Agenda of Sport and Recreation Policy Committee

Sport and Recreation Policy Committee 4 December 2018

3.1 Recreational use of Gosling Creek, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams - Report Following Public Exhibition

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/2649

AUTHOR: Scott Maunder, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

At its meeting of 4 September 2018 Council resolved to publicly exhibit proposals relating to the recreational use of Gosling Creek, Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam.

Following the conclusion of the exhibition period Council received 133 submissions. These included:

· 120 submissions opposing the proposals for Gosling Creek;

· 9 submissions opposing the proposals for Gosling Creek and Spring Creek Dam; and

· 4 submissions supporting the proposals for Gosling Creek.

This report details the outcomes and provides copies of the submissions.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “2.1 Live - Identify and deliver sport and recreation facilities to service the community into the future”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

RecommendationS

That Council resolves to:

1 Not permit camping at Gosling Creek;

2 Not permit RV parking within established car parks at Gosling Creek;

3 Not permit land or water based activity at Suma Park; and

4 To commence the process to seek approval to permit access to Spring Creek Dam for non-powered and electric boating and fishing but not permit camping.

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	Drinking water quality, security of drinking water supply assets
Image and Reputation	Tourism/economic impacts
Environmental	Wildlife and wildlife habitat management, preservation of historic sites in the area, introduction of weeds or exotic plants, introduction of vermin and exotic animals, foreshore erosion, litter and heightened risk of bushfires
Health and Safety	Legal and public liability, water quality health risks to users
Stakeholders	Orange residents, external/regional users (including sporting clubs), Federal and State Government Approvals Authorities/Regulators

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

At its meeting of 15 May 2018 Council considered a report on the Gosling Creek, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams containing the following recommendation:

Recommendation

That Council publicly exhibits, for a period of 28 days, proposals to:

1 Permit primitive camping on the southern side of Gosling Creek;

2 Permit access to Spring Creek Dam for non-powered and electric boating, fishing but not camping;

3 Not permit land or water based activity at Suma Park;

Council resolved that:

RESOLVED - 18/224 Cr K Duffy/Cr M Previtera

That Council defer this item for consideration at a Councillor Workshop.

A workshop was conducted to further consider the proposals. Following the conduct of the workshop, Council again considered the report on 4 September 2018 which included the following recommendations:

Recommendation

That Council publicly exhibits, for a period of 28 days, proposals to:

1 Permit camping on the Southern side of Gosling Creek with access to amenities on the Northern Side of Gosling Creek;

2 Permit Camping on the Northern side of Gosling Creek within a designated area at times determined by Council so as not to conflict with events or activities;

3 Permit RV parking within established car parks at Gosling Creek;

4 Permit access to Spring Creek Dam for non-powered and electric boating, fishing but not camping;

5 Not permit land or water based activity at Suma Park; and

6 Report to Council following the public exhibition on the submissions received.

Council did not amend the recommendations contained within the report and resolved that:

RESOLVED - 18/416 Cr M Previtera/Cr S Munro

That Council publicly exhibits, for a period of 28 days, proposals to:

1 Permit camping on the Southern side of Gosling Creek with access to amenities on the Northern Side of Gosling Creek;

2 Permit Camping on the Northern side of Gosling Creek within a designated area at times determined by Council so as not to conflict with events or activities;

3 Permit RV parking within established car parks at Gosling Creek;

4 Permit access to Spring Creek Dam for non-powered and electric boating, fishing but not camping;

5 Not permit land or water based activity at Suma Park; and

6 Report to Council following the public exhibition on the submissions received.

The proposals were exhibited and written comments were sought on the proposals.

During that period 129 objections were received including a petition of 20 persons detailing their objection with 4 submissions received supporting the proposals. A summary of the submissions follows:

