text:
1??????? Addressing Council with regard to an item on the meeting agenda:
Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings and address the Council.? Registration to speak may be made by telephone or in person before 2.00 pm on a meeting day.? The relevant agenda item will be brought forward at 5.30 pm in agenda order, and dealt with following preliminary business items on the agenda.? Public addresses are limited to five (5) minutes per person with a limit of two people speaking for and two speaking against an item.?
2??????? Public forum address regarding matters not on the meeting agenda:
Council allows not more than two (2) members of the public per meeting to address it on matters not listed in the agenda provided the request is received before publication of the agenda and the subject of the address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.
These are available from the Council's Administration Building, the Regional Libraries in Macksville and Nambucca Heads as well as Council?s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au
Ordinary Council Meeting - 06 October 2011
I would like to acknowledge the Gumbaynggirr people who are the Traditional Custodians of this Land.? I would also like to pay respect to the elders both past and present and extend that respect to any Aboriginal People present.
4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 September 2011
5??????? NOTICE OF MOTION
8.1???? Notice of Motion - Significant Tree Register (SF629)
8.2???? Notice of Motion - Staff Cars, Petrol Cards and Telephones (SF790)
8.3???? Notice of Motion - Councillor Consultation and Reading Time(SF265)
5a????? PUBLIC FORUM/DELEGATONS (if any)
8.5???? Tabling of Returns Disclosing Interests of Councillors and Designated Persons - October 2011
8.6???? Annual Report on Code of Conduct Complaints
8.7???? Comparative Information on NSW Councils 2009/2010
8.8???? Future of the Macksville Saleyards - Outcome of Saleyard Forum
8.9???? Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
8.10?? New Guidelines for the Preparation of Applications for Special Rate Variations
8.11?? Classification of Land - Lot 2382 DP1166483 Bellingen Road, Bowraville
8.12?? Grant Application Status Report - 23 September 2011
8.13?? Nambucca Entertainment Centre Committee of Management AGM - 14 September 2011
8.14?? Nambucca District Historical Society Committee of Management - Minutes of AGM 16 August 2011
9??????? Director Environment and Planning Report
9.1???? Outstanding DA's in excess of 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 23 September 2011
9.2???? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 26 September 2011
9.3???? Development Application 2011/053 Alterations and Additions to Existing Seniors Living and Aged Care Facility at 17-23 Piggott Street, Nambucca Heads
9.4???? Report Various Planning Proposals and LEP amendments
9.5???? Report on Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2010-2011
10.1?? Status of Fox's Road and access to proposed crematorium
10.2?? Access across Crown Land - Old Coast Road, North Macksville
10.3?? Closure and Realignment of Higginbotham Road, Upper Taylors Arm
10.4?? Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Storage Project - Storage Access Road
10.5?? Nambucca District Water Supply - Project Management for the Construction Phase of Project ????
??????? ?
Ordinary Council Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 6 October 2011
ITEM 8.1????? SF1595??????????? 061011???????? Notice of Motion - Significant Tree Register (SF629)
Council has been asked a number of times in the past, to consider introducing a significant tree register.? The issue was again raised at Council?s ordinary meeting on 7 July at the Nambucca Entertainment Centre during a delegation by a member of the local community.? Most recently, the removal of an old growth fig tree from roadside public land at Upper Warrell Creek for residential development has raised considerable community concern and again a specific request for Council to introduce a significant tree register.
Council has already resolved to receive a report on ways to improve management of native vegetation on public land in the Shire.
That the introduction of a significant tree register be included, for discussion, in the upcoming report to Council regarding management of native vegetation on public land in the Shire and that the report be received as soon as possible.
If Council wishes to introduce a significant tree register it is recommended that legal advice be obtained on the regulatory arrangements for introducing a significant tree register.? It is possible that a register could be implemented via Tree Preservation Order type provisions, a local approvals policy or a new schedule in the LEP.
ITEM 8.2????? SF1595??????????? 061011???????? Notice of Motion - Staff Cars, Petrol Cards and Telephones (SF790)
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Moran OAM, Councillor ????????
1??????? That Council take all car petrol cards, telephones (mobile or standard) from staff.
2??????? That Council build up a compound of cars and these cars be used by staff from the ????????? compound.
There would be no petrol cards for staff to check.
Telephones ? any business done on telephones would be done on the Council?s phones.? People wanting to talk to staff would have to do it when staff are working.? Think of the Fringe Benefit Tax Council would save.
The reason for this is to save every dollar we can.? Anyway I look at his if you are working for someone else you would have to buy your own car telephone and pay for fuel and telephones themselves like everyone else.
The reason that Council have sent to ratepayers that 10% General Rate increase ?garbage, water, sewerage payments are getting out of hand.? Macksville, Bowraville, Nambucca Heads, Scotts Head, Valla are full of pensioners and retired people and cannot afford the Council Rates and Service charges.
GENERAL MANAGER?S COMMENT:
Besides the industrial issues relating to the removal of employment contractual arrangements, Council should be aware that fuel bowsers at the depot have been decommissioned for two years.? All Council plant - cars, trucks and machinery, are fuelled via petrol cards from Caltex under State Government contract.? This was done because it is both cheaper and environmentally safer than the previous practice of fuelling at the depot.
Mobile phones are now an expected communication tool for government and business and mobile phone tariffs have substantially reduced to the extent there is little difference to fixed line rates.?
It is acknowledged that there is an issue with the new FBT rates that the Federal Government announced in its 2011/12 Budget.? Financial modelling by Council?s Finance Officer indicates that Council?s FBT liability for motor vehicles will increase from $46,000 in 2011 to $111,500 in 2014 as Council?s cars are changed over and the new 20% rate is applied.? A number of options to reduce this liability have been considered and discussed at Council?s Consultative Committee.? At the last Consultative Committee meeting on 20 September 2011 there was uncertainty as to Council?s legal obligations as a consequence of advice received from other councils.? Consequently, it was resolved to seek urgent legal advice from the LGSA as to Council?s legal obligations.? The matter will come to Council following further discussions with the Consultative Committee.
Pending the outcome of negotiations with staff, I have determined that no new staff will be appointed on remuneration packages which include the provision of a motor vehicle.? Besides reviewing the need for the position to have a motor vehicle, if a motor vehicle has to be offered then the employee will need to enter into a leaseback agreement with Council.? Leaseback agreements will allow Council to recoup the private use component of the additional FBT.
ITEM 8.3????? SF1595??????????? 061011???????? Notice of Motion - Councillor Consultation and Reading Time
The report is brief.? A summary is not required.
1??????? That for draft Plans of Management and planning proposals, the same process of Councillor consultation applies as that used for draft policy development and policy reviews, that is that Councillors receive the drafts for comment at least 21 days prior to a General Purpose Committee and return comments in sufficient time (as stipulated on the respective memoranda) for staff to process them and include in the General Purpose Committee business papers.
2??????? That for significant planning items eg VUGA, IWCM that involve large documents additional to reports, Councillors will receive the documents either in hard or electronic copy at least 21 days prior to the meeting at which a decision is to be made and that the item come first to a General Purpose Committee meeting to allow adequate discussion.
It is a matter for Council how much reading time they require for major policies and business papers.
Council considered the following notice of motion at its meeting on 15 September 2011.
3??????? That the arrangements in recommendations 1 and 2 above be followed by relevant staff members unless adequate justification for a variance can be demonstrated.
It was resolved that the item be deferred so that recommendations can be sought from the General Manager.? The matter was discussed at the MANEX meeting on 28 September.
In relation to both recommendations 1 and 2, with the available staff, meeting existing deadlines is challenging, let alone moving deadlines for significant planning items forward by 14 days. ?For example, the revised deadline of 24 February 2012 for the lodgement of Council?s special rate variation (which we were only advised of on 24 September) will require the completion of the following documents (including their public exhibition):
?????????????? Community Strategic Plan
?????????????? Long Term Financial Plan
?????????????? Asset Management Plan
?????????????? Workforce Management Plan
?????????????? 4 year Delivery Program
?????????????? Annual Operational Plan
?????????????? Answering the 51 page DLG guidelines for a special rate variation
The 21 day reading period will require these documents to be completed by 25 January to reach Council?s General Purpose Committee meeting on 15 February and the Council meeting on 16 February and be with IPART before 24 February.? The staff won?t have even completed the December budget review in formulating a budget for the next 4 years.? Also at the beginning of the process the documents will need to be with Council 3 weeks before they are reported as drafts.? With 28 day exhibition periods the drafts will need to be circulated 3 weeks before the November General Purpose Committee meeting, ie by 27 October.
Many of the documents referred to in recommendation 1 will be the subject of a public exhibition process, so in effect the elected Council will be provided with 3 opportunities to comment on the documents being before the scheduled General Purpose Committee; at the General Purpose Committee and Council meeting and then thirdly at the conclusion of the public exhibition process.? It potentially means additional work for staff in amending reports.
The Director Environment and Planning has suggested that planning proposals not be included in recommendation 1.
Therefore the notice of motion can be implemented with the understanding it will slow down the processing of policy matters and add to existing staff workloads.
There has been discussion at MANEX.
There are no social implications.
There are risks in relation to deadlines being missed.? It is difficult to foreshadow the consequence of missed deadlines as it will impact on Council and also applicants.
There will be additional staff time required to amend reports.
RO/IT
Hardware has been installed being:
1. ESXi host server in the library. This server runs VMware ESX which is then capable of hosting our servers in a virtual environment if required.
2. Platespin Protect. Installed on the ESX host is a virtual server dedicated to handling replications from our physical servers. Each physical server has a Platespin agent installed to facilitate this replication.
3. Fibre link between admin office and library DR site.
Initial testing has been done of virtual server in library.? Power points and wireless connection being provided in Senior Citizens Centre for a full test of disaster recovery.
Council adopt the Draft Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan and review within 12 months.
Plan currently being reviewed.
Not completed ? deferred to November 2010.
MANEX agreed to rehabilitate Bellwood between Pacific Hwy & Mumbler St with existing contributions.
To be included in Works Program for 2011/2012.
Enquiry to be made with D of P re progress of subdivision application.
DoP confirmed that subdivision application submitted, but not ready for public exhibition yet (8/3/11)
Confirmation from DoPi (14/06/11) that this major Project will continue under Part 3A with the Department being the Consent Authority.
General Manager and Directors be reminded to report on potential revotes at quarterly reviews.
On-going.
Quarterly performance review be presented to Clrs for comment at the first Council meeting of the month; with comments to be received by the next business paper deadline; and with the Performance review + Councillors comments to be considered at the following GPC.? Also dot points be replaced with no?s & an electronic copy to be provided to those Councillors who want it.
Council formulate a plan of management for land which is occupied by the Valla Beach Pre-School.
Scheduled for October 2010.
Deferred to November 2010.
Pre School unable to secure an easement over adjoining land for maintenance of bushfire buffer.? Plan of Management to be prepared following resolution of Pre School extensions.
Council review investigations to extend sewer to the Lower Nambucca and investigate effluent disposal issues in Eungai.
GM/
Letter sent to owners in Lower Nambucca.? Briefing and discussion with property owners to be arranged.
DEP to investigate Eungai.
De Groot Benson contacted concerning a meeting date in February 2011.
Information sent through to consultant.? Meeting now not likely to late March 2011.
Consultant advised that meeting will need to be deferred to May 2011 due to unavailability.
Staff workloads have not permitted to proceed in May.? June now targeted.
Now deferred to August.
Costings being prepared on a pressurised system so facts and figures will be discussed.
Council approach LPMA re future management of Boultons Crossing (Gumma) Reserve
Letter written to LPMA 26 November 2010.? Meeting with LPMA and Committee of Management arranged for 27/1/2011.
Meeting held on 27/1/2011.? Awaiting advice from LPMA on bringing more crown land into the reserve and grant opportunities.
GM to follow up with Committee of Management.
Report to Council on 16 June 2011.
Letter has now been sent to LPMA requesting that they make alternative arrangements for the management of the Reserve and suggesting a community based Trust.?
That a Project Implementation Management Plan for the off-stream dam be developed to include provision for hollow bearing trees that are removed as part of the pre-clearing survey to be replaced by nesting boxes of similar dimension provided in suitable vegetation, with the catchment above the dam top water level.
GHD commissioned.? Plan anticipated in March 2011.
To be included within the contract documentation as a condition imposed on the contractor obligations and compliance with the EIS.
Council revert to in-house monitoring of energy consumption and greenhouse gas production and revisit the option of engaging consultants for benchmarking in 12 months time.
Report in February 2012.
Brief to be prepared and new floodplain study to be undertaken during 2011.
RTA have now engaged Consultants to prepare a new full and comprehensive flood study which will be provided to Council upon completion.? At this time Council will be able to proceed to complete a new Flood Plain Risk Management Plan incorporates a revised matrix.
That a Committee be formed comprising the Mayor, library delegates, MCCS to investigate the possibility of forming a relationship with other local Council libraries and that the Committee report back to Council by Feb 2012.
MCCS to arrange an Inaugural Meeting.? Meeting has been arranged to discuss proposal with Coffs Harbour City Council on Monday 23 May 2011.
Meeting held ? report to come to Council for future direction.
Report to Council at 19 October GPC meeting.
The General Manager present an overview of the Annual Report to Councillors upon its completion.
Overview report to be presented in November 2011
Manager Business Development prepare a digital economy strategy re identifying blackspots to be presented to the NBN Co for rollout consideration.
September 2011.? Due to World Rally preparations will need to be deferred until October 2011.
That a new policy covering donations to charities be prepared to cover all existing policies and to better ration the limited donations budget.
In progress ? report to October Council meeting.
Council write to the RTA requesting they design the new Nambucca River bridge at Macksville to provide 62m between the main channel piers and ensure the bridge is tall enough to allow yachts to pass under at maximum high tide.
Letter sent 8 June 2011.
No response as at 26/09/2011.
Council defer demolition of the old amenities at Coronation Park until 30 September 2011 to allow Trust to complete proposal to restore parts of the building.
Report for Council in December 2011.
Letter sent to Coronation Park Trust advising the Executive of Council?s resolution.
Premier and Minister be advised of history of Coffs Coast Waste and Council request a contribution to its costs in varying the contract from the proceeds of the Waste Levy.
Acknowledgement letter received.
Council receive a report on opportunities to improve the way Council manages native veg on native land including communication with contractors & Essential Energies including a report on work undertaken behind the Library.
Grants Officer investigate grants for solar lighting and that the V-Wall be included in the quarterly budget review to see whether solar lighting can be funded.
No success with grant funding to date for solar lighting, however following Council resolution on 4 August 2011 to write to the LMP (Crown Lands) - Confirmation has been received that LMP (Crown Lands) will replace the light poles on the basis that Council accept the maintenance responsibility for replacement of the globes, controls and fittings of the lights (as per the existing arrangement since the lights were installed along the V-wall) and that Crown Lands is responsible for replacement of the poles,.
That the suggestions made by John Tait in the Public Forum be put up as discussion paper.
Matters being reviewed for inclusion in a discussion paper.? To be included in IPR.
To be included in Appendix of Community Strategic Plan
That a Plan of Management within Kingsworth Lake Reserve be prepared by Engineering Services
In anticipation that the reclassification gazettal notification will occur in November, a Draft Plan Of Management has been prepared and provided to Councilors for comment in advance of the November GPC meeting
That the policies be organised and made functional under each Directorate and the regular review and updating of the policies be the responsibility of each Director.
Policies have been classified.? GM & Directors to review and update at least 25% of their policies annually.
That Council seek a proposal from Public Works to project manage the construction contract for the Off River Storage Project with a view to extending their engagement should the proposal be considered acceptable.
Proposal being sourced from Public Works and will be reported to 21 September 2011 General Purpose Committee Meeting.
