Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Tuesday, 23 August 2022

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 9.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 9.2	Monthly Investment Report - July 2022
REPORTING MANAGER	Chief Financial Officer
TRIM file REF	2022/471290
ATTACHMENTS	Nil

SUMMARY

purpose

To provide a report setting out details of all money that Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

executive summary

In accordance with section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, a report setting out the details of money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

The report must also include certification as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

The Investment Report shows that Council has total cash and investments of $150,084,380 comprising:

· Trading Accounts	$3,260,519
· Investments	$146,823,861

The portfolio achieved a return of 0.124% for the month of July which was 0.004% above the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index return of 0.12%. For the past 12 months the portfolio achieved a return of 0.610% which was 0.39% above the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index return of 0.22%.

The weighted average interest rate of the portfolio is 1.71% compared to 1.39% for the prior month. For the past 12 months the weighted average interest rate of the portfolio was 0.71% compared to the average Ausbond Bank Bill movement of 0.02% and the average Reserve bank of Australia Cash Rate of 0.29%.

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached reports have been made in accordance with section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and existing Investment Policies.

RECOMMENDATION OF ACTING Director Corporate and Legal

That Council note the Investment Report as at 31 July 2022, including the certification by the Responsible Accounting Officer.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

In accordance with section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, a report setting out the details of money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

The report must also include certification as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Good governance - Goal 19 Our Council is transparent and trusted to make decisions that reflect the values of the community

financial considerations

Actual investment income for the period from 1 July 2022 to date was $170,620 compared to budgeted income of $39,500, a positive variance of $131,120.

social considerations

Council’s investments are managed in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. Council’s Investment Policy requires consideration of social responsibility when making investment decisions.

environmental considerations

Council’s investments are managed in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. Council’s Investment Policy requires consideration of environmental responsibility when making investment decisions.

governance and risk considerations

A revised Investment Policy was adopted by Council at its meeting on 26 July 2022. The Policy is reviewed annually by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee with the next review due in December 2022.

Council’s Investment Strategy was reviewed by its Investment Advisors in November 2021, who noted that strategy remains at the conservative end relative to its peers and that where future cash flow allows, consideration should be given to lengthen the maturity term of the portfolio via the use of authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI) issued bonds and floating rate notes.

Investment Balances

*Rating is based on a private rating advised by the issuer to Council’s Investment Advisors.

Portfolio Analysis

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

Institutional Credit Framework – Compliance with Investment Policy Requirements

Clause 4.2.2 of Council’s Investment Policy requires that the exposure to an individual institution be restricted by their credit rating so that single entity exposure is limited, as detailed in the table below:

S&P Long Term Rating*	S&P Short Term Rating*	Maximum %	Portfolio Complies with Policy?
AAA (incl. government guaranteed deposits)	A-1+	50%	Yes
AA+
AA
AA-
A+	A-1	40%	Yes
A	A-1	40%	Yes
A-	A-2	30%	Yes
BBB+
BBB
BBB-	A-3	10%	Yes
Unrated**TCorp Funds	Unrated**	5%	Yes ($Nil)
Unrated***ADIs	Unrated***	$250,000	Yes ($Nil)

* Or Moody’s / Fitch equivalents

** Unrated Category is restricted to eligible managed funds such as the NSW Treasury Corporation Hour Glass Facilities

*** Unrated ADIs Category is restricted to those ADIs that are under the Australian government guarantee scheme and limited to maximum $250,000 per unrated ADI.

As Members Equity Bank is a fully owned subsidiary of Bank of Queensland, the holdings are combined to determine the maximum percentage which can be held under clause 4.2.2 (Institutional Credit Framework Guidelines) of Council’s Investment Policy.

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework – Compliance with Investment Policy Requirements

Clause 4.2.1 of Council’s Investment Policy requires that the total percentage exposure within the market to any particular credit rating category be limited, as detailed in the table below:

S&P Long Term Rating*	S&P Short Term Rating*	Maximum %	Portfolio Complies with Policy?
AAA (incl. government guaranteed deposits)	A-1+	100%	Yes
AA+
AA
AA-
A+	A-1	100%	Yes
A
A-	A-2	80%	Yes
BBB+
BBB
BBB-	A-3	30%	Yes
Unrated**	Unrated**	5%	Yes ($Nil)

* Or Moody’s / Fitch equivalents

** Unrated Category is restricted to eligible managed funds such as the NSW Treasury Corporation Hour Glass Facilities and ADIs covered by the government guarantee scheme.

Term to Maturity Framework – Compliance with Investment Policy Requirements

Clause 4.2.4 of Council’s Investment Policy requires Council’s investment portfolio is to be invested within the following maturity constraints:

Overall Portfolio Term to Maturity Limits			Portfolio Complies with Policy?
Portfolio % <1 year	Min 40%	Max 100%	Yes
Portfolio % >1 year ≤3 year	Min 0%	Max 60%	Yes
Portfolio % >3 year ≤5 year	Min 0%	Max 30%	Yes

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

Investment Performance vs Benchmark

a) Portfolio Return vs Benchmark

	Investment Portfolio Return *	Benchmark: AusBond Bank Bill Index
1 month	0.124%	0.12%
3 Months	0.286%	0.21%
FYTD	0.124%	0.12%
12 Months	0.610%	0.22%

* Excludes trading account balances

Council’s Investment Advisors have stated this form of portfolio reporting conforms to global investment performance standards and that these standards say that periods below 12 months should not be annualised

The above table shows a comparison of Council’s investment portfolio return to the benchmark. Council’s Investment Advisor, Laminar Capital, has created an accumulation index for the portfolio which increases each month by the portfolio internal rate of return to enable meaningful comparison to the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill index, which is an accumulation index.

The Bloomberg AusBond Bank Bill Index is engineered to measure the Australian money market by representing a passively managed short term money market portfolio. This index is comprised of 13 synthetic instruments defined by rates interpolated from the RBA 24-hour cash rate, 1M BBSW, and 3M BBSW.

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

b) Portfolio Interest Rate vs Benchmarks

	Weighted Average Portfolio Interest Rate (%pa) *	Average Benchmark: AusBond Bank Bill Index	Average RBA Cash Rate
1 month	1.71%	0.12%	1.35%
3 Months	1.38%	0.07%	0.85%
6 Months	1.00%	0.03%	0.48%
FYTD	1.71%	0.12%	1.35%
12 Months	0.71%	0.02%	0.29%

* Excludes trading account balances

The above table shows the weighted average interest rate of the portfolio as at month end. This is an average of all the interest rates that each term deposit is earning. It is the current earning rate of the portfolio and this information is useful as it shows how the earning rate is changing each month in line with changes in market interest rates. Each time a term deposit matures during the month it is being reinvested at current interest rates. To facilitate meaningful comparison, the weighted average interest rate of the portfolio is compared to the average AusBond Bank Bill Index and average RBA Cash Rate for the same period.

Graphical user interface, chart, application, line chart

Description automatically generated

Monthly Investment Income* vs Budget

	July 2022 $	Year to Date $
Investment Income	170,627	170,627
Adjustment for Fair Value	(7)	(7)
Total Investment Income	170,620	170,620

Budgeted Income	39,500	39,500

*Includes all cash and investment holdings

Statement of Compliance

Portfolio Performance vs Bank Bill Index over 12-month period.	✔	Council’s investment performance did exceed benchmark.
Monthly Income vs Budget	✔	Council’s income from investments did exceed monthly budget.
Investment Policy Compliance
Legislative Requirements	✔	Fully compliant
Portfolio Credit Rating Limit	✔	Fully compliant
Institutional Exposure Limits	✔	Fully compliant
Term to Maturity Limits	✔	Fully compliant

Restricted cash, cash equivalents and investments

The breakdown of restrictions is not available for the current month within the timeframe for the completion of the Monthly Investment. Accordingly, the total cash and investments and restrictions related thereto are presented for the previous month.

At the end of June 2022 total cash & investments were $160,160,643 and were made up of the following reserve allocations.

Allocation of Funds	Amount ($)	Percentage
Externally Restricted	43,544,946	27.19%
Internally Restricted	80,184,182	50.06%
Total Restricted	123,729,128	77.25%
Unrestricted	36,431,515	22.75%
Total	$160,160,643	100.00%

ECONOMIC NOTES

(Source: Primarily extracted from information supplied by Laminar Capital Pty Ltd)

Financial markets rallied strongly in July with the notable exception of the Chinese markets. The bond, share and credit buying spree drew on perception that peaking inflation may give central banks cause to reduce the size and pace of future rate hikes, even though big rate hikes were delivered by several central banks in July. Most commodity prices weakened in July on softening global demand increasing the likelihood that annual consumer price inflation will moderate in coming months. Annual inflation in 2023, however, still looks set to base above central banks’ targets implying to us that any pause or moderation in rate hikes over the next few months will be temporary.

There are some signs of slowing economic growth in the United States exaggerated in the Q1 2022 and Q2 GDP reports showing annualised growth of respectively -1.6% and -0.9%. The US economy meets the condition of back-to-back negative growth quarters constituting a technical recession, but many other indicators still point to economic strength – real household consumption up 1.1% annualised within Q2 GDP after rising 1.8% in Q1; household income up more than 10% y-o-y with wages up more than 5%; an unemployment rate at 3.6% in June down from 3.9% in December last year with non-farm payrolls rising 372,000 in June and 384,000 in May compared with monthly increases in the early-to-mid 200,000 range late 2021 and early 2022.

What appears as a mild US recession in the Q1 and Q2 GDP reports will likely be revised to a false alarm as more complete data comes to hand. That is not to say that the US economy will escape recession down the track, the work that the US Fed still has to do to return inflation to a 2-ish % annual trajectory over the long-term means somehow dialling down annual wage growth to around 3% and dialling up the unemployment rate to around 4%. A Fed funds rate around 4% is likely to be needed to achieve these numbers still 150bps or so above the 2.50% funds rate after the 75bps rate hike delivered at the July policy meeting.

For the time being, financial markets are factoring in less central bank rate action ahead and that could sustain rallies until checked by evidence that progress reducing inflation is less impressive than expected.

Meantime, major share market performance in July was strong with mostly gains ranging from 3.5% for Britain’s FTSE 100 to 9.1% for the US S&P 500. Australia’s ASX 200 rose by 5.9%. Exceptions to the strong gains were the Chinese share markets with the Shanghai CSI 300 index down 6.6% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng down by 7.8%. China’s residential property construction sector downturn continues to drive large corporate debt defaults, concern about China’s banks and rising social unrest.

Most credit markets rallied strongly too in July. The sense that interest rates had risen too far too quickly in May and early June powered a chase for yield promoting sharp contraction in yield spreads. The main exception to the credit rally was Chinese credit beset by concerns about real estate and real estate development companies.

Government bonds rallied as well in July with yields tumbling. The US 10-year bond yield fell by 36bps to 2.65% while the US 30-year Treasury yield fell by 17bps to 3.01%. Australia’s 10-year bond yield fell by 52bps to 3.05%. Market perception that the US Fed may go easier hiking official interest rates in the months ahead applied to perception about what the RBA may do as well.

Over the past month the market’s view of how high the RBA may need to lift the cash rate has changed from close to 4% to 3%. Driving that view change has been revision of the market’s perception of how high Australian inflation may go and when it is likely to decline. The market is looking for annual inflation to peak below 7% and probably in the current quarter (Q3 2022). It is worth noting that the market is for the first time this cycle calling inflation lower than official estimates. Commonwealth Treasury is looking for inflation to peak at 7.75% in Q4 2022 and the RBA when it releases its August Monetary Policy Statement on Friday will also forecast an inflation peak around 7% in Q4.

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 12.1 - 23 August 2022

12.0 Planning and Place Division Reports

ITEM 12.1	Public Exhibition - Draft Conservation Zone Review and Studies to Inform the Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Strategic and Place Planning
TRIM file REF	2022/269667
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇨Draft Conservation Zone Review (Included In Attachments Booklet) 2 ⇨Draft Deferred Lands Strategic Bushfire Risk Assessment (Included In Attachments Booklet) 3 ⇨Draft Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment, Stage 1 – Review of Existing Information (Included In Attachments Booklet) 4 ⇨Draft Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment, Stage 2 – Biodiversity Survey and Reporting (Included In Attachments Booklet) 5 ⇨Draft Biodiversity Planning Review (Included In Attachments Booklet) 6 ⇨Draft Watercourse, Wetland and Riparian Land Study (Included In Attachments Booklet)

SUMMARY

purpose

To seek Council approval to publicly exhibit a Conservation Zones Review report and related studies for comment to inform the preparation of the draft Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan.

executive summary

In preparing the new Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP), Council must decide which land use zones to apply to land throughout the LGA.

The zoning of land under an LEP is a key strategic land use planning tool. Zoning controls the range of development (land uses) that can occur on land e.g., factories are prohibited in residential zones.

Conservation zones (previously known as Environmental Zones) are used to protect and conserve areas with special environmental values or where there are known hazards e.g., bushfire, coastal inundation.

Four conservation zones are identified for use in LEPs by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and all are currently used on the Northern Beaches:

· C1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

· C2 Environmental Conservation

· C3 Environmental Management

· C4 Environmental Living.

Whilst the zones, some of their objectives, and some mandated uses are set by DPE, Council has some discretion to determine where the zones should apply, describe additional objectives, and include additional permissible land uses in each zone.

Four LEPs currently apply to the Northern Beaches: Manly LEP 2013, Pittwater LEP 2014, Warringah LEP 2000 (Deferred Lands), and Warringah LEP 2011. The Warringah LEP 2000 does not use zones but instead uses ‘Locality Statements’, each with a list of land uses that must be considered for consistency with a ‘desired future character statement’. The remaining 3 LEPs each use the conservation zones in diverse ways.

Council commissioned planning consultants Meridian Urban to undertake a review of its conservation zones to establish a consistent approach to their application in the new Northern Beaches LEP (Conservation Zones Review).

The Conservation Zones Review analyses the current conservation zones, identifies a methodology for the creation of a consolidated set of conservation zones based on land use, environmental, and hazards criteria, and maps the outcomes from this work, creating a draft conservation zones map for the entire Local Government Area (LGA).

The Conservation Zones Review and its recommendations represent a considered, evidence based and best practice approach to conservation zoning. Given the nature, scope, and complexity of this work, it is proposed to exhibit the Conservation Zones Review for public comment outside of (and prior to) the legislated LEP public exhibition process, to enable the views of Council, the community, and all stakeholders to be considered.

RECOMMENDATION OF Director Planning and Place

That Council:

1. Publicly exhibit the Conservation Zones Review, and associated technical studies and maps, including:

A. Draft Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Assessment

B. Draft Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment

C. Draft Watercourse, Wetlands and Riparian Lands Study

D. Draft Biodiversity Planning Review

2. Note that the outcome of the public exhibition will inform the development of a draft Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan and be reported back to Council together with the draft Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan prior to the statutory public exhibition.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

Council has been collaborating with our community to bring together our current local planning controls to create one new planning framework that will guide and manage future development in the Northern Beaches. This includes the consolidation of our four Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Development Control Plans (DCP), which include:

· Manly LEP 2013 and Manly DCP 2013

· Pittwater LEP 2014 and Pittwater DCP 21

· Warringah LEP 2011 and Warringah DCP 2011

· Warringah LEP 2000 (Deferred Lands - deferred from inclusion in the Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 Standard Instrument LEP).

A review and 'health check' of these LEPs was completed in November 2018 after amalgamation of the former Manly, Pittwater and Warringah Councils in 2016. In 2019 Council released its Local Strategic Planning Statement – Towards 2040 - outlining the future vision for the Northern Beaches and our commitment to Planning our Sustainable Future.

Towards 2040 sets key strategies and actions to inform Council’s LEP and DCP and aligns with regional directions set by the Greater Sydney Commission in the North District Plan and the community priorities identified in our Community Strategic Plan – 2040, and Environment and Sustainability Strategy – Protect.Create. Live. We have also prepared a Local Housing Strategy (adopted by Council in April 2021) and the LEP/DCP Discussion Paper – exhibited in mid-2021.

Timeline

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 1 - Planning our Sustainable Future Program

As outlined in Towards 2040, Council’s aim is to use conservation zones (formerly known as environmental zones) within our LEP to protect bushland and biodiversity (Action 2.2) and natural open spaces (Action 6.2), using findings from technical studies. Towards 2040 also outlines our intent to identify where to limit the intensification of development in areas exposed to hazards (Action 8.2).

Council has prepared a range of technical studies to inform the new LEP and DCP, including the Conservation Zones Review (Attachment 1). These studies provide up-to-date research and analysis across the entire Local Government Area, with two studies focusing specifically on the deferred lands (Figure 2). Studies informing the Conservation Zones Review are also proposed to go on public exhibition.

