Agenda of Council Meeting - Tuesday, 17 May 2022

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

HELD IN Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange

ON 3 May 2022

COMMENCING AT 6:30pm

Attendance

Cr J Hamling (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power (Deputy Mayor), Cr J Whitton

Chief Executive Officer, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Director Technical Services, Executive Support Manager, Executive Support Admin Officer

1.1 APOLOGIES

Nil

1.2 LIVESTREAMING AND RECORDING

The Mayor advised that the meeting was being livestreamed and recorded.

1.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Mayor conducted an Acknowledgement of Country.

1.4 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests

Cr Power declared a Significant Pecuniary Interest in FPC Item 2.2 - Request for Financial Assistance – Small Donations Program Round 4 – 2021/22 as his catering company is providing catering for the Central West Women’s Forum event in this application.

1.5 OPENING PRAYER

Mrs Soheila Fadaee and Mr Mat Ramirez of the Bahá'ís of Orange led the Council in Prayer.

THERE WAS NO OPEN FORUM.

2 Mayoral Minutes

Nil

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 22/128 Cr J Whitton/Cr S Peterson

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 19 April 2022 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 19 April 2022.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 6:35PM.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 7:00PM.

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1 Notice of Motion - Community Committee Information

TRIM Reference: 2022/637

RESOLVED - 22/138 Cr S Peterson/Cr K Duffy

That Council resolves:

1 That Council’s website and social media keep a publicly available updated diary of community committee meeting dates, times and locations.

2 That periodically information is sent out via social media to encourage community attendance.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

4.2 Notice of Motion - Road Namings

TRIM Reference: 2022/638

MOTION Cr S Peterson/Cr D Mallard

That Council seek community suggestions for names of common historical people with strong links to Orange whose names could be considered for the names of new roads.

AMENDMENT Cr J Whitton/Cr K Duffy

That Council seek community suggestions for names of prominent historical people with strong links to Orange whose names could be considered for the names of new roads and streets.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

The amendment on being put was carried and became the motion.

The motion on being put was carried.

RESOLVED - 22/139 Cr J Whitton/Cr K Duffy

That Council seek community suggestions for names of prominent historical people with strong links to Orange whose names could be considered for the names of new roads and streets.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

4.3 Notice of Motion - Community Consultation on the Orange Function Centre

TRIM Reference: 2022/679

RESOLVED - 22/140 Cr T Greenhalgh/Cr K Duffy

That Council resolves:

1 To engage with the Orange Community through online and face to face consultations on the future use of the Orange Function Centre.

2 That after community feedback is received from consultation, Council draft a Master Plan for the Orange Function Centre to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

3 That Council be updated on the history of notable works and upgrades of the Orange Function Centre to date.

4 That Council be provided with information about any proposed upgrades and costings.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

Cr Mileto noted that Council had looked at options for this building in the last term of Council.

The Chief Executive Officer stated yes the last term or the term before, the Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services brought a report to Council on several options on what to do with the Function Centre including information such as costs to a certain standard, issues around asbestos and whether it could be upgraded or demolished.

MATTER ARISING Cr T Mileto

Cr Mileto requested that Councillors be provided with the report that was put to Council on the future options of the Function Centre.

Cr Mileto asked if Council is considering a new Function Centre at the new sporting precinct site.

The Chief Executive Officer stated that no, the design is for a sports stadium.

Cr Hamling asked to clarify that the Ex-Services Club holds around 400 people and whether the function centre hold approximately 700 people.

The Chief Executive Officer stated he thought that was the scale of it.

Cr Duffy asked why there was no staff comment on this Notice of Motion.

The Chief Executive Officer stated that Council has extensive work to do under this motion and that a large report is necessary, a brief comment would not have done in this case but happy to always provide staff comment.

Cr Kinghorne asked how old the Function Centre was and what was its heritage status. She also noted that there was obviously an emotional attachment to this facility by the community and whether alternative sites had been identified.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated that it has no heritage status and that the Function Centre recently celebrated its 50 year birthday so around 53 years old.

Yes, there appears to be an attachment and Council’s ultimate decision would be to propose to upgrade a very old building, where there is significant asbestos content, or demolish it and start again. Council does not own an alternative site currently but in the past the parcel of land at the top of Hill street was identified as a possible site for a new function centre.

5 General Reports

5.1 NSW Local Roads Congress

TRIM Reference: 2022/431

RESOLVED - 22/141 Cr J Whitton/Cr J Evans

That Councillors J Evans and K Duffy attend the NSW Local Roads Congress to be held on Monday 6 June 2022.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

5.2 Funerals at Botanic Gardens - Post Exhibition

TRIM Reference: 2022/418

MOTION Cr K Duffy/Cr T Mileto

That Council resolves:

1 That Council permit funerals, including the presence of a coffin, to be conducted at the Orange Botanic Gardens within the Lawn Area of the Native Garden Display or within the Clover Hill Function Centre with appropriate signage in place; and

2 That Council limits the days on which funerals can be held at the Orange Botanic Gardens to weekdays only and only one funeral per day; and

3 That the fee for the conduct of funeral services at the Orange Botanic Gardens be confirmed at $300 excluding GST.

4 That a trial period be undertaken until the end of May 2023

AMENDMENT Cr J Whitton/Cr T Greenhalgh

That Council resolves:

2 That Council limits the days on which funerals can be held at the Orange Botanic Gardens to weekdays only and only one funeral per day; and

3 That the fee for the conduct of funeral services at the Orange Botanic Gardens be confirmed at $300 excluding GST.

For: Cr J Evans, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell,

Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power, Cr J Whitton

Against: Cr J Hamling, Cr G Floyd, Cr K Duffy, Cr T Mileto

Absent: Nil

The amendment on being put was carried and became the motion.

The motion on being put was carried.

RESOLVED - 22/142 Cr J Whitton/Cr T Greenhalgh

That Council resolves:

2 That Council limits the days on which funerals can be held at the Orange Botanic Gardens to weekdays only and only one funeral per day; and

3 That the fee for the conduct of funeral services at the Orange Botanic Gardens be confirmed at $300 excluding GST.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Cr K Duffy

Absent: Nil

Cr Kinghorne asked was there feedback that wasn’t online and did we speak to the Friends of the Botanic Gardens (FOBG) group.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated yes consultation was had with the FOBG, there was opposition to the idea expressed by those members, we did receive written submissions by email for this proposal as well.

Cr Kinghorne asked what the basis for FOBG objections was.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated they personally thought it was not appropriate to have funerals in an open space with coffins present.

Cr Duffy asked why there was not a Submission Redactions report with the submissions listed for Councillor information.