The project Management cost will be subject to the length of the project, which is anticipated to take 60 weeks. The request for the provision of a fee proposal has been deferred pending the BORS early tenderer involvement workshop in which the prospective tenderers will provide an estimated construction period based on the design plans. The fee proposal will now be reported to the Council meeting scheduled for 6 October 2011.
That Council write to the Minister expressing Council?s disappointment that nowhere in the SESOne Plan is there an expressed desire let alone a requirement for financial efficiency or sustainability.
Letter sent to Minister 27 July 2011
Response received and provided to Councillors
Policy under revision and to be reported to future General Purpose Committee Meeting
Four Councillors have conflict of Interest in Saleyards issues
GM write to the Minister of Local Government for seeking dispensation for Councillors.? Letter sent? to DLG on 11 August 2011.
Replacement of corroded light poles on the V-Wall at Nambucca Heads
Council write to lmp requesting replacement of light poles on V-Wall
Letter sent 9 August 2011
Confirmation received that LMP (Crown Lands) will replace the light poles on the basis that Council accept the maintenance responsibility for replacement of the globes, controls and fittings of the lights (as per the existing arrangement since the lights were installed along the V-wall) and that Crown Lands is responsible for replacement of the poles.
Council undertake a review of its rating structure
Report to October 2011 Council Meeting
Cancellation of the NSW Home Saver Rebate Program.
Council write to the Office of Environment and Heritage expressing concern about cancellation of the NSW Home Saver Rebate Program
.Letter sent 12 August 2011.
Response received 16 September (Trim 26153/2011 attached)
Council make representations to the Hon. Andrew Stoner re the repair of the southern section of the Bellingen Road.? Council request that residents, NVT and the Bowraville Chamber make similar representations.
Letters sent 25 August 2011
Council write to Biomass re awareness campaign for what is/is not to be placed in the red bin.? Council write to CHCC seeking clarification as to Biomass? plans regarding the upgrading of its facilities to produce a complying product from mixed waste and whether there are any changes to the proposed costs.
Letters not written as at 24 August 2011.
Council seek a formal quotation from the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2012 elections and there be a further report to Council with a comparison of cost for council undertaking the election.
There has been an exchange of correspondence with the Electoral Commission.? They refuse to provide a firm quote.? To be reported in October or when the LGSA confirms arrangements for a tender.
Council write to the Prime Minister and others re a continuation and enhancement of the Roads to Recovery Program (R2R) on a permanent basis.
Letter sent 7 September 2011.
Response received and provided to Councilors
Council write to the Premier of NSW stating its dissatisfaction with the response received from the Minister for Policy and Emergency re huge disparity between the current RFS bid and the rate peg.
Council receive a further report at the October GPC to consider appropriate drainage design standards based on the GHD document ? Seaview Street, catchment.
Report to October 2011 GPC.
Paveline truck - that a further report be prepared on the half year July 2011 to December 2011 for comparison with the results for the previous 6 month period.
Report to January 2012.
Council investigate an effluent management system for the Saleyards
Preferred design to be determined by 30/6/2012.
Council investigate funding an effluent management system at the Saleyards through its environmental levy.
To be the subject of a further report.? Cannot be funded before 2012/2013.
That more information on the pilot program for the aquatic system monitoring be provided to a future GPC meeting.
Information being sought for presentation to future GPC meeting.
Council write to Federal Minister for Industry, Min for Infrastructure and Transport, Mid North Coast RDA express Council?s extreme concern at the loss of 25 jobs at Express Coaches.
Letters sent 19 September 2011
GM to report back on providing Councillors additional time for consultation and reading.
Report in to meeting on 6 October 2011
Council request urgent assistance from LPMA for removal of trees, branches and logs from Scott Head beaches.? Council also make representations to the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP
Letter sent on 19 September 2011
Council offer 8.9 ha of high conservation land at Lower Nambucca to the RTA for their biodiversity offset strategy for the Pacific Highway upgrade in exchange for providing Council with title to the North Macksville Soccer Fields and Casey Drive.
Letter sent 19 September 2011
Council receive a report on rating arrangements for caravan parks as well as options in relation to the minimum rate for the residential category and a report on the farmland category to address existing anomalies.
To be reported in November 2011
Water and sewerage ? development servicing plans and strategic business plans be deferred to follow the Water and Sewerage Steering Committee meeting on 5 October.
To be reported in October 2011
26153/2011 - Response - Home Saver Rebate Program (SF578)
Ordinary Council Meeting - 6 October 2011
Outstanding Actions and Reports
ITEM 8.5????? SF355????????????? 061011???????? Tabling of Returns Disclosing Interests of Councillors and Designated Persons - October 2011
The Local Government Act 1993 requires that Councillors and designated persons submit returns disclosing their pecuniary interests and other matters annually.
That the returns disclosing interests of Councillors and designated persons, for the period ended 30 June 2011, be tabled.
There are no options.? Section 450A of the Act requires the returns to be tabled.
The General Manager is obliged to ensure returns are tabled in accordance with Section 450A of the Local Government Act.
In accordance with Section 450A of the Local Government Act, I hereby inform Council that returns disclosing interests of Councillors and designated persons have been received from:
Rhonda Hoban
John Ainsworth
Martin Ballangarry OAM
Janet Court
Brian Finlayson
Paula Flack
Michael Moran OAM
Anne Smyth
Elaine South
Designated Staff
Michael Coulter
Craig Doolan
Joanne Hudson
Wayne Lowe
Gregory Meyers
Phillip Gall
Coral Hutchinson
Arthur Tsembis
Paul Gallagher
Noel Chapman
Richard Spain
Peter Baynes
There has been follow up for outstanding returns with Councillors and designated persons.
There are no risk implications for Council.
There is no impact on budgets.
ITEM 8.6????? SF1076??????????? 061011???????? Annual Report on Code of Conduct Complaints
The General Manager must report annually to Council on code of conduct complaints.? For the financial year 2010/2011, there were ten code of conduct complaints.? Besides staff time, there was no expenditure in resolving the complaints.
That the information concerning Code of Complaints during 2010/2011 be received.
There are no options.? Council has to consider an annual report on code of conduct complaints.
The model code of conduct which is stipulated by the Division of Local Government and which has been adopted by Council requires as follows:
?12.33? The General Manager must report annually to Council on code of conduct complaints.? This report should include, as a minimum, a summary of the:
a)??????????? number of complaints received
b)?????????? nature of the issues raised by the complainants, and
c)??????????? outcomes of complaints.
The format for reporting has been discussed with a staff member of the Division of Local Government.? The report should be in the open but at the same time can or should avoid identifying complainants or the person complained of.? For example, the guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct state that, ?General Managers should be mindful that there may be a need to protect the identity of persons making complaints when preparing these reports?.
The conflicting requirements of confidentiality and openness present a challenge to the Council should they care to discuss the matter, but regardless it is an obligatory report.
The report generally deals with complaints which are received in writing (letter or email).? Many complaints/comments are received via telephone and are usually less significant.? Any significant complaints received via telephone are recorded in the following table.
Complainant/s
Complaint against
Council?s works staff knocked down trees and shrubs when grading South Pacific Drive
Complainant advised that trees and shrubs had to be removed to provide drainage and vehicle clearance
Staff member divulged the value of a contract which the contractor had with Council
Complainant advised that the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 actually requires that Council have a public register of all of its contracts with a value of more than $150,000.? Information released was public information and no further action required.
Complaint that a Councillor?s comments implied dishonesty.
Matter investigated and complainant advised that the Councillor had clarified the remarks in writing, ie they were not implying dishonesty.? No further action taken.
Suggestion that town services staff were at Grassy Head/Stuarts Point one afternoon.? Also the bridge gang.? Suggested bridge gang are often at the Hot Bake shop.
Complainant invited to provide any corroborating evidence.? Responded advising that most outdoor staff were good workers.? No further action taken.
Complaint about finish of cycleway at Bellwood and lack of action
Work attended to and an apology issued for any misunderstanding.
Allegation that dune care members were defamed by inaccurate statements
Complainant advised that an opinion was being expressed which is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.? No further action taken.
Staff & S355 Committee, Council
Dissatisfaction with various decisions concerning use of the Showground for camping; subdivision; and lack of action by GM.
Response by Mayor
Complaint that a Councillor had not treated a volunteer with respect.
Investigation of the meaning of the term ?bullshit?.? Concluded that it was used in a deprecating sense and not consistent with treating volunteers with courtesy and respect.? Councillor advised.
Complaint about staff member being abrupt and rude
Staff member counselled
Complaint about staff member being rude
There has been no consultation.
Any discussion of particular complaints should be undertaken in Closed Meeting as it involves personnel matters or matters which may have legal implications.
There are no budgetary impacts.? Besides staff time, there was no expenditure in resolving the complaints.
ITEM 8.7????? SF136????????????? 061011???????? Comparative Information on NSW Councils 2009/2010
The latest comparative information for NSW Councils was recently published by the Division of Local Government and gained some media attention.? The data is for the financial year ended 30 June 2010.? Whilst it is a year ?out of date? it provides very good comparative data on key performance indicators for all Councils.
That the information concerning the comparative information on NSW Councils for 2008/2009 be received.
There are no real options.? The report is based on information published by the Division of Local Government.
The latest comparative information for NSW Councils was recently published by the Division of Local Government.? The data is for the financial year ended 30 June 2010.? Whilst it is a year ?out of date? it provides very good comparative data on key performance indicators for all Councils.
Whilst the data groups similar sized Councils, a comparison of Mid North Coast Councils has been undertaken as it is our ?community of interest? and the benchmark against which the media and others are likely to make comparisons.
The following is a snapshot of comparative data for the eight Mid North Coast Councils.? It does not include all of the comparative data in the 171 page report, but rather key indicators which may be of interest to Council and the community.
General Profile
Est. Pop?n at 30/6/2010
Pop?n Density (pop?n/area km2)
Pop?n growth ? 5 year average %
ATSI Pop?n
NESB Pop?n
Port Macquarie Hastings
Greater Taree
Average 2009/2010 Rate per Assessment ? Residential, Farmland, Business
Rates are an important source of a council?s revenue.? The indicator highlights the relative level of a council?s residential, business and farmland rates.? It does not include water and sewerage rates or domestic waste management charges.
Av. Residential Rate $
Av. Business Rate $
Av. Farmland Rate $
Port Macquarie - Hastings
Outstanding Rates and Annual Charges for 2009/2010
This indicator assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on liquidity and the effectiveness of a council?s debt recovery.? The percentage of rates and annual charges that are unpaid at the end of a financial year is a measure of how well a council is managing debt recovery.
Outstanding Rates and Annual Charges %
Unrestricted Current Ratio
This indicator is a measure of a Council?s ability to meet its financial obligations.? It assesses the level of liquidity and the ability to satisfy obligations as they fall due in the short term.? A ratio of 1.5:1 indicates that for every dollar in unrestricted current liabilities, the council has $1.50 in unrestricted current assets on hand to meet the liability.? According to the Division of Local Government, a ratio of less than 1.5:1 is unsatisfactory.? A ratio of between 1.5:1 and 2:1 is regarded as satisfactory and a ratio of 2:1 or better is regarded as good.
Unrestricted Current Ratio (ratio:1)
The indicator assesses the degree to which revenues from continuing operations are committed to the repayment of debt.? It is measured by the net debt service cost x 100/income from continuing operations.? It is generally higher for councils in growth areas where loans have been required to fund infrastructure such as roads and water and sewerage works.? High growth coastal councils have had high debt service ratios.? The Division of Local Government?s accepted benchmark for debt service ratio is <10% satisfactory, 10% to 20% fair, and >20% is of concern.? The results for this particular indicator did get reasonable coverage in the local media with Coffs Harbour City Council having the highest ratio in the State at 35.65%.
Debt Service Ratio %
Number of Equivalent Full Time Staff
Some factors affecting this indicator are the Council?s budget and organisation structure; changes in the use of casual staff; the level of contracting out; the type and extent of service delivery; whether the Council has created or reduced service delivery; and whether the Council has created or reduced services.
Great Lakes*
Greater Taree*
* Neither Great Lakes nor Greater Taree have responsibility for water and sewerage.
The indicators speak for themselves.
There has been no consultation preparing this report.
There are no implications for the environment.? The report is for information.
There are no social implications.? The report is for information.
There are no economic implications.? The report is for information.
There are no risk implications.
There is no impact on the budget.
ITEM 8.8????? SF15??????????????? 061011???????? Future of the Macksville Saleyards - Outcome of Saleyard Forum
A Saleyards Forum was held on 19 September 2011 to discuss the future of the Macksville Saleyards.? The Forum was well attended with about 130 people in the gallery and foyer of the Council Chambers.? A number of motions were put and carried by those in attendance calling on the Council to continue to operate the Macksville Saleyards and to apply funds from its Environmental Levy to roof the Saleyards and to install an effluent management system.
1??????? That Council note the petition with over 2,000 signatures.? The petition states that: ?the Macksville Saleyards (being part of the Nambucca Shire Showground facility) is an essential community facility and must remain open and operational.? We the undersigned are strongly opposed to the closure of the Macksville Saleyards.?
2??????? That Council provide six month?s notice of the closure of the Macksville Saleyards
In the event that Council does not support the closure of the Macksville Saleyards the following is the recommended alternative.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
2??????? That Council properly manage the risks at the Macksville Saleyards, noting this will require significant funding.
3??????? The Environmental Levy be used to fund the provision of a roof and/or effluent management system at the Macksville Saleyards.? This is subject to the approval by IPART of a continuation of the Environmental Levy in 2012/2013 and beyond.
4??????? A report come to Council on a revised program for the expenditure of the Environmental Levy for 2012/2013 and beyond so that it may be advertised for public comment and incorporated in Council?s application for a special rate variation.
5??????? That a report come to Council on strategic and operational plans for their future as well as fixing a permanent operating and capital subsidy for the Saleyards with delegated authority being provided to the Macksville Saleyards Committee to ensure the Saleyards are operated within that subsidy and in accordance with the strategic and operational plans.
6??????? That WorkCover be invited to review the Saleyard Risk Assessment and to provide advice on what they believe is reasonably practicable in order to satisfy Council?s obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
At the Saleyards Forum the Mayor, Cr Rhonda Hoban summarised the three broad options for the future of the Macksville Saleyards as:
1??????? Closure
2??????? Council avoiding the risks by selling the Saleyards
3??????? Council managing the risks but this will require significant funding
In subsequent correspondence a fourth option has been proposed which is:
4??????? Doing nothing pending a further risk assessment and/or being served with an order/s
The following considers each of these options.
As unpopular as it is, closure of the Macksville Saleyards remains the preferred option from Council?s staff for the following reasons:
?????? Council is unable to fund its existing core general fund responsibilities as evidenced by the asset renewals ratio in 2010 being 0.76 and the resolution to seek a special rate variation of 10.04% in 2012/2013.? Continuing special rate variations to fund core responsibilities is unsustainable.? As Council is unable to sustain its existing service levels it must critically examine how it will reduce those service levels.? Retention of the saleyards will certainly be at the expense of other core responsibilities be it road maintenance, bridge replacement, libraries or the like.
?????? If Council retains the saleyard but does not undertake the necessary upgrading work it has a potential exposure to regulatory action and in the case of an injury may not have public liability insurance coverage if the injury could have been avoided by the application of prudent and diligent risk management practices.
?????? Evidence from the industry points to a rationalisation of smaller saleyards and there is a significant risk for Council increasing investment in a financially unsustainable asset.
?????? There are design problems with the Macksville Saleyard which cannot be remedied at the existing site.? The saleyard has minimal cross fall and drains in 2 different directions.? There is no room for expansion.
