Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Monday, 10 August 2026

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 10 August 2026

RP-1

Reports from Staff

RP-1 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION - ROADSIDE VERGE GARDENS

Author: Henry Pavitt

Summary:

In response to the Notice of Motion – Roadside Verge Gardens, this report provides information on roadside verge garden arrangements operating in other local government areas and outlines Council’s existing policies and approval pathways for community gardens on Council-owned public land and landscaping within nature strips.

Recommendation

That Council:

a receive and note the report in response to the resolution requesting information on roadside verge gardens operating in other local government areas; and

b note that a separate Council funded roadside verge garden trial is not recommended at this time, as Council already has existing policy and approval pathways for community gardens and landscaping within nature strips

Report

Council, at its meeting held on 22 August 2022, resolved to receive a report providing information on roadside verge garden concepts operating in other local government areas across Australia and options for allowing community members to develop and construct roadside verge gardens.

NOM-1 NOTICE OF MOTION – ROADSIDE VERGE GARDENS

22/266 RESOLVED:

On the Motion of Councillors R Foley and G Davies

That Council receive a report detailing:

a relevant information specific to this concept already in operation in several other LGA’s across Australia

b options for allowing community members to develop and construct roadside verge gardens

In response to the resolution, a review has been undertaken of roadside verge garden policies, programs and guidelines operating across New South Wales and other Australian councils.

Council’s existing legislative, policy and approval framework has also been considered to identify the mechanisms currently available for community-led gardening and landscaping within nature strips.

Review of other local government areas

The review identified that roadside verge gardens are permitted or encouraged by a number of councils to improve streetscape amenity, increase biodiversity, support urban cooling and encourage community participation.

While terminology and requirements vary, the operating models are broadly similar. In most cases, residents initiate, fund, establish and maintain landscaping within the road verge adjoining their property. Councils generally establish standards, assess or register proposals where required, provide guidance and manage unsafe or non-compliant landscaping.

The review found that roadside verge garden programs are predominantly resident-led, with councils generally providing an approval or regulatory framework rather than directly constructing and maintaining the gardens.

Council	Policy/Provisions
New South Wales
City of Sydney	The City of Sydney permits residents and businesses to establish footpath gardens where proposals satisfy the requirements of its Footpath Gardening Policy and associated checklists. The policy distinguishes between individual footpath gardens and community verge gardens. Community verge gardens involve local residents collectively managing garden areas located across several properties or within a neighbourhood. Larger community-led proposals are considered through the City’s community garden processes. The City of Sydney model supports community participation but generally places responsibility for establishing and maintaining gardens with participating residents. It is not a general Council-funded program for constructing roadside food gardens or orchards. The policy also recognises that footpaths are public spaces that must continue to provide safe pedestrian movement and access to adjoining properties, public infrastructure and services.
Wollongong City Council	Wollongong City Council permits residents to establish verge gardens in accordance with its Verge Garden Guidelines. The guidelines include requirements for: · a minimum 600mm clearance from the kerb; · a minimum 1m clearance around letterboxes; · a safe and level pedestrian access path generally 1500mm wide; · plants to generally remain below 700mm in height; · retention of access to utility infrastructure; · protection of existing street trees; and · avoidance of structures and hard landscaping that may create hazards. Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining the garden. Council and utility providers retain access to the road reserve and may disturb or remove landscaping where works are required.
Sutherland Shire Council	Sutherland Shire Council allows residents to establish verge gardens following application and approval. Planting is generally limited to low-growing, soft-foliage plants. Requirements address pedestrian access, driveway sightlines, waste collection, utility infrastructure and the safe use of the road reserve. Hard landscape elements and objects that may create hazards, including rocks, sleepers, logs, stakes, pots and raised edging, are restricted. The Sutherland Shire model demonstrates a formal approval approach that allows verge planting while maintaining Council oversight of road safety and public access requirements.
City of Newcastle	The City of Newcastle supports resident-established street gardens through published guidelines. The guidelines encourage suitable low-growing vegetation and include requirements relating to plant height, pedestrian access, street trees, underground services and road safety. Plants must not be invasive or create hazards for pedestrians or road users. Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining approved gardens. Council retains the ability to require modification or removal where landscaping creates a safety, access or maintenance issue.
City of Parramatta	The City of Parramatta permits residents to undertake landscaping within nature strips where proposals satisfy published requirements. The framework restricts structures, barriers, rocks, stakes, raised edging and other items that may create hazards. Plant heights are controlled, excavation is limited and residents must avoid damage to street trees and public infrastructure. The approach is based primarily on resident responsibility and compliance with Council requirements rather than Council construction or maintenance.
Blacktown City Council	Blacktown City Council allows residents to seek approval for alternative landscaping treatments within road verges and nature strips. The framework recognises that vegetated verges may provide environmental and streetscape benefits but must remain compatible with pedestrian movement, vehicle access, road safety, public infrastructure and utility requirements. Residents are generally responsible for the installation and ongoing maintenance of approved landscaping.
City of Canada Bay	The City of Canada Bay permits residents to establish low-growing gardens within nature strips in accordance with its Nature Strip Planting Policy and Guidelines. The guidelines address suitable plant selection, pedestrian access, sightlines, existing street trees, underground services and ongoing maintenance. The model enables residents to initiate and maintain landscaping while Council retains oversight of public safety and the ongoing function of the road reserve.
Camden Council	Camden Council permits nature strip gardens that comply with its policy requirements. The framework supports low-growing shrubs and groundcovers that may improve biodiversity, contribute to urban cooling and enhance streetscape presentation. Planting must be maintained so that it does not adversely affect pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, adjoining properties or road safety. Responsibility for maintaining the garden remains with the adjoining resident.
Lake Macquarie City Council	Lake Macquarie City Council supports verge gardens through published standards. The standards require residents to maintain pedestrian access, driveway and intersection sightlines, vehicle access and access to public infrastructure. Plant heights are restricted and structures or landscape treatments that may create hazards are generally not permitted. The standards support resident-led planting while retaining the road verge’s primary functions relating to transport, access, infrastructure and public safety.
Eurobodalla Shire Council	Eurobodalla Shire Council provides a relevant regional NSW example and supports verge gardens through a registration and self-assessment process. Residents assess their proposed garden against Council requirements and register the garden before commencing work. Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining the garden. This provides a lower-administration alternative to individual approvals while retaining documented requirements for safety, pedestrian access, plant selection, road visibility, infrastructure access and ongoing maintenance. The Eurobodalla model supports resident-led verge planting but does not involve Council routinely constructing or maintaining the gardens.
Victoria
Merri-bek City Council	Merri-bek City Council encourages residents to establish nature strip gardens and expressly identifies native plants and vegetables as possible planting options. Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining gardens in accordance with Council guidelines. Requirements address pedestrian movement, vehicle access, visibility, street trees, services and the use of appropriate landscaping materials. This is one of the clearer examples identified where edible plants are contemplated within nature strip landscaping. However, the model remains resident-led and does not involve Council routinely constructing or maintaining food gardens.
Darebin City Council	Darebin City Council supports nature strip planting as a way to increase biodiversity, improve neighbourhood amenity and reduce areas of maintained turf. Council applies requirements relating to setbacks from roads, footpaths and street trees, plant heights and the use of structures or decorative materials. Residents are responsible for installation and ongoing maintenance.
Yarra City Council	Yarra City Council supports resident-managed street gardens but does not permit edible plants within street gardens due to potential soil contamination. Residents wishing to grow food are directed towards other opportunities, including community gardens. Yarra’s approach is relevant to the proposed roadside food garden concept because it demonstrates that some councils distinguish between general streetscape planting and food production within road reserves due to environmental and public health considerations.
City of Port Phillip	The City of Port Phillip permits residents to establish compliant nature strip gardens without obtaining individual approval where all requirements of its guidelines are met. The guidelines address pedestrian access, plant selection, road safety, public infrastructure, street trees and ongoing maintenance. This is an example of a self-assessment model that reduces the need for individual applications while placing responsibility on residents to ensure gardens remain compliant.
City of Greater Geelong	The City of Greater Geelong provides a regional Victorian comparator and permits nature strip landscaping subject to Council requirements. Council’s framework recognises opportunities for residents to improve nature strips while retaining requirements relating to pedestrian access, road safety, plant height, street trees, public infrastructure and ongoing maintenance. Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining approved or compliant nature strip landscaping. The Greater Geelong model demonstrates a regional city approach that supports community participation in streetscape greening while retaining clear controls over works within the road reserve.
Mornington Peninsula Shire	Mornington Peninsula Shire supports appropriate resident involvement in the presentation and landscaping of nature strips, subject to Council requirements. Considerations include pedestrian access, traffic visibility, underground and overhead infrastructure, plant selection and ongoing maintenance. The approach reflects a neighbourhood-led beautification model rather than a Council-funded roadside food garden program.
South Australia
City of Unley	The City of Unley encourages residents to convert grassed verges to landscaped areas but requires approval before the public road is altered. Applicants are generally responsible for supplying plants and landscaping materials, undertaking the works and maintaining the verge following establishment. Council provides guidance on appropriate planting and design while retaining control over works undertaken within the public road reserve.
Queensland
Brisbane City Council	Brisbane City Council permits residents to establish verge gardens where they comply with Council requirements. Residents must retain a clear pedestrian access area and ensure landscaping does not interfere with road safety, public infrastructure, services or access. Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining the garden. Council does not accept responsibility for damage to verge landscaping arising from public use, maintenance activities, utility works, weather events or other circumstances.