The Chief Executive Officer said that this practice was only necessary for Planning matters.

Cr Floyd asked if there can there be delineated areas around funerals, what barricading would there be and the cost to Council.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said the proposal would be that we delineate the area with signage and the area proposed is able to be sectioned off, to get to the area you would have to walk past those signs and you would have to choose to walk past or not, signage would be minimal cost, part of the fee would cover the cost of the preparation of the area and contribute to signage.

Cr Floyd asked if you want to get into that area is it a conscious decision you make.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said you would have to walk past signage, yes.

5.3 Temporary Indoor Winter Playground Update

TRIM Reference: 2022/630

RESOLVED - 22/143 Cr M McDonell/Cr T Greenhalgh

That Council resolves:

1 That the report by the Chief Executive Officer be noted;

2 That Council endorse the use of the Indoor Tennis Centre as a temporary indoor playground for Winter 2022, subject to final negotiations with the Club;

3 That Council endorses the use of the Carl Sharpe Cricket Centre in the event that the Tennis Centre option is not acceptable to the Club.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

Cr Mileto asked if this would be funded by unused money from this year and how much is unused in this year’s budget.

The Chief Executive Officer said that he did not know the exact number but was confident that Council could find the funds for this operation.

Cr Mileto asked if some of this money will carry over into next year’s budget.

The Chief Executive Officer said he would have to find a staff position that is not filled to find funds, and believed there was at least one unfilled position that could fund this operation.

5.4 Project Activities May 2022

TRIM Reference: 2022/631

RESOLVED - 22/144 Cr J Whitton/Cr J Evans

That the information in the report on Projects be acknowledged.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

Cr Whitton asked what is Moulder Park, Rage Cage, on page 49 line 8.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated that this is a proprietary name, is a multi-sport product, think of a netball court perimeter fencing and within that there is multiple sports, across the court basketball, lengthwise soccer goals built into each end, netball court on another part, hit up area for tennis and handball.

Cr McDonell asked if it is fenced and if it is locked.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said no its not locked.

The Chief Executive Officer asked the Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services to tell Councillors about the Matthews Park Playground.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated that after many delays through weather it is being completed now and due for completion at the end of this month, this is a FutureCities project, another playground in the centre of town.

Cr Mileto asked with regards to projects moving forward to 22/23, drainage down the side of Jack Brabham 1 and 4 and 2 and 3 swamps on either side and is there any focus by Council to address that ongoing drainage issue which causes major problems every year.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated yes once the multi-fields are completed, drainage works will be undertaken as part of this, there will be some levelling and different height adjustment on those existing fields.

Cr Mileto asked if that remediation would occur on the western side of Jack Brabham Park, where fields are flat which causes problems.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said yes this is an issue that will be addressed, the irrigation in that north-western corner is the issue for that area, a circus there some years ago was the root of the problem and part of that remediation work is planned to be undertaken.

MATTER ARISING Cr K Duffy

Cr Duffy asked that Councillors be advised when works were going to be done on Rutherford Road.

MATTER ARISING Cr J Whitton

Cr Whitton asked that Councillors be advised why there is a safety mat resting over electrical wires on a light pole on Jack Brabham Park.

Cr Kinghorne asked why Spring Hill oval is still in the planning stage on the project list, what does this mean, how does this work.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services stated that the Crown Land Trust received some funding for that project at the end of last year so it has been left on the project list as a job to be completed but Council are not proposing to fund it at this point. Council will assist the Trust on this project.

Cr Evans asked about the water fountain in Robertson Park and what was the timeframe on this project.

The Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services said that staff have a solution for the pump and functioning of the fountain itself, works have been commissioned and should not be too far away, the second stage restoration proposed for the fountain includes some identified works to restore the spire in the middle. These are significant ($200K) plus repair works, it was inspected 2 weeks ago and staff will come back to Council with different options.

6 Closed Meeting

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in Section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt with in a Confidential Session of the Council meeting closed to the press and public.

In response to a question from the Mayor, the Chief Executive Officer advised that no written submissions had been received relating to any item listed for consideration by the Closed Meeting of Council.

The Mayor extended an invitation to any member of the public present at the meeting to make a presentation to the Council as to whether the meeting should be closed for a particular item.

RESOLVED - 22/145 Cr J Whitton/Cr K Duffy

That Council adjourn into a Closed Meeting and members of the press and public be excluded from the Closed Meeting, and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Meeting be withheld unless declassified by separate resolution. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:

6.1 Tender - Water Meter Readings 2022-2025

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (d)i commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council adjourned for the conduct of the Closed Meeting at 7:55pm.

The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council resumed at 8:20pm.

7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting

The Chief Executive Officer read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.

6.1 Tender - Water Meter Readings 2022-2025

TRIM Reference: 2022/602

RESOLVED - 22/146 Cr K Duffy/Cr T Mileto

1 That Council accepts the tender from Skilltech Consulting Services Pty Ltd to provide water meter reading services for a period of three years at the rate of $2.57 per meter in residential and commercial locations and $4.87 per meter in rural, village and industrial locations.

2 That permission be granted to use the Council Seal on any relevant document if required.

For: Cr J Hamling, Cr K Duffy, Cr J Evans, Cr G Floyd, Cr T Greenhalgh, Cr F Kinghorne,

Cr D Mallard, Cr M McDonell, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power , Cr J Whitton

Against: Nil

Absent: Nil

QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr F Kinghorne

Cr Kinghorne asked that Councillors be advised how much will be saved by Council when Smart meters are installed.

The Meeting Closed at 8:27pm.

This is Page Number 180 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 3 May 2022.

Council Meeting 17 May 2022

5.3 Request for Financial Assistance - Event Sponsorship Round 3 & 4 - 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022 - Funding Events Retrospectively.

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/680

AUTHOR: Kristina Gottschall-Finkel, Grants Officer

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information for Council’s consideration in respect of two funding submissions previously considered by Council on 15 March 2022.

This report was requested by Council in response to the personal representation made to Council by Nicholas Drage (DR Gaming Pty Ltd) on 19 April 2022 concerning his unsuccessful application for event sponsorship. Given the similar circumstances concerning a submission from Wangarang Industries Ltd further information has been sought from that applicant as well and included in this report.

LINK TO DELIVERY/OPERATIONAL PLAN

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “11.2 Prosper - Develop and attract a variety of events, festivals, venues and activities for locals and visitors, ensuring accessibility for all”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$4,000 in sponsorship to the Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge (Round 3) and $1,276.50 to the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers (Round 3). The allocated budget for the Sponsored Events program is $100,000.00 for the 2021/22 Financial Year with remaining budget to fund these two grant applications.

