation Map in the Wollondilly LEP. This proposal will also require the removal of this land from the Land Reservation Map and will also result in the rezoning of RE1 land for private recreation purposes.

The proposal also seeks to extend the existing RE1 Public Recreation zone on land adjoining Stonequarry Creek to form a continuous corridor of public land along the creek that will connect to other public recreation land to the north of the site linking the Hume Oval and Picton Botanic Gardens to the Picton town centre.

 

FIGURE 2: Existing Zoning (RU1 Primary Production) and Proposed Zoning (SP2 Educational Establishment and Place of Public Worship)

Gateway Determination

A Gateway Determination was issued by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment on 9 August 2013. The current Planning Proposal is not consistent with the conditions of the determination as it does not comply with a number of the identified Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions. A copy of the Gateway Determination is provided in Attachment [1] and an assessment of how the conditions have been addressed is located at Attachment [2]

The Planning Proposal History

The proposal was submitted on 27 April 2012 and was reported to Council on 18 February 2013. Council originally resolved not to support the proposal until more details on flood impacts and traffic management were provided. This was later rescinded with Council resolving to support the proposal on 18 March 2013.  A copy of the Council Resolution from the March 2013 meeting is provided at Attachment 3.

Following Council’s support, a draft planning proposal was prepared and forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination. A Gateway determination was issued on 9 August 2013. The original timeframe for completion was 12 months, however this has since been extended on two separate occasions. The current timeframe for completion was 31 September 2018. It is noted that this deadline has expired significantly and there has been no further request from Council to extend. A copy of the original Gateway determination and subsequent the Gateway alterations are provided in Attachment [1].

Specialist Studies in support of the proposal were prepared in 2016. These included studies on Biodiversity & Bushfire, Transport/Traffic/Accessibility, European Heritage, Aboriginal Heritage, Hydrological & Hydraulic Assessment, Contamination – Preliminary Site Investigation and Commercial Economic Impact Assessment.

These studies have been reviewed by Council staff and were also sent to relevant public authorities and agencies for comment in 2016 prior to public exhibition. These comments have been received and have been used to form the basis of this report.

The proposal has not been publically exhibited at this time due to ongoing and unresolved traffic and flooding matters.  The proposal was placed on hold awaiting the further evidence that these issues could be resolved. These primarily relied on the outcome of two Council led studies which included the Picton Town Centre Transport Master Plan and the Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan 2019.

CURRENT PLANNING ISSUES:

The following is a short summary of the outstanding planning issues.

1.       Servicing

A significant servicing constraint has been recently identified by Council staff during assessment of the proposal. Sydney Water has provided advice that the Picton Treatment Plant Effluent Management system has no capacity to manage additional treated effluent. It is noted that there is no immediate short term solution available.  Sydney Water is currently working on a strategy to identify solutions, but has noted that it may take 4 years to implement.  The draft strategy has not been finalised to date. Until there is a strategy, a funding source, a solution and known capacity, there is no ability to service the planning proposal land, nor is there any commitment to timeframes.

2.       Traffic

The Picton Transport Master Plan is now in an advanced stage and initial findings have indicated that traffic issues could be addressed by extending Cliff Street and connecting through to Barkers Lodge Road. This solution requires further work and negotiation with the proponent, however early indications are that this matter could be resolved through appropriate infrastructure provision.

 

 

3.       Flooding

The Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update 2019 and the Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan 2019 were on exhibition from 18 February 2020 until 17 March, 2020. The study provides updated flood modelling and updated design flood results. The Floodplain risk management study and plan investigates options to manage flooding within the flood study area for Council to consider.

The updated flood modelling shows the whole site as being within a flood storage area. This means that any development on the proposal site will take away flood storage from the creek and may impact on properties elsewhere.

The updated modelling also shows that the majority of the site is within the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 100 year) mapped area. This means that the land within the mapped area has a 1% probability of being flooded in any year at any given time.

The small portion of the site that is outside of the 1% probability area is in a remote location and will be isolated during an extreme flood event due to all land surrounding being flood affected before the site is fully inundated (known as a flood island effect).

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) now known as Environment, Energy and Science (EES) has raised concerns regarding the planning proposal and flooding on the site on a number of occasions, including noting that the proposal is inconsistent with Ministerial Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land.

These issues have been communicated to the proponent and despite attempts to address these issues, the proponent has been unable to satisfactorily demonstrate to EES that the site is suitable for the proposed future development. It should also be noted that Council has written to the proponent on two occasions (8 August, 2018 and 5 August, 2019) requesting that the proposal be withdrawn on the basis of advice received from EES and technical advice received from Council’s Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Team.

Planning Assessment:

Flooding

Proponents Flood Study Prepared in Support of the Planning Proposal (2017)

The Gateway Determination conditions require a flood study to be provided which detail how the proposal would meet the requirements of the Ministerial Direction 4.3. A Flood Study was commissioned by the proponent in 2017. One of the key measures outlined in the flood study to reduce impacts caused by flooding on future development on the site was to widen the channel of Stonequarry Creek where it adjoins the Planning Proposal site and provide raised bunding for parts of the creek further upstream.

Attachment [8] provides an extract from the flood study which demonstrates the level of cut which would be required to achieve the outcome proposed. The proposed measures incorporated a substantial amount of cut which poses a significant risk to the Environment. Also, Council has received specialist advice on the measures proposed and the following comments were provided in response:

“The site is classified as flood storage and plays a key role in the passage of a flood by temporarily storing flood waters from the south. The loss of flood storage can increase the severity of the flood in other areas mainly by loss of natural attenuation

Due to the significant role of the site in flood storage and the significant role that this plays during flood events, it is not considered appropriate to modify the site in the manner proposed in the proponents flood study, particularly when similar mitigation measures as described below, have been investigated as part of Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan and were found to contribute to only a very minor reduction in flood levels within the township.

 

 

Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Management Plan 1996

The current mapped flood prone area for the Stonequarry Creek Floodplain is taken from the Stonequarry Creek Flood Study which was adopted by Council in 1996. The current mapped flood areas are shown in Attachment 4 of this report. The current flood map shows a high majority of the planning proposal site as being within the high hazard floodway and the remainder of the site as being within the low hazard floodway (i.e. the whole of the site is within a floodway under the currently adopted plan). A copy of this plan is provided Attachment [9].

The Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update 2019

A draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update 2019 has been prepared by WMA Water on behalf of Council and was exhibited from 18 February to 17 March, 2020. The study focuses on the areas of Picton that contribute to overland flow within the Stonequarry Creek floodplain between Abbotsford Road (in the town’s west) and about 1 km downstream (south) of the railway viaduct. In addition, approximately 1.5 km of Racecourse Creek between its confluence with Stonequarry Creek and the eastern boundary of Antill Country Golf Course, is also considered in the study.

The study provides updated flood models using the methodologies described in ARR 2016, and provides updated design flood results for the for the 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) events. The updated modelling shows the whole site as being within a flood storage area and that the majority of the site is within the 100 Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (also known as the 1 in100 year) mapped flood area. As noted above, this means that the land within the mapped area has a 1% probability of being flooded in any year at any given time. This is shown in Figure 3 below.

The small portion of the site that is shown outside the 1% AEP would become a flood island and would be isolated during an extreme flood event due to all surrounding land being flood affected before the site is fully inundated. This would effectively mean that there would be no flood free evacuation route available if the site were to become inundated in the 1 in 100 flood event. Figure 3 below demonstrates the extent of the site which would become characterised as flood storage during the 1 in 100 flood event.

Figure 4 below also shows the portion of the site which would remain flood free but would become isolated in the 1 in 100 flood event, and this impact would also be increased during more extreme events.

FIGURE 3: Excerpt taken from Draft Stonequarry Creek Study and Plan - FIGURE A20 PROVISIONAL HYDRAULIC CATEGORISATION 1% AEP EVENT

FIGURE 4: Excerpt of map taken from Draft Stonequarry Creek Study and Plan Area of Planning Proposal outside of Flood Planning Area in 1% AEP Event

 

The Draft Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (FRMS) 2019

The Draft Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study (FRMS) and Plan follows on from the Stonequarry Creek– Flood Study Update (Final Draft) which provided updated modelling for the nature and extent of the flood risk in the township of Picton.

The FRMS and Plan investigates methods to reduce flood risk and develops a draft plan for Council to implement in order to manage the impact of flooding around the commercial and residential areas of the Picton town centre. The FRMS also provides an analysis of the Flood Emergency Response Classification (FERC) and the varying nature of emergency responses and issues impacting on evacuation within the study area. The study finds that during a 1% event the majority of the site is classified as H3 and above. H3 is considered unsafe for vehicles, children and the elderly.

In a larger event, modelling shows the site being entirely inundated in the 0.2% AEP (also known as the 1 in 500 year flood event) (see Figure 5) and is subject to a greater area of emergency response classification being the H4 hazard classification which is identified in the study as being unsafe for people and vehicles. During the 2016 event the site was inundated to depths of between 0.5m and 2.0m. The majority of the site experienced depths in excess of 1.0m. A large area of the site was subject to H5 hazard classification during this flood event (unsafe for vehicles and people and all buildings subject to structural damage).

FIGURE 5: Excerpt from Stonequarry FRMS Figure A28 Peak Flood Level Impact 1% AEP

The study concludes that “The area with the greatest risk of isolation is in and around Elizabeth Street. This area is classified as FIS (Submerged), consistent with anecdotes from the June 2016 flood of residents stranded by floodwaters, climbing trees to escape the rising water, and awaiting rescue.” P. 33.

The FRMS considered a range of options to reduce flood risk including lowering portions of the site adjacent to the creek and inclusion of a levee. This option does not appear to be dissimilar from the mitigation strategies proposed by the proponent’s flood engineer and indicates that given the flood behaviour at the site, there are significant constraints to mitigating any impacts as a result of the development. In addition any mitigation works are unlikely to alter the hazard exposure across the site to an acceptable level.

The FRMS has also shown that limited benefit can be achieved by substantially altering the creek channel. The proximity to existing development makes it very challenging to ensure the proposed development and its mitigation strategies do not adversely impact on neighbouring properties. Any reduction in flood level as a result of mitigation works will not remove the substantial risk exposure at the site.

Some options to mitigate flood impact recommended in this plan are:

§  Modifying the Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 2011 (LEP), to enable Council to apply flood related development controls for critical utilities and vulnerable land uses between the FPA and PMF extent,

§  Introducing new DCP controls for commercial development,

§  A feasibility study to further investigate a Voluntary Purchase scheme of properties within the High hazard areas and

§  Demolishing and removing all buildings within the floodway.

Given that the proposal will introduce new buildings into the flood planning area, it is considered to be inconsistent with these proposed options.

The Gateway Determination conditions require a flood study to be provided which details how the proposal would meet the requirements of the Ministerial Direction 4.3. A Flood Study was commissioned by the proponent in 2017. One of the key measures outlined in the flood study to reduce the impacts caused by flooding on future development on the site was to widen the channel of Stonequarry Creek where it adjoins the Planning Proposal site and provide raised bunding for parts of the creek further upstream.

Attachment 5 provides an extract from the proponents flood study which demonstrates the level of cut which would be required to achieve the outcome proposed. The proposed measures incorporated a substantial amount of cut which poses a significant risk to the Environment. Also, Council has received specialist advice on the measures proposed and the following comments were provided in response:

“The site is classified as flood storage and plays a key role in the passage of a flood by temporarily storing flood waters from the south. The loss of flood storage can increase the severity of the flood in other areas mainly by loss of natural attenuation, and

Due to the significant role of the site in flood storage and the significant role that this plays during flood events, it is not considered to be appropriate to modify the site in the manner proposed in the proponent’s flood study, particularly when similar mitigation measures have been investigated as part of Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan and were found to contribute to only a very minor reduction in flood levels within the township.

PLANNING CONTEXT

Western City District Plan 2018

The Western City District Plan outlines a number of directions, priorities and actions requiring an integrated approach to housing, land use, transport, delivery of lead-in infrastructure, and the protection and enhancement of bushland and biodiversity.

Metropolitan Rural Area (MRA)

The site is located within the Metropolitan Rural Area (MRA). The District Plan states that urban development in the MRA will only be considered in the urban investigation areas identified in A Metropolis of Three Cities, which in Wollondilly’s case refers to the identified growth areas at Wilton and Appin.

The District Plan identifies Picton as a local centre and acknowledges that further evidence based work will need to be undertaken to inform the future opportunities for each centre. The plan is supportive of opportunities for economic growth and increased productivity.

The proposal is in line with this objective as it proposes an expansion to the existing Picton commercial centre, however, the evidence prepared for the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed future development.

Planning Priority W20

Planning Priority W20 of the plan commits to adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change and states that “Effective planning can reduce the exposure to natural and urban hazards and build resilience to shocks and stresses. Planning for population growth and change needs to consider exposure at a local level as well as cumulative impacts at district and regional levels”.

The Draft Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study (FRMS) has considered the cumulative development of the floodplain including the proposed development site. It showed substantial impacts through the CBD as shown below, and addressed in the report above. Figure 6 on the following page details the impacts of development within the floodplain:

FIGURE 6: Additional information provided by WMA Hydraulic Hazard 0.2% AEP event

 

Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions

The Minister for Planning has issued a number of Directions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which apply to the assessment of planning proposals. The proposal is largely inconsistent with a number of ministerial directions and of most importance it is inconsistent with Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land.

 

Ministerial Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land

The proposal is inconsistent with this direction as a large proportion of the site is inundated to depths in excess of 0.5m. Only 22% of the site is flood free in the 1% AEP flood event. The entire site is within the flood planning area.

The site is classified as flood storage and plays a key role in the passage of a flood by temporarily storing floodwaters from the south. The loss of flood storage can increase the severity of the flood in other areas mainly by the loss of natural attenuation.

Direction 4.3 requires planning proposals to be consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005. In addition, a planning proposal must not permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties, or permit a significant increase in the development of that land.

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with Direction 4.3 if it is consistent with a floodplain risk management plan for the area or the inconsistencies must be of minor significance.

The floodplain development manual requires the consideration of the full range of flood events including those above the FPL, these are appropriate to manage flood risk in rarer events that will occur, providing a much greater understanding of risk and the management measures needed, including response planning. This is particularly related to danger to personal safety and critical infrastructure rather than property protection. In the case of the site, significant hazard exists in the 1% AEP event which increases through the rarer events. In fact during the 2016 event when residents in Elizabeth Street required rescue, the hazard through the site included large areas of H5 emergency response classification. The FRMS recommends that a study be undertaken to determine the feasibility of voluntary purchase of the properties in this area and allowing increased development would be in direct conflict with that.