Draft studies addressed in this report, being:

· Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Assessment

· Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment

· Watercourse, Wetlands and Riparian Lands Study

· Biodiversity Planning Review.

Draft studies also informing the Conservation Zones Review reported to Council 26 July 2022 include:

· Cowan Creek Estuary Planning Level Study (coastal inundation)

· North and Middle Harbour Estuary Planning Level Study (coastal inundation)

· Geotechnical Review - Geotechnical Planning Controls.

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 - Conservation Zones Review, technical studies and inputs, with those in red subject to public exhibition

What are conservation zones?

The zoning of land under a LEP is a key strategic land use planning tool in the NSW planning system under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Each zone in a LEP permits a range of land uses with or without development consent and prohibits other uses. For example, the R2 Low Density Residential zone under Council LEPs generally permits houses, secondary dwellings and in some cases dual occupancy development but prohibits commercial and industrial land uses e.g., factories or office buildings.

Conservation zones identify land with ecological, scientific, or aesthetic values or land that is subject to hazards e.g., bushfire or flood. In these zones a smaller range of permissible land uses are permitted to protect the environmental values of the land and to ensure more intensive development is not constructed in areas subjects to hazards.

There are four types of the current conservation zones currently in use under the NSW Planning system. Figure 3 summarises the current Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Practice Note: Environment Protection Zones PN09-002 from 30 April 2009 (DPE Practice Note), which is the guiding document for Council in establishing these zones. Other Councils have also undertaken similar reviews which provide Council with further guidance in how to apply these zones.

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated Figure 3 - Summary of Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Practice Note PN09-002 (30 April 2009)

Generally, any land uses in the conservation zone must be compatible with environmental values of the land. For example, dwelling houses are permitted within the C3 Environmental Management and C4 Environmental Living zones, but they are not permitted in the C2 Environmental Conservation zone.

By designating land as a conservation zone, most private developments will require a development application to be lodged with Council. This allows Council staff to undertake an assessment to ensure the development is well located and designed so it does not have an adverse effect on the environmental qualities of the land.

Why did Council undertake the Conservation Zones Review?

Council embarked on preparing a Conservation Zones Review for the following reasons:

· To align with the vision of the Northern Beaches community who place a high value on important environmental matters.

· To provide strategic and statutory protection to lands with important environment and hazard characteristics, rather than relying on individual assessment of development applications.

· To meet commitments made in Towards 2040, which include principles to:

· Avoid intensification of development, inappropriate development and incompatible land uses in areas exposed to natural hazards.

· Ensure development is avoided in high-risk areas that are difficult to evacuate or would be occupied by at risk members of the community (including schools, hospitals, and nursing homes).

· To provide a consistent and fair approach to the application of conservation zones which currently permit markedly different land uses across the four LEPs and were created using different environmental criteria.

· To identify and implement best practice planning controls based on research and a strong evidence base, including several technical studies which identify areas with high conservation values more accurately and consistently across the LGA.

· To meet commitments to consult with residents in the “deferred lands” under Warringah LEP 2000 – Oxford Falls Valley and Belrose North – because of the non-standard nature of that LEP and given concerns about previous Planning Proposals for the area.

How are conservation zones currently used?

Four conservation zones are used in Council’s current LEPs, except for Warringah LEP 2000 which does not use standard zones. In summary, conservation zones in the Manly LEP 2013, Pittwater LEP 2014 and Warringah LEP 2011 are applied as follows:

· C1 National Parks and Nature Reserves: used consistently to identify National Parks. The Conservation Zone Review does not include the C1 National Parks and Nature Reserves zone because such land is managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and this is not proposed to change.

· C2 Environmental Conservation: The Manly LEP 2013 and Pittwater LEP 2014 apply this zone to natural areas including bushland and foreshore reserves, coastal cliffs, and some environmentally sensitive waterways. The Warringah LEP generally limits this zone to certain privately-owned bushland with conservation values. Permitted land uses vary, for example, the Manly LEP permits eco-tourist facilities, and the Pittwater LEP permits recreation areas.

· C3 Environmental Management: Pittwater LEP applies this zone to certain non-urban coastal communities on the western foreshore of Pittwater and Scotland Island. Warringah LEP 2011 applies this zone in non-urban lands in Terrey Hills and Belrose North, and Manly LEP 2013 applies this zone to low density residential properties adjoining the harbour and ocean foreshores. The Manly LEP 2013 permits secondary dwellings in this zone, Pittwater LEP 2014 permits jetties and boatsheds, and the Warringah LEP 2011 permits horticulture and beekeeping.

· C4 Environmental Living: Pittwater LEP 2014 applies this zone to steeply sloping land and foreshore, and land in low density residential neighbourhoods. Warringah LEP 2011 applies this zone to Cottage Point, and Manly LEP 2013 applies the zone to medium to higher density residential areas adjoining the harbour and ocean foreshores. Manly LEP 2013 permits a diverse range of residential accommodation including multi-dwelling housing and residential flat buildings. Pittwater LEP 2014 permits secondary dwellings in addition to dwelling houses, whereas the Warringah LEP 2011 prohibits secondary dwellings (see Table 1).

Zones and land uses*	Pittwater LEP	Warringah LEP	Manly LEP
C2 Environmental Conservation
eco-tourist facilities
environmental facilities
recreation areas
C3 Environmental Management
bee keeping
dairy (pasture based)
horticulture
farm buildings
secondary dwellings
community facilities
boat sheds
environmental facilities
jetties
recreation areas
water recreation structures
C4 Environmental Living
attached dwellings
dual occupancies (attached)
group homes (permanent or transitional)
multi dwelling housing
residential flat buildings
secondary dwellings
semi-detached dwellings
centre-based childcare facilities
home-based childcare		without**	without**
community facilities
places of public worship
respite day care centres
boat sheds
jetties
recreation areas
water recreation structures

Table 1 - Table showing different land use permissibility across the three-standard instrument LEPs. Grey shaded cells indicate the land use is permissible and blank cells indicate the use is prohibited.

*excludes land uses that are consistently permitted or prohibited across the three LEPs, and those permitted under State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021
** permissible without the need for development consent

The Warringah LEP 2000 lists land uses within ‘Locality Statements’ that must be considered for consistency with the Locality Statement’s ‘desired future character statement’. Land uses are listed under three categories:

· Category One development is development that is generally consistent with the desired future character of the locality

· Category Two development is development that may be consistent with the desired future character of the locality

· Category Three development is development that is generally inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality and requires further assessment and an independent public hearing (see Table 2).

In developing a single Northern Beaches LEP, Council must develop a single set of conservation zones with a single set of permissible land uses for each zone.

Land uses defined under WLEP 2000	Oxford Falls Valley Locality B2	Belrose North Locality C8
Agriculture	Category 2	Category 2
Housing	Category 2	Category 2
Housing for older people or people with disabilities (on certain land described under the heading “Housing density” in LEP)	Category 2	Category 2
Other buildings, works, places or land uses that are not prohibited or in Category 1 or 3	Category 2	Category 2
Animal boarding or training establishments	Category 3	Category 3
Bulky goods shops	Category 3	Category 3
Business premises	Category 3	Category 3
Childcare centres	Category 3	Category 3
Community facilities	Category 3	Category 3
Development for the purpose of extractive industries (on land covered by Licence Number 64/193 Metropolitan, Belrose--Warringah Gravel and Stone Supplies)		Category 1
Entertainment facilities	Category 3	Category 3
Extractive industries, unless the Locality Statement provides otherwise		Category 3
Further education	Category 3	Category 3
Health consulting rooms	Category 3	Category 3
Heliports	Category 3	Category 3
Hire establishments	Category 3	Category 3
Hospitals	Category 3	Category 3
Hotels	Category 3	Category 3
Industries	Category 3	Category 3
Medical centres	Category 3	Category 3
Motor showrooms	Category 3	Category 3
Offices	Category 3	Category 3
Places of worship	Category 3	Category 3
Primary schools	Category 3	Category 3
Recreation facilities	Category 3	Category 3
Registered clubs	Category 3	Category 3
Restaurants	Category 3	Category 3
Retail plant nurseries	Category 3	Category 3
Service stations	Category 3	Category 3
Shops	Category 3	Category 3
Short term accommodation	Category 3	Category 3
Vehicle repair stations	Category 3	Category 3
Veterinary hospitals	Category 3	Category 3
Warehouses	Category 3	Category 3

Table 2 - Table showing land use permissibility within the deferred lands under Warringah LEP 2000.


Figure 4 – Map of Northern Beaches Local Government Area (LGA) showing the four LEPs with existing conservation, recreation, rural and waterway zones

What method was used to develop the draft conservation zones?

Council engaged external consultants, Meridian Urban to assist with the Conservation Zones Review. Figure 5 summarises the process used.

Figure 5 – Meridian Urban process for Conservation Zones Review

Review: A review of existing information such as:

· Policy requirements, including the State Government’s Practice Note for Environment Protection Zones, North District Plan; and Council studies including Towards 2040.

· Other conservation zone reviews, that have already been undertaken in NSW including the: Northern Councils Environmental Zone Review; Gosford Council Deferred Matters, Ku-ring-gai Council Deferred Areas, Tweed Shire Council Conservation Zones Review and Draft MidCoast Rural Strategy.

· Community feedback during:

· Public exhibition of Towards 2040, other E zones reviews.

· Facilitation of five online community focus group workshops in 2021 and accompanying online survey.

Identify: The identification of relevant criteria for the mapping of conservation zones.

Create: Zone mapping, including testing and review.

Prepare: Conservation Zone Profiles, including appropriate land uses for each zone.

We are now at the phase of Public Exhibition, where Council is seeking input into the proposed zone mapping and conservation zones. Feedback from this exhibition will be used to finalise the conservation zone maps and land uses before formal public exhibition of a draft LEP and DCP, including all zones across the Northern Beaches, scheduled in 2023.

What criteria was used to identify, and map proposed conservation zones?

Three sets of criteria were used to identify and map areas proposed for conservation zones:

· Land application criteria (used to identify the land on which we would consider environmental and hazard criteria).

· Environmental criteria.

· Hazards Criteria.

These criteria were identified through several sources, including:

Draft studies addressed in this report:

· Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Risk Assessment.

· Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment.

· Biodiversity Planning Review.

· Watercourse, Wetlands and Riparian Lands Study.

Draft studies reported to Council 26 July 2022:

· Cowan Creek Estuary Planning Level Study (coastal inundation) & North and Middle Harbour Estuary Planning Level Study (coastal inundation).

· Geotechnical Review - Geotechnical Planning Controls.

Other sources:

· Northern Beaches Bush Fire Prone Land Map 2020.

· Flood Hazard Map.

· Newport Flood Study 2019.

· Manly Lagoon Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan 2018.

· Towards 2040.

· Land Zoning Maps (WLEP2011, MLEP 2013, PLEP 2014).

· 2019 Aerial Photography and LIDAR.

· Nearmap 2022.

· Open Space and Recreation Strategy.

Land Application Criteria

Identifying the character and current use of land across the Council area was an important first step in the process. For this study, it was important to distinguish the urban and non-urban areas given the differences these areas represent with respect to character, and access to transport and infrastructure (see Table 3).

Criteria – Land application	Data Description
Urban Areas	Council's urban area comprises more built-up areas along the coast along the Pittwater Road corridor, and to the west along the Warringah Road corridor.
Low Density Residential Areas	This includes urban land identified on Council's land zoning maps for the Pittwater LEP 2014, Warringah LEP 2011 and Manly LEP 2013 on lands zoned: R2 Low Density Residential; R5 Large Lot Residential; C3 Environmental Management, C4 Environmental Living and RU2 Rural Landscape lots that do not fall within the non-urban area (e.g., Warriewood). It also includes the R2 Low Density Residential zone in Terrey Hills, which is a non-urban area, as the characteristics of this area are like those found in the former Warringah LEP 2011 R2 zones.
Non-urban Areas	Non-urban Areas include the Deferred Lands, under the Warringah LEP 2000, where only low-density development is permitted at a scale of one dwelling per twenty hectares. It also includes areas zoned for rural or conservation purposes, including areas of Belrose, Terrey Hills, Duffys Forest, Ingleside, Cottage Point and offshore communities including Scotland Island, Elvina Bay, Great Mackerel Beach, Coasters Retreat and Morning Bay. Council's non-urban lands comprise the Metropolitan Rural Area (MRA), future MRA investigation area and Ingleside, which is no longer designated as a growth area due to the decision of the Department of Planning in 2022 not to proceed with the draft Ingleside Place Strategy.
Undeveloped Bushland	These are sites identified through a study of land use in the non-urban area on which to apply environmental criteria. The study was required to obtain an up-to-date record of existing land use given standard zones were not applied in the deferred lands. Undeveloped bushland sites were identified from an analysis of Nearmap and Council records and reviewed together with maps generated from technical studies. Sites not identified as ‘undeveloped bushland’ included sites with key infrastructure (e.g., utilities and schools), heavily cleared sites, sites with poor quality vegetation or sites where vegetation was heavily fragmented.
Parks and Reserves	Land identified in Council’s Open Space and Recreation Strategy, which includes public land managed for recreation generally zoned either C2 Environmental Conservation or RE1 Public Recreation.

Table 3 - Description of Northern Beaches' Urban and Non-Urban Areas, including their status in the Metropolitan Rural Area, relevant LEP and zones considered for the Conservation Zones Review

Environmental Criteria

A range of environmental criteria were identified with each criterion being given a ‘high’ or ‘medium’ value based on relative importance. A single ‘high’ value criteria was deemed sufficient to trigger inclusion of land in a conservation zone, whereas two or more ‘medium’ value criteria were required to trigger inclusion in a conservation zone.

Criteria – High environmental value	Data Description
Biodiversity Core Habitat	Areas of contiguous native vegetation, generally at least 3.5 hectares in area. Biodiversity Core Habitats are most representative of the original structure of natural areas and provide important habitat for threatened species. May include small areas of cleared or developed land. Source: Biodiversity Planning Review.
Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs)	Thirteen TECs listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) were identified within the Northern Beaches LGA. Of these, seven TECs were also listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Source: Biodiversity Planning Review.
Threatened Species Habitat - Selected	Twenty-five threatened species listed under the BC Act and/or EPBC Act were mapped within the LGA, including: twenty-one threatened flora species listed under the BC Act, thirteen of which are also are listed under the EPBC Act; and four threatened fauna species listed under the BC Act, one of which is also listed under the EPBC Act. Selected features of the threatened species mapping were considered in the conservation zones criteria. Source: Biodiversity Planning Review.
Deferred Lands Biodiversity – Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs)	Five different TECs listed under the NSW BC Act and/or EPBC Act are identified as occurring in the deferred lands. Source: Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment.
Deferred Lands Biodiversity - Very High Value	This includes areas adjoining protected bushland (National Parks estate), threatened species habitat (e.g., recent records of threatened flora and fauna), TECs and riparian habitat along larger creeks. Source: Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment.
Deferred Lands Biodiversity - High Value	Threatened species habitat (e.g., recent records of threatened flora and fauna), native vegetation (native Plant Community Types (PCTs)), habitat connectivity (large areas of habitat connecting to other large patches), riparian habitats along creeks. Source: Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment.
Conservation Mechanism	This could include lands with bio-certification agreements, stewardship agreements, conservation covenants or court approval requirements. Current mapping includes Council records of known Biobank Sites and Biodiversity Stewardship sites. Source: Council records.
Existing C2 Environmental Conservation zones	Land currently zoned for environmental protection where strict controls on development apply. Source: Manly LEP, Warringah LEP 2011 and Pittwater LEP.
Wetlands	Wetlands comprise natural and artificial wetlands, including marshes, mangroves, backwaters, billabongs, swamps, sedgelands, wet meadows or wet heathlands. This includes the estuarine wetlands of Careel Bay and Pittwater, freshwater wetlands at Warriewood and coastal floodplain wetlands lining the four coastal lagoons. Many wetland habitats are now recognised as endangered in NSW, emphasising the need for ongoing conservation. Source: Watercourse, Wetland and Riparian Lands Study.
Riparian Corridor Category 1	Riparian corridor that potentially supports relatively intact native vegetation and habits within a nominated width measured from the edge of the channel. Riparian corridors comprise the nominated terrestrial environment adjoining the watercourse channel to be managed to support waterway functions, values, and long-term use and to address risks associated with waterways. Source: Watercourse, Wetland and Riparian Lands Study.
Riparian Corridor Category 2	Riparian corridor that potentially supports disturbed lands within a nominated width measured from the edge of the channel. Riparian corridors comprise the nominated terrestrial environment adjoining the watercourse channel to be managed to support waterway functions, values, and long-term use and to address risks associated with waterways. Source: Watercourse, Wetland and Riparian Lands Study.
Transitional Areas	Analysis of Nearmap to identify properties that adjoin waterways, reserves with high environmental value, national parks, beaches, and headlands. This generally includes properties separated by a reserve or any unmade roads, but not properties separated by a road or car park. Source: Nearmap analysis.
Natural Open Space	Natural areas and State Parks identified in Council's Open Space and Recreation Strategy. This map was further refined to identify portions of parks and reserves managed for conservation and natural areas within adopted plans of management and a review of those lands currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation and associated uses. Source: Council records.
Heritage Conservation Areas	The following heritage conservation areas were found to have high environmental value: · Warringah LEP Conservation Areas: · Cottage Point: Waterfront Cottages (item C4) · South Curl Coastal Cliffs (item C14) · Pittwater LEP Conservation Areas: · Palm Beach: Florida Road (Item C3) · Palm Beach: Ocean Road (Item C4) · Palm Beach: Sunrise Hill (Item C6) · Avalon Beach: Ruskin Rowe (Item C5)

