Minute Manager 2€¦ · 9.30am - 10.00am PRESENTATION - Draft DCP Amendments - Tree & Vegetation...

NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the

STRATEGIC COMMITTEE

Will be held at the Council Chambers, Breese Parade, Forster on

8 MARCH 2016 AT 9.30AM

The order of the business will be as detailed below (subject to variation by Council)

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Conflicts of Interest

3. Confirmation of the Minutes from previously held meetings:

Strategic Committee Meeting 9 February 2016

9.30am - 10.00am PRESENTATION - Draft DCP Amendments - Tree & Vegetation Preservation Section - Manager Strategic Planning - Roger Busby and Strategic Landuse Planner - Louise Morris

10.00am - 10.30am PRESENTATION - DCP Amendments - Coastal Planning - Senior Strategic Landuse Planner - Alex Macvean

4. Consideration of Officers' Reports:

Director Planning & Environmental Services

Director of Engineering Services

5. Urgent Business

6. Close of Meeting

12.30pm - 1.15pm LUNCH

Glenn Handford GENERAL MANAGER

GREAT LAKES COUNCIL Council endorsed Great Lakes 2030 on 25 June 2013 incorporating a vision supported by four key directions identified by the community. This Plan is Council's primary forward planning document that aligns our community's vision with a clear strategic direction for the Great Lakes' long term future.

VISION

a unique and sustainably managed environment balanced with quality lifestyle opportunities created through appropriate development, infrastructure and services

KEY DIRECTIONS & OBJECTIVES

Key Direction 1

Our environment

Objectives

Protect and maintain the natural environment so it is healthy and diverse

Ensure that development is sensitive to our natural environment

Prepare for the impact of sea level rise and climate change

Sustainably manage our waste

Key Direction 2

Strong local economies

Objectives

Promote the Great Lakes as an area that is attractive for residents and visitors

Establish and maintain a supportive business environment that encourages job opportunities

Provide transport infrastructure that meets current and future needs

Key Direction 3

Vibrant and connected communities

Objectives

Provide the right places and spaces

Plan for sustainable growth and development

Increase and improve access to education for all ages

Encourage a positive and supportive place for young people to thrive

Develop and support healthy and safe communities

Build on the character of our local communities and promote the connection between them

Key Direction 4

Local leadership

Objectives

Deliver Council services which are effective and efficient

Strengthen community participation

Represent the community's interests through regional leadership

GREAT LAKES COUNCIL

CODE OF CONDUCT PRINCIPLES AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Integrity – You must not place yourself under any financial or other obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence you in the performance of your duties.

Leadership – You have a duty to promote and support the key principles by leadership and example and to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Council. This means promoting public duty to others in the council and outside, by your own ethical behaviour.

Selflessness – You have a duty to make decisions solely in the public interest. You must not act in order to gain financial or other benefits for yourself, your family, friends or business interests. This means making decisions because they benefit the public, not because they benefit the decision

maker. Objectivity – You must make decisions solely on merit and in accordance with your

statutory obligations when carrying out public business. This includes the making of appointments, awarding of contracts or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits. This means fairness to all; impartial assessment; merit selection in recruitment and in purchase and sale of Council’s resources; considering only relevant matters.

Accountability – You are accountable to the public for your decisions and actions and should consider issues on their merits, taking into account the views of others. This means

recording reasons for decisions; submitting to scrutiny; keeping proper records; establishing audit trails. Openness – You have a duty to be as open as possible about your decisions and actions,

giving reasons for decisions and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. This means recording, giving and revealing reasons for decisions; revealing other avenues

available to the client or business; when authorised, offering all information; communicating clearly. Honesty – You have a duty to act honestly. You must declare any private interests relating

to your public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in such a way that protects the public interest. This means obeying the law; following the letter and spirit of policies and

procedures; observing the code of conduct; fully disclosing actual or potential conflict of interests and exercising any conferred power strictly for the purpose for which the power was conferred.

Respect – You must treat others with respect at all times. This means not using derogatory terms

toward others, observing the rights of other people, treating people with courtesy and recognising the different roles others play in local government decision-making.

Ethical Decision Making Consider the following points when assessing a potential action or decision.

Is the decision or conduct legal?

Is it consistent with Council policy, Council’s objectives and Council’s Code of Conduct?

What will the outcome be for yourself, your colleagues, Council and other interested parties?

Does it raise a conflict of interest?

Do you stand to privately gain or lose at the public expense?

Can the decision be justified in terms of the public interest?

Would the decision withstand public scrutiny?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF OFFICERS’ REPORTS: ....................................................................................... 1

DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ................................................................ 1

1 PES - Draft DCP Amendments - Tree & Vegetation Preservation Section ................................................... 1 2 PES - DCP Amendments - Coastal Planning ............................................................................................... 7 3 PES - Draft Hunter Regional Plan .............................................................................................................. 23 4 PES - Draft DCP Amendment - Detached Dual Occupancy - Rural Zone .................................................. 42

DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................. 48

5 ES - Monthly Operations Report March 2016 ............................................................................................. 48

STRATEGIC COMMITTEE Meeting of the Great Lakes Council held 8 MARCH 2016 Page 1

CONSIDERATION OF OFFICERS’ REPORTS:

DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

1 PES - Draft DCP Amendments - Tree & Vegetation Preservation Section

Index: SP-DCP-GL 2013-2 Author: Strategic Landuse Planner - Louise Morris Strategic Committee Meeting: 8 March 2016

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report outlines a substantial review of the Tree and Vegetation Preservation Section within the Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP). As part of this review Council also wanted to establish a Significant Tree Register which when created will work in conjunction with the DCP. The Tree DCP provisions can still operate without a Significant Tree Register being in place. A separate report will be presented to Council by the Manager of Parks and Recreation regarding the establishment of a Significant Tree Register. The overall aim of the DCP review is to ensure the development controls are simplified, remain relevant and are enforceable. The proposed amendments in Attachment A clarify when consent is required for the removal of trees and vegetation within the mapped preservation areas. In addition, the expansion of criteria for tree and vegetation removal without approval allows landowners a more flexible approach to landscaping their property, better aligns with State Legislation and is a more efficient use of Council's resources. It is recommended that the draft Tree and Vegetation Preservation section of the DCP contained in Attachment A be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorse the draft amendments to the Tree and Vegetation Removal section of the Great Lakes Development Control Plan as contained in Attachment A for public exhibition with a final draft to be presented to Council following consideration of any submissions received during this period.

FINANCIAL/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

If the final draft of the Tree and Vegetation Preservation section is ultimately supported by Council this will replace the current provisions within the Great Lakes Development Control Plan.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

Nil.


LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

A: Draft amendments to Tree and Vegetation Preservation section of the Great Lakes Development Control Plan.

B: Current Tree and Vegetation Preservation section within the Great Lakes Development Control Plan.

Due to their large size, Attachments A and B have been circulated in hard copy to Councillors and Senior Staff only as a paper conservation measure. However, these Attachments are publicly available on Council's Website, copies are available at Council offices and copies are available on request.

REPORT:

Background

The Tree and Vegetation Preservation section of the Great Lakes DCP outlines the requirements for the removal of trees and vegetation within the mapped preservation areas. The DCP provides the detail required by Clause 5.9 of the Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014 relating to the preservation of trees or vegetation. Over time, this section of the DCP has become complex and changes in State Legislation have brought into question the effectiveness of some of the controls. At its Strategic Committee meeting in August 2015, Council resolved to undertake a full review of the Great Lakes Development Control Plan with a review of the Tree and Vegetation Preservation Section identified as being a high priority. This report deals with the review of controls within the DCP with a separate report to be presented to Council by the Manager of Parks and Recreation regarding the establishment of a Significant Tree Register. Given the significant revision of the development controls it was not practical to display the proposed amendments through track changes. Therefore this report outlines the main changes recommended, with the full draft document and current DCP controls shown in Attachment A and B respectively

What are the main issues associated with the amendments?

There has been extensive consultation between internal staff about the value of retaining tree and vegetation preservation controls within the DCP. The discussion centred around two major themes; firstly what is the value of keeping the controls and secondly how increased clearing entitlements within State Legislation may have reduced their effectiveness. 1. Value of Controls

The clear message from the internal consultation was that the development controls are an important tool which Council has consistently applied to preserve the natural amenity and protect trees within the Great Lakes Local Government Area (LGA). This approach recognises the key role trees and vegetation play in maintaining an attractive and more liveable environment within our region and in providing important habitat within urban areas. This approach is consistent with 60% of other Council's in NSW who have some form of development controls related to tree preservation. In addition Local Government NSW recognises the important role of Street Trees and Urban Forests in its policy on the issue and recently the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt spoke of the responsibility of planners to consider the natural environment for future generations in creating 'sustainable, green cities with improved amenity for a more liveable environment' (Sydney Business Chamber 19/01/2016).


2. Consideration of State Legislation

Clearing entitlements related to complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 have been addressed through the proposed expansion of criteria for trees and vegetation that may be removed without approval and are presented in Attachment A. This is expanded on later in the report. The introduction of the NSW Rural Fire Service 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Scheme has impacted on some of the mapped preservation areas within the DCP by allowing clearing of trees and vegetation that would otherwise need Council's consent for removal. However, since its introduction in 2014 the NSW Rural Fire Service has undertaken a revision of these guidelines which has resulted in a reduced entitlement area and additional provisions for protecting vegetation from excessive clearing. There is expected to be further changes to the entitlement areas as bushfire mapping is updated and it is likely that the provisions will continue to undergo refinement in the future. The DCP does not consider all State Legislation that may apply. The focus of the controls is the management of trees and vegetation for reasons of amenity and ecology. It is appropriate for Council to maintain these controls for that purpose, independent of stand-alone State provisions like bushfire management which will always prevail over the DCP. What are the objectives of the review?

The overall aim of the review is to ensure the development controls remain relevant and enforceable. The focus was on simplifying the controls and where appropriate, expanding the criteria for allowing tree and vegetation removal. The considerations were to balance appropriate tree removal whilst maintaining the benefits provided by the existing treed environment. Other considerations were to avoid overregulating landowners and Council's ability to resource the processing and compliance of these controls. What on-ground results will the amended controls deliver?

The amended development controls will make it easier to establish when a tree or other vegetation can be removed without approval. In addition, the expanded criteria for allowing removal without consent will also relieve some of the pressure on Council's resources for managing and regulating the controls. How do the proposed amendments relate to other Strategic Documents?

The tree and vegetation preservation controls directly contributes to creating the vision for Great Lakes that is identified in the 2030 Community Strategic Plan, 'a unique and sustainably managed environment balanced with quality lifestyle opportunities created through appropriate development, infrastructure and services.' In addition, it is an effective tool for Council in implementing Key Directions 2 and 3 within the 2030 Community Strategic Plan related to 'our environment' and 'vibrant and connected communities'. Where will the Tree and Vegetation Preservation controls apply?

The controls will apply to the mapped preservation areas included within the DCP. The majority of these locations are within the urban areas of the LGA. What Are the Community Benefits of the proposed amendments?

There are well documented benefits to ensuring adequate trees and vegetation coverage within urban areas, including;

Cleaner air.

General amenity value, reduction of stress and improve mental health.


Provide wind breaks, shade, privacy and reduction of noise.

Assist in moderating air temperature.

Provide food and shelter to local wildlife.

Connectivity within urban environments.

Reduce soil erosion and salinity.

Reduce stormwater runoff improving water quality.

Encouraging an active lifestyle by providing attractive spaces for physical activity.

What are the proposed amendments?

The proposed amendments can be seen in Attachment A. They are designed to direct users more easily through the criteria to establish whether they need approval to remove a tree or vegetation on their property. There is also assistance on how to seek an approval including a list of considerations for assessment of applications for tree or other vegetation removal.

Tree and Vegetation Removal Checklist

A new checklist has been added to the DCP to make it easier for people to decide if they need Council's approval to remove a tree or other vegetation. The checklist is a series of questions based on the development controls for when approval is needed for removing a tree or vegetation within the preservation area. Replacing the traditional list of development controls with the checklist is aimed at assisting users to more quickly identify the controls that relate to them.

