Oath or Affirmation of Office
Councillors are reminded of their Oath or Affirmation of Office to undertake their duties in the best interests of the people of the Central Coast and Council and to faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities, and discretions vested in them under the Local Government Act 1993, or any other Act to the best of their ability and judgement. Councillors are also reminded of their obligations under the Code of Conduct to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.
Disclosures of Interest
Councillors are reminded of their obligation under Council’s Code of Conduct to declare any conflict of interest in a matter considered by Council.
Pecuniary interest: A Councillor who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned, and who is present at a meeting of the Council at which the matter is being considered, must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting. The Councillor must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting:
a) At any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or
b) At any time during which the Council is voting on any question in relation to the matter.
Non-Pecuniary conflict of interest: A Councillor who has a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, must disclose the relevant private interest in relation to the matter fully and on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to the matter.
Significant Non-Pecuniary conflict of interest: A Councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in relation to a matter under consideration at a Council meeting, must manage the conflict of interest as if they had a pecuniary interest in the matter.
Non-Significant Non-Pecuniary interest: A Councillor who determines that they have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter that is not significant and does not require further action, when disclosing the interest it must also be explained why the conflict of interest is not significant and does not require further action in the circumstances.
Recording
In accordance with the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, you are advised that all discussion held during the Open Council meeting is recorded for the purpose of livestreaming the public meeting and verifying the minutes. This will include any public discussion involving a councillor, staff member or a member of the public.
Meeting Notice
The Ordinary Council Meeting
of Central Coast Council
will be held in the Central Coast Council Chambers,
2 Hely Street, Wyong
on Tuesday 25 February 2025 at 6.30pm,
for the transaction of the business listed below:
The Public Forum
will commence at 6.00pm, subject to any registered speaker/s to items listed on
this agenda.
Further
information and details on registration process: www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings-and-minutes/council-meetings
SUPPLEMENTARY
4 Questions with Notice
4.1 IPART Water Utility Satisfaction Survey Results............................................................................... 6
4.2 Update on Existing Gosford Library Building................................................................................. 11
4.3 The Azzuro Blu Building at The Entrance....................................................................................... 204
David Farmer
Chief Executive Officer
|
Item No: 4.1 |
|
|
Title: IPART Water Utility Satisfaction Survey Results |
|
|
Department: Councillor |
|
|
25 February 2025 Ordinary Council Meeting |
|
Reference: F2025/00016 - D16653604
Author: Councillor Kyle MacGregor
Manager: Krystie Bryant, Unit Manager Business Strategy and Performance
Executive: Danielle Hargreaves, Director Water and Sewer
|
4.1 Question with Notice - IPART Water Utility Satisfaction Survey Results
The following question was submitted by Councillor Kyle MacGregor.
In October 2024 IPART conducted a water utility customer satisfaction survey comparing Central Coast Council water and sewerage with regional water utilities in Victoria. Can Council please provide a response to how we performed in the survey, in particular overall customer service, value for money and reputation and how if at all the results of the survey inform the current or future operations of Central Coast Council water and sewerage?
|
IPART conducts a customer satisfaction survey four (4) times a year to understand how satisfied customers are with their water utility. IPART commenced the Survey in July 2019, however, at that time only Hunter Water and Sydney Water’s customers were surveyed. IPART included Central Coast Council’s customers in the Survey from August 2020 and stopped surveying Hunter Water and Sydney Water’s customers in June 2023.
The current survey data compares Central Coast Council with three (3) Victorian water utilities that IPART consider ‘similar in function and customer base’. These include;
· Barwon Water
· Goulburn Valley Water
· Central Highlands Water
It is important to note that Victorian customers are being asked to comment on primary water utilities only, who do not experience the complexities and blurred lines that come with operating within a local Council. Council’s results may be impacted by the broader service offering and may influence the overall customer sentiment.