Submission No	IC Number	Submitter/s' Name	Environmental	Safety	Out of Character	Suitable Elsewhere	Pollution	Anti-Social Behaviour	Insufficient Area	Financial Concerns
		Against
1	IC18/21261	Ms Anne Salter	x	x				x
2	IC18/21172	Mr Stuart Smith	x
3	IC18/20719	Mr Cyril Smith	x				x		x
4	IC18/20702	M & L Tilston	x		x
5	IC18/20659	Ms Dorothy Arnold	x					x
6	IC18/20597	Mr Mark Root				x		x
7	IC18/20517	Ms Wendy Wiesener and Ross Doherty	x		x
8	IC18/20482	Mr Warren and Mrs Glenda Tedder	x			x		x
9	IC18/20459	Marc Kiho	x	x		x	x	x
10	IC18/20460	Ms Julie Maddison	x				x	x
11	IC18/20458	Ms Kathryn Bourke	x			x
12	IC18/20417	NSW Bird Atlassers Inc	x
13	IC18/20416	Ms Kate Ziegler	x
14	IC18/20415	Ms Katey Sutton	x	x			x	x
15	IC18/20413	Ms Ann Visman	x			x		x		x
16	IC18/20412	Mr Martin Gleeson					x	x		x
17	IC18/20410	Dr David Searle	x	x	x		x
18	IC18/20409	Mr Greg Michell	x
19	IC18/20407	Daroo Landcare Group	x				x
20	IC18/20406	Ms Dorothy Jones	x			x
21	IC18/20405	Ms Lorraine Milla
22	IC18/20398	Ms Christine Carter	x
23	IC18/20396	Ms Bridgette Evans	x	x			x	x
24	IC18/20392	Ms Sue Furze	x
25	IC18/20390	Robin Shepherd	x
26	IC18/20389	Edward Furze	x
27	IC18/20378	Kinross Wolaroi School	x	x			x	x
28	IC18/20376	Peter Toedter	x					x
29	IC18/20371	Orange Field Naturalist	x		x
30	IC18/20370	Prue Wiesener	x				x
31	IC18/20369	Mr Anthony Cook	x	x			x	x
32	IC18/20367	Ms Jane Wiesener	x	x	x		x	x
33	IC18/20341	Bev and Nev Gibson				x	x	x
34	IC18/20340	Megan Goodwin	x	x			x	x
35	IC18/20339	Mr Robert Avenell	x			x	x
36	IC18/20338	Ms Kate Thornton	x	x			x
37	IC18/20337	Mr Phil Tudor	x	x			x	x
38	IC18/20336	Mr Dan Benton	x
39	IC18/20335	Ms Margaret Duguid	x	x	x		x
40	IC18/20334	Mr Steve Robinson	x			x	x
41	IC18/20328	Pat Austin	x		x
42	IC18/20327	Justin Pearce	x	x		x	x	x
43	IC18/20325	Kim Dale	x	x		x	x	x
44	IC18/20322	Mr Andrew Commins	x	x		x	x	x
45	IC18/20321	Mr Phil Smith	x				x
46	IC18/20310	Ms Jenna Austin	x		x
47	IC18/20308	Mr Harry Fardell	x	x	x		x	x
48	IC18/20307	Caroline Egan	x	x			x	x
49	IC18/20305	Melinda Smith	x	x		x	x	x
50	IC18/20304	Janet Martin	x	x		x	x	x
51	IC18/20302	Stephen Martin	x	x		x	x	x
52	IC18/20299	Andy Hardy	x	x		x	x	x
53	IC18/20297	Ray Dally	x	x		x	x	x
54	IC18/20289	Daphne Smith	x	x		x		x
55	IC18/20288	Michael Lockyer	x	x		x	x	x
56	IC18/20285	Richard and Amanda Walker	x				x	x
57	IC18/20284	Lisa Scamps	x
58	IC18/20283	Caroline Robertson	x	x		x	x	x
59	IC18/20281	Ken Dally	x			x	x
60	IC18/20279	Alison Dermody	x			x	x	x
61	IC18/20277	Elizabeth Carpenter		x		x
62	IC18/20276	Sally Wallace	x	x		x	x	x
63	IC18/20274	Renee Sunderland	x	x		x	x	x
64	IC18/20273	Audrey Brown	x	x		x	x	x
65	IC18/20272	Amy Sullivan		x		x	x	x
66	IC18/20270	Jo Keniry	x	x			x
67	IC18/20269	Jeremy Wallace	x	x		x	x	x
68	IC18/20248	Scott Wiesner	x			x	x
69	IC18/20243	Bernadette Robinson	x	x		x	x	x
70	IC18/20215	Judy Haling	x	x
71	IC18/20212	Nino Belmonte		x
72	IC18/20197	David and Bernadette Lamrock	x			x	x
73	IC18/20188	Daniel Hately	x	x			x
74	IC18/20187	Philippa Mitchell	x	x			x
75	IC18/20186	Judy Tarleton	x	x		x	x	x
76	IC18/20180	Dave Shearing			x	x
77	IC18/20144	Jill Mitchell			x
78	IC18/20112	Chris and Kerrie Blandford				x
79	IC18/20111	Simon Lun		x		x	x
80	IC18/20110	Kevin Pont	x	x			x
81	IC18/20108	Lloyd Mead		x		x		x
82	IC18/20099	Kerri Leadbette	x		x
83	IC18/20098	ECCO	x		x	x
84	IC18/20090	Jonathan Sangster	x					x		x
85	IC18/20089	Orange Field Naturalist and Conservation Society	x		x
86	IC18/20080	Jo Sangster	x	x	x
87	IC18/20075	Kathy Snowball	x
88	IC18/20073	Frances Young	x		x	x
89	IC18/20067	Mark Flanagan	x
90	IC18/20037	Kezz Brett	x		x		x
91	IC18/20015	Rod and Jacquie Smith	x
92	IC18/20013	Ray and Jan Rogers	x			x
93	IC18/20012	David Cooper	x
94	IC18/20011	Kristy Leadbetter	x			x	x	x
95	IC18/20010	Mitch Deacon	x					x		x
96	IC18/20009	Kel and Joan Regan	x	x			x
97	IC18/20008	Will Woods	x	x
98	IC18/20007	Catherine Schmich	x			x
99	IC18/20005	May El-Khoury	x	x		x	x
100	IC18/20003	Stephen Gross	x
101	IC18/20002	Julie Pont	x	x			x		x
102	IC18/19930	Lew and Val Randahl	x	x	x
103	IC18/19925	Robert and Daphne Smith	x		x	x				x
104	IC18/19831	Lee and Grace Cook	x	x				x		x
105	IC18/19830	Phillip and Margot Daniel	x							x
106	IC18/19814	Karen Dibley	x			x	x	x
107	IC18/19804	Melissa Ward	x			x
108	IC18/19670	Susan Saunders
109	IC18/20388	Petition - 20 objections	x	x	x	x	x			x
	Submissions for proposal
	IC18/20093	Lynne and Brett Cole
	IC18/20478	Mr David and Mrs Janelle Harris
	IC18/20068	Ben Vaughan
	IC18/20014	Bill and Lesley Brady