Part A of the checklist sets-out the most important criteria for trees and vegetation that trigger the need for consent for removal. Part B lists the exemptions to the general controls and Part C gives the criteria for general controls within the preservation areas.

The 3 parts of the checklist are designed so that people can establish whether approval is needed to remove a tree or other vegetation without necessarily completing the entire list. For example, if someone wishes to remove a heritage listed tree this automatically triggers the need for approval regardless of the other requirements within the checklist. Similarly if a person answer 'yes' in Part B there is no point checking if it also fits the criteria set-out in Part C because consent is not required.

Flowchart

The addition of a flowchart within the DCP provides a visual overview of the decision process within the Tree and Vegetation Checklist. This gives a clear path for identifying when approval is needed for tree and vegetation removal. Expanded criteria

There are two major changes proposed in the general criteria for trees and vegetation that will require approval to be removed; 1. Height of trees and vegetation that are captured by the preservation controls has been

increased from 3 metres to 5 metres. 2. Trees and vegetation within 5 metres of an existing lawful residential building will now be

excluded from needing approval. These amendments allow landowners more flexibility in managing the landscaping of their property without seeking approval from Council but still provide consideration to trees and vegetation that contribute to the wider landscape. In addition, the proposed amendments expand on tree and vegetation removal entitlements allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 as part of complying development. For example a single dwelling being assessed as part of a development application will have a more generous exemption for tree removal than allowed under complying development. The proposed DCP changes allow trees up to 5 metres in height and within 5 metres of a legally habitable building to be exempt from needing approval, in comparison to the 3 metre allowance for each under the Exempt and Complying Development Codes.


The proposed amendments will therefore expand on our local regulations over and above the State, creating a more equitable application of the rules. Amendment to measurement of trees and vegetation

Within Part C of the Checklist, there is an amendment proposed for measuring the size of trees and vegetation that are captured by the DCP. Currently the DCP controls apply to any tree that; "has an over-bark trunk diameter of 300mm or larger measured at 1m above ground level" The draft changes will reinstate the previous method of measurement that was in force before the consolidation of the DCP in 2014; "… an over-bark girth (circumference) exceeding 300mm at 1 metre above the ground" The proposed amendment reverts back to the provisions that applied before controls were consolidated within the current DCP. The change in term from girth to diameter has resulted in an outcome that is not in keeping with the original intent of the control which is to capture all trees with a circumference of 300mm or greater. Koala Habitat and Food Trees in Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens

The following control is proposed to be added to the requirements for development and Koala habitat and food trees in Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens. This will be a standard requirement that recognises the significance of these types of trees to the local Koala population. "Where approval is granted for the removal of a Koala habitat or food tree in Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens replacement plantings will be required." Complying development

Where a formal application for tree removal is required for complying development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008), a requirement has been included for a copy of the formal architectural plans to be submitted with the removal application to Council. This is in keeping with Council's current practice of retaining trees and vegetation on vacant blocks of land until development is imminent. The intent of this control is to defer removal of trees until there is a high level of certainty that the tree removal will be done in conjunction with development of the land. Mapped preservation areas

There are no changes proposed to the mapped preservation areas. Due to their size a copy of each mapped area is available via a hyperlink within both Attachment A and Attachment B. Additional Reference Material

Images have been added into the table containing the Exempt Species List to assist people in identifying trees that do not require consent to be removed. Similarly, images have also been added to the table listing the identified Koala habitat and food trees in Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens trees as a guide for trees that do require consent to be removed. What Community Engagement is proposed?

It is intended to put the draft amendments of the Tree and Vegetation Preservation DCP controls on public exhibition for a period of 4 weeks. This will give the community an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the proposed changes.


CONCLUSION

The benefits that trees and other vegetation provide to our urban areas are well documented. Council has consistently recognised this by utilising the development controls as an important tool to preserve the natural amenity and to protect trees within the Great Lakes LGA. The proposed amendments offer a simplified process for identifying when the controls apply and to produce local provisions in line with State Legislation. In addition, the expanded criteria provide greater flexibility for landowners in managing the landscaping of their property and create a more efficient use of Council's resources. It is recommended that the draft Tree and Vegetation Preservation section of the DCP seen in Attachment A, now be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorse the draft amendments to the Tree and Vegetation Removal section of the Great Lakes Development Control Plan, as contained in Attachment A for public exhibition with a final draft to be presented to Council following consideration of any submissions received during this period.


2 PES - DCP Amendments - Coastal Planning

Index: SP-PP-14; SP-DCP-GL 2014-3; Coastal Development Author: Senior Strategic Landuse Planner - Alex Macvean Strategic Committee Meeting: 8 March 2016

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report provides a summary of the seven (7) submissions received during the public exhibition of amendments to the Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP) objectives and controls, for development on land within the coastal planning areas of the Great Lakes. Individuals who made submissions have been invited to make a brief oral presentation at the Strategic Committee Meeting.


That Council adopt the final draft amendments to the Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP) objectives and controls for development on land within the coastal planning areas of the Great Lakes.


Nil.


Adoption of amended Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP) provisions for development on land within the coastal planning areas of the Great Lakes will repeal existing DCP provisions and Encroachment on public reserves in dune areas policy. The development control plan amendments over-ride certain components of Council's Coastal Planning Guideline (NSW): Adapting to sea level rise. However, until such time as the Great Lakes Council's Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas or the state government's NSW Coastal Reforms are in force, it is recommended that this policy be retained.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

The adoption of amended and updated provisions for development on land within the coastal planning areas in the Great Lakes DCP is consistent with legal advice to provide clear and consistent information to affected land holders.

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

A: Exhibited Draft Great Lakes Development Control Plan - Coastal Planning Areas


A: Table of Submissions to DCP Amendments for Coastal Planning Area B: Final Amended Draft Great Lakes Development Control Plan - Coastal Planning Areas Attachment A & B have been circulated in hard copy to Councillors and Senior Staff only, as a paper conservation measure. However, this Attachment is publicly available on Council's Website, and copies are available at Council offices on request.


BACKGROUND:

The Coastal Hazard Studies adopted by Council to inform the preparation of coastal management plans and planning instruments have identified coastal planning areas that affect 163 private properties within the Great Lakes local government area. A working group comprising the Strategic Planning, Development Assessment, Building, Engineering and Design & Investigation Sections was formed to review current policy and development controls for these coastal planning areas. The primary purpose of the review was to ensure more appropriate and updated guidelines and assessment requirements for land within the coastal planning areas were available for Council, affected landholders and the wider community. Three documents are currently being used to assess development on land within coastal planning areas: 1. Council Policy - Coastal Planning Guideline (NSW): Adapting to sea level rise (2011)

2. Council Policy - Encroachment on public reserves in dune areas (as amended 2008)

3. Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP) - Environmental Matters - Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion

At the commencement of the review it was determined that each document and its provisions must be assessed against four principle questions: a) Are the intentions and design controls clearly understood by applicants and assessors;

b) Do the controls reflect the flexibility required to address variations between the coastal planning areas;

c) Are the provisions consistent with Clause 7.4 Coastal Risk Planning in Great Lakes LEP 2014; and

d) Are the provisions and requirements contained in the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Coastal Risk Management Guide: Incorporating sea level rise benchmarks in coastal risk assessments (2010) or other state-based controls or guidelines?

The first draft amendments to the DCP - Coastal Risk Planning Areas, were prepared and exhibited with Draft Great Lakes Coastal Zone Management Plan, Draft Jimmy's Beach Coastal Zone Management Plan and Planning Proposal - Coastal Risk Planning Areas for six weeks, from Thursday 2 April to Friday 15 May 2015 inclusive. Submissions received during this public exhibition period and discussions held at public information sessions indicated a high level of concern and confusion with regards to the development and re-development potential of land within a coastal planning area. In response, it was determined that additional information and guidance should be provided within the development control plan. Therefore, a second version of amendments was prepared, adopted by Council and placed on public exhibition from Wednesday 13 October to Friday 20 November 2015 inclusive. The remainder of this report outlines the public exhibition process that was undertaken, submissions received and any final amendments to the objectives and controls proposed in response to the public submissions.


REPORT:

At the Strategic Committee meeting on 6 October 2015 Council endorsed the public exhibition of amended Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP) objectives and controls for development in coastal planning areas.

The draft DCP provisions were exhibited from Wednesday 13 October to Friday 20 November 2015 inclusive. A copy of the exhibited document is provided in Annexure A to this report.

Notification of this exhibition was arranged in local newspapers and sent by direct mail to all land owners within the same social catchments as the original exhibition in April-May 2015, and all individuals that made a submission during this time. Three information sessions were held, in Forster, Pacific Palms and Hawks Nest.

Seven submissions were received during the exhibition period. The content of the submissions relate to: procedural matters; community engagement; the proposed development control plan amendments; Clause 7.4 Coastal Risk Planning in Great Lakes LEP 2014; and matters relating to the Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas.

Attachment A to this report provides a summary of the submissions, officer responses and any final amendments proposed to address relevant matters from the submissions.

Matters relating to the Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas are documented within the table in Attachment A, but will be deferred for consideration when the Planning Proposal is tabled for Council's consideration at a future meeting.

The following section of this report provides a summary of the primary issues from the submissions and associated amendments to the development control plan. The final amended development control plan objectives and controls for coastal planning areas is provided in full in Attachment B to this report.

1. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Submission:

Council has resolved to defer the introduction of coastal management actions including planning controls until after certification of the CZMP has been completed. Accordingly any coastal controls in the DCP are premature and all coastal planning objectives, controls etc. should be deleted from the DCP. Response:

Council has expressed a preference for the Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas not to progress until the Minister for the Environment has certified the coastal zone management plans (CZMPs) for Great Lakes Beaches and Jimmy's Beach. Council officers are acting in accordance with this decision. Council has also expressed support for the preparation and exhibition of adaptive development control plan (DCP) provisions. In particular, support has been given to the updating of existing controls to ensure that emotive language is removed, additional guidance is provided and the updated controls reflect Council's adaptation and management approach to coastal hazards. Therefore, the implementation of updated objectives and controls for development within coastal planning areas within the DCP, that address community concerns and provide greater certainty to land owners, is being progressed as a matter of priority. Submission:

Council is attempting to implement the latest DCP without proper consideration and process.


Response:

Council has proposed amendments to the existing DCP objectives and controls relating to "Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion" primarily to bring them up-to-date with state guidelines and requirements. These amendments were originally prepared and exhibited in April-May 2015 in conjunction with the Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas, and draft coastal zone management plans for the Great Lakes Beaches and Jimmy's Beach.

While there are provisions in the current DCP relating to coastal erosion, these are outdated and provide little guidance to the community or assessing officers. The amendments to the DCP have also been prepared to reflect the recommendations of the coastal zone management plans and Council's preferred approach of adaptive management in areas of identified current and future hazard.

The second round of amendments and the October-November 2015 exhibition were prioritised and undertaken in direct response to community concerns and questions about what development can be undertaken within coastal planning areas.

To ensure continuity of Council's engagement with affected land owners and the wider community, direct notification of the property owners within the same community catchments was undertaken and all groups and individuals, who made submissions in April-May, were directly notified of the October-November exhibition.

The October-November exhibition material makes reference to the original exhibition period and all relevant information has been provided as supporting information, including the existing and draft coastal planning area maps in the Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas. The public exhibition information for both rounds of community engagement is still available on the Council website and will not be removed until the relevant projects are formally completed.

Council officers are of the view that this demonstrates proper consideration of all relevant matters, a high level of transparency and due process. 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MATTERS

Submission:

The exhibited DCP changes should be exhibited concurrently with the proposed mapping amendments to the Coastal Planning Areas. Newly affected land owners (within draft coastal planning areas) will not be aware of these changes. Response:

The draft development control plan (DCP) provisions were first exhibited with the Planning Proposal - Coastal Planning Areas in April - May 2015. Land owners within existing and draft coastal planning areas were notified as well as land owners within the surrounding social catchments for every beach identified in the proposal. To ensure consistent information and a transparent process:

notification of the amended DCP in October-November was undertaken in the same newspapers, sent to all property owners within the existing and draft coastal planning areas and the same social catchments;

all individuals that made a submission during the April - May exhibition period were directly notified of the October-November exhibition;

social catchments go beyond the existing and draft coastal planning areas;

exhibition material clearly identified that the proposed amendments were in response to previous submissions; and

exhibition material for the amended DCP in October-November included references to previous version of the DCP, copies of the existing and draft coastal planning area maps, and Clause 4.3 Coastal Risk Planning from Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014, as supporting information.