?????? There is a major regional saleyard complex at Kempsey with the additional cost for the transport of stock estimated at $4.25 per head compared to the additional cost of saleyard fees at Macksville being $1.30 per head more than Kempsey.
?????? The Kempsey market is larger and may attract more buyers.
?????? There is anecdotal evidence that local cattle producers already sell some or all of their stock direct to purchasers or at other saleyards.
?????? Notwithstanding the criticism of references to the outcome of the 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey, the results of the survey coupled with ABS data indicate the relative significance of the agricultural sector and the Saleyards has declined over their 50 year life.? With the change to internet selling and the NBN there is nothing to suggest this trend will change.
?????? The operation of the Saleyards is currently dependent upon the continued operation of a single livestock agent.? Whilst they are doing a good job operating the Saleyards, Council?s increased investment is reliant upon their operations continuing.? Council recently advertised expressions of interest for a lease to operate the Saleyards and only received a single expression of interest from G J Kenney.
This option is only realistic if they were sold to the Nambucca River District Agricultural Association.? The proposition has been discussed with representatives of the Association however to date there has been no advice from the Association as to their interest or otherwise, or any conditions which may be stipulated in any sale.
This potentially contains many different alternative strategies, but it is certain that Council will need to commit significant funding to the Saleyards (>$500,000) whatever strategy or mix of strategies is used.? There is no identifiable source of funds for this expenditure.? It can only come from cutting other programs be they road rehabilitation, bridge replacement, libraries etc or as suggested by using proceeds from the Environmental Levy to attend to the effluent management problem.
The Environmental Levy expires in 2011/2012 and Council is making an application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal for its permanent continuation.? The Levy is about 4% of Council?s rate revenue and raised $329,940 in 2011/2012.? The report on the expenditure of the Environmental Levy from Council?s 2009/2010 Annual Report is attached.? A substantial part of the Levy would likely be required for at least several years to fund the capital works required for an effluent management system.? This will mean foregoing other projects which have been funded from the Levy and also foregoing the substantial grant funding which has historically been leveraged off the Environmental Levy.? For the last 2 years of the program, this grant funding has been about $0.5 for every $1 raised by the levy.
However there will be work required that cannot be funded from the Environmental Levy and this will need to come from cutting other programs.
There has been some recent correspondence suggesting that previous assessments of work required at the Macksville Saleyards are wrong and that Council should engage another person to undertake a risk audit.
The most recent risk assessment was undertaken by Mr John Black from South Eastern Workplace Safety and Mr Gerry Holmes.? Mr Black is a National Saleyards Induction Trainer who has undertaken work for a number of Saleyards including Cowra, Moss Vale and Goulburn.? Mr Holmes is a solicitor and barrister with particular expertise in local government.? The cost of the assessment was approximately $5,500 and a further assessment will likely cost in the vicinity of $10,000.
The risk assessment by Mr Black and Mr Holmes was subsequently reviewed by the Saleyards Advisory Committee who produced the following list of actions deemed to require immediate action or action within 12 months.? Other actions beyond 12 months were also identified but are not listed here.
Implement regulatory compliant effluent management system
Work place procedures ? lack of documentation - safety management plan and system
Compile safety management plan and Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) for operations
Lack of traffic management plan ? potential for traffic accident injury
Devise traffic management plan to separate light and heavy vehicles, define traffic flow areas and parking
No formed parking areas ? potential for property and personal injury
Re-grade traffic areas with high gravel content finish
Lack of formed pedestrian paths from car park to show ring ? potential for injury from slip, trip hazards
Construct concrete pathways extending from sales ring building to roadway and across to proposed amenities
Timber railing in holding yards ? risk of personal injury, livestock injury and yard failure
Replace old timber yards
Environmental controls ? quarantine and bio hazard emergency plans ? nil available ? potential for spread of diseases
Devise and implement quarantine procedures and control, training of licensee and workers, appropriate signage
Holding yards ? risk of livestock horning ? personal injury
Install conveyer belt barrier to yards adjacent to public and stock loading areas
Grandstand seating not compliant and too steep for patrons ? no hand rails or access gangways
Redesign sale ring structure to allow for new increased capacity grandstand seating
Poor access to office ? injury to office personnel and poor emergency access arrangements
Relocate office to corner of gallery area to reconfigure stair access to allow entry from gallery gate
Lack of clear guidance on workplace rules ? risk of workplace accident or injury, fines etc
Audit current workplace signs and erect appropriate signs to meet current code of practice requirements.
Inadequate demarcation of Saleyards facility ? no control of use of area ? no control of livestock movement and holding times ? no financial control for use of yards
Define and redesign work site area for Saleyards.? Fence entire site using exclusion fencing and gates to both access points.
Electrical installations ? ageing and obsolete electrical connections ? electrocution risk
Conduct audit of electrical system and undertake repairs where necessary
Holding yards ? gate locking mechanisms not uniform and in some instances redundant ? risk of delaying quick exit from pens
Identify preferred locking mechanism and remove and replace all non confirming locks.
Sales complex infrastructure ? supporting poles to whole structure rotted at base ? integrity compromised.
Replace structure
Besides the cost of a new risk assessment, if Council chooses to do nothing and spend nothing it will incur additional risks in relation to insurance and potentially the personal liability of senior staff.? If an order to do work is served, Council may not have the budgetary capacity to respond.? Whilst it is open for Council to seek another risk assessment, it is apparent from the existing risk assessment and its review by the Saleyards Advisory Committee that significant expenditure is required.
If there is any doubt as to Council?s legal obligations under the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the preferable approach would be to seek from WorkCover an assessment as to what work is reasonably practicable in order for Council to achieve compliance with the Act.? The new Act changes the previous Occupational Health and Safety Act to place an obligation on WorkCover to provide this assessment.
At Council?s meeting on 4 August 2011 it was resolved:
A?????? That Council undertake a Saleyards Forum open to the public to discuss options for the Macksville Saleyards including:
????????? 1??????? Their closure for the reason they are not commercially viable and Council is unable to fund ? the capital works which will be required for their retention and continued operation; and,
????????? 2??????? Their leasing to G J Kennedy on terms to be negotiated.
????????? 3??????? Other options which maybe put forward.
????????? 4??????? That the outcome of the forum be presented to the Saleyards Committee for comment and with their feedback to be included in the final report to Council.
B?????? That the Saleyards Forum be chaired by the Mayor and representatives of the following organisations be invited to attend:
???????????????????????? Saleyards Advisory Committee;
???????????? ????????? G J Kennedy;
???????????? ????????? Saleyards Operators of Australia;
???????????? ????????? Macksville Showground Committee of Management;
???????????? ????????? Department of Primary Industry;
???????????? ????????? Office of Environment & Heritage;
???????????? ????????? WorkCover;
???????????? ????????? Jardine Lloyd Thompson;
???????????? ????????? The Hon. Andrew Stoner, Deputy Premier and Member for Oxley;
???????????? ????????? NSW Farmers;
???????????? ????????? Farmer representatives.
That the Saleyards Committee meet as a matter of urgency to consider any other options for the future operation of the Macksville Saleyards to be considered at the Saleyards Forum.
That the General Manager write to the Minister of Local Government pointing out that four Councillors have a conflict of interest and requesting a special dispensation for all Councillors to consider the issue.
The Saleyards Forum was conducted on 19 September 2011 in the Council Chambers.
The Forum was well attended with about 130 people in attendance.
The following are minutes of the Forum:
Minutes of Saleyards Forum held on 19 September 2011 in the Council Chambers
5.30pm Mayor Cr Rhonda Hoban opened forum
The Hon. Andrew Stoner, MP; Office of Environment & Heritage; WorkCover; Mr John Moore
Introductory Comments
The Mayor made some introductory comments in relation to the conduct of the forum
Wayne Lowe, Manager Business Development, Nambucca Shire Council - provided a brief background to the issue.? Explained that there is not enough money to make the Saleyards safe and compliant and that changes would need to be made.
Steven Williams, Property Officer, Nambucca Shire Council ? outlined the operational arrangements for the Saleyards.? Advised that work place safety and environmental legislation had to be complied with.? Indicated that the Saleyards Advisory Committee had been reconvened and that an independent risk audit and an independent environmental audit had been undertaken.? The independent risk audit identified $800,000 of work which had to be done.? The Saleyards Advisory Committee identified similar issues at an estimated cost of approximately $700,000.
Steve Kelly, Jardine Lloyd Thomson, representing Council?s insurer - advised that Council does have insurance for the Saleyards but also has responsibilities.
He advised that prior to the meeting he had visited the Saleyards and indentified problems with:
?????? the grandstand
?????? the cramped space for the auctioneer
?????? the open storm water drain is a major exposure
?????? the temporary stock yard encroaching on the sale ring
?????? fencing of temporary stock yard appears inadequate.
He advised that the insurer?s liability could be withdrawn if the yards are not properly maintained and upgraded as required.? Possible co joint liability with Councillors and senior staff also having potential liability.? Referred to potential worker?s compensation claims and recent fatalities at Saleyards in Longreach and Narrabri.? Identified Saleyards as a high risk area of operations.? Noted that the risk to the environment was obvious and a real exposure.? Noted that Council has a duty of care and has to show effective administration and not waste money.? Pollution is not covered by Council?s insurance.? Council has to act responsibly and maintain its assets.
Peter James, Livestock Health and Pest Authority - advised that the Saleyards met the requirements of the Authority.? Also advised that as the regulatory officer for the past 11.5 years that there had been no breaches.? He was pleased with the improvements which had been made at the Saleyards to allow the safe scanning of animals.? There was no issue with animal welfare at the yards.
John Harris, Nambucca River District Agricultural Association - advised that the Association is a public company with no employees.? Its purpose is to provide the local show.? Its executive also participate on a Section 355 Committee of Management to look after the Showground.? The public company also uses Jardine Lloyd Thomson for insurance.? The public company and the committee of management have co-existed successfully for many years.? The committee will not discuss options until they meet on 26 September 2011.? The committee are unanimous in their support for the continued operation of the Saleyards.
George Hicks OAM ? advised that Council needs to fix the effluent management at the Saleyards.? He then read the minutes of the last Saleyards Advisory Committee meeting.? Believes that Council should investigate funding the effluent management system through the environmental levy.? Discussed the options for the Saleyards being closure; Council leasing; the sale of the Showground to the Agricultural Society and keeping the status quo.? Also discussed the roofing of the Saleyards as a solution for effluent management.
Michael Burt, Nambucca River Branch, NSW Farmers - believes that the Saleyards is an important social and economic facility.? It handles about 10,000 head of cattle per year.? A closure would mean additional costs to beef producers.? There would be additional costs to transport cattle to Kempsey as well as animal welfare issues.? Primary production is an important part of the Nambucca Valley.? Every job in regional communities like Macksville is important.? The yards are used for more than just auctions of cattle, eg Team Penning.? NSW Farmers don?t want to pit ratepayers against farmers.? Yards don?t appear to be a significant cost burden.? Recommends roofing the yards and using environmental levy funding to do it.? Referred to Federal and State Government grants being made available for the roofing of the Moss Vale Saleyards.? Suggested liaising with the University of New England to design an effluent disposal system.? Suggested using a screw separator.? Would like to see NSW Farmers on the Saleyards Advisory Committee.? May be possible to diversify the use of the Saleyards.
Joy Sheather ? stated that there are glaring inaccuracies in the report to Council.? The Saleyards rated as having lowest importance but it was not disclosed that the survey was of 400 people.? It was also not disclosed that the Saleyards result was statistically unreliable.? There was no mention of the cost to rehabilitate the Saleyards or to establish a new pound.? Cattle would lose more weight if they have to spend more time on trucks if the Saleyards are closed.? 14 staff are employed to conduct a sale.? Closing the Saleyards is not an option.? Presented petition with over 2,000 signatures.
Garth McElwaine ? stated that the Saleyards has been in existence for 50 years and has been run by Council for 40 years.? The operating cost is not the problem; capital is the problem.? Closure would have a big effect on the areas beef producers.? Questioned whether volunteers could construct a roof over the Saleyards.? Is very disappointed there is no money for an upgrade of the Saleyards.
Maree Sanger - suggested that university researchers may be able to assist in the investigation of an effluent management system.? Possible pilot study for universities.? Potential for grants.? Has contacted lecturers from the University of New England.? It is too far for a research project but they may be interested in becoming involved after external students leave (in about 3 weeks).? A future direction will be required to secure funding.
Peter Ferrero - has sampled effluent from pit.
?????? pH neutral at 7
?????? high dissolved solids
?????? high salinity
?????? plenty of suspended solids
?????? little phosphorus
?????? high BOD
?????? no nitrogen
?????? >10,000 faecal coliforms.
Recommended roofing the Saleyards and providing decent stormwater drainage.? Suggested 3 tank system for treating effluent.? Pump about 10,000 litres of wash down from each sale to tank 1 through a screen; floc tank 1; pass effluent through a sand filter on way to tank 2; discharge to tank 3 and chlorinate; recycle tank 3 water for yard wash down.? Suggested system could be provided for $30,000.
Janine Reed ? stated that Council receives $77,000 from the Saleyards.? Money is spent on depreciation, corporate support and administration.? Depreciation is not funded.? Double dipping is occurring.? Saleyards are subsidising corporate services.? If the Saleyards are closed how will corporate services be funded?? Farmers won?t derive any benefit from the dam.? Local businesses affected by Council decisions.? The Council is not progressive and needs to be more open & transparent.? The Council needs to be positive and not be talking about closing the Saleyards.
Mayor, Cr Rhonda Hoban ? read the options from the Macksville Saleyards Advisory Committee and Council staff for the future of the Saleyards being:
Macksville Saleyards Advisory Committee Options
?????? Closure of the Saleyards
?????? Committee of Management to be responsible for leasing the Saleyards
?????? Council to be responsible for leasing the Saleyards
?????? Selling the Showground including the Saleyards to the Agricultural Association
?????? The status quo, ie Council continuing to manage the Saleyards with GJ Kennedy operating the Saleyards under licence.
Council staff options
?????? Closure of the Saleyards (preferred)
?????? Leasing of the Saleyards to G J Kennedy on terms to be negotiated (less preferred)
The Mayor summarised with 3 broad options for the future of the Saleyards being:
1.?? Closure
2.?? Council avoiding the risks by selling the Saleyards
3.?? Council managing the risks but this will require significant funding
Moved Hicks/Hunt
That Council continue to manage the Saleyards with GJ Kennedy operating the Saleyards under licence as per option 5 listed by the Advisory Committee and being the status quo.
The Mayor indicated there was unanimous support for this motion from those she could observe within the Council Chambers.
Moved Ettelson/Sheather
That Council use funding from the Environmental Levy to fix the effluent problems at the Saleyards.
Moved Reed/Hallam
a.?????? Put a roof over the Saleyards
b.?????? Use the Environmental Levy to fund the roof
c.?????? Liaise with universities about the potential for a pilot study at the Saleyards in effluent management
d.?????? Consider the use of screw separator for effluent management
e.?????? Expand the Saleyards Advisory Committee to include a representative from NSW Farmers; a representative from the Macksville and District Chamber of Commerce; and a representative from the Showground Committee of Management.
f.??????? Invite Peter Ferrero and Maree Sanger to join the Saleyards Advisory Committee
There has been consultation with members of the public at the Saleyards Forum.? Other than the discussion at the Saleyards Forum there has been no consultation with the community on the use of environmental levy funds to address the effluent management problem.
Effluent management at the Saleyards is a recognised problem which needs to be resolved.
The future of the Macksville Saleyards has significant social implications.
The closure of the Macksville Saleyards would have adverse economic impacts for Macksville and the Nambucca Valley generally.? However there has been no empirical investigation of the significance of this impact.? For example it is not known what proportion of local cattle are sold through the Macksville Saleyards and what proportion are sold at other yards or sold direct to abattoirs or other buyers bypassing the Macksville Saleyards.