In each round of the Survey, IPART aim to survey around 100 customers, totalling around 400 customers each year. IPART ask customers the following four (4) questions during the Survey;
1. How would you rate your satisfaction with your water/wastewater provider as a service provider overall?
2. How would you rate your water/wastewater provider on delivering value for money?
3. How would you rate your trust for your water/wastewater provider?
4. How would you rate your water/wastewater provider’s reputation in the community?
The recent customer satisfaction survey conducted by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for Central Coast Council shows some small fluctuations in customer satisfaction since the survey's inception in August 2020, though the results do not indicate substantial change since IPART began surveying Central Coast Council’s customers. Looking more deeply, the minor fluctuations reveal that while there has been some improvement in more recent years, customer satisfaction has still not returned to the levels recorded at the beginning of the survey period. Furthermore, when compared to similar Victorian utilities, Central Coast Council's performance falls short, indicating that there are areas for improvement.
Customer Satisfaction Metrics:
The rolling average Q2 results are summarised in the below table, supplemented
by rolling averages dating back to April 2021. A full copy of the results is
available on IPART’s
website.
|
|
Overall |
Value for Money |
Trust |
Reputation |
|
Barwon Water |
7.1 |
6.7 |
6.9 |
7.0 |
|
Goulburn Valley Water |
6.8 |
6.6 |
6.7 |
6.7 |
|
Central Highlands Water |
5.9 |
5.4 |
5.7 |
5.9 |
|
Central Coast Council |
5.6 |
5.2 |
5.5 |
5.1 |
Additional
Information
Sample size
The survey aims to sample around 100 customers per quarter, totally up to 400
customers annually. Given Central Coast’s population of approximately
350,000, this sample may not
adequately capture the diverse opinions and
experiences of the broader community. A limited sample may impact how
representative the results are, especially considering regional variations in
service perception across different demographics and geographical areas.
Questions
The four questions posed in the survey, while aimed at gauging satisfaction,
are somewhat open to interpretation. Terms such as "satisfaction,"
"value for money," and "trust" are subjective and can vary
significantly across different respondents. Without specific contexts or
definitions, respondents may have divergent understandings, which may impact
results.
Clarity of Services
Recent community engagement has highlighted that Council has more to do in
order to support our community in understanding the scope of Water and Sewer
services versus that of the broader organisation. This lack of clarity and the
absence of definition in the survey may impact responses. Customer insights in
the recent face to face community engagement conducted by Council included references
to stormwater, waterways and beaches as examples of some services the customer
associated with water and sewer. As such, the IPART survey results may not
evaluate the services as accurately as intended without clear definitions of
what is included under “Water and Sewer” provisions versus other
unrelated council services.
Hunter Water and Sydney Water
Hunter Water and Sydney Water are no long surveyed as part of this process.
Discontinuing the surveys for these utilities is a missed opportunity and makes
it challenging to draw direct comparisons or glean insights that could inform
improvements. As highlighted, the comparison with three (3) Victorian Water
Utilities, whilst perhaps similar in function and customer base, does not
adequately consider the unique circumstances of water and sewer services
administered via a local Council.
Conclusion
Despite the potential survey data challenges, it remains an input and
consideration for Water and Sewer. Whilst recognising the process applied by
IPART, Council has a higher preference for engaging with the community directly
to not only inform our upcoming IPART pricing submission and future operations
but to respond to changing preferences and customer feedback affecting current
operations. This is in line with the 3C’s IPART framework which centres
around cost, credibility and most importantly customer, using important
community insight to drive current and future work. This is achieved via robust
community engagement, delivering an ongoing program of scheduled face to face
engagement, customer surveys separate to the IPART survey, direct liaison with
key customer groups and a consistent presence within the community at key
events throughout the year.
Nil.
|
Item No: 4.2 |
|
|
Title: Update on Existing Gosford Library Building |
|
|
Department: Community and Recreation Services |
|
|
25 February 2025 Ordinary Council Meeting |
|
Reference: F2025/00016 - D16654422
Author: Councillor Belinda Neal
|
4.2 Question with Notice - Update on Existing Gosford Library Building
The following question was submitted by Councillor Belinda Neal:
In relation to the existing Gosford Library building can you please advise as follows.
1. A list of all work on the building done in the last 10 years and the cost of each project 2. The feedback provided by the community in relation to the reuse of the building 3. Any report prepared by council or received by council on the heritage value of the building 4. Copies of each Kibble park place plan and each variation since 2010 with particular focus on the design principles with an explanation for each change made.
|
1. A list of all work on the building done in the last 10 years and the cost of each project
Capital work has only occurred across the 2017-18 to 2019-20 financial years, with most of this work related to renewal of components of the building or the provision of displays.
