Agenda of Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee Meeting

ITEM 1 - APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To allow tendering of apologies for Councillors not present.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.5.1.g - Code of Meeting Practice adopted and implemented.
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\GOVERNANCE\COUNCIL MEETINGS\COUNCIL - COUNCILLORS LEAVE OF ABSENCE - 542659

Recommendation

THAT any apologies tendered be accepted and the necessary leave of absence be granted.

General Manager's REPORT

A call for apologies be made.

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To allow an opportunity for Councillors to declare an interest in any items to be determined at this meeting.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.5.1.g - Code of Meeting Practice adopted and implemented.
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\GOVERNANCE\COUNCIL MEETINGS\COUNCIL - COUNCILLORS AND STAFF DECLARATION OF INTEREST - 2014 - 535731

Recommendation

THAT the Declarations of Interest be noted.

General Manager's REPORT

A call for Declarations of Interest.

ITEM 3 - DECLARATIONS FOR POLITICAL DONATIONS

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To allow an opportunity for Councillors to declare any Political Donations received.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.5.1.g - Code of Meeting Practice adopted and implemented.
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\GOVERNANCE\COUNCIL MEETINGS\COUNCIL - COUNCILLORS DECLARATION OF POLITICAL DONATIONS - 535732

Recommendation

THAT any Political Donations be noted.

General Manager's REPORT

A call for Declarations of any Political Donations.

ITEM 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES STAFF ATTENDANCE AT CANOWINDRA OFFICE

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To seek support to continue staff presence at Canowindra
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4. Grow Cabonne's Culture and Community
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROLS\LIAISON - 541336

Recommendation

THAT the Environmental Services staff continue attending the Canowindra HACC office each Wednesday morning to provide planning, building and environmental services to the local community.

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

From the beginning of July 2013 the Environmental Services staff have been attending the Canowindra HACC office each Wednesday morning to provide planning and environmental services to the local community.

A roster system is in place to ensure that one of the team are available at Canowindra between 9.30am and 12.30pm each Wednesday to attend to enquiries relating to the Environmental Services Department’s core areas of responsibility.

The staff presence has been well received with local community members from Canowindra and the surrounding area including Eugowra using the office service. Enquiries most frequently relate to planning, building and subdivision enquires but do extend to ranger’s services and general matters. Staff have also found the arrangement of value in facilitating same day site visits arising from office enquires at Canowindra. Interaction with the local community has also assisted staff in maintaining connection with current issues in the Canowindra area.

The support from the HACC staff has been much appreciated by the environmental services team, both in sharing their office space and in assisting with phone enquiries directed to the environmental services duty officer on the day.

It is proposed that the Environmental Services Department continue with the program, and maintain its once weekly presence at the Canowindra office.

ITEM 5 - REVIEW OF PLANNING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To obtain the committee's approval to continue with existing procedures.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.5.3a provide efficient and effective development assessment
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROLS\PROCEDURES - 538251

Recommendation

THAT the current procedures for assessment and determination of development applications as adopted by Council at its meeting of 17 October 2011 be retained.

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

The following report that was endorsed by council in October 2011 is reprinted for review by the current Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee. The report set a protocol for the assessment and determination of development applications.

As the system has been in operation now for two years the committee is asked to review the effectiveness of the protocols. The program was established in 2011 to assist in streamlining the planning process and to provide a clear procedure for council’s consideration of community submissions either supporting or opposing development applications.

Council at its meeting held on 15 August 2011 requested a report to review current policy and procedures to proponents and objectors to DAs addressing Council, in particular on repeated occasions. This links also to previous reports to council in 2008 and again in 2010 regarding protocols and procedures for the various steps within the development assessment process particularly with a view to streamlining procedures for applicants, Council and Councillors.

The planning process is complex and not always well understood by those involved in the system. In order to provide a transparent, sustainable, streamlined and accountable system there is a need for council to have in place appropriate policies / procedures and delegation arrangements, clearly defined roles and responsibilities at the various stages of the development assessment process, consistent application of development rules, adequate resolution techniques and monitoring mechanisms.

The assessment process comprises the following stages:

Pre application information gathering / consultation

DA lodgement

Notification and consultation

Assessment and report writing

Decision making

Appeals and dispute management

Compliance / enforcement

Council has variously requested a review of the existing processes relating to the area of planning assessment decision making. The council have raised concerns regarding the process for community participation in the decision making process and the range of development proposals currently placed before council for determination. The intent of the council policy review is to streamline the process while maintaining consistency, transparency and efficiency.

In reviewing the existing protocols and procedures a range of areas have emerged where council has opportunity to refine the process thereby increasing the efficiency of the planning assessment process. A summary of the identified emerging issues is provided below:

Procedure and / or Issue

Comment

Reports presented to Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee and / or Council

As established in the 2010 report on planning procedures the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee is the appropriate forum for the consideration of planning, building, health and environmental reports.

It is noted that in recent years due to staffing / resource constraints and requests/decisions by Council that planning reports were included in either the committee or the council business papers to reduce further delays in determining applications.

It should be further noted that issues such as implementation of policies and adoption of legal documents such as LEPs and DCPs remain a matter for consideration by council and cannot be sub delegated to the committee. Also in this domain would be requests to vary s 94 contributions and requests for s82A reviews

Strategy 1) – that planning, health and building and environmental reports be directed to the Environmental Services Committee as a matter of protocol

Delegations – Council’s delegated authority

Objections to DAs

SEPP 1 variations

Council owned or managed land

As the committee and council each meet only once a month significant delays can occur in processing times for DAs that cannot be determined under Council’s delegated authority. An additional 2 to 5 weeks approval time can be added to a development application when reports are required to be referred to the committee and then to council for determination.

It is suggested that council review its delegations to the General Manager to improve the efficiency of the determination process.

Council by its own policy requires the notification of all subdivision applications. This is not a requirement of the LEP, any DCP or state legislation. Council further requires that where a submission by way of objection is lodged to any DA that the determination of the application be referred to the committee.