Since commencement of the April-May public exhibition, Council's Strategic Land Use Planning officers have directly notified any group or individual that has made a submission of any critical milestones for the Planning Proposal (local Environmental plan) and development control plan (DCP) projects. Officers are committed to on-going and transparent communication on these matters and will continue to make improvements to these processes where possible, within the capacity and resources of Council. 3. DCP AMENDMENT MATTERS

Submission:

The deletion of the words "rear building line" in part 1 of Section 5.5.2.5 Pacific Palms and Seal Rocks - Additional Setback Controls, could significantly impact upon properties having more than one boundary that adjoins a National Park or environmental zone. A copy of the exhibited clause is provided below:

Pacific Palms and Seal Rocks - Additional Site Specific Setback Controls

1. In Pacific Palms and Seal Rocks a 6m rear building line setback generally applies to any part of a residential building or ancillary structure on a site:

a) with a slope in excess of 1:6; or

b) adjoining a National Park or land zoned for environmental conservation. In these situations the land owner may be required to have a six (6) metre setback to side and rear property boundaries - instead of 6m to the rear and 1.5m to side boundaries under the current provision. This amendment would therefore significantly reduce the site area available for development on affected residential lots. The amendment is also contrary to discussions between landowners, Council and the Department of Planning in formulating Voluntary Planning Agreements relating to the rezoning and dedication of land in Pacific Palms. If the intention is for the single setback fronting sensitive lands to have a setback of 6m, this should be more clearly defined within the DCP. Response:

The amendments were intended to clarify and simplify this section, but could have unintended consequences for some sites, as described in the submission. While changes to the provisions of a development control plan are not considered relevant to the validity or requirements of a planning agreement, the concerns about unintended impacts on affected sites are acknowledged. It is therefore proposed that a reference to the 'rear boundary' be reinstated in this clause for clarity as follows (amended text is underlined):

Pacific Palms and Seal Rocks - Additional Setback Control

In Pacific Palms and Seal Rocks a 6m rear boundary setback generally applies to any part of a residential building or ancillary structure on a site:

a) with a slope in excess of 1:6; or

b) adjoining a National Park or land zoned for environmental conservation.


Submission:

The Winda Woppa Peninsular is a unique area within the State of NSW and a separate development control plan (DCP), or a section within the generic DCP, should be set aside for the Winda Woppa area:

Properties at Winda Woppa are located fronting a roadway (The Boulevarde);

the roadway, electricity and water services are located within the coastal planning area;

the coastal planning area in Great Lakes LEP 2014 extends to the rear boundary of a high percentage of the properties fronting The Boulevarde; and

the area is classified as being at immediate risk in the Jimmy's Beach Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP).

If this amended draft DCP is adopted, existing buildings on these properties will require a special exemption from Council to be redeveloped. This will effectively sterilise these blocks and place an unacceptable burden on the value of those properties. Response:

These concerns are acknowledged however, the DCP is not prohibitive in its approach and aims to provide additional guidance and flexibility for development within all coastal planning areas. It is acknowledged that the only road currently affected by the Great Lakes LEP 2014 Coastal Risk Planning Area maps is The Boulevarde at Winda Woppa. However, within the Draft Coastal Risk Planning Area maps Kinka Road, Seal Rocks is also potentially affected. Therefore, a locality specific section in the DCP is not the preferred option at this time. However, additional clarity can be provided to ensure a high level of assistance and guidance for property owners in this situation. In this regard, on reviewing the information provided in the draft DCP Council officers are proposing some formatting changes to clarify how and when controls apply, including the provision of a simple checklist for each category of development; and some clarification of the requirements where the access road is potentially affected by coastal hazards. These amendments are considered to be minor in nature and supplementary to the exhibited information. An excerpt from the DCP in Attachment B is provided as an example of these changes (additional text is underlined):

New Buildings Checklist - What do I need to address in the Coastal Risk Management Report for my new building?

Key Question: No Yes Is the new building proposed in the coastal planning area

A report is not required for the new building - see item 1 below

A report certifying the building is required - see item 2 below

Is the primary road access located in the coastal planning area

A report is not required for the road access

A report may be required on the road access - see item 3 below

Are the service connection points located in the coastal planning area

A report is not required for the service connection points

A report may be required on the service connections - see item 4 below

3. New buildings on properties where the primary road access is located within the coastal planning area (in whole or part) are to be designed so that that driveway access to the building:

a) is provided outside of the coastal planning area wherever possible;

b) access is not located between the building and the coastal planning area if an alternative location is available;

c) is provided from the secondary road frontage on a corner allotment;


Where access cannot be designed to meet one of these requirements, evidence is to be submitted that the occupants of the dwelling can evacuate the property if the road access or driveway is damaged as a result of a coastal hazard.

Full details of the amendments are provided in Attachment B to this report Submission:

Clause 3 of the Additions and Alterations appears to indicate that if an additional load is placed on the existing footings (even if they are capable of taking the extra load) then the development must be refused. Why should this be the case? The control should be amended to certify that: "the foundations are adequate to support alterations; do not place any additional load on the existing footings of the building; or that the modifications to the design of the foundations and footings are designed to ensure safe bearing into the stable foundation zone." Response:

Noting that the DCP is not a prohibitive document, this oversight is acknowledged. Additional clarifying statements have been incorporated in keeping with the suggestion from the submission (additional text underlined):

3. Alterations to an existing building within the coastal planning area (in whole or part), other than those permitted as exempt development, are to be accompanied by a report from a coastal engineer to certify that:

a) the alterations do not place any additional load on the existing footings of the building; or

b) the existing foundations are capable of carrying the additional load and provide safe bearing into the stable foundation zone; or

c) additional foundations have been designed to carry the additional load and will ensure safe bearing into the stable foundation zone.

Submission:

A landowner can already install protective measures against coastal hazards, providing that the structures do not impact on adjacent or public property. Statements in the "Ancillary Structures" section of the DCP appear to contradict this understanding. Response:

The development control plan includes the following statements regarding coastal protection measures:

Objective: "To ensure that development, where possible, avoids the need for physical structures to protect the development from potential damage caused by coastal hazards." Ancillary Structures: "Any proposed coastal erosion protection structures must be located wholly on private land and must not cause damage to, or otherwise adversely impact, an adjacent, neighbouring or public property."

The DCP Objective reflects Councils preference that development is designed with its own level of protection, rather than relying on external structures. However, the Ancillary Structures provision recognises that in certain circumstances, land owners may propose alternative forms of protection separate to the primary building. No further amendment to these provisions is considered necessary. Submission:

Council Officers have indicated that discussions are being held between Council, MidCoast Water and Essential Energy regarding their assets being located within the Coastal Planning Areas.


No doubt Council has indicated to these utilities that their assets are at risk (JBCMP - SMEC 2014). If both of these utilities choose or have to move their infrastructures, due to the alleged risk, the cost to move them to outside the Coastal Planning Area would be extremely high given the need to provide easements across neighbouring properties, re-establishing property damage, cable, pipes etc. Council should take this into consideration in their estimates and put this potential expenditure towards a permanent solution which has been raised with Council before? Response:

Cost-benefit analysis for Council and any other public agency are matters for consideration within a coastal zone management plan (CZMP) and are outside of the scope of the development control plan and this report. However, guidance on services, infrastructure and access to development is to be provided in the development control plan, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7.21 Essential Services of Great Lakes LEP 2014. In this regard, Council needs to be satisfied that services "are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required". The issue raised in the submission is not related to the DCP and no further amendment to these provisions is considered necessary.

4. GREAT LAKES LEP 2014 Submission:

Under Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014 no subdivision can take place in the Winda Woppa area:

7.18 Residential accommodation at Winda Woppa

(1) The objective of this clause is to restrict the intensity of development on the Winda Woppa peninsula.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Development Restriction Area” on the Winda Woppa Coastal Development Map.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development for the purpose of residential accommodation on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development will be situated on a lot with an area not less than 450 square metres, and

(b) the development will not involve the erection of more than 2 dwellings on that lot, and

(c) the development will comprise a single building, and

(d) the gross floor area of at least one dwelling will not exceed 60 square metres.

(4) Development consent must not be granted to the subdivision of a lot referred to in subclause (3) (a) if the subdivision will result in the dwellings referred to in subclause (3) (b) being situated on separate lots.

Response:

Clause 7.18 of Great Lakes LEP 2014 does not prohibit all forms of subdivision within Winda Woppa, but does significantly restrict subdivision and other forms of more intensive development. A similar development restriction does not currently apply to other coastal planning areas therefore guidance in the form of subdivision controls, is considered to be appropriate in the development control plan.


Submission:

It is my understanding that the purpose of the Great Lakes Development Control Plan (DCP) is to provide detailed planning and design guidelines to support the planning controls in Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. Accordingly, the draft amendments to the DCP should go a lot further than they currently do to clarify how developments are to satisfy Clause 7.4 Coastal Risk Planning of Great Lakes LEP 2014. In particular, the DCP does not give any guidance regarding how to comply with Clause 7.4(3)(f):

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority has considered whether the development:

(a) is likely to be adversely affected by the impacts of coastal hazards, and

(b) is likely to cause detrimental increases in coastal risks to other development or properties, and

(c) is likely to alter coastal processes and the impacts of coastal hazards to the detriment of the environment, and

(d) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from coastal risks, and

(e) avoids or minimises potential adverse effects from the impact of coastal processes and the exposure to coastal hazards, particularly if the development is located seaward of the 2060 hazard line, and

(f) provides for the relocation, modification or removal of the development to adapt to the impact of coastal processes, coastal hazards and sea level rise planning benchmarks.

The DCP should state that if the foundations and footings of a development are designed to achieve safe bearing into the stable foundation zone then this will be sufficient to:

a. satisfy Clause 7.4(3)(f) and

b. that there is no need to provide for the relocation, modification or removal of the development as the foundations are sufficient.

Response:

In the original amendments to the development control plan (DCP) exhibited in April-May 2015, various provisions relating to 'trigger points', ongoing investigations and the potential need to relocate or remove buildings were included in the DCP to specifically address Clause 7.4 Coastal Risk Planning sections (e) and (f). This section of the DCP caused undue concern and confusion within the community. In the October 2015 Strategic Committee report it was determined that "The provisions relating to 'trigger points' be removed in preference to clarification of when engineering certification is required for a specific development to address potential coastal erosion and/or inundation." As such, the amended DCP requires the lodgement of a Coastal Risk Management Report which certifies that a development is able "to adapt to the impact of coastal processes, coastal hazards and sea level rise planning benchmarks" and this can be taken into consideration within the development assessment process. While the DCP attempts to 'clarify the requirements that developments need to comply with to satisfy Clause 7.4 Coastal Risk Planning of Great Lakes LEP 2014' this is not always possible for every scenario. For example, a person may wish to have a small lightweight structure that does not involve the footings and foundations required by the DCP, but they are prepared for it to be relocatable or moveable. In such a case, the proposal would have to be assessed on merit against clause 7.4. Therefore the DCP is a guideline document and any variation that is proposed is considered on merit, as part of a development assessment process.


To give some recognition that compliance with the DCP provisions will, under most circumstances, meet the requirements of clause 7.4 of LEP 2014 a statement has been inserted in section 4.3 which states:

"This section also provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of clause 7.4 of Great Lakes LEP 2014."

To ensure that the objectives, controls and format of the development control plan provided in Attachment B to this report are sufficient and effective for development assessment purposes, it is also recommended that they be reviewed in twelve months.