A further key principle of the floodplain development manual is to reduce risk to future development to an acceptable level through appropriate land use controls that are not limited to the FPL. Allowing rezoning and development through this area would intensify development through an area subject to significant flood risk and the commercial nature of the proposal increases the exposure of occupants to this risk. The site is subject to greater risk than the existing CBD, given the shallower depths in the CBD and rising road evacuation access, in contrast to the site which is isolated prior to becoming inundated to substantial depths.

The recently developed national flood manual emphasises the importance of considering the full range of flood events and setting appropriate controls to manage such events.

A full assessment against all directions relevant to this proposal is included in Attachment [3].

Wollondilly 2040 Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS)

The Wollondilly Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040 (LSPS) is a 20 year land use vision for Wollondilly and provides a sound framework in which to consider current and future planning proposals.

The LSPS sets out eighteen planning priorities for the Shire and provides actions to respond to each priority.

Planning Priority 18 directly relates to the planning proposal and proposes under actions 18.4 and 18.5 to complete the Stonequarry Creek floodplain risk management study and plan and to progressively implement this plan.  Planning Priority 18 also provides that:

 “Before Council can consider planning proposals for local growth in the Shire, Council will develop an appropriate emergency management approach to these hazards. This response will be informed by a study to be prepared in partnership with emergency services agencies. ”

It is noted that this required study is separate and different to the Floodplain Risk Management Study (FRMS).

Therefore the planning proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the LSPS.

State Environmental Planning Policies

An assessment of the proposal against relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) include Sydney Regional Planning Policy (SREP) No.  20 Hawkesbury Nepean River is provided as Attachment [4] to this report. In summary, the proposal is considered to be largely inconsistent with SREP No. 20 Hawkesbury Nepean River: This is primarily due to the potential impacts on Stonequarry Creek and the impact on the proposed mitigation measures outlined in the proponents flood study will potentially have on the environment and the overall catchment.

Wollondilly Growth Management Strategy 2011 (GMS 2011)

Council’s Growth Management Strategy 2011 (GMS) was adopted by Council in 2011. The GMS set directions for accommodating growth in the Shire over the next 25 years.

The GMS contains Key Policy Directions which form the overarching growth strategy for Wollondilly.

This proposal is located on land which was identified in the Growth Management Strategy as potential employment land - commercial, and is in line with this direction outlined in the GMS. 

However, further investigation into the suitability of the site for future commercial expansion has found that flooding constraints on this site make it unsuitable for development of a commercial nature due to the risk of flood affectation and the impact any changes to the flood storage will have on the properties downstream. This view has been supported by EES.

Therefore the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the site suitability requirement for a planning proposal outlined the GMS.

A full assessment on the suitability of the Planning Proposal against the GMS is included in Attachment [5].

Wollondilly Community Strategy Plan 2033 (CSP 2033)

The Create Wollondilly Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) is Council’s highest level long term plan. It identifies and expresses the aspirations held by the Community of Wollondilly and sets strategies for achieving those aspirations.

A full assessment on the suitability of the Planning Proposal against the CSP is included in Attachment [6].

 

CONSULTATION

Community Consultation

Preliminary community consultation for the planning proposal was undertaken in September 2012 for a period of 28 days with adjoining and potentially affected properties.

No submissions were received during this process.

Consultation with Public Agencies

Council has consulted with a number of public agencies in accordance with the Gateway determination in May 2016 prior to any public exhibition. A total of thirteen (13) submissions were received from relevant agencies, with five (5) of these being from the Environment, Energy and Science (EES) (formerly OEH) over the course of the planning proposal.

A complete assessment of issues raised by public agencies is located at Attachment [7].

The key matters raised by these government agencies are outlined below:

Environment Energy and Science (EES) (formally OEH)

The latest advice from EES was dated 3 February, 2020. These comments, in particular were in response to additional information provided to Council by the proponent on 12 December, 2019 which attempted to resolve previous concerns raised.

The latest advice from EES dated 3 February 2020 is as follows:

‘Modelling undertaken by Council in the recent Flood Study updates shows that the entire site was inundated in the recent 2016 event. If the development were to occur at the site, it would have impacts on the surrounds in a similar event to the 2016 flood event and in more frequent events.

The site is a low flood island which is a high risk area for evacuation as all routes are cut before the site itself becomes inundated.

Council is taking well informed and considered actions to reduce the flood risk for Stonequarry Creek and this development would hinder Council efforts in flood risk reduction. This development would increase the flood risk in the area and the impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated.’

Initial advice provided on 3 June 2016 also raised the following additional concerns:

‘From a flood risk management perspective the site is heavily constrained by flooding as it is subject to both isolation and inundation from frequent flood events up to the PMF.

Such constraints limit the land use that is compatible with the identified flood risk to recreational uses and would require Council to apply strategies to minimise and manage flood risks to people using these areas. These can include development controls and an emergency management plan prepared in consultation with the State Emergency Service (SES).

It is Council’s duty of care to base its decision on the proposed development on a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the flood hazards and the risk to people and property for the full range of floods up to the PMF.

Allowing development within such a high hazard floodplain may increase the potential liabilities and future costs to Council and State Government.’

Other advice has been provided over the past four years in response to further information provided by the proponent to address the concerns raised. EES has not been satisfied that this information responds to these concerns with a number of errors and inaccuracies being noted in the consultant reports.  EES has also consistently raised concern over the past four years that that the proposal is not consistent with Ministerial Direction 4.3.

Department of Industry Resources and Energy

The subject site is located within the Wilton Mine Subsidence District. Accordingly all proposed development within the subject area would require consultation with the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB).

Campbelltown City Council

Campbelltown City Council has no comment or objection to make with regard to this planning proposal, but is appreciative of being given the opportunity to comment on it.

NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

RMS noted that the traffic assessment submitted for the proposal concludes that intersections along Argyle Street need to be upgraded to signalised control, these being intersections with Menangle Street and Barkers Lodge Road. RMS noted that Council has engaged a consultant to prepare a Transport Master Plan for the Picton Town Centre and supports the preparation of this plan and can provide comments when it is prepared.

RMS recommended that Council identify appropriate mechanisms to ensure the infrastructure upgrades identified in the Traffic Impact Assessment are implemented prior to future development associated with the planning proposal proceeding.

Endeavour Energy

The Agency stated that there is significant electrical infrastructure within the site.

Sydney Water

Water- The drinking water main available for connection is the 100m main located in Menangle Street. Dependent on the size and scale of proposed development amplification may be required.

Advice was received from Sydney Water on 12 July 2019 as follows:

‘The development site is under the Picton Sewage System. Currently, the Picton Treatment Plant Effluent Management system has no capacity to manage additional treated effluent.

Sydney Water is currently planning to increase the capacity of the Picton Sewage Treatment Effluent Management system to enable future development within the catchment to connect to the system. Progression of the planning and delivery of these works is subject to approvals from the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Following approval, it is expected that the planning and delivery of these amplifications will take up to four years. Sydney Water will advise Council when it has obtained the approval from the EPA.’

Heritage Council

There are a number of locally listed heritage items which must be considered at the development stage to ensure that the heritage significance of each item is not adversely affected, this includes building height, built form, establishing a curtilage and views to and from each item.

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

The Service has reviewed the plans and documents received for the proposal and subsequently raise no concerns or issues in relation to bush fire.

In summary, the two outstanding matters raised in submissions are flooding and sewerage services capacity. These issues have not yet been resolved.

Council’s Key Findings and Issues of Concern

The draft Planning Proposal was provided to internal Council staff to provide specialist advice. The following issues were raised by Council:

Flooding

The proponent’s supporting flood information does not address the matters relevant for a planning proposal.

This low hazard portion sits between two areas of floodway creating an “island” effect during a flood event.

This creates the issue of evacuation from the “island” during times of inundation which has not been adequately addressed by the proponent.

Riparian land

The proposed connective cycleway and protection of riparian land is viewed as being paramount.

There are concerns raised with the B2 zoning.

The area along the creek should be retained as a corridor.

Heritage

The reports confirm that Aboriginal archaeological layers were disrupted by European settlement and flood erosion and are no longer intact. They also confirm that the subject area has European heritage values. In addition, it includes the foreshore of Stonequarry Creek, a significant opportunity for sensitive urban design.

Agree with the consultant report conclusion that "Future development within the Study Area must be undertaken in a manner which conserves heritage significance."

A detailed landscape plan will be needed for development of the Creek shore with pedestrian/cycle path and high quality landscaping. The importance of views to and from the church cemetery should also be closely considered in the landscape plan.

These landscaping and view corridor considerations will greatly affect development opportunities in the subject area.

Cemetery Facilities in the Shire

Available and existing Cemetery sites within the Wollondilly Local Government Area are limited. 

The increasing population and growth in the Shire places substantial pressure to facilitate and accommodate potentially thousands of burial sites into the future.  Those Cemeteries already nearing capacity, will have limited operation and can only be sustained for the short term in some instances.  

Existing sites used as Cemeteries will face an increasing need to expand in order to meet the demands and requirements of the community.

Council Property considerations:

The proposed new RE1 zone should ensure:

·    The property enables pedestrian access.

·    Any dedication of land be free of contaminants

·    Land dedication be carried out in accordance with Council’s land dedication policy.

·    Any land dedication must have a clear title.

·    The proposed RE1 zone land must be accessible to enable Council to carry out maintenance.

 

CONCLUSION

The intended objectives of this planning proposal are:

§ To provide opportunities for land uses that meet the objectives of the intended B2 Local Centre zoning;

§ To maintain the heritage values of the subject site

§ To ensure that the biodiversity assets of the site, in particular the riparian corridor of Stonequarry Creek are protected;

§ To plan for expected population growth in the Shire by extending commercial opportunities within the Picton Town Centre;

§ To provide appropriate integrated access to the subject site commensurate to the proposed zoning.

The planning proposal is inconsistent with Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Draft Stonequarry Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan, the Western City District Plan and a number of Ministerial Directions, including Direction 4.3 Flood Prone land. 

The proponent has now withdrawn the planning proposal.  Given Gateway determination has been issued, Council is required to formally confirm its agreement that the proposal not proceed. 

It is therefore recommended that the proposal not proceed.

Financial Implications

The assessment of this planning proposal has been funded by the associated fee paid by the proponent. These fees have already been utilised in Council’s assessment of the proposal so no refund would be applicable for these costs. Should the proposal be supported, there are potential future risks and liabilities for Council associated with future flood events.

The proponent has also contributed funds towards the development of the Picton Town Centre Transport Master Plan 2026 which was adopted by Council on 21 August, 2019. Given that the plan has now been adopted, no refund is applicable for any payment of funds towards the study.

Attachments

1.       Attachment 1 Merged Gateway Determination and Extensions  

2.       Attachment 2 Assessment of Consistency with Gateway Determination  

3.       Attachment 3 Assessment against S9.1 Directions  

4.       Attachment 4 Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policies and SREP 20  

5.       Attachment 5 Assessment of the consistency with the Wollondilly GMS  

6.       Attachment 6 Assessment against CSP  

7.       Attachment 7 Summary Table of Agency Submissions  

8.       Attachment 8 - Extract from Proponents Flood Study (2017) showing extent of proposed widening of creek channel  

9.       Attachment 9 - Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Management Plan 1996 - Flood Classification Map  

10.     Attachment 10 Extract LPP Report Agenda 26032020  

11.     Attachment 11 Extract LPP_20200326_MIN_2247  

12.     Attachment 12 Original Report to Council  PE1 -Draft Planning Proposal Stonequarry Commercial-Cliffe St, Picton- Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 18 February 2013    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

11.2       Stilton Lane Planning Proposal

File Number:           10619-2#215

 

 

Proposal:                              Stilton Lane Planning Proposal

Applicant:                             Fountaindale Group

Owner:                                  Mr Alan Kent

Proposal:                              Planning Proposal to rezone the existing RU2 zone to a mix of RU2 (Rural Landscape), RU4 (Primary Production Small Lots), IN2 (Light Industrial), SP3 (Tourism) and E2 (Environmental Conservation) as well as realigning the existing SP2 freight line and amending building heights across the site. 

Current zoning:                    RU2 (Rural Landscape)

Subject Site:                         No.’s 5, 10,10A, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 Stilton Lane &
2420, 2430, 2440, 2440A Remembrance Drive, Picton

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Stilton Lane Planning Proposal no longer proceeds.

The proposal seeks to amend the Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 2011 (Wollondilly LEP 2011) by rezoning several adjoining lots on Stilton Lane, Picton from RU2 (Rural Landscape) to a range of zones to facilitate housing, tourism, commercial uses and a medical precinct.

This proposal received a Gateway Determination in May 2018 with an 18 month timeframe for completion.  The Gateway Determination required a number of studies be undertaken prior to completion. The Gateway deadline was 30 November 2019. However there has been little progress on the proposal as the required supporting studies have not been provided by the proponent. Several meetings were held with the proponent prior to the November deadline but there has been no progress with the required studies, meaning the Gateway requirements have not been met.

The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s recently adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement. The proposal is also inconsistent with the Western City District Plan.

Given the expired Gateway deadline, Council’s strategic land use vision as detailed in the Local Strategic Planning Statement, and the absence of the required supporting studies, it is considered that the proposal should no longer be supported. Other options are open to Coucnil, as outlined in the body of the report.

The Proposal was considered by the Local Planning Panel on 26 March 2020 which provided advice to the effect that the Proposal lacks strategic planning merit. 

There are other potential options for this land that are consistent with Council’s strategic land use vision. Council staff have consulted with the proponent of this proposal recently and it is understood the proponent is open to discussions for land use outside of the proposal and is now awaiting Council’s formal decision on this planning proposal.  It is recommended that Council staff continue to liaise with the proponent and landowner to discuss options and appropriate permissible land uses for the site moving forward.

Infrastructure provision remains a key constraint for Wollondilly and it is recommended Council continue to advocate to the NSW Government that it bring forward investment in local infrastructure that will support economic stimulus such as upgrades to the Picton Sewage Treatment Plant.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       Notes the Local Planning Panel’s advice regarding the Stilton Lane Planning Proposal.

2.       Resolves not to support the Stilton Lane Planning Proposal for the following reasons:

(a)     The Proposal is inconsistent with the Western City District Plan, in particular Planning Priority 17 ‘Better Managing Rural Areas’;

(b)     The Proposal is inconsistent with Planning Priority 5 and 16 in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement;

(c)     The specialist studies and other supporting information required by the Gateway Determination have not been provided;

(d)     There is no clear pathway for the funding and delivery of the required infrastructure and servicing solutions to support the proposal;

(e)     Existing and future plans for zoned land in Wollondilly Shire is more than sufficient to meet housing demand without the need to rezone land in this location;

(f)      The timeframe specified in the Gateway Determination for completion of the proposal has now lapsed and there has been insufficient progress on the proposal to justify seeking and extension from DPIE.