Often submissions are limited to a single objection. In most instances the objection can be addressed and resolved through the standard planning process, and where necessary appropriate conditions of consent applied. Some objections do not relate to the prescribed planning assessment heads of consideration and cannot be taken into consideration. (example – recent objection to a proposed rural storage shed at Windera Estate where the details of external finish is controlled by a covenant created by the developer)

It is suggested that policy be implemented to enable delegation to the General Manager to determine DAs where submissions / objections can be satisfactorily resolved. It is also suggested that to ensure the community’s concerns are adequately considered – that where there are 3 or more unresolved objections that the DA be referred to the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee for determination.

Currently all SEPP 1 (variation of development standards) are referred to the committee for determination. To improve efficiency in processing these applications it is suggested that delegated authority be granted to the General Manager to determine such applications where there are no unresolved submissions / objections. Examples of such applications are recent SEPP 1 applications to vary lot sizes in the villages of Eugowra and Cargo to facilitate subdivision of former school residences from school allotments. Where there are unresolved or complex issues such applications would be referred to the committee for determination. (eg – Gorham Road dwelling application)

Currently any DA relating to Council owned or managed land is referred to the committee for determination. This includes DAs for events, for construction of basic facilities and amenities and for structures. (eg – Cobb & Co event at the Molong Rec Ground, Canowindra cemetery rotunda)

It is suggested that delegated authority be given to the General Manager to determine DAs upon council owned or managed land where Council has no commercial interest in the development. Matters of commercial interest ie Waluwin Centre development – would be referred to the committee. The General Manager would have discretion to refer matters of deemed community interest (ie the Molong Village Green Rotunda and war memorial ) to the committee for determination

Strategy 2) – review council’s delegation of authority to the General Manager to permit determination by way of approval or conditional approval, SEPP 1 applications that satisfy the DoP’s delegation guidelines, development applications where issues raised by way of objection have been addressed and resolved, and development applications relating to council owned or managed land where council does not hold a commercial interest in the development.

Strategy 3) – that where 3 or more objections are received relating to a DA and those issues remain unresolved at the planning assessment /report stage, that the DA be referred to the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee for determination

Procedure for presentations to committee or council

There is a community expectation that their concerns will be considered by council through written submissions as well as verbal representation. Developers also expect opportunity to speak in support of their proposals.

While a procedure was established in 2010 for planning interviews, this has not been successful. It has previously been identified that the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee is the appropriate forum for initial consideration of relevant planning reports. However there is a significant limitation to the effective use of the committee for community addresses. This is a result of the current system where the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee commence upon the conclusion of the Economic Development and Tourism committee. It has not proven possible to allocate specific times for community members to attend and address the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee. In some situations community members have been kept waiting for up to 45 minutes after the nominated start time of the committee due to the previous committee meeting extending beyond its anticipated timeframe.

Council could consider a policy of strict adherence to the advertised meeting times, or consider holding the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee prior to the Economic Development and Tourism Committee (the latter not seemingly subject to community presentations / addresses).

It is also suggested that a process be put in place that objectors or developers are encouraged to meet with the Director Environmental Services or if necessary the General Manager to discuss development matters during the assessment stage of the planning process

Strategy 4) – Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee he held prior to the Economic Development and Tourism meeting

Strategy 5) – that the Director Environmental Services mediate or if necessary the General Manager with objectors and developers/applicants throughout the planning assessment process

Presentations to the committee or council

A clear policy should be developed to guide community attendance at committee meetings and / or council. It is suggested that:

Members of the public address the committee meeting

Presentations can only address an item on the business agenda

Presentations may be in support or opposed to a planning report recommendation

Where more than one objector wishes to address the committee that one spokesperson be nominated to represent the group

Speakers be granted a maximum time of 5 mins to address the committee

There be a formal written application required to enable an individual to address a committee meeting, encompassing an agreement to comply with council’s code of meeting practice. A copy of the application and issues to be addressed to be provided to Councillors before hand.

Presentations should occur at the commencement of the committee meeting. The committee may proceed with the general order of the agenda or resolve to move an agenda item forward

Members of the public may address the committee or council once only on a planning item, unless the developer lodges amended plans that significantly alter the initial proposal.

It should be noted that the current procedure for presentations to council by government agencies ie DoPI, CW Catchment Management Authority, RTA, WBC Alliance etc would remain in place.

Strategy 6) – procedure be implemented to enable members of the community to address the Environmental Services Committee and Council regarding an agenda item. That a member of the public be permitted to address the committee or council once only on a matter. That presentations be limited to maximum time allocation of 5 minutes per speaker and where several people propose to speak on the issue that one spokesperson be nominated to represent the views of the group. That formal application be required for those wishing to address the committee or council and that any additional written information be provided to council by close of business on the Friday prior to the committee or council meeting and copies of application and issues to be addressed be provided to Councillors beforehand.

Late submissions / tabled submissions

When a DA is advertised or notified there is a specified time frame for submission of written comment. The planning assessment and report incorporates these submissions.

However there is a tendency for objectors and developers to submit further written material at the committee or council meeting. This does not enable councillors or staff sufficient time to consider the correspondence and may further delay the consideration of the application should further investigation be required.

Council could either limit consideration of submissions to the nominated notification period, or continue to accept unsolicited submissions subject to such submissions being lodged with council by close of business on the Friday preceding the committee or council meeting.

Lack of committee quorum

An issue for the Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee is the frequency that a quorum cannot be maintained due to councillors needing to declare an interest in an agenda item. Currently in such circumstances the planning item is referred to council resulting in a further delay of at least 2 weeks in determining the DA. Occasionally the item is rescheduled for the committee’s agenda of the following month – creating a 4 week delay in considering the item.