Applications are assessed in accordance with Strategic Policy ST144 – Events Sponsorship Policy.

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 That the additional information provided in this report concerning two submissions in Round 3 of Council’s Events Sponsorship fund for the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers and Wangarang Golf Challenge is noted.

2 To make a decision on the provision of funding to Nicholas Drage (DR Gaming Pty Ltd and Wangarang Industries Ltd based on this information.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:


Financial	The maximum available funding for Rounds 3 and 4 is $41,938.20. Council may choose to spend less than this amount or the amount requested if they think it is appropriate.
Reputation	Failure to adequately respond to the community applying for funding assistance, especially when reviews have been requested by applicants, can potentially cause reputational damage to Council, and damage relationships with stakeholders.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A report was submitted to Council on 15 March 2022 titled ‘Request for Financial Assistance - Event Sponsorship Rounds 3 & 4 - 1 January 2022’ (Record Number 2022/283). It should be noted that contrary to standard practice, Round Three and Round Four submissions were presented in the same report because of Council being in caretaker mode from the period 5 November 2021 to 1 February 2022.

The report detailed five submissions seeking financial support from the Council’s Event Sponsorship program:

1. $4,000 in sponsorship to the Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge (Round 3).

2. $1,000 to the City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament (Round 3).

3. $1,276.50 to the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers (Round 3).

4. $2,000 to ‘Live at Yours’ (Round 4).

5. $5,500 to Housing Plus’ White Tie Ball (Round 4).

The report also noted that the events for which funding submissions were made to Round Three had occurred prior to Council receiving due to Council being in caretaker mode because of the delayed Local Government elections.

Officer recommendations in relation to the five submissions were as follows:

1. $4,000 to the Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge – Not recommended.

2. $1,000 to the City of Orange Veterans Week of Golf Tournament – Not recommended.

3. $1,276.50 to the Yu-Gi-Oh! WCQ Regional Qualifiers – Not recommended.

4. $2,000 to ‘Live at Yours’ – Recommended.

5. $5,500 to Housing Plus’ White Tie Ball – Recommended.

At the meeting on 15 March 2022 Council resolved to accept the officer recommendations in relation to submissions one, three, four and five (as listed above), but amended the recommendation in relation to submission two to approve $1,000 in sponsorship.

Following the representation made to the Council by Nicholas Drage at the Council Meeting on 19 April 2022 in respect of submission three Council resolved that ‘a report be prepared for Council to consider the matter of Financial Assistance – Event Sponsorship – Yu-Gi-Oh? WCQ Regional Qualifiers’ (Resolution 22/112).

Yu-Gi-Oh application – DR Gaming Pty Ltd applied for $1,276.50 under the ‘Incubator Event Fund’ funding stream. This funding stream provides seed funding for events in their 1^st or 2^nd year, to assist them get up and running. Eligibility criteria includes:

· Sound organisational planning

· Unique alignment with regional character and culture of O360 regional tourism objectives

· Demonstrates broad appeal, likely to promote tourism and attract overnight visitation

· Demonstrated strong event marketing

· Demonstrated strong support and partnerships

· Support of Orange City Council

(The full criteria for this funding stream is on page four of the ‘2022-2023 Event Sponsorship Program Guidelines’ found at https://www.orange.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/EventsSponsorshipProgram_Guidelines_2022_23_v3.pdf)

The applicant assumed attendance of approx. 150 in their application and estimated that 75% of players would travel to Orange from outside the region, all of whom could potentially support the local hospitality sector. Recent/post-event information provided to Council officers indicates that 66 people registered for the event, or whom 48 were from outside the Orange region. The event organiser stated that several players who were expected to register did not, due to Covid restrictions.

Wangarang Industries was also approached to provide additional information to ensure the same opportunity was given to Wangarang as given to DR Gaming Pty Ltd.

Wangarang Charity Golf Challenge – Wangarang Industries Ltd applied for under the ‘Flagship Event Fund’ funding stream. This funding stream ‘identifies and assists the development of events that contribute to the Orange360 tourism region and can demonstrate they attract overnight visitation’ (OCC ‘2022-2023 Event Sponsorship Program Guidelines’). Eligibility criteria includes:

· The event must have a well-developed marketing plan, delivering audience growth

· The event must attract over 1,000 attendees

· Demonstrate and economic impact to the region of more than $150,000

· Demonstrate engagement with the local tourism industry, driving visitation

(The full criterion can be found on page five of the ‘2022-2023 Event Sponsorship Program Guidelines’ at the link above)

The applicant has provided the following additional information. This year was the 12^th year the Challenge has been run, and the applicant estimated that approx. 150 people would attend. Whilst most players are from Orange (businesses), many players travel to Orange for the event, often bringing their families with them. Information provided to the Council during the preparation of this report indicates that circa 160 players participated in the Challenge, of whom 35% were from outside the Orange region. According to the organisers all visitors to Orange had booked two nights’ accommodation. 25% of the players had family and friends with them, resulting in 295 visitors in total (as per estimates from the organisers).

Council Meeting 17 May 2022

5.4 Quarterly Budget Review and Progress Report - Quarter 3 of 2021/2022

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/757

AUTHOR: Pat McDonald, Acting Chief Financial Officer

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report provides the third quarter review of the 2019-2022 Delivery/Operational Plan, as required under section 403 of the Local Government Act 1993. This report illustrates the progress Council is making on the strategies and tasks identified in its strategic planning documents.

This report also provides a summary of Council’s financial position over the quarter. The Directions (Collaborate, Live, Prosper, Preserve) financial summary tables with the attached Performance Indicators and quarterly review documents have been reviewed and updated and include projects across all three funds (General, Water and Sewer).

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.

Financial Implications

The Quarterly Review has identified favourable variations totalling $1,394,220 to Council’s adopted December 2021 quarterly budget. The effect of these variations results in Council’s projected overall year-end consolidated position improving slightly to a smaller deficit of $1,086,528 including capital.

Table 1 below presents Council’s projected year-end result by Direction as identified in the Community Strategic Plan and the Delivery/Operational Plan. It is important to note that all red bracketed numbers in Tables 1-3 below indicate a surplus result for Council.

Direction	Adopted Budget	Proposed Variations	Proposed Budget
Collaborate	(24,502,966)	(116,374)	(24,619,340)
Live	18,589,078	555,455	19,144,533
Prosper	(3,191,605)	89,548	(3,102,057)
Preserve	11,586,241	(1,922,849)	9,663,392
Total	2,480,748	(1,394,220)	1,086,528

Table 1: Projected year-end position by Direction

Table 2 presents Council’s projected year-end result by Fund, showing Cost to Council (which includes capital expenditure, capital income and funding).