3.       Advises the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment of this decision.

4.       Request Council staff to continue to liaise with the proponent and landowner to discuss options and appropriate permissible land uses for the site moving forward.

5.       Write to the NSW Premier The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian MP to seek a commitment that the NSW Government bring forward investment in local infrastructure that will support economic stimulus and enable safe emergency evacuation such as upgrades to the Picton Sewage Treatment Plant and the Picton Bypass.

 

Report

Background

This planning proposal was initially submitted to Council in August 2013. A number of issues were identified with the original proposal and after discussion with Council staff, it was resubmitted in 2014.

The resubmitted proposal was first considered by Council in November 2016 where Council resolved to defer the matter to allow the proponent to address concerns raised by Council. This proposal was then considered again by Council in August 2017 and Council resolved to support the planning proposal in an altered form.

The proposal was reported to Council again in December 2017 to correct a minor land description error (Attachment 1).

A Gateway Determination was issued by the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) in May 2018 (see attachment 2). The proponent sought advice from DPIE regarding the changes proposed by Council, particularly the Agricultural Viability Study. DPIE advised that it would assist in reviewing the parameters of the study if requested.

Council wrote to the proponent on 21 October 2019 requesting either a detailed study brief, or withdrawal of the proposal, given the required studies had not been submitted and the Gateway deadline was approaching on 30 November (Attachment 3).

A response was provided to Council on 25 November 2019 advising the required studies had yet to be completed and some changes were being considered.  Further advice was received in early 2020 indicating that the studies had still not commenced.

It is noted that there have been various iterations of this planning proposal proposed by multiple proponents and stakeholders over time, and the intent of the proposal and the vision for the site has become unclear.

 

Planning Proposal

The site (Figure 1) is located approximately 3 km south west from Picton Town Centre between the three towns of Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere and has road frontages to Stilton Lane, Henry Street and Remembrance Driveway. It comprises 13 individual lots under single ownership of approximately 174 hectares. In the past, the land was used for a dairy farm and more recently for the grazing of beef cattle.

 

The objective of the planning proposal is to provide land for continued rural land uses in the form of small agricultural lots while adding to industrial land in Henry Street, protection of vegetation along Redbank Creek and providing land for tourism purposes. Amendments to the SP2 Infrastructure zone on the site are also proposed to reflect the recently rerouted railway line which passes through the site. Changes to the land use zones and minimum lot sizes are proposed to achieve the outcomes of the proposal.

It is noted that the planning proposal submitted for Gateway varied from the one originally submitted to Council by the proponent and which was subject to preliminary community consultation.  The original planning proposal as lodged including the proposed residential zoned land is provided at Figure 2.

Figure 1: Map showing proposal location (within the outer red boundary)

 

 

 

Figure 2: Map showing the planning proposal as notified to public (lodged) NB there was no proposed building height for the RU2 lands.

This planning proposal (as amended by Council in 2018 for Gateway) seeks to amend Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan, 2011 as follows: 

·        Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone land from: 

o   RU2 Rural Landscape to IN2 Light Industrial, SP3 Tourist and E2 Environmental Conservation,

o   SP2 Infrastructure to RU2 Rural Landscape and SP3 Tourist, and

o   RU2 Rural Landscape to SP2 Infrastructure.

·        Amend the Lot Size Map to reflect Table 1 and Figure 4 below

·        Amend the Natural Resources Biodiversity Map in accordance with the findings of a flora and fauna study.

·        Amend the proposed RU2 and R5 land to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots with a minimum lot size of 4ha. 

In its current form the planning proposal includes changes to allow small agricultural holdings, employment lands comprising industrial land and land for tourism purposes. Land around Redbank Creek is proposed to be zoned for environmental conservation purposes. Changes are proposed to minimum lot sizes and the maximum height of buildings. The main southern railway line has been rerouted and the planning proposal reflects the change to the zone required to align with the new route.

 

Figure 3: Current and proposed land zones (as submitted for Gateway)

The table below identifies the minimum lot sizes and approximate number of lots within each proposed zone on the site, as well as the area of land contained within each proposed zone:

Table 1. Minimum Lot Sizes

Proposed Zone

Minimum Lot Size

Approximate Area

Approximate No. of Lots

RU4

4 ha

115 ha

28

RU2

4 ha

17.6 ha

4

SP3 (Tourist)

16 ha

28 ha

1 tourist lot

IN2

1500 m2

2.4 ha

15 industrial lots

E2

N/A

11 ha

N/A

 

Gateway Determination

The Gateway determination for the Stilton Lane Planning Proposal was issued in May 2018 by DPIE. The Gateway allowed 18 months for the completion of the planning proposal. The Gateway determination expired on 26 November 2019. The determination was issued subject to a number of conditions. This included a requirement to undertake and complete the following specialist studies:

1.   Stormwater management plan

2.   Water quality management plan,

3.   Bushfire assessment report

4.   Flooding assessment

5.   Phase 1 contamination assessment

6.   Noise and vibration assessment

7.   Transport study

8.   Economic study addressing agricultural viability of RU4 primary production lots at 4ha minimum lot size.

 

Further clarification on the agricultural viability study was sought by the proponent, and a copy of technical advice on the matter from DPIE was provided in September 2018. The proponent later forwarded a studies brief to Council’s Strategic Planning Team and a response was provided in December 2018 with a number of revisions. The proponent advised Council that a revised brief would be provided shortly – this has yet to be submitted to Council.

To date, none of the above studies have been completed. The Gateway determination required that the planning proposal be revised after these studies had been completed, and that this revised proposal be re-submitted to DPIE prior to proceeding to public exhibition. Without the studies, Council has been unable to progress this proposal and undertake public exhibition and obtain further comments from public authorities.  The Gateway has now expired and given the lack of progress on studies Council has not sought an extension to the determination timeframe.

 

PLANNING CONTEXT

Western City District Plan 2018

The Western City District Plan outlines a number of directions, priorities and actions requiring an integrated approach to housing, land use and transport, delivery of lead-in infrastructure, and the protection and enhancement of bushland and biodiversity.

The Plan sets a 5 year (2016-2021) housing supply target for Wollondilly of 1550 dwellings. Dwelling completions since 2016, combined with existing capacity of rezoned land and the Wilton Growth Area are expected to satisfy this requirement. The subject site is not located within an identified urban area and is not required to meet housing demands in the short or medium term. Additionally the proposal site is geographically isolated from the town centre of Picton and the further development of the site for residential purposes on the scale proposed would erode the buffers between the villages.

Planning Priority W17 of the Western City District Plan also states the following in regards to growth in the MRA:

Rural Residential Development is not an economic value of the districts rural areas and further rural residential development is generally not supported.

Limited growth of rural residential development could be considered could be considered where there are no adverse impacts on the amenity of the local area and the development provides incentives to maintain and enhance the environmental, social and economic values of the Metropolitan Rural Area.

The proposal is not consistent with the above requirements of the district plan and no studies have been provided demonstrate how the proposal meets these requirements. It is considered that the significant size and scale of the proposal could not be considered limited local growth and would also impact the character and amenity of the local area which is inconsistent with the District Plan requirements.

There is insufficient supporting information and technical studies to demonstrate that this planning proposal is consistent with the Western City District Plan priorities, in particular the principles of the Metropolitan Rural Area (MRA), in particular whether the proposal would satisfy the requirement of local growth.

 

Create Wollondilly 2033 (Community Strategic Plan)

The CSP is a high level document, based on extensive community consultation and reflects the desires of Wollondilly’s residents. Page 20 of Create Wollondilly 2033 clearly spells out that the town and villages are unique, with their own needs and character, and are to be considered separate identities. In order to preserve these villages, the CSP mandates that there must be separation between the localities that preserves Wollondilly’s rural character. The Stilton Lane Planning Proposal is not consistent with the CSP on the basis that it would create a significant residential connection between Picton/Thirlmere/Tahmoor and erode the protected rural separation that currently exists.

Wollondilly 2040 (Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement)

The Draft Wollondilly Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040 (LSPS) is a 20 year land use vision for Wollondilly. The LSPS was endorsed by Council at an Extraordinary Meeting on 11 February, 2020 and will form the basis for guiding future development in the Shire.

Within the LSPS, Planning Priority 16 seeks to affirm the importance of the retention of rural lands that fall within the MRA and acknowledges that no rural land will be fragmented unless both the need can be reasonably justified (via the upcoming Rural Lands and Housing Strategies) and that this fragmentation will not damage the agricultural, scenic and environmental values of the landscape (Wollondilly 2040, pg. 95).

The fragmentation of such a large area of rural land in the MRA would be contrary to the planning priority contained in the LSPS. Priority 5 of the LSPS also talks about the importance of keeping separation between the established towns and villages in the Shire in order to retain the values of the MRA lands. This planning priority also identifies that the Shire is on track to surpass the Western City District Plan target for 1,550 new dwellings during 2016 and 2021, and that we expect the supply of most new housing during the 5 years after 2021 will come from planning proposals currently in advanced stages, natural growth in the existing towns and villages and the Wilton Growth Centre. The LSPS therefore does not identify the need for the residential growth that would result from the proposal and confirms that the fragmentation of the rural land is unnecessary.

Ministerial Directions & State Environmental Planning Policies

A comprehensive assessment of the proposal against both the relevant 9.1 Directions and State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) was undertaken without the outstanding technical studies, for the purposes of generating a planning proposal for Gateway consideration. However, without this required information it is difficult to determine consistency. This further supports the view that the Stilton Lane planning proposal is not in a position to progress and should be withdrawn and resubmitted when the outstanding information has been sourced by the proponent. A copy of the assessment against Ministerial Directions and SEPPs is included in Attachment 4.

Consultation

As mentioned above, public exhibition post-Gateway has not been undertaken. However, this proposal was subject to initial notification between 8 June and 8 July, 2016 with six (6) submissions received – two (2) were supportive of the proposal, two (2) were opposed and two (2) were neutral.

Public Agency Responses

A number of public agencies were consulted as part of the initial consultation, however only (2) responses were received. The matters raised by those agencies are detailed on the following pages:

 

Subsidence Authority NSW

SANSW is concerned as the land sits within the Bargo Mine Subsidence District. It also referenced that part of the subject land sits within an area currently being undermined by Tahmoor Coal’s operations.

Roads and Maritime Services NSW

RMS replied to the initial consultation stating that a traffic impact study is required, in line with Table 2.1 of the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

RMS also highlighted that the area should be included on the Urban Release Map and that infrastructure upgrades may need to be considered to avoid unacceptable impacts on the road network.

It is noted that Sydney Water have not provided advice in relation to this planning proposal. However consistent with recent advice provided on other planning proposals, and as noted on its website, there is a significant wastewater serving constraints in Picton.

The following is an extract from another planning proposal in the Picton area:

“The development site is under the Picton Sewage System. Currently, the Picton Treatment Plant Effluent Management system has no capacity to manage additional treated effluent.

Sydney Water is currently planning to increase the capacity of the Picton Sewage Treatment Effluent Management system to enable future development within the catchment to connect to the system. Progression of the planning and delivery of these works is subject to approvals from the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Following approval, it is expected that the planning and delivery of these amplifications will take up to four years. Sydney Water will advise Council when it has obtained the approval from the EPA”.

Local Planning Panel Advice

As required by the Ministerial Direction issued on 27 September 2018, the proposal was referred to the Wollondilly Local Planning Panel, as the Panel is required to provide advice on any request to alter a Gateway Determination.

The planning proposal was reported to the Local Planning Panel for consideration at its meeting on 26 March 2020 and the following advice was provided to Council on the proposal:

1.   The proposal is not consistent with Council’s land use vision as detailed in the endorsed Local Strategic Planning Statement.

2.   The proposal is not consistent with the Western City District Plan.

3.   The proposal would require the delivery of public infrastructure and services that are currently not forecast or funded.

4.   Existing and future plans for zoned land in Wollondilly Shire is more than sufficient to meet housing demand without the need to rezone land in this location.

 

A copy of the Panel’s advice is attached to this report in Attachment 5.

Consultation with Proponent

Council staff have consulted with the proponent of this proposal, who was open to discussions for land use outside of the subject proposal. Discussion was based on potential uses for the site that would be permissible on the site itself, without the need to progress the existing planning proposal.

The proponent highlighted that the landowner was still interested in pursuing alternative uses for the site, beyond housing. There are two current options being considered by the proponent

·    The first is the establishment of a private hospital, with the proponent discussing this option with a large private medical services provider which is looking into licensing options and other matters. This would complement existing private hospitals services in Campbelltown and Bowral, has the benefit of already being permitted in the current zoning (RU2), and would provide specialist medical services to the existing residential and commercial centre of Wollondilly.

·    The second option would be the sale of land in the south of the site to a prominent provider of aged care services to develop a seniors living centre with integrated medical services facility at that location. Unless the land is zoned B4 or R3, or the site is added to the additional permitted usage table in the Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 2011, seniors housing would only be permitted in this site under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 subject to a Site Compatibility Certificate. An SCC may be challenging in this area without a new town centre being built on the site to provide the minimum number of services required. This would also compete with the existing retail and business within Picton and Tahmoor.

Options for Council

1.       Support the planning proposal to continue

This option would require the DPIE to support a further extension to the Gateway determination, for the proponent to immediately commence all studies already identified in a timely manner and to further address the Local Strategic Planning Statement.  This option is unlikely to be supported by DPIE, and it is noted that no progress has been made on studies for the past year following a number of requests for updates.

2.       Stop the planning proposal

This option would require an Altered Gateway determination to stop the planning proposal. Instead, Council officers may continue to discuss appropriate land use options patricianly permissible land uses which benefit the landowner, Council and the Community.

Option 2 is the preferred option and is the recommendation by Council officers, and is supported by the Local Planning Panel.

Financial Implications

Given the preliminary stage of the proposal, no detailed analysis of infrastructure or financial implications for Council has been undertaken. It is noted that a comprehensive assessment of the relevant financial implications in terms of State or regional infrastructure has also not yet occurred.

Work on this project to date has been covered by the planning proposal fee paid by the proponent.

However, should the proposal continue, there would be an unfunded financial implication associated with the assessment of the required studies.

Conclusion

Council has continually requested updates and study briefs to progress assessment of this proposal but these are still outstanding. The supporting technical studies are still outstanding and the Gateway determination deadline has not been met.  Additionally the proposal is inconsistent with Council’s newly adopted LSPS and the Western City District Plan.  Accordingly, it is recommended that Council no longer support this planning proposal.