There has previously been extensive reporting to Council on the risks associated with the Saleyards.? The risks can be broadly classified under 3 categories;
?????? occupational health and safety
?????? environmental
?????? financial
In relation to the financial risks, it has been implied in the discussion at the Forum that operating a local Saleyards is ?core business? for a rural council in the 21st century.? Notwithstanding the criticism of references to the outcome of the 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey, the results of the survey coupled with ABS data indicate the relative significance of the agricultural sector and the Saleyards has declined over their 50 year life.? The Nambucca Economic Portrait indicates that rural workers in the Shire (in 2006) accounted for approximately 7% of the workforce (and 10% of the male workforce).? There is also plenty of evidence of a national trend towards the rationalisation of Saleyards.
If it is accepted that operating a local Saleyards is ?core business? for a rural council in the 21st century, then consideration needs to be given to what the ongoing operational and capital subsidy should be.? There was no discussion of this at the Forum.? Clearly there needs to be some defined limit of annual subsidy so that Council can undertake long term financial planning and avoid the unplanned expenditure which the Forum agreed upon.
The other financial risks relate to the continued operation of the Saleyards being dependent upon a single agent and the constrained nature of the site which effectively prevents any expansion.? The significance of these risks increase as Council increases its investment in the site.
There will significant impacts on future budgets.? The impact will be known when the required work has been designed, costed and put to tender.? The budget impact will not only relate to the Environmental Levy.? There will be work required at the Macksville Saleyards that can?t be funded from the Environmental Levy and will instead require cuts to other programs.
28074/2010 - Environmental Levy 2009/2010 - from Annual Report
Future of the Macksville Saleyards - Outcome of Saleyard Forum
ANNEXURE 1
Environmental Levy
Annual Assessment of Program
5 Year Approval - 2005/2006 to 2009/2010
Coastal Sand Dune Destruction - Scotts Head March 2010
Information compiled November 2010 (2009/2010 Financial Year)
ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM
I N D E X
1.0?????? Introduction. 1
2.0?????? Program.. 1
3.0?????? Assessment 1
3.1??? Riverbank Restoration. 1
3.2??? Estuary Management Plan Implementation. 2
3.3??? Stormwater Management. 3
3.4??? Water Health Quality Testing.. 3
3.5??? Community Assistance with Environmental Projects. 4
3.6??? Environmental Compliance Officer. 4
3.7??? Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme. 5
3.8??? Key Findings from the Ratepayer Survey January 2010. 6
4.0?????? Financial Details. 7
ENVIRONMENT LEVY
1.0???? Introduction
??????????? The 2009/2010 financial year brings to a closure the second Environmental Levy program for the local government area of Nambucca as was approved for the five year period covering the budgets of 2005/2006 to 2009/2010.
??????????? Council involved the community through public meetings and by seeking submissions to determine the projects to be funded through the levy.
??????????? The support for the levy was very strong as the community were aware that a number of important initiatives could not be undertaken without extra funding. The final year of this 5 year program consolidated the positive acceptance within the community.
??????????? Council engaged Jetty Research to undertake a community satisfaction survey in? October 2009 through a random phone poll of 400 ratepayers. From this survey 79 per cent of respondents supported extension of the environmental rate levy at its existing
????????? rate for a further five years.
2.0???? Program
The 2009/2010 budget comprised the following project areas:
?? Riverbank Restoration
?? Estuary Management Plan Implementation
?? Stormwater Management
?? Water Health & Quality Testing
?? Community Assistance With Environmental Projects
?? Staff (Environmental Monitoring and Compliance)
?? Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme
?? Key Findings from the Ratepayer Survey January 2010
3.0???? Assessment
3.1???? Riverbank Restoration
??????????? The Environmental Levy has been a critical factor in allowing overdue riverbank protection and restoration works to be addressed. The $50,000 previously provided was incorporated into an overall grant application tied to the Implementation of the Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan. The grant received from the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) was $200,000 of which $75,000 was directed to Riverbank Restoration works at Macksville and Bellwood.
??????????? Council matched the $75,000 providing a total budget of $150,000 for riverbank restoration works at Macksville along Ferry Street and continuation along River Street. A total of $144,475 was expended during the year with the remainder carrying over for the continued works east along River Street.
??????????? The Nambucca River Users Group worked collaboratively with Council to remove tonnes of old concrete and bricks from the Nambucca River just west of the Ferry Street boat ramp, retained the riverbank and imported marine sand to create a sandy beach. This is now extensively used by the wider community providing a safe access into the river. This project will continue under the 2010/2011 program for further beautification and facilities.
New floating pontoon, sandy beach, rock revetment and traffic management - Ferry Street Macksville
Rock groyne and revetment work Ferry Street Macksville
3.2???? Estuary Management Plan Implementation
??????????? Environmental Levy funds associated with the Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan were pooled for the purposes of seeking a large grant from DECCW. $200,000 in grant funds was provided and was allocated to Riverbank restoration works ($75,000) with the remaining $125,000 being allocated for works at Macksville (floating pontoon, sandy beach & traffic management at the Ferry Street boat ramp), educational and information projects (Interpretative signage, information pamphlets for river users, soil and erosion workshops for Council's operational staff and civil contractors), acquisition of water monitoring equipment (data loggers installed at Gumma Gumma Creek and Watt Creek)
Interpretative signage being installed at Boultons Crossing ? Gumma Reserve - Warrell Creek
3.3???? Stormwater Management
Council progressed with printing and distribution of Fact Sheets and held a training seminar for 36 Council and local civil contractors in regard to construction site preparation, stormwater management and soil and erosion controls implementation.
Soil and Erosion Control Seminar
3.4???? Water Health Quality Testing
??????????? This small contribution has enabled Council to not only provide water quality testing but also created good will with the industry whereby the industry has developed and encouraged a rapport with Council.
??????????? Council now discuss with the oyster farmers issues ranging from civil works adjacent to the river to waste management on a regular basis to the benefit of both parties. A list of works, projects and studies likely to impact on the oyster industry is also tabled at each Estuary Committee meeting.
Different forms of Oyster Farming on the Nambucca
3.5???? Community Assistance with Environmental Projects
??????????? A sum of $5,000 was set aside to assist Community groups to develop and manage small projects that would benefit the environment. Council continued its funding towards the Myna Bird capture program. Council also sought an application to remove vegetation within the Bowraville Flying Fox camp. The licence was approved and some woody weeds were removed including several large camphor laurel trees. Some revegetation will take place during the 2010/2011 year in accordance with the licence conditions.
Managed Vegetation removal within Flying Fox Camp? - Bowraville
3.6???? Environmental Compliance Officer
??????????? Council's Environmental Compliance Officer continued with audits and compliance checks of developments and comprehensive reviews of annual audit reports from extractive industries operating within the shire.
??????????? The Compliance Officer continues to provide advice to subdividers and builders and unfortunately, has had to resort to issuing penalties on occasions to ensure that good practice prevails.
??????????? A water testing and odour monitoring regime was commenced in response to an agricultural activity creating nuisance issues with neighbours. This management activity is continuing.
Environmental Officer Field Testing
3.7???? Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme
Council reviewed its Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme in an attempt to widen its application and increased its maximum rebate payable to $500 or the invoiced cost of the tank (excluding transportation and equipping costs) whichever is the lesser. Council's rebate is on top of any DECCW rebates issued. The Rainwater Tank rebate scheme is continuing.
Retrofitted Rainwater Tank
The results of the Ratepayer Telephone Survey undertaken in October 2009, were formally released in January 2010.
The 9 key findings from the survey are reproduced below.
3.8???? Key Findings from the Ratepayer Survey January 2010
1??????? 71 per cent of respondents recalled having seen the recent Council update regarding the Environment levy, with a further 16 per cent unsure. Of those who definitely recalled receiving it, 28 per cent had read all of it and 49 per cent had skimmed it.
2??????? 58 per cent of respondents were aware of the environmental levy. Of these, 36 per cent were aware of specific projects on which the levy had been spent.
3??????? When four specific levy-funded projects were cited, awareness of the boardwalk on Riverside Drive was the highest (at 87 per cent), while at the other end only 23 per cent were aware that Council had employed an environmental compliance officer.
4??????? 79 per cent of respondents supported extension of the environmental rate levy at its existing rate for a further five years.
5??????? When asked to assess the importance of six specific initiatives that may be funded by the environmental rates levy, flood management was deemed the most important (with a mean of 4.25 on a 1-5 importance scale, and 79 per cent rating it as extremely or quite important). This was followed by stabilising river banks (mean 4.19, 77 per cent rating it very or quite important) and pollution control (4.01, 70 per cent). Improving river/foreshore access was the lowest rated, at a still-respectable mean of 3.66 and 56 per cent importance.
6??????? In terms of other environmental priorities, frequently mentioned issues included dredging of the river and estuary, removal of bitu bush, camphor laurel and other noxious weeds, more walking tracks and cycleways, and incentive for solar power.
7??????? 56 per cent of respondents believed we are currently going through a period of global? warming. Twenty nine per cent disagreed, with 15 per cent unsure. Of those who believe in global warming, 64 per cent believe it is predominantly caused by man, with 16 per cent claiming it was mainly caused by nature, and 20 per cent unsure.
8??????? Of the global warming believers, 92 per cent felt it would lead to rising sea levels, with 84 per cent thinking it would cause increased storm damage. Similar proportions feared less reliable rainfall and more droughts, while 76 per cent thought it would lead to more severe droughts.
9??????? 65 per cent of all respondents felt Nambucca Shire Council should play a leadership role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while 74 per cent said it should be actively encouraging local residents and businesses to do the same. More than three-quarters (76 per cent) believed that Council should be planning for risks associated with climate change, and half were prepared to accept the notion of Council increasing its energy bills by (say) 10 per cent through the purchase of so-called ?green? power.
4.0???? Financial Details
????????? 2009/2010 ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY EXPENDITURE
?EXTERNAL GRANTS
CONTINUING PROJECT
Prepare/Print Fact Sheets (Soil/Erosion)
?$????? 4,489.23
?$??? 1,500.00
Develop and conduct Soil/Erosion workshops
?$??? 11,645.00
Prepare/Print River User Information Pamphlets
Prepare/Install standardised signage along river
?$? 15,000.00
Prepare/Install Interpretative signage within riparian areas in conjunction with LALC's
?$???????? 720.00
Decommissioning Fuel Tanks at Works Depot
Implement NRCMA River health report
Enviro Compliance Officer salary
Riverbank restoration works - Macksville & Bellwood
?$?? 142,475.00
Rainwater tank rebates
Estuary Management Plan
Water Quality Newee Creek
Lwr Nambucca Flood Study update Stage 1
Deep Creek Flood Study
Nambucca Coastal Hazard Mgt Plan Stage 1
Water Quality Testing - Oysters
Water Quality River Health
Finger Wharf - Nambucca Heads
Pontoon, Boat Tie up and sandy beach Macksville
?$306,250.00
ITEM 8.9????? SF15??????????????? 061011???????? Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
The report concerns the outcomes of the Destination 2036 conference which was held at Dubbo on 17 and 18 August 2011.? Numerous models were presented at the conference for the reform of local government in NSW.? The Outcomes Report quotes 3 examples which are potentially relevant to the Nambucca Valley.? They are two forms of ?amalgamation? and a resource sharing model.? The report summarises these three indicative models.
That the information concerning the Destination 2036 Outcomes Report and Circular to Councils be received.
Council can make a submission on the Destination 2036 Outcomes Report if it wishes.
A copy of the Circular concerning the Destinations 36 (Dubbo) Conference and Outcomes Report prepared by Elton Consulting has been circulated to Councillors.
Whilst there is an enormous range of ideas in the Outcomes Report, the possible direction of future reform can be gleaned from the discussion of Models in Chapter 8 of the report.
A primary message emerging from the Dubbo Conference was that civic leaders did not want to see a ?one size fits all? approach to reform.? As a consequence reform models were developed by sub groups.? Whilst there were 30+ models developed the Outcomes Report presented four indicative examples which contained, ?more focused aspects and which offer alternatives to the indicative models described in the Discussion Paper?.
Of the four indicative models in the Outcomes Report, three have relevance to the Nambucca Valley.? They are described below with some brief comment.
Example Model 1: Two Tier Model
This featured two tiers of governance with regional political representatives fed up from each council and each council acting as a legal shareholder to the larger body.? The proposed functions undertaken by the council in this model were not specifically defined.? The model was proposed to be financed through a common regional rate and discretionary local rate as well as user pays for certain services.? In the model, councils increase their capacity by increasing the strength of governance, sharing a common workforce, increasing the ability to provide higher quality services, increasing efficiency and use of resources.
A crucial unexplained issue is the division of functions between the two tiers.? Along with the division of functions, it is not clear how a single workforce would be answerable to two tiers of governance.
Example Model 3:? Formalised Resource Sharing Model
This model was identified as working best in rural and regional areas.? It included specific governance arrangements for between 5 and 7 Councillors and Mayors elected by their fellow Councillors for two year terms.? It was thought that there should be limits on the maximum number of times a Mayor could serve and that there be four year, split council terms, with biannual elections.? The model included Councillors being paid a minimum payment at the base wage, with an additional allowance for the Mayor.? It also incorporated Councillors being assigned portfolios.
The model provided for formalised resource sharing arrangements facilitated through legislation.
Again a crucial unexplained issue are the functions which would presumably be mandated as having to be put into a resource sharing alliance.? Also unexplained is whether a Council would have a choice as to their alliance partners or whether this would be mandated.
Example Model 4:? Rural Place Management Model
This model was thought to work best in rural or remote areas.? Its governance was predicated on a corporatised structure, in this case with a Mayor, popularly elected for a 4 year term, acting as the chair of the board and a General Manager reporting to the board.? The model also featured a ?centralised back office supported by place managers with responsibility for service delivery in specific areas and/or towns.? In the model councils increase their capacity by building on economies of scale, increasing career opportunities in the region and using shared services.
The model has some similarities with Example Model 1 and suggests a larger amalgamated Council with staff having geographical responsibilities rather than functional responsibilities.
Future Direction
The Division of Local Government Circular sets out a process for the preparation of an action plan to guide proposed reforms to NSW local government.
An Implementation Steering Committee (ISC) has been established to prepare an Action Plan.? The ISC will also coordinate the implementation of that Action Plan.? The membership of the ISC consists of the Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government, the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations and the President of Local Government Managers Australia (NSW Division).
The timetable which has been set provides for comments on the draft Vision and priorities for the Action Plan to be submitted by 4 November 2011, for a draft Action Plan to be released for consultation on 21 November 2011 with submissions closing on 30 December 2011 and for the ISC to finalise the draft Action Plan to present to the Minister by the end of January.
This is a tight timetable for a major reform of the structure of local government in NSW and indicates a commitment and urgency to deliver change in the short term.
Whilst it is open for Council to make a submission on the Destination 2036 Outcomes Report and its priorities for action, it is difficult to make any specific comment about the relatively amorphous collection of views and statements in the Report.? Whilst the Outcomes Report is badged, ?a path together?, the outcomes report acknowledges 30+ models (paths) and a plethora of other suggested structural changes.
Accordingly it is not proposed to make a submission at this stage, but certainly it is anticipated that the draft Action Plan to be released on 21 November will have concrete proposals which Council should formally respond to.
There has been no consultation in preparing this report.? It is likely that the report will be discussed at the next meeting of the Mid North Coast Group of Councils on 25 November 2011.? It has been requested that the matter be listed on the meeting agenda.
At this stage there are no implications for the environment.
At this stage there are no social implications.
At this stage there are no economic implications.