Fund	Adopted Budget	Proposed Variations	Proposed Budget
General	4,739,929	64,780	4,804,709
Water	(910,204)	(1,449,000)	(2,359,204)
Sewer	(1,348,977)	(10,000)	(1,358,977)
Total	2,480,748	(1,394,220)	1,086,528

Table 2: Projected year-end position by Fund

Table 3 presents Council’s projected year-end Operating Result (before capital) by Fund.

Fund	Adopted Budget	Proposed Variations	Proposed Budget
General	3,495,471	1,515,000	5,010,471
Water	(66,617)	(535,000)	(601,617)
Sewer	(1,257,235)	90,000	(1,167,235)
Total	2,171,619	1,070,000	3,241,619

Table 3: Projected year-end operating result by Fund

Material changes to budget in the March quarterly review

Further information on the individual variations proposed as part of this review, which have a material effect on Council’s financial results, is detailed in Tables 4 to 9 below.

While there are a number of minor variations detailed in the Tables, the significant contributors to the overall net variation are the deferment of water meter replacements, CBD water mains realignment and renewal not occurring, Sewer mains relining not occurring, and an increase in depreciation costs as a result of asset revaluations.

Table 4: General Fund Operating Result

Table 5: General Fund Overall Cost to Council

Table 6: Water Fund Operating Result

Table 7: Water Fund Overall Cost to Council

Table 8: Sewer Fund Operating Result

Table 9: Sewer Fund Overall Cost to Council

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 That the information provided in the report on the quarterly budget for January 2022 to March 2022 be acknowledged.

2 The bank reconciliation statement be acknowledged.

3 To adopt favourable variations in the consolidated overall cost to council arising from the March 2022 quarterly review amounting to $1,394,220.

further considerations

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:

Service Delivery

The Performance Indicators highlight progress in achieving the strategies and actions set by Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan. The “traffic light” indicators show the status of each task. A green light indicates the task is on track. An amber light suggests some delay and a red light is provided to those tasks that are unable to be achieved. All tasks have a comment that indicates progress.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Highlights of the Quarter

· The Orange Civic Theatre launch as a 27-show season to celebrate the return of live theatre to Orange. The season began with a home-grown production the Orange Theatre Company’s Mamma Mia.

· The proposal to build a 100 km network of mountain bike trails on Mt Canobolas reached a new milestone with Orange City Council lodging the paper-work to seek State Government planning approval. After 12 months of investigation by a team of environmental consultants, archaeologists and track design experts, Council lodged the application with the Department of Industry Planning and Environment (DPIE) for the project to be considered as a State Significant Development (SSD).

· Ongoing labour shortages linked to the COVID pandemic left their mark on Orange City Council’s weekly bin collections in January. Council’s waste contractor JR Richards was experiencing the worst shortages of labour since the latest round of the pandemic began.

· Concerns about water security and affordable housing emerged as key issues in the first round of responses to Orange City Council’s new draft Housing Strategy. There were more than 900 visits to the YourSay Orange site that was used to collect feed-back about the draft Housing Strategy since it was launched last October. Two face-to-face community information sessions were also held on 9 February and 10 February.

· The latest of Orange City Council’s FutureCity Public Art projects was completed. Sydney-based artist Liz Shreeve created a mural on the wall of the Woolworths supermarket building in Anson Street.

· The decision by the Western Regional Planning Panel to give planning approval for the proposed $25 million sports precinct alongside Sir Jack Brabham Park was welcomed. The WRPP announced their decision in February after holding an earlier hearing in Orange. The next stage of on-site tree-removal work began in March.

· A team supported by Orange City Council took a warning about how to prevent elder abuse to local towns. The ‘Older, Wiser, Safer’ regional roadshow conducted a tour of 13 central west towns.

· Orange City Council staged its annual discounted desexing program to reduce the number of unwanted kittens and stray cats in Orange. Pensioner concession card holders could have their cat desexed for $66, which includes microchipping and registration if needed.

· The Council invited local residents to share what they love about the Robertson Park and what they want improved. Council is working with expert consultants, Betteridge Heritage and Tree Wise Men, to prepare conservation management documents to guide the future care and development of the park.

Other Expenses

The format of the attached financial reports and the financial statements is prescribed. Council has requested details of the “Other Expenses” element in the statements given the value of this item. The additional information is provided in Table 10 below. As at the end of March 2022, actual expenses were below budget at 60 per cent of the annual budget.

Table 10: Details of other expenses

Review of Income

Figure 1 below provides a snapshot of the split of Council’s income against budget.

Figure 1: Council’s income as a percentage of annual budget as at 31 March 2022

Income streams such as User Charges and Fees and Other Revenues are currently slightly above budget but generally their rate of receipt is consistent throughout the year.

As Council’s annual rates are levied in July of each year, this income is almost fully recognised in the first quarter.

Other income streams are subject to external influences including interest rates, occurrences of development, or the success of grant applications. These income streams are routinely reviewed, and adjusted as appropriate, at each quarterly review.

On the assumption that all income is received at a constant consistent rate over the year, by the end of the March quarter 75 per cent should have been received. However, given the recognition of almost all rates and annual charges in the first quarter, approximately 83 per cent of revenue should have been received. The “all income” bar of Figure 1 shows progress is below this expected figure due mainly to the timing of interest due and capital grants and contributions not yet received.

Rates and Charges Collection

For the quarter, a total of $5.3 million (8.95 per cent) remained outstanding for rates and annual charges. For the purposes of comparison, for the same quarter last financial year 8.65 per cent of the amount payable remained outstanding.

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Outstanding rates Q3 2021/22 vs Q3 2020/21

Review of Operating Expenditure

Figure 3 provides a snapshot of the progress of Council’s operating expenditure.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Details of Council’s expenditure as a percentage of annual budget as at 31 March 2022

In general, Council’s routine operational expenses should be incurred at a consistent rate. These include expense groupings such as Employee Costs, Materials and Contracts, Plant Expenses, Depreciation and Other Expenses. As presented in Figure 3 above, most of these expense groups are slightly below budget.

Council rates for Council-owned properties are paid in full at the start of the year, however these are a minor component of overall expenses.

On the assumption that all expenses are incurred at a constant consistent rate over the year, by the end of the March quarter 75 per cent should have been paid out. The “all expenditure” bar of Figure 3 shows performance is better than budget.

Review of Capital Expenditure

Figures 4 to 6 below provide a snapshot of the progress of Council’s capital expenditure against budget by fund. It is important to note that some projects have to await confirmation of grants being secured before being able to proceed.