Attachments

1.       Report to Council - Stilton Lane - December 2019  

2.       Stilton Lane Gateway Determination Document  

3.       Director's Letter to Proponent - October 2019  

4.       Assessment Against Ministerial Directions and State Environment Planning Policies  

5.       Report to LPP 26 March 2020   

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

11.3       Improving the Infrastructure Contributions System

File Number:           10619-2#255

 

Executive Summary

On 15 April 2020, Treasurer the Hon Dominic Perrottet, MP and Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Hon Rob Stokes MP, jointly announced a pathway forward for contributions reform, comprising immediate changes and longer term reform.

In response to the immediate changes, the NSW Government invited public comment on proposed improvements to the Infrastructure Contributions System to provide transparency and simplicity to a complex system in the areas of:

·    Contributions plan review;

·    Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs); and

·    State Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) Guidelines, and

·    Reporting and Account requirements.

The reform package was placed on public exhibition from 15 April 2020 to 12 June 2020. This report is in response to that public exhibition.

Council officers have prepared a short submission in response to the proposed changes.  The submission notes that a number of the proposed changes are welcome, and long overdue, and will provide some more robust transparency for both local and state level contributions in the short term. None of the changes are in conflict with Council’s recently adopted Wollondilly Local Contributions Plan.

It is also noted that COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures—Miscellaneous) Act 2020 No 5 was Assented to on 14 May 2020 and made amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. These changes allow for the pooling of funds received by Council for different purposes under a contributions plan, and for the Minister to specify the time at which a monetary contribution or levy is to be paid. These changes are already in effect and are not the subject of this report.

Recommendation

That Council:

1.   Endorses the attached draft submission on the NSW State government’s review of the infrastructure contributions scheme; and

2.   Forwards the submission to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

 

Report

Details of the proposed Review

The NSW Government has announced its planned changes aim to fix the uncertainty of infrastructure contributions, unlocking new housing supply, delivering vital public infrastructure and boosting investment in NSW. The plan involves two reviews running in parallel as detailed below.

Review of the infrastructure contributions system

The NSW Productivity Commissioner, Peter Achterstraat (within NSW Treasury) will conduct a holistic review of the infrastructure funding in NSW to determine whether it meets the objectives of certainty and efficiency, while delivering public infrastructure to support development. 

It is expected that this review will recommend options for reform that are aimed at delivering a principles-based system to deliver the infrastructure needed to match growth. This could include proposed changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and to other legislation that impacts infrastructure funding.

No submissions have been called for the Productivity Commissioner’s review at this time.

Infrastructure contributions system improvements

In support of the NSW Productivity Commissioner’s review, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) sought feedback on proposed updates to the planning system that can be implemented in the short term to make it more transparent and easier to use.

These proposed system improvements respond to a range of recent governance reviews on how the planning system might be improved, including the Kaldas Review. The proposed improvements address five areas:

·        Draft planning agreements policy

·        Improving the review of local contributions plans discussion paper

·        Criteria for higher 7.12 contributions

·        Draft SIC guidelines

·        Proposed amendments to EP&A Regulation

Draft planning agreements policy framework

The proposed guidance material aims to provide more transparency around the planning agreement process and appears to reinforce the fact that planning agreements are a legitimate means to fund innovative solutions to the community's infrastructure needs.

The revised Draft Planning Agreement Practice Note responds to the Kaldas Review of the NSW planning system and aims to increase clarity and transparency in the system by promoting the importance of strategic land use and infrastructure planning. It does, however, clarify that ‘value capture is not to be the primary purpose of a VPA’.

The exhibition material supports Council’s current approach to fund the maintenance of public assets forgrowth until a payment base is established. The main point of process improvement for Wollondilly, which should be viewed as a positive, is that Council’s consideration of a planning agreement should be made, exhibited and considered contemporaneously with its corresponding planning proposal for a defined area of land. Council staff hold that this is the most appropriate time to satisfactorily negotiate for the commensurate infrastructure to support proposed development, not after the fact.

Improving the review of local infrastructure contributions plans discussion paper

There are proposed efficiency reforms to the review process for section 7.11 contributions plans, which will improve the overall function and application of the funding mechanism and support councils in planning for the infrastructure needs of their growing communities.

This paper considers raising the contributions threshold (cap) that triggers an Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) review and proposes three options:

·        Option 1 – indexation of the current $20,000 and $30,000 threshold;

·        Option 2 – replacing these with new thresholds of $30,000 for existing areas and $45,000 for greenfield area; and

·        Option 3 – Removing the complex definitions of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 land and Introducing a flat $45,000 threshold across all areas.

The purpose of these system improvements is to provide transparency and simplicity in the development contributions systems.

Council officers support Option 3 - a single, flat, rate of $45,000.  It is also considered that this figure should be indexed annually in the same way as the Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC).

This paper also reviews the role that IPART plays in this process and proposes a number of changes. These include streamlining the process through removal of the requirement to re-exhibit plan amendments, reducing the delays from DPIE in approving IPART reviewed plans, and removing the exemption that applies to some plans (sometimes called ‘grandfathered plans’). Again, with transparency and simplicity in mind, these proposals are worthwhile improvements.

That said, this review is also an opportunity to review the Essential Works List (EWL) once and for all, to recognise that community infrastructure such as libraries and neighbourhood centres is absolutely ‘essential’ to creating community. An expanded EWL could also foster innovative open spaces outcomes for the community and the environment, such as the Burragorang Valley Walk. Given the current Covid climate, these opportunities are particularly more important to embrace.

Criteria to request a higher section 7.12 percentage discussion paper

While the recently adopted Wollondilly Local Contributions Plan (2020) does not contain a section 7.12 fixed levy, it is important to note the proposed criteria.  If alternative opportunities or conditions arise in the future, such as the need for town centre improvements, enterprise corridors or the like, there will be a set of transparent assessment criteria for requesting Ministerial approval for a higher percentage for section 7.12 fixed levies from 2% to 3%.

The criteria include the following:

·    The land is identified as a strategic centre or economic growth corridor;

·    There is a plan to support jobs growth; and

·    There is a high degree of alignment with the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

The proposed criteria for section 7.12 levies are supported, however, it is important to note that the proposed section 7.11 plan will provide more local infrastructure then these proposed changes.

Draft Special Infrastructure Contributions (SIC) guidelines

These proposed guidelines seek to improve transparency around the purpose and function of Special Infrastructure Contributions (SIC). The guidelines explain and clarify the purpose and objectives of the SIC framework and how DPIE consider prospective SICs, their principles for implementing and administering, the method for determining a new SIC and processes for allocating SIC revenue to infrastructure investment.

These guidelines are welcome and long overdue. It is only natural, in the pursuit of a more transparent contributions system, that SICs are also held to the same high standard as local contributions plans.

Proposed amendments to the EP&A Regulation

DPIE has exhibited proposed changes to improve transparency through clearer accounting and reporting on contributions by councils and planning authorities. The proposed amendments respond to the Kaldas review into the Planning System and have the following objectives:

·        Identifying the infrastructure or land that is targeted, collected for, expended on, dedicated to, or completed by the council through development contributions.

·        Improving Contributions Registers - noting this is information generally collected as part of the DA process or when the contributions notice is issued.

·        Improving Contributions Plan Reporting - similar to existing annual financial statement reporting and information for each Contributions Plan.

·        Improving VPA Reporting - similar to existing annual financial statement reporting with information for each Agreement.

The intention and transparency of these proposed measures is supported and will provide a more robust and transparent system. However each of these items will take significant time and resources to implement in terms of staffing and system resources. Implementation should be staged and required at least a full financial year after any amended regulation and/or any supporting codes, circulars and directions have been published. This will allow resources to be planned and budgeted appropriately.

Similarly, the benchmark of 1.5% for plan management and administration is insufficient for the regulatory compliance and auditing costs that will be incurred by Councils in addition to those already required. Support from Government is required to implement these changes and an increase in the benchmark plan administration rate is required to comply with these requirements.

Consultation

Council officers consulted with DPIE officers on the closing date for submissions and were granted an extension to 19 June 2020 noting the date of this Council meeting.

Internal dialogue has occurred between the contributions team, finance team and assets team.

It is noted that the intent of the amendments is supported, however these need to be staged adequately.

Financial Implications

This matter is likely to have financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. At this stage the financial implications are unknown, however we are seeking a staggered implementation approach to the new reporting mechanism which will allow time for forward budgeting and planning to occur appropriately.

Attachments

1.       Submission Improving the Contributions System   

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

12          Management and Provision of Infrastructure

12.1       Commemorative Naming – The Late John Corbett - Picton

File Number:           10619-2#195

 

Executive Summary

Council has resolved to commemorate the late John Corbett and acknowledge his significant contribution to Picton and the Wollondilly Shire Community.

This report recommends renaming Manolis Lane in Picton to ‘Corbett Way / Lane’ with the name Manolis Lane being used to identify a laneway in the Picton Cemetery.

Council has consulted with the Picton & District Historical and Family History Society and the Macarthur Greeks, who are fully supportive of Manolis Lane being relocated to Picton Cemetery in upper Picton, which is viewed as a more geographically and historically relevant location.

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       Commemorate and honour the late well known Picton businessman John Corbett with a road name.

2.       Endorse the proposal to rename Manolis Lane in Picton to Corbett Way/Lane, as an ongoing reminder of one of Mr Corbett’s many contributions to Picton, the Picton Mall.

3.       Relocate the existing road name of Manolis Lane to an unnamed section of road at Picton Cemetery that is more relevant geographically to the Manolis history and heritage.

4.       Commence and complete the community consultation and take all necessary steps to formalise the naming including application to the NSW Geographical Name Board, as required.

 

Report

In the Mayoral Minute of August 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting (10.1 – Memoriam of John Corbett), it was proposed by Council to name a cycleway in Picton and another significant piece of infrastructure after the late John Corbett in commemoration of his contribution to Picton and the Wollondilly Shire Community.

Due to the development history of the cycleway, naming it after Mr Corbett did not result in unanimous support and, accordingly, this report proposes an alternative, which is the naming of a road in a suitable location.

The late John Corbett and his family developed and previously owned Picton Mall which has a road entrance currently named Manolis Lane, PictonThe Picton Mall location is one of Mr Corbett’s most recognisable contributions to the community and this location is a fitting place to commemorate Mr Corbett with a road naming in his honour.

The proposal is to rename Manolis Lane, Picton to Corbett Way/Lane and relocate the name of Manolis Lane to a more suitable location in Upper Picton at Picton Cemetery, which is more relevant to the Manolis history and heritage.

Consultation with the Picton & District Historical and Family History Society Inc. and the Macarthur Greeks Inc. has confirmed that the geographical history of Antonis Manolis is around upper Picton near Picton Cemetery and, as such, both parties support the proposal to rename the unnamed lane in the Picton Cemetery as Manolis Lane.

The Macarthur Greeks Inc. also had a meeting with its committee members on 1 May 2020 to discuss the relocation proposal.  The meeting confirmed support of the proposal as it was viewed to have more relevance to history of Antonis Manolis within Picton.

 

If Council supports the proposal, the process will be as follows:

·        Proceed with an application to commence the road naming process (which includes this Council resolution and evidence of community feedback for the road naming proposal (i.e. advertisement for 21-28 days on website or newspapers).

·        If no objections are received, the name would be put to the GNB Board for approval and subsequent gazettal.

·        Once published in the Gazette, Council may then erect signage.

·        Under the GNB Road Naming & Place Naming Policy, applications can only be considered 12 months after the person’s passing.  In this case, should Council wish to proceed, the Application would not be approved before August 2020.

 

 

Consultation

·        Geographical Names Board.

·        Infrastructure Strategy & Planning.

·        Picton & District Historical and Family History Society Inc.

·        Mr John Tsekas, President, Macarthur Greeks Inc.

Financial Implications

This matter has no financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates and any costs can be covered from existing budget allocations.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

12.2       Adoption of Draft Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan

File Number:           10619-2#217

 

Executive Summary

Council has been taking action to seek to address Stonequarry Creek flooding, with a range of actions particularly in recent years, reducing flood risk for Picton Town centre and surrounds.

A key action is the investigation of the Stonequarry Creek Catchment in terms of flood risk within the Picton Town Centre in accordance with the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual.

The process includes the formation of a Floodplain Management Committee, development of a Flood Study followed by development of a Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan.  Following the State Government process enables Council to seek financial assistance in pursuing the studies and any subsequent works.

The Floodplain Risk Management Study evaluated risks and management options for the floodplain in respect of both existing and proposed development.  The effective options were further reviewed to form the Floodplain Risk Management Plan which includes recommendations for works, planning controls and greater education and awareness. 

The Study and Plan have now been the subject of community consultation and have been updated to reflect comments received where considered appropriate. This report outlines the community feedback, addresses issues raised and recommends adoption of the Study & Plan.

Upon adoption, Council will be in a position to pursue the measures specified in the Plan, including applying for funding through the NSW government’s Floodplain Management Program and other resilience based funding programmes.

Actions already taken to reduce flood risk include significant management of vegetation in Stonequarry Creek including tree removal and bank stabilisation, thinning, debris removal, weed control and crown lifting, more than 1000 hours of vegetation, debris and litter management, development of flood warning systems and response plans, and targeted channel opening. 

Council also assessed the value of vegetation management on reducing flood risk. Modelling found that the current level of management has delivered a significant reduction in flood risk in the town centre, however any further vegetation removal only provided incremental value at significant financial, heritage and amenity cost.

Recommendation

That Council:

1.   Note the significant action taken to date to manage the Stonequarry Creek catchment, which has reduced flood risk for Picton Town centre and surrounds.

2.   Adopt the Stonequarry Creek Flood Study Update and the Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan.

3.   Commence implementation of the Plan as a priority as resources permit.

4.   Consider an update of the Stonequarry Creek Vegetation Management Plan, to contemporise with the Risk Management Study & Plan, in the next annual budgeting process.

 

 

 

 

 

Report

Background

The NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual provides a framework to ensure the sustainable use of floodplain environments and incorporates the NSW Flood Prone Policy.  Under the Policy, floodplain risk management of flood liable land rests with Local Government, with State Government subsidising flood mitigation works to alleviate existing problems and providing specialist technical advice to assist councils in performing their floodplain management responsibilities.

The Policy provides for technical and financial support by the State Government through six steps:

1.   Establishment of a Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

2.   Data Collection.

3.   Flood Study - determines the nature and extent of flooding.

4.   Floodplain Risk Management Study - evaluates risks and management options for the floodplain in respect of both existing and proposed development.