Table 4 - High environmental value Criteria

Criteria – Medium environmental value	Data Description
Biodiversity Corridor and Urban Tree Canopy	Biodiversity corridors identified to facilitate flora and fauna movement across the landscape, providing an important connection to areas of Biodiversity Core Habitat. Source: Biodiversity Planning Review. These areas were considered together with areas of high urban tree canopy. The urban tree canopy data was based on an analysis of Council's 2019 Aerial LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data using the 'urban tapestry' method as outlined in the Greener Neighbourhood's Guide. Areas where tree canopy were greater than 50% within a 100m buffer of a 100m grid were considered when intersected with the Biodiversity Corridor. Source: 2019 Aerial LIDAR data.
Geotechnical Planning Class C3 Hawkesbury Sandstone with Slope > 25 degrees	Land that requires a detailed geotechnical report with most development applications. Slopes developed on Hawkesbury Sandstone are usually relatively stable, the key hazards are the potential for collapse of cliff lines, boulders falling from cliffs caused by weathering of softer layers, root jacking by trees, water pressure along open joints or undermining of large boulders. Source: Geotechnical Review - Geotechnical Planning Controls.
Geotechnical Planning Class C5 Narrabeen Group with Slope > 15 degrees	Land that requires a detailed geotechnical report for most development applications. The rocks of the Narrabeen Group are known to be relatively less stable and weather more rapidly than the Hawkesbury Sandstone. Landslides are relatively common on slopes underlain by the Narrabeen Group rocks, particularly in areas where there have been excavations into the natural slopes or concentrations of stormwater. Source: Geotechnical Review - Geotechnical Planning Controls.
Ridgelines - Escarpment	A 50m buffer was mapped of escarpments which provide scenic landscape values, they are generally vegetated given they have had limited development opportunities over time and thus contribute to the urban ecology. Source: 2019 Aerial LIDAR data.
Ridgelines - Major	A 50m buffer was mapped of ridgelines which provide scenic landscape values, they are generally vegetated given they have had limited development opportunities over time and thus contribute to the urban ecology. Source: 2019 Aerial LIDAR data.

Table 5 – Medium Environmental Value Criteria

Hazard Criteria

As we have recently witnessed on the Northern Beaches and in other areas across the state, natural hazards present a significant risk to life and property. Best practice planning dictates that it is not appropriate to facilitate increased development in areas we know are subject to the devastation wrought by natural hazards.

Presently, hazards are mainly managed using ‘overlays’ in LEPs and other Environmental Planning Instruments, which trigger certain requirements (e.g., development on flood prone land must be built above a certain floor level). However, these ‘overlays’ do not allow Council to prohibit certain hazard- sensitive development types. Under the Standard Instrument - Principal Local Environmental Plan 2006 (Standard Instrument), Land Use Zones are the only mechanism by which we can limit unsuitable developments and further intensification of development in low density residential areas subject to natural hazards.

Council therefore considers natural hazards as an important criterion to inform conservation zones. This approach sets a clear direction for future land use and simplifies requirements and reduces uncertainty and high costs and time to applicants and assessment authorities.

There is no contemporary policy position articulated by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) about the best practice use of conservation zones. The DPE Practice Note is dated 2009, and other conservation zones reviews (some previously referred to as environmental zones reviews) are primarily related to rural areas. However, Council considers the use of hazards as criteria is supported by the following Policy:

1. DPE’s guiding principles for greater resilience, which include the need to:

a. Be strategic and consider risk from natural hazards early: by considering natural hazards at the LEP making stage

b. Protect vulnerable people and assets: by prohibiting sensitive land uses further intensification of developments that will create assets requiring protection.

c. Adopt an ‘all-hazards’ approach: through the consideration of bush fire, flooding, geotechnical, coastal and estuary hazards.

d. Involve the community in conversations about risk: through the non-statutory public exhibition which provides an opportunity to discuss these matters with the community.

e. Consider emergency response and evacuation: through prohibiting land uses that would be difficult to evacuate, including Centre-based childcare facilities; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Health consulting rooms; Home-based childcare; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Respite Day care centres; School-based childcare and tourist and visitor accommodation such as ecotourist facilities.

f. Be information driven and evidence based: Council has drawn on evidence by recently completed technical reports.

g. Plan to build and rebuild for a future with changing climate: technical reports are cognisant of climate change, and the increased frequency of natural hazards has led Council to the conclusion it must prevent further intensification of development in sensitive areas.

h. Understand the relationship between natural processes and natural hazards: This is addressed in Council’s technical reports.

2. Towards 2040, which has been supported by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) for consistency with the Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan.

a. Principle: Avoid intensification of development, inappropriate development and incompatible land uses in areas exposed to natural and urban hazards.

b. Principle: Avoid developments in high-risk areas that are difficult to evacuate or would be occupied by at risk members of the community (including schools, hospitals, and nursing homes).

c. Principle: Manage risks associated with sea-level rise for coastlines and beach landscapes.

3. DPE Practice Note Criteria:

a. C2 Environmental Conservation zones

i. coastal foreshores and land subject to coastal hazards, including climate change effects.

ii. land currently zoned for environmental protection where strict controls on development apply, e.g., steeply sloping escarpment lands, land slip areas.

b. C3 Environmental Management zone

i. areas of special ecological, scientific, cultural, or aesthetic attributes that require management.

ii. highly constrained land where elements such as slope, erodible soils or salinity may have a key impact on water quality within a hydrological catchment.

Whilst it is recognised that natural hazards are present across many parts of the Council area, including areas zoned for industrial and business purposes, and medium density residential zones, Council has not considered the application of conservation zones in these areas due to Planning Directions by the Minister for Planning. Council has only applied the C3 Environmental Conservation and C4 Environmental Living zones to areas which currently only permit low density residential development, including the R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential zones.

Table 6 describes the hazard criteria identified by Council to apply the application of conservation zones. In each case, a single criterion is sufficient to trigger the inclusion of land in a conservation zone.

Criteria – Hazards	Data Description
Bush Fire Prone Land – Vegetation Category 1	Land identified on the Northern Beaches Bush Fire Prone Land Map as having the highest risk for bush fire. This excludes the 100m vegetation buffer. This map is prepared in accordance with the Guide for Bush Fire Prone Land Mapping and certified by the Commissioner of the NSW RFS under Section 10.3(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Source: Northern Beaches Bush Fire Prone Land Map 2021.
Deferred Lands Bush Fire Intensity	Areas where high and very high fireline intensities (over 30,000kW/m2) are likely in a fire event. Source: Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Assessment.
Coast and Estuarine Hazards	A new proposed estuarine inundation map for inclusion in the Northern Beaches LEP/DCP. Sources: Cowan Creek Estuary Planning Level Study (coastal inundation) and North and Middle Harbour Estuary Planning Level Study (coastal inundation). It also includes land identified as coastal hazards (inundation, erosion, and bluff) in existing adopted planning controls and reports.
High and Medium Flood Risk	High Risk areas are defined as areas where there is high hazard flooding in a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood scenario (equivalent to the 1 in 100-year flood). In these areas during the peak of a 1% AEP flood, the depth and velocity of floodwaters result in potentially significant issues to safety, evacuation, and structures. Medium flood risk is also known as the Flood Planning Area. It is defined as flood prone land which is affected by the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood (equivalent to the 1 in 100-year flood) with a freeboard safety factor or buffer) added. Source: Adopted Flood Studies – available at https://www.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/environment/natural-hazards/flooding/flood-study-reports
Low Flood Islands	A low flood island is an area where access routes are inundated by flood waters before the “island” is then submerged by the flood. They are dangerous because residents are often not aware that evacuation routes are flooding until it is too late. Low flood islands have only been used for C3 mapping if they were mapped in a Flood Study adopted by Council for a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood scenario (equivalent to the 1 in 100-year flood). Sources: Newport Flood Study 2019 and Manly Lagoon Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan 2018.
Geotech Coastal Cliffs	For land along the coastline which have slopes greater than 45 degrees, this buffer extends 20 metres inland from the crest of the steep slope or cliff, and downslope to the mean water level. Headlands are mostly near vertical cliff faces (coastal bluffs) formed within rocks of the Narrabeen Group. Studies have indicated that the overall erosion of the cliff faces is relatively slow (in human terms rather than geological time) but there is the potential at any stage for large sections of the cliff faces to collapse due to erosion and undercutting. Source: Geotechnical Review - Geotechnical Planning Controls.

Table 6 - Hazard criteria

What did the Conservation Zones Review propose?

It was recognised that a different approach was required for the application of conservation zones in urban and non-urban areas. Land zoning maps were used to identify low density residential development in urban areas, whereas a land use survey was used to identify undeveloped bushland in non-urban areas.

Figure 6 summarises the proposed approach to the application of conservation zones in the Northern Beaches, and Table 7 shows a comparison of the proposed permitted land uses in each zone.

Figure 6 - Proposed approach to the application of conservation zones in the Northern Beaches

Zones and land uses*	C2 zone	C3 zone	C4 zone
Commercial
Bed and breakfast accommodation
Building identification signs
Business identification signs
Home businesses		without*	without*
Home industries		without*	without*
Home occupations		without*	without*
Community
Centre-based childcare facilities
Community facilities
Educational establishments
Health consulting rooms
Home-based childcare			without*
Places of public worship
Recreation areas
Respite day care centres
School-based childcare
Housing
Dwelling houses
Group home (permanent and transitional)
Secondary dwellings
Infrastructure and works
Emergency services facilities
Environmental facilities
Environmental protection works
Flood mitigation works
Roads
Water reticulation systems
Oyster aquaculture
Pond-based aquaculture
Tank-based aquaculture

Table 7 - Proposed permitted land uses for the C2 Environmental Conservation, C3 Environmental Management and C4 Environmental Living zones. Grey shaded cells indicate the use is permissible.

* permissible without the need for development consent

C2 Environmental Conservation Zone – Urban and Non-Urban Areas

The allocation of the C2 Environmental Conservation zone provides Council with an important opportunity to identify and protect lands not already protected as National Parks. For this zone, Council selected criteria to align with the following DPE Practice Note, which were:

· Lands with very high conservation values such as old growth forests, significant wildlife, wetlands or riparian corridors or land containing endangered ecological communities.

· High conservation coastal foreshores and land acquired, or proposed for acquisition, under a Coastal Lands Protection Scheme.

· Land with a registered Biobanking agreement.

· Coastal foreshores and land subject to coastal hazards, including climate change effects.

· Land currently zoned for environmental protection where strict controls on development apply, e.g., steeply sloping escarpment lands, land slip areas.

Based on the above, it was determined to apply the C2 Environmental Conservation zone to the following areas (see Table 8):

· Publicly owned parks and reserves managed as natural areas.

· Privately owned land already zoned C2 Environmental Conservation.

· Lands subject to conservation mechanisms.

In practice, the C2 zone will mainly apply to publicly owned land (Council and state government). The most notable outcome will be that several areas of Council land currently zoned for recreational purposes will be rezoned to a conservation zone, consistent with approach used in the existing Pittwater LEP 2014.

It must be noted that for public lands, and parks and reserves, a range of works can be undertaken by public authorities without consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. Regardless, the allocation of the C2 Environmental Conservation zone provides an important signal of the environmental significance of this land, and the need to manage edge effects.

Criteria	C2	C3 Non- urban	C3 Urban	C4
Land application criteria
Urban Areas	Yes		Yes	Yes
Low Density Residential Areas			Yes	Yes
Non-urban Areas	Yes	Yes
Undeveloped Bushland		Yes
Parks and Reserves	Yes
High environmental value criteria
Conservation Mechanism	1
Existing C2 Environmental Conservation zones	1
Natural Open Space	1
Biodiversity Core Habitat		1		1
Threatened Ecological Communities		1		1
Threatened Species Habitat - Selected		1		1
Deferred Lands Biodiversity – Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs)		1
Deferred Lands Biodiversity - Very High Value		1
Deferred Lands Biodiversity - High Value		1
Wetlands		1		1
Riparian Corridor Category 1		1		1
Riparian Corridor Category 2		1		1
Transitional Areas				1
Heritage Conservation Areas				1
Medium environmental value criteria
Biodiversity Corridor and Urban Tree Canopy				0.5
Geotechnical Planning Class C3 Hawkesbury Sandstone with Slope > 25 degrees				0.5
Geotechnical Planning Class C5 Narrabeen Group with Slope > 15 degrees				0.5
Ridgelines - Escarpment				0.5
Ridgelines - Major				0.5
Hazard criteria
Bush Fire Prone Land – Vegetation Category 1		1	1
Deferred Lands Bush Fire Intensity		1	1
Coast and Estuarine Hazards		1	1
High and Medium Flood Risk		1	1
Low Flood Islands		1	1
Geotech Coastal Cliffs		1	1
Minimum Score Required	1	1	1	1

Table 8 – Criteria used for the C2 Environmental Conservation, C3 Environmental Management and C4 Environmental Living zones

C3 Environmental Management Zone – Non-Urban Areas

Non-urban areas include areas zoned for rural or conservation purposes, including areas of Belrose, Terrey Hills, Duffys Forest, Ingleside, Cottage Point and “offshore communities” including Scotland Island, Elvina Bay, Great Mackerel Beach, Coasters Retreat and Morning Bay. It also includes the deferred lands, where development is permitted at a scale of one dwelling per twenty hectares. Council's non-urban lands are comprised of the Metropolitan Rural Area (MRA), future MRA investigation area and Ingleside, which is no longer designated as a growth area due to the Department of Planning's decision in 2022 to not proceed with the draft Place Strategy.

Council’s non-urban lands support a variety of land uses, including extensive bushland and waterways, land that supports rural and lifestyle properties, nurseries, an equine industry and urban services such as landscape supplies. The area is also highly valued for recreation and tourism uses. Importantly, it contains critical infrastructure which requires this isolation, including three satellite telecommunication facilities, the Sydney East (electricity) substation and two waste management facilities including the Kimbriki and Belrose resource recovery centre. The isolated waterfront communities rely on infrastructure such as public wharves and ferries which are essential for the provision of goods, community and retail services and waste removal. Not all properties have access to reticulated water or sewage, requiring ongoing management to minimise environmental impacts.

The C3 Environmental Management zone is proposed to be used in non-urban areas for the following reasons:

· Most of the non-urban areas are either bush fire prone or surrounded by bush fire prone land.

· High value environmental lands are highly valued by the community and must be protected, thus the C3 Zone, coupled with larger minimum lot sizes, prevents further lot fragmentation, provides opportunities for biodiversity offsets and opportunities to revegetate streams, plant trees and improve habitat.

· The presence of hazards, particularly bushfire, means these areas are not appropriate for certain land uses considered sensitive or difficult to evacuate in an emergency, being centre-based childcare facilities; community facilities; educational establishments; health consulting rooms; home-based childcare; places of public worship; respite day care centres and School-based childcare. The prohibition of secondary dwellings also limits an increase in population in these areas. Although some hazards will not require swift evacuation as they occur over a longer time (e.g., rising sea levels), prohibiting the range of uses in this zone also limits potential risk to property and infrastructure that would be subject to damage and require protection.

A broader range of areas were considered for the application of the non-urban C3 zone, including all non-urban areas but excluding the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in Terrey Hills, the IN2 Tepko Road Industrial Area in Terrey Hills and B7 Business Park at Belrose.

The criteria considered for these areas is outlined in Table 8. It includes high value environmental and hazards criteria, any one of which will trigger inclusion in the C3 zone.

In practice, this approach will result in some land currently zoned for rural purposes in Ingleside, Terry Hills and Duffys Forest being rezoned to C3. In addition, the C3 zone will apply to parts of the deferred lands not currently used for rural purposes and which have clear environmental values.

Urban Areas – C3 Environmental Conservation and C4 Environmental Living Zone

Within the Urban Area, Council aims to apply the C3 Environmental Management zone to land where hazards are identified. As above, this allows Council to restrict certain sensitive land uses.