Details provided in table below:
|
|
2017/18 |
2018/19 |
2019/20 |
2020/21 |
2021/22 |
2022/23 |
2023/24 |
2024/25 |
|
Gosford Library refurbishment |
97,832 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Upgrade display shelving at Gosford Library |
- |
9,717 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Upgrade external photographic boards at Gosford Library |
- |
10,510 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Replace carpet at Gosford Library |
- |
31,709 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Upgrade to public access computer furniture at Gosford Library |
- |
3,000 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Gosford Library Main Air Conditioning System Replacement |
- |
- |
72,904 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Replace carpet on mezzanine at Gosford Library |
- |
- |
16,567 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Gosford Library Air Conditioning Replacement |
- |
- |
72,904 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
97,832 |
54,937 |
162,375 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2. The feedback provided by the community in relation to the reuse of the building
3. Reports prepared by or received by council on the heritage value of the building:
· D16232170 - NSW Heritage Data Form annotated Gosford Library 2024 NSW Heritage Merril Jackson
· D16231165 - Gosford Library Notification of Recent Addition to National Trust Register
· D15930005 - Gosford Community Based Heritage Study Final Report August 2016
· D16380742 - Vol 1 Central Coast Heritage ~FINAL) (002) David Scobie 2022
· D16659335 - SHI Heritage Item Report-Gosford Library_2025
· ECMD971782 - 5419 Gosford Heritage Study 5122003.zip
Notes:
· D16659335 is the State Heritage Inventory entry on the Heritage NSW website. Council manages this inventory, but the database is run by Heritage NSW.
· ECMD971782 Is a zip folder that holds all the documents included in the Suters Heritage Study for the Gosford City Centre in 2003. It includes the inventory list for Gosford Library as well as the accompanying report and list of heritage items.
· 3 heritage studies have been prepared for Council, with each identifying the heritage significance of the Gosford Library. The listing of the Gosford Library has not been formally considered by Council to date. However, it is noted that staff are in the final stages of preparing a planning proposal package for the consideration of the Councillors, which includes the library. It is anticipated that this will be presented to Councillors within approximately 2 months, subject to getting on the Local Planning Panel agenda.
4. Copies of each Kibble park place plan and each variation since 2010 with particular focus on the design principles with an explanation for each change made.
Detailed timeline
· 2020 Council sought proposals by qualified and experienced Contractors specialising in Urban Design and Landscape Architecture for the development of a ‘Kibble Park Place Plan – and identified surrounding areas inclusive of site analysis and concept design. Moir Landscape Architecture were successful and engaged in March 2020.
· In 2020, Council commenced this work by engaging with the community on how best to revitalise the park, and ideas to make Kibble Park more attractive, safe and enjoyable for all people.
· In 2021 the process was briefley paused due to Council’s financial crisis, as delivery of the Plan was dependent on funding.
· The community were provided with the Draft Place Plan and Draft Concept Plan documents in March 2021 and invited to have their say and the documents were approved by ELT in June 2021 (Attachment 1).
· In 2022- Review of Plans undertaken to accurately reflect achievable deliverables in Councils new financial position. No changes were made.
· The Plans were revised and re-exhibited in 2023 as a request from the Administrator of Council once the regional library was approved and underway, the consultation report along with the finalised documents were adopted by Council at the September 2023 Council Meeting (Attachment 2).
· The Plans reflect the feedback provided from the various rounds of community consultation (including feedback from the Safer Cities Her Way project) and focus on enhancing Kibble Park as the civic heart of Gosford CBD. The park is widely utilised by residents for leisure and play, businesses and workers on their lunch breaks and community groups and businesses running events and activations.
Key Feedback themes across all engagement
· Play Space – To ensure the play space is inclusive, shaded and accessible.
· Trees/ Shade – Importance of green spaces within a CBD, natural shade and adequate shaded seating options.
· People – Need to address security, safety and anti-social behaviours.