At this stage the risks are unknown.? It seems likely there will be structural change for NSW local government in the short term.? Depending upon the nature of the change it is impossible to determine whether it will be in the interests of this community.? More than likely there will be both positive and negative aspects of change and perceptions will vary as to the overall outcome.
At this stage there is no budgetary impact.
ITEM 8.10??? SF42??????????????? 061011???????? New Guidelines for the Preparation of Applications for Special Rate Variations
Not required.? The report is brief.
That the information concerning the new guidelines for the preparation of applications for special rate variations in 2012/2013 be received.
There are no real options.? The report is for information.
A?????? That Council advertise its intention to seek a permanent special rate variation of 10.04% in 2012/2013 under Section 508(2) of the Local Government Act comprising the following:
1??????? 3.0% being a provision for the rate peg;
2??????? 5.04% for the permanent continuation of the expiring special variation for the Environmental Levy and loan financing for the replacement of Deep Creek Bridge and the stabilisation of Riverside Drive;
3??????? 2.0% being for additional revenue to fund a loan program to bring forward capital works indentified in Council?s Infrastructure (Asset) Management Plan.
B?????? That Council undertake a review of its rating structure.
It will be recalled that if Council does not achieve a special rate variation, its revenue in 2012/2013 and beyond will decline by about $410,000 per annum.? This is because the last special rate variation approval for the Environmental Levy and funding for Deep Creek Bridge and Riverside Drive was time limited to 30 June 2012.
The Division of Local Government has issued new guidelines for Councils making applications for special rate variations in 2012/2013.
The Guidelines provide for the announcement of the rate peg in early December 2011 and for Councils? to lodge with IPART their intention to apply for a special variation no later than 16 December 2011.
The deadline for the lodgement of the special variation application has been brought forward to 24 February 2012.
This means that Council will have to complete all of its Integrating Planning and Reporting requirements, including the Community Strategic Plan, Asset Management Plan, Workforce Management Plan, Long Term Financial Plan, its 4 year Delivery Program and annual Operational Plan (budget) before 24 February 2012.? Failure to adequately complete these documents will mean that any application for a special rate variation will be rejected.
Council should also be aware of IPART?s assessment criteria for Section 508(2) applications.? These are:
1??????? Demonstrated need for the rate increase implied by the special variation
Council must explain why the special variation is needed by reference to its strategic, asset management and long term financial planning.? The application has to include an explanation of relevant asset replacement, renewal and repair expenses, and how the expenditure addresses backlogs over time.
The application has to demonstrate there is an efficient and feasible program of expenditure.? This includes full details of the proposed works program.
Councils must indicate the financial impact of the special variation on their financial sustainability.? This means that Council has to provide scenarios of the financial implications should the variation be approved or refused.
2??????? Adequate community consultation regarding the special variation
Council has to include all details of their community consultation and the outcomes.
3??????? Reasonable impact on ratepayers
The Council needs to demonstrate any special rate variation application will not have an unreasonable impact on ratepayers.? To meet this criterion Councils need to provide an explanation of their rating structure; demonstrate the impact on rates; and indicate the strategies employed by Council to assist those in hardship to pay their rates.
4??????? Sustainable financing strategy consistent with the principles of intergenerational equity
Councils have to demonstrate they have considered the use of all available financing options to address capital expenditure requirements.? The concept of intergenerational equity means that the costs of long lived assets are shared between current and future users.? This means that borrowing for long lived assets provides a better share of liability between current and future ratepayer, all of whom will benefit from the asset.? However Council must also demonstrate the sustainability of its debt.
5??????? An explanation of the productivity improvements and cost containment strategies the council has realised in past years, and plans to realise over the proposed special variation
Councils must demonstrate that they have implemented a program of productivity or efficiency improvements and cost containment strategies to hold fund expenditure pressures before considering an increase in rates.? In assessing this criterion, IPART will consider the extent to which councils have analysed their overheads, services and projects and taken action to contain or reduce costs before seeking to increase rates through a special variation.
Applications for a special variation must include details of productivity improvements and cost containment strategies over the previous two years (minimum) and the actual and estimated savings from each initiative.? Council also needs to put forward productivity improvements and cost containment strategies proposed for the period of the special variation.
The implications of the new guidelines is that the work required by both Council staff and the elected Council will need to be accelerated to meet the application deadlines.
There has been no consultation in preparing this report.? The Council staff developing the IPR reports and involved in making the application for a special rate variation are aware of the new guidelines.
In relation to the Special Variation Fact Sheet which was mailed to all ratepayers on 18 and 19 September, the feedback as at 24 September had been 26 telephone calls or emails.? Of those 26 respondents, 9 were in favour of a rate increase whilst 16 were opposed and one respondent was neither in favour nor opposed.? A detailed report on the outcome of the consultation will be reported to Council in early December
There is considerable risk involved in Council?s financial strategy for the future.? If the application for a special rate variation is not successful, the Council?s annual revenue will decline by about $410,000 per annum from 2012/2013 and beyond.
ITEM 8.11??? SF1538??????????? 061011???????? Classification of Land - Lot 2382 DP1166483 Bellingen Road, Bowraville
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Steven Williams, Property Officer ????????
This report is presented to seek Council direction to classify a land parcel which has been recently acquired by Council as Operational Land under the Local Government Act 1993.
The land was acquired to augment the land available for the Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Water Storage Project.
That Lot 2382 DP 1166483, Bellingen Road, Bowraville be classified as Operational Land pursuant to and in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.
There is no feasible option. The recommendations give effect to the provision of the Local Government Act.
Council has recently acquired Lot 2382 in DP 1166483 to augment the land available for the Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Water Storage Project.
The acquisition of this land completes the land requirements for the project.
Clause 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 permits Councils to classify the land as Operational Land up until three months from the date the land is acquired by Council.? If the land is not classified as Operational Land within this time the land will automatically become Community Land.
By way of guidance possibly the easiest way to define the difference between Operational Land and Community Land is to consider whether or not the land is open to access from members of the general public, in which case the land should be classified as Community Land, or if the land is designated for the performance of an operational aspect, in which case the land must be classified as operational land.
Should the land be classified as Community Land under the Local Government Act, Council will not be in a position to deal with the land should issues arise in the future.? By way of example this may include instances of granting easements or boundary adjustments.
There is also a substantial administrative saving as each parcel of Community Land must, under the Act, be incorporated into a Plan of Management and dealt with according to the provision of that plan as well as the numerous provisions of the Local Government Act that govern the use and management to land classified as ?Community Land?:? A Plan of Management is not required for land classified as Operational.
?????????????? Council Surveyor
There are no environmental issues arsing from the recommendation.
There are no social issues arsing from the recommendation.
Apart from cost savings in avoiding the management of land classified as Community Land there are no economic issues arsing from these recommendations.
There are no risks associated with the classification of the land as operational.
Classification of the land as Operational will not impact on future budgets.
The recommendations do not affect nor require a variance to working funds.
ITEM 8.12??? SF1389??????????? 061011???????? Grant Application Status Report - 23 September 2011
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Colleen Henry, Grants Officer ????????
At Council?s meeting on 7 December 2006 it was resolved that there be a quarterly return submitted to Council on grant programs.
That the list of grant applications and their status to 23 September 2011 be received.
Successful grant applications (not yet acquitted):
Grant and date of approval
Funding Amount
Amount -Council
Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program
Macksville Park ? Storage Building $45,000
Macksville Pool ? Additional Lane $20,000
E J Biffin Fields ? carpark rehabilitation $68,000
Bowraville Public amenities ? upgrade $32,000
Community Building Partnership Program
Matching funding
Amenities Anderson Park, Valla Beach - $34,000
Playground Anderson Park, Valla Beach - $15,000
2NVR Assistance for relocation - $10,000
History in Print Project (Microfilm Reader) $11938
Sport and Recreation Participation Program
Staying Strong exercise program to be delivered as part of Safe and Savvy Seniors (SASS), at Macksville Senior Citizens? Centre
Federal Government election commitment? (confirmed)
Relocation of 2NVR radio station to Tewinga Hall
Better Boating Program
Public pump-out facility at Nambucca Heads jetty
Lions Park Boat Ramp widening Macksville
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water etc
Detailed design for off river water storage
Saluting Their Service, Department of Veterans Affairs (Grants Officer Assisted Community Group)
Rebuilding of Taylors Arm War Memorial
Additions since last report:
Grant and Date of Notice
Amount - Council
Indigenous Sport and Recreation Program
$46,300 (full request of $168,000 not awarded)
Nambucca Valley Sports Facilitation Program (Ritchie Donovan)
Total year to date
Applications made but not yet determined:
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
No closing date
Off-river water storage (subject to a number of conditions including detailed plans, relevant approvals, Council funding, confirmation of final project costs.
Coastline Cycleway Grant 2010-2011
Closed November 2011
Completion of 350m section of cycleway between Nambucca Heads and Macksville.
Department of Sport and Recreation Facilities Grant
Closed 15 April 2011
NA (matching funds to come from NHTTC)
1 Table Tennis Tables for NH Table Tennis Club (NHTTC)
$206,870 (2011/12 budget)
2 E J Biffin Drainage Improvement
NA (matching funds to be provided by group)
3 Bowraville Cricket Club Nets and Pitch
$20,000 (2011/12 budget)
4 Unkya Reserve Playground equipment and toilets
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government - Regional Development Australia Fund
Closed 13 May 2011
Community Transport Project ? Purchase of land and building for Nambucca Heads depot
Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Volunteers Grants
Closed 8 June 2011
Macksville Showgrounds
Mary Boulton
Talarm Hall
EJ Biffin
Valla Beach
Argents Hill Hall
Welsh?s Park CoM
Department of Health and Ageing
Closed 19 August 2011
Healthy Communities Initiative Phase 3
(original application has been resubmitted to this round)
Environmental Trust Restoration and Rehabilitation Grant
Closed 2 September
Some in-kind
Construction of access way from southern part of Wellington Headland to avoid landslip area; weed management of steep slopes and native plant regeneration on site
NRMA Road Safety
Closed 25 September
Scooter safety workshops under Safe and Savvy Seniors program
Unsuccessful applications in this period:
Community Transport Project ? Purchase of land and building for Nambucca Heads depot.
NB: Application will be made in next round in November 2011.
Please note that community organisations assisted in applying for grants in this time are the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre (two grant applications) and Miimi Corporation (local community health campaign).
ITEM 8.13??? SF323????????????? 061011???????? Nambucca Entertainment Centre Committee of Management AGM - 14 September 2011
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????
The report acknowledges the Annual General Meeting (AGM) which was held on 14 September 2011, of the Nambucca Entertainment Centre Committee of Management and the new Committee.? Copies of; the Minutes of this meeting and the Financial Statement are attached.
That Council endorse the minutes of the Committee of Management for the Nambucca Entertainment Centre?s Annual General Meeting held on 14 September 2011, and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.
There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.
The AGM of the Nambucca Entertainment Centre Committee of Management was held on Wednesday 14 September 2011.
The Committee of Management for 2011/2012 comprises:
????????? President????????????????????????????????? Bonnie Tardiani
????????? Vice President????????????????????????? Ken Harrison
????????? Secretary????????????????????????????????? John Gardner
????????? Treasurer/Booking Officer? June Harrison
????????? Committee Members:??????????????? J Harrison, A Duffus, L Greentree, J Urqhart,
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? P Richardson, H Fowler
There was no consultation.
There are no financial implications.
There are no implications for working funds.
26656/2011 - Minutes of AGM 14/9/2011
Nambucca Entertainment Centre Committee of Management AGM - 14 September 2011
ITEM 8.14??? SF588????????????? 061011???????? Nambucca District Historical Society Committee of Management - Minutes of AGM 16 August 2011
The report acknowledges the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Nambucca District Historical Society Committee of Management and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting, which was held on Tuesday 16 August 2011, and the financial statement are attached.
That Council endorse the minutes of the Committee of Management for the Nambucca District Historical Society?s Annual General Meeting held on 16 August 2011, and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.
The AGM of the Nambucca District Historical Society Committee of Management was held on Tuesday 16 August 2011.
????????? President??????????????????????? June Mathews
????????? (2) Vice Presidents????????? Kevin Scullin
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Peter Mitchell
????????? Secretary??????????????????????? Ruth Glasson
????????? Treasurer???????????????????????? June Mathews
????????? Auditor??????????????????????????? Chris Stone
25022/2011 - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 16 August 2011
Nambucca District Historical Society Committee of Management - Minutes of AGM 16 August 2011
ITEM 9.1????? SF1589??????????? 061011???????? Outstanding DA's in excess of 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 23 September 2011
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lisa Hall, Administrative Support Officer ????????
In accordance with Council's resolution from 15 May 2008 meeting, the development applications listed below are in excess of 12 months old (Table 1). DA 2010/221 was received on 3 September 2010 and remains undetermined due to matters outside of Council's control.
Table 2 are development applications which have been received but not yet determined due to submissions received. In accordance with Minute 848/08 from Council meeting of 18 December 2008, should any Councillor wish to ?call in? an application a Notice of Motion is required specifying the reasons why it is to be ?called in?.
1??????? That the list of outstanding development applications (in excess of 12 months old) be noted and received for information by Council.
2??????? That the applications where submissions have been received be noted and received for information by Council.
TABLE 1: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN EXCESS OF 12 MONTHS OLD
COMMENTS ON APPLICATION
Additions to existing pre-school
Part Lot 8 DP 821952, Valla Beach Road, Valla Beach
This application was placed on hold pending further discussions regarding a Bushfire Hazard easement over the adjoining land. Whilst the applicants were requested to withdraw the application, they requested that the matter remain live as external funding is tied to this proposal and progress has been made with the adjoining landowners regarding the easement with a finalisation considered imminent.
TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WHERE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ARE NOT YET DETERMINED
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS
13 Lot Large Lot Residential Subdivision plus new road
Lot 1 DP 1087301, Wirrimbi Road, Newee Creek
? Entrance to property compromised
? Traffic concerns
? Co-ax cable underneath subdivision
? Protection of natural waterways and erosion and siltation
? Area floodprone
? Fire hazard concerns with bushland
Concerns will be addressed when assessing the application
Additional information received from applicant and referred to DECCW (Office of Water) 23/05/2011
Still waiting on advice from DECCW
Response received from RFS requesting additional information
Applicant submitted the information which has been referred to the RFS for further assessment
Still awaiting RFS comments
16 Unit Residential Dwellings & Associated Landscaping, Driveway and Communal Areas
Lot 1 DP 1108420, 17-23 Piggott Street, Nambucca Heads
? Use of open space area
? Loss of views
? Traffic issues
? Water run-off and drainage
? State of the road surface
? No footpaths
Additional information received 18/4/11.
Second referral provided to Engineering Department to address drainage issues.
Still awaiting flood study information from applicant.
The applicant has advised the information will be submitted by 29 July 2011.
30 day letter sent 2/8/11 requesting information to be lodged in relation to flooding issues
Information received and application now being assessed.
20 new Independent Living Dwellings
Lot 31 DP 730231, 1-3 Short Street, Macksville
? Concerns with sharing bathrooms
? Blocking of sunlight to other units
30 day letter sent 2/8/11 requesting information required for assessment of the application in relation to flooding issues
Lot 873 DP 601418, 95 Helliwells Road, Missabotti
? Horticulture business operated with use of machinery and bird scaring devices ? potential noise impacts to B&B
Site inspection to take place 2/8/11.
Requires a BASIX Certificate
17 Lot Large Lot and Rural Subdivision and Boundary Adjustment
Lot 2 DP 613260 & Lot 1 DP 213434, 532 Rodeo Drive, Wirrimbi
? Building envelopes should be adhered to and not changed ? to ensure views are kept
? No restrictions on church activities by future residents
Awaiting further information from applicant in relation to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
Crematorium, Chapel and Associated Facilities
Lot? 51 DP 613620, Foxs Road, Nambucca Heads
? Crematorium will create ?black spot? on highway as turning lane into Foxs Road won?t be long enough for funeral traffic and traffic coming out of Foxs Road will find it difficult to judge gap in traffic.