The proposed C4 Environmental Living zone, terms of permissible land uses, is like the R2 Low Density Residential zone, however in some areas the application of this zone may mean dual occupancies are not permitted (i.e., former Pittwater and Manly LEPs). Dwelling houses and secondary dwellings will be permitted, along with a range of community uses, however a development application will be required to be lodged with Council to ensure development is designed and located to protect important environmental values. “Complying” Development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 would no longer be permitted.

The application of the criteria outlined in Table 8 will result in some properties currently zoned C4 under the Pittwater LEP 2014 being rezoned to R2 Low Density Residential. There will be an increase in properties zoned C4 in the Warringah LEP 2011 and Manly LEP 2014 areas whilst some properties subject to hazards will also change from a residential zone to C3 e.g., properties along Collaroy Beach and in some other coastal and flood prone areas.

It is important to note that any change in zoning will not prevent the continued use, alterations to, or rebuilding of an approved building on land where the new zone prohibits that use.

How else will Council protect the environment?

It is important to note that conservation zones are not the only means by which we will protect the environment. Council’s LEP/DCP Discussion Paper outlined several measures Council is proposing in the new LEP and DCP in addition to land use zoning.

The measures usually require special consideration of specific matters when assessing development applications, often based on mapping in the LEP. Many are based on technical studies undertaken by Council and include:

· Improved and updated provisions for:

· Biodiversity

· Geotechnical requirements

· Coastal and estuarine hazards

· Heritage conservation areas

· Stormwater management

· Waterways, wetlands, and riparian lands

· Environmentally sensitive areas

· Foreshore scenic protection

· Provisions not currently included in any of our Standard Instrument LEPs:

· Tree Canopy, including deep soil requirements and tree replenishment rates

· Landscape Controls to be introduced in the LEP

· Flood Space Ratios Controls which will aim to reduce building bulk and currently only apply to Manly LEP will be introduced in the LEP

· Excavation Controls will be introduced in the LEP

· Local Character Statements

For Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Council will explore nominating select areas with high biodiversity value preventing ‘complying development’ to occur on site, with most proposed developments requiring development consent (i.e. lodgement of a DA to Council for assessment) to ensure impacts can be assessed. This means designation of a conservation zone is not the only means by which ‘complying development’ will be prevented.

Draft Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Assessment

The draft Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Risk Assessment (Attachment 2) is a study of bush fire hazards and risks in the “deferred lands” i.e., parts of Belrose, Oxford Falls and Cromer subject to planning controls under the Warringah Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2000.

Council commissioned Meridian Urban to undertake this study to meet statutory requirements under Planning for Bush Fire Protection (PBP) 2019 and recommend new planning controls for the area which is currently subject to an older-style LEP. The study is similar in nature to the Bush Fire Risk Assessment prepared for the Ingleside Land Release.

The study identifies areas with high potential “fireline” intensity, a technical term which refers to the amount of energy released per metre width of the fire edge. Fireline intensity was calculated using a model that considered a range of factors that influence fire spread including elevation, slope, weather, and vegetation (types, structures, arrangements and quantity)^{^[1]}. Fireline intensity provides a more detailed analysis of bushfire risk than the Bush Fire Prone Land Map which only considers vegetation types.

The Bush Fire Risk Assessment identified several areas in the deferred lands subject to high and very high fireline intensities (over 30,000kW/m2) in a fire event. It further identified:

· A large portion of the deferred lands area could be subject to landscape scale (or large scale) fire events due to the presence of large expanses of bushland in immediate proximity to the urban area, with the potential for bush fire to spread into adjoining suburbs and townships.

· Parts of the deferred lands could be subject to localised (smaller scale) fires due to the presence of smaller patches of bushland and bushland corridors which could ignite from fire spotting behaviour or ember attack.

· All areas subject to higher fireline intensities remain key higher risk locations in almost all fire weather scenarios, largely due to high fuel loads and complex topography. Complex topography refers to steep slopes and rapid changes in elevation which consist of ridges, saddles and valleys which can change bushfire behaviour and its intensity.

· Areas subject to higher fireline intensity should ideally be considered when determining land use zones to avoid land uses that would result in a high risk to life and property.

The strategic bush fire risk assessment identifies four (4) potential planning options for Council to factor into the new LEP and DCP. The preferred option recommends the use of land use zones to limit sensitive land uses in areas of higher risk and other LEP measures to limit bush fire risk to life and property, such as larger minimum lot sizes.

These recommendations have been incorporated into the Conservation Zones Review, by adopting high fireline intensity as a criterion for inclusion of land in the C3 Environmental Conservation zone.

Other LEP and DCP measures, such a minimum lot sizes, will be incorporated in the draft LEP and DCP to be publicly exhibited in 2023.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 7 - Bush Fire Line Intensity Mapping - Deferred Lands - with areas greater than over 30,000kW/m2 circled. Extract from the Deferred Lands Strategic Bush Fire Risk Assessment (detailed mapping will be made available online)

Draft Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment

The draft Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment (Attachment 3 & 4) is a study of biodiversity values in the Deferred Lands. Council commissioned Arcadis to undertake this study to inform new planning controls for the area which is currently subject to an older-style LEP. The study was undertaken in two stages:

· Stage 1 Report: includes a detailed review and report on existing information regarding biodiversity of the deferred lands.

· Stage 2 Report: involved an on-ground survey, mapping and reporting of biodiversity conservation significance based on;

· Threatened species (flora and fauna) habitat (extent and quality).

· Threatened ecological communities (extent and quality).

· Proximity to protected bushland.

· Wildlife corridors or connectivity.

· Riparian land/water sustainability.

The initial review of existing information (Stage 1 Report) identified that a substantial portion of the deferred lands had been subject to previous biodiversity studies which identified the occurrence of threatened biodiversity, particularly threatened fauna. The outcomes of surveys confirmed that the deferred lands area contains significant threatened flora and fauna and contains patches of national and state listed Threatened Ecological Communities. It also provides a significant buffer and connectivity of suitable habitat from the protected Garigal National Park. The draft assessment identifies that approximately 68% of the deferred lands has either high or very conservation significance. Approximately 15% of the deferred lands is represented by cleared land with existing uses, most of which is identified as having lower conservation values.

As identified in Table 4, information from this study has been used to inform the C3 Conservation Management zone, including threatened species, Threatened Ecological Communities and areas identified as having either high or very high conservation significance.

The Report will also inform other LEP and DCP provisions, including a new Biodiversity Map within the LEP and more detailed provisions in the DCP. These other provisions will be part of the draft LEP and DCP to be placed on public exhibition in 2023.

Figure 8 - Conservation value of the deferred lands - extract from Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment (detailed mapping will be made available online)

Draft Biodiversity Planning Review

The draft Biodiversity Planning Review (Attachment 5) is part of a framework supporting development of the new LEP and DCP. Council commissioned SMEC to undertake this study to bring together existing biodiversity mapping from the three former council areas to create a new set of maps for the Northern Beaches Local Government Area (LGA).

The consolidated maps will identify important ‘biodiversity values’ which will be considered for inclusion as new planning controls in the new Northern Beaches LEP and DCP. They will resolve confusion resulting from different approaches across the three former councils over the last 25 years, including almost 30 different biodiversity-related planning controls which currently apply within the Northern Beaches LGA.

Biodiversity values identified in the study were:

1. Important wildlife habitats (large areas of bushland mapped as ‘core habitat’).

2. Habitat connectivity (mapped as ‘biodiversity corridors’).

3. Threatened ecological communities or ‘TECs’.

4. Threatened flora and fauna species.

Map layers prepared through the study were based on the best information available and included refining base mapping by the NSW Government for ‘Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Area’ (OEH, 2016) and mapping developed by the former Pittwater, Warringah and Manly Councils.

The Biodiversity Planning Review identified and mapped significant areas of core habitat (approximately 33 km²), biodiversity corridors (approximately 145 km²), threatened ecological communities (approximately 17 km²) and threatened species habitat across the LGA.

The study also identified habitat for 21 threatened plants which occur within the Northern Beaches, in addition to habitat for threatened fauna which are known to occur outside of areas of native vegetation or biodiversity corridors. The threatened fauna which has been mapped individually include the endangered populations of Little Penguins and Long-nosed Bandicoots at Manly and Flying-fox colonies.

As identified in Table 4, information from this study has been used to inform the new conservation zones, including Threatened Ecological Communities, core habitat, biodiversity corridors and select threatened species habitat. As part of this exhibition, the community are invited to review these maps and provide comment.

As with the Deferred Lands Biodiversity Assessment, the Report will inform other LEP and DCP provisions.

The new LEP biodiversity provision will be similar to the Manly and Pittwater LEP provisions, requiring consideration of biodiversity impacts for development applications in the areas mapped. For land currently covered by the Warringah LEP, bushland and biodiversity provisions which currently only exist in the DCP will also be addressed in the LEP biodiversity provisions to provide greater statutory weight in the assessment of development applications. More detailed mapping of specific biodiversity layers and related objectives for development will be included in the new DCP.

The draft Biodiversity Planning Review was subject to external peer review from an Environmental Planning perspective (EconPlan 2021). The peer review concluded that the study was suitable for evidence-based planning to inform a new LEP and DCP.

Draft Watercourse, Wetlands and Riparian Lands Study

The Watercourse, Wetland and Riparian Lands Study (Attachment 6) has been prepared to help protect, enhance, and restore watercourses, wetlands, and riparian land by providing a consistent and evidence-based approach to identifying and mapping watercourses across the Northern Beaches. As part of the Study, Council commissioned BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd to review existing watercourse and riparian planning controls across the three former Councils and provide updated mapping and recommendations for a new LEP and DCP.

Watercourses, wetlands, and the riparian land surrounding them are important ecological systems that support aquatic and terrestrial habitat and wildlife, provide connectivity and biodiversity, reduce impacts from stormwater runoff and pollution, and contribute to the character, aesthetics, and recreational value of the local area. It is important to protect these areas not only for their own intrinsic significance, but also for the benefits they provide in terms of the quality of downstream waterbodies and in modulating flood response.

Council must consider the environmental impacts and risks associated with development adjacent to watercourses and wetlands prior to granting development consent. The three former Councils mapped and assessed watercourses and wetlands differently, and as such this Study has been necessary to provide a consistent mapping methodology across the LGA.

The outcomes of the Study include:

· Accurate mapping to help protect or improve the environmental values and functioning of watercourses, wetlands, and riparian land.

· Key terms and definitions regarding watercourses, wetlands, and riparian land.

· New proposed watercourse and wetland maps including proposed riparian corridors and buffers for inclusion in the Northern Beaches LEP/DCP.

As identified in Table 4, information from this study has been used to inform the new conservation zones, including wetlands and riparian corridors. The study and maps also form part of this public exhibition, which also includes maps for riparian buffers.

The Study will inform other LEP and DCP provisions which will be placed on public exhibition with the draft LEP and DCP in 2023. As outlined in the LEP/DCP Discussion Paper, Council proposes a single Northern Beaches LEP clause that includes objectives to protect or improve the environmental values and functioning of waterways and riparian land and to manage risk associated with these areas. The clause will also contain matters to consider during assessment, including water quality, bed and bank stability, aquatic and riparian habitats, ecological processes, and riparian areas.

The draft DCP will include more detailed watercourse and riparian maps that show categories of riparian land, with different objectives and requirements depending on environmental sensitivity and risk.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 9 – Core and corridor mapping from Biodiversity Planning Review. Detailed mapping available online.

Figure 10 – Draft riparian corridor categories and buffers. Detailed mapping available online.

CONSULTATION

The Conservation Zones Review and technical studies have been informed by community engagement undertaken through Council’s Planning our Sustainable Future Program. This includes the public exhibition of Towards 2040, LEP/DCP Discussion Paper, Environment Study, and the facilitation of five online community focus group workshops in 2021 and accompanying online survey.

Following adoption of this Council Report, it is proposed to publicly exhibit the relevant studies and provide residents an opportunity to comment on the methodology, relevant studies, proposed zoning, and maps.

The engagement approach will include videos, webinars, and letters to affected community members. The project website will include both high level and detailed information, and an interactive online map with the proposed zones and maps produced from technical studies. Council will promote the exhibition via email and social media. Staff will be available to respond to enquiries and meet with residents and community groups.

Through this exhibition Council aims to raise awareness of the Conservation Zones Review and continuing momentum for the Planning Our Sustainable Future program. Council will aim to clearly articulate recommended changes to zoning and how these impact residents and the environment.

It is important to note that Council is in the early stages of resolving the future conservation zones. This public exhibition is a non-statutory (i.e., non-mandatory) public exhibition, and will be followed by a statutory public exhibition in 2023 of the Northern Beaches LEP and DCP, including all land use zones. A report on the outcomes of the public exhibition will be published once the analysis is complete.

TIMING

The proposed schedule is as follows:

· Public exhibition – 8 weeks commencing early September 2022

· Community consultation outcomes report – on completion of analysis

· Draft LEP/DCP report to Council, including finalised Conservation Zones Review Report – Early 2023

· Public exhibition draft LEP/DCP – Mid/Late 2023

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Protection of the environment - Goal 1 Our bushland, coast and waterways are protected for their intrinsic value

· Protection of the environment - Goal 2 Our environment is resilient to natural hazards and climate change

· Protection of the environment - Goal 3 Our community is well-supported in protecting and enhancing the environment to ensure safe and sustainable use

· Community and belonging - Goal 7 Our diverse community is supported to participate in their chosen cultural life

It also relates to the following Priorities and principles within Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement, Towards 2040:

· Priority 1 - Healthy and valued coast and waterways

o Principle: Protect and enhance the natural blue grid and the community’s environmental values and uses for the coast and waterways; Protect and enhance the ecological condition of coastal areas, catchments (including groundwater aquifers), waterways (wetlands, watercourses, lagoons, and estuaries) and their riparian areas.

· Priority 2 - Protected and enhanced bushland and biodiversity

o Principle: Ensure future developments avoid, then minimise, impacts on bushland before offsetting is considered.

· Priority 6 - High quality open space for recreation:

o Principle: Ensure access to natural open space and waterways is sustainable so that these areas are preserved for the future

· Priority 8 - Adapted to the impacts of natural and urban hazards and climate change:

o Principle: Avoid intensification of development, inappropriate development and incompatible land uses in areas exposed to natural and urban hazards

o Principle: Avoid developments in high-risk areas that are difficult to evacuate or would be occupied by at risk members of the community (including schools, hospitals and nursing homes).

o Principle: Manage risks associated with sea-level rise for coastlines and beach landscapes.

financial considerations

Included in the existing budget: Expenditure related to the Planning our Sustainable Future program is mainly associated with technical studies and engagement activities over 5 years from 2018/19 to 2022/23 being overseen by the Strategic Planning team. It is included in the existing Delivery Program and budget for the operational project entitled: Prepare Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan and associated studies.

social considerations

The Conservation Zones Review considers social impacts including alignment with the Northern Beaches community’s vision for a safe, inclusive, and connected community that lives in balance with our extraordinary coastal and bushland environment.

Consideration of hazards within the conservation zones allows Council to avoid intensification of development, inappropriate development and incompatible land uses in areas exposed to natural hazards. It will also help Council to ensure developments are avoided in high-risk areas that are difficult to evacuate or would be occupied by at risk members of the community (including schools, hospitals, and nursing homes).

environmental considerations

The Conservation Zones Review and technical studies aim to inform a new LEP and DCP as follows:

· Conservation zones to restrict inappropriate and incompatible land uses in areas with important environmental and hazard values.

· LEP and DCP provisions which will be drafted following resolution of the Conservation Zones Review, including maps and requirements, such as the need for studies to accompanying development applications.

governance and risk considerations

The Conservation Zones Review and technical studies were prepared in accordance with a Probity Plan for the local planning framework. A probity audit will be presented to Council with the draft LEP and DCP and summary of outcomes from the public exhibition and further consultation relating to technical studies.

This exhibition will form part of Council’s non-mandatory preliminary notification of a planning proposal for the new Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan required under the Northern Beaches Community Participation Plan.

Once prepared, the draft LEP will require Council approval followed by the issue of a ‘Gateway Determination’ by DPE before a mandatory public exhibition can be conducted. As a statutory document made under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the LEP can only be finalised or gazetted following legal drafting by Parliamentary Counsel and approval by DPE.

The DCP will be finalised following a mandatory public exhibition and Council approval.