CONCLUSION:

The final amended development control plan objectives and controls for coastal planning areas outlined within Attachment B to this report are proposed in direct response to public submissions received during community engagement programs in April-May and October-November 2015. Final editorial and formatting amendments have also been included to provide additional clarity and guidance on when and where the controls apply. The amendments proposed and documented within Attachment B to this report are considered to be relatively minor in nature and are proposed in direct response to public submissions. The submissions received have been comprehensively reported to Council and all objectors given the opportunity to make representations to Council. Officers therefore request that the final amendments documented in Attachment B to this report be adopted. To ensure that the objectives, controls and format of the development control plan provided in Attachment B are sufficient and effective for development assessment purposes, it is also recommended that they be reviewed in twelve months.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council:

A) Adopt the final amendments to the objectives and controls for Coastal Planning Areas in the Great Lakes Development Control Plan, as set out in Attachment B to this report.

B) Repeal Council Policy PL-PRK-002 Encroachment on public reserves in dune areas.

C) Publicly notify adoption of the objectives and controls for Coastal Planning Areas in the Great Lakes Development Control Plan as required by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

D) Forward a copy of the amended Great Lakes Development Control Plan to the Director-General of the Department of Planning & Environment as required by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

E) Council review the Great Lakes Development Control Plan objectives and controls for Coastal Planning Areas in twelve (12) months to ensure that they are sufficient and effective for development assessment purposes.


ANNEXURES:

A: Exhibited Draft Great Lakes Development Control Plan - Coastal Planning Areas


3 PES - Draft Hunter Regional Plan

Index: Draft Hunter Regional Plan Author: Manager Strategic Planning - Roger Busby & Other Staff Strategic Committee Meeting: 8 March 2016

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The NSW Government has released a Draft Hunter Regional Plan (DHRP) that outlines the visions, goals and actions for the sustainable growth of the region up to 2036. The Draft Plan is currently on exhibition and this report, incorporating input from relevant staff, provides an overview of the document and makes recommendations on matters relevant to Great Lakes.


That Council make a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the Draft Hunter Regional Plan.


There will be financial implications for Council due to the various Actions identified in the Draft Plan which will have to be implemented. At this stage it is not possible to quantify the costs as the level of Government funding is unclear and there is no detail as to the amount of work that will have to be done to implement the Actions. As the costs become apparent, a work program will be established that will be incorporated into Council's Delivery Program and Operating Plan for the coming years. Corresponding funding will have to be included in the budget. It will also be important for Council to ensure that issues relevant to Great Lakes are clearly identified in the plan so that it can act as a platform for funding opportunities that will arise. A potential implication for Council will be the preparation of a new Local Strategy for Great Lakes. This strategy will be based on the Directions and Actions from the Draft Hunter Regional Plan. In anticipation of the release of the Regional Plan the preparation of a Strategy was included in the 2015-2016 DP/OP.


The Hunter Regional Plan will guide the broad direction for sustainable growth and development over the next 20 years.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

Nil.



Nil.

REPORT:

Structure and Operation of the Plan Two documents comprise the Draft Plan: Draft Plan for Growing Hunter City and Draft Hunter Regional Plan. The first document focusses on the growth of Newcastle and the surrounding hinterland, while the second document sets the broad direction for the remainder of the Hunter Region. This report focusses on the broader Hunter Regional Plan as it has the greatest implications for Great Lakes. The Draft Plan promotes the idea that growth and change will occur differently across the region and identifies four distinct landscape subregions, responding to the local landscape and providing a focus to address opportunities and challenges. The landscape subregions are:

Hunter City;

Western Hunter;

Northern Tops; and

Hunter’s North East Coast. That part of Great Lakes east of The Pacific Highway and the coastal part of Port Stephens are situated in Hunter's North and East Coast. The balance of Great Lakes, along with Gloucester and the more elevated areas of other constituent Councils are situated in the Northern Tops. This is logical for Great Lakes as there is a clear difference in landscape and associated issues east and west of the highway. Four goals have been established to give broad direction to the aspirations for the region. GOAL 1 - Grow Australia’s next major city. GOAL 2 - Grow the largest regional economy in Australia. GOAL 3 - Protect and connect natural environments. GOAL 4 - Support robust regional communities. Under each of the Goals there is a set of Directions that provide commentary on the issues and opportunities associated with the Goal. A series of Actions then give guidance on how the Government and Councils will respond to and implement the Goals and Directions. All of the Actions are either to be implemented by Councils, the State Government or, as stated in the document, "the NSW Government will work with stakeholders or Councils." Some discussion on the Actions relevant to Great Lakes is provided below. GOAL 2 – GROW THE LARGEST REGIONAL ECONOMY IN AUSTRALIA DIRECTION 2.1 Promote investment to grow regional rural and resource industries This section introduces the main regional rural and resources, including coal, energy, wine, viticulture and thoroughbred horses, although the document is strongly focused on the energy industry (mining) and its potential impacts on the region.


Reference to the NSW Government working with Councils and industry in developing small scale alternative energy sources in the Hunter is mentioned in Action 2.1.1 but it is not clear how this will be done or why only "small scale". Within 20 years (the life of the vision included in the plan) there is high probability of significant changes to the coal or coal gas markets and high interest in alternate energies. The plan doesn't seem to consider how this will impact the region or in building resilience toward a time when coal is no longer the big economic provider for the region. Interestingly, there is no mention of the significant poultry industry; the broiler industry alone generates $11m in "gate" sales. ACTION 2.1.1 Identify energy and mineral resource lands to support sustainable growth of mining industries and diversification of NSW energy supplies To support the sustainable growth of the mining industry and diversification of energy supplies for NSW within the Hunter, the NSW Government will:

Develop analytical tools to identify and map large-scale renewable energy potential, building on new information such as the Australian Government’s Australian Renewable Energy Mapping Infrastructure, as it becomes available.

Maintain a database of mineral and energy resource lands, and monitor development activity. Information will be made available through online resources such as the Common Ground website, as well as through the NSW Mineral Resources Audit.

Work with Councils and industry to identify and support opportunities for smaller-scale renewable energy projects such as those using bioenergy or waste coal mine methane, supporting greater energy security within the region. The NSW Government will use this information to work with Councils and industries within the Hunter to plan for the future of mining industries; identify the short, medium and long term development priorities to guide investment decisions for these industries; and identify new opportunities for renewable energy industries.

Use available information to work with Councils and industries within the Hunter to plan for the future of mining industries; identify the short, medium and long term development priorities to guide investment decisions for these industries; and identify new opportunities for renewable energy industries.

Large petroleum production lease applications and gas exploration areas have been identified in Great Lakes, generally extending from Gloucester to Port Stephens. A large coal mining and exploration area is also shown between Gloucester and Stroud Road. Given the Government's position on coal it is likely that these resources will be exploited in the coming years. Council will want to ensure it is involved in discussions with the Government when priorities are developed for these industries, especially in relation to the provision of infrastructure and services for affected communities. Some of the other key Action Statements from the DHRP relating to other rural resources include the following: ACTION 2.1.2 Support the growth of the region’s important primary industries ACTION 2.1.3 Develop local strategies to support sustainable agriculture and agribusiness ACTION 2.4.2 Avoid urban and rural residential encroachment into identified agricultural and extractive resource lands when preparing long term settlement strategies


Figure 9 in the DHRP identifies selected primary industries in the region; significant omissions are the poultry industry along The Bucketts Way and the oyster industry in Wallis Lake. Identification of the poultry and oyster industries on Figure 9 of the DHRP is critical to ensuring the profile of these industries and their contribution to the regional economy is recognised. There is also no discussion on the significance of the poultry industry to the regional economy and the issues associated with the industry. Key Action statements from DHRP relevant to primary industries are: To support the ongoing success of the Hunter’s priority agricultural industries, the NSW Government will:

work with industry to develop and maintain sector-specific considerations for the viticulture, equine and oyster aquaculture industries, to guide strategic land use planning and approvals processes;

provide the right regulatory environment to prioritise the protection of strategic agricultural lands; and

refine and enhance biophysical strategic agricultural land mapping to reflect updated data.

To support sustainable growth of an array of agribusinesses within the Hunter, the NSW Government will continue to work with councils and industry to:

develop a uniform methodology for identifying and mapping land important for agriculture at a regional level to inform the development of local strategies and planning controls supporting sustainable agriculture; and

in the longer term, develop and maintain a region-wide database of important agricultural lands.

to avoid the impacts of urban and rural housing encroachment into identified agricultural and extractive resource areas when preparing local strategies. This will support the ongoing success of agricultural and mining industries within the Hunter.

identify opportunities to minimise biosecurity risks for current and future industries through strategic planning, including a review of zones in local environmental plans.

Again, the poultry industry has been omitted from the key actions. Comment on Omission of Poultry Industry Great Lakes Council, through the Karuah Catchment Management Plan, has initiated a stakeholder engagement process with the poultry industry and relevant Government agencies. A key outcome of the engagement was the formation of Poultry Group, tentatively to be called the Great Lakes Poultry Excellence Group. The mission of the group is to collaboratively develop a sustainable poultry industry based on best practice in the Great Lakes. The poultry industry is expanding in the Great Lakes LGA and based on NSW average economic figures for broiler farms, the gross revenue at the farm gate for the Karuah Catchment would be approximately $11 million. This does not include the multiplier effect of employment, use of contractors / tradespeople etc. We have been unable to find any egg industry statistics, so the figure of $11 million assumes, incorrectly, that all farms are meat chicken production, however it does give an indicative guide on the value of the industry.


An industry working group has identified that the priorities of the industry are for its profile to be raised, greater protection from incompatible uses and a simplified and workable policy and control framework. These aspirations should be addressed in a strategic framework and the above Action statements would assist in developing this framework. It is therefore important that the poultry industry is given recognition in the Draft Plan. Biosecurity is identified in the Draft Plan as a key issue that will have to be considered in the wellbeing of the Hunter and to reinforce this there are Actions relating to minimising biosecurity risks for current industries. Yet, there has been no recognition of the poultry industry and the associated high biosecurity risks associated with this industry. Action 2.1.2 of the Draft Plan recognises that the implementation of the NSW Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy (OISAS) should protect the important oyster production industry in the Region. It is the experience of this Council that OISAS alone is not satisfactory to protect and enhance the water quality conditions required for oyster production, given the effects of catchment development and pollution on these production systems. Council has invested in the development of catchment management strategies and frameworks to protect oyster production in Wallis Lake and the lower Karuah River/ Port Stephens Estuary. This also requires management of land use conflict between terrestrial and aquatic producers. The finalised plan should also reflect that OISAS as well as catchment management programs need to be devised and delivered to secure the oyster production industry into the future, inclusive of catchment protection of landscapes of high environmental services functions (wetlands, riparian zones, vegetated steep lands, etc). ACTION 2.2.2 Develop strategies for enhancing tourism infrastructure to increase national competitiveness This Action refers to the competitive advantages of the Hunter due to the appeal of its pristine natural areas. The Draft Plan draws attention to the importance of the tourism sector and the opportunities for its growth. Forster and Tuncurry are only mentioned in the context of entry points to national parks and not for the general appeal of their exceptional natural values. Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens are not mentioned even though they are a gateway to the Myall Lakes National Park and a gateway to the Myall River and Port Stephens. For some reason Great Lakes is excluded from the estimated visitor nights calculated for the Hunter. Two Government commitments underpin this Action: The NSW Government will:

work with stakeholders to identify and prioritise infrastructure that will support the tourism industry, including connections to the tourism gateways and attractions; and

investigate options to accommodate a more diverse range of economic uses in natural areas to support tourism and conservation.

Whilst the above two Actions are supported, they should recognise the need to develop walking infrastructure across the multi-day Tops to Myall Walk, and inclusive of a series of inspiring day walks connecting a Great Lakes Coastal Walk from Hawks Nest to Black Head. The Actions should be expanded to support the identification and implementation of walking infrastructure, such as "Great Lakes Great Walks", that offer tremendous opportunities to grow the Hunter's visitor economy and health and wellbeing. Relevantly, Council is in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding with Southern Cross University on exploring and promoting the Great Lakes Section for the Great Australian East Coast - Marrang-Maru-Walk.