Council

Policy/Provisions

New South Wales

City of Sydney

The City of Sydney permits residents and businesses to establish footpath gardens where proposals satisfy the requirements of its Footpath Gardening Policy and associated checklists.

The policy distinguishes between individual footpath gardens and community verge gardens. Community verge gardens involve local residents collectively managing garden areas located across several properties or within a neighbourhood. Larger community-led proposals are considered through the City’s community garden processes.

The City of Sydney model supports community participation but generally places responsibility for establishing and maintaining gardens with participating residents. It is not a general Council-funded program for constructing roadside food gardens or orchards.

The policy also recognises that footpaths are public spaces that must continue to provide safe pedestrian movement and access to adjoining properties, public infrastructure and services.

Wollongong City Council

Wollongong City Council permits residents to establish verge gardens in accordance with its Verge Garden Guidelines.

The guidelines include requirements for:

· a minimum 600mm clearance from the kerb;

· a minimum 1m clearance around letterboxes;

· a safe and level pedestrian access path generally 1500mm wide;

· plants to generally remain below 700mm in height;

· retention of access to utility infrastructure;

· protection of existing street trees; and

· avoidance of structures and hard landscaping that may create hazards.

Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining the garden. Council and utility providers retain access to the road reserve and may disturb or remove landscaping where works are required.

Sutherland Shire Council

Sutherland Shire Council allows residents to establish verge gardens following application and approval.

Planting is generally limited to low-growing, soft-foliage plants. Requirements address pedestrian access, driveway sightlines, waste collection, utility infrastructure and the safe use of the road reserve.

Hard landscape elements and objects that may create hazards, including rocks, sleepers, logs, stakes, pots and raised edging, are restricted.

The Sutherland Shire model demonstrates a formal approval approach that allows verge planting while maintaining Council oversight of road safety and public access requirements.

City of Newcastle

The City of Newcastle supports resident-established street gardens through published guidelines.

The guidelines encourage suitable low-growing vegetation and include requirements relating to plant height, pedestrian access, street trees, underground services and road safety. Plants must not be invasive or create hazards for pedestrians or road users.

Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining approved gardens. Council retains the ability to require modification or removal where landscaping creates a safety, access or maintenance issue.

City of Parramatta

The City of Parramatta permits residents to undertake landscaping within nature strips where proposals satisfy published requirements.

The framework restricts structures, barriers, rocks, stakes, raised edging and other items that may create hazards. Plant heights are controlled, excavation is limited and residents must avoid damage to street trees and public infrastructure.

The approach is based primarily on resident responsibility and compliance with Council requirements rather than Council construction or maintenance.

Blacktown City Council

Blacktown City Council allows residents to seek approval for alternative landscaping treatments within road verges and nature strips.

The framework recognises that vegetated verges may provide environmental and streetscape benefits but must remain compatible with pedestrian movement, vehicle access, road safety, public infrastructure and utility requirements.

Residents are generally responsible for the installation and ongoing maintenance of approved landscaping.

City of Canada Bay

The City of Canada Bay permits residents to establish low-growing gardens within nature strips in accordance with its Nature Strip Planting Policy and Guidelines.

The guidelines address suitable plant selection, pedestrian access, sightlines, existing street trees, underground services and ongoing maintenance.

The model enables residents to initiate and maintain landscaping while Council retains oversight of public safety and the ongoing function of the road reserve.

Camden Council

Camden Council permits nature strip gardens that comply with its policy requirements.

The framework supports low-growing shrubs and groundcovers that may improve biodiversity, contribute to urban cooling and enhance streetscape presentation. Planting must be maintained so that it does not adversely affect pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, adjoining properties or road safety.

Responsibility for maintaining the garden remains with the adjoining resident.

Lake Macquarie City Council

Lake Macquarie City Council supports verge gardens through published standards.

The standards require residents to maintain pedestrian access, driveway and intersection sightlines, vehicle access and access to public infrastructure. Plant heights are restricted and structures or landscape treatments that may create hazards are generally not permitted.

The standards support resident-led planting while retaining the road verge’s primary functions relating to transport, access, infrastructure and public safety.

Eurobodalla Shire Council

Eurobodalla Shire Council provides a relevant regional NSW example and supports verge gardens through a registration and self-assessment process.

Residents assess their proposed garden against Council requirements and register the garden before commencing work.

Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining the garden.

This provides a lower-administration alternative to individual approvals while retaining documented requirements for safety, pedestrian access, plant selection, road visibility, infrastructure access and ongoing maintenance.

The Eurobodalla model supports resident-led verge planting but does not involve Council routinely constructing or maintaining the gardens.

Victoria

Merri-bek City Council

Merri-bek City Council encourages residents to establish nature strip gardens and expressly identifies native plants and vegetables as possible planting options.

Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining gardens in accordance with Council guidelines. Requirements address pedestrian movement, vehicle access, visibility, street trees, services and the use of appropriate landscaping materials.

This is one of the clearer examples identified where edible plants are contemplated within nature strip landscaping. However, the model remains resident-led and does not involve Council routinely constructing or maintaining food gardens.

Darebin City Council

Darebin City Council supports nature strip planting as a way to increase biodiversity, improve neighbourhood amenity and reduce areas of maintained turf.

Council applies requirements relating to setbacks from roads, footpaths and street trees, plant heights and the use of structures or decorative materials.

Residents are responsible for installation and ongoing maintenance.

Yarra City Council

Yarra City Council supports resident-managed street gardens but does not permit edible plants within street gardens due to potential soil contamination.

Residents wishing to grow food are directed towards other opportunities, including community gardens.

Yarra’s approach is relevant to the proposed roadside food garden concept because it demonstrates that some councils distinguish between general streetscape planting and food production within road reserves due to environmental and public health considerations.

City of Port Phillip

The City of Port Phillip permits residents to establish compliant nature strip gardens without obtaining individual approval where all requirements of its guidelines are met.

The guidelines address pedestrian access, plant selection, road safety, public infrastructure, street trees and ongoing maintenance.

This is an example of a self-assessment model that reduces the need for individual applications while placing responsibility on residents to ensure gardens remain compliant.

City of Greater Geelong

The City of Greater Geelong provides a regional Victorian comparator and permits nature strip landscaping subject to Council requirements.

Council’s framework recognises opportunities for residents to improve nature strips while retaining requirements relating to pedestrian access, road safety, plant height, street trees, public infrastructure and ongoing maintenance.

Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining approved or compliant nature strip landscaping.

The Greater Geelong model demonstrates a regional city approach that supports community participation in streetscape greening while retaining clear controls over works within the road reserve.

Mornington Peninsula Shire

Mornington Peninsula Shire supports appropriate resident involvement in the presentation and landscaping of nature strips, subject to Council requirements.

Considerations include pedestrian access, traffic visibility, underground and overhead infrastructure, plant selection and ongoing maintenance.

The approach reflects a neighbourhood-led beautification model rather than a Council-funded roadside food garden program.

South Australia

City of Unley

The City of Unley encourages residents to convert grassed verges to landscaped areas but requires approval before the public road is altered.

Applicants are generally responsible for supplying plants and landscaping materials, undertaking the works and maintaining the verge following establishment.

Council provides guidance on appropriate planting and design while retaining control over works undertaken within the public road reserve.

Queensland

Brisbane City Council

Brisbane City Council permits residents to establish verge gardens where they comply with Council requirements.

Residents must retain a clear pedestrian access area and ensure landscaping does not interfere with road safety, public infrastructure, services or access.

Residents are responsible for establishing and maintaining the garden. Council does not accept responsibility for damage to verge landscaping arising from public use, maintenance activities, utility works, weather events or other circumstances.

Common operating principles

Although individual requirements vary, the review identified the following common operating principles:

· verge gardens are generally initiated, funded, constructed and maintained by adjoining residents or participating community members;

· Council approval, registration, notification or compliance with a self-assessment checklist may be required;

· road safety, pedestrian access and the operational requirements of the road reserve take priority over landscaping;

· clear pedestrian access must be retained;

· planting must not obstruct sightlines at driveways, intersections or road curves;

· access to underground services, utility pits, street trees, drainage infrastructure, waste collection areas and letterboxes must be maintained;

· maximum plant heights are commonly prescribed;

· low-growing groundcovers, native plants and soft landscaping are generally preferred;

· invasive, toxic, thorny or hazardous plant species may be prohibited;

· rocks, sleepers, stakes, raised garden beds, hard edging and other potential trip or collision hazards are commonly prohibited or restricted;

· residents are responsible for watering, pruning, weed control, replacement planting and maintaining gardens in a safe and presentable condition;

· councils and utility providers retain the right to access the road reserve and may remove or disturb landscaping where required;

· councils generally do not accept responsibility for reinstating resident landscaping following infrastructure or utility works;

· councils retain the ability to require modification or removal of unsafe, abandoned or non-compliant gardens; and

· edible planting is permitted by some councils but restricted or discouraged by others due to matters including soil quality, contamination, maintenance and public health considerations.