Included in the submissions were 9 objections to the proposal for Spring Creek Dam including those from Kinross Wolaroi School, ECCO and the Orange Field Naturalists. These submissions highlighted the potential impact on flora and the steps required to obtain approval.

However, given the current use by residents adjoining Spring Creek Dam and the activity of Kinross Wolaroi School, together with the current unregulated use by the general public, it is recommended that Council commence the process to permit activity as described in this report.

However, based on the identified risks and estimated costs contained within the report to Council on 4 September 2018, an assessment of the proposals, together with an assessment of the submissions received, it is my view that Council should:

1 Not permit camping at Gosling Creek;

2 Not permit RV parking within established car parks at Gosling Creek; and

3 Not permit land or water based activity at Suma Park.

Attachments

1 Submissions received 1-50 - Recreational use of Gosling Creek, Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam, D18/63539 ⇩

2 Submissions received 51-113 - Recreational use of Gosling Creek, Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam, D18/63540 ⇩

3 SPC 4 September 2018 Recreational use of Gosling Creek, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams, 2018/2175 ⇩

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	Drinking water quality, security of drinking water supply assets
Image and Reputation	Tourism/economic benefit
Political	Project funding and impact on Council’s Long Term Financial Plan
Environmental	Wildlife and wildlife habitat management, preservation of historic sites in the area, introduction of weeds or exotic plants, introduction of vermin and exotic animals, foreshore erosion, litter and heightened risk of bushfires
Health and Safety	Legal and public liability, water quality health risks to users
Stakeholders	Orange residents, external/regional users (including sporting clubs), Federal and State Government Approvals Authorities/Regulators

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

At its meeting of 7 November 2017 Council resolved

RESOLVED - 17/493 Cr S Romano/Cr M Previtera

That Council receive report that provides information on the costs and timeframe for allowing supervised fishing, camping and boating at Suma Park Dam, Gosling Creek Reserve and Spring Creek Dam, to include amenities, car parking and a camping ground.

Council has previously received reports on this subject matter with the reports also circulated to Councillors on 20 October 2017. Those reports are attached for reference and background.

POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH INCREASED WATER-BASED ACTIVITIES ON RESERVOIRS

Council needs to adopt an appropriately diligent assessment of the water quality issues associated with allowing increased recreational on reservoirs. Consideration needs to be given to the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) 2008 Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. Although not mandatory, following these guidelines ensures recreational water environments are managed as safely as possible.

The NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG 2011) is the authoritative document for drinking water management in Australia. It contains information about management of drinking water systems from catchment to consumer. The NHMRC are considering the introduction of additional requirements in a pending guideline review that will be used to determine the appropriate treatment process to address the source water risk. Recreational use of the water body is one of the risk considerations.