DIRECTION 2.3 Enhance inter-regional transport connections This section focuses to the Hunter's rail network, Newcastle Port, Newcastle airport, M1 Motorway and other metropolitan transport infrastructure. The Bucketts Way is a critical inter-regional transport route that is an important link across the New England to northern inland NSW. It is also the main service corridor for the mining industry around Gloucester and Stroud and the poultry industry. It is the main means of access to a number of inland towns and villages, yet it is only briefly mentioned in the commentary on The Tops Landscape Subregion. Recognition should be given to the importance of The Bucketts Way to the regional economy. GOAL 3 - PROTECT AND CONNECT NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS Biodiversity This Goal is supported by Direction 3.1 Protect the Natural Environment and Biodiversity. The focus of this section is upon identification, management and protection of the region's high natural values. Vision It is positive that the Draft Plan (pg. 9) adopts a Vision that recognises the need for a "sustainable and healthy environment". Within the Draft Plan, it is positive that the following values are clearly recognised: o The rich, diverse (and often) unique natural environment and scenic landscapes of the Hunter

Region o The great landscape features such as the Great Dividing Range/Great Escarpment,

international natural heritage assets (including the Myall Lakes Ramsar Site and the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Barrington Tops) as well as national wildlife connectivity values of the region

o The social and economic benefits of nature-based tourism and recreation opportunities o That natural systems underpin the regional economy via primary production and resource

industries and provide much of the reason why people live within the region. Further, it makes the link that "land use planning can assist by maintaining the availability and quality of terrestrial and aquatic resources that have the potential to sustain … industries within the region"

o The Aboriginal cultural significance of the natural landscapes of the region and speaks of the

need to conserve these assets and respect the Aboriginal communities' right to determine how such assets are managed.

The term "sustainable" in relation to the natural environment is quite often ambiguous, abstract and difficult to define, especially by the general community. The Vision and Actions adopted in the Final Plan should be more reflective of the need to actually "protect and restore biodiversity to enhance the function and condition of natural landscapes and the provision of important ecosystem services functions". The Draft Plan states "as the region continues to support growth in both its rural and resource industries, and its urban areas, good planning and design will be more critical than ever to protect the environment and build greater resilience to natural hazards."


According to the DHRP, "strategic land use planning should identify and take account of the locations and extent of areas of high environmental value. Any potential impacts on these areas can then be considered upfront, rather than at the development assessment stage". Clearly, it is the Government's intention for land of high environmental value to be properly assessed at the land rezoning stage rather than postponed to the development application stage. This is likely to involve offsets having to be considered sooner, rather than later, in the development process. The Draft Plan (pg. 45) states that "Much of the Hunter's pristine natural areas are already conserved in a network of protected areas and open spaces" and "Many of the region's natural features are already subject to a high level of regulation to protect their environmental values". These simplistic statements do not recognise that there is no systematic conservation framework, that biodiversity remains in decline, that the condition of the majority of landscapes has been impaired or degraded and that land use and development continue to deplete values and functions of natural landscapes. Indeed, some of the Hunter Region is protected and managed for conservation, however much of it is not. The finalised Hunter Regional Plan needs to adopt a more realistic assessment of the current state, trends and threats to the natural environment, such that it can identify meaningful and coordinated responses. Figure 11 purports to show a "high environmental value" map. This map is so significantly constrained by a lack of adequate data as to render it un-useable. There are many known areas of demonstrated ecological significance in the Great Lakes Council Area (and other Council Areas) that are not recognised by the shading for "high environmental value". As such, the Map has limited value and may be prejudicial. It should not be provided in the finalised Plan as it is incomplete and misleading. The Draft Plan identifies the Government's support for the "streamlining of biodiversity assessment and offsetting processes to support growth in the rural and resource areas". A potential area of criticism relates to the level of accuracy of the State Government's Greater Hunter Vegetation Mapping data and its severe limitation in directing strategic decision-making. The Department should reflect on ecological criticisms of the Greater Hunter Vegetation Mapping and provide enhanced or revised processes to guide biodiversity assessment, protection and offsetting in the future. In the text on the "Eastern Seaboard" is identified as part of an important habitat corridor but it is not mapped on Figure 12. Figure 12 should include an arrow identifying this Eastern Seaboard habitat corridor. Of significance, the Draft Plan identified the importance of the Barrington Tops to Myall Lake habitat link. This is part of Great Lakes Council's adopted Tops to Lakes Strategy, which aims to connect the habitats of the coastal lakes with the Barrington Tops World Heritage Area, as well as enhance resilience and ecological service provisions through improved condition and function of natural landscapes. The Department could cite that the development and delivery of a Tops to Lakes Implementation Strategy could be a model for connectivity and conservation planning for other parts of the Region. The Draft Plan states that SEPP14 and The Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia "protect" significant water bodies. This is not a valid statement. The Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia provides no regulatory or strategic framework for the protection of land at all. SEPP 14 itself only regulates land use within areas so-gazetted. As such, reference to the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia protecting natural areas should be deleted. Action 4.4.1 (which relates to the management of land held by Local Aboriginal Land Councils) could explore the opportunity to establish Indigenous Protected Areas, which contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a culturally-appropriate framework and which includes employment and land management opportunities. This is an important recognition in the final Plan. A possible reference area for such could be the establishment of the Minimbah Indigenous Protected Area to complement the Minimbah Nature Reserve near the Lower Wallamba River at Tuncurry.


General Comments Protecting and Connecting Natural Environments The Draft Plan appears to paint only a positive picture of the state and trends of biodiversity in the region and does not adequately reflect on the state of the biodiversity and the ecological challenges that need to be addressed in the Hunter Region. It is true that when compared to other regions, the Hunter is well endowed with some resilient and functional natural assets and features. However, the Draft Plan does not reflect key ecological problems that warrant strategic action. The final Plan should reflect the current pressure and state of biodiversity in the Hunter Region and identify coordinated, active and informed responses to protect and restore biodiversity values and assets. The final Plan should adopt a framework that provides for adaptation through enhanced knowledge. This may be achieved by the framework referred to as part of the functions of the Hunter Regional Plan Coordination and Monitoring Committee. The final document will have a 20-year life (to 2036). It would be expected that there will be significant knowledge gains and ecological research that will contribute to our understanding of best practice biodiversity conservation and management. The Plan should adopt a framework for such research and knowledge to feed into changed practice. For instance it is noted that "the annual monitoring of development activity will inform the timing of new investments". This should be expanded to include words to the effect, "Similarly, the condition and function of biodiversity and ecological health of the region will also be monitored such that management can be reflective of ecological trends and needs". Five-yearly and major reviews provide for new information and knowledge to be incorporated into the Final Plan. Water Quality This Goal is supported by Direction 3.2 Secure the health of water resources and coastal landscapes. Direction 3.2 Secure the health of water resources and coastal landscapes The plan states that “agreed environmental values and goals for the State’s surface waters are set out in NSW Water Quality Objectives”. It should be acknowledged that this body of work is from 1997-1998. During the intervening 18 years more refined and enhanced values and targets have been developed with the community through strategic planning and consultative processes associated with the development and subsequent review of Estuary and Catchment Plans and in the case of the Great Lakes the Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP). The targets developed through these processes are specific and guide policy and management interventions. The work undertaken as part of the development of Estuary Management Plans and the WQIP takes the aspirational values and goals set out in the NSW Water Quality Objectives and through modelling and scenario testing establishes targets that are deliverable with the application of best practice. Council agrees that as the region grows, coastal areas such as Wallis Lake will need to be protected. The estuary management and WQIP that Great Lakes Council has put in place will achieve the protection of the waterway assets. Annual condition assessment since 2007 shows condition has been either maintained or improved. As such the Great Lakes approach to water quality management should be given recognition as the tool for achieving Direction 3.2. Action 3.2.1 – Protect the Hunter’s water supplies to meet the needs of the environment and support the growth and development of towns and industries Agree that the NSW Government will work with Councils to “require that proposals for new or intensified uses or activities in identified water supply catchments demonstrate a neutral or beneficial impact on water quality and support healthy, productive watercourses and waterfront and by promoting best practice”. Great Lakes Council already has key instruments, plans and programs in place to deliver neutral or beneficial impact on water quality for applicable development type. Action 3.2.2 Develop a risk-based decision making framework to manage water quality and waterway health outcomes for all coastal lakes and estuaries in the region


The draft Hunter Regional Plan overlooks the rigorous science and decision making framework provided by the Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement Plan as well as the Smiths Lake and Wallis Lake Estuary and Catchment Plans. Specific reference is made to the Hunter Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan but no other strategies for coastal lakes and waterways across the region are recognised. As noted above specific targets have been set for the waterways of the Great Lakes which deliver as close as practically possible the community values and objectives. These should be recognised as they are more specific and measurable and are implemented through day to day development assessment and planning for catchment interventions. Importantly the risk-based decision making framework developed by OEH and EPA is not applicable beyond large scale land use changes and strategic planning. The overwhelming majority of decisions that impact on the health of coastal lakes and waterways is at small scale and subdivision scale. As such managing the impact on coastal lakes and waterways is largely the responsibility of Local Government through the environmental planning and assessment process. Great Lakes Council has adopted specific water quality targets (Neutral and Beneficial effect test for greenfield development and the NSW urban Stormwater load reduction objective for redevelopment and infill development) in line with objectives to maintain and improve estuarine condition. Decision support tools such as the Small Scale Stormwater Model and MUSIC model are utilised to ensure developments achieve the particular objectives. The draft Hunter Regional Plan by not ensuring specific water quality targets are achieved for development within the catchment of coastal lakes will not be able to ensure that the condition of coastal waters is protected and maintained in line with Direction 3.2 to secure the health of water resources and coastal landscapes. This is a significant shortcoming given the importance of the waterways of the Great Lakes and other parts of the region for tourism and industries that rely on clean water and healthy waterways such as the oyster and fishing industries. This can be addressed by adopting a similar strategy to Action 3.2.1 (Water supply catchments). That is, require that development proposals for new or intensified uses or activities in coastal lake catchments and sensitive waterways achieve a neutral or beneficial impact on water quality for greenfield development and load reduction targets (45% Total Nitrogen, 60% Total Phosphorus and 80% Total Suspended Solids) for redevelopment or infill development. Importantly this recommendation is reinforcing and recognising existing proven practice which has been effectively applied in the Great Lakes for 15 years. It is a benchmark process for how water quality of coastal lakes can be protected and dependent industries maintained. The focus in the Draft Plan is on surface water quality. There should be greater recognition of the relationship between surface and groundwater and the susceptibility of groundwater to impacts from development. GOAL 4 - SUPPORT ROBUST REGIONAL COMMUNITIES This section focusses upon how and what type of growth should occur in the diverse regional communities of the Hunter. DIRECTION 4.1 Focus housing and service growth towards Hunter City and the region’s existing towns and villages Under this Direction, the Draft Plan states that the Hunter already has a sufficient supply of land available in established and new release areas to meet anticipated demand. It also states that the region also has a sufficient supply of land for rural living and any additional areas will have to sustain the region’s agricultural and environmental values and minimise the costs of providing services. The Government is sending a message that additional land releases, outside new release areas, for urban development will not be required in the next 20 years. Similarly, it states that there is sufficient land available for rural living (rural residential). Clarification should be provided that these conclusions have been reached with regard to growth strategies that have been prepared, and will be reviewed, by Councils.


A clear message is also being given that growth is to build upon existing towns and villages with services, and not be dispersed. This will make more efficient use of infrastructure and service networks. Again, the Action Statements refer to how the State Government will work with and support Councils in implementing the various actions. One action, in particular, will require Councils to prepare local housing strategies that:

identify the housing needs of the community, the range of housing types required to support the future population, and related infrastructure needs; and

identify affordable housing needs and strategies for delivery. Great Lakes Council has prepared housing strategies for the main urban areas but these are now a few years old and should be updated, especially with regard catering for the housing needs of the increasing aged population. Other principles referred to in this section include:

Locating people close to existing centres so as to help services remain viable, particularly in rural areas.

There is sufficient land for rural living and any additional areas will have to sustain the region's agricultural and environmental values and minimise the cost of providing services.