Figure 4: General Fund Capital Projects – Progress by number of projects as at 31 March 2022

Chart, sunburst chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: Water Fund Capital Projects – Progress by number of projects as at 31 March 2022

Figure 6: Sewer Fund Capital Projects – Progress by number of projects as at 31 March 2022

Financial Performance Indicators

Figures 7 to 9 below represent financial performance against local government industry indicators from the annual financial statements. The charts compare annualised actual performance from 2020/21 against the original 2021/22 budget, the Q1 revised 2021/22 budget and the proposed Q2 revised 2021/22 budget.

Figure 7: Operating performance ratio

The purpose of the operating performance ratio is to measure the extent to which Council succeeds in containing operating expenditure within operating revenue (excluding capital grants and contributions). The formula is as follows:

(Total continuing operations revenue excluding capital grants and contributions minus operating expenses) divided by (Total continuing operations revenue excluding capital grants and contributions)

The performance to date indicates Council is tracking below the benchmark due mainly to the forecast operating deficit for the 2021/22 year when compared to the operating surplus achieved in 2020/21.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 8: Own source operating revenue ratio

The purpose of the own source operating revenue ratio is to measure fiscal flexibility by analysing the degree of reliance on external funding sources. The formula is as follows:

(Total continuing operations revenue minus all grants and contributions) divided by

(Total continuing operations revenue inclusive of all grants and contributions)

The performance to date indicates Council is below the benchmark, with a significant increase in the level of funding expected to come from capital grants and contributions for major projects in 2021/22.

Figure 9: debt service cover ratio

The purpose of the debt service cover ratio is to measure the availability of operating cash to service debt including interest, principal and lease payments. The formula is as follows:

(Operating results before capital excluding interest and depreciation) divided by

(Principal repayments from the cashflow statement plus borrowing costs from the income statement)

The performance to date indicates Council is tracking in advance of the benchmark. The budgeted performance is below the 2020/21 ratio due to the surplus operating result achieved in 2020/21 combined with lower loan repayments and interest than is forecast for 2021/22.

Bank Reconciliation

In addition to the information presented in the report, the latest bank reconciliation report is attached for Council’s information.

Report by Responsible Accounting Officer

The following statement is made in accordance with Clause 203(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021:

As the Responsible Accounting Officer, it is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Orange City Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2022 indicates that Council’s projected financial position for 30 June 2022 will be satisfactory having regard to the project estimates of income and expenditure, and variations contained therein.

Pat McDonald, Responsible Accounting Officer

Attachments

1 March 2022 Quarterly Bank Reconciliation, D22/26442 ⇩

2 Council Summary Report March Review, D22/26458 ⇩

Council Meeting 17 May 2022

5.5 Statement of Investments - April 2022

TRIM REFERENCE: 2022/682

AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as of 30 April 2022.

Link To Delivery/Operational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 To note the Statement of Investments as of 30 April 2022.

2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

Further Considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

Supporting Information

Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

As of 30 April 2022, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:

	30/04/2022	31/03/2022
General Fund	71,046,890.48	67,419,120.75
Water Fund	69,256,144.62	73,341,939.30
Sewer Fund	60,411,961.90	60,507,928.33
Total Funds	$200,714,997.00	$201,268,988.38

A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:

	30/04/2022	31/03/2022
Externally Restricted
- General Fund	31,306,774.97	31,296,011.77
- Water Fund	69,256,144.62	73,341,939.30
- Sewer Fund	60,411,961.90	60,507,928.33
Internally Restricted	31,326,433.51	27,975,765.51
Unrestricted	8,413,682.00	8,147,343.47
Total Funds	$200,714,997.00	$201,268,988.38

Externally restricted funds are those funds that have been received for a specific purpose and may only be used for the purpose that they have been received, for example, the money received for Water access and usage charges by legislation are only available to be spent for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Water supply network.

Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose, but Council can have that purpose changed.

Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day-to-day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.

The unrestricted cash position movements during the month are normal as projects commence and income is received. Movements may also arise following processing of income received between funds or into restricted assets to appropriately allocate for the purposes Council has determined. Council’s cash flow is monitored daily, and some investments may be redeemed rather than rolled over to support operational requirements.

Portfolio Advice

Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.

Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:

· Quarterly portfolio summary reports

· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products

· Advice on policy construction

· Year-end market values for Floating Rate Note products held by Council.

Portfolio Performance

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as of 30 April 2022 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.30 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e., the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).

Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused on long term investments. As of 30 April 2022, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 1.30 per cent.

Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.

The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by the Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.

Table 1 shows the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each term to maturity allocation in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy.

Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	14.30%	85.70%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	33.49%	66.51%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	13.65%	56.35%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	38.57%	11.43%
>5 Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

Table 2 shows the total amount held, and the weighted average interest rate (or return on investment), by credit rating. The credit rating is an independent opinion of the capability and willingness of a financial institution to repay its debts, or in other words, the providers’ financial strength or creditworthiness. The rating is typically calculated as the likelihood of a failure occurring over a given period, with the higher rating (AAA) being superior due to having a lower chance of default. However, it is generally accepted that this lower risk will be accompanied by a lower return on investment.

The level of money held in the bank accounts has been added to the table to illustrate the ability of Council to cover the operational liabilities that typically occur (for example payroll, materials and contracts, utilities).

Table 2: Credit Rating Limits

Credit Rating	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity	Value	Return on Investment
Bank Accounts	100.00%	6.92%	93.08%	$13,893,301.72	0.10%
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%	N/A	N/A
AA	100.00%	60.25%	39.75%	$120,937,732.00	1.31%
A	60.00%	12.37%	47.53%	$24,825,303.56	1.62%
BBB & NR	40.00%	20.46%	19.54%	$41,058,659.72	1.06%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	N/A	N/A

Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer

I, Patrick McDonald, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Council Meeting 17 May 2022

5.6 Development Application DA 304/2007(2) - 5 Borrodell Drive

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/519

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Application lodged	17 February 2022
Applicant/s	Martin Gleeson Pty Limited
Owner/s	Mr GM Gleeson and Ms PM Erhart
Land description	Lot 22 DP 791830 - 5 Borrodell Drive, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (nine lot residential) and Demolition (tree removal)
Value of proposed development	Not applicable

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 304/2007(1) for proposed Subdivision (nine lot residential) and Demolition (tree removal) at Lot 22 DP 791830 - 5 Borrodell Drive, Orange.

The application is made pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The original development (approved 5 September 2007) involves subdivision of the parent parcel to create nine (9) residential lots and one (1) new road. In the interest of preserving the tree lined streetscape of Borrodell Drive, a significant Pin Oak tree located at the front of proposed Lot 1 was to be retained by conditions of development consent. The modified development now seeks to remove the subject Pin Oak, as it is submitted that the tree has died.