It is suggested that in the instances where a quorum cannot be maintained by the committee that the planning report be delegated to the General Manager for determination

Strategy 7) – That DAs deferred due to the lack of a committee quorum be delegated to the General Manager for determination

Review of strategies

Strategy	Comment
1 – Planning, building and environmental matters be referred to the committee rather than council	This strategy has provided a clear direction for reporting
2 – Delegation to General Manager for applications where council owns or manages the land and where there is no commercial interest by council in the matter	This strategy has streamlined DA processing, especially for applications for community events
3 – Referral of DAs to the committee where there are 3 or more unresolved submissions	Successful strategy, in that one off submissions, where a development control can be applied to address the issue, can be determined under council’s delegation without undue delay in processing time
4 – Environmental Services & Sustainability Committee to be held prior to the Economic Development Committee meeting	Very successful strategy as it has ensured a set commencement time for meetings and presentations
5 – Staff mediation to resolve issues identified by public consultation process	Staff, including the general manager have facilitated discussions and meetings with proponents and with interested parties as necessary with a view to progressing discussions and where possible resolving issues prior to the planning report being presented to the committee.
6 – Public address to council	This protocol has enabled representation by objectors to the committee and has streamlined the process and provided clarity to the process
7 – Lack of meeting quorum	Advice provided suggested that in the event of a lack of a committee quorum the agenda item must be referred to the council for determination and that sub-delegation could not be facilitated.

It is suggested that the above procedures have streamlined the process for assessment and consideration of development applications and that the current practises should be retained.

ITEM 6 - COMMERCIAL RELEASE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To inform the committee of the application by Monsanto
Policy Implications	Council policy opposes introduction into the LGA of genetically modified crops
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	5. Manage our natural Resources
Annexures	1. Summary of Licence Application 2. Q&A on Licence Application 3. Council Policy - Genetically Modified Organisms 4. Request for Advice on commercial release of GM Canola
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\PUBLIC HEALTH\MONITORING\GENE TECHNOLOGY - 539193

Recommendation

THAT Council adopt a position in relation to Genetically Modified Canola..

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

Council has received communication from the Department of Health, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, advising of an application by Monsanto Australia Pty Ltd.

The Licence application DIR 127 is for unrestricted commercial release of the genetically modified (GM) canola variety MON 88302 (also referred to as TruFlex™ Roundup Ready^® canola). MON 88302 contains one introduced gene that confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate.

Monsanto is seeking approval to release the MON 88302 canola in all canola growing areas of Australia. The GM canola and its products would enter general commerce, including use in human food and animal feed.

A summary of the application is attached along with a set of ‘Questions and Answers’ that provide an overview of the application and an outline of the assessment process.

In order to comply with the legislative timeframe for this application, the department seeks council’s advice on matters related to risks to human health and safety and the environment that should be considered in preparing the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) by 24 April 2014.

There will be further opportunity for council to comment on the RARMP once it has been prepared.

A copy of council’s policy opposing genetically modified crops is also attached for the committee’s reference

ITEM 7 - BUSINESS PAPER ITEMS FOR NOTING

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	Provides an opportunity for Councillors to call items for noting for discussion and recommends remainder to be noted.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.5.1.g - Code of Meeting Practice adopted and implemented.
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\GOVERNANCE\COUNCIL MEETINGS\PROCEDURES - 535733

Recommendation

THAT:

1. Councillors call any items they wish to further consider.

2. The balance of the items be noted.

General Manager's REPORT

In the second part of the Committee Business Paper are items included for the Committee’s information.

In accordance with Council’s format for it Business Paper, Councillors wishing to discuss any item are requested to call that item.

Item 6 Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee Meeting 1 April 2014

Item 6 - Annexure 1

February 2014

Summary of Licence Application DIR 127

Introduction

An application has been made under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act) for Dealings involving the Intentional Release (DIR) of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the Australian environment.

Application number	DIR 127
Applicant:	Monsanto Australia Ltd (Monsanto)
Project Title:	Commercial release of canola genetically modified for herbicide tolerance (MON 88302)^{^[1]}
Parent organism:	Canola (Brassica napus L.)
Introduced gene and modified trait:	5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (cp4 epsps) gene derived from the bacterium Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (herbicide tolerance)
Proposed release dates:	Ongoing from date of approval
Proposed locations:	All canola growing areas of Australia

The proposed dealings

Monsanto proposes a commercial release of the genetically modified (GM) canola variety MON 88302 (also referred to as TruFlex™ Roundup Ready^® canola). MON 88302 contains one introduced gene that confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate.

Monsanto is seeking approval for unrestricted commercial release of MON 88302 canola in all canola growing areas in Australia. Commercial canola production occurs mainly in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, and to a much lesser extent in Tasmania and southern Queensland. However, the commercial cultivation of GM canola is currently prohibited in South Australia and Tasmania under State legislation introduced for marketing reasons.

If a licence is issued, the GM canola would enter general commerce, including use in human food and animal feed. Food Standards Australia New Zealand has assessed and approved food made from MON 88302. Authorities in the United States, Canada, Japan and Mexico have also approved food derived from MON 88302.

Parent organism

The parent organism, Brassica napus L., is commonly known as canola, and is exotic to Australia.

The genetic modification and its effect

MON 88302 contains an introduced cp4 epsps gene from the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain CP4. The gene encodes 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), an enzyme of the shikimic acid pathway which is involved in the biosynthesis of aromatic compounds, including some amino acids. In non-GM plants, glyphosate binds to and blocks the activity of the natural plant version of this enzyme, which results in the plant being deprived of essential amino acids for growth and development. However, as glyphosate does not bind to the introduced CP4 EPSPS enzyme, expression of the introduced cp4 epsps gene enables the GM canola plants to produce aromatic amino acids in the presence of glyphosate. Herbicides containing glyphosate could then be used for weed control in the GM canola crop.

The introduced cp4 epsps gene is under the control of a chimeric constitutive promoter containing enhancer sequences from the Figwort mosaic virus 35S promoter combined with sequences of the Tsf1 gene promoter from Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress).

Other short regulatory sequences that contribute to control the expression of the cp4 epsps gene are also present in MON 88302. These are derived from A. thaliana and Pisum sativum (common garden pea).