Working with Councils to develop controls for more medium density housing. The general directions relating to urban growth may have implications for more isolated villages that do not have a high level of services and infrastructure. Catering for the Ageing Community In the document there is some recognition of the rapidly ageing community and reference to popular retiree destinations but the actual situation has not been fully appreciated. Some very broad Action Statements have been included but these are considered to be an inadequate response to the scale of the issue that is emerging. The significant impact our aging population is going to have on our infrastructure design, service delivery, transport and health needs has not been properly acknowledged - the promotion of universal design hasn't been mentioned. Given that some of the most aged communities in Australia are within this region (Great Lakes has the oldest population in NSW and the third-oldest in Australia), ageing should have a higher focus. To emphasis this point, a report titled State of Regional Australia 2015 identified Great Lakes as having three (3) of the top ten towns in Australia with a high percentage of people of over 65. The table from the report is below.

Proportion of population aged 65 and over, top 10 SA2s, 2013 SA2 Percentage of population

aged 65 and over Percentage points above the

Australian figure

Tuncurry NSW 40.5 26.0

Tea Gardens – Hawks Nest NSW

39.9 25.4

Sussex Inlet – Berrara NSW 37.9 23.5

Bribie Island QLD 37.1 22.7


SA2 Percentage of population aged 65 and over

Percentage points above the Australian figure

Victor Harbor SA 36.8 22.4

Paynesville VIC 36.5 22.0

Goolwa – Port Elliot SA 34.8 20.4

Queenscliff VIC 33.8 19.3

Forster NSW 33.5 19.1

Rosebud – McCrae VIC 32.3 17.8

AUSTRALIA 14.4

The figures above support Council's position to become a Centre of Excellence for Ageing and to become a member of the World Health Organisation Global Network for Age Friendly Cities and Communities. The DHRP should give greater emphasis to the ageing issue with reference to the significant pressure that will be placed upon services and facilities to meet the needs of this expanding demographic group for communities such as Forster, Tuncurry & Hawks Nest/Tea Gardens. There should be a commitment from the State Government to fund the preparation of strategies to assist regional communities in identifying what has to be done to cater for the high percentage of aged people in their areas. An appropriate Action could refer to the preparation of a gap analysis to identify current level of services and infrastructure available to meet the needs of the aged and to then asses what will be required based on projected demographic trends. The NSW Government should then give a commitment to support those communities that are going to experience high demand for ageing related services and infrastructure. There is some commentary on improving planning for housing services, but not much on adaptive housing, affordable housing, or aged service planning. It is also suggested that the transport corridor maps which have been included, be overlaid with aging population maps to highlight that the "oldest" communities have the least access to transport. Priorities for Hunter's North East Coast Landscape Subregion This landscape subregion includes all land east of the Pacific Highway between Port Stephens and Council's northern boundary. The DHRP gives a broad overview of the North East coast landscape unit and recognises the areas pristine environment, service based economy and highly seasonal population. It also recognises the area as the largest oyster producing area in NSW as well as the importance of the natural environment for rural and resource industries. The plan identifies the following broad key priorities that will be "considered and addressed" for the North east Coast Subregion: Grow Hunter’s regional economy:

prioritise urban growth within existing communities, particularly where using existing and committed urban infrastructure and services. This includes facilitating urban infill and higher residential densities in Nelson Bay and Forster–Tuncurry;

enhance tourism infrastructure and connectivity, recognising the importance of:

o regional and inter-regional connections via the Pacific Highway and the Newcastle Airport and cruise ship gateways; and

o local routes such as the Lakes Way and Nelson Bay Road;

enhance links to regional services in Hunter City and Taree; and


prioritise the provision of high-quality and reliable telecommunication links to and within coastal communities.

Protect and connect natural areas:

protect the water quality, estuarine lakes, coastal environments and natural assets that characterise the region;

monitor and manage natural hazard risks including coastal inundation, local flooding and bushfire; and

monitor and support the impacts of the ageing population on the accessibility and servicing of coastal communities.

Support robust regional communities:

strengthen the roles of existing communities and the accessibility and vibrancy of town centres and main streets, particularly within Forster-Tuncurry and Nelson Bay;

support urban infill and the regeneration of town centres that builds on coastal village identity and form; and

support economic diversity and further tourism opportunities that focus on reducing the impacts of the seasonal nature of tourism and its effect on local economies.

Staff Comment There is no indication on how or when the above priorities will be achieved or how they fit in with the Action Statements elsewhere in the document. Despite being advised of Council's aspirations and achievements during the preparation of the Draft Plan, no acknowledgement has been given to Council's stated objective to be a centre of excellence for ageing and its recognition of the World Health Organisation as of a member of the Global Network of Age Friendly Cities and Communities. Notably, this section reinforces that priority will be given to growth within existing communities where existing and committed urban infrastructure and services exist. Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens have not been mentioned as specific areas of growth or part of a robust regional economy. This seems to have been an oversight and should be rectified. Priorities for Hunter's Northern Tops Landscape Subregion The DHRP recognises the Northern Tops as a prized part of the region, characterised by its World Heritage wilderness areas, pristine waterways and rich agricultural lands. The area is unlikely to experience significant growth, but its capacity to use alternative means of service provision, and its natural assets, to generate economic growth and diversity, are benefits to support it into the future.

As part of the Great Dividing Range, the Barrington Plateau gives rise to a striking topography, cut by river valleys, therein defining the Hunter’s Northern Tops landscape. This topography has shaped the way that people move through and settle within this landscape. Towns and villages have always been relatively small. The themes and setting of this geographical unit have been adequately captured by the DHRP other than for recognition of the heritage locations of Stroud and Tahlee. Whilst Clarence Town and Maitland have been identified as being of heritage significance, there is no acknowledgement of the importance of Tahlee and Stroud to the agricultural settlement of Australia by the first national pastoral enterprise; The Australian Agricultural Company. Numerous remnant buildings and sites exist in Stroud and Tahlee and these are major elements that define the character of these localities.


Acknowledgement should therefore be given to the heritage significance of these areas to Australian settlement. Other matters Disability Inclusion Act Given the new Disability Inclusion Act 2014, and the now mandated need for Councils and public bodies to make disability inclusion action planning (DIAP) a core business and to ensure that resources are allocated to implementing action plans, it is surprising that there is no mention of this at all in the Regional Plan. Some of the Hunter Councils have almost completed their community consultation for their DIAP and not surprisingly Transport is the number one common priority. The areas within the Hunter which are on a rail line are somewhat catered for, but areas like the Great Lakes - completely without any rail link - are severely disadvantaged. Wherever the plan mentions "older people", this should at a minimum be expanded to "older people and people with a disability". Heatwave Resilience The Hunter Councils organisation has been working with individual Councils on a Heatwave Resilience Plan. The project aims to raise awareness of Heatwaves and associated health implications, especially for vulnerable groups - frail older people, people with disability, babies and young. This should be mentioned in the Regional Plan and provision for cool spots included. Telecommunications Telecommunications doesn't feature strongly in the plan. Good telecommunication systems reduce demands on transport and provide a much more efficient way of delivery some health and education services to rural and small communities. More young people could be retained in our communities if they could work and/or study remotely through internet services and there would be greater business opportunities. Older people could reduce the amount of trips to medical services if some of their monitoring could be done through electronic services and they would have access to a much broader range of shopping options, if they could shop online more easily. It should be a priority for the entire region to be covered, removing black spots for both mobile phone coverage and internet provision. Some of this is mentioned in the plan, but it needs a much stronger focus. Delivery and Governance of the Plan According to the DHRP the following will be the delivery mechanism:

The Minister will issue a local planning direction under section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to require that future planning proposals are consistent with the Plan.

The NSW Government will work with infrastructure providers to coordinate the delivery of infrastructure that meets community needs. The Plan, along with the annual monitoring of development activity, will inform the timing of new investments.

Delivery of the Plan will be overseen by a Coordinating and Monitoring Committee, comprising representatives from the NSW Government and councils across the Hunter region. The committee will review and recommend plans, projects and actions to advance the delivery of the final Plan.

The actions identified in the final Plan will be progressively implemented through a mix of mechanisms and initiatives that will be the responsibility of the NSW Government, the 11 local Councils and the associated Hunter Pilot Joint Organisation.


Regular reporting will occur.

Establishing the Hunter Regional Plan Coordination and Monitoring Committee A Hunter Regional Plan Coordination and Monitoring Committee will be established with membership from the NSW Government and Councils. This committee will coordinate and drive the delivery of actions and establish a framework to report progress on population, housing, economy and employment and natural environment and resources.

The Committee will also prepare an annual report detailing progress against the actions identified in the final Plan and providing recommendations for land use and infrastructure planning to inform local and State planning priorities and budgets. This will assist the delivery of the final Plan over the following one to five years.

The Plan will be reviewed every five years. Amendments to the Plan may also occur between major reviews to reflect and advance the latest Government policy and commitments.

The delivery model from the Draft Plan is shown in the figure below.

A future s117 direction will ensure that future planning proposals and reviews of local environmental plans are consistent with the adopted Hunter Regional Plan. This implementation framework will be useful to ensure compliance with the directions of the finalised Plan.

Staff Comment Whilst a Delivery and Governance model is broadly described, there is little guidance on how the many Actions will be given effect at the local level.


Examples of the Government's responses to some of the Actions with implications for Great Lakes include: Industry The NSW Government will enhance opportunities for the region’s service based industries to grow by working with Councils and industry to:

plan for the future needs of industries by identifying land and infrastructure requirements that can support their ongoing success; and

apply appropriate planning controls to create the right conditions, opportunities and capacity for growth in these industries.

Biosecurity The NSW Government will work with Councils to:

identify opportunities to minimise biosecurity risks for current and future industries through strategic planning, including a review of zones in local environmental plans; and

promote the application of buffer areas to minimise biosecurity risks when assessing the potential impacts of new development.

Biodiversity The NSW Government will work with Councils to protect biodiversity by:

creating the right regulatory environment and implementing appropriate protection measures to conserve validated high environmental values, including through the application of planning controls;

developing local strategies to avoid and minimise potential impacts arising from development on areas of high environmental value, and subsequently considering appropriate mechanisms to identify offsets or other mitigation mechanisms for unavoidable impacts; and

identifying and assessing the potential impacts to biodiversity and establishing plans to manage offsets, or at the earliest stage of the planning approvals process, using appropriate assessment methodologies.

Housing The NSW Government will:

investigate opportunities to accommodate long term housing growth;

work with Councils to review planning controls in conjunction with development feasibility analysis, to develop controls that will encourage more medium density housing in appropriate locations; and

monitor the demand for and delivery of housing

The NSW Government will require Councils to prepare a local housing strategy that:

o identifies the housing needs of the community, the range of housing types required

to support the future population, and related infrastructure needs; and

o identifies affordable housing needs and strategies for delivery.


There is an implied expectation that Councils will prepare longer term Local Plans and Strategies to give effect to the DRHRP. Preparation of these plans and strategies would be in Council's interest as these can then be used as a platform for funding and to priorities projects. CONCLUSION

The Draft Hunter Regional Plan is a very high level document that contains many broad actions and nebulous commitments from the State Government to support, and work with, Councils in implementing the Directions and Actions. In some cases Councils will be required to prepare documents.

In relation to urban growth in Great Lakes there are no clearly set out commitments, limitations or directives, other than for "prioritising urban growth within existing communities, particularly where using existing and committed infrastructure." In this regard there is flexibility for Council to pursue its own directions within the broad parameters set by the document.

Consistently throughout the Draft Plan there is reference to the need for Councils to prepare strategies with support from the Government. It can therefore be assumed that the main tool for implementation at the local level will local strategies; whether they be sectoral or industry specific strategies or broad strategies that cover all of key issues relevant to growth and conservation.

One of the main implications will therefore be for Council to prepare a new local strategy (or multiple strategies) that consolidate and update the strategies that were adopted in the early 2003 - 2004 (the Great Lakes Rural Living Strategy and the Forster/Tuncurry and Tea Gardens/Hawks Nest Conservation and Development Strategies) as well as the Housing Strategies for Forster/Tuncurry and Hawks Nest Tea Gardens.

In anticipation of the release of the Hunter Regional Plan, the preparation of a new Local Strategy was included in Council's 2015-2016 Delivery Program and Operational Plan. This project will be carried over into the 2016-2017 DP/OP but Council will require funding from the State Government to assist with the preparation of the Strategy.