5.   Floodplain Risk Management Plan - involves adoption by Council of a plan of management for the floodplain.

6.   Implementation of the Plan - flood readiness and response plans, construction of flood mitigation works to protect existing development and use of planning controls such as the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) to ensure new development is compatible with the flood hazard.

In December 2019 Council resolved that the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update and the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan be placed on pubic exhibition and that a report come back to Council following the public exhibition (i.e. Steps 4 & 5).

The public exhibition of the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update and the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan took place between 18 February 2020 and 17 March 2020 and details of the exhibition process are provided in the attached Community Engagement report.

A total of 13 submissions were received during and following the exhibition period.  The details of the submissions and the responses are provided in the attached submission summary.  The Submission Summary also notes any changes to be made to the exhibition documents prior to publication.

The Wollondilly Floodplain Risk Management Committee met on 11 May 2020 to consider the submissions and recommended for the Stonequarry Creek Flood Study Update and the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan be adopted by Council.

Action taken to date to reduce flood risk

Updated flood modelling has been documented as the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update.  The update included significant recorded data from the June 2016 event as well contemporising the model to the latest Australian flood specifications (Australian Rainfall & Runoff).

The results of the flood study have highlighted the significant amount of work done by Council and the positive impact for the community including:

·        Residential development is largely outside of the flood planning area

·        Limited damages to residential properties

·        Low risk to life for residents

·        Flood warning system based on three gauges in the catchment

·        Automated alerts are sent via SMS and email to Council and emergency response agencies

·        Council’s continued facilitation of the Local Emergency Management Committee (seen as one of the most proactive LEMC’s in NSW) involving a range of agencies in Picton

·        Significant management of vegetation in Stonequarry Creek, which is essential for Picton’s Flood Risk Management, including:

o   Vegetation thinning

o   Vegetation debris removal

o   Weed control

o   Crown lifting

·        2016 ~ 580 hours vegetation, debris and litter management including storm response

·        2017 ~ 100 hours vegetation, debris and litter management

·        2018 ~ 160 hours vegetation, debris and litter management

·        2019 ~ 186 hours vegetation, debris and litter management

·        NSW Soil Conservation Service - tree removal and bank stabilisation works (2017)

·        Stonequarry Creek River Process and Erosion Report (2017)

·        Channel opening behind townhouses on Menangle Street (2018)

·        Calibration and revision of Flood Study and preparation of Floodplain Risk Management Study in accordance with NSW’s Floodplain Development Policies.

Overview of Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan

The Flood Study Update formed the basis for the subsequent work on the Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan.

The Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study outlines the assessment of potential mitigation options that fall into three broad categories:

1.       Response Modification - changes to the flood response.

2.       Property Modification - changes to properties including controls on future development.

3.       Flood Modification - changes to the flood behaviour through constructed works.

The Wollondilly Floodplain Risk Management Committee considered options assessed with the Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study at a number of committee meetings.

The options that have been assessed as warranting further consideration form the basis of the Floodplain Risk Management Plan and these are:

1.       Response Modification Recommendations

·        Investigation of Flood Warning System

§  Review of current system and trigger levels

§  High level assessment of alternatives

·        Improve Emergency Response Coordination

§  Regular meetings of all responders (including ground staff and decision makers)

§  Build relationships between Council, NSW State Emergency Service (SES) and NSW Fire & Rescue

§  Improve Volunteer Deployment

·        Implement an ongoing collaborative community education program to maintain and improve flood awareness in Picton

2.       Property Modification Recommendations

·        Amend Wollondilly LEP 2011 to:

§  Incorporate the revised  Flood Planning Level (FPL)  i.e. the adopted flood level plus freeboard; and Flood Planning Area (FPA) i.e. the area of land below the FPL; based on outcomes of this study

§  Requirement for development consent for critical facilities between the FPA and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)

·        Amend Wollondilly DCP 2016 to:

§  Utilise mapped outputs and modelling tools from this study

§  Consider advice regarding controls relating to basement car parks and community facilities

·        Provide information to Residents via Section 10.7 Planning Certificates under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

·        Investigate Temporary Flood Barriers that may be suitable for commercial premises in Picton town centre

3.       Flood Modification Recommendations

·        Feasibility Study for detention basins on Stonequarry Creek upstream of Barkers Lodge Road

·        Argyle Street Stormwater Pipe Upgrade

·        South Picton Diversion Bank

·        Menangle Street Culvert Upgrade

·        Feasibility Study  for the potential Voluntary Purchase of  some properties/buildings in the Picton floodway

·        Current vegetation management program to be continued and reviewed periodically

Managing Vegetation

Specifically, in relation to the vegetation management program, which was a significant discussion point with the Committee and throughout the community engagement sessions, modelling was carried out with the current level of management, no management at all and a higher level of management (i.e. removing more vegetation).

It was found that the current level of management compared to ‘do nothing’ has delivered a significant reduction in flood risk in the town centre and the ongoing funding demonstrates Council’s commitment and efficacy in managing the public land areas of the Stonequarry Creek floodplain.

However, it was also demonstrated that removal of any further vegetation exposed the creek bank to damaging velocities that would need to be addressed by significant armouring and or laying the creek banks back i.e. widening the creek, requiring significant land acquisition and works that would have significant impact on heritage and amenity.  Yet the modelling also showed that incremental value of reducing flood risk using this approach was low and was not recommended for further review.

In this regard, Council should revisit the Vegetation Management Plan to contemporise it with the findings of the Floodplain Risk Management Plan as budgets and resources allow.

Consultation

Consultation with the community for the Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study commenced with the formation of the Wollondilly Floodplain Risk Management Committee to guide the process in 2017.

The community representative membership of the Committee was expanded in 2018 with two additional members.

The public exhibition of the two documents that make up the Draft Stonequarry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan included extensive community consultation outlined in the attached Community Engagement Report. The following table summarises the submissions and addresses the issues raised. Modifications to the Study and Plan have been made where considered appropriate in response.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

Table 1. Submission Summary



Item

Topic

Location2

Specific Comments

Report Changes

1.1

Mitigation options - flood modification

Menangle Street

Concerns about the plan to raise Menangle Street (Flood Modification Option D2) stating that the water will flow into their house and the houses on the lower side of Menangle Street as a result.

Response:

The primary objective of Option D2 was to alleviate flooding on and in the vicinity of this location on Menangle Street. During future design stages, the local impacts of the works would be considered and offsetting measures such as additional drainage capacity would be designed, if required.  Additional text has been added to the description of this option to clarify the intent and aspects to be considered in future design stages.

Clarification has been added to Table i, and Section 11.5.6.2

1.2

Drainage

Menangle Street

Concerns that there is not enough sub-surface drainage or inlet capacity in Menangle Street to cope with light rain and ponding occurs in front of their house.

Response:

Please refer to response to Item 1.1

Please refer to report changes for Item 1.1

2.1

Works in the floodplain

Stonequarry and Racecourse Creek Confluence

Concerns with the construction of the pedestrian bridge at the Stonequarry and Racecourse Creek confluence in 2017. Noting that the bridge is constructed below the 2016 flood level and are concerned that a similar event would cause "huge quantities of water" to enter property.  The submission suggests Council would be liable for any damages caused.

Response:

The design of structures in the floodplain is a delicate balance of a range of criteria including design life and cost. Given the likely design life, structures are typically assessed for their impacts in the 1% AEP event.  The 2016 event has been determined to be a much larger and less frequent event than the 1% AEP event.  Despite this available modelling shows that the afflux (or relative impact) of the pedestrian bridge structure in both the 2016 and 1% AEP events to be less than 0.1m.

Nil

3.1

Mitigation options - flood modification

Study Area Wide

The submission notes significant runoff occurring across the catchment and suggests the construction of larger water catchments/dams or runoff tanks across the shire to reduce runoff entering Stonequarry Creek.  The submission also suggests financial assistance could be provided.

Response:

This is a common suggestion that came out of discussions with the community and the floodplain risk management committee.  Subsequently, a range of options were considered across the study area, including five specific locations for retarding basins (Options RB1 - RB5).  In most cases the topography of the catchment required significant structures (dam walls) of a few hundred metres in length to provide the storage volume needed to reduce runoff volumes in the 1% AEP event.  For this and other reasons (including effectiveness) a number of the considered options were not found to be viable.  Option RB1 located upstream of Barker Lodge Road was found to result in significant benefits to flood behaviour and has been recommended for further investigation.  The NSW Government provides technical and financial assistance to Councils to assess flood risk and implement measures through the Floodplain Risk Management Process, under which this study has been undertaken.

Nil

4.1

Impacts of flooding

LGA Wide

Endeavour Energy has stated that neither of their two substations are located within the hydraulic model extent and therefore flood information is not available at the sites from this study.  The submission states however that neither site is likely to be significantly directly affected by flooding.  The submission stressed the importance of maintaining road access to substations to allow for electricity supply to be maintained for a longer period and allow quicker restoration of supply. 

Response:

The comments regarding road access to electrical supply facilities are noted.

Nil

4.2

Mitigation options - property modification

Study Area Wide

The submission also notes two recommendations from the FRMS related to electricity supply, including being regarded as critical facilities and not suitable in medium and high flood risk precincts, and flood proofing options for commercial properties / buildings to include ‘ locating electricals above the FPL, and facilitation of drainage and ventilation after flooding’.

Response:

The acknowledgment of these recommendations is appreciated.

Nil

5.1

General

N/A

The submission commends Council and WMAwater on the high quality layout and professionalism during the public drop in session on the 5th March.

Response:

This feedback is appreciated.

Nil

5.2

Flood behaviour

Menangle Street

The submission concurs with the representation of flood behaviour in the vicinity of their properties on Menangle Street.

Response:

Noted

Nil

5.3

Mitigation options - response modification

Menangle Street

The submission is supportive of improved flood warning and suggests that there is an opportunity to place signage in the Mackillop Lane car park to indicate the flood level reached in June 2016 and for flood education safety messages.  The school would be supportive of the installation of such signage.

Response:

The comments regarding placement of flood education signage is noted and the suggested location has been included in the report text.

Section 11.3.3 has been amended

5.4

Future development

Coull Street

The submission is concerned that the impacts of development on flood behaviour, for currently zoned but yet undeveloped land, has not been considered as part of the study, with specific reference to 8-14 Coull Street. There is concern that development of this land will impact on flood behaviour as well as the environment.  Noting that the site is classified as part flood storage and part floodway, the submission suggests development of this land would not be economically viable given the flooding constraints and subsequent planning controls.  Suggesting that the land either be rezoned to private recreation or is voluntarily purchased.

Response:

The FRMS considers the potential impacts on flood behaviour of development on currently undeveloped land.  The results of this assessment are discussed in Section 10 of the report.  The discussion specifically references the Coull Street area as being unsuitable for future development due to the potential impacts on flood behaviour.  The NSW Governments Voluntary Purchase scheme is limited to already developed properties and would not be a viable option for these properties.  Option CM3 proposed floodway clearing, which would require rezoning of the associated land.  This option has been expanded to include consideration of other land (including the identified properties) that may be unviable for development as part of this rezoning process.

Table i and Section 11.5.2.3 has been amended to include other land considered unviable for development.

6.1

Vegetation

Study Area Wide

Concerns that the study has not appropriately considered the effects associated with larger vegetation in the Stonequarry Creek channel, including potential water displacement and blockage. The submission is supported by a range of calculations.  Suggestion that larger trees should be removed to allow smaller vegetation to grow and provide bank stability or for the channel to be concrete lined to avoid turbulence.

Response:

The reduced capacity of the Stonequarry Creek channel as a result of debris blockage was a common theme discussed with the community and the floodplain risk management committee.   As a result, a range of options were considered as part of the study including broadscale clearing and improving conveyance of the Stonequarry Creek channel (Option CM1).  While this option provided some improved flood behaviour through the Picton CBD, options must consider impacts beyond purely hydraulic performance such as visual and community amenity, environmental and habitat impacts, land acquisition and changes to flood risk.  For these reasons, this option was not considered viable and was not recommended.  Council undertakes an active vegetation management program which is informed by a third party assessment of suitable vegetation levels, habitat and bank stability. As part of this program Council has undertaken over 1000 hours of vegetation management since the 2016 flood event.  Option CM4 recommends the continuation of these practices.

Nil

7.1

Mitigation options - flood modification

Menangle Street

Concerns about the plan to raise Menangle Street (Flood Modification Option D2) stating that the water will flow into their house and the houses on the lower side of Menangle Street as a result.

Response:

Please refer to response to Item 1.1

Please refer to report changes for Item 1.1

7.2

Drainage

Menangle Street

Concerns that there is not enough sub-surface drainage or inlet capacity in Menangle Street to cope with light rain and ponding occurs in front of their house.

Response:

Please refer to response to Item 1.1

Please refer to report changes for Item 1.1

7.3

Vegetation

Study Area Wide

Notes overgrowth and weeds in Stonequarry Creek behind their property and were concerned about the damage that debris can cause.

Response:

Please refer to response to Item 6.1

 

8.1

Mitigation options - property modifications

LGA Wide

Generally speaking, the team is in support of the recommendations of the study. Seeking clarification on the following:

·      A suggestion to include in recommendation RM01 and RM02, to identify and prioritise any vulnerable people in the improved Flood Warning Systems (RM01) and Emergency Response Coordination efforts (RM02).

·      Clarification that PM01 Flood Planning Level is to essentially add "or other level as determined by any floodplain risk management plan adopted by the Council" to the existing clause.

·      Clarification that PM01 should also be extended to any DCP definition of the FPL.

·      Request for additional text to be added to PM03 Flood Proofing to ensure that any temporary flood barrier selected is sympathetic to the heritage values of the Picton area where possible.

Response:

This feedback is appreciated, and suggested clarifications will be included in the report text.

Table i, Sections 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.4.1, 11.4.2 and 11.4.3 amended as suggested.

9.1

Mitigation options - flood modification

Menangle Street

As the road authority responsible for Menangle Street, negotiations would need to be undertaken with Transport for NSW for Options D1 and D2.  It is also suggested that the cost of D1 be increased to $250,000

Response:

This feedback is appreciated, and suggested clarifications and amendments will be included in the report text.

Table I, Sections 11.5.6.1 and 11.5.6.2 amended as suggested.

10.1

Mitigation options - property modifications

Picton CBD

Information has been requested as to the consequences for property development in areas identified as floodway and FPCC1.

Response:

The aim of the recommended property modification and planning measures are to ensure that development is compatible with the existing and future flood risk.  At a high level development in these areas should be limited to those that are compatible with the flood risk.  The Floodplain Development Manual, the guiding document under which this study is undertaken also acknowledges that the intent of the NSW Government Flood Prone Land Policy is not to sterilise land from appropriate development.