MON 88302 canola differs from the already commercially grown Roundup Ready^® canola by expression of the cp4 epsps gene in all tissue types, particularly in pollen. It can therefore tolerate higher rates of glyphosate herbicides and has a wider window for herbicide application. The applicant advises that this is intended to allow optimisation of herbicide applications to suit environmental and weed growth conditions, providing improved weed control. It is not intended to increase the number of herbicide applications.

Method of genetic modification

MON 88302 was generated using Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation. This transformation method has been widely used in Australia and overseas for introducing genes into plants. More detailed information on methods of genetic modification can be found in the document Methods of plant genetic modification available from the Risk Assessment References page on the OGTR website.

Previous releases of the same or similar GMOs

Field trials of MON 88302 have been conducted in Australia under licence DIR 105. Environmental release of MON 88302 canola has also been approved in the United States and Canada.

Other GM canola modified for herbicide tolerance have been approved in Australia for field trials, and for commercial release (DIR 020/2002: Roundup Ready^®canola; DIR 021/2002: InVigor^® canola; and DIR 108: InVigor^® × Roundup Ready^®canola). Roundup Ready^® canola also contains an introduced cp4 epsps gene.

There have been no credible reports of adverse effects on human health and safety or the environment resulting from any of these releases.

Assessment and consultation process for this DIR application

The Act and the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 set out requirements for considering licence applications, including matters that the Gene Technology Regulator (the Regulator) must take into account before deciding whether or not to issue a licence.

Since this application is for commercial purposes, the Regulator is required to seek advice from prescribed experts, agencies and authorities on matters relevant to the preparation of a Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP), in accordance with section 50 of the Act. This first round of consultation must include the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, State and Territory Governments, Australian Government agencies, any local council that the Regulator considers appropriate and the Environment Minister.

While the Regulator is not required to seek public comment at this stage, copies of the application are available on request from the OGTR. Please quote application number DIR 127.

In a second round of consultation, the Regulator will seek comment on the consultation RARMP from the public as well as prescribed experts, agencies and authorities. The RARMP will then be finalised, taking into account matters raised relating to risks to human health and safety and the environment, and will inform the Regulator’s decision whether or not to issue a licence.

At this stage, the RARMP is expected to be released for comment in July 2014. The public will be invited to provide submissions on the RARMP via advertisements in the media and direct mail to anyone registered on the OGTR mailing list. The RARMP and other related documents will be available on the OGTR website, or in hard copy from the OGTR.

More information on Australia’s national scheme for regulation of gene technology and the assessment process can be found at the Office of The Gene Technology Regulator’s website (www.ogtr.gov.au).

If you have any questions about the application or the assessment process, or wish to register on the mailing list, please contact the OGTR at:

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, MDP 54 GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT 2601

Telephone: 1800 181 030 Facsimile: 02 6271 4202 Email: ogtr@health.gov.au

Website http://www.ogtr.gov.au

ITEM 1 - PERFORMANCE MONITORING 2012/13

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To inform council of the NSW Government Annual Report
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.5.3 Provide efficient and effective development assessment
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROLS\MONITORING - 541290

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

The NSW Department of Planning has released its Local Government Performance Report for 2012-13. The report provides a range of comparative information drawing upon NSW Local Government and private certifier data relating to the processing of development applications and related certificates.

The full report is available on the Department of Planning’s web site. A summary extract of the information is provided below for the information of Council and provides a comparison between the alliance councils of Wellington, Blayney and Cabonne.

A review of the base data by council staff has indicated several reporting inconsistencies still appear to remain as a result of the conversion to Synerysoft services by council. This matter is to be further investigated to ensure accurate data provision.

The overall NSW local development assessment results indicated for the reporting term are summarised as follows:

· 68 days on average were taken by councils to process a DA – a decrease on the 71 days in the previous reporting period and equal to 2010/11 reporting period

· 17 days on average were taken by councils to process CDCs – a decrease by one day from the previous year’s reporting.

For Cabonne LGA the gross mean to determine DAs was 108 days compared to the previous year’s figure of 81 days. The gross median time to determine DAs was 49 compared to the previous year’s figure of 46 days. CDCs were processed on average in 8 days being a decrease from the previous figure of 15 days.

Throughout the state, council staff determined 77.8% of DAs/CDCs. Private certifiers accounted for 18.7% of approvals, 2.9% were approved by councillors and 0.4% by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

Local Development Performance Monitoring

Summary of data – 2012-13

	Number of CCs issued by council	Number of OCs issued by Council	Number of subdivision certificates issued by council	Number of CDCs determined By council
Cabonne	69	56	2	28
Blayney	112	127	14	21
Wellington	50	32	1	12

	No DAs determined	Mean gross time for DA determined	Median gross time for DA determined	No DAs approved by Councillors	No DAs approved under by delegation
Cabonne	69	108 days	49 days	11	57
Blayney	130	56 days	36 days	4	126
Wellington	77	28 days	24 days	3	74

	Value of DAs determined by council 2012/13	Value of CDCs Determined by council	Mean CDC times determined by council	Median CDC times Determined by council
Cabonne	$14.2m	$403,778	11	9
Blayney	$15.6m	$0	0	0
Wellington	$4.5m	$701,798	9	9

ITEM 2 - HERITAGE ADVISOR'S REPORT - MARCH 2014

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	Providing Councillors with a copy of the Heritage Advisor's report for March 2014
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	4.3 - Beautiful towns and villages with historic assets cared for and preserved.
Annexures	1. Heritage Advisor's Report - March
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROLS\REPORTS\HERITAGE - 541338

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

A copy of the Heritage Advisor’s Report for March 2014 is attached for the information of the committee.

ITEM 3 - IMPLEMENTATION OF GLASS CRUSHER PROGRAM _ MANILDRA LANDFILL SITE

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To provide a progress report to the committee
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil
IPR Linkage	5. Manage our Natural Resources
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\WASTE MANAGEMENT\DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION - 541360

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

Council has been a partner in a collaborative Netwaste project to increase recycling, reduce the amount of glass going to landfill, and develop local markets for synthetic sand.