The proposed update to the guidelines, discuss ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ catchments. Gosling Creek Dam could be considered to be in the ‘outer’ catchment and as such, the introduction of water-based recreational activities poses less of a risk to source water than our primary and secondary water storages i.e. Suma Park and Spring Creek Dams.

SUPERVISION

The resolution of Council sought information in relation to “supervised” activities of fishing, camping and boating.

Supervision can be conducted in a number of ways including:

1 Staff on site at times of operation (similar to Aquatic Centre)

2 Issuing of licences and spot checks by staff

3 Remote supervision (similar to system imposed on open space areas of Council where certain activities are permitted or prohibited)

4 A combination of above elements

Council utilises the principals of remote supervision for the management of its open space and recreational areas. This has been implemented using the best practice guidelines of Council’s insurer, Statewide Mutual. (With the change of insurer this will require review).

Essentially a risk management analysis is conducted for the site based on:

· Nature of reserve, hazard or pool

· Population use at any one time

· Frequency of use

Each area is then given a score and the relevant signage is installed.

Each proposed site would require assessment and controls to ensure the level of supervision is appropriate.

Example of assessment and required supervision level.

For areas which have deep water bodies (depth in excess of 3 metres), high population use at any one time and high frequency of use Council are recommended to consider full time supervision whilst the facility is occupied as well as the display of warning symbols.

In this example the level of risk is such that the installation of a sign alone warning people of the hazards would not be the most appropriate risk reduction technique. A combination of both supervision and signage is the most appropriate approach.

CAMPING

Council’s experience over recent years with the provision of camping sites at Lake Canobolas, Orange Showground and Caravan Park is that they require active management to ensure compliance with camp ground provisions, garbage removal, cleaning of amenities, and payment of site fees.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) SITE

Council has established RV sites at the Showground and with development consent at Lake Canobolas.

Should Council wish to pursue the establishment of a permanent RV site adjacent to a water body it is recommended that this site be located at Lake Canobolas taking advantage of existing infrastructure.

Parking of RVs could also be considered within established Car Parks at Gosling Creek.

1 GOSLING CREEK

Gosling Creek precinct consists of two components Crown Land to the north and two parcels of council owned community land to the south.

The three parcels of land that make up Gosling Creek are zoned RE1 – Public Recreation and together with the Plan of Management governs its use and development.

Aerial image purple hatched area is Crown land the area bounded by the red line and adjoining the hatched area is Council Community Land.

The Zone RE1 - Public Recreation objectives are:

· To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

· To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

· To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

· To protect open space at riparian and foreshore locations.

Developments permitted with consent are:

Child care centres; Community facilities; Depots; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Function centres; Information and education facilities; Kiosks; Markets; Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Water recreation structures.

An aerial view of Gosling Creek follows:

IMG_4_2009

Aerial view from south western corner above Forest Road looking down stream along Gosling Creek. Note the shared path network, passive recreational precinct – irrigated grassland, remnant vegetation significant small patch centre left of image.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

Consistent with the RE1 zoning the precinct is able to be developed to include the provision for camping with an amendment to the Plan of Management. Non-powered boating and fishing is currently permitted at the site.

However the Gosling Creek Reserve is a highly valued recreational area originally set aside to protect the water quality of Orange’s drinking supply following the damming of Gosling Creek in 1890. The Reserve and its surrounds of remnant woodland remains a habitat for native wildlife and is also highly valued as a place for passive recreation and a refuge from the urban development of Orange and the Bloomfield Hospital complex to the North.

The development of the site for camping in particular needs to consider the overall goals of the management of the site in particular sensitive areas. Council has identified areas of high conservation biodiversity as indicated below.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Opportunity	Considerations	Advantages	Disadvantages
Camping Located on the southern side area with access from Forest Road.	· Supervision of site	· Defined area · Eliminates conflict with current users	· No facilities · Requires active supervision of users · Operational Cost
Camping Located on the Northern side in designated areas at designated times.	· Supervision of site · Ensuring provision of camping does not conflict with current uses or recreational use.	· Provides for camping adjacent to existing amenities in a controlled manner.	· Requires active supervision of users · Operational Cost
Boating – non powered and electric	· Non powered boating is permitted	· Existing activity · Good access to water · No additional cost.	· Nil
Boating – powered	· Not permitted and would require a change to the plan of management as activity is with Crown Land zone.		· Small area for conduct of activity · Degradation of water quality for other uses
Fishing	· Permitted activity	· Current activity · Does not require active supervision

Cost estimates

· Should Council require the establishment of additional infrastructure an estimate of the capital cost for the development of camping on the southern side of Gosling Creek is $240,000. This includes the following:

o Composting Toilet facilities: $100,000

o Access Road and Parking: $100,000

o Signage: $10,000

o Fencing – biosecurity areas: $10,000

o Potable Water: $20,000

· Operational costs $120,000 per annum for active management of camp sites and overall management.