This issue was also raised when the land was rezoned under the previous LEP via Amendment 57, gazetted on 8 December 2006. The DA has been referred to the RTA for their comments, as it was with the LEP Amendment. The RTA advised, at that time, that safety and efficiency matters can be addressed at the development application stage, provided they are included as specific conditions in any future development consent. No response has been received as yet from the RTA.
can be addressed at the development application stage, providing they are included as specific conditions of any future development consent
ITEM 9.2????? SF1589??????????? 061011???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 26 September 2011
For Council?s information, below are listed Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received by Council and applications determined under Delegated Authority.
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED TO 26 SEPTEMBER 2011
DA Number
Applicant/Owner
Mr A Wood
Continuing Use of Garage converted to Bedroom
Lot 3 Section B DP 17707, 22 Matthew Street, Scotts Head
Ms D Fitzgerald,
Footpath Restaurant/Caf?
Lot 2 DP 216998, 27 Bowra St, Nambucca Heads
Ms R McMillan,
Lot 4 DP 722666, 12 River St, Macksville
Nicola & Jason Wright
Dwelling Additions
Lot 2 DP 860995, 161 Upper Warrell Creek Road, Upper Warrell Creek
Janice Gore
Sunroom Addition
Lot 28 DP787346, 16 Pademelon Place Allgomera Creek
Mr G W Shepherd
Footpath Trading/Caf?/Signs
Beatties Furniture & Manchester
Lot 12 DP 1010328, 2 Duke St, Nambucca Heads
Mrs J Simmons
Additions to Deck
Lot 15 Section C DP 17707, 12 Waratah Street, Scotts Head
COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED TO 26 SEPTEMBER 2011
CD Number
Mr C Hocking
Dwelling Additions - Deck
Lot 6 DP 21223, 59 Palmer St, Nambucca Heads
Bananacoast Credit Union Pty Limited,
Change of Use from Class 5 (office) to Class 6 (retail)
Lot 1 DP 665477, 20 Wallace St, Macksville
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO 26 SEPTEMBER 2011
CONSENT/ DA
DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED
EST VALUE
Lot 1 DP 382674, 14 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads
One (1) A-Frame Sign
Lot 23 DP 242451, 1 Princess Street, Macksville
Outdoor dining area comprising two (2) tables and four (4) chairs and one (1) A-Frame Sign on the Footpath
Lot 1 Section B DP 6045, 20 Wallace Street, Macksville
Install ATM and alter shop front
Lot 12 DP 1119693, Warrell Waters Road, Gumma
Dwelling-House and Shed
Lot 14 DP 1049360, 12 Charles Place, Nambucca Heads
Dwelling-House and Garage Modification
Lot 42 DP 1149595, Timbertop Court, Valla
Storage Shed, underground Water Tank & Earthworks
Lot 520 DP 859627, 52 Wellington Drive, Nambucca Heads
Lot 132 DP 1121580, 24a Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Heads
Lot 98 DP 262590, 99 Mann Street, Nambucca Heads
9 Lot Residential Subdivision
Lot 17 DP 1057656, 6 Crispin Cove, Macksville
Dwelling & Retaining Wall
Lot 143 DP 246879, 9 West Street, Scotts Head
Lot 191 DP 1091416, 36 Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head
Lots 62 & 76 DP 755548, North Arm Road, Girralong
Staged Development: Dwelling-House
Lot 1 DP 972330 & Lot 2 DP 203857, 1016-1022 Wilson Road, Congarinni North
Expansion of Sawmill ? concrete slab and portable solar dryer
Lot 1 DP 781951, 206 Eungai Creek Road, Eungai Creek
Subdivision - General
Lot 222 DP 755549, 1921 Valla Road, Bowraville
Continued Use ? Chipper Shed
Lot 4 Section E DP 17707, 8 Vernon Street, Scotts Head
Lot 6 DP 21223, 59 Palmer Street, Nambucca Heads
Dwelling Additions - Balcony
Lot 1 DP 665477, 20 Wallace Street, Macksville
ITEM 9.3????? DA2011/053????? 061011???????? Development Application 2011/053 Alterations and Additions to Existing Seniors Living and Aged Care Facility at 17-23 Piggott Street, Nambucca Heads
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Selina McNally, Senior Town Planner ????????
?Summary:
The purpose of this report is to request Council determine a Development Application for alterations and additions to an existing seniors living and aged care facility at Piggott Street Nambucca Heads (Riverside Gardens). The Development Application is reported to Council because part of the development exceeds the height of building provisions (by more than 10%) within the Nambucca LEP 2010 and as such the application cannot be approved by delegation.
The site is an existing residential complex designed for seniors living. The complex comprises a mixture of self contained ?independent living? villas and special care hostel buildings.
The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP & A Act and other relevant legislation and subject to the appropriate conditions being included on the Consent, it is not considered the proposed alterations and additions will adversely impact on the existing complex or the surrounding locality.
That Council approve Development Application 2011/053 for Alterations and Additions to an Existing Seniors Living and Aged Care Facility at 17-23 Piggott Street, Nambucca Heads, subject to the recommended conditions.
1??????? Option Two is to refuse the development application and Council must provide full and valid reasons for refusal.
2??????? Option Three is to consent to the development application unconditionally.
The proposal relates to alterations to an existing building, re-configuration of an existing car park area, construction of new overflow car parking areas and the erection of a new building for a maintenance/storage shed. The alterations to the existing building are largely internal and are necessary to relocate some ancillary services to the facility, which are currently located off site, such as food preparation and laundry services. These ancillary services will be moved into an existing building on site, which is currently used for storage by the maintenance team. Subsequently, the proposal includes a new shed building to rehouse the maintenance equipment. Alterations are also proposed to the main building on the site, to aesthetically enhance the front elevation and generally improve access to the foyer and reception area, including an additional lift for disabled access.
??????????? Manager of Technical Services
Council?s Manager of Technical Services (MTS) was involved with preliminary meetings and on-going discussions with the applicant in relation to stormwater discharge. MTS concurs that consent should be granted for the development subject to conditions, in particular, the condition in relation to maintaining pre-development levels of stormwater discharge (draft condition 13). MTS also requests further plans are submitted for car parking areas with specifications that indicate access, parking and manoeuvring details (draft condition 12).
??????????? Manager of Health and Building
Council?s Manager of Health and Building (MHB) advises that in relation to the control of stormwater discharge to be maintained at pre-development levels, a detention system could be used to store additional stormwater and a pump system installed to reuse the grey water for functions such as flushing of toilets within the complex. MHB advises this would not only address the issue of stormwater detention but lessen the demand on Councils own town water supply.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION ? SECTION 79C(1) EP&A ACT
In its assessment of a development application, Council is required to take into consideration the following matters:
(a)??????? the provisions of
(i)???????? any environmental planning instruments
Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010
This site is Zoned R1 ? General Residential under the Nambucca Local Environment Plan 2010. The proposal is permissible within the Zone and consistent with the objective for Zone.
Height Limitations
Clause 4.3 of the LEP requires that development in this Zone must not exceed a height of 8.5 metres. The proposal includes a new lift which will exceed this limit with a maximum height of 10.7 metres. However, this lift will match the height of the existing lift and remain lower than the maximum height of the existing building, having no impact on the view of the skyline.
The applicant was required to submit a request for a variation to Development Standards under Nambucca LEP 2010 ? Clause 4.6. The applicant has justified this variation by including an extract of Accessible Lifts from the Building Code of Australia 2011. In addition, the introduction of the second lift will not lead to additional overshadowing nor result in any privacy issues in relation to overlooking. For these reasons, the proposed variation to the Clause 4.3 (Height Limitations) of Nambucca LEP 2010 is considered acceptable.
State Environment planning Policy ? Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability 2004
The applicant requested the proposal not be assessed against the requirements detailed in the SEPP for this type of development and instead be assessed as a residential development pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Nambucca LEP and DCP 2010.? Staff investigation found there were no provisions that prevent the applicant from requesting this.
(ii)??????? any draft environmental planning instrument
There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.
(iii)?????? any development control plan (DCP)
Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010
Notification and Advertising
The application was notified and no submissions were received.
Environmental Context and Site Analysis
The proposal relates to a residential facility for seniors living and all alterations proposed are set well within the site boundaries. The site contains varying gradients and a watercourse runs through the middle of the site and as such has experienced localised flooding during periods of heavy rainfall.? The watercourse channels water to a sedimentation basin along the southern boundary which detains stormwater before releasing it into the Nambucca River. A site inspection following recent heavy rainfall found this detention basin is not coping with the amount of stormwater run-off being channelled into it and was overflowing, with waters backing up over the subject site to where the new car park area is proposed. It should be noted that this sediment basin has a large local catchment of predominately private residences.
Due to the historic inter-allotment flooding of this site, MTS raised concerns with the additional hard standing area and thus impermeable surfaces being introduced on the site as part of this development. In response the applicant engaged GHD to prepare a Flood Assessment Report which included an analysis of the potential impacts of this proposal in conjunction with the proposal being considered under separate Development Application 2011/051 for the 16 new units on this site The report considered the impact of the total combined developments on stormwater discharge and concludes that potential impacts will be minimal, with little change in the amount of stormwater from the new development or the direction of the current flow of water.
Car Parking and Traffic
The location of new car park spaces will be below the flood level. The applicant has addressed this issue by dedicating these spaces to be available to staff only and a float alarm system will be installed so that the staff vehicles can be moved to higher ground in time of flood. In addition, the existing complex currently suffers from insufficient car park spaces for staff and visitors, so the additional overflow car parking areas and associated access lanes will improve access and reduce congestion. Engineering details of car parking areas and access ways have been requested to be provided as a condition of consent (draft condition 12).
Although this proposal is for an existing facility utilised for Seniors Living Accommodation, the applicant requested the proposal not be assessed against the requirements detailed in the SEPP for this specific type of development and instead be assessed as general residential and against the requirements of the Nambucca LEP and DCP 2010. Staff investigations found there were no provisions to prevent the applicant from requesting this nor the proposal being assessed as requested.
The proposal meets the requirements of the Nambucca DCP 2010 for residential development ? Part H.
b?????????
the likely impacts of the development
Access, Transport and Traffic
The introduction of new car park areas and access lanes will improve access and transport to the site for staff and visitors.
The proposed alterations largely relate to facilitating the movement of central services which are currently located off site to on site, which should greatly reduce traffic movements currently caused by co-ordinating transportation to and from the site and the facilities base.
Some additional traffic will be generated from deliveries in regards to food preparation and laundry now being carried out off site, but the intersection to Riverside Drive is considered capable of coping with this minimal increase.
As advised by the Manager of Health and Building, an on site detention system would help prevent any increase in stormwater discharge and the installation of an associated pump system could utilise this grey water for things such as flushing of toilets.
c????????? the suitability of the site for the development
The proposal relates to an existing complex and all proposed alterations and extensions are to be located within the complex boundaries. Subject to the relevant condition being included on the consent in relation to sustaining pre-development levels of stormwater discharge, the site is considered capable of supporting the proposed development.
d????????? any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations
The application was notified and no public submissions were received.
e????????? the public interest
The application for minor extensions and alterations are not considered to adversely impact on public interest.
The proposal, subject to compliance with the draft Consent, is not expected to create any detrimental environmental impacts within the existing complex itself or in or on the surrounding locality.
The proposal provides alternative types of residential accommodation to contribute to this residential area.
The proposal has potential for employment generation during construction.
Source of funds and any variance to working funds
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF CONSENT
1??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 6 October 2011 and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.
Plan No/Supporting Document
Site Plan NA511 DA100
Hill Lockart Architects
Ground Floor plans NA511 DA101
Maintenance Shed Plan NA511 DA102
Statement of Environmental Effects
Flood Study Report
Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under Home Building Act 1989
2??????? All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made.
????????? In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.
This condition does not apply:
a??????? to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or
b??????? to the erection of a temporary building.
Alterations to existing buildings to be bought into compliance with fire safety provisions
3??????? In accordance with Clause 93 and 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Council requires the existing building(s), subject to a development application, be bought into compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia in respect to the following table:
Building Code of Australia edition (Year)
Section & Clause No to be complied with
Description of upgrade works
Part E 1.5 - Fire Sprinkler System
Extension of fire suppression system to kitchen & laundry areas
Part E 2 - Table E 2.2a general provisions, Specification E 2.2a
Extension of smoke Hazard Management System to kitchen & Laundry areas
Part E 4.2 ? Emergency Lighting &
Part E 4.5 - Exit signs & warning systems
Within kitchen & laundry areas.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING WORKS
Sediment and erosion measures required
4??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate the measures to be employed to control erosion and loss of sediment from the site. Control over discharge of stormwater and containment of run-off and pollutants leaving the site/premises must be undertaken through the installation of erosion control devices such as catch drains, energy dissipaters, level spreaders and sediment control devices such as hay bale barriers, filter fences, filter dams, and sedimentation basins. The sediment and erosion control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Housing Manual, ?Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction?.
The sediment and erosion control plan is to be prepared by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.
5??????? Backflow prevention devices shall be installed appropriate to the hazard rating for the approved landuse, in accordance with the current edition of AS/NZS 3500.1 and the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing & Drainage.
Details of the proposed backflow prevention devices shall be provided to Council for approval with a Section 68 Application and prior to connecting to the water supply.
6??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water supply work and sewerage work must be obtained. This application is to include the installation of the proposed rainwater tank and any associated plumbing.
Trade Waste Section 68 approval required
7??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to discharge trade waste into Council?s sewer must be obtained.
Access and facilities for disabled
8??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate access and facilities for persons with access disabilities to and within the development in accordance with AS 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility and Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia.
Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.
Long Service Levy to be paid
9??????? A Long Service Levy must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. This amount payable is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is a State Government Levy and is subject to change.
These payments may be made at Council?s Administration Office. Cheques are to be made payable Council.
Storage facilities (Maintenance shed) above floor level
10????? The application for a Construction Certificate for the maintenance shed is to include the plans and specifications that indicate secure storage facilities above the flood planning level. Such space is to be equivalent to at least one cubic metre per square metre of floor space that is subject to flooding. Such space must accommodate goods or fittings that are not flood compatible. The nominated space may be used for purposes other than storage when flooding is not expected, provided the space is readily available and can be made secure during the period of flooding.
Garbage storage area required
11????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include details indicating the construction of a garbage storage area on-site. The garbage storage area is to be designed and constructed so as to conceal its contents from view from public places and adjacent properties and is to be blended into the landscaping layout. The storage area is to be located so as to be readily accessible from within the site and serviceable by the waste collector from the adjoining road.
Specifically the garbage storage area is to contain the following design elements:
a??????? Bunded with a minimum volume of the bund being capable of containing 110% of the capacity of the largest container stored, or 25% of the total storage volume, whichever is the greatest;
b??????? Provided with a hose tape connected to the water supply;
c??????? Paved with impervious material;
d??????? Graded and drained to the sewer system; and
e??????? Roofed to prevent the entry rainwater.
Such plans must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.
Car parking plans required
12????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate access, parking and manoeuvring details in accordance with the plans approved by this consent. Plans are to include, but not be limited to, the following items:
a??????? pavement and kerb description;
b??????? site conditions affecting the access;
c??????? existing and design levels;
d??????? cross sections every 15 metres;
e??????? drainage (pipes, pits, on-site detention, etc.) Trafficable Lids/grates required in roadways;
f???????? linemarking and signs.
The engineering plans and specifications are to be designed by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. The Civil Engineer is to be a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Australia or is to be eligible to become a corporate member and have appropriate experience and competence in the related field.