Findings

The review confirms that roadside verge gardens operate in a number of metropolitan and regional local government areas across Australia.

However, the predominant approach is to facilitate controlled, resident-led landscaping rather than establish Council-funded roadside food garden programs.

The models reviewed generally place responsibility for design, materials, construction, watering, maintenance and removal with residents or participating community groups. Council involvement is primarily regulatory and administrative through policies, guidelines, approvals, registration processes and compliance activities.

The proposal considered by Council differs from the predominant models identified because it contemplated Council potentially:

· identifying suitable streets and locations;

· developing and constructing roadside gardens;

· purchasing locally sourced compost, soil, mulch and plants;

· establishing vegetable, herb and/or fruit tree plantings;

· making produce freely available for public harvesting; and

· relying on local residents to protect and maintain the gardens following Council establishment.

This approach would create additional establishment costs and ongoing responsibilities for Council and may result in uncertainty regarding responsibility where resident participation or maintenance reduces or ceases over time.

The comparative review supports the continuation of controlled, community-led verge landscaping through Council’s existing policy and approval framework. It does not demonstrate a broadly adopted or established local government model for Council-funded construction of roadside gardens across multiple locations.

Legislative Framework

Roads Act 1993

Roadside verges and nature strips generally form part of the public road reserve.

Works and activities within public roads are regulated under the Roads Act 1993.

Section 7 of the Roads Act 1993 provides that a council is the roads authority for public roads within its local government area, other than freeways and Crown roads, and public roads for which another public authority is declared to be the roads authority.

Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 provides that a person must not, without the consent of the appropriate roads authority:

· erect a structure or carry out work in, on or over a public road;

· dig up or disturb the surface of a public road;

· remove or interfere with a structure, work or tree on a public road;

· pump water into a public road from land adjoining the road; or

· connect a road to a classified road.

Landscaping works within a nature strip may involve disturbance of the road reserve and are therefore subject to Council’s consent requirements.

As the roads authority, Council may assess applications and impose conditions relating to safety, pedestrian access, road operations, public infrastructure, utility services, maintenance, restoration and other relevant matters.

Local Government Act 1993

The Local Government Act 1993 provides the broader framework for Council’s management of community land and public assets.

Community garden proposals located on Council-owned community land must be consistent with the classification and categorisation of the land, the applicable plan of management and any relevant statutory or approval requirements.

The Local Government Act framework is relevant to larger community garden proposals on suitable Council-owned public land but does not remove the requirements of the Roads Act where a proposal is located within a public road reserve.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Depending on the location, scale and nature of proposed works, consideration may also be required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and relevant environmental planning instruments.

Small-scale landscaping may not require development consent in some circumstances. However, structures, earthworks, infrastructure, significant site works or works on land affected by environmental or heritage considerations may require further assessment or approval.

Any proposal would need to be assessed having regard to its location, design and potential environmental impacts.

Civil Liability Act 2002

The Civil Liability Act 2002 is relevant to Council’s management of public land and road reserves.

Part 5 of the Act contains provisions relevant to the functions and responsibilities of public authorities. Section 42 requires a court, when determining whether a public or other authority has breached a duty of care, to consider matters including the authority’s financial and other resources and the broad range of functions it is required to exercise.

Section 45 provides protection to roads authorities in relation to a failure to carry out road work unless the roads authority had actual knowledge of the particular risk that resulted in the harm.

Where Council permits or facilitates landscaping within road reserves, appropriate conditions, inspection processes and clear allocation of responsibilities are important. This is particularly relevant where landscaping may affect pedestrian movement, visibility, access to infrastructure or the condition and safe use of the road reserve.

Council’s existing policy and guideline framework

Council already has policies and guidelines relevant to community gardens and landscaping within nature strips.

Community Gardens Policy (POL 024)

Council’s Community Gardens Policy provides a framework for the establishment of community gardens on Council-owned public space.

The policy recognises the environmental, social, educational, health and community benefits that may arise from community gardening.

Under the policy, community garden proposals are community-led and require an incorporated not-for-profit community group or organisation to enter into a formal agreement with Council for the purpose of developing and maintaining the garden.

The policy requires proposals to address matters including:

· the objectives and proposed use of the garden;

· site suitability;

· site plans and proposed infrastructure;

· access to water;

· impacts on existing users of the public space;

· public access;

· community participation;

· ongoing maintenance;

· funding and financial sustainability;

· public liability insurance;

· volunteer management;

· management of vandalism and anti-social behaviour;

· compliance with relevant approvals; and

· arrangements for decommissioning or rehabilitation of the site if the garden is no longer maintained.

The Community Gardens Policy establishes that responsibility for developing, managing and operating a community garden rests primarily with the approved community organisation rather than Council.

The policy provides an existing pathway for larger, shared or food-producing community gardens where an appropriate community organisation is prepared to accept responsibility for the establishment and ongoing operation of the garden and a suitable Council-owned site is identified.

Activities in Public Road Reserves Policy (POL 008)

Council’s Activities in Public Road Reserves Policy provides the framework for managing activities undertaken within public road reserves.

Road reserves perform multiple functions and must accommodate:

· the safe movement of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians;

· access to adjoining properties;

· road infrastructure;

· drainage;

· underground and overhead utility services;

· waste collection;

· street trees and landscaping;

· public infrastructure; and

· future road and service requirements.

The policy identifies activities that require approval and provides a framework for the assessment and management of works undertaken within the road reserve.

Landscaping within a nature strip must remain compatible with the primary transport, access, infrastructure and public safety functions of the road reserve.

Any roadside verge garden proposal would need to be considered having regard to the Activities in Public Road Reserves Policy and the requirements of section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

Landscaping of Nature Strips guideline

Council’s Landscaping of Nature Strips Guideline is the most directly relevant existing document for small-scale roadside verge garden proposals.

The guideline recognises that residents may wish to beautify or modify the nature strip adjoining their property and provides a process for seeking approval.

The guideline also recognises that nature strips must accommodate a range of public functions, including:

· pedestrian movement;

· access for people using wheelchairs and mobility devices;

· pram access;

· space for occupants to enter and exit parked vehicles;

· kerbside waste collection;

· underground and overhead services;

· street trees;

· drainage;

· visibility at intersections, curves and driveways; and

· access for Council and utility providers.

Applications are assessed to ensure proposed landscaping does not adversely affect road safety, pedestrian access, public infrastructure, utility services or the ongoing function of the road reserve.

Under the existing framework, establishment, maintenance and renewal costs associated with approved nature strip landscaping remain the responsibility of the resident or property owner.

Existing pathways

Together, Council’s existing policies and guidelines provide pathways for:

· community-led gardens on suitable Council-owned public land through the Community Gardens Policy; and

· individual landscaping within nature strips through the Landscaping of Nature Strips guideline and section 138 approval process.

These existing pathways allow proposals to be assessed according to their scale, location, intended use, community management arrangements and potential impacts.

Options for allowing community members to develop and construct roadside verge gardens

The resolution requested consideration of options for allowing community members to develop and construct roadside verge gardens.

Council’s existing policy and approval framework already provides a mechanism through which community members may seek approval for appropriate landscaping within nature strips.

For small-scale verge garden proposals adjoining residential properties, Council’s existing Landscaping of Nature Strips guideline and section 138 approval process provide the most appropriate pathway.

This process enables Council to consider:

· road and pedestrian safety;

· access requirements;

· driveway and intersection sightlines;

· underground and overhead services;

· drainage;

· waste collection;

· impacts on street trees;

· proposed plant species and mature plant heights;

· proposed landscaping materials;

· ongoing maintenance arrangements; and

· the future removal or reinstatement of landscaping if required.

For larger, shared or food-producing garden proposals involving collective community participation, Council’s Community Gardens Policy provides an established framework.

Under this pathway, an incorporated not-for-profit community group or organisation would be required to develop a proposal, demonstrate community support, identify appropriate governance and maintenance arrangements, maintain relevant insurance and enter into a formal agreement with Council.

Where a larger community garden is proposed, a suitable Council-owned public space outside the road reserve may provide a more appropriate location due to the ability to consider access to water, storage, infrastructure, public access, soil suitability, ongoing management and compatibility with existing land uses.

The Community Gardens Policy also provides a more appropriate framework for shared food production and public participation than informal food gardens located within road reserves.

Council could prepare additional public information regarding edible plants or verge gardening if future demand demonstrates a need. However, the development of a separate roadside verge garden policy or Council-funded program is not considered necessary at this time.

The existing framework provides an appropriate mechanism for community members to submit proposals while allowing Council to assess safety, access, infrastructure, maintenance and risk considerations on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion

The review confirms that roadside verge gardens operate in a number of metropolitan and regional local government areas across Australia and may provide streetscape, environmental and community benefits.

However, the predominant operating model is for residents or community groups to initiate, fund, establish and maintain verge gardens in accordance with council guidelines, registration requirements or approval processes.

The review did not identify a broadly adopted local government model involving councils routinely selecting multiple roadside sites, funding and constructing publicly accessible vegetable gardens or small orchards and subsequently relying on local residents to undertake ongoing maintenance.