· Nil additional operational costs if camping is excluded

Timeframe for approvals, development and implementation

Should Council wish to include camping at Gosling Creek this process would involve advertisement of the proposed amendment to the Plan of Management, report to Council and then if resolved by Council the update of the Plan of Management.

Council would then need to conduct the associated works for the installation of the infrastructure.

It is anticipated that this process would be completed within 9 – 12 months.

2 SPRING CREEK DAM

Spring Creek Reservoir is owned by Orange City Council and is classified as Community Land. The Plan of Management was adopted by Council on 3 December 2007. This plan specifically provides for the use of the land for “public water supply purposes along with specific provisions to permit the controlled and supervised rowing training and other low impact recreational activities subject to development consents and licensing arrangements”.

Key considerations

a Drinking Water Quality Risks

Spring Creek Dam is the secondary source of drinking water for Orange residents. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines outline six guiding principles that are fundamental in the considerations of safe drinking water. One of these principles says that the “protection of water sources and treatment are of paramount importance and must never be compromised”

Introducing recreational activities onto Spring Creek Dam will have public health implications for the Orange Drinking Water Supply

b Plan of Management

Spring Creek Dam is classified as Community land. The current Plan of Management was adopted by Council on 3 December 2007. This plan specifically provides for the use of the land for “public water supply purposes along with specific provisions to permit the controlled and supervised rowing training and other low impact recreational activities subject to development consents and licencing arrangements”

Any change to this Plan of Management needs to be exhibited and adopted by Council as required under the Local Government Act. The current Plan of Management for Spring Creek Dam specifically states that “Uncontrolled recreation activities were considered inappropriate due to the needs to protect habitat values and limit access to protect the integrity of the water supply, considering the likely impacts of a range of activities”

c Land zoning

The zoning for Spring Creek Dam is for water supply purposes and recreational use is not permissible under this zoning. The LEP will need to be amended in order to rezone the whole site to Public Recreation RE1. The surrounding private land is zoned E3 Environmental Management and RU1 Primary Production. Recreation would then be permissible in the zone, subject to consent.

d Access To Spring Creek Dam For Water Non Powered Boating Activities

As illustrated below access to Spring Creek Dam is controlled by a locked gate and pedestrian access point at the southern end of Lone Pine Avenue at the North East point of the dam. This is the access point to the Kinross Wolaroi School Rowing facility. All other land surrounding Spring Creek Dam is privately owned. The impact of introducing uncontrolled recreation onto Spring Creek Dam on adjoining landowners also needs to be considered.

Council should also note that adjoining landowners access the dam for non-powered boating activities and fishing. There is also strong evidence that members of the public also access the dam for these activities gaining access through fence lines or via the pedestrian access at this access point.

The regulation of this activity would improve the safety of its conduct and provide access to the community.

Access point – Spring Creek Dam

· Council could explore the redevelopment of this entrance point to provide a parking area and access point for non-powered boating activities. Access to the dam wall is available along the eastern side.

· Topography – the slope of land adjacent to the waterbody is suitable for access points

· Variable (low or high) water levels at any one given time may restrict access to the waterbody.

· “No-go” zones – buffer zones around critical water supply infrastructure will be required (i.e. near the dam wall)

· Opening hours need to be considered

e Access and variable water levels

f Health impact on users

· blue green algae outbreaks – using the waterbody would be restricted when blue green algae concentration is above health guidelines

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Opportunity	Considerations	Advantages	Disadvantages
Boating – non powered and electric	· Access points · Amendment to plan of management, LEP and Development Application	· Accessible from existing access road · Used by community currently · Regulate current unapproved activity	· Conflict with current users and landholders
Camping Located on western side of Spring creek dam	· Supervision of site · Access · Provision of amenities	· Council Owned · Defined area	· Land locked no access · No facilities · Requires active supervision of users · Operational Cost
Boating – powered	· Access points · Water quality risk · Amendment to plan of management, LEP and Development Application	· Nil	· Conflict with current users and landholders
Fishing	· Access points · Amendment to plan of management, LEP and Development Application	· Provides an additional location for recreational fishing in Orange LGA.	· Limited access from land based sites.