Nil

11.1

Flood behaviour

Jarvisfield

Concerns with the flood mapping in the Jarvisfield Estate potentially not including the changes to the terrain as a result of the recent development.

Response:

At the time of the flood modelling early in the overall project this area was under development and suitable details of the development were not available for inclusion in the model.  It is recommended that at the next available opportunity this portion of the model be updated to included recently acquired LiDAR information.  This will ensure that the flood behaviour in this area is representative of the current catchment and development conditions.

Nil

12.1

Flood behaviour

Study Area Wide

The submission notes that areas within the study area contain leases where future coal extraction may be planned.  It notes that any analysis of flood behaviour or management strategies should consider the potential impacts of this extraction.

Response:

The comments made are noted and have been added to the report in relation to the recommended mitigation options.

Table i, Section 11.5.4.1

13.1

Mitigation options - flood modification

Commercial Areas

The submission states that "the extent of impacts of the 2016 storm event should never, never, ever be allowed to happen again" and identifies concerns that the Floodplain Risk Management Study focuses on preparedness and resilience rather than changes to physical flood behaviour.

Response:

The impacts of the 2016 flood were widespread and significant.  An event like 2016 is unlikely but cannot be prevented.  It is not to be expected but should be planned for.  Picton and particularly the commercial centre are located on the banks of Stonequarry Creek and therefore subject to flood risk.  There are no engineering works, without relocation of the commercial centre that would allow for the removal of this flood risk while maintaining the atmosphere that is unique to Picton. Hence the recommendations focus on preparedness and resilience, coupled with planning measures (such as flood compatible buildings) that aim to reduce or manage flood risk over time as the organic renewal process occurs.  Work undertaken during the Floodplain Risk Management Study has shown that the 2016 event was a very large and rare flood event. When considering mitigation options a number of factors need to be balanced against each other including changes to flood behaviour, environmental impacts, benefits in the context of design life (including the event to mitigate against), acceptable levels of risk, costs, amenity, to name a few.

Nil

13.2

General

Commercial Areas

The submission acknowledges Council's thorough approach and extensive work that has been put into these investigations since the 2016 event.

Response:

This feedback is appreciated.

Nil

13.3

Mitigation options - flood modification

Commercial Areas

The submission raises concerns that Council needs to do more to gain access to funding and develop further options to reduce flood risk.

Response:

Council has undertaken this Floodplain Risk Management Study to allow for the identification of viable mitigation strategies and to allow for financial support to be received from the state government to implement these strategies.  Approximately 40 physical options in addition to planning and response options have been assessed as part of this Floodplain Risk Management Study.

Nil

13.4

Mitigation options - flood modification

Commercial Areas

The submission suggests a target reduction in flood level (700mm) for the 1% AEP event should be applied.  In addition, the submission suggests that five locations for retarding basins (such as RB01) should be identified.

Response:

A key objective of the NSW Government Flood Prone Land is to reduce the impacts of flooding, this can be achieved by a reduction in the physical flood level (although developed areas can impose a number of constraints meaning reduced flood levels may not be viable) but can also be achieved by managing how flooding impacts the community through localised measures such as flood barriers, improved preparedness and response, floodway clearing, continued vegetation management and appropriate development. Option RB01 was considered with retarding basins at four other locations in the catchment.  Of those only, RB01 was found to have a measurable impact on flood behaviour.  The topography and shape of the catchment presents a number of constraints to retarding basins at other locations, often showing that at other locations the desired reduction in flow is not achievable.  Basins considered in the Racecourse Creek side of the catchment were found to be ineffective on flood levels in the CBD. In addition, due to the relative timing of flooding in different parts of the catchment a series of retarding basins will not achieve a directly cumulative reduction in flow.  A 700mm reduction in flood level in the CBD would equate to reducing peak flows by 30% (or nearly 150m^3/s) in the 1% AEP event, which would then be equivalent to a 2% AEP event.  Option RB01 achieves a reduction in peak flow of 20m^3/s using a storage volume equivalent to the size of 40 Olympic swimming pools. In addition, a reduction in flow of this level would impact across a range of events and would likely see large environmental consequences for the creek and its ecosystem. 

Considering this the committee wished for a slight variation to be made to the RB01 recommendation to ensure that any opportunity to improve the performance of a basin in this part of the catchment is not missed.  RB01 will be renamed Stonequary Creek Western Catchment Retarding Basin Feasibility Study and the description to be "undertake a feasibility study to investigate appropriate site(s) and concept designs for retarding basin(s) in the western part of the Stonquarry Creek catchment, at location(s) upstream of Barkers Lodge Road."

Table i, Section 11.5.4.1

13.5

Mitigation options - flood modification

Commercial Areas

The submission closes with a number of high priority requests, including:

That the Barkers Lodge Road Retarding Basin (RB01) be fast tracked.

Response:

The first stage for the implementation of this mitigation option will be the development of a feasibility study which will develop a design and further investigate possible constraints.  Council plans to seek funding to undertake this study.

Table i, Section 11.5.4.1

13.6

General

Commercial Areas

The Floodplain Risk Management Study and Flood Model be peer reviewed.

Response:

The study and associated modelling has been undertaken in accordance with industry best practice utilising the best available information, in addition the study has been undertaken under the guidance of the NSW Governments Floodplain Management Process. The developed flood models have been calibrated to historical events to improve confidence in the assessment produced by the model.  Further, the modelling tools represent an advancement of the tools developed previously for the catchment dating back to the 1990's.  The various stages of the project have been subject to input and review by Council, the floodplain management committee and state government departments.

Nil

13.7

Flood damages

Commercial Areas

That an independent review be completed reporting on actual and forecast Flood Damage impacts $ Value assessment be made, to support the Council submissions for funding of risk mitigation measures.

Response:

Damages have been assessed as part of the Floodplain Risk Management Study using state government guidelines.  The damage as a result of the 2016 flood event was significant and is representative of a single event.  While gaining an insight into the actual damages experienced in a single event is useful information, the state government guidelines for the estimation of flood damages aim to provide an estimate of damages across all event sizes and to determine the average annual costs resulting from a succession of floods over a long period of time.  This method is consistently applied across the state and allows for a comparison point for evaluating the economic benefits and suitability for funding of different mitigation measures within a catchment and across different areas of the state.

Nil

13.8

Mitigation options - response modification

Commercial Areas

That Council maintain and control a database of all businesses in the Picton CBD and take responsibility for forwarding all emergency SES warnings to those on the database, in addition to trials this communication.

Response:

The SES is the state's combat agency for flood and is legislatively responsible for the coordination of evacuations (including warnings and orders) which includes the collation, assessment and public dissemination of flood bulletins and local flood advices during events.  A clear hierarchy is established and needs to be maintained during flood events to ensure that clear directions are given.   The SES remain responsible for disseminating these messages.  Option RM02 and RM03 are aimed at improving coordination between the SES and the relevant support agencies.

Nil

13.9

Mitigation options - flood modification

Commercial Areas

That education workshops be held in conjunction with WSC, Chamber and supplier of flood barriers so that premises can be protected from all low-level events

Response:

The responsibility for the selection and ongoing education regarding flood barriers would fall to the individual business or building owners.  It has been suggested for the greater benefit that businesses act together in implementing this option.  These events could be coordinated to achieve multiple objectives including training and education, but individual businesses would need to be the driving force.

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

Financial Implications

Upon adoption, the Risk Management Study & Plan will inform budgetary processes for the preparation of future Delivery Strategies and Operational Plans and enable grants to be pursued for implementation of fundable actions.

Attachments

1.       Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Flood Study Update - WMAwater  

2.       Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan (Vol 1)  

3.       Draft Stonequarry Creek (Picton) Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan (Vol 2)  

4.       Stonequarry Creek 2020 - Community Engagement Report  

5.       Stonequarry Creek Public Exhibition 2020 - Submission Summary  

6.       Wollondilly Floodplain Risk Management Committee Minutes 11 May 2020    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

12.3       Application to Transfer Crown Road to Public Road, - Government Road, Silverdale

File Number:           10619-2#241

 

Executive Summary

This report is submitted to Council to consider accepting an unformed Crown Road being dedicated as Public Road to facilitate a future subdivision at the Corner of Warradale/Marsh and Government Roads, Silverdale and make application to NSW Department of Primary Industries (Crown Lands) to enable the process.

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       Process an application to the Department of Primary Industries to transfer the Crown Road as Public Road identified in this report subject to:

(a)     The applicant entering into a Deed of Agreement to ensure the full road is constructed, including any environmental approvals from State or Federal agencies.

(b)     An application not be made to the NSW Department of Primary Industries (Crown Lands) until Council is satisfied that there are no encumbrances, responsibilities or environmentally sensitive issues pertaining to the road, particularly at the northern end of the road.

(c)     The Development Consent specify that the subdivision certificate will not be released until the developer complies with the Deed of Agreement, constructs the road in accordance with Council’s specifications and satisfies the terms of the consent.

2.       Provide an undertaking to the Crown that it does not intend to close or sell the road in the foreseeable future.

3.       Delegate the Chief Executive Officer to execute on behalf of Council any documents associated with the road transfer process that does not require the Common Seal of Council.

 

Report

An application has been received from TJ & RF Fordham Pty Ltd requesting Council consider the dedication of the unformed Road (Crown Land) to Council as Public Road.  It is proposed to accept the road as requested having an area of 5,614m2.

Subject to a positive resolution of Council, an application is required to be submitted to the NSW Department of Primary Industries (Crown Lands) to agree and facilitate the process and Gazette as Public Road.  As part of the application, the Crown Lands require an undertaking that Council does not intend to close or sell the road in the foreseeable future.

The process requires the developer to lodge a Development Application for subdivision, enter into a Deed of Agreement, provide written advice that the vegetation at the northern end of the road is able to be removed, construct the road to Council’s engineering specifications, pay all costs including Council’s legal fees and disbursements to ensure that the road is constructed upon transfer.  This procedure protects ratepayers from having to pay for the construction of roads to benefit developers.

Council’s Environmental Officer advises the majority of the road is already cleared and degraded with weedy grasses present.  The northern end, while managed for power line clearance, should be retained in a vegetated state as far as possible to maintain connectivity between the vegetated areas to the east and west for wildlife movements and any proposed drainage infrastructure would need to allow for this.  There are also potential fauna issues in the area with koalas reported in this area along the presence of the Cumberland Plain Land Snail.

At no time during this process does Council assure a positive outcome for the proponent.

The plan of subdivision is attached, submitted under Development Application No. DD010.2020.00000104.001.

Attached is a map showing the road area proposed to be transferred, shaded in brown.

Consultation

Internal stakeholders

Financial Implications

An undertaking has been received from the developer agreeing to pay all costs pertaining to the transfer including Council’s legal costs and disbursements.

Attachments

1.       Plans - Subdivision Plan - Marsh Road Silverdale  

2.       Map Plan of proposed Crown Road Transfer     


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

13          Caring for the Environment

13.1       Draft Biosecurity Policy and Strategy Exhibition

File Number:           10619-2#246

 

Executive Summary

This report is to endorse the draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Policy and supporting draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Strategy for public exhibition and subsequent reporting for adoption and revocation of the current Noxious Weed Control Policy & Protocol.

Recommendation

That Council place the draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Strategy and the draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Policy for a 28 day public exhibition period with a supporting engagement program.

 

Report

This report recommends the exhibition and subsequent adoption of the draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Policy and supporting draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Strategy as replacement for the Noxious Weed Control Policy & Protocol.

The NSW Biosecurity Act 2015 has replaced the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.  The Noxious Weed Control Policy & Protocol, which was last adopted in 2013, is now superseded by the current legislation and substantially different in content due to the changes in the Acts.  The new draft policy is based on the objectives for the Biosecurity Act 2015.

The draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Strategy has concurrently been developed to replace the former protocol and reflect the substantial legislative changes to redefine the priorities for Council.

Currently, NSW is in the process of reforming its weed, pest and disease biosecurity legislation.  Together, the NSW Biosecurity Strategy 2013-2021 and NSW Biosecurity Act 2015 (which repeals the Noxious Weeds Act 1993) provide a clear vision for safeguarding our primary industries, natural environments and communities from a range of biosecurity threats (pests, diseases and weeds).

The Biosecurity Act 2015 applies equally to all land in the region, whether public or private i.e. it is tenure neutral); and contains a range of new regulatory tools and a General Biosecurity Duty (GBD) that support this approach to managing weed biosecurity risk.

The draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Strategy 2020-2025 outlines these new tools, including Prohibited Matter, Biosecurity Zones, Mandatory Measures and Control Orders and how they will be applied.  The Strategy was developed to formalise an approach to weed management in the Wollondilly Local Government Area as weed control is important protecting the remaining agricultural activities within the Shire as well as native flora and fauna.

 

Consultation

The draft Policy and Strategy have been developed in consultation with relevant State Government Agencies and Council sections.

The report recommends the undertaking of a community consultation process by placing the draft Policy and Strategy on public exhibition for 28 days for public consultation prior to a subsequent report for adoption by Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

Funding for the exhibition and engagement process is available from within existing budget allocations.

Further opportunities that exist between regional partnerships for funding arrangements will be available upon adoption of the final Policy and Strategy.

Attachments

1.       Draft Wollondilly Biosecurity Policy  

2.       Draft Wollondilly Biosecurity (Weed Management) Strategy     


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

14          Looking after the Community

14.1       Adoption of the Social Media Policy

File Number:           10619-2#253

 

Executive Summary

The Social Media Policy was endorsed by Council at the March 2020 Ordinary meeting to be placed on public exhibition.

The Social Media Policy was placed on exhibition between 1 April and 28 April 2020.

The purpose of this report is to detail the outcomes of the Public Exhibition of the Social Media Policy and seek adoption of the policy.

 

Recommendation

That Council adopts the updated Social Media Policy

 

Report

The Social Media Policy was first developed to recognise the role of social media as an important communication tool used by Council to engage with the community and provide some guidance to staff, volunteers and Councillors on the use of social media channels.

The revised Social Media Policy was endorsed for public exhibition at the March 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting.

Consultation

The Policy was placed on exhibition from 1 April 2020 until 28 April 2020. There were no submissions from the public during the exhibition period.

Financial Implications

This matter has no financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.

Attachments

1.       Draft Social Media Policy for Adoption May 2020    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

14.2       Long Term Community Recovery and Resilience Plan and Grant Opportunities

File Number:           10619-2#261

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the allocation of the remaining $300,000 funding assistance of the $1.3 million through the National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment stream granted to Council as a result of the impact of the 2019-20 Bushfire event.