The applicant submits that the subject tree has been in decline for the last few years citing the drought as the likely cause of the trees demise. The applicant further submits that the tree is now in a dangerous state having the potential to drop dead branches and is concerned about the potential danger it now poses for his family.

The Pin Oak is a significant specimen of some 80 plus years old, located at the site frontage to Borrodell Drive. The subject land is located in a former mapped Scenic Area in Ploughmans Valley.

The health of the Pin Oak is such that the tree cannot be saved and should be removed. Retention of the tree would render it a structurally unsound and an aesthetically poor specimen. The Modification Application may therefore be determined by approval.

To mitigate the tree loss, new Conditions are included on the Modified Notice of Approval requiring replacement planting, and ongoing maintenance measures to protect the replacement specimens.

The modified DA was notified development in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. The application was notified in the prescribed manner. At the completion of the exhibition period, five (5) submissions were received. The submissions do not support removal of the Pin Oak and question the cause of the tree’s decline.

The modified development will be contrary to development controls requiring tree protection in Scenic Areas and Ploughmans Valley. However, Council’s Manager City Presentation advises that due to the advanced state of decline in health, there is no opportunity to retain the Pin Oak. Conditions for replacement planting and maintenance will mitigate the tree loss and assist to reinstate the landscape character in Borrodell Drive.

Matters of compliance with the original development consent, including the demise of the tree, are separate considerations to that of the application that is before Council. In accordance with normal Council procedures, Council staff will continue to investigate the condition of the tree in order to determine whether any further regulatory action is required.

The role of Council at this point in time is to determine the application to modify the original development consent by either approval or refusal subject to Council assessment.

An amended Notice of Approval is attached.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 - locality plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by two key documents Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 and Orange Development Control Plan 2004. In addition the Infill Guidelines are used to guide development, particularly in the heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.

Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – The provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application. LEPs govern the types of development that are permissible or prohibited in different parts of the City and also provide some assessment criteria in specific circumstances. Uses are either permissible or not. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP provides guidelines for development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

The proposal involves the removal of a significant Pin Oak tree on proposed Lot 1 that was originally required by condition of consent to be retained and protected as a part of planned subdivision. I note that the applicant submits that the subject tree has been in decline for the last few years citing the drought as the most likely cause of the trees demise.

Advice received indicates that the health of the Pin Oak is such that the tree cannot be saved and should be removed in order not to result in a significant safety issue into the future.

I support the recommendation that approval be granted in this case to remove the subject tree, subject to the inclusion of conditions of consent requiring replacement planting, and ongoing maintenance measures to protect the replacement specimens for Council’s consideration. I consider that the recommended conditions are not unreasonably onerous given that the conditions reflect the intent of the original consent to provide and maintain the tree lined streetscape of Borrodell Drive.

It is recommended that the application to modify the consent is supported subject to the recommended conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination.

LINK TO DELIVERY/OPERATIONAL PLAN

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “10.1 Preserve - Engage with the community to ensure plans for growth and development are respectful of our heritage”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to modify the development application DA 304/2007(1) for Subdivision (nine lot residential) and Demolition (tree removal) at Lot 22 DP 791830 - 5 Borrodell Drive, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 304/2007(1).

The original development involves subdivision of the parent parcel to create nine (9) residential lots ranging in area between 1,603-3,058sqm and one (1) new road. A significant Pin Oak tree on proposed Lot 1 was to be retained by conditions of development consent. The approved plan of subdivision is shown here (see Figure 2).

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 – approved subdivision plan DA 304/2007(1); Pin Oak highlighted

The modified development now seeks to remove the subject Pin Oak. The applicant submits that the tree has died.

Consent is sought to modify the development consent by deleting the following Conditions:

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate -

(6) The applicants shall provide a plan and description of how the large Pin Oak tree within proposed Lot 1 will be protected during subdivision construction. All works on site shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plan.

Prior to the Issue of a Subdivision Certificate -

(3) A Restriction as to User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be created on the title of proposed Lot 1 requiring the retention of the large existing mature Pin Oak tree.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

Section 4.55 Modification of consents – generally

Section 4.55(2) is applicable and states in part:

(2) A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if -

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 4.8) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with -

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

(3) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

In consideration of the requirements of Sections 4.55:

· It is accepted that development as modified is substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

· The modified development does require consultation with a Minister, public authority or approval body.

· The modified development is notified development pursuant to Section 107 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 and Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. The modified development was notified in the prescribed manner. Five (5) submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed in the following sections of this report.

· The relevant matters under Section 4.15(1) are considered below.

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

Pursuant to Section 1.7:

This Act has effect subject to the provisions of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 that relate to the operation of this Act in connection with the terrestrial and aquatic environment.

Applications for modified consent are subject to biodiversity assessment under Section 1.7. In consideration of this section, the development is not likely to impact terrestrial and aquatic environments. In this regard:

· The subject and adjoining lands are not identified as biodiversity sensitive on the Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.

· The proposal does not involve removal of native vegetation [a Pin Oak is not native to Australia]. Clearing thresholds prescribed by regulation are not relevant to the application.

· The proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, nor impact endangered ecological communities:

o the site is developed for a rural residential parcel and contains a modified landscape character with introduced species

o the proposal does not involve clearing of native vegetation

o due to the current health of the subject Pin Oak, the tree is unlikely to provide important habitat for native fauna. The development does not involve removal of natural or built features that would provide habitat for native fauna. Council’s Manager City Presentation raised no objection to the proposal in relation to fauna habitat.

Based on the foregoing consideration, a Biodiversity Assessment Report is not required, and the modified proposal suitably satisfies the relevant matters at Section 1.7.

Provisions of any environmental planning instrument S4.15(1)(A)(I)

REPEALED ORANGE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000

The original development was made under Orange LEP 2000. The modified proposal will not alter the original assessment under the repealed plan, except as provided below.

Clause 17 Scenic Area

The subject land is contained within a mapped Scenic Area. Clause 17 applies and states in part:

(3) Before granting consent for development of land within a scenic area, the consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development will blend into the landscape through the use of appropriate siting and design, external materials and colours, and by retaining existing trees, including remnant vegetation, and enhancing the skyline when viewed either from the urban area of Orange or from public places in the vicinity of the land.

The modified development will be contrary to Clause 17 which requires tree retention in the Scenic Areas. However given the state of decline of the subject tree it is recommended that the tree is removed.

Clause 41 Urban Residential Zone – general considerations

Clause 41 applies and states in part:

Consent may be granted for development on land within Zone 2 (a) only if, in the opinion of the consent authority:

(a) the development would be compatible with the existing and likely future character and amenity of the residential locality in terms of:

(i) its scale, bulk, design, appearance, height, siting and landscaping.