Cost Implications

Council staff were asked to provide information on boating, camping, fishing, amenities and car parking. For these to proceed Council would be required to conduct the following works:

· Land acquisition for camping

· Access road(s) and car parking

· Pathways/non-vehicle access routes

· Rubbish Bins

· Signage

· Toilets

· Cleared areas

· Potable water

· Water Entrance similar to that constructed at Gosling Creek

· Operational costs

Cost estimate based on the above requirements is $1.5m to $3.0m

If Council were to consider only access for non-powered boating and fishing the requirements would eliminate the need for land acquisition and reduced infrastructure requirement for the other elements.

Pending approvals it is estimated that the cost for the provision of access for non-powered boating and fishing would require

· Access road and car parking

· Rubbish Bins

· Signage

· Toilets

· Potable water

· Water Entrance similar to that constructed at Gosling Creek

· Fish cleaning areas

· Operational Costs

Estimated cost for these elements would be $500,000 to $1M.

Timeframe for approvals, development and implementation

At this early stage, it is difficult to estimate a timeframe for the delivery of such a project given its complexity and key issues that will need to be considered.

As a guide the timeframe for the implementation of Rowing Training for Kinross Wolaroi School on Spring Creek Reservoir was:

· August 1999 – Commence Plan of Management development

· June 2001 – Plan of Management adopted by Council

· June 2002 – Development Application lodged for facility (Boatshed and Pontoon Jetty) and approved with consent to operate

· July 2002 – the Central West Environment Group sought intervention from NSW Land and Environment Court.

· May 2003 – NSW Land and Environment Court decision in favour of Kinross Wolaroi School and Orange City Council

· May 2004 – Orange City Council and Kinross Wolaroi School entered into a Licence to use Spring Creek Dam as a Rowing Facility

· December 2004 – Rowing Training commenced

3 SUMA PARK

Suma Park Reservoir is owned by Orange City Council and is classified as Community Land. The land is categorised as Natural Area (with subcategories of Bushland, Watercourse and Wetland) and will require a Plan of Management to be developed and adopted by Council under the Local Government Act, 1993.

Key considerations

The following areas are key issues to consider if Council were to introduce recreational activities onto Suma Park Dam:

a Impact on drinking water quality

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG 2011) is the authoritative document for drinking water management in Australia. It contains information about management of drinking water systems from catchment to consumer. The second guiding principle of the ADWG highlights the importance of protecting water sources:

‘Protection of water sources and treatment are of paramount importance and must never be compromised’

The NHMRC are now considering the introduction of additional requirements in a pending guideline review that will be used to determine the appropriate treatment process to address the source water risk. Recreational use of the water body is one of the risk considerations. Unprotected catchments may require a higher level of treatment in order to provide a safe drinking water supply. The Orange drinking water supply catchment would be considered an unprotected catchment and, as such, additional treatment upgrades may be necessary unless catchment management practices can be improved. Water treatment cost implications (potential treatment plant upgrades) may need to be considered if water-based recreational activities are introduced to Council’s drinking water storages.

b Land zoning

Land zoning dictates how the land is to be used. The only activity that the current zoning allows is a water supply. The LEP will require amendment in order to rezone the site to Public Recreation RE1. The surrounding private land is zoned E3 Environmental Management and RU1 Primary Production.

c Potential health impact on recreational users

As mentioned earlier, recreational use on dams should follow the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (NHMRC 2008). Although not mandatory, following these guidelines ensures recreational water environments are managed as safely as possible. The potential impacts of water quality, water temperature and blue green algae should be considered

d Legal and Public Liability

Duty of care to persons using the water storage (potential hazards associated with access to dam wall, hazards above and below the water)

e Access To Suma Park Dam For Non-Powered Boating And Fishing

Council recently acquired 494 Priest Lane for the purpose of a future sporting precinct. As demonstrated in the map above this lot does not have access to Suma Park Dam and is not viable for an access point to Suma Park without the acquisition of adjoining land.

Council also owns Lot 49, DP597741 which adjoins Suma Park Dam at the southern extremity of the Dam with entry off Icely Road. Should Council wish to progress access to Suma Park Dam an access point could be established at this location.