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 12.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 12.2	Variations to Development Standards Under Clause 4.6 of Local Environmental Plans
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Development Assessment
TRIM file REF	2022/425081
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

SUMMARY

purpose

To report to Council the variations to development standards granted under Clause 4.6 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan (MLEP 2013), Pittwater Local Environmental Plan (PLEP 2014), and Warringah Local Environmental Plan (WLEP 2011 & WLEP 2000), as required by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

executive summary

During the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022, the following variations were granted:

· 11 variations under Clause 4.6 of Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014

· 26 variations under Clause 4.6 of Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013

· 19 variations under Clause 4.6 of Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011

The following variations were granted outside of the reporting period:

· 1 variation under Clause 20 of Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000
(Determined 2.3.2022)

· 1 variation under Clause 4.6 of Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011
(Determined 7.9.2018)

RECOMMENDATION OF Director Planning and Place

That Council note the Development Applications approved with variations to development standards during the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022, and outside this period as noted above.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

The following tables show all variations to development standards approved during the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022, except for two applications that were approved outside the period, for each of the LEPs in the Northern Beaches LGA, and whether the determination was made by staff under delegated authority or by a determination panel.

A total of 56 Development Applications were approved with a clause 4.6 variation during the quarter. A total of 373 Development Applications were approved during the quarter – noting that the total number of applications (including Modification and Review Applications) approved in the quarter totaled 498.

Northern Beaches Council has two external panels, being the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel (NBLPP) and the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP). The internal determination panel is known as the Development Determination Panel (DDP).

It is noted that Council is currently preparing a new Local Environmental Plan. The development standards for both height and floor space ratio will be reviewed, and the review will consider the extent and circumstances in which the existing development standards have been varied using clause 4.6.

The following applications had a Clause 4.6 variation request granted during the period of 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022, except for one application related to a property at 18 Windermere Place Wheeler Heights which was determined in 2018 which had not previously been reported.

Full details of the variations sought to the LEP development standards under clause 4.6 and the reasons for the variations being granted are included in the development assessment report for each development application and are available for public viewing on DA tracking on the Council website.

Pittwater LEP2014

App No.	Address	Category of Development	Development Standard Varied	Variation, Control & Approval	Determined By
DA2020/1762	316 Hudson Parade CLAREVILLE NSW 2107	Residential - Alterations and additions Proposed Boat shed	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 34% Control: 4m Proposal: 5.35m	NBLPP
DA2022/0037	79 Prince Alfred Parade NEWPORT NSW 2106	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 8% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.18m	Delegated
DA2021/2310	17 Bellevarde Parade MONA VALE NSW 2103	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 7.05% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.1m	Delegated
DA2021/2364	121 Pacific Road PALM BEACH NSW 2108	Residential - Single new detached dwelling	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 2% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.675m	Delegated
DA2021/0708	36 Sturdee Lane LOVETT BAY NSW 2105	Residential - Single new detached dwelling	7.8 Limited development on foreshore area	Variation: Non-numerical development standard Control: Building footprint must not extend further into the foreshore area Proposal: Proposed works will extend into the foreshore area by 2.7m	NBLPP
DA2021/2170	106 Iluka Road PALM BEACH NSW 2108	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 6.47% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.05m	DDP
DA2022/0166	33A Queens Avenue AVALON BEACH NSW 2107	Residential - Alterations and additions Pergola over an existing deck.	4.3 Height of buildings Existing dwelling exceeds height control.	Variation: 21.17% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 10.3m	DDP
DA2021/2435	40 Hillcrest Avenue MONA VALE NSW 2103	Residential - Alterations and additions	7.8 Limited development on foreshore area	Variation: Non-numerical development standard Control: Building footprint must not extend further into the foreshore area Proposal: Proposed works will extend into the foreshore area by 2.4m	NBLPP
DA2022/0216	45 Wimbledon Avenue NORTH NARRABEEN NSW 2101	Residential - Single new detached dwelling	7.8 Limited development on foreshore area	Variation: Non-numerical development standard Control: Building footprint must not extend further into the foreshore area Proposal: Proposed works will extend into the foreshore area by 3.5m	NBLPP
DA2022/0150	2089A Pittwater Road CHURCH POINT NSW 2105	Residential - Single new detached dwelling	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 15.9% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.85m	DDP
DA2022/0288	1011 Barrenjoey Road PALM BEACH NSW 2108	Residential - Single new detached dwelling	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 4.7% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.9m	Delegated

Manly LEP 2013

App No.	Address	Category of Development	Development Standard Varied	Variation, Control & Approval	Determined By
DA2021/1020	41 Gurney Crescent SEAFORTH NSW 2092	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 13.7% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.67m	DDP
DA2021/1699	31 West Street BALGOWLAH NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings 4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 10.5% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.4m Variation: 13.4% Control: 0.5:1 (343.4m²) Proposal: 0.567:1 (389.57m²)	DDP
DA2021/2337	8A Linkmead Avenue CLONTARF NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 12% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.69m	DDP
DA2021/2409	1/9, 5/9 & 9 Eustace Street MANLY NSW 2095	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio Existing building exceeds FSR control.	Variation: 24.6% Control: 0.75:1 (523m²) Proposal: 0.93:1 (651.9m²)	NBLPP
DA2022/0082	39A Cutler Road CLONTARF NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions (Studio above garage)	4.4 Floor space ratio Existing approved development exceeds the FSR control.	Variation: 36.28% Control: 0.4:1 (188.8m²) Proposal: 0.545:1 (257.3m²)	DDP
DA2022/0255	61 Wanganella Street BALGOWLAH NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 6.28% Control: 0.5:1 (167.85m²) Proposal: 0.53:1 (178.4m²)	Delegated
DA2021/1400	88 Bower Street MANLY NSW 2095	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings 4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 13.7% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.67m Variation: 20% Control: 0.45:1 (331.2m²) Proposal: 0.54:1 (393.7m²)	DDP
DA2021/2038	12B West Street BALGOWLAH NSW 2093	Residential - Single new detached dwelling	4.3 Height of buildings Significant slope on site.	Variation: 20.3% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 10.225m	DDP
DA2022/0020	28 Cliff Street MANLY NSW 2095	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings 4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 6% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.01m Variation: 9.99% Control: 0.6:1 (142.2m²) Proposal: 0.66:1 (156.4m²)	Delegated
DA2022/0356	2 / 67 & 67 New Street BALGOWLAH HEIGHTS NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio Existing building does not comply with the floor space ratio control.	Variation: 29.12% Control: 1:1 (271.9m²) Proposal: 1.29:1 (351.07m²)	NBLPP
DA2022/0199	13 Austin Street FAIRLIGHT NSW 2094	Other	4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 4.8% Control: 0.6:1 (257.94m²) Proposal: 0.629:1 (270.7m²)	Delegated
DA2022/0299	51 Alexander Street MANLY NSW 2095	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 2.61% Control: 0.6:1 (267.42m²) Proposal: 0.61:1 (274.4m²)	Delegated
DA2021/2626	36 Gurney Crescent SEAFORTH NSW 2092	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings 4.4 Floor space ratio Significant slope on site.	Variation: 44.71% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 12.3m Variation: 29.75% Control: 0.4:1 (375.04m²) Proposal: 0.52:1 (486.60m²)	DDP
DA2022/0130	135 Seaforth Crescent SEAFORTH NSW 2092	Residential - Alterations and additions (Suspended hard stand carparking spaces and minor additions to dwellings)	4.3 Height of buildings 4.3A Special height provisions 4.4 Floor space ratio Significant slope of site.	Variation: 26.12% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 10.72m Variation: 1.78% Control: RL64.92 Proposal: RL64.04 Variation: 8.14% Control: 0.4:1 (259.92sm²) Proposal: 0.433:1 (281.07m²)	DDP
DA2021/2054	243 Pittwater Road MANLY NSW 2095	Commercial/Retail/Office (Harris Farm site)	4.3 Height of buildings Existing structure is 11.6m and exceeds height control.	Variation: 18.8% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 10.1m	NBLPP
DA2021/2081	21 White Street BALGOWLAH NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio Existing dwelling exceeds the FSR control)	Variation: 29% Control: 0.5:1 (183.95m²) Proposal: 0.7:1 (256.5m²)	DDP
DA2022/0093	56 Woodland Street BALGOWLAH HEIGHTS NSW 2093	Residential - New second occupancy	4.3 Height of buildings Variation due to chimney structure and small part of roof.	Variation: 20% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 10.5m	DDP
DA2022/0340	21 Parkview Road FAIRLIGHT NSW 2094	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio Small variation of 27m2.	Variation: 18.05% Control: 0.6:1 (150.78m²) Proposal: 0.708:1 (178m²)	DDP
DA2021/2634	33 Barrabooka Street CLONTARF NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.4 Floor space ratio	Variation: 8.35% Control: 0.4:1 (295.8m²) Proposal: 0.43:1 (320.5m²)	Delegated
DA2022/0411	1/55, 2/55 & 55 Wanganella Street BALGOWLAH NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 8.2% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.2m	Delegated

Warringah LEP 2011

App No.	Address	Category of Development	Development Standard Varied	Variation, Control & Approval	Determined By
DA2022/0065	11 Ozone Street FRESHWATER NSW 2096	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 9.91% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.342m	Delegated
DA2022/0032	6 Stephen Street BEACON HILL NSW 2100	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 3.5% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.8m	Delegated
DA2022/0068	18 - 22 Dale Street BROOKVALE NSW 2100	Commercial/Retail/Office (Construction of a vergola)	4.3 Height of buildings Existing building does not comply with the building height standard	Variation: 18.36% Control: 11m Proposal: 13.02m	NBLPP
DA2021/1620	29 & 31 Moore Road FRESHWATER NSW 2096	Commercial/Retail/Office (Harbord Hotel)	4.3 Height of buildings Existing building does not comply with building height control,	Variation: 25.9% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 10.7m	NBLPP
DA2021/2113	27 Beacon Avenue BEACON HILL NSW 2100	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 6.24% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.03m	Delegated
DA2021/2588	1-21/69 & 69 Evans Street FRESHWATER NSW 2096	Residential - Alterations and additions (Constriction of 3 awnings on existing building located at Harbor Diggers Club site.	4.3 Height of buildings Existing building does not comply with building height standard.	Variation: 336.24% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 28.58m	NBLPP
DA2022/0390	39 Marlborough Avenue FRESHWATER NSW 2096	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 6.8% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.08m	Delegated
DA2021/1807	33 Robertson Road NORTH CURL NSW 2099	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 1.3% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.61m	Delegated
DA2021/2326	41 Cumberland Avenue COLLAROY NSW 2097	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 5.29% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.95m	DDP
DA2021/1892	68 - 90 Evans Street FRESHWATER NSW 2096	Mixed	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 78.8% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 15.2m	NBLPP
DA2022/0141	5 Arana Street MANLY VALE NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 3.5% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.8m	Delegated
DA2022/0545	106 Carawa Road CROMER NSW 2099	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 2.4% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.7m	Delegated
DA2022/0542	12 Kirkstone Road WHEELER HEIGHTS NSW 2097	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 5.76% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.99m	Delegated
DA2021/1508	882A Pittwater Road DEE WHY NSW 2099	Mixed	SEPP ARH cl.30(1)(h) - Motorcycle parking	Variation: 100% Control: 4 spaces Proposal: 0 spaces	NBLPP
DA2022/0357	22 Alkira Circuit NARRAWEENA NSW 2099	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 4.71% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.9m	Delegated
DA2021/1636	7 Crown Road QUEENSCLIFF NSW 2096	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings Significantly sloped site results in variation to building height.	Variation: 15.3% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.8m	DDP
DA2022/0661	29 Woodbine Street NORTH BALGOWLAH NSW 2093	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 3.76% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 8.82m	Delegated
DA2021/1341	3 Brookvale Avenue BROOKVALE NSW 2100	Residential - New multi-unit	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 7.06% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.1m	DDP
DA2022/0175	5 Cambridge Avenue NARRAWEENA NSW 2099	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings Slope of site results in variation to building height.	Variation: 14.1% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.7m	DDP
DA2018/1220	18 Windermere Place WHEELER HEIGHTS NSW 2097	Residential - Alterations and additions	4.3 Height of buildings	Variation: 7.64% Control: 8.5m Proposal: 9.15m	Delegated

Warringah LEP 2000

The following development application had a Clause 20 variation (equivalent to a 4.6 variation) request granted during the prior period of 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022. Clause 20 variations in WLEP 2000 are equivalent to a clause 4.6 under a standard instrument LEP.

App No.

Address

Category of Development

Development Standard Varied

Variation, Control & Approval

Determined By

DA2021/1413

2 Challenger Drive

BELROSE NSW 2085

Installation of satellite dishes

Locality C8 Belrose North Building Height

Variation: 52.9%

Control: 8.5m

Proposal: 13m

NBLPP

CONSULTATION

Variations to development standards lodged as part of a Development Application are made available to the community for comment on Council’s Application Search, during the prescribed exhibition period and are available for viewing at all other times.

TIMING

Not applicable.

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Environmental sustainability - Goal 5 Our built environment is developed in line with best practice sustainability principles. Strategy (a): “ensure integrated land use planning balances the environmental, social and economic needs of present and future generations”.

financial considerations

The costs associated with the assessment of variations are part of the Development Application assessment process.

social considerations

All Development Applications are required to consider social impacts through section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

environmental considerations

All Development Applications are required to consider environmental impacts through section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

governance and risk considerations

Reporting variations to Council satisfies NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment requirements and provides transparency in decision making, in addition to publishing this information on Council’s website, reduces risk to the organisation.

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 13.1 - 23 August 2022

13.0 Transport and Assets Division Reports

ITEM 13.1	Proposed Road Reserve Closure and Sale of Council Land Adjoining 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Property
TRIM file REF	2021/352225
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇨Road Reserve Closure Plan - 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport (Included In Attachments Booklet) 2 ⇨Community Engagement Report (Included In Attachments Booklet) 3 ⇨Further Site Information - 58 Herbert Ave Newport (Included In Attachments Booklet)

SUMMARY

purpose

To consider a proposal to close and sell a portion of road reserve adjacent to 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport to the adjoining owners.

executive summary

The owners of 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport (the applicant) have applied to Council to formally close and subsequently purchase a section of road reserve in accordance with the Roads Act 1993 and Council’s Property Management Policy No 200.

The subject road reserve has an area of approximately 67.2 sqm. The location of the subject land is shown in Attachment 1 of this report – Area of Proposed Road Reserve Closure adjacent to 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport.

The applicant intends to later submit a Development Application to Council to construct a car port and improve access into their property. Off-street parking in this particular street provides a road safety and amenity benefit and Council has in the past sold road reserve land in front of number 60, 64, 66 and 68 Herbert Avenue to facilitate off-street parking.

During the public notification period for this matter, Council received a number of objections to the proposed closure and subsequent sale of land as well as a number of submissions supporting of the proposed road reserve closure. The main theme of the objections was the loss of public amenity and the potential loss of green open space. Given the land is not currently able to be accessed by the public, loss of access to public land by the community is not considered significant in this situation.

Council’s officers have determined that the subject land is surplus to Council’s requirements and is appropriate to be closed and subsequently sold. This matter was presented to the Property Steering Committee and the committee is in support of the proposed closure and subsequent sale.

In accordance with the Roads Act, the proceeds from the sale of the road reserves will be utilised for road related outcomes such as to provide financial resources to assist with ongoing road works and will provide financial assistance for high priority road asset improvements.

RECOMMENDATION OF Director Transport and Assets

That Council:

1. Authorise closure under the provisions of the Roads Act 1993 for the road reserve identified in this report being part Herbert Avenue, Newport adjacent to 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport.

2. Authorise disposal of the subject land in accordance with Council’s Property Management Policy No. 200, to the owners of 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport for an amount in line with formal valuation advice undertaken by an independent qualified valuer and subject to the land being consolidated with the adjoining land at 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport.

3. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the necessary documentation in order to give effect to this resolution.

4. Authorise all costs associated with the proposal referred to in this resolution, including but not limited to, Council’s legal costs and GST if applicable, be funded by the applicant.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

The owners of 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport applied to Council to formally close and purchase a section of road reserve adjoining the frontage of 58 Herbert Avenue, Newport (Lot 149 in DP 13457) in accordance with the following:

· Council’s Road Reserve Policy No. 193 and Pittwater Streetscape Management Guidelines (adopted 2 April 2012)

· Council’s Property Management Policy No.200

· Roads Act 1993.

The subject land is approximately 67.2 square metres and is shown in Attachment 1 of this report.

Herbert Avenue is a narrow cul-de-sac road and difficult to navigate when vehicles are parked on either side. Enabling property owners to secure off street parking provides safety benefits to both pedestrians and motorists using this road.

The purpose of the proposed road reserve closure is for the adjoining owner to subsequently purchase the road reserve land to then incorporate the road reserve land with their adjoining property, which will formalise the existing off-street parking.