· Parking – Ongoing concern and sentiment around parking issues for Gosford CBD.
· Governance – Concern regarding Council being under administration.
· Library – Divided responses regarding removal of the library. On one hand there is concern over historic significance of building, however on the other support for increasing open space in the CBD.
· Heritage – Primary concern regarding historic significance of existing Library.
· Cost/ Financial Recovery – Questions over the cost of the upgrade and level of importance when considering Councils financial situation.
· Revitalisation – Comments regarding the ongoing redevelopment of Kibble Park.
· Accessibility – Importance of making an accessible open space that can be used by the whole community.
· General sentiment – Community are keen for Council to ‘get on with it’ for revitalisation of Gosford.
Amendments
· Removal of fountain reference from document as Council removed fountain for safety reasons.
· Provide clearer seating options across the Park.
· Clearer reference and updates to indigenous history.
· Clearer reference to historical and significant installations within the Park.
· Clearer reference on the tree retention/removal plan.
· Revised proposed zones of concept adding a new zone and renaming zones;
o Considered options for the restaurant building - Edit to reflect that building will be staying as an arts, culture and community space.
o Connect to the historically significant library building - Edit to reflect that building will be demolished.
o Extension of event precinct into library footprint and amphitheater style connection with Donnison Street
o Inclusion of amenities adjacent to Parkhouse building
o Reconsidered better connect Kibble Park to the new Library development through the provision of a shared raised threshold and a more welcoming interface across Donnison Street.
o Reconsidered Park edge plan to accommodate future surrounding developments.
o Retain and expand the existing urban stream and enhance the creek line by allowing for increased visibility and access to the creek edge.
|
1⇩ |
Kibble Park Place and Concept Plan 2021 - Final |
|
D16661411 |
|
2⇩ |
Kibble Park Place Plan 2022 - Final |
|
D16661461 |
|
3⇩ |
Kibble Park Place Plan 2023 - Final |
|
D16661452 |
|
4.2 |
Update on Existing Gosford Library Building |
|
Attachment 1 |
Kibble Park Place and Concept Plan 2021 - Final |
|
Item No: 4.3 |
|
|
Title: The Azzuro Blu Building at The Entrance |
|
|
Department: Councillor |
|
|
25 February 2025 Ordinary Council Meeting |
|
Reference: F2025/00016 - D16657078
Author: Councillor Margot Castles
Manager: Bill Ignatiadis, Unit Manager Economic Development and Property
Executive: Jamie Loader, Director Environment and Planning
|
4.3 Question with Notice - The Azzuro Blu Building at The Entrance
The following question was submitted by Councillor Margot Castles:
The Azzuro Blu Building at The Entrance is owned by Council - it has been to all intents and purposes not been used to its full potential under the current lease agreement.
* What is happening with this complex including the boarding off of the walkway * When would we expect a resolution to the current situation * What are the plans going forward for this potentially iconic site?
|
RESPONSE
* What is happening with this complex including the boarding off of the walkway
The land on which the Azzuro Blu complex was constructed is leased to a private operator called Azzuro Blu P/L (owned by the Sydney-based Hanna Group). The lease started in early 2014 and runs to late December 2033.
The Azzuro Blu P/L commenced a process to sell the lease to another business in late 2022. At that time Council identified the need for urgent repair works to be undertaken. Under the lease Azzuro Blu P/L is responsible for maintaining the complex, the public waterfront walkway, and the adjoining jetty. Azzuro Blu P/L responded by commencing legal proceedings against Council in early 2023. Further details to this matter would be best supplied via a confidential briefing due to the commercial and legal nature of the issues.
* When would we expect a resolution to the current situation
Should the dispute proceed to court, an outcome of the court proceedings would reasonably be expected to be known around September this year.
* What are the plans going forward for this potentially iconic site?
The iconic nature of this site is clearly understood by Council, local businesses, the wider community, and visitors to the area.
It is not possible to state categorically (in the absence of a court decision or a negotiated resolution) what the plans going forward may be.
In the interest of allowing Council staff and Council’s expert advisors the possibility of achieving the best possible dispute outcome, one that protects Council’s commercial and strategic interests, any discussion of how best to go forward is best conducted on a confidential basis at this stage.