Council already has established mechanisms through the Community Gardens Policy, Activities in Public Road Reserves Policy and Landscaping of Nature Strips guideline.

These existing processes provide appropriate pathways for community-led proposals while allowing Council to retain oversight of public safety, road reserve access, public infrastructure, maintenance responsibilities and risk.

It is therefore not recommended that Council establish a separate Council-funded roadside verge garden program at this time.

Community members wishing to undertake landscaping within the nature strip adjoining their property may continue to seek approval through Council’s existing nature strip landscaping process. Larger, collectively managed or food-producing garden proposals may be considered under Council’s Community Gardens Policy where an appropriate community organisation and suitable Council-owned public space are identified.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation.

Should Council determine to establish a roadside verge garden or small roadside orchard program, additional funding and staff resources would be required for planning, establishment, ongoing maintenance and administration. The extent of these costs would depend on the scale, location and level of Council involvement.

As a Council-funded program is not recommended, detailed costings have not been undertaken.

Policy and Legislation

· Local Government Act 1993

· Roads Act 1993

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Civil Liability Act 2002

· Community Gardens Policy (POL 024)

· Activities in Public Road Reserves Policy (POL 008)

· Landscaping of Nature Strips guideline

Link to Strategic Plan

Sustainable

Sustainable built environment

Identify sustainable practices and materials when planning the built environment.

Risk Management Issues for Council

There is a risk that community groups or participants may not meet ongoing legal, safety, maintenance, insurance or financial obligations, potentially resulting in additional costs, complaints, maintenance requirements or liability for Council.

As roadside verge gardens are located within public road reserves, potential risks include:

· pedestrian and accessibility hazards;

· obstruction of footpaths, sightlines, drainage, waste collection and access to utilities;

· vegetation encroaching into roads, footpaths or adjoining properties;

· impacts on existing street trees and underground services;

· inappropriate excavation or unsuitable, invasive, thorny or toxic plant species;

· soil contamination and public health considerations associated with edible planting;

· unmanaged or overgrown vegetation;

· reduced community participation or uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities;

· vandalism, damage or complaints from adjoining residents;

· impacts on Council and utility works, including responsibility for reinstatement; and

· Council intervention where gardens become unsafe, abandoned or non-compliant.

These risks can be managed through Council’s existing approval and community garden frameworks, which establish appropriate conditions and responsibilities before works commence.

Risk and resource requirements would increase if Council actively identified locations and constructed or promoted roadside food gardens or orchards across multiple streets.

Internal / External Consultation

Relevant Council staff have been consulted in relation to Council’s existing community garden, road reserve, nature strip landscaping, operational and risk management requirements.

The review also considered publicly available policies, guidelines and information published by local government authorities operating roadside verge garden arrangements across New South Wales and other Australian jurisdictions.

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 10 August 2026

RP-2

RP-2 ILLEGAL AND DANGEROUS MOTORCYCLE ACTIVITY - BARRIER TREATMENT OPTIONS

Author: Henry Pavitt

Summary:

This report responds to Council’s resolution of 22 September 2025 and outlines investigations into compliant physical barriers to restrict illegal and dangerous motorcycle access at identified hotspots.

Following joint site assessments by Council officers and NSW Police, a range of barrier options was considered. Bollards, supported by the strategic placement or repositioning of rocks, are identified as the preferred initial treatment.

Three priority trial locations are proposed at Mima Street/Glenfield Road, Glenfield; Adjin Street, Mount Austin; and Swan Street/Grinton Street, Ashmont. The report also addresses accessibility and design requirements, indicative costs, potential funding sources and a staged approach to implementation and monitoring.

Recommendation

That Council:

a receive and note the contents of this report

b note the assessment of compliant physical barrier options and that bollards, supported by the strategic placement or repositioning of rocks where appropriate, are Council’s preferred initial treatment approach

c endorse Mima Street/Glenfield Road, Glenfield; Adjin Street, Mount Austin; and Swan Street/Grinton Street, Ashmont as the three priority trial locations, subject to detailed site assessment, accessibility requirements, final design and available funding

d note that all physical access treatments will maintain appropriate access for pedestrians, people using wheelchairs and mobility aids, prams, emergency services and Council operational and maintenance activities

e note the works completed or commenced at identified locations, as detailed in this report

Report

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 March 2025, Council considered a Notice of Motion regarding community concern associated with the illegal and dangerous operation of unregistered motorcycles throughout the Wagga Wagga Local Government Area.

Council resolved to engage with NSW Police and relevant road safety authorities regarding enforcement and community awareness initiatives and requested a further report investigating physical deterrents and access-control measures at identified high-risk locations while maintaining pedestrian and emergency access.

In response, a further report was presented to Council on 22 September 2025 outlining actions undertaken in collaboration with NSW Police and considering physical deterrents, legislative and enforcement mechanisms, and potential funding opportunities.

The report identified the need to balance measures restricting motorcycle access with accessibility requirements and noted that no dedicated budget was available for the retrospective installation of barrier treatments. Council officers were continuing to work with NSW Police to undertake Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessments and identify priority treatments.

Following consideration of the report, Council resolved:

RP-1 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION - ADDRESSING ILLEGAL & DANGEROUS MOTORCYCLE ACTIVITY IN WAGGA WAGGA

25/307 RESOLVED:

On the Motion of Councillors R Foley and G Davies

That Council:

a receives and notes the contents of this report

b request a further report within six months on compliant barrier options (bollards, gates, drain covers) to restrict illegal motorcycle access at identified hotspots

c ensure designs allows wheelchair, pram and emergency access

d identify up to three trial sites in consultation with NSW Police

e provide indicative costings, potential funding sources and advice on possible staging or trial implementation

This report responds to the above resolution and provides an update on works completed or commenced, an assessment of physical barrier and complementary treatment options, proposed trial locations, indicative cost considerations, potential funding opportunities and options for staged implementation.

NSW Police Consultation and Site Assessments

Council officers have continued to work collaboratively with NSW Police regarding illegal and dangerous motorcycle activity throughout the Local Government Area.

Joint CPTED assessments have been undertaken at locations identified through community reports, Council information and NSW Police intelligence. The assessments considered:

· existing pedestrian and informal access points

· opportunities for motorcycles and unauthorised vehicles to enter public land

· existing bollards, fencing, rocks and other access controls

· pedestrian, wheelchair, mobility aid and pram access

· visibility and opportunities for passive surveillance

· vegetation condition and overhang

· lighting

· condition of pedestrian paths

· wayfinding and signage

· potential entrapment areas and concealed access routes

· opportunities for practical infrastructure or environmental improvements.

CPTED principles recognise that physical access controls are most effective when supported by environmental measures that improve visibility, encourage legitimate use of public areas and increase the perceived likelihood that unlawful activity will be observed or reported. Accordingly, physical barriers should not be considered as a standalone response.

Council’s Existing Treatment Approach

Following the site assessments, Council has commenced implementing practical treatments at several identified locations where works can be undertaken within existing operational resources.

Council’s primary physical treatment approach has involved:

· installing additional bollards where appropriate

· reviewing and adjusting the location or spacing of existing bollards

· strategically placing large rocks to restrict informal motorcycle and vehicle access

· moving existing rocks closer together to reduce gaps capable of being accessed by motorcycles

· retaining appropriate access for pedestrians, wheelchairs, mobility aids and prams

· maintaining access required for emergency response, Council operations and maintenance activities.

Bollards and large rocks provide a comparatively simple, adaptable and generally lower-cost treatment that can be modified in response to the individual characteristics of a location. Existing rocks can be repositioned where appropriate, reducing the need to install additional infrastructure.

The effectiveness of these treatments depends on appropriate placement and spacing. Treatments must not create a collision, trip or entrapment hazard, obstruct the accessible path of travel or unnecessarily restrict legitimate community access.

While the placement of bollards and rocks may reduce the ease with which motorcycles access public land, it may not prevent access in all circumstances. A gap that provides sufficient clearance for wheelchairs, mobility devices and prams may also remain capable of being accessed by some motorcycles.

Physical treatments are therefore intended to discourage access, direct movement towards designated pathways and increase the difficulty of entering identified locations. They complement, rather than replace, NSW Police enforcement and community reporting.

Identified Locations and Recommended Treatments

Mima Street/Glenfield Road, Glenfield

The site assessment identified opportunities to improve the existing access treatment through the installation or adjustment of staggered bollards.

Recommended treatments include:

· review existing access arrangements and available pedestrian clearances

· install or adjust bollards to narrow and better define the authorised pedestrian access point

· consider the strategic placement or repositioning of rocks adjacent to the access point to reduce informal access around the bollards

· maintain appropriate access for pedestrians, wheelchairs, mobility aids and prams

· monitor the effectiveness of the treatment following installation.

The use of metal cabling was identified during the site assessment as a potential method of reducing access between bollards or adjoining infrastructure. Further safety and technical assessment would be required before this treatment could be supported.

Adjin Street, Mount Austin

The site assessment identified opportunities to restrict informal motorcycle access through improved placement of physical barriers.

Recommended treatments include:

· install or adjust staggered bollards at the identified access point

· assess opportunities to strategically place or reposition rocks to reduce access around the bollards

· retain a clearly defined and accessible pedestrian path

· ensure treatments do not adversely affect emergency or maintenance access

· monitor the effectiveness of the treatment following installation.