The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.
Stormwater Discharge
13?????? Provision shall be made for on site treatment of stormwater prior to discharge to Council?s piped drainage system where that runoff is from areas other than roofs. The proposed method of stormwater treatment shall be approved by Council and may consist of standard oil/sediment traps, grass filters, infiltration areas or combinations of these arrangements.
Plumbing Standards and requirements
14????? All Plumbing, Water Supply and Sewerage Works are to be installed and operated in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing and Drainage and AS/NZS 3500 Parts 0-5, the approved plans (any notations on those plans) and the approved specifications.
15????? Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise, when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:
a??????? Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.
b??????? Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING
Car parking areas to be completed and signs to be provided
16????? The car parking areas are to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Signs are to be erected clearly indicating the availability of off-street parking and the location of entry/exit points.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES
Fire extinguisher and fire blanket to be located in every kitchen
17????? An appropriate fire extinguisher and fire blanket must be located and maintained in every kitchen. An effective evacuation plan must be developed and displayed to ensure the safe escape of patrons from for all areas of the building.
Flood Evacuation Plan
18????? A copy of the approved Flood Evacuation Plan is to be laminated in clear plastic and displayed in a prominent location within the development (e.g. Kitchen, office, car park entrance).
Flood prone car parks to be occupied by staff only
19????? There are five car parking spaces which are identified as high risk in the event of a flood. These should be restricted to be used by staff only and a float alarm system installed so that vehicles can be relocated to higher ground in sufficient time when water levels start to rise.
27047/2011 - Overall Site Plan
27046/2011 - Site and Landscaping Plan
27048/2011 - Elevation
27049/2011 - Shed Details
Development Application 2011/053 Alterations and Additions to Existing Seniors Living and Aged Care Facility at 17-23 Piggott Street, Nambucca Heads
ITEM 9.4????? SF1541??????????? 061011???????? Report Various Planning Proposals and LEP amendments
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of a number of amendments to the Nambucca LEP 2010 which it has previously approved. It also provides recommendations to progress other amendments currently being considered.
1??????? That Council note LEP Amendment No 1 for Public Land Reclassification from community to operational land at the following parcels is expected to be made shortly:
??????????? Part Lot 31 DP 248561, Yarrawonga Street, Macksville;
??????????? Part Lot 40 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate; and
??????????? Lot 163 DP 822649, Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek (Eungai Pre-school)
????????? Further, that when the plan is made Council notify any persons who made submissions to ????????? the amendment confirming that the reclassification has been made.
2??????? That Council note LEP Amendment No 2 Floor Space Ratio amendments at Matthew Street, Scotts Head was made on 12 August 2011 and is now operative and Council notify any persons who made submissions to the amendment confirming that the amendment has been made.
3??????? That Council note LEP Amendment No 3 for anomalies at Short Street, Nambucca Heads and Uriti Road, Macksville was made on 12 August 2011 and is now operative and Council notify any persons who made submissions to the amendment confirming that the amendment has been made.
4??????? That Council note the Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning for LEP Amendment No 5 for Council owned land in Railway Road, Nambucca Heads, and that Council proceed to exhibit the Planning Proposal as B7 - Business Park zone with an addendum including a height restriction limiting development on the land to 10m in height.
Council could choose not to note the advice and not proceed with LEP Amendment 5 for Nambucca Heads
A brief progress report on the result of each of the LEP amendments made to the Nambucca LEP 2010 is provided below.
Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 Amendment No 1 ? Public Land Reclassifications
The purpose of this planning proposal was to reclassify three (3) parcels of land from community land to operational land in accordance with previous Council resolutions. The land to be reclassified includes:
?????????????? Part Lot 31 DP 248561, Yarrawonga Street, Macksville;
?????????????? Part Lot 40 DP 711098, Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate; and
?????????????? Lot 163 DP 822649, Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek
Council prepared a Section 59 Report to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in July 2011 requesting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure make the plan. To ensure the drafted instrument was in accordance with the intent of the proposed amendment, the Department sought comment on the draft and the making of the plan is imminent.
Upon Council being notified the plan has been made, it is recommended Council notify any persons who made submissions to the amendment and make necessary changes to internal records to ensure information is up to date.
Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 Amendment No 2 ? Matthew Street, Scotts Head FSR
The purpose of this planning proposal was to amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to land on the seaward side of Matthew Street, Scotts Head from 0.55:1 to 0.4:1. This amendment will ensure that the Floor Space Ratio contained in the NLEP 2010 for this land is consistent with the Floor Space Ratio provisions identified in the Place Based Study and incorporated into the Nambucca DCP 2010.
Council prepared a Section 59 Report to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in May 2011, and Council was informed that the plan had been made in August 2011. It is recommended Council notify any persons who made submissions to the amendment and make necessary changes to internal records to ensure information is up to date.
Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 Amendment No 3 ? Anomalies at Uriti Road, Macksville and Short Street, Nambucca Heads
The purpose of this planning proposal was to introduce the following amendments to the Nambucca LEP 2010:
1????????? An amendment to introduce a height of 8.5m to land at Lot 2 DP 107503 Uriti Road, Macksville;
2????????? An amendment to introduce a zone of R1 General Residential; a Lot size of 450m2; a Height of Building limit of 8.5m; and a Floor Space Ratio of 0.55:1 for land at Lots 1, 2, and 3, DP 1157698 (formerly Lot 2 DP 864792), Short Street, Nambucca Heads (Coronation Park).
Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 Amendment No 5 ? Industrial Zone to B7 Business Park Railway Road, Nambucca Heads
The Planning Proposal applies to Part Lot 1 DP884337, Railway Road, Nambucca Heads. The subject land is located on the north-western fringe of the Nambucca Heads urban area on the boundary of an industrial estate. It adjoins the Nambucca State Forest to the north and a small commercial and residential precinct to the south.
The Planning Proposal only relates to part of the land, being land identified as Proposed Lot 14 of an approved subdivision under DA 2010/275. Proposed Lot 14 is 11,802m2 in area. Figure 1 shows the local context of the Planning Proposal. Figure 2 shows the subject land in relation to DA 2010/275.
The subject land is Council owned land which is classified as operational. As the land is operational it does not require reclassification.
The subject land is presently zoned IN1 General Industrial under the Nambucca LEP 2010. A development application was recently approved on the land for a 7 Lot industrial subdivision (DA 2010/275). As stated previously the land subject to this planning proposal is proposed Lot 14 within this subdivision. The land is presently vacant.
The application was referred to Council on the 19 May 2011 and was determined by a conditional consent as follows:
????????? ?That Council resolve to prepare a planning proposal to rezone proposed Lot 14 from IN1 General Industrial to B7 Business Park.?
A B7 zone allows a range of uses including bulky goods premises, industrial retail outlets, light industries, transport facilities, wholesale supplies, etc. It is considered that these types of land uses are more compatible with the nearby residential and commercial zoned land and provide a transition between the residential and industrial zoned land to the west.
Proposed Lot 14 also has the benefit of being a corner allotment on the gateway to Nambucca Heads which has high visual exposure. Given its prominent location it is more appropriate for a less intrusive business or light industrial use in comparison to general industry.
A planning proposal was prepared by Council?s Strategic Planner and forwarded to the Department for a Gateway Determination in June 2011. The Department indicated they support the rezoning and provided a conditional gateway approval (attached).
Although the Department determined Council could proceed with the amendment they indicated Council should give consideration to design controls which may contribute to the amenity of the area (including height and Floor Space Ratios [FSR]). At present there are no controls which would be applicable. The Department also indicated that Council should consider a B5 Business Development zone as an alternative to the B7 Business Park zone. The purpose of these recommendations was to assist in maintaining the amenity of this gateway location.
Having considered these matters, it is recommended that prior to exhibiting the Planning Proposal Council maintain the B7 Business Park zone but include a building height limit in this area of 10m. A 10m height limit is consistent with other business zones in Nambucca Heads and aligns with the character of the street at this location.
It is not proposed to include an FSR as the site will be constrained due to the provision for car parking, landscaping and earthworks required to manage the stormwater on and adjacent to the site. These site constraints will adequately control the scale of any development on the site.
A copy of the Planning Proposal for Exhibition is circularised for Councillors information.
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
The recommendations in this report will not result in any detrimental impacts on the environment.
The recommendations in this report will not result in any detrimental social impacts in the area.
The recommendations in this report will not result in any detrimental economic impacts. The reclassification of land in Yarrawonga Street Macksville will allow the subsequent disposal of the land providing a positive economic benefit to Council.
19727/2011 - Response to Planning proposal Lots 11 & 12 DP 1017408 & Lot 2 DP 514920 - Rezoning from RU1 Primary Production to R1 Residential General
?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - For Councillors Only Amendment No 5 - Industrial Zone to B7 Business Zone, Railway Road, Nambucca Heads, Planning Proposal
Report Various Planning Proposals and LEP amendments
CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - For Councillors Only Amendment No 5 - Industrial Zone to B7 Business Zone, Railway Road, Nambucca Heads, Planning Proposal
??Pages
ITEM 9.5????? SF135????????????? 061011???????? Report on Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2010-2011
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Compliance Officer ????????
Council is required to prepare a State of the Environment Report each year, this year being a supplementary report to the 2008/9 Comprehensive SoE.
This report was presented at the September 14 GPC meeting and deferred to enable Councillors to submit comments prior to going to the next Ordinary Council meeting. Below the Councillor comments have been tabulated.
A black and white version of the amended Supplementary SoE report is circularised for Councillors? information.
1??????? That the draft 2010/2011 Supplementary State of the Environment Report be placed on public exhibition for a period of twenty eight (28) days from 13 October 2011 to 10 November 2011.
2??????? That at the conclusion of the exhibition period, a further report in response to any submissions received, be prepared and presented to Council prior to the adoption of the Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report for 2010/2011, and referral to the Department of Local Government as required by 30 November 2011.
1??????? That the Draft 2010/2011 Supplementary State of the Environment Report be placed on exhibition for public comment as recommended.
2??????? That the Draft 2010/2011 Supplementary State of the Environment Report be adopted as is and not be placed on public exhibition.
The Department of Local Government on 8 August 2011 issued a Circular (11-18) that advised Group 2 and 3 Councils Annual Reporting Requirements are set out in the historical version of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) (section 428) and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation) (Part 9, Division 7). Group 2 and 3 councils are required to prepare a supplementary State of the Environment report for 2010-11 and submit this to the Division by 30 November 2011 (see section 428(2)(c) of the Act and clause 217(2) of the Regulation (historical version)).Therefore this year?s report will be a supplementary report.
The draft report is missing some state agency data which will be added after the exhibition period, but prior to Council?s endorsement in November. This is due to the staggering of group 1, 2 & 3 Councils to the new IPR requirements and many state agencies have not been prepared for group 2 & 3 requests for information.
Notwithstanding, the supplementary report for the 2010/2011 year will include some community/ stakeholder input and be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council?s resolution in November 2007.
Preparation of the Nambucca Shire Council State of the Environment Supplementary Report for the financial year 2010/2011 (previously circularised) involves the same format as the 2008/2009 SoE and incorporates the changes from the 2009/2010 report such as section numbering and photographs streamlined over the document for ease of reading. The document still includes easy-to-read statistical data that is updated annually and documents recent environmental improvement projects.
This 2010/2011 supplementary report is an update of the eight environmental sectors: land, water, air, biodiversity, waste and resource recovery, noise, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage and this year includes a new section called 'living sustainably'. This is the old human settlement section without the community data as this is reported on in a separate community report and thus will reduce duplication. This supplementary report is to be read in conjunction with the comprehensive State of The Environment Report from 2008-2009.
The report summarises the physical and social attributes of the Nambucca Shire environment whilst identifying the human impacts on our local environment in a financial year. It also provides information on activities known to have been conducted by Council and the community to protect and restore the Nambucca Shire environment, and is essentially a mechanism for reporting on progress towards environmental sustainability. Comparing SoE reports from year to year enables Council to see improvements and identify areas that need attention in all sectors of the local environment. This then assists Council to further protect the health and diversity of the environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
In consultation with community, regional, state and national agencies, 68 (22 Regional & 46 Shirewide) environmental indicators were developed to best represent and measure Council?s progress in these key areas year to year and to monitor Council?s movement toward achieving sustainability goals. An environmental indicator is an aspect of the natural or built environment that can be monitored to provide information on environmental conditions eg volume of water consumed, number of pollution incidents reported.
Details of on-ground environmental activities, such as improvements to waste management and processes to improve air quality, are documented in the report. Details of progress relating to the Nambucca River Management Plan and other such projects are also documented.
The following submissions were received by Councillors:
Comments in regard to Draft State of the Environment Report 2010-2011 from Cr Court
Page/Sect Number
Proposed Changes/Comments/Questions
Staff Response
First Para: given that this report is for 2010-2011 should we say ?will call for submissions from community groups in July 2011?.
Whilst the report is for the 2010/2011 year, its preparation is not completed until after 30 June 2011 and as such requests for submissions from community groups were sent out in July 11. No change to report.
1.???? .Had difficulty understanding first para. Suggest: delete comma after ?right?, and after ?habitat? change to: ?directly and indirectly impacting on the physical environment.?
2.???? In second para, is there a need to have ?contribute to??
3.???? Para 3: why is the linkage important? In the second sentence what does ?their? relate to?
4.???? Is there a need to put in ?As well as Esd? in the fourth paragraph?
Noted and changed
Yes ? no change
All links between the social environment and the natural environment are important, 'their' relates to all aspects of the social and natural environment
1.???? Para 1: Amend ?The July 1 2010 ..? to something like: ?Electricity prices increased from 1 July 2010??.
2.???? Para 2: Perhaps capitals for the names of the workshops could help emphasize the point.
3.???? Para 6: Comma after first ?farms?.suggest rewrite of second sentence to something like: The farm boasts rare bush foods including finger Limes, Davidson Plums, Lilly-Pillies and many others, which end up in restaurants in the regions and in Sydney.
4.???? Para7: Full stop after Meat on the Move?. Perhaps the inclusion of ?straight? after ?locals? may give more emphasis. Change ?dairy? to ?dairying?. Perhaps ?the running of the farm is based on organic principles and involves the use of organic fertilizer and limited use of antibiotics.
5.???? Para 8: Do people know what is meant by food miles and carbon miles? What is the difference?
6.???? Para 9. How is local produce, food miles and carbon miles big business in the Shire? Is the Medlow market the only one? Change ?is? to ?are?.
7.???? Para 10. Please explain ?that created a community partnership?.
See glossary, also carbon miles is a typo it should have read carbon footprint.
Also the Medlow markets were the only markets to start up in the 10/11 reporting period.
The community partnership was with the council, green team and aboriginal community, phrase taken out
1.???? Para 2: Please rewrite and simplify or perhaps just use Para 3 with a little extra to explain what the routemap does.
2.???? Para6: Put a full stop after first ?racks? and an ?and? after ?public?.
Para 3 explains what a routemap is
1.???? Para 2: Suggest changing the end of the para to: ?and, in some cases, the exposure of soils to erosion.?
2.???? Para6: Suggest the following change: ?such as land clearing, destruction of native vegetation and wetlands, introduction of exotic species??
Paragraph reads neatly ? no change
1.???? Para 2 second dot point: suggest change A 12 ha B7 business park zone permitting a range of business activities and facilitating business and employment opportunities.
2.???? Para 2 third dot point: suggest delete ?which will?. Change ?provide? to ?providing? and, for consistency, remove full stop.
3.???? Para 2 fourth dot point: remove ?are now?.
4.???? Para w sixth dot point: suggest change to ?retention of minimum rural lot sizes?.
5.???? Para 2 seventh dot point: change to ?zoning of all major waterways, and?.