Council has in the past sold road reserve land in front of number 60, 64, 66 and 68 Herbert Avenue to facilitate off-street parking. The former Pittwater Council considered and approved the closure and sale of the road reserve in 2013 to the then owners of 58, 64, and 66 Herbert Avenue, the then owner of 58 chose not to proceed with the application to finalise the matter. A further application to progress the closure was received in 2015 from new owners which was subsequently withdrawn. The current owners acquired the property in 2019 and enquired about progressing the former road closure application in 2020.

During the April/May 2021 public notification period of this proposal, Council received three objections to the proposed road closure. The details of the submissions are attached to this report in Attachment 2.

The zoning of the subject land is E4 – Environmental Living, which is consistent with the adjoining land zoning in accordance with Pittwater LEP 2014.

As the subject land is not a marketable parcel, Council can consider the sale of this land to an adjoining owner in accordance with the Policy. An additional requirement of the Policy is that the road reserve land that is closed and sold must be consolidated with the adjoining land owned by the purchaser.

CONSULTATION

Council has undertaken statutory notification of the road reserve closure proposal in accordance with the Roads Act 1993. This included a notice on Council’s webpage and letters to adjoining/nearby property owners and service authorities.

Internal stakeholder consultation was undertaken, which sought comments from the following Council Teams: Transport & Civil Infrastructure Assets, Bushland Biodiversity, Strategic & Place Planning, Tree Services, Parks & Recreation, Development Engineers, Stormwater & Flood Plain Engineering, Legal Counsel and Property.

The public notification period occurred for 35 days and Council is required to consider and address all submissions received from neighbouring owners and various authorities. The public notice period commenced on 9 April 2021 and concluded on 13 May 2021.

Submission received:

i. Authorities:

Seventeen authorities were consulted and there was one objection received from Jemena Pty Ltd (gas), which was subsequently withdrawn.

ii. Adjoining residents/Newport Residents Association

The proposal has been notified to 8 neighbouring properties at 62, 55, 60, 56, 68, 57, 59 and 49 Herbert Avenue none of whom have any objections to the proposed closure and future sale.

A notice on Council’s webpage notified the greater Northern Beaches community. Council received 7 submissions on the proposal during the notification period. A summary of the submissions can be found in Attachment 2 (Community Engagement Report).

During the consultation period, a Council staff representative raised the matter at a meeting of the Newport Residents’ Association and reported that they had no issues or concerns about the proposal.

The submissions by theme are listed below along with Council’s response:

Theme

What we heard

Council’s response

Loss of access to public land

Public land should not be sold off to landowners.

The proposal will result in loss of access to this land for the public.

Why has the parcel of land been allowed to be taken from the Reserve?

The land is public road reserve (approximately 20m wide) created at the time of subdivision on which the public road carriageway (approximately 5m wide) has been constructed to provide access to the lots created for dwellings – if the land is surplus to the road requirements, Council is able to close and dispose of it in accordance with the Section 38B of the Roads Act, 1993.

The subject land only provides access to the adjoining land at 58 Herbert Avenue. Due to the nature of the road reserve dropping away from the road a safety fence is in place which currently prevents any public access.

Council is not considering widening the constructed roadway in the future and any potential future footpath would be constructed on the opposite side of the road reserve. Therefore, Council considers the subject land as surplus to road requirements.

Council has in the past sold road reserve land in front of number 60, 64, 66 and 68 Herbert Avenue.

Protection of flora and fauna

Trees and green “patches”. need to be protected in this area.

It is a bushland area and potentially provides increasingly scarce habitat for wildlife.

Suggestion that the land be maintained as a green corridor and not used to erect any built structures.

Once the land has been closed and sold to the adjacent owner, any proposed structures on the land will need to be assessed and approved under a Development Application in accordance with Council’s LEP and DCP.

It is during this stage that the assessment takes into consideration which area can be built on and to ensure that such development will not detract from local amenity or impact trees.

Based on the adjacent carport at 60 Herbert Ave, a single elevated similar styled carport would able to be accommodated between the existing spotted gum and the site boundary.

Use of the street

Many people use this area to sit and walk dogs and they will lose this access.

Due to the steepness of the terrain, local residents do not currently access this strip of road reserve land.

The land falls approximately 4.5m from the bitumen road edge to the property boundary of the applicant.

There is a buffer area that is retained by Council for access and maintenance to the road and Council does not support the closure of the full depth of the road reserve.

Council has previously sold road reserve land in front of properties at 60, 64, 66 and 68 Herbert Avenue.

Safety and congestion

Herbert Street is narrow and on street parking creates safety issues and congestion.

Council should provide off-street parking to ensure safety of pedestrians and drivers.

In streets such as Herbert Ave, where the street is very narrow and the terrain is very steep, Council has historically considered the sale of unusable roadway where appropriate for the provision of off-street parking to increase safety and reduce congestion.

Financial issues

Council should not be charging high prices to residents who wish to purchase the land for off-street parking.

Council’s Fees and Charges are listed in the Operational Plan, which is reviewed annually.

The current Road Reserve Policy and Guideline for this area provides that any applications for road reserve closure and purchase of Council land are subject to independent qualified valuation advice, Council approval, resolution and contract.

The proposed sale of this strip of Council land to the adjacent landowner will enhance the value of the adjacent property as well increase the amenity through the provision of off-street parking.

The sales proceeds will provide funds for continued maintenance and improvement of road infrastructure and footpaths in the local area. Such road works may vary including pavement strengthening, retaining structures, footpaths or streetscape improvements.

Assessment by Council’s Transport & Civil Infrastructure Assets Team

Council's Transport & Civil Infrastructure Assets Team has assessed that the subject area of road reserve will not be required for future public use and has no objections to the road closure and sale but has required the applicants to modify the depth of land required to align with the other front boundaries in Herbert Avenue (following previous road reserve sales) to ensure an even streetscape.

Herbert Avenue is a cul-de-sac road that has a 20-metre-wide road reserve which is an overly generous width for this type of road asset. In this context and given the steep cross-terrain, only a narrow width is available and practical for core road use. The road construction consists of 'cut' and 'fill' with a retaining wall along the low side of the road and a steep batter slope on the high side. The through-road is narrow and on-street parking is difficult due to the narrow road shoulder. This also affects the ability to gain access for garbage trucks and other service vehicles.

To improve road safety and amenity, more off-street parking is encouraged. Given the steep drop offs on the low side the only way that this alternate parking can be practically achieved is via a suspended driveway and garaging structure. If this were to be provided entirely on private property it would require a much longer and more elevated structure and hence have a further adverse impact on residual landscape areas. By bringing the parking structure closer to the road it has a number of mutual advantages.

Because these parking structures are permanent, they cannot be accommodated by a road reserve lease and as such, the road reserve land needs to be acquired by the adjoining property owner. Rather than just catering for the footprint of the structure a full frontage road reserve closure is facilitated. Once acquired, this provides a permanent off-street parking solution. The proceeds from the road asset sale are to be used on road asset outcomes, in particular footpath improvements. This provides an additional funding source to help bring forward additional footpath infrastructure for the community.

Council staff have reviewed and considered the submissions received and have concluded that the submissions were not classified as valid objections to the proposed road closure in accordance with section 38C of the Roads Act 1993.

The objections that Council has received from the community generally relate to the loss of public access to land.

Property Steering Committee Consideration

This matter was presented to the Property Steering Committee on 28July 2022 for its consideration, including a site inspection. After consideration, the committee noted its support for the proposed closure and subsequent sale.

TIMING

The proposed road reserve closure and sale of land is expected to be completed within the next twelve months.

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Good governance - Goal 19 Our Council is transparent and trusted to make decisions that reflect the values of the community

· Good Governance - Goal 19(c) - Ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Council through strategic management of assets

· Good governance - Goal 20 Our Council is proactive, and efficiently and effectively responds to, and delivers on, the evolving needs of the community

financial considerations

Proposed Sale of Land

Following successful closure of the road reserve, Council will proceed to sell the subject land at a price in accordance with the independent qualified valuation advice and the Policy. The valuation will take into consideration the adjusted current market value as a whole site as a consequence of the addition of the subject road reserve area, any benefit it provides, and any easement imposed by various authorities.

Use of funds from road closure and sale

Section 43(4) of the Roads Act 1993 states that, “Money received by a council from the proceeds of the sale of land is not to be used for Council except for acquiring land for public roads or for carrying out road work on public roads.” Such road works may vary including pavement strengthening, retaining structures, footpaths, or streetscape improvements.

The sales proceeds will provide funds for continued maintenance and improvement of road infrastructure and footpaths in the local area and to fund high priority core road asset improvements that can significantly improve safety and amenity for the community.

social considerations

In the past several years, Council has closed and sold road reserves along the lower side of Herbert Avenue Newport to provide a safer road network and access into adjacent properties.

Following road reserve closure, Council will proceed with the sale of the road reserve land.
The sale of non-core road reserve land assets provides funding for higher priority road outcomes, in particular for footpath construction. This helps to accelerate the provision of additional high priority pedestrian linkages to connect communities and improve safety and amenity.

environmental considerations

The sale of these portions of road reserve will allow the respective landowners to provide off-street parking contributing to safer pedestrian and vehicular access along Herbert Avenue. The use of overly wide road reserves to provide more effective off street carpark solutions reduces environmental impact otherwise associated with much longer driveway and carpark constructions.

There are spotted gums on the site which will need to be considered in any future development of a carport structure. A previous DA for a carport in this location was considered in 2012 (which has since lapsed), and this addressed the approach to protecting the existing spotted gums through construction. This DA was approved with appropriate management controls in place and the development control that it was assessed under - Pittwater DCP 21 control B4.7 Pittwater Spotted Gum Forest - Endangered Ecological Community is still in force.

In August 2022 a level five Council arbourist visited the site and noted that:

• There is one spotted gum in Council’s road reserve. The tree is in good health with no obvious signs of structural defect and stairs have been constructed around the tree.

• There are two other spotted gums in this location but they are on the privately owned part of the site.

• The remaining vegetation in the road reserve is small and incidental

• Based on the adjacent carport at 60 Herbert Ave, a single elevated similar styled carport would able to be accommodated between the existing spotted gum and the site boundary.

The formalisation of tenure and use of the road reserve land by way of sale, is seen as a reasonable outcome at this location.

governance and risk considerations

The proposed road reserve closure and sale complies with Council's Streetscape Management Guidelines and Policy No 193, "Road Reserve & Streetscape Management" and Property Management Policy No. 200.

In accordance with section 38F of the Roads Act 1993, an owner of land adjoining the subject road reserve, a notifiable authority or any other person prescribed by the regulations may appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the closure of a council public road by Council.

It is Council policy that any relatively small parcel of land that is sold to an adjoining owner be consolidated with the larger site within 12 months from the settlement date. This will apply to the subject land.

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 13.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 13.2	Response to Notice of Motion No 42/2021 - Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy Review
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Transport and Civil Infrastructure
TRIM file REF	2022/202606
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

SUMMARY

purpose

To report back to Council in response to (Resolution 322/21) from the Notice of Motion No 42/2021 October 2021 Council meeting on the potential to undertake a review of the Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy.

executive summary

Church Point is a local and regional transport node and tourist destination. Parking in the Church Point area has been a concern for many years for residents of Scotland Island and West Pittwater, with demand exceeding the number of available car parking spaces.

Council has worked with the Scotland Island, Western Foreshore and Church Point residents and businesses for several years on strategies to manage the current and future demand for vehicle parking in the Church Point area.

Parking supply was increased by 120 spaces through the construction of the new Church Point car park, which opened in December 2017. There is also a need to manage demand and use of existing parking spaces and the former Pittwater Council, in December 2015, supported in principle a number of demand management measures, resolving to conduct further community engagement. Council undertook an extensive community engagement program at the time, with over 400 submissions received from the community during the March 2016 engagement process and over 100 residents attending the ‘drop in’ session held on 30 March 2016.

The Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy outlines recommendations to manage parking in the existing Church Point Reserve car park, local streets and the new Church Point car park while optimising overnight parking for vehicles displaying a Church Point Parking Permit (CPP).

A draft of the Strategy was the subject of further community engagement at a community meeting hosted by the Administrator at Mona Vale on 29 October 2016, attended by around 250 participants.

The parking utilisation in the precinct was reviewed in response to complaints about availability when the Pasadena reopened, and it was noted that there was an increase in illegal parking in the surrounding area and congestion in the carpark further adding to the supply issues.

The parking demand strategy approved by the Traffic Committee provided the following priority principles:

· Addressing safety issues in local streets immediately while minimising the locations required to be removed

· Offsetting these changes by providing more exclusive overnight parking for CPP holders in the Church Point Reserve car park

· Introducing further changes to parking arrangements only when the new Church Point car park was operational

· Balancing the needs of on-shore and off-shore residents and businesses whilst maximising availability of parking for off-shore residents in the Reserve and new Church Point car park.

The COVID pandemic situation increased demand for the long-term parking by offshore residents as some of the part time residents chose to move to their offshore residences as a safety precaution.

In adopting Notice of Motion 42/2021 in October 2021 following concerns raised by both the onshore and offshore communities, the Council resolution 322/21 stated that,

“a report be brought to Council outlining the cost and the process for a review of the Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy to determine what the available parking resources are in the overall precinct (including from Holmeport to Rowland Reserve), noting the seasonal demand and to include the period when both the Pasadena and Waterfront Café are operating normally.”

Some matters raised in the resolution relate to work currently in progress by Council, namely the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study. The draft Study has been commissioned to identify options to address the overcrowding and safety issues on the existing commuter wharf. It has been prepared following engagement with key stakeholders in the community and is ready for public exhibition.

The public exhibition of the study will seek wider community feedback on the options identified. The study is a precursor to being able to seek grant funding through the TfNSW Boating Now Program to progress additional commuter boat parking.

There is potential for the options identified in the study to impact on transport and parking within the Church Point Precinct and any review of parking demand in the precinct should consider the impact of commuter boat parking to ensure a holistic approach is considered.

If a review of the Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy is undertaken, the review should include provisions to incorporate and consolidate the findings of the Study. The parking review should be undertaken after the public exhibition of the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study has been completed and the preferred actions reported to and adopted by Council. This approach will ensure that the parking review is focussed on the appropriate areas of the precinct where there may be an increased need for parking or turnover.

The review scope will need to be wide ranging and take into account broad geographical constraints of parking options and the access points used by the offshore communities for parking, goods delivery and connection with the public transport services in the areas where all weather wharf access is available.

Initial estimates of the contract value to undertake this review by an independent consultant would be in the vicinity of $200,000 based on previously undertaken projects and the proposed scope required.

There would also be a significant impact on internal resourcing to undertake the required community engagement and targeted consultation required to ensure a thorough, all-inclusive review was undertaken to meet the future needs of the communities, both onshore and offshore.

RECOMMENDATION OF Director Transport and Assets

That Council note:

1. The scope of the proposed review of the Church Point Parking Demand Strategy and the broader area that is required to ensure that the review covers all points raised in the original Resolution 322/21 from the Notice of Motion No 42/2021 - Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy Review.

2. That the proposed review would require funding of approximately $200,000. A budget bid for the funds will be prepared for the 2023/24 Financial Year.

3. That the review process would likely take approximately 12 months to allow a thorough review of the parking occupancy and peak demand requirements given the various seasonal variations in demand.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

Church Point is a local and regional transport node and tourist destination. Parking in the Church Point area has been a concern for many years for residents of Scotland Island and West Pittwater, Church Point residents and visitors to the area with demand exceeding the number of available car parking spaces.

Council has worked with the Scotland Island, Western Foreshore and Church Point residents and businesses for a number of years on strategies to manage the current and future demand for vehicle parking in the Church Point area.

Parking supply was increased by 120 spaces through the construction of the new Church Point car park, which opened in December 2017. There is also a need to manage demand and use of existing parking spaces and the former Pittwater Council in December 2015 supported in principle a number of demand management measures, resolving to conduct further community engagement. Council undertook an extensive community engagement program at the time, with over 400 submissions received from the community during the March 2016 engagement process and over 100 residents attending the ‘drop in’ session held on 30 March 2016.

A draft of the Strategy was the subject of further community engagement at a community meeting hosted by the Administrator at Mona Vale on 29 October 2016, attended by around 250 participants.

Council resolved (Resolution 322/21) to receive a report from staff to address matters raised in the Notice of Motion No 42/2021 as noted below:

“That:

1. A report be brought to Council outlining the cost and the process for a review of the Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy to determine what the available parking resources are in the overall precinct (including from Holmeport to Rowland Reserve), noting the seasonal demand and to include the period when both the Pasadena and Waterfront Café are operating normally.

2. The Review is to include at least the following matters:

A. Parking Occupancy.

B. Parking Turnover.

C. Demographic of the users of the parking.

D. Time restrictions and whether the restrictions meet the needs of all the communities that use this parking.

E. Feasibility of options for expanding parking and commuter boat berthing facilities at Rowland Reserve, Bayview Baths and Taylors Point, noting this has not been regarded as viable or safe in the past.