There are some significant oversights in the plan, as set out in the report, and if these are adequately addressed, Council will be able to use the Plan to give direction to, and to help set, priorities in a new Local Strategy for Great Lakes.

It is expected that funding for implementation will be available for Councils and this should be made clear in Council's submission.

A new Local Strategy for Great Lakes that embraces the main Directions and Actions from the Plan will provide a solid base for further funding for infrastructure and services.

RECOMMENDATION:

A. That Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment that:

1. Council supports the general direction of the draft Hunter Regional Plan whereby it is recognised that local Government can make effective planning decisions in the interests of the community within the broad parameters set by the Plan.

2. Council's support is subject to adequate funding and resources being provided to enable implementation of the final Plan.

3. That, subject to the following matters being properly addressed in the final Plan, Council believes the plan will set a sound blueprint for the sustainable growth of the Great Lakes:

a) Clearer guidance on the mechanisms available to implement the Goals, Directions and Actions from the Plan and clarification of what is meant by the Government will support/work with/require as stated under the various Actions in the Plan.

b) Identification, on Figure 9 Selected Primary Industries, of the significant poultry industry along The Bucketts Way generally between Limeburners Creek and Stroud Rd as well as the oyster industry in Wallis Lake.


c) The poultry industry being identified under Direction 1 (Goal 2 - Grow the Largest Regional Economy in Australia) and the associated Actions as a significant regional primary industry, including Action 2.4.3 relating to biosecurity. A further Action should be added that states words to the effect of:

The NSW Government will support the preparation a strategy for the poultry industry for The Tops and North East Coast Landscape Subregions that:

Conserves and enhances poultry industry and environmental values

Highlights and responds to current and predicted pressures on poultry production

Manages and plans for a balance between economically viable food production, demographic trends and environmental protection

Facilitates institutional and planning changes within Government

Builds capacity through collaborative engagement

d) Greater recognition of the significant issues associated with an increase in the ageing population and, in particular, Great Lakes Council's aspiration to be a Centre of Excellence for Ageing and its recognition by the World health Organisation as a member of the Global Network for Age Friendly Cities and Communities.

e) Inclusion of an Action which refers to the preparation of strategies to identify and support cities and towns that are experiencing, and will continue to experience, significant service and infrastructure demands from an ageing population. The NSW Government should then give a commitment to support those regional communities that are going to experience high demand for ageing related services and infrastructure.

f) Wherever the plan mentions "older people", this should be expanded to "older people and people with a disability".

g) Clarification should be provided that the statements in the Draft Plan relating to adequacy of urban and rural living land supplies have been made with reference to Council's strategies that have already been prepared and which will be reviewed.

h) Greater recognition should be given to the importance of The Bucketts Way to the regional economy.

i) That Action 2.2.2 Strategies for Enhancing Tourism Infrastructure should be broadened to recognise that the provision of infrastructure associated with walking, such as "Great Lakes Great Walks" in areas of high natural appeal present significant opportunities to grow the Hunter's visitor economy and health and wellbeing. The Plan should recognise the need to fund feasibility and planning studies of nature-based recreation assets across the region, in a coordinated and strategic manner.

j) That under Action 2.2.2, Hawks Nest, Tea Gardens and Bulahdelah should be identified as towns with potential to contribute to the visitor economy due to their proximity to Myall Lakes National Park, Myall River and Port Stephens and coastal beaches.

k) In the commentary on The Tops Landscape Subregion, acknowledgement should be given to the heritage significance of Stroud and Tahlee.

l) Greater consideration should be given to building resilience toward a time when coal is no longer the big economic provider for the region.


m) Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens should be identified as a coastal growth area with potential to part of a robust regional community.

n) Higher priority should be given to removing black spots for both mobile phone coverage and internet provision in regional locations. Some of this is mentioned in the plan, but it needs a much stronger focus.

o) The Vision adopted in the Final Plan should be more reflective of the need to actually "protect and restore biodiversity to enhance the function and condition of natural landscapes and the provision of important ecosystem services functions".

p) The finalised plan should reflect that OISAS, as well as catchment management programs, are required to secure the oyster production industry into the future.

q) The finalised Plan needs to adopt a more realistic assessment of the current state, trends and threats to the natural environment, such that it can identify meaningful and coordinated responses.

r) Figure 11 High Environmental Values has limited value and accuracy and should not be provided in the finalised Plan as it is incomplete and misleading.

s) The Department should reflect on the Greater Hunter Vegetation Mapping and provide enhanced or revised processes to guide biodiversity assessment, protection and offsetting in the future.

t) Figure 12 Focus Areas for Sustainable Habitat Connectivity should include an arrow identifying this Eastern Seaboard habitat corridor.

u) The final plan should cite that the development and delivery of a Tops to Lakes Implementation Strategy could form a model for connectivity and conservation planning for other parts of the Region.

v) Action 4.4.1 (which relates to the management of land held by Local Aboriginal Land Council's) could explore the opportunity to establish Indigenous Protected Areas, which contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a culturally-appropriate framework and which includes employment and land management opportunities.

w) The final Plan should be realistic about key ecological problems that warrant strategic action. This should be in the form of more sub-regional and local conservation strategy documents.

x) The Plan should adopt a framework for such research and knowledge feed into changed practice. For instance it is noted that "the annual monitoring of development activity will inform the timing of new investments". This should be expanded to include words to the effect: "Similarly, the condition and function of biodiversity and ecological health of the region will also be monitored such that management can be reflective of ecological trends and needs".

y) The estuaries of the Great Lakes (Myall, Smiths and Wallis) have specific short term and long term targets that are deliverable based on best available modelling and scenario testing. Clear policy objectives and management interventions are established and have been successfully implemented for over 15 years. In this regard:

I. Figure 13 showing the drinking water catchments should be amended to show

the entire Crawford River catchment (Bulahdelah Water Supply catchment) and the entire Karuah River Catchment upstream, of Stroud (Stroud water supply).


II. Action 3.2.2 relating to water quality and waterway health should include -

“require that development proposals for new or intensified uses or activities in coastal lake catchment and sensitive waterways achieve a neutral or beneficial impact on water quality for greenfield development and load reduction targets (45% Total Nitrogen, 60% Total Phosphorus and 80% Total Suspended Solids) for redevelopment or infill development”.

III. Direction 3.2 (Water Resources) should give greater recognition to the relationship between surface and groundwater and the susceptibility of groundwater to impacts from development.


4 PES - Draft DCP Amendment - Detached Dual Occupancy - Rural Zone

Index: SP-PP-25 Author: Manager Strategic Planning - Roger Busby Strategic Committee Meeting: 8 March 2016

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

In November 2015 Council supported a Planning Proposal to amend Great Lakes LEP 2014 to permit dual occupancy (detached) with consent in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone. Council also resolved to prepare draft Development Control Plan provisions for dual occupancy (detached) in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone for inclusion in Great Lakes DCP. This report provides a suite of DCP changes to address this issue and recommends they be publicly exhibited with the Planning Proposal. The DCP changes and submissions will be reported back to Council before finalisation.


That Council endorse, for exhibition, the draft Development Control Plan provisions for dual occupancy (detached) and detached secondary dwellings in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone.


The cost of preparing and processing the DCP amendment will be borne by Council as it is Council initiated.


The recommended changes to the Great Lakes DCP will assist people who wish to lodge applications for detached dual occupancy in rural areas. These provisions will provide guidance to applicants about the circumstances in which detached rural dual occupancy may be acceptable. They will also provide a basis for Council to assess any such applications.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

A: Draft Development Control Plan provisions for dual occupancy (detached) and detached secondary dwellings in the RU2 Rural landscape zone.


Nil.

REPORT:

Background On 10 November 2015 Council’s Strategic Committee Meeting resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal to permit dual occupancy (detached) with consent in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone. The draft Planning Proposal has been sent to the NSW Minister for Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination. It was also resolved to prepare draft Development Control Plan provisions for dual occupancy (detached) in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone and that a separate report be submitted to Council on the DCP provisions. This report fulfils the latter part of that resolution.


What are the Objectives of the DCP Changes? The objective of the changes to the DCP is to ensure that this type of development in rural areas is located to avoid potential conflicts with agricultural activities on adjoining land, to avoid adversely affecting the sustainability of the subject land for agriculture, and to ensure compatibility with the rural character and landscape of the locality. What “On Ground” Results will the DCP Deliver? The DCP will provide guidance as to what may be acceptable in an application for detached dual occupancy and detached secondary dwellings in rural areas. The “on ground” effect should be better quality applications that are more likely to be approved. How Does the Proposal Relate to Other Strategic Documents? Great Lakes LEP 2014 The DCP changes are consistent with the proposed changes to LEP 2014. Community Strategic Plan Great Lakes 2030 has four key directions. The DCP changes are consistent with:

Key Direction 1 in that they will “ensure that development is sensitive to our natural environment”;

Key Direction 3 in that they will “plan for sustainable growth and development”; and

Key Direction 4 in that they will “represent the community’s interests through regional leadership”.

Great Lakes Active Ageing Strategy The opportunity to make farm succession easier for retiring farmers by permitting detached dual occupancy dwellings is consistent with housing recommendations in the strategy. Local Strategies Great Lakes Rural Living Strategy 2004 is the most relevant land use planning document adopted by Council to guide local rural land use. It is open to the concept that rural dual occupancies could be detached but states (page 67), “decisions must be made about how to regulate their form (attached or detached), size, design, location and environmental impacts to ensure that the desired rural character is maintained.” The DCP changes provide guidance on these issues. Where will the DCP Changes Apply? The DCP changes will apply to both detached dual occupancy and detached secondary dwellings in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone. This is consistent with the Planning Proposal that will be exhibited at the same time as the DCP changes. What Amendments will be made to Great Lakes DCP 2014? Minor changes are required to section 5.12 of the DCP to confine these controls to attached dual occupancy. The revised section would be as follows:

“5.12 Attached Dual Occupancies within Large Lot Residential, Rural and Environmental Zones This control applies to alterations and additions to an existing lawful dwelling-house to create an attached dual occupancy; or the erection of two attached lawful dwellings.


Objectives

To ensure that dual occupancy development does not dominate the natural environment, views or vistas.

Controls 1) The two dwellings in an attached dual occupancy are to be connected by a

common wall, garage or carport. Separation of the dwellings by covered walkways, passageways, voids or the like is not permitted.”

An additional section is required to address specifically the controls needed for detached dual occupancy and secondary dwellings. The new section (5.13) would be as follows:

“5.13 Detached Dual Occupancies and Detached Secondary Dwellings within the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone This control applies to the erection of two detached lawful dwellings as either a dual occupancy (detached) or a secondary dwelling in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone. Objectives

To ensure that detached dual occupancies and detached secondary dwellings in rural areas are located to avoid potential for conflicts with agricultural activities on adjoining land, to avoid adversely affecting the sustainability of the land for agriculture, and to ensure compatibility with the rural character and landscape of the locality.

Controls 1) The detached dual occupancy or detached secondary dwelling must be located so

that it does not create potential for conflict with adjoining land uses. 2) The detached dual occupancy or detached secondary dwelling must be located and

retained on the same legal title as the principal dwelling-house on the property, and may not be excised by subdivision.

3) A development application must be accompanied by information that demonstrates: a) The existing use of all parts of the site, including existing and proposed

infrastructure (buildings, sheds, services, on-site wastewater disposal, etc); b) potential conflicts, including the distance from the proposed detached dual

occupancy or detached secondary dwelling to dwellings on adjoining land and potentially conflicting land uses on adjoining land (eg intensive horticulture, pesticide use, intensive livestock activities, rural industry and the like);

c) access and site details, including a plan showing the location of the principal dwelling and the proposed detached dual occupancy or detached secondary dwelling; and proposed access arrangements from the public road to the principal dwelling and the proposed detached dual occupancy or detached secondary dwelling.”

What are the Main Issues Associated with the DCP Changes? Council could proceed with the Planning Proposal without any consequential changes to its DCP. However, this may result in applications for detached dual occupancy that do not meet Council’s expectations. It is better to be clear up front as to what is likely to be acceptable. This also provides Council planners with a clear basis on which to evaluate applications.