Metal cabling may be subject to further investigation; however, bollards and strategically placed rocks are considered Council’s preferred initial treatment.

Bandera Avenue, Glenfield

The site contains existing access controls requiring review and adjustment.

Recommended treatments include:

· review the placement and spacing of existing bollards to reduce unauthorised access while retaining appropriate wheelchair, mobility aid and pram access

· assess opportunities to reposition existing rocks or install additional physical treatments adjacent to the bollards and fence

· undertake significant pruning of vegetation at the entrance to improve visibility and passive surveillance

· include the location in an appropriate ongoing vegetation maintenance program

· inspect and repair identified damage to the concrete pedestrian path in accordance with Council’s inspection, prioritisation and maintenance processes

· inspect and test existing lighting and identify whether additional lighting treatment is warranted

· monitor the effectiveness of completed treatments.

Walla Place, Glenfield

The site assessment identified vegetation and access-control improvements.

Recommended treatments include:

· undertake significant vegetation pruning to improve visibility and passive surveillance at the entrance

· include the location in an appropriate ongoing vegetation maintenance program

· review gaps between existing bollards, rocks, fencing and adjoining infrastructure

· reposition existing rocks or consider additional physical treatments where required

· inspect and test existing lighting

· monitor the effectiveness of completed treatments.

Yungana Place, Glenfield

The site assessment identified complete closure of the laneway as the preferred treatment option. Any proposal to permanently close the laneway would require further investigation regarding land status, community access, servicing, emergency access, statutory requirements and potential impacts on surrounding residents.

The existing temporary fencing may restrict visibility and contribute to an area with limited passive surveillance.

Recommended treatments include:

· undertake further investigation into the feasibility and implications of closing the laneway

· if closure is not feasible, remove or modify temporary fencing where it is safe and appropriate to do so

· install appropriately located bollards and/or strategically placed rocks to better define pedestrian access and restrict unauthorised vehicle access

· install wayfinding signage where required

· address excessive vegetation overhang, including engagement with adjoining property owners where vegetation originates from private land

· investigate opportunities to improve lighting and passive surveillance

· ensure any treatment avoids creating concealed or isolated areas

· undertake further consultation before any permanent closure or substantial change to public access is implemented.

Swan Street/Grinton Street, Ashmont

The site assessment identified opportunities to improve physical access controls.

Recommended treatments include:

· install or adjust staggered bollards to restrict unauthorised vehicle access

· assess opportunities to strategically place or reposition rocks adjacent to the access point

· retain a clearly defined and accessible pedestrian path

· ensure emergency and operational access requirements are maintained

· monitor the effectiveness of the treatment following installation.

Metal cabling may be subject to further assessment; however, bollards and strategically placed rocks are considered Council’s preferred initial treatment.

Lusher Avenue, Turvey Park

The site assessment identified opportunities to improve access controls, pedestrian infrastructure, visibility and wayfinding.

Recommended treatments include:

· review the location and spacing of existing bollards to confirm appropriate wheelchair, mobility aid and pram access

· assess opportunities to reposition existing rocks or provide additional physical treatments adjacent to existing bollards and fencing

· install wayfinding signage where required

· inspect and repair identified damage to the concrete pedestrian path in accordance with Council’s inspection, prioritisation and maintenance processes

· investigate lighting options

· undertake significant pruning of vegetation and overhang to improve sightlines and passive surveillance

· include the location in an appropriate ongoing vegetation maintenance program

· monitor the effectiveness of completed treatments.

Assessment of Barrier Options

Bollards

Bollards are Council’s preferred treatment where an existing path or defined pedestrian access point is to remain open.

Bollards can be installed individually, in a staggered arrangement or in combination with existing fencing, landscaping or strategically placed rocks.

Advantages include:

· relatively simple installation

· ability to define and narrow authorised access points

· comparatively low maintenance requirements

· ability to accommodate pedestrian and accessible access when appropriately designed

· suitability for use with removable or lockable arrangements where operational access is required

· consistency with treatments already used throughout the Local Government Area.

Limitations include:

· sufficient accessible clearance may also permit access by some motorcycles

· inappropriate spacing may restrict access for wheelchairs, mobility devices and prams

· poor visibility may create a collision hazard for pedestrians and cyclists

· bollards may be bypassed where open space remains available on either side.

Strategically Placed Rocks

Large rocks are currently used by Council to restrict informal access around bollards, pathways and open-space boundaries.

Council has commenced repositioning existing rocks closer together at some locations to reduce gaps and make motorcycle access more difficult.

Advantages include:

· ability to use or reposition existing materials

· comparatively low cost where suitable rocks are already available

· flexibility to respond to irregular site boundaries

· reduced requirement for excavation or permanent infrastructure

· ability to supplement existing bollards and fencing.

Limitations include:

· rocks must be sufficiently visible and located clear of the accessible pedestrian path

· inappropriate placement may create collision, trip or maintenance hazards

· ongoing inspection may be required to identify movement, displacement or informal access routes around the treatment

· access may be transferred to adjoining landscaped or grassed areas rather than eliminated.

Gates

Gates may provide a higher level of access control where a pathway or service access point can be closed while retaining authorised access.

Potential limitations include:

· higher capital and maintenance costs

· potential restriction of pedestrian and accessible access

· requirements for locking and key management

· possible delays to emergency or operational access

· risk of damage, vandalism or unauthorised opening

· requirement for site-specific design and operational procedures.

Gates are not recommended as Council’s standard treatment but may be considered at individual locations where a demonstrated operational need exists.

Metal Cabling

Metal cabling between bollards, fencing or other infrastructure was identified during several CPTED site assessments as a possible method of reducing gaps available to motorcycles.

Potential risks include:

· reduced visibility, particularly during low-light conditions

· collision or entanglement risk for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle riders

· potential restriction of accessible pedestrian movement

· ongoing tensioning, inspection and maintenance requirements

· vandalism or deliberate removal.

Metal cabling is not proposed as Council’s preferred treatment at this stage. Any future use would be subject to detailed engineering, accessibility and safety assessment.

Drain Covers and Drainage Treatments

Drain covers or drainage access treatments may be appropriate where stormwater infrastructure provides a direct access route for motorcycles.

Any treatment would require detailed assessment to ensure that it:

· maintains the hydraulic capacity and operation of the drainage system

· does not increase flood risk or contribute to debris blockage

· provides safe access for inspection and maintenance

· does not create an entrapment or public safety risk

· maintains required environmental and emergency access.

No drainage treatment is proposed until site-specific investigations demonstrate a need and confirm that an appropriate engineered solution is available.

Accessibility and Design Requirements

Physical access treatments must balance the objective of discouraging illegal motorcycle access with Council’s responsibility to provide safe and inclusive public spaces.

Detailed site assessment and design will be required before new permanent infrastructure is installed. Consideration will be given to:

· maintaining an accessible path of travel

· the width and manoeuvring requirements of wheelchairs, mobility scooters and prams

· the needs of people with vision impairment

· visibility and contrast of bollards and other physical treatments

· surface condition, gradients and crossfalls

· pedestrian and cyclist movements

· emergency service requirements

· Council maintenance and operational access

· drainage and utility infrastructure

· proximity to roads and traffic environments

· lighting and visibility during daytime and night-time conditions

· applicable legislation, standards and technical guidance.

The spacing of physical barriers cannot be considered in isolation. The complete path of travel, adjoining surfaces and ability to safely approach, pass through and move beyond the treatment must also be assessed.

Proposed Trial Implementation

It is proposed that treatments be implemented and monitored at up to three priority locations.

Final trial locations will be determined in consultation with NSW Police and relevant Council operational areas following consideration of:

· frequency and severity of reported illegal motorcycle activity

· NSW Police intelligence

· risk to pedestrians, residents and other public-space users

· existing access conditions

· suitability for bollards and strategically placed rocks

· accessibility requirements

· constructability

· anticipated effectiveness

· availability of existing materials

· estimated cost

· ability to monitor outcomes.

Subject to final site assessment and NSW Police advice, Mima Street/Glenfield Road, Adjin Street and Swan Street/Grinton Street may be suitable for initial monitoring or trial treatments due to the similarity of the recommended physical access measures.

Where works have already commenced at these or other identified locations, those works may form part of the trial and monitoring program rather than requiring the installation of additional infrastructure.

Trial treatments will be monitored over an appropriate period to assess:

· changes in reported illegal motorcycle activity

· evidence of continued or displaced access

· community and NSW Police feedback

· impacts on pedestrians and people using wheelchairs, mobility aids and prams

· impacts on emergency, maintenance and operational access

· damage, vandalism or movement of installed treatments

· maintenance requirements

· whether adjustments or additional treatments are required.

Indicative Cost Considerations

Detailed cost estimates cannot be determined until the proposed treatment at each location has been confirmed and site measurements, design requirements and quotations have been completed.

Costs may include:

· supply and installation of fixed, removable or lockable bollards

· excavation, footings and surface reinstatement

· relocation, transport and placement of existing rocks

· supply and placement of additional rocks where required

· pedestrian path repairs

· vegetation pruning and ongoing maintenance

· lighting inspections, design and upgrades

· signage and line marking

· engineering, accessibility or technical assessment

· traffic and pedestrian management during construction

· ongoing inspection, repair and maintenance.

