|
Attachment to Report No. WK36/11 Page 2 |
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item 22 WK36/11 Stormwater Drainage Design and Projects Prioritisation - Deferred Item from 20 April 2011 Ordinary Meeting
Late Item Information in respect of Report No. EN21/11 - Tree and Vegetation Protection Matters
Late Item Information in respect of Report No. CC35/11 - Council's Application for a Special Rate Variation to Commence from 2011/12
Executive Manager's Report No. WK36/11
Works Division
Date of Meeting: 15/06/2011
22 STORMWATER DRAINAGE DESIGN AND PROJECTS PRIORITISATION - DEFERRED ITEM FROM 20 APRIL 2011 ORDINARY MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council in considering Executive Manager’s Report No. WK19/11 at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 April 2011 resolved “THAT consideration of Executive Manager’s Report No. WK19/11 be deferred to allow an Informal Briefing Session of Councillors in respect of this matter.”
The Informal Workshop Briefing for Mayor and Councillors was held on 8 June 2011. At the conclusion of the briefing session, Councillors indicated their endorsement of the projects prioritisation model and the Major Drainage Projects Priority List.
Executive Manager’s Report No. WK19/11 is attached and the recommendation is unchanged.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to refresh and seek Council’s endorsements of the design of stormwater drainage systems and the model used in prioritising stormwater improvement projects.
DISCUSSION
The Informal Briefing Session of Councillors on Stormwater Drainage Projects Prioritisation was held on 8 June 2011.
The Manager, Assets Branch gave a briefing containing:
· Project Prioritisation Background
· Hornsby Shire Major Catchment Areas
· SCMPs Prepared
· Major Drainage Priority List
· Project Prioritisation Model Factors
· Problems/Issue for top 10 Projects
· Solution Toolkit (Drainage Design)
· Way Forward
At the conclusion of the briefing session, Councillors indicated their endorsement of the projects prioritisation model and the Major Drainage Projects Priority List.
BUDGET
As given in Executive Manager’s Report No. WK19/11 attached.
POLICY
As given in Executive Manager’s Report No. WK19/11 attached.
CONSULTATION
Informal Workshop Briefing for Mayor and Councillors on 8 June 2011.
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY
As given in Executive Manager’s Report No. WK19/11 attached.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
The responsible officer is the Manager, Assets Branch, Mr Chon-Sin Chua, telephone no. 9847 6677.
RECOMMENDATION
|
Maxwell Woodward Executive Manager Works Division |
|
|
1.View |
Executive Manager's Report No. WK19/11 - Stormwater Drainage Design and Projects Prioritisation |
|
|
File Reference: F2004/05959-02
Document Number: D01690843
Environment Division
Date of Meeting: 15/06/2011
|
ITEM 12 |
EN21/11 - Tree and Vegetation Protection Matters – Further Information |
Additional information with CHANGE to Recommendation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Attached advice examines the legal mechanism to levy a fee for the use of public land to offset the loss of trees from private land. The advice is that the use of Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) pursuant to development consent is an established mechanism. Use of development contributions is not recommended. VPAs would not be applicable to tree applications under either the Tree Preservation Order or the proposed Tree and Vegetation Protection Chapter of the Comprehensive Development Control Plan.
The report discusses trials of tree valuations, presented at Attachment 2. The trials have not been conclusive, and further trials are recommended prior to including the preferred method in an amended Green Offsets Code, to be brought to Council (when ready) for adoption. It is recommended that the Green Offsets Code be referenced in the abovementioned Tree and Vegetation Protection chapter, which is also recommended to be amended to make all tree applications development applications so as to enable the use of VPAs for all applications affecting trees.
A revised Tree Preservation Order, discussed in Report No. EN21/11 and forming Attachment 3 to this report, is recommended for adoption and gazettal.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to provide additional information to support Report No EN21/11 and to update the recommendation to take that information into account.
DISCUSSION
Planning Advice
Since the completion of Report EN21/11, advice has been received from planning consultants SJB Planning, on a legal mechanism for offsetting the loss of canopy trees in Hornsby Shire (Attachment 1).
In brief, the advice is that Section 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘the Act’) gives Council the power to set conditions of consent related to offsetting the loss of trees as a result of development. Section 79C lists matters of public importance as matters that may be considered in assessing Development Applications (DAs).
Council’s adopted Green Offsets Code is one such document that could be considered a matter of importance to be addressed in consent conditions. The implication of the advice is that the Green Offsets Code should be amended to include a method of calculating the cost of offsetting the loss of canopy trees.
Section 93A of the Act allows for the arrangement of a VPA between Council and a developer for the transfer of a monetary contribution for a public benefit (such as offsetting tree loss).
It is unlikely that development contributions could be levied under section 94 of the Act for a tree replacement program.