The glass crusher project was launched by Wellington Council in 2012 and is the first mobile glass crusher in Australia. The Komplet MT5000 mobile glass crusher will increase glass recycling rates by processing glass bottles and jars collected through kerbside recycling and drop off facilities, and reuse the recovered crushed glass (RCG) locally in civil construction projects.

The project is a joint initiative funded and supported by the Australian Food and Grocery Council’s Packaging Stewardship Forum (PSF), the Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) and five councils of the NetWaste Regional Waste Management Group, Wellington, Cabonne, Cowra, Mid-Western and Oberon councils.

Glass sand can be used for a wide range of civil construction purposes in place of natural sand, such as in asphalt and concrete pavements, kerb and guttering, pole footings, pipe bedding and in road base. The technology of utilizing glass sand in road making is also the subject of other trials within NSW with Port Stephens Council being one such council actively trialing the product.

Glass sand is subject to EPA standards and is considered to be safe to handle and has proven to perform well as an aggregate additive in construction works. All five participating Netwaste councils have also agreed to trial the use of RCG in their civil construction programs, creating a potential local market for the material.

The new Mobile Glass Crusher will be managed by Wellington Council for the participating councils and is one of a number of PSF and APC projects around the nation which will increase the recovery of glass for recycling and ensure sustainable and economically viable alternative uses for RCG.

The mobile glass crusher plant is to be accommodated at the Manildra Landfill site and an area has now been established to provide storage bays and processing area. It is anticipated that the mobile plant will be relocated from its current location at Oberon to the Manildra facility at the end of March, with trial crushing at Manildra to be scheduled for early April.

The project is a collaborative program with potential to develop local markets for the processed product. The quantities of sand likely to be processed at the Cabonne facility are predicted to be small and will initially be subject to trial use by the council. The project has potential to develop a local market for the sand in partnership with the Netwaste participating councils

ITEM 4 - LEGISLATION CHANGES - SALE OR LEASE OF PROPERTIES HAVING SWIMMING POOLS

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To inform the Committee of legislation changes - sale or lease of properties with swimming pools.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	May impact upon council budget if non compliant pools are identified and require reinspection as the legislations limits the cost recovery options to council
IPR Linkage	4.5.3.g - Develop Council and community program to promote compliance with Swimming Pool Act and Regulations
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROLS\LEGISLATION\REQUIREMENTS - LEGISLATION - 541382

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

Council will be aware that the Swimming Pool Amendment Act 2012 commenced on 29 October 2012. The amendment triggers amendment to other legislation, in particular the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010 and the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010.

It is important that council be aware that from 29 April 2014 changes for the sale of land and residential tenancy agreements commence and will require as follows:

For inclusion in a contract for sale of a property:

· A valid swimming pool certificate of compliance issued within the previous three years or

· A relevant occupation certificate issued within three years and evidence that the pool has been registered in accordance with Part 3A of the Swimming Pools Act 1992

At the time of issue of a residential tenancy agreement:

· The pool on the premises is registered under the Swimming Pools Act 1992

· A valid certificate of compliance or relevant occupation certificate issued within the previous three years

· A copy of the valid compliance certificate or occupation certificate is to be provided to the tenant.

The introduction of the above requirements potentially will increase the demand for inspections and issue of certificates across the shire. It is not known how many private swimming pools exist within the shire, or how many pool may have been installed without the statutory approvals. Council is required to undertake inspections of pools as a result of the amending legislation. Additional council inspections are likely to be required as part of property sale contractual procedures and tenancy agreements. This will have an impact upon staff resourcing to respond to the additional requirements.

Environmental Services staff will work towards facilitating the inspections, and will liaise with solicitors, conveyancers and real estate agents to enable as smooth a transition to the new legal requirements as possible.

ITEM 5 - EPA WOODSMOKE REDUCTION PROGRAM 2014

REPORT IN BRIEF

Reason For Report	To advise the Committee of grant funding received for the EPA Woodsmoke Reduction Program 2014.
Policy Implications	Nil
Budget Implications	Nil - grant funding of $5000 has been received to facilitate a community education program.
IPR Linkage	5.5.1.d - Support community education programs in environmental stewarship and management
Annexures	Nil
File Number	\OFFICIAL RECORDS LIBRARY\ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT\PROGRAMS\WOOD SMOKE REDUCTION PROGRAM - 541408

Director of Environmental Services' REPORT

In October 2013 council applied for funding through the Environment Protection Authority for the 2014 Wood Smoke Reduction Program. The funding is available from the NSW Government via the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to assist local communities to address air pollution caused by wood heaters through the following options:

1. Community education programs about the health impacts of wood smoke pollution and how best to operate wood heaters;

2. Smokey chimney surveys by councils and appropriate educational/enforcement action; and

3. Targeted cash incentives to replace old, polluting wood heaters and fireplaces with cleaner alternatives.

Cabonne Council has been successful in gaining $5,000 towards implementation of a community education program. Each winter council receives complaints about smoke pollution from domestic wood heaters used within the town and village areas, with community concerns expressed about public health. Engagement in the EPA program has been identified as a pro active step in providing information to the community to assist in reducing wood smoke pollution, changing habits and promoting sound maintenance of wood heaters.

The program is not about removing wood heaters from use. Rather it is about education of home owners on the efficient and effective use of wood heaters. In essence home owners can become complacent about the impact of the use of wood heaters and / or the maintenance of such heaters. When a wood heater is not operating to its optimum the impact through emission of gas and smoke to the atmosphere can have severe impact upon public health.

A training course was recently held by EPA for council and ROC participants of the program. It was of particular interest that statistics indicated more deaths per year in NSW from air pollution related health issues than deaths from road accidents.

The grants program will enable council to promote to our communities best use practice for operation of domestic wood heaters. This will be achieved by use of media and printed material which will be available to council through the program coordinator.

Participation in the program also has the benefit of networking with other councils and ROCs to gain insight into the range of programs that participants have been developing. For example several councils promote programs encouraging chimney sweeps and regular cleaning of chimneys. Others target commercial suppliers of firewood in their education programs.