Camping is also possible at this site.

f Operational management

The potential costs associated with the operational management of recreational activities could include:

· Additional drinking water treatment processes

· Management of access to water storages

· Maintenance and rehabilitation of infrastructure to support the recreational activities

· Monitoring of water quality and recreational users

· Policing of recreational users

Other issues to consider include:

a Health risks of users

b Public use impacts of foreshore erosion introducing sediment into the water storage

c Wildlife and wildlife habitat management

d Changes in system ecology

e Increased risk of fire

f Legal/public liability/public safety - Proximity to spillway, outlet structures and dam wall

g Security of drinking water supply assets

h Potential land acquisition requirements

i Water storage levels

j Impacts on adjoining neighbours

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Opportunity	Considerations	Advantages	Disadvantages
Boating – non powered and electric	· Access points · Requires development of plan of management · Amendment to LEP and Development Application · Risk to drinking water	· Readily accessible from Icely Road	· Increased cost for management of drinking water as primary source for Orange. · Conflict with current users and landholders · Water recedes at water levels under 90%
Camping Located on the southern side (council owned) area with access from Forest Road.	· Supervision of site	· Defined area · Accessible from Icely Road	· No facilities · Requires active supervision of users · Site adjacent to busy road · Operational Cost
Boating – powered	· Access points · Water quality risk · Requires development of plan of management · Amendment to LEP and Development Application	· Nil	· Conflict with current users and landholders
Fishing	· Requires access points · Requires development of plan of management · Amendment to LEP and Development Application	· Provides alternative location for recreational fishing in Orange LGA.	· Limited access from land based sites · Conflict with current landholders

Cost Implications

Depending on the type of use, there are cost and resourcing implications in managing all of the risks and infrastructure requirements. Infrastructure requirements need to be funded and other risks mitigated by operational practices and procedures.

Council staff were asked to provide information on boating, camping, fishing, amenities and car parking. For these to proceed Council would be required to conduct the following works:

· Pathways/non-vehicle access routes

· Rubbish Bins

· Signage

· Toilets

· Cleared areas

· Potable water

· Water Entrance similar to that constructed at Gosling Creek

· Operational costs

· System for security of water supply assets

· Fish cleaning areas

· Establishment of restricted zones

· Boating equipment for supervision and inspection of water activities.

Capital cost estimate based on the above requirements is $1.5m to $2.5m

Operational Costs

Operational Costs are estimated to be significant given the sensitivity of the Dam and the need for active management and supervision of the precinct. It is estimated that the site would require two staff to monitor on weekends and one staff member to monitor during weekdays.

The site would also require rubbish removal and maintenance.

On this basis the estimated operational cost is $200,000 - $300,000 per annum.

Timeframe for approvals, development and implementation

As with Spring Creek Dam it is difficult to estimate a timeframe for the delivery of such a project given its complexity and key issues that will need to be considered.

Using the example of access to Spring Creek by Kinross Wolaroi School it is estimated that this process would take several years.

Sport and Recreation Policy Committee 4 December 2018

3.2 Orange Sporting Precinct

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/2812

AUTHOR: Scott Maunder, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council engaged Geolyse to identify possible sites, conduct a desktop assessment of constraints for each site and develop a schematic design in plan format of a sporting precinct for up to two sites.

Council has received the desktop constraints analysis for possible sites.

This report summarises those outcomes and seeks Council’s direction on the next stage.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “2.1 Live - Identify and deliver sport and recreation facilities to service the community into the future”.

Financial Implications

Council has engaged Geolyse to conduct the constraint analysis and develop concept designs for a sporting precinct for up to two sites.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

The Council resolves:

1 To note the findings of the report.

2 That a schematic design incorporating current and future requirements for the NDR site be developed to a standard to enable costing be completed.

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

Council engaged Geolyse to identify possible sites, conduct a desktop assessment of constraints for each site and develop a schematic design in plan format of a sporting precinct for up to two sites.

Essential site features as identified by Council were:

Core elements:

a One main rectangular field suitable for the conduct of International Rugby League, Rugby Union and Football (soccer) incorporating a 1,500 seat grandstand with disability access, change rooms, amenities, broadcast facilities, staff and storage areas and competition lighting for night games. Field to be hybrid field and for ground capacity to a minimum of 10,000.

b A “number 1” field suitable for the conduct of International Rugby League, Rugby Union and Football (soccer) adjacent to the main field. Field to be hybrid field.

c 4 multipurpose fields suitable for the conduct of International Rugby League, Rugby Union and Football (soccer) for summer and winter sports competition

d Amenities

e Food outlets

f Parking

g Public transport bays

h Storage

i Works shed

j Circulation tracks for walking and cycling

Future elements:

1 State level standard Track and Field facilities with grandstand incorporated into grandstand on main field

2 4 multipurpose fields suitable for the conduct of International Rugby League, Rugby Union and Football (soccer) for summer and winter sports competition

3 Amenities

4 Food outlets

5 Walking paths and observation points linking with precinct.

The sites assessed were:

1 Northern Distributor Road

2 Jack Brabham Park – Golf Course

3 Gateway site behind homemakers Centre

4 DPI Site

5 CSU Grounds

6 Private property on Huntley Road adjacent to the hospital

7 Mitchell Highway

Stages for the project are:

Stage 1 - Information review and inception

· Review all available data/documentation related to the project.