The repositioning of existing rocks and adjustment of existing bollards may be able to be undertaken within operational programs where resources are available. New infrastructure, significant lighting upgrades, major path reconstruction or engineered access-control treatments may require additional funding or consideration through Council’s annual budget process.

Potential Funding Sources

A review undertaken for the previous Council report did not identify an open state or federal funding program specifically directed towards the installation of bollards or comparable barriers to address illegal motorcycle access.

Potential future funding opportunities may include programs relating to:

· community safety and crime prevention

· safer public places

· public-space and community infrastructure improvements

· pedestrian and active transport safety

· accessibility improvements

· urban renewal

· road safety

· place activation and public-domain improvements.

Eligibility will depend on the objectives and guidelines applying to individual funding rounds. Council officers will continue to monitor relevant NSW and Australian Government grant programs.

Government grant programs

In the absence of an appropriate external funding program, lower-cost works may be undertaken through existing operational programs where resources are available. Larger or more complex treatments will be considered through Council’s annual business planning, capital works and long-term financial planning processes.

Staging

Implementation is proposed to occur progressively.

Stage 1 – Immediate and Operational Works

· Reposition existing rocks to reduce informal access gaps.

· Adjust existing bollards where practical.

· Undertake priority vegetation pruning.

· Inspect existing lighting.

· Undertake minor maintenance and path repairs according to Council’s inspection and prioritisation processes.

Stage 2 – Trial Treatments

· Confirm up to three priority locations with NSW Police.

· Complete site measurements and accessibility assessments.

· Install additional bollards or strategically placed rocks where required.

· Implement complementary signage, vegetation or maintenance treatments.

· Monitor effectiveness and community impacts.

Stage 3 – Evaluation and Future Works

· Review Council and NSW Police information following implementation.

· Assess whether motorcycle activity has reduced or moved to adjoining locations.

· Identify required modifications.

· Assess whether treatments are suitable for use at other hotspot locations.

· Identify future operational or capital funding requirements.

Financial Implications

Council has commenced undertaking minor works, including the installation or adjustment of bollards and the repositioning of existing rocks, through existing operational programs where resources are available.

Detailed costs for outstanding works are currently being investigated and will depend on the treatment selected, site conditions, accessibility requirements, availability of existing materials and whether specialist design or construction is required.

Where works cannot be accommodated within existing operational budgets, funding will be considered through Council’s annual business planning and budget processes or pursued through relevant external grant programs if/when available.

Policy and Legislation

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

Roads Act 1993 (NSW)

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

Relevant Australian accessibility, pedestrian, shared path and infrastructure standards and technical guidance

Council’s applicable asset management, public-space, risk management and maintenance policies and procedures.

Link to Strategic Plan

Vibrant

Our community feels safe.

Support public safety.

Risk Management Issues for Council

The installation or adjustment of physical access treatments may introduce risks if infrastructure is poorly located, insufficiently visible or restricts legitimate access.

Potential risks include:

· restricting access for people using wheelchairs, mobility aids and prams

· collision, trip or entanglement hazards

· restricting emergency, operational or maintenance access

· displacement of illegal motorcycle activity to adjoining locations

· damage or vandalism to infrastructure

· increased maintenance and inspection requirements

· ineffective treatments resulting in continued unauthorised access

· community concern regarding changes to established pedestrian access.

These risks will be managed through site-specific assessment, consultation with relevant Council teams and NSW Police, application of relevant accessibility and safety requirements, appropriate design and installation, and post-installation monitoring.

The use of existing or repositioned rocks will require consideration of visibility, pedestrian movement, maintenance access and the potential for motorcycles to create alternative access routes around the treatment.

Physical treatments will complement ongoing NSW Police enforcement and community reporting and are not expected to eliminate illegal motorcycle activity in isolation.

Internal / External Consultation

Consultation has occurred with:

· NSW Police – Riverina Police District

· Infrastructure Services

· Community Services

· Parks and Strategic Operations

· Regulatory Services

· Relevant Council asset, maintenance and operational teams.

Further consultation will occur during the detailed assessment and implementation of proposed treatments, including consultation with NSW Police regarding the selection and evaluation of up to three trial locations.

Reference	Description	Amount
Table A	Capital Project Revotes	$305,334
Table B	Capital Projects – Works in Progress	$21,275,349
Table C	Operating Project Revotes	$2,131,958
Table D	Operating Project – Works in Progress	$5,592,732

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 10 August 2026

RP-5

RP-5 2026 NATIONAL LOCAL ROADS, TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE CONGRESS - CAIRNS, QUEENSLAND - 24 - 27 AUGUST 2026

Author: Kori West

Executive: Scott Gray

Summary:

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National Local Roads, Transport & Infrastructure Congress is the leading national forum for local government elected representatives, senior executives and infrastructure professionals to discuss key issues affecting Australia's local roads, transport networks and community infrastructure. The Congress provides delegates with the opportunity to hear from government and industry leaders, explore emerging policy and funding initiatives, share best practice and build networks with councils from across the country.

Recommendation

That Council:

a endorse Councillor attendance at the 2026 National Local Roads, Transport and Infrastructure Congress to be held in Cairns, Queensland from 24 – 27 August 2026

b appoint any Councillor who wishes to attend the 2026 National Local Roads, Transport and Infrastructure Congress as a Council representative, subject to the availability of funds within the Councillor's adopted conference and travel budget

Report

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National Local Roads, Transport & Infrastructure Congress is Australia's premier annual forum dedicated to local government road, transport and community infrastructure. The Congress brings together mayors, councillors, chief executive officers, engineers, infrastructure managers, technical specialists, government representatives and industry partners to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing Australia's local road network and transport infrastructure.

The program features presentations from leading industry experts, Federal and State Government representatives, and local government practitioners, with a focus on best practice in road asset management, infrastructure funding, transport planning, road safety, workforce development, heavy vehicle management, and innovative technologies. Delegates also have opportunities to participate in networking sessions, technical tours and discussions that support collaboration between councils and industry.

Attendance at the Congress provides a valuable opportunity to:

· Gain insight into emerging national policy and funding initiatives affecting local government.

· Learn about innovative approaches to the planning, construction and maintenance of local roads and community infrastructure.

· Share knowledge and best practice with peers from councils across Australia.

· Build professional networks with local government leaders, infrastructure professionals and industry suppliers.

· Explore practical solutions that improve the safety, resilience and sustainability of local transport networks and community infrastructure.

For councils, the Congress supports professional development while helping delegates identify strategies and innovations that can be applied within their own organisations to improve infrastructure planning, asset management and service delivery to their communities.

Click here to view the full Program.

Attendance provides an opportunity for Council to contribute to national discussions, advocate for regional priorities, and strengthen partnerships with government and industry.

Councillors interested in attending should note that the time commitment is four days (24–27 August 2026), including return travel to and from Cairns, attendance at the 2026 ALGA National Local Roads, Transport and Infrastructure Congress on 25 and 26 August 2026, participation in conference sessions, and networking opportunities with local government representatives, government agencies and industry stakeholders.

Financial Implications

The cost for attendance of one Councillor to attend the Conference is approximately $4000 plus GST (standard full member rate) as outlined below.

Estimated costs	Amount
Conference Registration	$ 1,200
Flights Wagga to Cairns - 24 & 27 August 2026	$ 1,500
Accommodation – 24 to 27 August 2026	$ 900
Additional expected costs (transfers, meals and incidentals)	$ 400
Total (Estimate)	$ 4,000

This conference will be funded from the Councillors’ Development, Conference and Travel budget, which has a total allocation of $8,000 per Councillor for the 2026/27 financial year.

The expenditure and remaining budget for each Councillor is detailed in the table below in committed amounts.

Councillor	Amount spent YTD 2026/27	Remaining budget 2026/27
Allana Condron	Nil	$8,000.00
Georgie Davies	Nil	$8,000.00
Richard Foley	Nil	$8,000.00
Michael Henderson	Nil	$8,000.00
Jenny McKinnon	$2,168.22	$5,831.78
Amelia Parkins	$2,168.22	$5,831.78
Karissa Subedi	$2,168.22	$5,831.78
Lindsay Tanner	Nil	$8,000.00
Dallas Tout	Nil	$8,000.00

Job number: 12080 – Councillor Development/Conferences/Travelling

Policy and Legislation

POL 025 Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Good governance

Provide professional, innovative, accessible and efficient services.

Risk Management Issues for Council

N/A

Internal / External Consultation

N/A

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 10 August 2026

RP-6

RP-6 SISTER CITY ACTIVITIES - NÖRDLINGEN

Author: Scott Gray

Summary:

In June 2026, Council received two items of correspondence from its sister city, Nördlingen: an expression of interest in sending a delegation to Wagga Wagga during March or April 2027 and a formal invitation for a Wagga Wagga delegation to attend the Historic City Wall Festival in Nördlingen from 10 to 12 September 2027.

The proposed visits will coincide with the 60th anniversary of the sister city partnership between Wagga Wagga and Nördlingen. They are a continuation of an existing relationship established in 1967 and are reciprocal in nature, following several recent Wagga Wagga delegations hosted in Nördlingen and the last Nördlingen delegation hosted in Wagga Wagga in 2017.