The program as indicated at the beginning of this report also includes a range of additional programs to record and monitor wood smoke pollution by surveys and a buy back scheme for older style wood heaters. Cabonne Council is entering the program with community education as its focus. Interest in the uptake of information by the community, and an assessment of the number of wood smoke pollution complaints received by council during the coming winter, will be used as measures of the programs impact.

Item 2 Environmental Services and Sustainability Committee Meeting 1 April 2014

Item 2 - Annexure 1

David Scobie Architects

Level One, 177A Sailors Bay Road,

Northbridge, Heritage

NSW 2063

Tel: (02) 9967 2426

Fax: (02) 9967 2471

Mobile: 0412 415010

Email scobiearchitect@optusnet.com.au

Cabonne Shire Council

Via email

Attn: Ms. Heather Nicholls &

Amanda Rasmussen

REPORT: March 2014 Visit: 04/03/2014

1.0 Information provided to the Heritage Advisor

1.1 Heritage Committee Meeting:

1.1.1 Current issues: Items addressed below

1.2 Heritage Advisor appointments –

· Each of the Tuesday visits is listed below

· April 8^th

· May 6^th Annual Report writing in the morning

· June 3^nd

· July 8^th

· August 5^th

· September ^2nd

2.0 Follow Up required

v Eugowra Hotel - reconstruction

v Canowindra – Plaques

v Ophir Trust

v East Guyong Cemetery

The following notes apply to site visits and requests for advice

The intention is that the notes are passed to the Property Owner/Enquirer/DA Applicant:

3.0 Fairbridge Farm, Amaroo Road, Molong

Attention: David Hill, OFA

The following notes are of a preliminary nature only.

The enquiry comes from David Hill on behalf of the Old Fairbridgeans with a view to see what can be done to protect the significance of the site. The Association are keen to investigate options for the sensitive adaptive re-use of the buildings.

Recent history

o The village nominally closed in the early 1970s

o Barratts purchased the site and operated the land as part of a poultry operation

o The Bedoun group purchased the site as a going concern in 1989

o The poultry business closed in 1991 and the site generally ran down with the Mitchells leasing the lands for stock.

The land was valued some 5 years ago with a company ownership adjustment and the valuer made a full record.

It is understood that the general lands which have been leased for the last recent years are in the process of being sold however there is no interest in the village.

A preliminary assessment of some of the issues involved follows:

The site is listed as a heritage item in the Cabonne LEP 2012 as the Fairbridge farm precinct, 44 Amaroo Road, Molong, Lot 6, DP 247214, Item No. I160 of local significance.

The site is nominally 27 Ha

The site is not capable of subdivision due to the current size.

The site is zoned Rural RU1.

There is a very wide range of permitted uses in the area, including Camping, Cellar door, Eco-tourism – education, Farm stay, Restaurant/Cafe and Function Centre.

The LEP includes details describing constraints on these uses:

· Clause 4.6 provides for exceptions to development standards to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility. This does not apply to subdivision

· Clause 5.4 provides detailed Controls for bed and breakfast accommodation – a maximum of 5 bedrooms only is permitted

· and farm stay accommodation is limited to no more than 12 bedrooms

· Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation (2) indicates that Consent is required for works to the heritage item

· (4) & (5) Council will require a heritage management document to assess the heritage impact of any proposed works

· (6) Given the scale of the site and the significance of the site and the structures, council is likely to require a Conservation Management Plan for the site to guide development

· (10) provides the Heritage incentives. Council may grant consent for any purpose of a heritage building or land even if the purpose would not be allowed, is Council can be satisfied that:

o Conservation is facilitated by granting the consent, and

o The development is consistent with the CMP, and

o The development includes completion of all the conservation works nominated in the CMP, and

o The works would have no adverse effects on the heritage significance, and

o The development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

· Definitions:

o Farm stay accommodation means a building or place that provides temporary or short term accommodation to paying guests on a working farm as a secondary business to primary production.

o Function centre means a building or place for holding events, functions, conferences and the like, and includes convention centres, exhibition centres and reception centres, but does not include an entertainment facility.

o Bed & breakfast accommodation means an existing dwelling in which temporary or short term accommodation is provided on a commercial basis by the permanent residents of the dwelling and where meals are provided for the guest only and cooking facilities for the preparation of meals are not provided within guests rooms and dormitory style accommodation is not provided.

o Tourist and visitor accommodation means a building or place that provides temporary or short term accommodation on a commercial basis and includes any of the following;

§ Backpapckers’

§ B&B

§ Farmstay

§ Hotel or motel

§ Serviced apartments

§ But excludes camping, caravan park and eco-tourism.

Access

o The site is nominally a rectangle bordered to the north by the Mitchell Highway, to west by an adjoining property, to the south by a road and to the east by Amaroo Road. The site includes two redundant roads running diagonally through the site from the north west to the south east. The layout on the existing site of the buildings and the tracks bears no resemblance to these former roads, except for the site entry which appears in two locations. The northern point is off Amaroo Road close to the large existing residence while a second access is on Amaroo road south near the southern property boundary at the road junction.

o Given the steep rise on Amaroo Road, any additional traffic to the site would need to ensure good sight distances were available. Amaroo Road is an RMS road and Traffic committee would review any additional traffic movements. Above 15/day would require improvements. These may include a review of whether the existing access should be retained or whether an alternate access would prove to offer more advantages. Improvements may include signs, vegetation clearance for sight lines, gate location and drainage.

The adaptive re-use of the existing buildings

o The current state of the existing is unknown and would require a detailed review based on a site visit. There are nominally 5 habitable cottages with four others probably capable of restoration.

§ Gloucester – near Amaroo Road

§ Caretakers existing house

§ The headmasters House, garage and Bursars cottage

§ Nuffield House – damaged

§ Carinda

§ Molong

§ There are 5 cottages on the western edge of the village which are largely derelict

o For any form of residential accommodation, the buildings would require conservation to provide habitable spaces and amenities. For fire compliance they are likely to require smoke detection, exit signs and standard escape hardware.

o In conservation terms, the works should utilise similar materials and details including timber and fibre-cement external walls and galvanised iron roofs and verandahs.