The advice is that a VPA is allowable pursuant to development consent but could not be part of consent under the Tree Preservation Order (TPO), or under the adopted Option 1 for the chapter in the Comprehensive DCP, where tree applications and tree permits are mentioned.
Instead, Option 1 for the Tree and Vegetation Chapter of the DCP should be amended to make all applications Development Applications. There would be DAs (general) where trees are affected, and DAs relating to trees only, where there are no building works involved.
Results of testing of tree valuation methods
Since Report EN21/11 was placed on the agenda, the Parks and Landscape Team has completed a report into an assessment of various methods of tree valuation (Attachment 2).
Six valuation methods were trialled on four trees of varying condition. The results show a wide variation in the values yielded by application of various methods to the same tree.
Already, since this round of trials, more methods have emerged that may be worthy of evaluation. More testing is required before it will be possible to recommend with confidence a method that will suit Council’s purpose: to calculate a fee to offset the cost of tree loss on private land by planting trees on public land.
One of the matters for consideration is adopting a valuation method that is fit for this purpose, or adapting a method to make it fit. Of the six methods evaluated, most are used for calculating bonds to be posted against the protection of trees at risk of damage during development site construction, or for asset management purposes.
Only the Newcastle City Council method is used to strike a fee for planting trees on public land. Under this system, a simple area measurement is used to calculate a biomass figure for the tree which is then expressed as an equivalent number of replacement trees to be planted, at a standard cost of $700 each. While it’s a simple and seemingly applicable method of calculation (and the only method tied to offset planting), it can yield values much lower than other methods trialled here.
None of the methods trialled considered land value, either on land occupied by a tree/s to be removed, or the land where offset trees are planted. As foreshadowed in EN21/11, a method that incorporates land value will be developed and trialled for evaluation.
A further report will be brought to Council when it is considered further evaluation of tree valuation methods has yielded a reliable result.
Amendments to the Green Offsets Code
Council’s adopted Green Offsets Code (GOC) has been cited in the planning advice received as a method of calculating the price to offset the loss of areas of native vegetation on public land. The advice notes that the GOC in its current form may not be applicable for the calculation of an offset price for the loss of a single tree because to use the area calculation used for vegetation would produce a negligible value for a single tree.
The GOC sets out firm principles, favouring as a first preference the retention of valuable vegetation on site. Where this cannot occur, offsetting the lost vegetation on the same site is the second preference. Only where this cannot occur is the option of offsetting the loss using public land open.
These same principles are applicable if the issue of tree loss is incorporated into the GOC.
It is recommended that after further trialling of tree valuation methods, a further report be brought to Council recommending the adoption of an amended GOC incorporating the best tree valuation method.
It is also recommended that the adopted Option 1 for the Tree and Vegetation Chapter of the Comprehensive Development Control Plan is amended to make all applications Development Applications, and to make reference to the GOC as the means that will be used to assess fees to offset tree loss.
BUDGET
There are no budget implications from this report.
POLICY
The report recommends changes to adopted policy.
CONSULTATION
The Planning Division and the Bushland and Biodiversity Team were consulted for this report.
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY
Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes.
As this report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
The responsible officer is Peter Kemp, Acting Executive Manager Environment, telephone 9847 6686, between 8.30am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.
RECOMMENDATION
|
1. That further investigation of the most suitable methods of tree valuations be conducted and the preferred method be incorporated into an amended Green Offsets Code through a further report .
2. The adopted Tree and Vegetation Chapter of the proposed Comprehensive Development Control Plan be amended to make all tree applications Development Applications and to incorporate the Green Offsets Code as the instrument for the setting of fees to offset the loss of trees and vegetation from private land.
3. The attached revised Tree Preservation Order be adopted for gazettal and public notification. |
|
1.View |
Attachment 1 - Draft Advice - Legal Mechanism for Offsetting the Loss of Canopy Trees |
|
|
|
2.View |
Attachment 2 - Tree Valuation Appraisal - June 2011 |
|
|
|
3.View |
Attachment 3 - Draft Revised TPO |
|
|
File Reference: F2010/00633
Document Number: D01691266
Corporate and Community Division
Date of Meeting: 15/06/2011
|
ITEM 10 |
CC35/11 - Council's Application for a Special Rate Variation to Commence from 2011/12 |
Additional information with CHANGE to Recommendation
Report No CC35/11 advises that at the Workshop Meeting held on 23 March 2011, Council adopted its Community Plan 2010-2020 and associated documents together with the rating structure to apply for 2011/12, subject to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART’s) determination of Council’s Special Rate Variation application.
Whilst no response in respect of Council’s application had been received when Report No CC35/11 was finalised, IPART provided details on 10 June 2011 of its decision to approve Council’s application. In this regard, a copy of the Executive Summary of IPART’s assessment of the application and a copy of the Instrument of Approval under Section 508A(1) of the Local Government Act are attached for Council’s information.