F. Options for Keoride or similar transport from Rowland Reserve to Church Point and Mona Vale, including to provide for visitors to the Church Point area.

G. Consideration of amenity for the local community and other users of Church Point facilities.

H. A consideration of an additional row of parking for church point permit holders from 6pm to 6am in the main carpark.

I. A consideration of increasing policing of the carpark and drop off zone off commuter wharf to ensure compliance.

J. Considering and recognising the contribution in both time and funding for the current parking infrastructure by the offshore community.

K. A consideration of how to best balance the needs of offshore residents, onshore residents, and businesses.”

DISCUSSION

The Resolution refers to the following broad issues associated with parking in the Church Point and Bayview precincts, namely:

· Parking Availability – Turnover and Restrictions

· User Group Demographics

· Commuter Boat Facilities

· Alternative Transport Options

Parking Availability – Turnover and Restrictions

The availability of parking in Bayview and Church Point is affected by several factors generally and acutely by events that generate greater demand at the two main venues at Church Point, the Pasadena and Waterfront Café on Fridays and weekends, which coincides with peak need for offshore residents as well.

The Church Point Parking Permit (CPPP) allows holders (both eligible onshore residents and offshore residents) to park free of charge in the restricted parking areas including dedicated parking in approximately 150 spaces between 6pm and 6am to cater for residents in rows 1 & 2 in the Church Point Reserve Car Park.

Other areas are provided where the spaces are time limited and the CPPP provides an exemption from the time restriction and/or the pay and display charge. It should also be noted that the Beach Parking permit is not valid in these areas.

There is a broad range of time restrictions across the immediate precinct to provide parking turnover for casual/visitor needs from 1-hour parking to 4-hour parking.

The precinct is patrolled by Council rangers and parking officers on a random and scheduled basis to undertake compliance with the restrictions and conditions of the CPPP to ensure the appropriate use of the available carparking resources.

Further parking resources are available across the broader catchment including Rowlands Reserve and Bayview Bathes car parks that are available to use as overflow areas subject to compliance with the specific conditions related to each location.

Users Group Demographics

The car park areas provide parking for several competing user groups, that generate demand across the precinct with various levels of impact including:

· Residents of Scotland Island, Elvina Bay, Morning Bay, Lovett Bay, and occasionally the other western foreshore communities.

· Residents in the Bayview and Church Point area, with limited or no off-street parking.

· Owners of boats moored offshore in the area.

· Visitors to the area generally.

· Customers attending venues in the Church Point area, whether general dining or events.

· Services and trades working offshore using the commuter wharf or cargo wharf.

Commuter Boat Facilities

Some matters raised by the Resolution relate to work currently in progress by Council, namely the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study. The draft Study has been commissioned to identify options to address the overcrowding and safety issues on the existing commuter wharf. It has been prepared following engagement with key stakeholders in the community and is ready for public exhibition.

If a review of the Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy is undertaken, the review should include provisions to incorporate and consolidate the findings of the Study.

As noted in the Resolution, several other locations were investigated as part of the Study to determine the suitability to provide alternate commuter boat facilities and relieve the demand pressures at Church Point.

The feasibility of some locations below were ranked as least preferred based on either negative feedback from the offshore user groups, environmental constraints or adverse community impact.

· Bayview Baths – dredging, wave climate, distance, relocate moorings, parking amendments

· Rowland Reserve – travel times and distance especially during poor weather due to 4 & 8 knot zones

· Taylors Point – travel times and distance especially given weather and wave climate impact, environmental impact of commuter wharf structure and availability of parking in residential streets.

Alternative Transport Options

The Keoride service is not utilised as efficiently as it could be in the Church Point area with the need for the residents, visitors, and customers to be provided with suitable information regarding the service, connections to Mona Vale and other public transport services in the area.

Council is working with TfNSW to have the ferry wharf at Church Point designated as a Keoride hub to allow it to be used more efficiently.

Proposed Review Process

There would also be a significant impact on internal resourcing to undertake the required community engagement and targeted consultation necessary to ensure a thorough, all-inclusive review was undertaken to meet the future needs of the communities, both onshore and offshore.

CONSULTATION

The review would require a multi-stage engagement process with initial meetings taking place with stakeholders to assess the needs of each user group, with the potential to establish a broad project working group. The working group would assist in the development of the review parameters and provide ongoing input when the project team are preparing recommendations to report back to Council.

A second round of community engagement with stakeholder meetings would be undertaken to review the finding of the initial survey results and draft actions to refine the options to ensure the proposal meets the ongoing needs of the communities that use the parking resources.

TIMING

The review project is likely to take up to 12 months to allow for the required data to be collected, consultation to be undertaken, proposals refined and finally reported to Council, and approval of regulatory changes by the Northern Beaches Council Local Traffic Committee (where required).

No definite dates can be provided as the project is unfunded and not included in the current workload planning for the Transport Network and Community Engagement teams, who would have carriage of the review project.

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Transport, technology, and connectivity - Goal 16 Our integrated transport networks meet the needs of our community and reduce carbon emissions

· Transport, technology, and connectivity - Goal 17 Our community can safely and efficiently travel within and beyond the Northern Beaches

financial considerations

The proposed review would require suitable funding to be identified in the budget to undertake this review as it is not listed in the forward program until the 2026/27 financial year. Initial estimates of the contract value to undertake this review by an independent consultant would be in the vicinity of $200,000 based on previously undertaken projects and the proposed scope required.

This estimate is based on 2021/22 consultant rates for similar projects undertaken by the industry.

social considerations

The review will need to consider the competing demands on the finite parking resource in the precinct and will need to be carefully considered to prevent the parking demand issues spreading to other areas that already have other significant competing priority needs for the local parking resources.

This issue is already a divisive issue in the local community and needs to be treated with sensitivity taking into account the history of the area.

environmental considerations

The initial review of the parking demand study will not have any environmental impact, however there is significant environmental impact potential if the considerations turn to the implementation phase and additional parking is proposed to be built in some location that has previously been discussed or promoted by several user groups. Additional parking also has the potential to create addition congestion and demand if not managed appropriately leading to further potential environment issues.

governance and risk considerations

The project generally has a low risk profile and limited governance concerns mostly related to the need to bring the review forward in the program. Consideration would also need to be given to the impact of changes on the compliance process and how the parking in the area is managed along with the operational risk of broadening any parking permit schemes in the area

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 13.3 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 13.3	Public Exhibition of the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Transport and Civil Infrastructure
TRIM file REF	2022/255803
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇨Church Point Commuter Wharf User Survey Results (Included In Attachments Booklet) 2 ⇨Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasbility Study Revision C (Included In Attachments Booklet) 3 ⇨Draft Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study Consultation Outcomes Report (Included In Attachments Booklet) 4 ⇨Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study Planning and Environment Constraints Report (Included In Attachments Booklet)

SUMMARY

purpose

To seek approval to place the draft Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study (the Study) on public exhibition.

executive summary

The Church Point Commuter Wharf is an important transport hub for the local offshore community. Residents with private vessels may use the Church Point Commuter Wharf to access the mainland. At present, the commuter wharf has 111 boat bays. With 300 permits and 14 residents currently on the waiting list for permits, the existing mooring facility is unable to accommodate demand and experiences frequent overcrowding.

In 2021 Northern Beaches Council engaged consulting firm Advisian to assess different options aimed at alleviating overcrowding at the existing Commuter Wharf facility. Options considered included an extension to the existing facility through the addition of another curved arm, as well as additional structures at Rostrevor Reserve, Church Point Reserve, Rowland Reserve, McCarrs Creek Reserve and Bayview Baths.

An additional structure at Rostrevor Reserve and extension to the existing facility through the addition of another curved arm were the highest scoring options. A combination of an extension to the existing facility and an additional structure at Rostrevor Reserve was also considered suitable due to minimal impact to berths and users during construction.

The outcomes of the public exhibition on of the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study may also have an impact on the parking demand around the Church Point precinct. The Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy review will need to consider the response from the community and actions derived from the Feasibility Study will have a direct influence on how the review of parking is focused on future years. To that end it may be prudent to undertake the review after the adoption of any actions flowing through from this study.

It is proposed to place the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study on public exhibition. Submissions on the Study and the options will be reported back to a future meeting of Council.

RECOMMENDATION OF Director Transport and Assets

That:

1. Council place the draft Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days.

2. The outcome of the public exhibition of the draft Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study be reported to Council.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

The Church Point Commuter Wharf functions as a water-based interchange for approximately 700 households that reside offshore, as well as for onshore residents, visitors, and businesses. The commuter wharf has 111 boat bays. With 300 permits and 14 residents currently on the waiting list for permits, the existing mooring facility is unable to accommodate demand and experiences frequent overcrowding. Overcrowding creates safety and accessibility issues.

Mooring at the Church Point Commuter Wharf has been a concern for the local offshore community. In 2021 Council conducted a survey questionnaire (Attachment 1) to collect data regarding offshore residents’ needs and experiences and to assist in the development of a consultant’s brief. The survey questionnaire’s results revealed that the majority of participants (86%) supported the Council investigating ways to address overcrowding at the existing Church Point Commuter Wharf.

The outcomes of the public exhibition of the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study may also have an impact on the parking demand around the Church Point precinct. The Church Point Parking Demand Management Strategy review will need to consider the response from the community and actions derived from the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study that may have a direct influence on how the review of parking is focused on future years.

Actions flowing from the Commuter Wharf Feasibility study may change the parking demand dynamic within the precinct and could further concentrate demand in areas where the parking can not be effectively provided, with the provision of parking co-dependant on the provision of commuter wharf space provided, and the travel mode choices made by offshore residents. Noting that there is limited capacity in the Church Point Precinct to increase parking and there is already the issue of demand outstripping supply, a broader investigation of transport provision and connectivity is required to ensure there is no transfer of the demand issues to areas where there is limited or no existing capacity.

DISCUSSION

Council engaged consulting firm Advisian to undertake the Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study to assess different options aimed at alleviating overcrowding at the existing Commuter Wharf facility and address safety and accessibility issues. A summary of the options assessed is provided in Table 1.

· Table 1: Church Point Commuter Wharf Options Summary

Option	Description
Option 1a	Not considered due to the reduction in the number of tie ups.
Option 1b	Extension to the existing commuter wharf through the addition of another curved arm.
Option 2a	Additional Structure Rostrevor Reserve.
Option 2b	Additional Structure Church Point Reserve.
Option 3a	Additional Boat Berths Rowland Reserve.
Option 3b	Additional Boat Berths McCarrs Creek Reserve.
Option 3c	Additional Boat Berth Bayview Baths.
Option 4	Combination of Stage 1 Option 1b and 2a

The assessment of each option was based on a multi-criterion ranking that considered environmental impact, planning approvals required, number of additional boat berths, parking, accessibility and transport impacts, security, impacts to costal processes, indicative cost, and stakeholder response. The ranking of the options is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Church Point Commuter Wharf Options Ranking

1. Option	2. Assessment Criteria and Score									3. Score	4. Rank
-	- Environmental	- Boat Berths	- Parking	- Accessibility	- Transport	- Coastal Processes	- Planning Approvals	- Cost	- Community	-	-
- Option 1b	- 8	- 9	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 6	- 10	- 10	- 5	- 78/90	- 2
- Option 2a	- 8	- 8	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 7	- 6	- 79/90	- 1
- Option 2b	- 7.5	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 5	- 10	- 8	- 4	- 74.5/90	- 4
- Option 3a	- 7.5	- 6	- 10	- 6	- 10	- 6	- 10	- 6	- 5	- 66.5/90	- 5
- Option 3b	- 8	- 6	- 10	- 5	- 10	- 4	- 10	- 6	- 3	- 62/90	- 7
- Option 3c	- 8	- 6	- 10	- 6	- 10	- 4	- 10	- 6	- 3	- 63/90	- 6
- Option 4	- 8	- 7	- 10	- 10	- 10	- 7.5	- 10	- 9	- 6*	- 77.5/90	- 3

* This option was not assessed during the stakeholder engagement however the community score for Option 1b and 2a have been applied.

Table 2 shows that Option 2a and 1b are the highest ranked options. The key advantage of Option 2a (the site of the temporary wharf during the Church Point car park construction) is that as well as being near the existing commuter wharf and subsequently near parking, shops, and the post office, it can also provide approximately 32 additional boat bays without affecting the existing swing moorings. In contrast, despite Option 1b having the advantage of already being used as the commuter wharf it would involve the movement of swing moorings which Transport for NSW have advised is unlikely to occur in the short term.

Like Option 1b the full development of Option 2a may require the movement of swing moorings and amendment to the Church Point Plan of Management. As such, the Study suggests that suggests that Council build Option 2a and 1b in two stages. Adopting stage 1 of these two options would provide an additional 66 berths.

CONSULTATION

Stakeholder engagement was an essential part of the options assessment process. Advisian held four targeted workshops with key stakeholder groups impacted by changes to the existing commuter wharf facility to obtain input into the options being assessed. Stakeholder workshops were as follows:

1. Internal teams within Northern Beaches Council and State Government

2. Offshore community associations

3. Onshore community residents’ associations

4. Local Businesses

The participant organisations in each of these groups are listed in Appendix C- Consultation Outcomes Report (Attachment 3)

These workshops identified the following issues of concern:

Stakeholder group	Key areas of interest
Internal teams within Northern Beaches Council	· Environmental impacts, including protection of seagrass and national parks · Navigational and community safety · Stakeholder preferences
State Government	· Environmental impacts, including protection of seagrass and national parks · Relocation of swing moorings · Navigational safety
Offshore community associations	· Location · Safety · Amenity
Onshore community resident associations	· Location · Parking · Holistic development of Church Point · Amenity
Pittwater Waterway operators e.g., water taxis, ferry operators,	· Navigational safety · Impact to business
Local Business	· Location · Navigational safety · Impact to business

In summary, the key elements stakeholder groups considered important to any plans to address the issue of overcrowding at Church Point Commuter Wharf were:

· Location- selected options would need to take distance from Scotland Island, disability access and ease of use into consideration

· Holistic development and use of the Church Point area- i.e., addressing wharf overcrowding, potential parking constraints and community use of the area as a whole

· Parking- numerous stakeholders noted that parking in the Church Point area is an ongoing issue. As a result, Council will need to consider undertaking a parking study for some options, which may be brought forward in the program from the scheduled 2026/27, subject to funding being provided.

· Permitting arrangements- including the consideration of permit time limits (e.g., 3 hour limits up to 48–72-hour limits), the future need for additional permits, permits allowed per household and permits for smaller vessels. Noting that currently, most offshore residents have one permit per household.

· Navigational safety- it was also noted that over the last 12 months there had been an increased use of barges in the Church Point area and that as a result navigational safety is important to consider with any option.

· Swing moorings- a number of options presented may require the movement of swing moorings. Pittwater has the longest waitlist for private and commercial moorings in the state. As a result, any changes to moorings would result in concessions for private and/or commercial/ industry users and could be a lengthy process.

TIMING

It is planned that the Draft Church Point Commuter Wharf Feasibility Study will be on exhibition for 28 days. The submissions from the community are to be reported back to Council on completion of the public exhibition.

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Transport, technology and connectivity - Goal 16 Our integrated transport networks meet the needs of our community and reduce carbon emissions

· Transport, technology and connectivity - Goal 17 Our community can safely and efficiently travel within and beyond the Northern Beaches

financial considerations

Funding has been provided in the 2022-23 capital budget under the Church Point Commuter Wharf Expansion including partial grant funding by the Transport for NSW Boating Now Round 3 Program. Completion and adoption of this Study may allow Council to seek further grant funding for the proposed works.

social considerations

Equitable access for offshore residents balanced against amenity concerns for onshore residents.

environmental considerations

The impact of these facilities on the environment has been considered in the options assessment however a comprehensive Review of Environmental Factors (REF) will be required. Details are available in Appendix A – Planning and Environmental Constraints (Attachment 4).

governance and risk considerations

The adoption of the Study will ensure a transparent, risk-based priority assessment is used to deliver future capital works to improve access for offshore residents in consultation with the key stakeholder groups and the wider community.

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 13.4 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 13.4	Outcome of the Public Exhibition of Proposed Changes to the Water Skiing Times at Manly Dam
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Parks and Recreation
TRIM file REF	2022/448275
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇨Manly Dam Water Skiing, Proposed and Current Approved Times 2022 (Included In Attachments Booklet) 2 ⇨Manly Dam Water Skiing and Power Boat Zone (Included In Attachments Booklet) 3 ⇨Community Engagement Report Water Skiing at Manly Dam 2022 (Included In Attachments Booklet)

SUMMARY

purpose

To consider the proposal from the Manly Warringah War Memorial State Park Advisory Committee for reduced water skiing times at Manly Dam and the outcomes of public exhibition of this proposal.

executive summary

Water skiing has been held on the lake at the Manly Warringah War Memorial State Park (Manly Dam) since 1947. The Manly Warringah War Memorial Park Plan of Management, 2014 (Plan of Management 2014) identifies, among other things:

· Standard approved times for water skiing and power boat use at Attachment 1

· A water skiing and power boat zone on the lake at Attachment 2

· The Manly and Warringah Water Ski Club Inc’s use and management of the water skiing and power boat zone and an intent for a formal agreement with Council.