Clause 5.13 Eco-tourism – it is unlikely that this clause would relate to viable uses for the site.

Summary

While a range of uses for the site are subject to normal commercial terms and feasibility studies, the location of the site some 20- 25 minutes from Orange would indicate that a tourism use related to the heritage tourism activities throughout the region founded on the various FOOD Festival & Cultural events would be appropriate and meet the general heritage requirements for the adaptive re-use of the sound buildings, the celebration of the Fairbridge legacy and the erection of complementary new buildings to augment whatever is required to suit the brief.

The Heritage incentive clause would be required to support the provision of accommodation in excess of the limits on Bed & Breakfast and Farmstay.

There is potential for the adaptive uses to be accommodated within the building precinct on the site and for the existing agricultural uses to continue on the northern and southern portions of the site.

The next steps

o A site visit to be undertaken to confirm which of the buildings is capable of being adapted and conserved, how the potential activities could co-exist on the site with the agricultural uses, options for the access and options for structures which were not capable of being adapted.

o An appointment has been made with Kim to do a detailed visit next month: Tuesday April 8^th at 3.30pm. contact is 0437 975 713

o A simple sketch plan could then form the basis for the Association to enter into discussions with the property owner;

o Should those discussions prove positive, the scheme could then be developed to a stage sufficient to seek expressions of interest from developers.

David Scobie

Heritage Advisor

4.0 93 Bank Street, Molong

David met with Dr. Green in relation to the proposed colour scheme for the building.

Dr. Green consulted with Anthony Fitzsimon who is a colour consultant in Orange.

He was recommended by the local pharmacy for whom he did their colour scheme which is now complete.

A view of the shopfront should be made to see whether the colours are a good combination. The Pharmacy building is not a heritage building and has a cantilevered awning.

Dr. Green proposes using the two green colours which have been painted on the base of the shopfront and on part of the post.

He Heritage Advisor indicated that although the colours were not heritage colours they would be acceptable for the shopfront elements.

The Advisor offered other colours for the main building as greens were not usually applied to brick buildings.

The advisor also offered comments on some simple building works to conserve the building and enhance the appearance.

The building has a major rising damp problem.

IMAG0235

The front elevation from the street

IMAG0236

The oblique view

IMAG0237

The trial paint colours on the shopfront base

IMAG0238

Exposed cabling and conduit from an AC unit

IMAG0239

The rising salt damp has eroded the mortar joints up to a nominal 900mm. Generally the falling damp appears to have been solved and the slope appears sufficient for water to run clear.

The level of damp trapped with the wall can be tested using a meter. Untreated the salts within the damp evaporate regularly across the seasons and force paint off the wall.

Injection damp proofing is the initial step in preventing further damp rising from the foundation before evaporating. Cowra damp specialise in installing damp courses in existing buildings.

Contact: Cowra Damp to arrange a site visit and testing of the wall.

CENTRAL WEST DAMPPROOFING

153 FITZROY AVENUE

NSW 2794 COWRA <

http://www.cylex.com.au/cowra/

Phone: +61(2) 6341 1233

After insertion of the damp course, the paint and render or the internal finish is removed from the internal affected walls up the height affected. This is usually 900mm or similar. The wall is then treated with Westox Cocoon and this removes the dissolved salts from the wall.

IMAG0240

The oblique angle illustrating the parapet and details

Note the w2hite exposed air-conditioning conduit fixed to the exterior of the building.

IMAG0241

A view indicating the chamfers which show the location where a corner bracket would have been placed with the vertical leg against the post.

The reinstatement of such brackets is recommended for consideration.

Contact Candace at the Wagga Foundry to review options

Recommendations for an external colour scheme

The parapet moulding Indian Red

The next lower minor corbel Indian Red or Beige

The current pale green faces (2) Sage Green or Classic Cream

Brick walls Pascol Drab

Minor lower corbel Indian Red or Beige

Verandah posts and beam Deep bronze green

Shopfront As per the proposed colours would be great

Gutters and downpipes Deep Bronze Green

Soffit rafters to verandah Sage Green

Cast Iron Brackets Classic Cream

Units 77/78 in the Foundry online catalogue are strong and bold and suit the period

The Rear Elevation

Gutters Indian Red

Fascia/eave Sage Green

Verandah Deep bronze green

Side gable boards Sage Green

Lattice Sage Green

Painted brick wall Pascol Drab

Doors Indian red

Downpipes to match wall

5.0 The Canowindra Main Street Scheme

URGENT

Heather has an original copy of the Sue Jackson CMP for the railway precinct which should inform any strategic proposal.

Community based workshop meeting

· It is suggested that the first workshop meeting should be held Monday evening at 6.30pm in a local Canowindra venue.

· The next available date would be Monday 7^th April.

The purpose is to engage with the community through an invitation to groups and individuals and obtain their views on the proposal to date.

The initial invitation could be placed within the Canowindra Phoenix to have the locals save the date and also to start thinking about ideas which they may contribute

The editor: 02 6344 1846

editor@canowindraphoenix.com.au

65 Gaskill Street

Monday 3pm is the editorial deadline

The nominated agenda

· Introductions

· Describe the concept of the Main street study

· Discuss the objectives: Tourism, Social, Heritage, Town Planning

· Illustrate the physical area using a map

· List other possible projects and places

· Highlight the key projects

· Project and Council timelines for implementation

The list is as follows:

1. Main Street Plan

2. Seal Gaskill Street and crossing – done

3. Develop former SES site for parking and toilets

4. Sign project – underway

5. Sculpture for northern wall to community hall

6. Memorial Park rubbish bins - coming

7. New fencing to western side of memorial Park

8. Ash tray options for rubbish bins

9. Memorial Park rubbish bins - coming

10. Strong solar lighting for memorial park

11. Sealing the Rodd Street facade of Morris Park (particularly the driver reviver area)

12. Blatchford Street lighting

13. Plant out crossings at School Tilga street

14. Plant out Bus bay

15. New seats for Gaskill Street

16. Landscape and plant trees at town Entries

17. Brick planter for caravan park

18. Level the flat below the baths

19. Replace verandah posts in Gaskill Street

20. Erect heritage lighting using multi-purpose poles, down Ferguson Street and into Gaskill Street – see item 1.

Comments

· One of the objectives of the business chamber is to develop a series of events at nominally bi-monthly intervals to increase visitation to Canowindra

· The basis for many of the projects is improving the setting and capacity for regular events

· The liaison would be with the Business Chamber

· Dylan Gower is an interested local architect who is expected to contribute and to offer the results of the student project in due course

· As the implications are very broad for the community a wide set of stakeholders could be expected to contribute to the list of projects

· The projects break down into two sets: one set of special projects around the town probably relating to specific functions which need to be spelt out as the reasons for the works

· The second set are upgrades within the central business area.

The following issues were raised during the town walk which included only the central portion of Gaskill Street:

· The concept of removing the traditional telegraph poles into the rear street and running power lines from the rear to the buildings

· The vision of the street being decorated at various times of the year with traditional decorative banners and these would be suspended for multi-purpose poles, as noted in the project list

· There are a number of historic issues related to the governance context from the days of the Boree shire which remain to rankle some members of the community and will need to be addressed

· Parking capacity, location and future extra parking spaces for standard vehicles plus large tourist vehicles are a high priority

· Parking options at the rear of Gaskill Street for example in the former SES site and Ryall Street may require an access in the form of an arcade or open route to Gaskill Street

· The railway precinct has potential for a heritage project in the form of a walking trail based on the 2002 Conservation Management Plan. The trail would be a circuit around a number of important rail sites and has the future potential for upgrading into a major attraction highlighting rolling stock and various forms of rail wagons and loading techniques.

· The rail precinct has potential for supporting greater integration between the existing three key attractions which are not currently linked or integrated: Memorial Park, the Museum, The Age of Fishes Museum and the Railway Precinct

· The Age of Fishes Museum has the potential for substantial future expansion

· Gaskill Street

o There are elements of the footpath where access should be improved – the steps in the vicinity of Finns Store is a prime example

o There are many business premises which do not have access which complies with the BCA and strategies should be developed for each to allow implementation over the long term without negative impacts on the heritage significance

o The type of rubbish bin is unsuitable for a heritage conservation area

o The bin type does not include a smokers facility (forecast changes in legislation affecting smoking in public places is to be noted)

o The number of bench seats is not adequate for peak periods

o The inboard location of the existing bench seats is less preferred than the outboard location favoured by most Councils

o Consultation with major event organisers is recommended given their role and stakeholding

o The Rotary clock has not worked for many years and requires refurbishment and possibly a new location or removal

o Many verandah posts have damaged posts base skirtings and these should be relatively easily repaired

o There are several cantilevered steel awnings which appear to be in a poor structural condition and require restoration

o Some awnings have ad-hoc steel post props as a short term solution. These need to be replaced with a permanent solution

o The concrete ‘pram ramps’ are out dated and need to be replaced with current standard accessible ramps

o The Blatchford Gaskill street intersection has been the scene of at least one vehicle accident and is worthy of an upgrade to improve pedestrian access while allowing for all vehicles. Details will need to be low key so as not to disrupt the heritage character of the street

o The Community square is in a very poor condition and a very unsatisfactory introduction to the main street

o The new bus stop shelter is in a faux heritage style recently constructed and is not a structure which suits the heritage streetscape or conservation area.

o The opposite side of the street is also a bus stop for buses travelling in the opposite direction and is therefore worthy of a shelter. A simple appropriate and contemporary style shelter would complement the cream brick feature side wall of the community hall.

o Canowindra motors is key building and destination at the other end of the street and is worthy of a verandah as it is a focal point.

The next meeting to be Tuesday February 4^th

The objective would be to visit the non-main street sites and discuss the rationale behind the projects.

It would be useful to meet other key community groups and stakeholders.

6.0 Annual Heritage Strategy checklist

1	Heritage Committee	Advice to Council	1	7
		Consultant Directory
		Services & trades Directory
2	Heritage Study	Aboriginal Study
		Statements of significance
3	Heritage Advice	Site visits		19
		Heritage advice	4	27
		Urban design advice		3
		Pre-DA advice	2	2
		Advice on DA's		2
4	Pro-active Management	Heritage DCP
		Urban design DCP
		DA fee relief
		Flexible Planning & building
5	Local Heritage Fund	Funded projects	2	7
		Project value		1
		Heritage fund value		2
		Owner contribution	2	4
		Tourism projects	1	3
6	Main Street	Committee
		Study	1	1
		Implementation		1
		Expanded main street
7	Education & promotion	Brochures, web, plaques, panels		3
		Events
		Tourism strategy
		Trails
		Training		1
8	Council assets	Asset management plans
		CMP and CMS
		Works budgets	1	3
9	Sustainability	Adaptive re-use
		Restoration		1
		Reinstatement
		Landscape		3
		Water

[1] The title of the licence application submitted by Monsanto is “General release of Brasica napus genetically modified for herbicide tolerance (MON 88302) in Australia”.

Version Date (Draft or Council Meeting date)	[17 September 2013]
Author	Senior Environmental Officer
Owner (Relevant director)	Director of Environmental Services
Status – Draft, Approved, Adopted by Council, Superseded or Withdrawn	Adopted by Council
Next Review Date	Within 12 months of Council being elected
Minute number (once adopted by Council)	13/09/30

Title	Date Approved	Signature
Director of Environmental Services

Minute No.	Summary of Changes	New Version Date
01/04/51		17/04/01
10/02/17	Readopted by Council	15 February 2010
	Tidied up	April 2012
13/09/30	Readopted as per s165(4)	17 September 2013

Document Name	Document Location