This report seeks in-principle support for both visits and approval to commence detailed planning for hosting the Nördlingen delegation in Wagga Wagga.

Recommendation

That Council:

a provide in principle support for hosting a delegation from Nördlingen in March/April 2027

b provide in principle support for the Mayor and the General Manager to lead a delegation to attend the 2027 Historic Wall Festival in Nördlingen from 10 September to 12 September 2027

c authorise the Sister City Working Group in conjunction with the Mayor to initiate planning for both visits

d approve all reasonable Council expenses associated with hosting the Nördlingen delegation to be funded from the Sister Cities Reserve.

Report

Introduction

In June 2026, Council received two items of correspondence from its longstanding sister city, Nördlingen. The first was an expression of interest from Nördlingen in sending a delegation to Wagga Wagga during March/April 2027. The second was a formal invitation for a Wagga Wagga delegation to attend the Historic City Wall Festival in Nördlingen from 10 to 12 September 2027.

Both items arise from the existing sister city partnership established in 1967. The 2027 activities are particularly significant, coinciding with the 700th anniversary of Nördlingen’s city wall, the 600th anniversary of St George’s Church and the 60th anniversary of the sister city partnership. This report seeks in-principle support for both proposals.

As the proposed visit to Wagga Wagga will occur during the current financial year and requires sufficient lead time to confirm the delegation, accommodation and official program, this report concentrates on the hosting arrangements. The proposed visit to Nördlingen is addressed at a high level only, with detailed consideration deferred to the 2027/28 budget process or a further report.

Correspondence 1 - Proposed delegation from Nördlingen

On 1 June 2026, Helena Ott wrote to the Mayor on behalf of Lord Mayor David Wittner advising that members of Nördlingen’s newly elected Council had expressed interest in visiting Wagga Wagga during 2027, particularly in recognition of the 60th anniversary of the partnership.

The preliminary timeframe is during the Bavarian Easter holiday period, from approximately 22 March to 2 April 2027. The delegation would spend only part of that period in Wagga Wagga and would combine the visit with travel to other locations in Australia. Nördlingen has advised that participants would meet their own international and domestic travel expenses. The final delegation size has not yet been confirmed and will depend on the number of Councillors, partners and administrative representatives who choose to participate.

It is proposed that the official Wagga Wagga component be limited to approximately three nights. Council would meet all reasonable expenses associated with its role as host, including accommodation for official delegates, official hospitality, local transport and costs associated with the civic, community, cultural and business program. Personal expenses and any arrangements outside the official program would remain the responsibility of individual visitors.

The Sister City Working Group would work with the Mayor, General Manager and relevant Council staff to finalise the arrangements. Subject to the interests and composition of the delegation, the program may include civic engagement, community and cultural activities, visits to local facilities and institutions and appropriate business or investment discussions. Council has also asked Nördlingen whether an invitation could be extended to representatives of Destilla GmbH to join the delegation if possible.

Correspondence 2 - Invitation to the Historic City Wall Festival

On 9 June 2026, the Mayor received a formal invitation from the Lord Mayor of Nördlingen, Mr David Wittner, to lead a Wagga Wagga delegation to attend the Historic City Wall Festival from 10 to 12 September 2027. The festival will coincide with the 700th anniversary of Nördlingen’s city wall, the 600th anniversary of St George’s Church and the 60th anniversary of the sister city partnership.

It is appropriate for Council to indicate in-principle support for the Mayor and General Manager to lead a delegation in recognition of the longstanding relationship and the significance of the anniversary. However, as the visit will occur in the 2027/28 financial year, this report does not approve the delegation composition, detailed itinerary or any travel expenditure. Those matters will be considered through the 2027/28 budget process or a further report once the proposed arrangements and costs are known.

History of the relationship

The sister city partnership between Wagga Wagga and Nördlingen was formally established in 1967. Over almost six decades, it has been maintained through formal civic contact, reciprocal visits and participation by community members from both cities.

The relationship has involved Councillors, Defence personnel, educators, business owners, students, cultural groups, service organisations and other community representatives. These connections have supported enduring personal friendships, cultural understanding, educational and community exchange and opportunities to explore tourism and business links.

Wagga Wagga delegations have visited Nördlingen over many years as part of the longstanding sister city relationship, including participation in civic events, cultural exchanges and anniversary celebrations. These visits have helped maintain connections between the two councils and their communities and have supported the personal, cultural and institutional relationships that underpin the partnership. Nördlingen last sent a delegation to Wagga Wagga in 2017, which was hosted by then Mayor Greg Conkey. Hosting a return delegation during the 60th anniversary year is therefore a continuation of the established pattern of reciprocal engagement.

The existing relationship has also facilitated practical connections beyond ceremonial activity. Through the common connection with Nördlingen, Council commenced discussions with Destilla GmbH regarding possible opportunities in Wagga Wagga and the Riverina. A non-binding memorandum of understanding was signed on 12 September 2025 to support further exploration of those opportunities. No commercial outcome is guaranteed, but the engagement demonstrates how a longstanding civic relationship can provide access to community, institutional and business connections that may otherwise be difficult to initiate.

Benefits to Wagga Wagga

The proposed visit is particularly significant because it would occur during the 60th anniversary of the sister city relationship and provide an appropriate opportunity for both cities to formally recognise the longevity of the partnership.

In addition to this significance, the proposed visit may provide the following benefits to Wagga Wagga:

· Civic and organisational learning - engagement between elected representatives and staff can support the exchange of practical ideas relating to local government, heritage, tourism, community development and the challenges faced by regional cities.

· Economic and investment connections - the relationship has already facilitated engagement with Destilla GmbH. The visit provides an opportunity to continue appropriate discussions and introduce delegates to the capabilities and opportunities of Wagga Wagga and the Riverina, without representing that any commercial outcome is assured.

· City profile and visitor economy - hosting international civic and community representatives allows Council to showcase Wagga Wagga’s facilities, institutions, businesses and attractions. Delegates will also meet their own travel and personal expenses, generating some direct local expenditure.

· Community and cultural connection - the visit can involve local schools, cultural groups, service organisations, Defence representatives and community members with an interest in the relationship, strengthening people-to-people links beyond formal Council activity.

Relationship to the current review

At its meeting on 11 May 2026, Council resolved (Resolution 26/127) to note its existing sister city relationships with Nördlingen, Kunming and Leavenworth; review those relationships and broader engagement opportunities; and prepare a draft National and International Engagement Policy for Council’s consideration within six months.

That resolution commenced a strategic review of Council’s future approach. It did not suspend or place a moratorium on activity under existing sister city arrangements. The proposals in this report do not establish a new relationship or commit Council to a new long-term international program. They respond to time-specific correspondence arising from the established Nördlingen partnership and the unique 2027 anniversary program.

Consideration is required before the broader policy review is completed because sufficient lead time is needed for expressions of interest, international travel, delegation planning and the proposed March/April 2027 hosting arrangements. Approval of these discrete and time-bound activities will not determine the outcome of the policy review. The experience and outcomes from planning the reciprocal visits may also provide useful information for that review.

Financial Implications

All reasonable Council expenses associated with hosting the Nördlingen delegation will be funded from the Sister Cities Reserve. These costs may include accommodation for official delegates for approximately three nights, official hospitality, local transport and costs associated with the approved civic, community, cultural and business program.

Members of the Nördlingen delegation will meet their own international and domestic travel costs and personal expenses. Any arrangements outside the official Council program will also remain the responsibility of individual visitors. The proposed hosting arrangements will therefore have no impact on Council’s general operating budget.

The Sister Cities Reserve had an available balance of $17,526 as at 31 July 2026 pending completion of 2025/26 financial statements.

No expenditure associated with a Wagga Wagga delegation travelling to Nördlingen in September 2027 is approved through this report. Any such expenditure will be considered through a further report.

Policy and Legislation

Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy (POL 025)

Local Government Act 1993 - sections 252 and 253

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Engaged Community

Establish partnerships and relationships with community and foster opportunities for collaboration and action.

Risk Management Issues for Council

The main risks are financial and reputational. International hosting and travel may attract concern if the purpose, benefits and costs are not transparent. These risks are mitigated by the activities forming part of a longstanding reciprocal relationship, limiting the official Wagga Wagga program to approximately three nights, requiring visiting delegates to meet their own travel and personal expenses, funding all reasonable Council hosting costs from the dedicated Sister Cities Reserve and deferring any approval of overseas travel expenditure until detailed arrangements are presented through the 2027/28 budget process or a further report.

There is also a relationship risk if Council does not appropriately acknowledge the 60th anniversary or reciprocate Nördlingen’s longstanding hospitality.

Internal / External Consultation

The proposals have been discussed with the Mayor and General Manager. Correspondence has also occurred with representatives of the City of Nördlingen. Subject to Council approval, planning will be undertaken with the Sister City Working Group, relevant Council staff and external participants as required.

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 10 August 2026

RP-7

RP-7 QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

Author: Scott Gray

Summary:

This report is to respond to questions with notice raised by Councillors in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Recommendation

That Council receive and note the report.

Report

The following questions with notice were received prior to the meeting, in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice.