IPART’s advice in respect of Council’s application is that:
“We have decided to accept the special variation as requested by the council. We are allowing a special variation to its general income of 7.8% in 2011/12, 6.0% in 2012/13 and 4.0% in 2013/14. This amounts to an average increase of 3.0% a year above the assumed rate peg over the 3 years.”
Under a heading titled Summary of IPART’s assessment, it is stated:
“In assessing Hornsby Shire Council’s application, we found that the main purpose of the requested special variation was consistent with community priorities included in council’s strategic plans. We also found that the magnitude of the special variation means that its impact on ratepayers (in terms of increased rates), are moderate, averaging $62 per annum over 3 years (including the rate peg but excluding domestic waste management charges). In addition, we found that the council’s application adequately meets the 6 criteria in the Guidelines for s508A applications.”
IPART’s findings against each of the six criteria mentioned above are detailed on page 5 of the Executive Summary document.
IPART’s approval of Council’s application will now allow for the various works included in the proposed works program (contained in Appendix A of the Executive Summary document) to be planned and progressed. The program includes the replacement of the Hornsby Aquatic Centre; an extension to the Brickpit Indoor Sports Stadium; a contribution from Council to the George Street pedestrian overbridge; an increased commitment to road improvements; the construction of additional footpaths; matching funds from Council in respect of cycleway projects; an increased commitment to stormwater drainage improvements; improvements to amenities at local ovals, parks and playgrounds; an increased commitment to community building improvements; and upgrades to foreshore facilities.
It is noted that IPART’s approval of Council’s application is subject to the following two conditions:
1. The council uses the Additional Income for the purposes of funding the infrastructure program consistent with council’s application (as listed in Appendix A of IPART’s determination dated June 2011 of the council’s application under section 508A(1) of the Act (IPART’s Determination).
Additional Income means:
a) the additional general income raised in accordance with clause 1 of this Order, less
b) the additional general income that would otherwise be available to the council under section 506 of the Act
2. The council reports in its annual report for each rating year over the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21 on:
a) expenditure on the infrastructure program as listed in Appendix A of IPART’s Determination;
b) the outcomes achieved as a result of the special variation;
c) its asset renewal and maintenance expenditure;
d) its actual productivity savings achieved; and
e) any significant variations from its financial results as forecast in its Long Term Financial Plan and any corrective action taken or to be taken
__________________________________
As mentioned above, on 23 March 2011 Council adopted its Community Plan 2010-2020 and associated documents together with the rating structure to apply for 2011/12, subject to IPART’s determination of Council’s Special Rate Variation application. As the application has now been approved, the adopted rating structure for 2011/12 is appropriate and does not require any further resolution by Council.
In Report No CC35/11, it was noted that irrespective of whether Council’s Special Rate Variation application was approved or not, Council will, in the short term, need to determine the specifics of expenditure savings to be achieved in the 2011/12 Budget and beyond. In this regard, Council’s Special Rate Variation application was predicated on the basis that savings of at least $1,450,000 per annum would be achieved across the organisation in the 2011/12 and future Budgets to contribute to the achievement of the program of works/services detailed in Council’s application.
Also, during the public exhibition of the proposed Special Rate Variation, representations were made by the cricket organisations that the adopted increase for the hire of Class 1 cricket grounds (i.e. those with turf pitches) should be reviewed if Council’s application was approved. There are also potentially other fees and charges which have been adopted for 2011/12 (e.g. foodshop inspections) which may now also require further consideration.
To allow all options available to be fully explored, it is recommended that proposed expenditure savings for 2011/12 (and future years as appropriate) and any proposed changes to fees and charges be further discussed with Councillors at an informal briefing/workshop on 29 June 2011, prior to any changes being formally considered and determined by Council at the 21 July 2011 Ordinary Meeting.
|
1. The contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC35/11, the Late Items information associated with that Report, and the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s decision in respect of Council’s Special Rate Variation application be received and noted.
2. Council confirm the adoption of its Community Plan 2010-2020 and associated documents together with the rating structure to apply for 2011/12, in line with Council’s resolution in respect General Manager’s Report No. GM6/11 at the 25 March 2011 Workshop Meeting.
3. Having regard to Council’s Special Rate Variation application being predicated on the basis that savings of at least $1,450,000 per annum would be achieved across the organisation in the 2011/12 and future Budgets to contribute to the achievement of the program of works/services detailed in Council’s application, the issues of savings and adjustments to fees and charges be the subject of discussion at an informal briefing/workshop of Councillors on 29 June 2011, prior to being formally considered and determined by Council at the 21 July 2011 Ordinary Meeting.
|
|
1.View |
IPART Local Government - Determination - Executive Summary June 2011 |
|
|
|
2.View |
IPART Instrument Under Section 508A(1) |
|
|
File Reference: F2010/00460
Document Number: D01691374