The modified development will have adverse visual impacts on the residential locality. The landscape character of the site and setting will be altered by removal of the Pin Oak. The subject tree is a significant landscape feature in the Borrodell Drive streetscape.

ORANGE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2011 (AS AMENDED)

The original development was made and not determined before the commencement of Orange LEP 2011.

Clause 1.8A is applicable and states:

If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.

Pursuant to this clause, the provisions of Orange LEP 2011 do not apply to the modified development.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (VEGETATION IN NON-RURAL AREAS) 2017

SEPP (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 was repealed on 28 February 2022 and replaced with SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021. The repealed SEPP was in force at the date of lodgement of the modification application. The applicable parts of the repealed SEPP are considered here.

Section 9 Vegetation to which Part applies

(1) This Part applies to vegetation in any non-rural area of the State that is declared by a development control plan to be vegetation to which this Part applies.

Section 10 Council may issue permit for clearing of vegetation

(1) A council may issue a permit to a landholder to clear vegetation to which this Part applies in any non-rural area of the State.

(2) A permit cannot be granted to clear native vegetation in any non-rural area of the State that exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold.

The Pin Oak is a prescribed tree pursuant to DCP 2004-0, and Council’s approval is required to remove the tree.

Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument that has been placed on exhibition 4.15(1)(A)(ii)

There are no Draft EPIs on exhibition at present.

Provisions of any development control plan s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2004

Part 7 Development in Residential Zones

The original development was subject to the Planning Outcomes at Part 7.2: Residential Subdivision in Ploughmans Valley. The modified development will remain consistent with the Planning Outcomes, excepting the following:

6. Subdivision design retains significant landscape features and minimises disturbance to natural vegetation, landform and overland-flow paths.

The modified proposal involves removal of a significant landscape feature and will be contrary to the DCP intent. The applicant has sought approval to remove the subject tree given its condition.

Part 0 Transitional Provisions

Scenic Areas

The subject land is contained within a former Scenic Area under Part 0.4.1 applies. This Part prescribes the following Planning Outcome:

Text

Description automatically generated

The modified development will be contrary to the Planning Outcome which requires tree retention in the Scenic Areas. The visual amenity of the site and setting will be adversely altered by the proposal.

Tree Preservation

The modified proposal involves tree removal and Part 0.4-2 applies. This Part prescribes the following Planning Outcomes:

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

In consideration of the Planning Outcomes, the subject Pin Oak is a prescribed tree under the DCP, as it has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than 300mm at breast height.

An arborist report was submitted in support of the modified proposal (The Tree Surgeon, 8 February 2022). The report finds:

‘The tree is all but dead. The large tree is over 80 years old and until 2018 was in good health. Over the past three (3) years, the tree has undergone a rapid decline in health. The cause of this tree’s death is uncertain, as there has been no change in soil level… The tree is becoming brittle and small branches are beginning to fall haphazardly. Recent high winds have dislodged more branches. It is for reasons of safety… that [the applicant] seeks permission from Council to have the tree removed.’

Council’s Manager City Presentation (MCP) has reviewed the submitted arborist report and inspected the subject tree. MCP advises:

‘The subject tree is in extremely poor health, with 95% dieback to the canopy. The remaining foliage is deformed and under significant stress.

There is no current and immediate danger of limb failure or whole of tree failure. The tree is affected by longstanding deadwood. The decay and readiness of limb failure of this timber predates a significant event.’

Council’s MCP further advises:

‘There is no prospect of the subject tree re-establishing its former grandeur.

The appearance of canopy dieback to the subject tree is extreme with isolated and deformed leaf shoots to extremities of the lower canopy.

There is evidence of structural limb cambial tissue dehydration and shedding of bark as a result; meaning whole of branch death. Pruning such large diameter limbs, in a tree under significant stress, will result in a pollard specimen. The pruning wounds will not heal and decay of the tree’s structure will commence resulting in a structurally unsound and very unaesthetic specimen.’

On this basis, the health of the Pin Oak is such that the tree cannot be saved and should be removed. The Modification Application may be determined by approval. To mitigate the tree loss, new Conditions are included on the recommended Modified Notice of Approval requiring:

· replacement planting on proposed Lot 1 of two (2) Pin Oak trees

· the replacement Pin Oaks to have a minimum 500L container size at planting with a trunk height of greater than 5m and a trunk calliper of 80mm or greater

· tree removal and planting to be undertaken by a qualified arborist

· the provision of a vegetation management plan (VMP) for the trees. The condition requiring that the VMP:

- be prepared by a qualified arborist and submitted for council’s approval prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate

- detail the steps to be taken to ensure the protection of the trees during the development phase and steps to be taken to ensure the trees establish and steps to be taken if they do not establish

- outlines steps to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the trees

- require the retention of the trees for the natural life of the trees

- be implemented and complied with by the developer (such that if the developer fails to comply with the plan, Council could take necessary enforcement action).

· a Section 88B Restriction as to User to be created on the title of proposed Lot 1 requiring perpetual retention of the replacement trees for the natural life of the trees and compliance with the VMP.

· That the subdivision certificate not be issued until 12 months post planting of the replacement Pin Oaks

It is noted that the size of the replacement trees is consistent with Council’s practice when significant trees are damaged. It is considered reasonable to require two replacement trees be planted, having regard to the age and former significance of the tree, and the site’s location in the then Scenic Area. It will take many years for the replacement trees to offer the scenic and amenity values previously provided by the removed Pin Oak.

Provisions prescribed by the regulations s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

The modified development is not inconsistent with any provision prescribed by Regulation.

The likely impacts of the development s4.15(1)(b)

The impacts of the modified development are generally consistent with those considered for the original development, except as provided below.

Visual Impacts

As variously outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, the proposed tree removal will alter the landscape setting for the site and streetscape. Conditional replacement planting and maintenance will mitigate the tree loss to a reasonable standard.

The suitability of the site s4.15(1)(c)

There are no aspects of the development site that are considered unsuitable for the proposed modified development.

Any submissions made in accordance with the act s4.15(1)(d)

The modified development is Notified Development in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. The modified development was notified in the prescribed manner. At the completion of the notification period, five (5) submissions had been received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

· The landmark tree should be retained.

It is concurred that the subject tree is a significant specimen. However, it is considered that the poor health of the tree cannot warrant its retention. Conditional replacement planting of new specimens and maintenance will be undertaken.

· Neighbourhood bores have not impacted other trees in the locality (as suggested in the submitted Tree Report).