· Attend an inception meeting.

· Undertake background desktop research of relevant archives and database.

· Identify possible sites. This would include the three sites in the request for quotation and up to three additional sites.

· Undertake site visits in conjunction with an OCC representative.

Stage 2 – Desktop Constraints Analysis

· Complete a desktop constraints analysis for each site focusing on Access, Parking, Noise impact, Heritage impact, Lighting impact, Environmental constraints, Other constraints such as servicing issues for each site and collate information utilising GIS software.

· Prepare a report for each identified possible site and rank sites in terms of suitability.

· Based on the ranking and in consultation with Council, identify two preferred sites to move forward into draft site master plan/schematic design in dimensional form.

Stage 3 - Draft site plan and documentation

· Prepare the draft plan document (Version 1) for each of the preferred sites.

Stage 4 - Finalise draft plan

· Update and issue final draft plan (Version 2) for each of the preferred sites.

Stage 5 - Final plan

· Prepare and issue final plan (Final Version) for each of the preferred sites.

CHARACTERISTIC	QUANTITATIVE MEASURE	WEIGHTING
Have access to a high volume road network	Be located within 300-500 metres of a major road that is capable of accommodating large volumes of vehicles at peak times (up to 5,000 vehicles arriving and departing in the peak hour, together with existing road traffic volumes)	100%
Have access to services of a required standard (water, sewer, tc)	Have an existing connection to Council reticulated services, or be located within 500 metres of existing services which have capacity to be extended to support the development	100%
Be in a location that enables field lighting to be operated	Not be within 500 metres of residential properties	100%
Be of suitable size to accommodate all essential and future elements	Have a size of not less than 35 hectares. Those properties with a size of less than 35 hectares will receive an automatic FAIL notwithstanding their overall score as this is seen as a critical aspect of the project in order to future proof the site.	Pass / Fail
Be proximal to the city of Orange	Be within 2-3 kilometres of the central business district	60%
Be suitable for acquisition	Be: · in Council or Crown ownership, · A single parcel of land; · A group of land parcels owned by a single owner	80%
Be developable	Not unduly constrained by site characteristics, i.e. · Land use zoning allows development · Have a predominant slope of less than 5% Not on high capability soil · Land mapped as containing sensitive terrestrial biodiversity · Mapped sensitive plant community type · Not result in significant impacts to items of Aboriginal heritage sites or items · Not result in significant impacts to items of historic heritage sites or items · Not be unduly constrained by flooding · Not be unduly constrained by bushfire · Not unduly constrained by easements · Naturally occurring asbestos · Groundwater vulnerability · Applicable height of building LEP limit	80% 100% 60% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 60% 80% 60% 60%

Council has received the Desktop Constraints Analysis report (attached). The analysis considered seven sites across the criteria above. A summary of the findings is:

SITE	ADDRESS	SIZE	CURRENT ZONING	WEIGHTED RANKING
1 - Northern Distributor Road	Lot 101 DP1224248	44.4 ha	RE1 – Public Recreation and E3 – Environmental Management	1
2 – Jack Brabham	Lot 209 DP42900 Crown road reserve	21.7 ha	RE2 – Private Recreation	FAIL
3 - Gateway site	Lot 2 DP1031236 Lot 6 DP1031236	21.9 ha	B5 – Business Development and E3 – Environmental Management	FAIL
4 – DPI	Lot 7011 DP1000831	96.2 ha	Part R2 – Low Density Residential – Part SP2 – Infrastructure: Agricultural Research	4
5 – CSU	Lots 2, 3 & 4 DP7214 Lot 1 DP548053 Lot 300 DP1047282	43.1	B7 – Business Park	2
6 – Huntley Road	Lot 1 DP520160 Lot 34 DP664921	68.7 ha	E3 – Environmental Management	5
7 – Mitchell Highway	Lot 1 DP1059022	63.89 ha	RU1 – Primary Production	2