Councillor L Tanner

What was the income budget for Section 603 Certificates for the 2025/26 financial year, as reported in RP-17 Budget Variations and 30 June 2026 Investment report?

Council's 2025/26 budget included income of $175K from Section 603 Certificates. Actual income received during the financial year was $214K, resulting in a favourable variance of $39K.

This additional revenue has contributed towards meeting unplanned expenditure requirements during the year, including legal costs associated with the Homelessness Matter, which were reported to Council at the 27 July 2026 Council meeting.

For Councillors' information, Council's average annual income from Section 603 Certificates over the previous five financial years was $174K.

Councillor M Henderson

Council provides households with one home-based collection service per calendar year. What controls are in place to prevent a household from receiving more than one collection and how is waste managed if a resident places items out for a second collection during the same year? Are any additional collection costs recovered from the resident?

Council’s website has a Home-Based Collection Service page that provides information on collection limits, accepted and non-accepted materials, who to contact to arrange collection, where it goes and what options are available. In addition, JJ's Waste & Recycling reviews this information with residents at the time of booking.

JJ's Waste & Recycling maintains records of all bookings and ensures that households do not exceed the allocation of one collection per calendar year. Please note that eligibility is based on the calendar year (January to December), not the financial year.

Collections are undertaken each Wednesday using two trucks that follow a planned route for operational efficiency. One truck collects waste for landfill, while the second collects recoverable materials for recycling and resource recovery.

The use of two collection vehicles supports Council's waste diversion objectives and aligns with the endorsed Waste Strategy. This approach assists Council in working towards its target of diverting 80% of waste from landfill by 2030.

https://wagga.nsw.gov.au/services/waste-and-recycling/collection-services/home-based-collection

If a resident places items out for collection without an approved booking, or places additional items out after they have already used their annual bulky waste collection entitlement, those items will not be collected as part of the home-based collection service. The resident remains responsible for removing the material and arranging lawful disposal, including transporting it to the Gregadoo Waste Management Centre and paying any applicable disposal fees. Once reported, the matter is treated in the same way as dumped rubbish or unauthorised material on a nature strip or kerb and is referred for investigation and follow-up by Council Rangers in accordance with Council's compliance processes.

Councillor L Tanner

What does Council do about the mess around charity bins and people picking through the donations? Does council get in touch with the providers to advise of the mess?

Charity bins located on private property are the responsibility of the owner of the land and/or the bin. If Council receives a complaint relating to these bins, the owner of the land and/or bin will be notified.

Where bins are located on public property, the owner of the bin would be requested to clean up and if this does not occur then the ‘mess’ is treated as illegal dumping.

Councillor R Foley

Mitchell Rd and Brunskill Rd is a dark intersection. Is it possible to install a light at this intersection?

Council is currently exploring a solar powered lighting option for this intersection, as there is no Essential Energy low voltage supply in the area that can be readily utilised.

The Mayor, Councillor D Tout

Requested an inspection of Gregadoo East Road following concern from community members.

Gregadoo East Road is used extensively by Humelink for construction of the Gugga Substation on Livingstone Gully Road and also for access to construct the new Humelink towers and wires. This road was identified during the planning process as one of the main routes for regular heavy vehicles, over size and over mass vehicles and light vehicles. Prior to the start of Humelink construction the road was in a condition suitable for the existing use. As Humelink has continued the road has deteriorated significantly to the point that hand patching cannot address the deterioration. It is the opinion of Council staff that Humelink vehicles and contractors have been the cause of the deterioration of the road.

The road is routinely inspected by maintenance crews. The issue of the deterioration was elevated to the Director of Infrastructure, Thursday, 23 July 2026. The staff member responsible for the Humelink and Council interface conducted an inspection that same day, then called and emailed the Humelink contact to inform them of the extensive damage and that it will need to be addressed. A subsequent inspection on Wednesday 29 July 2026 was conducted on Gregadoo East Road, Elizibeth Street, Livingstone Gully Road, and part of Tumbarumba Road, to determine any further road damage.

A length of approximately 3,500m of road is damaged or about 25,000 square meters.

Discussions are ongoing with Humelink to ensure the damage is made good and the road is suitable for traffic. Pending permanent repairs, Council has implemented interim measures to ensure the road remains as safe as reasonably practicable for road users. This includes the installation of appropriate warning signage at affected locations, regular inspections by maintenance staff, and ongoing monitoring of the road condition. Any identified hazards are assessed and managed in accordance with Council's obligations under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) while Council continues to work with Humelink to facilitate the required remediation works.

Financial Implications

N/A

Policy and Legislation

Code of Meeting Practice

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Good governance

Provide professional, innovative, accessible and efficient services.

Risk Management Issues for Council

N/A

Internal / External Consultation

N/A

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 10 August 2026

M-1

Committee Minutes

M-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - FLOODPLAIN RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 2 JULY 2026

Author: Andrew Mason

General Manager: Peter Thompson

Summary:

This report presents the minutes of the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee (FRMAC) meeting held on 2 July 2026 for Council’s information and noting.

The FRMAC was provided with an update on the four (4) current flood mitigation projects underway, being:

· The Investigation & Design Study for the Uranquinty Levee Upgrade

· Levee system upgrade- North Wagga

· Humula and Mangoplah Flood Studies

· WWCC Major Overland Flood Flow Study Amendment Review

Recommendation

That Council receive the minutes of the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee Meeting held on 2 July 2026.

Report

The Minutes of the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee (FRMAC) Meeting held on 2 July 2026 are presented to Council for consideration. Below is a summary of items considered at the meeting.

RP-1 2021-22-FM-0032 - URANQUINTY LEVEE UPGRADE - INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN

This project has been completed and all deliverables provided to Council.

RP-2 2022-FMP-0103 HUMULA AND MANGOPLAH FLOOD STUDIES

The Humula & Mangoplah Flood Studies has been extended to September 2026. The report for the flood modelling has been finalised and been presented to Council for endorsement to go on Public Exhibition.

RP-3 17866- LEVEE SYSTEM UPGRADE - NORTH WAGGA

The detailed design for the North Wagga Levee System Upgrade is being completed by NSW PWA and should be completed by September 2026. This will enable a tender for the construction upgrade of the levee to be called. All residents on the floodplain outside the levee adversely affected by the levee raising have been consulted and detailed survey information from their properties has been obtained.

RP-4 WWCC MOFFS FFL AMENDMENT REVIEW

The finalisation of this project has been delayed by the consultant and will be presented to FRMAC at the September meeting of the FRMAC.

Financial Implications

N/A

Policy and Legislation

The outcomes from the various studies will be critical in the terms of future amendments to the Council Local Environmental Plan and its Development Control Plan.

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Good governance

Provide professional, innovative, accessible and efficient services.

Risk Management Issues for Council

No specific issues identified.

Internal / External Consultation

Risk Management Issues for Council

No specific issues identified.

Internal / External Consultation

The NSW Department of Climate Change, Environment, Energy and Water (DCCEEW) (previously the Office of Environment and Heritage) has been heavily consulted throughout the process of planning and executing these projects. DCCEEW is the responsible funding body and receives quarterly status update reports.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Attachments

1 ⇩.

FRMAC Minutes - 2 July 2026

Proposed Job #	Pine Gully Road (PGR)	Expected Delivery	Total Estimated Cost	LICP Funding of Intersections	Road Rehab & Upgrade of Carriageway	Funding proposed for Road Rehab & Upgrade works
	PGR design costs		$150,000	$150,000
22133 + 15086	PGR ONR interim intersection treatment and upgrade from PGR to Highway TT2(1)	2023/24	$2,034,957	$2,034,957
19602	PGR and Cootamundra Blvd roundabout and 450m PGR widening TT2(2)	2023/24	$2,650,000	$1,750,000	$900,000	75% Fixing Local Roads (FLR) + 25% Ccl recurrent Capital
15118	PGR and Estella Road traffic lights and 400m PGR widening TT2(3)_	2024/25	$1,400,000	$1,000,000	$400,000	75% Fixing Local Roads (FLR) + 25% Ccl recurrent Capital
	PGR and Muttama Parade roundabout and PGR widening 370m TT2(4)	Developer Driven	$2,500,000	$1,300,000	$1,200,000	75% Fixing Local Roads (FLR) + 25% Ccl recurrent Capital
18797	PGR ONR roundabout and 350m PGR widening TT2(5)	Developer Driven	$2,500,000	$460,262	$1,057,738	FLR + $982k by River Road S7.11
			$11,234,957	$6,695,219	$3,557,738

	Current budget in LTFP and LICP	Proposed budget
Pine Gully Rd/Old Narrandera Rd Intersection TT2 (2)	$1,405,908	$530,493*
Pine Gully/Estella Rd Roundabout -TT2 (1)	$1,011,774	$2,500,000
Pine Gully Muttama Roundabout (less the $982K adj from April 2023 report)^	$1,594,811	$0*
	$4,012,493	$3,030,493

Description	Amount
2026/27 LTFP Adopted One-off Capital Works Budget	$110,617,072
2026/27 LTFP Adopted Recurrent Capital Program	$27,502,948
Requested for Revote and Works in Progress Transfers	$21,580,683
Proposed 2026/27 Capital Works Program	159,700,703