There is no evidence to suggest that the health of the tree has been affected by neighbourhood groundwater bores.

· Investigations should be undertaken to determine the source of the tree failure and enable preventative steps to prevent further tree failure in the neighbourhood.

Preliminary investigations into the health of the tree have been undertaken as part of the assessment of this application. This matter is however beyond the scope of the assessment of the application before Council.

· The tree has progressively failed in the past two years.

Recent failure of the tree is accepted.

· The recent drought has not adversely affected other trees in the neighbourhood (as suggested in the submitted Tree Report).

It is acknowledged that the landscape setting in the neighbourhood has not been unreasonably impacted by the recent drought.

· A stronger protection order is required over the tree should it be retained.

Conditions are included on the Modified Notice of Approval requiring protection of the replacement trees via a vegetation Management Plan.

· Investigation and testing should be undertaken to determine the cause of the tree’s decline, which may be associated with disease or introduced chemicals.

Preliminary investigations into the health of the tree have been undertaken as part of the assessment of this application.

· Historic owners of the property could be consulted in relation to the history of the tree.

This consultation may be undertaken on Council’s resolution, however is beyond the scope of the application before Council.

· The tree could be restored to health and retained.

Council’s Manager City Presentation advises there is no opportunity to retain the tree. Pruning works would not heal and the decay of the tree’s structure would commence, resulting in a structurally unsound and very ‘unaesthetic’ specimen. It is a preferred outcome to require replacement planting with two mature specimens.

· Other trees have been removed from the development site in recent years.

This matter does not relate to the modified development. The removed trees may or may not have been protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (see DCP 2004-0 above). It is difficult for Council to investigate/enforce this matter post-tree removal.

· The supporting subdivision plan does not include servicing details.

The modified development does not relate to servicing of the proposed subdivision. The supporting subdivision plan was indicative only to denote the subject Pin Oak. The original development consent requires all utility services be provided to the proposed lots, including sewer, water, stormwater, access, electricity, telecommunications and footpaths.

Public interest s4.15(1)(e)

The modified proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc. that have not been considered in this assessment.

COMMENTS

This report and the attached Modified Notice of Approval are partly informed by Council’s Manager City Presentation.

SUMMARY

Modified consent is sought to remove a significant Pin Oak from an approved residential subdivision at 5 Borrodell Drive.

The health of the Pin Oak is such that the tree cannot be saved and should be removed. To mitigate the tree loss, new Conditions are included on the Modified Notice of Approval requiring replacement planting, and maintenance measures to protect the replacement specimens.

The modified development will be contrary to development controls requiring tree protection in Scenic Areas and Ploughmans Valley. Conditions for replacement planting and maintenance will mitigate the tree loss and assist to reinstate the landscape character in Borrodell Drive.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D22/22849 ⇩

2 Submissions, D22/20313 ⇩

3 Tree Surgeon report, D22/20314 ⇩

Council Meeting 17 May 2022

5.7 Appointment of Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) Members

RECORD NUMBER: 2022/758

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP) have been established across NSW, with the Western Panel established in September 2009. The JRPP is tasked with assessing major or significant development applications that meet a range of criteria. The structure of the JRPP consists of five (5) panellists, of which three (3) are appointed by the State, including the Chair, and the remaining two (2) are local panellists appointed by the relevant Council.

Council at its meeting held on 15 February 2022 nominated Councillor Jeff Whitton as the primary representative and Councillor Kevin Duffy as the alternate member. Council also resolved at its meeting its meeting on 15 March 2022 to call for expressions of interest from the community to fill the final position available on the panel. The call for expressions of interest was advertised in the CWD on 21 April 2022 and at the end of the nomination period Council received one (1) submission from Mr Allan Renike, who has extensive planning experience and has previously represented Council on the WRPP. It is recommended that Mr Renike be appointed to the WRPP as the second Council representative for the next three years.

LINK TO DELIVERY/OPERATIONAL PLAN

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan Strategy “17.1 Collaborate - Provide representative, responsible and accountable community governance”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

Ensuring a full complement of local nominations for the JRPP will preserve local representation and accountability to the community.

Recommendation

That Council appoint Mr Allan Renike to the Western Region Joint Regional Planning Panel for the next three years.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The Joint Regional Planning Panel (Western and when it sits on an Orange LGA matter) is made up of three (3) State members not related to Orange City Council, and two (2) Council representatives (with a reserve ‘alternate’ representative also nominated in case one of the other representatives is unavailable). Council’s representatives may be Councillors or members of the public, but at least one of the representatives must have expertise in a related field.

Permanent non-Council Members

The current JRPP sitting permanent non-Council related members are appointed by the Department of Planning and Environment. Current State members are: Garry Fielding (chair), Sandra Hutton and Graham Brown.

Council Representatives

Council may select three (3) people to represent the Council and community, two (2) primary representatives and an alternate. The primary representatives would be expected to participate in most cases, while the alternate can be called on should either of the two (2) primary representatives be unavailable or have a conflict of interest. Council at its meeting held on 15 February 2022 nominated Councillor Jeff Whitton as the primary member and Councillor Kevin Duffy as the alternate member. Council is now required to determine the final community representative on the planning panel.

Consideration of the Expressions of interest

An advertisement requesting expressions of interest for panel members on the Western Joint Regional Planning Panel was placed in the CWD on 21 April 2022. Council received (one) 1 expression of interest during the notification period. A summary of the submission received is provided below for Council’s consideration:

Expression of Interest - Mr Allan Renike

Mr Allan Renike has expressed an interest to represent Orange City Council on the Western Region Joint Regional Planning Panel. Mr Renike has an extensive Town Planning background as outlined below.

· Associate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from Mitchell College of Advanced Education dated 24 September 1982.

· Employed by Orange City Council for 37 years from October 1979 until March 2016 (upon retirement). During his employment Mr Renike was employed as Deputy City Planner for seven (7) years, City Planner for 3.5 years and Manager Development Assessments for 23 years.

· Managed the Car Parking function of Council for 10 years.

· Staff representative on the City of Orange Traffic Committee.

Mr Renike has a thorough understanding of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other Legislation related to Town Planning and has previously represented Orange City Council on the Western Joint Regional Planning Panel for the period between March 2018 and May 2022.

Mr Renike is a long-term resident of Orange and has several demonstrated ties to various community sporting organisations within the City. A copy of Mr Renike’s detailed submission to Council is attached for your further consideration.

It is recommended that Mr Renike is appointed as Council’s community representative for the final position on the Western Region Joint Regional Planning Panel – JRPP for the next three (3) year period.

Attachments

1 Submission - Allan Renike, D22/25433 ⇩