Are there any Risks or Legal Considerations Associated with the DCP Changes? No. There is a greater risk in having LEP clauses that permit a certain development and no commensurate DCP provisions. What Community Engagement is Proposed? It is recommended that the DCP changes be exhibited at the same time as the Planning Proposal so that the community can then see what sort of situations may be acceptable for detached dual occupancy in rural areas and what sort of controls will apply to it. A 28 day exhibition period is proposed.

CONCLUSION:

It is important that Council prepare a suite of controls for inclusion in Great Lakes DCP that address the circumstances in which detached dual occupancy and detached secondary dwellings can occur in rural parts of Great Lakes LGA. The suggested changes to the DCP fit with the Planning Proposal changes to LEP 2014 and will provide a sound basis to assess the applications that are likely to follow finalisation of the Planning Proposal. Council will be able to co-ordinate the commencement of the LEP changes and the DCP changes so that they start at the same time.

RECOMMENDATION:

A. That Council endorse for exhibition the draft Development Control Plan provisions for dual occupancy (detached) and detached secondary dwellings as contained in Annexure A.

B. That the draft DCP provisions be exhibited concurrently with the planning proposal for dual

occupancy (detached) and detached secondary dwellings. C. That the final draft DCP provisions be submitted to Council for endorsement after the exhibition

period.


ANNEXURES:

A: Draft Development Control Plan provisions for dual occupancy (detached) and detached secondary dwellings in the RU2 Rural landscape zone.


DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

5 ES - Monthly Operations Report March 2016

Index: Corporate Management - Administrative Matters - Works Depot Author: Manager Operations – Robert Fish Strategic Committee Meeting: 8 March 2016

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report provides advice on work currently in progress or recently completed by Operations Branch. Also included is advice on work planned in the near future and information on the progress of work being completed by contractors supervised by Operations Branch.


That Council note the information included in this report.


Work as listed within this report is included in the 2015/16 Operational Plan adopted by Council or grant funding that has subsequently been accepted by Council. Work funded under Council’s Road Maintenance Contract (RMCC) with Road & Maritime Services (RMS) is also included.


Nil.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

Nil.


A: Monthly Operations Report - March 2016

Attachment A has been circulated in A3 size to Councillors and Senior Staff. However, this Attachment is publicly available on Council's Website, copies are available at Council offices and copies are available on request.

REPORT:

The following items are works projects that have progressed since the last monthly report presented to the February Strategic Workshop of Council. Included in Attachment A is a summary of general maintenance activities for Councillor information.

Major Projects Completed Include:

Bullocky Way Rehabilitation, Failford: Work was undertaken in February to rehabilitate and bitumen reseal a section of Bullocky Way. The rehabilitation work involved lime stabilisation of a section which was in poor condition. A bitumen seal was then applied over this area and on adjacent sections of pavement which required resealing. Work was undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff and contractors.


Bramble Parade / Kent & Bent Streets Shared Path Construction, Tuncurry: A new path has been constructed along Bramble Parade, Bent Street and Kent Street in Tuncurry. The project links the CBD area of Tuncurry with nearby residential areas and public reserve. The project involved the construction of a block retaining wall at the corner of Kent and Bent Streets. The project was undertaken by contractors and Tuncurry Depot Operations staff. Funding was received through RMS's Active Transport Program to complete the work. This program is in place to increase the number of bicycle and walking trips around Forster-Tuncurry.

Major Projects in Progress:

Wallis Street Shared Path Construction, Tuncurry: A shared path construction project commenced from late October at Wallis Street in Tuncurry. The project provides an important link between residential areas, a school, Tuncurry CBD and the main road. The path project at Wallis Street was completed in 2015, with the exception of the planting of trees along the street to beautify the location. This work is expected to be undertaken in the next two months. The project is being undertaken with funding received under RMS's Active Transport Program. Work on the projects is being undertaken by contractors under the supervision of Tuncurry Depot Operations staff.

Taree Street Reconstruction, Tuncurry: Work has commenced on the project to reconstruct Taree Street from Mount View Parade to the western end of Taree Street. Initial work involved repairing existing kerb and gutter and drainage pits. Work has since moved on to reconstructing the road pavement. This involves removal of the current pavement and the placement of imported gravel. A bitumen seal will be applied once the new pavement material has been placed. Work is being undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff and is due to be completed in March. Late in 2016 an asphalt surfacing is expected to be placed.

Palms Estate Bio-Retention Basin Refurbishment, Forster: Work was undertaken in December on the refurbishment of a bio-retention basin in the Palms Estate near Thora Close. Previously the basin functioned effectively with regard to improving water quality, however it was causing water to pond for long periods in the fore-bay area of the basin creating a potential habitat for mosquito breeding. The refurbished basin has been built to ensure there is no potential for any ponding of water, apart for a short period following rainfall. The basin will have the plants placed in coming months providing weather conditions are suitable. Work is being undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff.

Head Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements, Forster: Under the RMCC contract with RMS work commenced in December in Head Street to improve pedestrian safety. A new pedestrian fence has been installed along Head Street off the Forster-Tuncurry Bridge to prevent pedestrians crossing at this location. Concrete islands work has also commenced at the West Street intersection to provide refuge for pedestrians crossing Head Street. Further work to complete these crossing will be undertaken in March. At that time the median along Head Street between Beach Street and West Street will be replaced and reconstructed incorporating concrete in-fill. Asphalt resurfacing work will occur near the West Street intersection and on Head Street between Beach Street and Reserve Road to improve the road surface condition. A skid resistant asphalt surfacing will also be applied to the Beach Street roundabout. Weather permitting all work is expected to be completed in March.

Cross Street Shared Path Construction, Forster: Work has commenced to install a new path along Cross Street to the south of Lake Street. The path will provide an important link to schools and other facilities on Lake Street. As part of the work a new pedestrian bridge has been installed across the drainage reserve near Townsend Street. The work is being undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff and contractors. Funding for the project is being provided for through RMS's Active Transport Program.

Cape Hawke Drive Shared Path Construction: Work will commence in March to construct a missing link in the path along Cape Hawke Drive. The work will extend along Cape Hawke Drive to the west of The Southern Parkway. The work is being undertaken under RMS's Active Transport Program. This project was added to this program due to savings in other projects under the grant. Work will be undertaken by contractors under the supervision of Tuncurry Depot Operation staff.


Nabiac Showground Service Relocations: Grant funding has been received through the Crown Public Reserves Management Fund to enable Council to relocate water and electricity services at Nabiac Showground. The work will see these services installed in accordance with relevant standards. This will greatly improve safety at this location as the existing services are non-compliant being buried only just below the ground. The work will commence in March and will be undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff and contractors.

Great Lakes Waste Centre, Minimbah: Work is being undertaken at the Great Lakes Waste Centre to prepare the site for landfill operations. Work being undertaken includes the construction of the internal roads, drainage, perimeter earth bunding and a hard stand area. A weighbridge is also due to be installed in the near future. Prior to the landfill being operational work is required to install a clay liner in the first landfill cell and the construction of detention basins and leachate measures within the site. Current work is being undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff.

Willina Road Rehabilitation: Work has commenced on the rehabilitation of a section of Willina Road. This section is located at the western end of the sealed part of the road from the Pacific Highway. At this location the current bitumen seal is narrow in width. The work will involve upgrading drainage, adding gravel to the existing surface to increase pavement thickness and width, followed by stabilising the road with lime. A bitumen seal will be applied to complete the work. Once complete Willina Road will have been widened along the full sealed length from the Pacific Highway over the past six years.

Booral Road Rehabilitation: Work will commence in March to rehabilitate a length of Booral Road where the road pavement is currently in poor condition. The site is located at the eastern end of Booral Road, immediately to the west of the section which was previously the Pacific Highway. The work involves the addition of gravel to increase pavement thickness and stabilisation of the road with lime. Minor improvements will be made to roadside drainage. Work will be completed with the application of a bitumen seal. The work will be undertaken by Bulahdelah Depot Operations staff. Following this project similar work will be undertaken on segments 90 and 180 of Booral Road.

Pleasant View Parade & Central Avenue Construction, Bundabah: Work to construct and bitumen seal Pleasant View Parade and Central Avenue in Bundabah is nearing completion. These streets were previously unsealed. The work completed to date has involved improvements to drainage followed by the addition of gravel to increase the road pavement thickness. To complete the work a bitumen seal is planned to be applied by the end of February. Work is being undertaken by Tea Gardens Depot Operations staff.

Church Street / Carrington Road Construction, Carrington: Work will commence in March to extend the bitumen seal along Church Street and Carrington Road at Carrington. Currently the road is a gravel road within Carrington. The work will involve the placement of an imported gravel base course layer followed by the application of a bitumen seal. Work will be undertaken by Tea Gardens Depot Operations staff.

Settlers Way Rehabilitation, Tea Gardens: Work is planned to commence in March on the rehabilitation of Settlers Way at Tea Gardens. The road at this location is currently in poor condition, largely due to construction traffic associated with development in this area of Tea Gardens. The work will involve the addition of gravel followed by the stabilisation of the road with lime. A bitumen seal will be applied to complete the work. Work will be undertaken by Tea Gardens Depot Operations staff and contractors.

The Bucketts Way Rehabilitation, Allworth: Work is in progress to rehabilitate a section of the Bucketts Way near Allworth. This section of road is narrow in alignment and the road pavement in poor condition requiring regular maintenance. Work involves widening of the road, upgrading drainage, reconstruction of the road pavement and the application of a bitumen seal. In late 2015 work was undertaken on the southern portion of the project. In February work recommenced on the remainder of the project. Stroud Depot Operations staff are undertaking the work on the project. All work is expected to be completed by the end of March.


Major Projects Proposed for the Next Month:

Macintosh/Strand/Middle Street Intersection Safety Improvements, Forster: Under Council's RMCC contract with RMS work is planned to be undertaken in April to improve the safety of the intersection at Macintosh, Strand and Middle Streets. The work will involve the installation of concrete islands which will only permit left turns when exiting Strand or Middle Street. To progress across or into Macintosh Street from these side streets motorists will need to use the signalised intersection at Macintosh and Lake Streets. Work will be undertaken by contractors under the supervision of Tuncurry Depot Operations staff.

North Tuncurry Sporting Fields Expansion: During April work is expected to commence at North Tuncurry to expand the sporting fields on the western side of the touch football fields and eastern side of the rugby union field. The areas will be cleared and then sand fill will be removed from the eastern side of the rugby field and transported around to the western side of the touch football fields to expand the footprint on both sides. The work will be undertaken by Tuncurry Depot Operations staff with grant funding received through the Forster-Tuncurry Touch Association from the State Government. Further funding is required to develop this expansion and enable the area to be used for sporting events.

Coolongolook Amenities Construction: Quotations were recently received for the construction of an amenity block in Coolongolook. The existing amenities at this location have been closed for some time and are now being demolished to enable construction of the new building. The successful contractor is expected to commence in March with the work to be undertaken over a period of three to four months. The work will be supervised by Tuncurry Operations staff.

Wattley Hill Road Construction, Wootton: Work is expected to commence in March on the construction of a section of Wattley Hill Road. The section is located at the eastern end of the sealed part of the road from Wootton. At this location the current road is a gravel road. The work will involve upgrading drainage, widening the road and placement of an imported gravel base layer. A bitumen seal will be applied to complete the work. The work will be undertaken under Council's Rural Road Construction Program.

The Bucketts Way Reconstruction at Stroud Hill Road Intersection: Work is planned to commence at the end of March to reconstruct the Bucketts Way immediately to the south of Stroud Hill Road. The work will involve widening the road and reconstruction of the pavement. Guardrail will be installed along the western road edge to improve safety. The project is being funded from RMS's Black Spot program. Work will be undertaken by Stroud Depot Operations staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the information included in this report.

Glenn Handford GENERAL MANAGER

Minute Manager 2€¦ · 9.30am - 10.00am PRESENTATION - Draft DCP Amendments - Tree & Vegetation...

Documents

Transcript of Minute Manager 2€¦ · 9.30am - 10.00am PRESENTATION - Draft DCP Amendments - Tree & Vegetation...