The Manly Warringah War Memorial State Park Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) has requested that Council consider its proposal for reduced water skiing times at Manly Dam at Attachment 1, for reasons including to:

· Provide more and equitable access to the entire lake for other sport and recreational activities

· Provide quiet time when there are no motorised boats and skiing on the lake

The Plan of Management (2014) stipulates that the water ski times at Manly Dam can be altered by Council resolution and without amendment to the Plan of Management.

In response to this request Council publicly exhibited a plan to conduct a 12-month trial of the proposed reduced water-skiing times, via the Have Your Say online hub, from 27 April 2022 to 5 June 2022. 746 submissions were received during the exhibition period. The majority of responses were not supportive of the trial of reduced water skiing times. A community engagement report is presented at Attachment 3.

The Manly and Warringah Water Ski Club does not support the trial nor the reduced times though does support no skiing all day on ANZAC Day (25 April) and all day on Remembrance Day (11 November).

The Save Manly Dam Catchment Committee supports the trial for reduced water skiing times.

RECOMMENDATION OF Director Transport and Assets

That Council:

1. Note the Community Engagement Report at Attachment 3 of the report for this item.

2. Prohibit water skiing on the Manly Warringah War Memorial State Park (Manly Dam) lake on ANZAC Day (all day) and Remembrance Day (all day).

3. Endorse the continuation of all other approved times for water skiing as described in the Manly Warringah War Memorial Park Plan of Management, 2014.

REPORT

BACKGROUND

Water skiing has been held on the lake at the Manly Warringah War Memorial State Park (Manly Dam) since 1947. Manly Dam is located on Crown land managed by Council. The Manly Warringah War Memorial Park Plan of Management, 2014 (Plan of Management 2014) identifies, among other things:

· Standard approved times for water skiing and power boat use at Attachment 1

· A water skiing and power boat zone on the lake at Attachment 2

· The Manly and Warringah Water Ski Club Inc’s use and management of the water skiing and power boat zone and an intent for a formal agreement with Council

· The Club was formed in the 1960’s and has been managing water skiing at Manly Dam on Council’s behalf since that time

· Provide more and equitable access to the entire lake for other sport and recreational activities

· Provide quiet time when there are no motorised boats and water skiing on the lake

The proposal:

· Reduces the summer water skiing hours from 67 to 50.5 a week and the winter hours from 63 to 44.5 hours a week including:

o No skiing after 12.30pm on Tuesday, Friday, Sunday and public holidays

o No skiing on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day (currently water skiing is permitted on these days)

· Recognises that there is less skiing in the winter months particularly June, July and August

The proposed and current times and timetables are presented at Attachment 1.

A majority of Advisory Committee members support this proposal. Notwithstanding this proposal, the Advisory Committee wholly supports the continuation of water skiing at Manly Dam.

This Advisory Committee is a Council committee that:

· Provides advice and input to Council about the strategic management and planning for Manly Dam

· Is composed of three community members (with separate environmental, recreational and community portfoliios) and representatives from the NSW Government and Council.

The Plan of Management (2014) stipulates that the water ski times at Manly Dam can be altered by Council resolution and without amendment to the Plan of Management.

In response to the Advisory Committee’s request Council publicly exhibited a plan to conduct a 12-month trial of the proposed reduced water ski times via the Your Say online hub from 27 April 2022 to 5 June 2022. 746 submissions were received during the exhibition period. The majority of responses were not supportive of the trial or reduced water ski times.

CONSULTATION

A plan to conduct a 12-month trial of the proposed water ski times was publicly exhibited from 27 April 2022 to 5 June 2022. The community were informed of the opportunity to provide feedback through; onsite signs at Manly Dam, a Your Say online project page, letterbox drop to homes around Manly Dam, media release, Council’s engagement newsletter, e-news and social media and stakeholder emails.

746 submissions were received during the exhibition period. The majority of responses (61%) were not supportive of the trial or reduced water ski times. Comments from key stakeholders include:

· The Manly and Warringah Water Ski Club does not support the trial nor the reduced times though does support no skiing all day on ANZAC Day and all day on Remembrance Day

· Water Ski and Wakeboard Australia does not support changes to the water skiing times

· The Save Manly Dam Catchment Committee supports the trial for reduced water skiing times at a minimum and immediate implementation.

A thematic overview of comments received and Council’s responses is outlined in the table below:

Key Theme	What We Heard (Summary)	Council’s response
There are no suitable safe alternative locations for water skiing on the Northern Beaches	1.There are no suitable safe alternative locations for water skiing on the Northern Beaches. 2.There is a shortage of places to water ski on the Northern Beaches and in Sydney.	1 & 2 – Council supports the continuation of water skiing at Manly Dam (as outlined in the Plan of Management, 2014). There is not a water ski location on the Northern Beaches with similar characteristics to Manly Dam.
Physical, mental, and social well-being benefits of water skiing at Manly Dam	3.Water skiing at Manly Dam provides physical, mental and social well-being benefits to the individuals, families and groups who participate. There would be less of these benefits should the water skiing times be reduced.	3 – Noted.
Reduced water ski times allows more quiet time to enjoy Manly Dam	4.Reducing the water ski times would mean less boats on the lake and more quiet time to enjoy Manly Dam particularly when visiting the picnic areas located on the lake’s edge.	4 – Council’s draft Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Strategy 2022 identifies the value of spending quiet time in nature.
The proposed water skiing times are too restrictive	5.The proposed times are too restrictive, reducing the times available for training, club members and casual users. 6. The Manly and Warringah Water Ski Club indicate that the reduced times would make the club less viable.	5 – Council supports the continuation of water skiing at Manly Dam (as outlined in the Plan of Management, 2014). 6 - Noted
The proposed reduced water skiing times enables more access to the entire lake for other activities	7. The proposed times enable more access to the entire lake for other activities such as swimming and paddle boarding. 8. The proposed times are fairer and more equitable.	7 & 8 – Council is supportive of continued access to Manly Dam for a variety of recreational opportunities.
It is unnecessary to restrict the water skiing times as the current arrangements work well	9. The current water skiing arrangement has worked well for a lengthy period of time and does not need to change.	9 – The Plan of Management (2014) supports an annual review of the approved times for water skiing. A Council officer review about water skiing will be conducted annually and a report provided to Council only if changes are proposed
Further reduce the water skiing times	10. More restrictions are necessary to enable more access to the entire lake for other activities. 11. Consider removing water skiing from Manly Dam.	10 – Noted. See also response to point 12. 11 – Council supports the continuation of water skiing at Manly Dam (as outlined in the Plan of Management, 2014).
There is currently enough space for other users on the lake and there are other nearby facilities available for these users	12. Water skiing takes up only 40% of the lake and there is enough space already for other lake activities. There are also plenty of other facilities on the Northern Beaches for these activities such as surf lifesaving training, triathlon, kayaking, and canoeing.	12 – There are alternate places on the Northern Beaches where some lake activities can be conducted e.g. surf lifesaving training is conducted from time to time on the lake however their primary training location is on the ocean beaches. The Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches Branch were informed about this community engagement however no formal submissions were received by the Branch or any Northern Beaches Surf Life Saving Clubs.
Environmental impacts	13. Pollution is caused by the boats on the lake, there is shoreline erosion caused by boat wake, and noise impacts on wildlife.	13 – Environmental concerns raised will be considered in a Manly Dam water quality project 2022/23, the review of the Manly Dam water quality management plan 23/24 (should funds be available) and in future environmental research to be undertaken for Manly Dam.
Water skiing has a long history at Manly Dam	14. There is a long and successful history of water skiing at Manly Dam.	14 – Noted. The Manly and Warringah Water Skiing Club has been managing water skiing at Manly Dam on Council’s behalf since the 1960’s.
Water skiing is available to only a select few people	15. Only a small minority of people water ski and they have exclusive use of the lake at Manly Dam.	15 – The Plan of Management, 2014 identifies, among other things, the Manly and Warringah Water Skiing Club’s use and management of the water skiing and power boat zone (a section of the lake) on Council’s. Exclusive use of the lake for water skiing is only permitted in this zone during the approved times. The lake is available for other uses in this zone within these times with consent from Council and following consultation with the Club.
Transparency of water ski bookings and information	16. It would be beneficial to know in advance if boats will be on the lake 17. On site signage about water skiing would be helpful for other users of Manly Dam 18. Club fee review	16. In 2022/23 Council will work with the Manly and Warringah Water Skiing Club to find an effective way to communicate to the public when the lake is booked for water skiing. 17. Council will install water skiing information signs at Manly Dam and update the water ski information on Council’s website in 2022/23. A Council officer review about water skiing will be conducted annually (including where relevant fees review) and a report provided to Council only if changes are proposed

A community engagement report with the details of the public exhibition and feedback received is presented at Attachment 3.

TIMING

Should the recommendations of this report be adopted by Council the amended water skiing times at Manly Dam would apply immediately. Council’s website would then be updated and signs installed at Manly Dam with information about water skiing and times.

A Council officer review about water skiing will be conducted annually and a report provided to Council only if changes are proposed.

LINK TO STRATEGY

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome of:

· Housing, places and spaces - Goal 12 Our community has access to spaces that enable healthy and active living and allow for a broad range of creative, sporting and recreational opportunities to be enjoyed

· Good governance - Goal 19 Our Council is transparent and trusted to make decisions that reflect the values of the community

financial considerations

Signage about water skiing including times will be installed at Manly Dam and funded in 2022/23 through the Parks and Recreation operational budget.

Environmental concerns raised through the community engagement will be investigated as part of the Manly Dam environmental research to be undertaken in 2022/23. This research is funded through the 2022/23 Parks and Recreation and Environment and Climate Change operational budgets. Funding for further Manly Dam environmental research will be considered through Council’s annual budget process.

social considerations

The proposed reduction in water skiing times at Manly Dam was aimed at providing:

· More and equitable access to the entire lake for other sport and recreational activities.

· More quiet time when there are no motorised boats and skiing on the lake.

· Continued access to the lake for water skiing.

It is noted that the majority of submissions did not support this proposal and a key theme from the feedback received is that there are limited safe alternative locations for water skiing on the Northern Beaches. There are also alternative locations on the Northern Beaches for the other sport and recreation activities held on the lake and for quiet time in nature. Though visiting Manly Dam is a unique experience highly valued by our community. There were also submissions in support of the proposal to reduce waterskiing times and the intended outcomes of this proposal from the Advisory Committee.

environmental considerations

The recommendations in this report do not pose additional environmental concerns as additional water ski use is not proposed. The environmental concerns raised through the community engagement will be investigated as part of Manly Dam environmental research to be undertaken in 2022/23 and in 2023/24 (or when funds are available).

governance and risk considerations

The Plan of Management (2014) stipulates that the water ski times at Manly Dam can be altered by Council resolution and without amendment to the Plan of Management.

[1] CSIRO, 2013, ‘Bushfires – Type, Measurement and Fuel’, Australian Government

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/worldpride-the-biggest-event-since-2000-olympics-to-reopen-sydney-to-the-world-20220530-p5apq8.html

ITEM 9.1	Funding Rollover from 2021/22 Budget
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Financial Planning and Systems
TRIM file REF	2022/382846
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇨Capital and Operational Expenditure - New Rollovers From 2021/22 to 2022/23 Financial Year (Included In Attachments Booklet)

	Bring forward from 2022/23 to 2021/22	Roll over from 2021/22 to 2022/23	Net roll over from 2021/22 to 2022/23
Capital projects	(188,924)	20,582,386	20,393,462
Operating projects	-	3,116,842	3,116,842
TOTAL	(188,924)	23,699,228	23,510,304

Project	$
CN01007. Collaroy-Narrabeen Coastal Protection Works	2,576,086	Capex
CN01198. Safer Schools Infrastructure	2,211,894	Capex
CN01125. Long Reef Surf Life Saving Club	1,099,481	Capex

ITEM 9.3	Review of Delegation of Authority to Chief Executive Officer
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Governance and Risk
TRIM file REF	2022/460486
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇩Delegation to Chief Executive Officer 28 August 2018 2 ⇩Delegation to Chief Executive Officer 2022 3 ⇩Power of Attorney

ITEM 14.1	Outcome of Public Exhibition of Additional Fees 2022/23
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Strategy and Performance
TRIM file REF	2022/354468
ATTACHMENTS	1 ⇩Community and Stakeholder Engagement Report 2 ⇩Meals on Wheels and Glen Street Theatre Additional Fees 2022/23

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 7.1 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 7.1	Mayoral Minute No 16/2022 - Congratulations - 60th Anniversary of the Forestville War Memorial Playing Fields Committee
TRIM file REF	2022/382958
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 7.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 7.2	Mayoral Minute No 17/2022- Congratulations to Stony Range Botanical Gardens - Celebrating 61st Anniversary
TRIM file REF	2022/480507
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 7.3 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 7.3	Mayoral Minute No 18/2022 - Recognition of Achievement at the 2022 Parks and Leisure Australia Excellence Awards
TRIM file REF	2022/487687
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 7.4 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 7.4	Mayoral Minute No 19/2022 - Recognition of Achievement – Voice Project - Change Champion Award
TRIM file REF	2022/498877
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 9.1 - 23 August 2022

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 9.3 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 10.1	Community Library Funding
REPORTING MANAGER	EXECUTIVE MANAGER LIBRARY SERVICES
TRIM file REF	2022/449974
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 10.1 - 23 August 2022

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 14.1 - 23 August 2022

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 14.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 14.2	Stronger Communities Fund - Quarterly Report
REPORTING MANAGER	Executive Manager Strategy and Performance
TRIM file REF	2022/470574
ATTACHMENTS	Nil

Program	Funding	Expenditure to 30 June 2022
Community Grants Program ¹	$1,000,000	$1,025,599
Connecting Communities Program ²	$14,000,000	$14,145,122
Tied Grants Program	$21,100,000	$17,002,768
Total	$36,100,000	$32,173,489

Program	SCF Funds	Status
Community Grants Program (SCF)	$1,025,599	Acquittal
Connecting Communities
· Cycleways	$3,249,433	Acquittal
· Pathways	$5,725,550	Ongoing
· Inclusive play	$3,170,138	Acquittal
· Active Play	$2,000,000	Acquittal
Sub Total	$14,145,122
Tied Grants
· Pasadena	$76,374	Acquittal
· Wakehurst Parkway	$1,011,785	Ongoing
· Mona Vale – Performing Arts Centre	$1,311,244	Ongoing
· Mona Vale SLSC	$4,422,500	Ongoing
· Long Reef SLSC	$3,176,000	Ongoing
· Currawong Beach Heritage refurbishment	$3,081,327	Acquittal
· Nth Pittwater Foreshore improvements	$1,920,000	Acquittal
· Scotland Island Wastewater Feasibility Study	$303,263	Acquittal
· Nth Pittwater permanent Netball Courts	$550,000	Acquittal
· Newport SLSC	$100,275	Acquittal
· Barrenjoey Performance Space	$1,050,000	Acquittal
Sub Total	$ 17,002,768
Total expenditure	$32,173,489

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 15.1 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 15.1	Notice of Motion No 27/2022 - Council Support for Sydney Worldpride 2023 Activities
TRIM file REF	2022/498211
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 15.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 15.2	Notice of Motion No 28/2022 - 60th Anniversary of the Melwood Playing Fields - Management Committee
TRIM file REF	2022/502227
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 15.3 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 15.3	Notice of Motion No 29/2022 - Endorsement of Nuclear Ban and Divest from Nuclear Weapons Manufacturers
TRIM file REF	2022/502775
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 16.1 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 16.1	Question With Notice No 9/2022 - Monitoring of Biodiversity in Manly Dam Catchment
TRIM file REF	2022/501174
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 16.2 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 16.2	Question With Notice No 10/2022 - Cultural Review
TRIM file REF	2022/502106
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 16.3 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 16.3	Question With Notice No 11/2022 - Thrive Your Home of Well-being
TRIM file REF	2022/502119
ATTACHMENTS	NIL

	Report To Ordinary Council MEETING
	ITEM NO. 17.1 - 23 August 2022

ITEM 17.1	Response to Question With Notice No 8/2022 - Staff Bullying and or Harassment Claims since Amalgamation
TRIM file REF	2022/463353
ATTACHMENTS	Nil