At the 11 February 2020 Extraordinary Council meeting it was resolved to undertake a debrief, review and enhancement of council’s recovery and resilience programs through a series of workshops and forums. The Activate Wollondilly framework will be used to undertake these community debriefing sessions and workshops and will inform the development of the Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Community Recovery and Resilience Plan. This plan will guide a strategic and action focused approach to programs and activities regarding community recovery and resilience, as a result of the recent Bushfires and Storm events.

This report also provides an overview of the implementation of this initiative and is recommending the allocation of resourcing from the $1.3 million National Bushfire Recovery Grant to fund this initiative.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       Develop and implement the Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Community Recovery and Resilience Plan, as a result of the recovery debrief, review workshops and forums, that guides a strategic and action focused approach to programs and activities regarding community recovery and resilience as a result of the 2019/20 Bushfire and Storm events.

2.       Allocate the additional $300,000 National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment to the following projects:

·    $30,000 - Picnic shelters located at Bargo and Oakdale

·    $5,000 - Werombi Welcome signage

·    $200,000 - Natural and Manmade Hazards Study

·    $25,000 - Community and Stakeholder Debrief workshops and forums

·    $40,000 - Activities and initiatives identified in the Activate Wollondilly 2020 Long Term Recovery and Resilience Plan.

3.       Allocate $75,000 of freed up resourcing from the original $1million National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment stream to the following projects:

·    $25,000 - Brimestone staging Facility – initial consultation and investigation

·    $25,000 - Yerrandarie equipment storage facility investigation and implementation

·    $25,000 - Community resilience events – Bargo and Oakdale.

4.       Allocate any unspent funds from the $375,000 National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment and any funding obtained through grant opportunities as a result of the 2019/20 bushfire and storm events to fund the projects and activities in the Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Community Recovery and Resilience Plan.

 

Report

As a result of the impacts of the Green Wattle Creek fire in the Wollondilly area in 2019/20, a range of assistance measures were made available to support people and business adversely impacted. The assistance was aimed at providing for immediate and short term needs to support recovery and resilience activities for individuals and the community.

Funding assistance of $1.3 million through the National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment stream was granted to Council. The allocation of the initial $1 million was resolved at the 11 February 2020 extraordinary meeting of Council to the following projects and initiatives:

·    $100,000 - Rates Payment Assistance Grant

·    $250,000 - High priority clean-up and repair costs for infrastructure assets

·    $550,000 - Community infrastructure in villages most significantly impacted by the fires including :

A suitable memorial to honour the memory of Deputy Captain Geoffrey Keaton and Firefighter Andrew O'Dwyer who tragically lost their lives in Buxton protecting our community

an appropriate youth facility and supporting infrastructure at Telopea Park, Buxton,

A small scale BMX track in Bargo, in a suitable location

A small scale BMX track in Oakdale, in a suitable location.

·    $100,000 - Small business recovery - economic development and tourism projects including:

$50,000 - Shop Local / Visit Local Project

$25,000 - Wollondilly Visitor Guide

$25,000 - Wollondilly Markets Program. 

At the 11 February 2020 Extraordinary meeting of Council it was resolved should other grant sources become available for any of the allocated funding through the National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment stream that a report be brought forward to Council for consideration regarding the re-allocation of these funds.

On the 1st May 2020 Council was advised of the success of our $250,000 grant funding application to the Bushfire Community Resilience & Economic Recovery Fund (BCRERF). The following initiatives were funded through this grant opportunity:

·    $100,000 - Illuminate Wollondilly Festival

·    $25,000 - Wollondilly Markets Program

·    $50,000 - Shop Local / Visit Local Project

·    $75,000 - Activating Smart Working Hub initiative.

As the Wollondilly Markets Program and the Shop Local / Visit Local Project were identified in the original $1.3 million National Bushfire Recovery Grant this now frees up $75,000 for reallocation.

Following is an overview of the recommended allocation for this funding.

·    $25,000 - Brimestone staging Facility – initial consultation and investigation.

Council resolved on the 18 February 2020 to work with lead agencies to consult and investigate if Brimstone (Oakdale) can be established as an operational base for emergency response.  The land is privately owned and Council will facilitate a multi-agency investigation to explore the development of a plan for the establishment of a forward firefighting base including air resource capacity at the Brimstone Site, Oakdale.

 

·    $25,000 - Yerrandarie equipment storage facility investigation and implementation.

This initiative will design and construct a weather proof, secure and un-serviced storage facility for the village's private firefighting equipment that is currently left exposed to the elements (e.g. 2 private trailer based water tanks) as well as pre-deployed RFS equipment suitable for a forward deployed Divisional Commander facility and Remote Area Firefighting Team base to better enable protection of the village and surrounding bushland

·    $25,000 - Community resilience events – Bargo and Oakdale.

Family and community events will be scoped for implementation in the Bargo and Oakdale area. One event will be a family fun day incorporating jumping castle, face painting and sausage sizzles. The other event will be a focusing on music performances with live bands. These will be scheduled for when the COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.

Following is an overview of the recommended allocation of the additional $300,000 National Bushfire Recovery Agency immediate base payment to the following projects and initiatives:

 

Picnic shelters located at Bargo and Oakdale

This initiative will design and construct two medium sized picnic shelters including tables and benches as well as a suitable commemorative plaque recognising the efforts of the RFS in fighting the Green Wattle Creek fire in an appropriate reserve.

 

Werombi welcome signage

This initiative will see the placement of a Council welcome sign to acknowledge the impact the Green Wattle Creek fire had on this area.

 

Natural and Manmade Hazards Study

Action 18.12 from Planning Priority 18 Living with Climate impacts and contributing to the broader resilience of Greater Sydney of Wollondilly 2040, Council’s newly made first ever Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), requires the preparation of a study in partnership with emergency service agencies to evaluate the threats and risk level from both natural and manmade hazards and establish appropriate management.

Council included this action item in considering the recent bushfires and the challenges faced by the community and emergency services in accessing evacuation routes.  Some communities were at grave risk of not being able to evacuate from bushfire affected areas had the fire turned or the wind changed.  We were very fortunate that the main route out was not cut off given the significant delays and traffic jams we saw on 19 December in particular.  

This study will enable a thorough assessment of current and future evacuation routes and options as we plan for future development.  When considering appropriate locations for development, we must acknowledge which areas are exposed to natural hazards, as well as man-made hazards such as chlorination plants, and plan for appropriate buffers and safe evacuation.

Council has also stipulated within the LSPS that Council will develop an appropriate emergency management approach to these hazards before considering planning proposals for local growth within the Shire.  The requirement for the study to be prepared in partnership with emergency services agencies recognises the important insight that the SES, RFS, Fire and Rescue, Police, Water NSW, ESS and others, will bring to this study. 

It is estimated that the study will cost in the order of $200,000. Approaches will also be made to the State government and emergency services agencies to contribute to the costs of the study.

This study is critical to ensuring the lessons learnt from the recent bushfire events help inform future planning for current and new communities.

 

Community and Stakeholder Debrief workshops and forums.

At the 11 February 2020 extraordinary Council meeting Council resolved to undertake a debrief, review and enhancement of council’s recovery and resilience programs through a series of workshops and forums and to enable this review, seek an external funding source and if not able to be sourced the matter be reported back to council to identify internal funding. This report is recommending the allocation of resourcing from the $1.3 million National Bushfire Recovery Grant to fund this initiative.

In 2016, the Council’s award winning Activate Wollondilly Framework was developed as a strengths based approach to disaster preparedness aimed at building a resilient community in the Wollondilly Local Government Area. The framework enabled a deliberative dialogue between residents, stakeholders, Council and emergency services and focused on building capacity and cohesion. The framework also enabled a review of the Wollondilly Local Disaster Recovery Plan, aligned Council actions and strategies with the Community Strategic Plan and developed an emergency preparedness toolkit including an emergency management guide for the Wollondilly area.

The framework and process identified gaps in service provision and responses and identified improved strategies to combat future disasters. The result of this framework and process positioned Council to respond in a coordinated and effective approach in the recent bushfire and storm events.

This framework will be used to undertake the community debriefing sessions and workshops and will inform the development of the Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Community Recovery and Resilience Plan.

Due to the current COVID-19 restrictions a combination of a variety of online/virtual sessions with targeted cohorts will be implemented and targeted group face to face workshops, applying social distancing requirements, will be implemented. The appropriate supports will also be provided during these sessions to address mental health and wellbeing issues that may arise as a result of the session.

Council will also seek feedback or comment through Council's online community engagement portal www.engage.wollondilly.nsw.gov.au and invitations to participate either in person or virtually online in the forums and workshops will be sent to key stakeholders such as (but not limited to):

•        Residents

•        Children and young people

•        Representatives of local businesses

•        Community Recovery Hub located at Balmoral Village Hall stakeholders

•        Community Organisations, Non-government Organisation (NGO) Providers and Charities

•        Schools

•        State and Federal Members of Parliament

•        Members of Council’s Community Advisory Committees

•        Chambers of Commerce

•        Emergency Services and associated support agencies.

 

Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Recovery and Resilience Plan

The Activate Wollondilly framework is to be used to undertake the community debriefing sessions and workshops to help inform the development of the Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Recovery and Resilience Plan. This plan will guide a strategic and action focused approach to programs and activities regarding community recovery and resilience, assist in determining the pace and speed of recovery and the strategic approach to help community, community groups and small business continuity as a result of the recent Bushfires and Storm events. 

The Activate Wollondilly 2020 - Long Term Recovery and Resilience Plan will identify both initial help and support long into the future and will be an evolving and living document that will be community focused, led and implemented. This will to assist Council with a strategic approach to how recovery in Wollondilly will happen over time as a result of the recent bushfire and storm events.

Council has also been successful in gaining one of 22 funded Community Recovery Officer positions jointly funded by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments under Category A of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA). This position has been funded for 12 months and will support Council to coordinate and facilitate community led projects, activities and events that contribute to the community recovery, resilience and future disaster preparedness. 

A community lead and determined strategic and action focused approach to programs and activities regarding community recovery and resilience will be developed as a result of the community and stakeholder debrief workshops and forums.

The plan will assist in determining the pace and speed of recovery and the strategic approach to help small communities business and community groups as a result of the recent bushfires and storm events.

It is also recommended if funding for any of the above mentioned projects are sourced through other grant opportunities the allocated funding be directed to the Community identified projects and activities as a result of the development of the Activate Wollondilly 2020 Long Term Recovery Plan.

Consultation

Wollondilly Local Recovery and Resilience Committee

Councillors

Executive

Financial Implications

This matter has no financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.

Attachments

Nil  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

15          Efficient and Effective Council

15.1       Adoption of the Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists & Submitters Policy and the Conflict of Interests Policy

File Number:           10619-2#214

 

Executive Summary

The Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists and Submitters Policy and the Conflict of Interests Policy were reported to Council on 17 March 2020 and placed on public exhibition from 1 April 2020 until 29 April 2020 with the submission period ending on 13 May 2020.

Minor amendments have been incorporated into the Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists & Submitters Policy.

No changes were necessary for the Conflict of Interests Policy.

No submissions were received from the public exhibition.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       Adopt the Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists and Submitters Policy.

2.       Adopt the Conflict of Interests Policy.

 

Report

The Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists and Submitters Policy and the Conflict of Interests Policy were reviewed and the recommended changes were reported to Council on 17 March 2020 to place these policies on public exhibition.

No changes are necessary for the Conflict of Interests Policy.

As outlined in the report to the 17 March Council Meeting, minor amendments have been made to the Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists & Submitters policy as per the table below:

Changes

Reason

4.16, 4.17 and 4.27

replaced “Statement of Business Ethics” with “Code of Conduct”

The Statement of Business Ethics is a redundant document which was incorporated into the Customer Service Charter

4.30

replaced “Statement of Business Ethics” with Policy

As above

12.4

replaced “Office of Integrity” with “Head of Integrity”

Position title has been changed prior to the position being filled

 

Consultation

The public exhibition and submission period ended on 13 May 2020, no submissions have been received.

Internal consultation was held with Manager Governance and Manager Sustainable Growth.

Financial Implications

This matter has no financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.

Attachments

1.       Draft Interaction with Developers, Lobbyists and Submitters Policy  

2.       Draft Conflict of Interests Policy    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

15.2       Investment of Funds as at 30 April 2020

File Number:           10619-2#262

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide details of Council’s invested funds as at 30 April 2020.

 

Recommendation

That the information and certification in relation to the investment of Council funds as at 30 April 2020 be noted.

 

Report

At its last meeting, the Reserve Bank decided to maintain the current policy settings, including the targets for the cash rate and the yield on 3-year Australian government bonds of 25 basis points. In relation to the domestic market, the Board of the Reserve Bank commented that:

 

“The global economy is experiencing a severe downturn as countries seek to contain the coronavirus. Many people have lost their jobs and a sharp rise in unemployment is occurring. At the same time, the containment measures have reduced infection rates in a number of countries. If this continues, a recovery in the global economy will start later this year, supported by both the large fiscal packages and the significant easing in monetary policies.

 

Globally, financial markets are working more effectively than they were a month ago, although conditions have not completely normalised. This improvement reflects both the decline in infection rates and the substantial measures undertaken by central banks and fiscal authorities. Credit markets have progressively opened to more firms and long-term bond rates remain at historically low levels.

In Australia, the functioning of the government bond markets has improved and the yield on 3-year Australian Government Securities (AGS) is at the target of around 25 basis points. Given these developments, the Bank has scaled back the size and frequency of bond purchases, which to date have totalled around $50 billion. The Bank is prepared to scale-up these purchases again and will do whatever is necessary to ensure bond markets remain functional and to achieve the yield target for 3-year AGS. The target will remain in place until progress is being made towards the goals for full employment and inflation.

 

The Bank's daily open market operations are continuing to support credit and maintain low funding costs in the economy. To assist with the smooth functioning of Australia's capital markets, the Bank has decided to broaden the range of eligible collateral for these operations to include Australian dollar securities issued by non-bank corporations with an investment grade credit rating. More details are provided in the accompanying market notice.

 

The Australian economy is going through a very difficult period and there is considerable uncertainty about the outlook. Reflecting this uncertainty, the Board considered a range of scenarios at its meeting. In the baseline scenario, output falls by around 10 per cent over the first half of 2020 and by around 6 per cent over the year as a whole. This is followed by a bounce-back of 6 per cent next year.

 

There has been a substantial, coordinated and unprecedented fiscal and monetary response in Australia to the coronavirus. Without this response, the outlook would have been even more challenging. These policies are supporting the economy right now and will help when the recovery comes. They are supporting people's incomes, maintaining the important connections between businesses and their employees, underpinning the supply of credit to businesses and households, and keeping borrowing costs low. The deferral of loan and other payments is helping people manage their cash flows. The Australian banking system, with its strong buffers of capital and liquidity, is also helping the economy traverse this difficult period.

 

In the baseline scenario considered by the Board, the unemployment rate peaks at around 10 per cent over coming months and is still above 7 per cent at the end of next year. A lower unemployment rate than this is possible if the reduction in labour demand is accompanied by a larger reduction in average hours worked, rather than by people losing their jobs.

 

The Board also considered other scenarios. A stronger economic recovery is possible if there is further substantial progress in containing the coronavirus in the near term and there is a faster return to normal economic activity. On the other hand, if the lifting of restrictions is delayed or the restrictions need to be reimposed or household and business confidence remains low, the outcomes would be even more challenging than those in the baseline scenario. These scenarios will be discussed in the Statement on Monetary Policy, to be released later this week.

 

In the various scenarios considered by the Board, inflation remains below 2 per cent over the next few years. In the March quarter just passed, CPI inflation rose to 2.2 per cent, but it is expected to turn negative temporarily in the June quarter, due to falls in oil prices, the introduction of free child care and deferrals of various price increases. Further out, in the baseline scenario inflation is 1 to 1½ per cent in 2021 and gradually picks up further from there.

 

Given this outlook, the Bank will maintain its efforts to keep funding costs low in Australia and credit available to households and businesses. The Board is committed to do what it can to support jobs, incomes and businesses during this difficult period and to make sure that Australia is well placed for the expected recovery.

The Board will not increase the cash rate target until progress is being made towards full employment and it is confident that inflation will be sustainably within the 2–3 per cent target band.”

 

The majority of Council’s investment portfolio (92%) is invested in deposits / securities with Australian Authorised Deposit taking Institutions (ADI’s).  Council has been taking advantage of term deposit “specials” from various institutions without overexposing the portfolio to any one institution. Note that the marked to market valuations on some of the direct investment products in Council’s portfolio remain at less than the face value of the investment.  The marked to market value of these investments is expected to be equal to or greater than the face value by the time they reach their maturity date.  Early exit from these products would realise losses.

 

The following chart compares Council’s portfolio yield with the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index rate in each month for 2018/19 and 2019/20.

As shown in the chart above, Council’s portfolio yield has continually exceeded the benchmark AusBond 3 month Bank Bill Index due to the prudent investment of Council’s portfolio.

 

Under Reg 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer must provide Council each month with a written report setting out details of all money that Council has invested under section 625 of the Act.

 

Council’s investment portfolio as at 30 April 2020 is summarised below.

 

 

 

Details of Council’s investment portfolio as at 30 April 2020 are provided in attachment 1.

 

Consultation

Independent advice regarding the investment of Council funds was provided by Prudential Investment Services Corp and a portfolio review has been undertaken to ensure that the portfolio remains appropriate in the current environment.

 

The advice of Prudential Investment Services is that “Council has a well diversified portfolio of term deposits and bank issued bonds from the highest quality institutions in Australia.  No change in Council’s investment strategy is recommended in response to the current market conditions.”

 

Financial Implications

Council continues to invest those funds which, having regard to Council’s Resourcing Strategy 2017/18 – 2020/21 and adopted Operational Plan 2019/20, are not required to manage Council’s day-to-day cash flow or have been identified as required to fund specific future projects and expenditure or anticipated (budgeted) future commitments.

Interest earned is allocated to restricted cash and income in accordance with Council’s adopted budget, policy and legislative requirements. Accrued interest to 30 April 2020 was $455,205.08.

The chart below compares actual interest received to date with budgeted interest for the year.

Interest for the month of April represented an increase of 3.11% pa vs the bank bill benchmark of 0.58% pa for the month. As predicted, interest rate markets recovered most of the losses from the previous month as financial conditions eased and banks shored up their balance sheets by raising equity and/or reducing dividends.

The Floating Rate Note capital value component of Council’s portfolio value has also improved from last month.

The Reserve Bank of Australia has continued to keep interest rates low.

Certification

I hereby certify that Council’s investments have been made in accordance with Sec 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government (General Regulations) 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Clair Hardy

Chief Financial Officer

WOLLONDILLY SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Attachments

1.       April 2020 Investment Summary Report    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

15.3       Adoption of the 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget

File Number:           10619-2#290

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget for adoption.

This plan includes the annual budget and fees & charges and sets out the individual activities and strategic projects that will be commenced in FY 2020/21 to achieve the commitments within the Delivery Program.

The Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to publicly exhibit the Operational Plan, consider any submissions received and formally adopt the final document by 30 June 2020.

It is recommended that Council adopt the Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including the 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget (including the proposed 2020/21 fees and charges) to commence operation from 1 July 2020.

This report also seeks a Council resolution to make the rates and charges for 2020/21 under Sections 494, 496 and 535 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The draft Operational Plan and Budget 2020/21 and an updated Council Report are being finalised and will be provided under a separate cover prior to the Council meeting.

 

Recommendation

1.       That the Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget be adopted, incorporating the changes recommended in this report

2.       That the rates and charges for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 as detailed in this report be made.

3.       That the annual charges for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 as detailed in the exhibited draft Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget be made.

4.       That the exhibited draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2020/21, as detailed in the exhibited draft Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget be adopted with the amendments contained within this report.

5.       That Council approve the budget as detailed in the exhibited draft Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget including the amendments contained in this report and on that basis, formally vote these funds for the 2020/21 financial year

6.       That Council notes the draft Operational Plan includes the continued focus on high quality services, a $33.6 million investment in road and other infrastructure renewal and upgrades, and the following key priorities to enhance Council’s service to the community:

(i)      Increased asphalt repairs across the road network through the incorporation of an additional crew to operate existing equipment at increased capacity

(ii)      Enhanced public streetscapes through cost effective a public bin servicing initiative bringing the function in-house at lower cost than currently delivered

(iii)     Increased Swimming Pool Safety inspections enhancing the safety of our community

(iv)    Improved environmental outcomes and compliance within our Shire by creating a structure that enables an even more proactive approach to regulatory services

(v)     Moving to an Integrated Service Delivery Platform to enhance the customer experience for dealings with Council and to deliver greater efficiencies across Council processes

 

Report

The Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework for local governments is effectively another name for what most of us would call business planning.

In June 2018, Council adopted the full suite of IP&R documents, as follows:

·        Community Strategic Plan 2033

·        2017/18 – 2026/27 Resourcing Strategy

·        2017/18 – 2020/21 Delivery Program

·        2018/19 Operational Plan (including Fees & Charges)

The Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines require that the Community Strategic Plan, Resourcing Strategy and Delivery Program all be reviewed every four years. The development and adoption of an annual Operational Plan (including operational and capital budget, revenue policy and fees and charges) is required to be undertaken annually.

The Operational Plan is Councils 1 year breakdown of the 4 year program of work outlined in the Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21.

The draft 2020/21 Operational Plan deliverables align with the strategies identified in the Community Strategic Plan. The Operational Plan allocates responsibilities and resources for each action/activity and details targets and measures to determine our progress towards achieving the Community Strategic Plan outcomes.

The draft Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget was placed on public exhibition from 16 April to 28 May 2020 to provide the Community the opportunity to give their input on the proposed plan. Council received one public submission.

Layout / Format

The draft Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget that was placed on exhibition was presented in draft format and did not incorporate any imagery to enhance it’s visual display. The document format has now been amended to incorporate this imagery and present a more polished view of the content.

In addition, during the exhibition, some minor amendments to the Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget were identified and it is proposed that these changes be made to the document. These changes (such as typographical updates, layouts, formats etc) do not alter the intent or direction of the document and as such do not impact on the exhibition process.

The finalised Delivery Program 2017/18 – 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget also incorporates an amendment to highlight the strategic and operational measures that that will be used to report on Council’s progress throughout the period. More details on this change will be provided in the revised Council report.

Setting the Rates

Wollondilly Shire Council has adopted an ad valorem rate structure with a minimum rate. As additional valuation adjustments, category amendments and supplementary valuations were received during the exhibition period the proposed ad valorem rates for 2020/21 have been revised as follows:

 

 

 

 

2019/20

2020/21

Category

Sub-Category

Ad Valorem Rate

Minimum Value

Ad Valorem Rate

Minimum Rate

Residential

Rural Residential

0.351630

1,456.00

0.301999

1,493.00

Residential

Residential Town Centre

0.425679

1,339.00

0.388928

1,373.00

Residential

Residential Other

0.353637

1,456.00

0.303106

1,493.00

Farmland

Primary Production

0.237548

1,237.00

0.193039

1,269.00

Business

General

0.753289

1,456.00

0.578432

1,493.00

Business

Light Industrial Centres

0.538812

1,456.00

0.354979

1,493.00

Mining

Mining Activities

8.808206

1,456.00

2.294697

1,493.00

 

In accordance with the provision of Section 535 of the Local Government Act 1993, it is necessary for Council to carry a resolution which formally makes the 2020/21 Rates and Charges.

In addition to the statutory pensioner rebate (Section 575 of the Local Government Act), all eligible pensioners are offered a further voluntary $45 reduction of rates and 50% reduction of the Domestic Waste Management Charge.

Rates can be paid by instalment and the anticipated due dates for the 2020/21 year are 30 September 2020, 30 November 2020, 28 February 2021 and 31 May 2021.

Setting Annual Charges

Under the existing Waste Collection Contract, Council is able to offer ratepayers a variety of bin size options. The annual charges associated with each of the available bin options are detailed in the Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget.

Stormwater Management Charge

The Stormwater Management Charge assists Council to undertake works that will provide improved quality of stormwater being discharged into waterways. The charge is proposed to remain unchanged from 2019/20 amounts. The proposed charge and associated works are clearly defined within Council’s Asset Management Plan and 2020/21 Operational Plan.

Proposed Interest on Overdue Rates and Charges

There is no longer an interest-free period for overdue rates. The interest rate that may be charged by Council on overdue rates and charges is the rate as set by the Minister for Local Government. The rate for the 2020/21 financial year is 7.5% and remains unchanged from 2019/20.

In accordance with section 566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council will apply the maximum interest rate as determined by the Minister.

Fees and Charges

Council has adopted a number of fees and charges for the wide and varied services that it provides to the community.

In deciding who pays for goods and services, and to what extent, it is necessary to determine whether the service benefits the general community and/or individuals, i.e. the proportion of community versus private benefit.  Each fee and charge’s category has been identified within the Operational Plan using the following categories (denoted by letters)

a.       The price for this service is to make a minimal contribution towards the cost of providing this service. The majority of costs of this service are met from general income.

b.       The price for this service is set to recover annual operating and maintenance costs, but does not contribute towards the replacement of assets in providing service.

c.       The price of this service is set to recover annual operating and maintenance costs, and to make a contribution to the replacement of assets used in providing the service.

d.       The price of these goods or services is set to generate an appropriate return on capital invested.

e.       The price charged is a refundable deposit against possible damage to infrastructure, footpaths, kerb, gutters and roadways, buildings, parks and reserves caused by adjacent development or use of facilities.

f.       The price charged for these goods or services is set by regulation.

 

These categorisations were not visible on the exhibited document however they are unchanged from previous years.

 

A list of amendments to the recommended fees and charges included in the draft Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget is being prepared and will be included in the revised version of this report.

 

Operational Budget

The final details of amendment to the exhibited operational budget are being complied and will be included in the revised version of this report. The amendments include revised income estimates after factoring in the recent impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and offsetting reductions in expenditure on items that were able to be reduced without impacting on planned service levels or the enhancements proposed at the time of exhibiting the plan.

Consultation

All Managers and Executive have been consulted throughout the process. The Strategic Resourcing and Advisory Committee comprising of Councillor membership has been consulted.

Preparation of the draft Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget commenced in December 2019 as each section of Council considered their strategies and actions. This information has been incorporated into the Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget document which has continued to be reviewed and refined with Executive and Councillor input.

At the 21 April 2020 Council Meeting, Council endorsed the draft Delivery Program 2017/18 - 2020/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget to be placed on public exhibition to provide the Community with an opportunity to provide relevant feedback to Council on the plans for the year ahead. The exhibition period was advertised on Council's website from 22 April to 28 May 2020.

At the time of preparation of this report the exhibition period remained open. Details of submissions received will be added in the revised version of this report.

 

Financial Implications

The 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget includes the allocation of resources required to deliver the services and projects to the Community for the upcoming year. Revisions undertaken during the exhibition period have recognised the significant detrimental impact to Council’s revenue stream as a result of COVID-19 however a considered review of planned expenditure to offset the reduction, has resulted in a revised Budget that remains able to sustain Council’s service levels and proposed enhancements to service without revising the exhibited actions and deliverables.

 

Attachments

Nil

There are no attachments to this report. The Delivery Program 2017/18 – 20/21 including 2020/21 Operational Plan and Budget are being finalised and will be provided as an attachment to a revised version of this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

16          Notice of Motion/Rescissions

16.1       Notice of Motion - Community Committee & Regulatory Signs for Appin Skate Park

File Number:           10619-2#288

 

I, Councillor Judith Hannan, intend to move the following motion:

 

Motion

That Council:

1.       Install signs for the safety regulations and rules of the Appin Skate Park.

2.       Support the formation of a committee, comprising of young adults, to take a role in maintaining the integrity of Appin Skate Park.

 

 

CEO’s Comment

The financial cost for the installation of some additional small regulatory signs can be met within the existing operational budget.

If a community based committee or user group is formed that is not managed or facilitated by Council, occasional staff visits to a meeting can be funded from within the existing operational budget.  A committee along the lines of a liaison committee would require a budget assessment to be undertaken and reported to Council.

 

Attachments

Nil    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

17          Closed Reports  

Recommendation

1.         That Council considers the confidential report(s) listed below in a meeting closed to the public in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993:

17.1       Proposed Easement - Antill Park Country Golf Club Lot 4 DP 218270 Remembrance Driveway, Picton

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) and (g) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and advice concerning litigation, or advice as comprises a discussion of this matter, that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege

The disclosure of the information would advantage the person with whom Council are conducting business with including current litigation proceedings.

17.2       Update on Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(b) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer

Report includes ratepayers name and financial information.

17.3       Proposed Land Transfer to Council from Planning Ministerial Corporation - Lot 2 DP 522044 Appin Road, Appin

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it

The report contains commercial information which has been supplied and is of a confidentail nature and if disclosed would prejudice the person who supplied it.

2.         That pursuant to Section 10A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the media and public be excluded from the meeting on the basis that the business to be considered is classified confidential under the provisions of Section 10A(2).

 

3.         That the correspondence and reports relevant to the subject business be withheld from access to the media and public as required by Section 11(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 June 2020

 

18          Questions for Next Meeting

No reports this meeting