6.???? para 2 eighth dot point: delete ?are?.
This whole dot point is from a council report tabled last year.
Dot point reads well ? no change
Are is actually area (typo) reads better now
4&5 Not changed as the report reported on what the new LEP will do and what has happened.
Fourth dot point or sixth para: does this mean that there were new plantations and existing plantations but no harvesting of existing plantations? Perhaps a rewrite would make it clearer.
9/ Table 3.3
Please include a comment on where the Local Adaption Pathways Report can be viewed.
Issue with new council website, in the change over the link was dropped off. Currently being addressed
1.???? Second para: suggest full stop after shire and start with ?These?.
2.???? Fourth para, second sentence: for greater clarification, please remove comma after ?are? and insert a comma after ?Beilby?s Creek?.
1.???? Seventh primary dot point: the way the January date is expressed is confusing; is it ?in January 2011? or is it ?on 11 January 2011??
2.???? Eighth dot point: is it possible to include the height of the 1974 flood? Also, in the same dot point but in the next paragraph, could it be written as ?the South Arm of the Nambucca River and Warrell Creek carried??? And again in this dot point but in the fourth paragraph, please include a verb in the second sentence and change ?roads? to ?road?.
11, now removed
1.???? Last sentence of the second paragraph in the second primary dot point: please put a full stop after ?develo-pments? and change ?the? to ?The?.
2.???? Third dot point: what is NVL?
3.???? Last dot point: the first sentence suggests that Nambucca Shire is part of James Cook University. Please rewrite.
Nambucca Valley Landcare ? in glossary and also the acronym added in first dot point
13/Table 4,.4
Did the number of approved on site effluent systems really jump from 527 to 2706? Was a reason given for this?
Figure given is for total approved systems, not total approved for 2010/11, noted and changed.
Third para, second sentence: please check sentence again? - would ?involve? be a better word that ?include??
Seventh para: please remove an in first sentence
Last para: did council approve a boat access facility over some of these seagrass beds?
The query raised refers to whether an approval has been issued by Council for a boat ramp. The statement in the SoE does not refer to boat ramps and has not been changed.
15/Table 5.1
Wouldn?t the symbol ? be more appropriate than the ? as the numbers appear not to have changed?
Information was carried over from 09/10 data, now removed, arrows left in place until new data is added
1.???? Second dot point, first para: suggest keep dates and format the same for each secondary dot point eg remove verb from first dot point as none of the others have one and write all dates as, say, Oct 2010 rather than using, say, March 11 or October 2010.
2.???? Second dot point fifth para: explain NVL and in the second sentence explain which project you are referring to.
3.???? Second dot point sixth para: explain what is meant by ?CfoC?.
4.???? Third dot point first para; perhaps begin with ?National Tree Day on 1st August 2010 was celebrated?? and in the second sentence, change ?pillies? to Pillies. I thought that Orchid Trees (Bauhinia?s) and Silk Floss Trees were exotics, not Australian natives.
All years now have apostrophe to indicate a year
In glossary and now written again in the first occasion of Nambucca Valley Landcare.
C of C is Caring for Country ?noted and rewritten
'Native' been deleted
1.???? Second dot point: please just include the Nambucca Valley number for WIRES.
2.???? Second dot point second para: for consistency change to 6 November.
3.???? Third dot point fourth para: which Plan of Management, and which Lions park are you referring to?
4.???? Fourth dot point, second sentence: change ?no? to ?not?.
Noted and added Bowraville
1.???? Fourth dot point: please rewrite dot point; I found the long sentence rather confusing. Perhaps the use of secondary dot points with comments against each of the species would make it easier.
2.???? Sixth dot? point, top of second column: perhaps after ?around the shire? put ?including? then Missabotti, [the next place ? TA?] etc
3.???? Last dot point: please explain again OEH as it is not in glossary.
Glossary updated to reflect department change
1.???? Second dot point second sentence: perhaps the word ?walk? could be replaced by ?cycle??
2.???? Third dot point: change ?This is activity? to ?This activity?.
3.???? Fifth dot point: suggest change ?march? to ?March?, full stop after 2011, and rewrite as follows: Again many trees were felled across the Shire particularly at Scotts Head and along north Arm road. The storm ??.
4.???? Second column, third dot point: suggest rewrite first sentence.
5.???? Second column, fourth dot point; include comma after ?period?, and a full stop after ?footprint?.
Why does the arrow point up against the scrap metal for 2010/2011.
First para: change ?roads? to road transport?.
It is noise associated with roads, not transport ? no change
Third dot point: rewrite first two sentences.
Second column first sentence; please rewrite for better clarification.
Manager Health and Building
This is a report on the state of the Nambucca Shire?s environment.
The report is designed for the community to read and understand what the state of the environment is like in their Shire with clear remediation actions.
There is no economic assessment.
No risk identified.
There are no perceived direct impacts on budgets.
No variation is sought.
?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - AMENDED DRAFT Supplementary SoE Report 2010-2011 (SF135 - 27116/2011)
Report on Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2010-2011
CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - AMENDED DRAFT Supplementary SoE Report 2010-2011 (SF135 - 27116/2011)
Director of Engineering Services Report
ITEM 10.1??? RF313????????????? 061011???????? Status of Fox's Road and access to proposed crematorium
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Phillip Smith, Surveyor ????????
Fox?s Road was originally part of the Pacific Highway before Nambucca Heads was bypassed in the late 1970?s and was formerly part of a Travelling Stock Reserve (TSR). In 2007 the Crown Lands Office converted the TSR into Torrens Title creating Lot 7300 in DP 1120505. Inadvertently they omitted to exclude Fox?s Road from Lot 7300.
The result of this omission is that land fronting Lot 7300 does not have legal access to a Public Road. This affects the development application for a proposed crematorium on Lot 51 DP 613620 (DA2011/139). Lot 52 DP 613620 would also be affected.
I have written to the Crown Lands Office asking for advice as to what action can be taken to redress the situation.
In response, they propose to finalise the matter of access expediently by dedicating the whole of Lot 7300 as Public Road by gazettal. The administration of the road would be transferred to Council.
The Crown Lands Department now seek Council?s advice as to whether it is willing to progress this matter in the above manner.
That Council advise the Crown Lands Division (Far North Coast) that it is willing to take over control and administration of Lot 7300 DP 1120505 if it is gazetted as Public Road.
Council could refuse to take control of the former TSR (Lot 7300) if the whole of it is dedicated as Public Road.
If Crown Lands do not dedicate Lot 7300 as Public Road, they would have to amend the title for Lot 7300 to exclude Fox?s Road. The issue of legal access to Lots 51 and 52 DP 613620 would still remain. To provide legal access Council would need to acquire strips of land between the property boundaries and Fox?s Road pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.
If the whole of Lot 7300 is dedicated as Public Road Council would be responsible for the maintenance of not only Fox?s Road but the vacant land between the property boundaries and the North Coast Railway, which includes significant areas of bushland.
Narelle Hooten, Crown Lands Department
There are no perceivable environmental impacts.
The issue of legal access affects the development of the proposed crematorium.
There are no perceivable economic impacts.
Liability issues regarding public access.
Ongoing maintenance costs may impact future budgets.
25507/2011 - Letter to Crown Lands regarding status of Lot 7300 DP 1120505
25501/2011 - Letter from Crown Lands - September 2011
25502/2011 - Plan of Lot 7300 DP 1120505
Status of Fox's Road and access to proposed crematorium
Enquiries to:???? Phillip Smith
Phone No:??????? 02 6568 0231
Our Ref:????????? SF897
Land Administration - Crown Lands Division North Coast
GRAFTON? NSW? 2460
Dear Sir/Madam
STATUS OF LAND AT NAMBUCCA HEADS
LOT 7300 DP 1120505 ? PARISH NAMBUCCA, COUNTRY RALEIGH
I attach a copy of the above DP for your information.
Within Lot 7300 is Fox?s Road which is part of the old Pacific Highway (in existence prior to the bypass of Nambucca Heads town centre in the early 80?s).
Fox?s Road is a dedicated public road under the care and control of Council and provides access to Lots 51 and 52 DP 613620. These parcels are now effectively landlocked as they are denied access (by covenant) to the Pacific Highway under the Roads Act 1993.
Council has received preliminary notification of a major development proposal for Lot 51 and requests your urgent consideration to the following questions:
??????????? Lot 7300 was originally part of a Travelling Stock Reserve.? Does its creation deny inherit access rights for adjoining land?
??????????? Why was Fox?s Road not excluded from Lot 7300?
??????????? Is your Department able to redress the situation?
If the owners of Lot 51 have been denied legal access rights, the progress of their development may be jeopardised.
I would be pleased of you could respond to the questions asked as soon as possible. and advise of what action your Department can take to redress the situation.?
Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact Council?s Surveyor, Mr Phillip Smith on (02) 6568 0231.
DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
PS:lrh
Enc:?? Plan - DP 1120505
ITEM 10.2??? SF408????????????? 061011???????? Access across Crown Land - Old Coast Road, North Macksville
In 2007 Council resolved to acquire a strip of Crown Land (part Lot 7309 DP1150722) for road purposes to provide legal access to a subdivision (DA1996/061). ?One of the Conditions of Development Consent was that legal access to the subdivision be obtained. ?The applicant has paid $3750 to Council to enable release of the subdivision plan.
Council?s application to the Department of Local Government (DLG) was refused on the grounds that the proposed acquisition was not in the wider public interest as it benefited a small number of lots.
Council then applied to the Crown Lands Office to purchase the subject land (Lot 1 DP1110258) by ?Private Treaty?. Negotiations have been stalled since 2008.
Crown Lands has now offered a solution to the legal access problems of the above land and numerous other properties with frontage to Old Coast Road including those properties that use Mattick Road for access.
They propose that Council acquire the whole of the Crown Reserve (Lot 7309 DP1150722) from Letitia Close in the south to the Nambucca State Forest in the north.
Because of the Number of Lots involved the concerns of the Department of Local Government would be satisfied.
That Council advise the Crown Lands Division (Far North Coast) that it concurs ?in principle? to Council acquiring the subject Crown Land, being Lot 7309 DP1150722, for the purposes of the Roads Act 1993, and? provided that the land is transferred to Council at no cost.
Council could choose not to concur.
The letter from the Crown Lands Department attached does not mentioned compensation and costs.
If Lot 7309 becomes road under Council?s control there will be ongoing maintenance costs into the future even though it is vacant land.
The proposed Warrell Creek to Urunga bypass will affect Old Coast Road and parts of it will be required for Motorway. But a substantial part of it will still be required for local access road.
Jennifer Carr, Crown Lands Department
Social and Economic issues resulting from properties not being able to get DA?s approved.
23232/2011 - Letter from Crown Lands
25761/2011 - Part Lot 7309 DP 1150722
25759/2011 - Part Lot 1 DP 1110258dp1110258
Access across Crown Land - Old Coast Road, North Macksville
ITEM 10.3??? RF468????????????? 061011???????? Closure and Realignment of Higginbotham Road, Upper Taylors Arm
Mr & Mrs Tarrant, of 119 Higginbotham Road, Taylors Arm, became aware of the encroachment of their dwelling and other buildings upon the road reserve of Higginbotham Road after receipt of a survey report by Amos & McDonald.
They wish to purchase part of Higginbotham Road to relieve the encroachments.
The Amos & McDonald Survey also revealed that the road formation of Higginbotham Road encroached upon the adjoining land owned by Mr & Mrs Desmond.
1??????? That Council agree to the closure and sale to Mr A & Mrs D Tarrant of that part of Higginbotham Road as shown on the plan attached to this report (subject to survey) provided that:
????????? Mr & Mrs Tarrant enter into a formal and binding agreement with Council undertaking to:
(a)????? Pay all costs associated with the closure and sale including (but not limited by) survey, legal, valuation and Council fees.
(b)????? After the road closure has been finalised consolidate the title of the closed road with their existing holding creating one (1) lot.
2??????? That Council open a road 20 metres wide over that part of the formation of Higginbotham Road which encroaches upon lot 33 DP661822 owned by Mr G & Mrs D Desmond and any costs associated with the road opening be paid by Mr & Mrs Tarrant including (but not limited by) survey, legal, valuation and Council fees.
Council can refuse to agree to the road closure but that would cause extreme hardship to Mr & Mrs Tarrant.
Council may choose not to open a road over the encroaching formation but properties further west would then not have legal access.
Council may wish to pay some or all of the costs associated with the road opening.
Up until 2008 Higginbotham Road was a Crown Road but it was transferred to Council by gazettal on 14/11/08 pursuant to Section 151 of the Roads Act 1993.
It is noted that Council resolved on 19/8/10 to extend maintenance to the end of Higginbotham Road and expend $25,000 to bring it up to standard.
If the road closure and opening proceeds there will be a small area of severed land (as shown on the plan attached) that could be transferred to Mr & Mrs Tarrant.
Discussion with Mr Greg Desmond revealed that he is happy for the road opening to proceed and he indicated that he wouldn?t be seeking compensation.
?????????????? Mr Alan Tarrant
?????????????? Mr Greg Desmond
?????????????? Manager Civil Works
Failure to close the road could cause extreme social and economic hardship for Mr & Mrs Tarrant.
There are no perceivable economical impacts.
There are liability considerations for Mr Desmond if an accident occurs on road that is within private property.
None ? all costs to be paid by Mr and Mrs Tarrant.
26705/2011 - Plan of Proposal - Tarrant
Closure and Realignment of Higginbotham Road, Upper Taylors Arm
ITEM 10.4??? SF1103??????????? 061011???????? Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Storage Project - Storage Access Road
AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage ????????
The works proposed for the Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Storage Project include the upgrade of Bobo Road to provide access to the storage site.? This road is currently a designated Crown Road, however once upgrade works are proposed on Crown Roads it is the usual practice for Crown Lands to gazette the road to the ownership of the Council.
It is considered that Council?s interests are best served if the upgraded road becomes a private access road for its own purposes.? Council can then have complete control over who can access the road and at what times.
An existing property currently uses the road for access and a right of way would be created over the proposed private road in order to maintain legal right of access to this property.
1??????? That Council notify Crown Lands of its intention to upgrade Bobo Road to serve as an access road to the proposed off river storage site.
2??????? That Council make an application to Crown Lands for the road to be closed so that it becomes a private access road for the benefit of Council.
3??????? That Council create a right of carriageway over the private road to benefit the property that currently uses the road for access.
Council can upgrade the road as planned and acquire it from Crown Lands as a public road.
Bobo Road is proposed to be upgraded as part of the Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Storage Project.
This road is currently a Crown Road and is only used by NSW Forests and one other property owner. Council is currently in the process of acquiring all the NSW Forests land adjacent to the road and they will have no further use for the road.
Crown Lands will have to be notified of Council?s intention to upgrade the road. Once a Crown Road is upgraded it is usual practice for it to be gazetted to the control of the local road authority as a public road.
As the main purpose of the road will ultimately be to provide access to a significant Council asset it is considered that Council?s interests are best served if the road was to become a private access road.? Council can then have greater control over who uses the road with the control of public access.
For this to occur Council will have to make an application to Crown Lands for the road to be closed.? A right of way will be created over the road to provide legal access to the existing property that utilises the road.
?????? Director Engineering Services
?????? Council Surveyor
SUSTAINABILITY:
There are no social implications to the proposed treatment of the road.
There are no environmental implications to the proposed treatment of the road.
There will be some minor costs involved with the closure of the road and creation of the proposed right of way.
There are no significant risks associated with the proposed treatment of the road.? Council may even choose to increase its level of control over access by installing a gate across the road.
There will be no impact on current and future budgets as works on Bobo Road have been budgeted for in Council forward planning for the Off River Storage Project.
Funding required from Council will be provided from reserves and loans.
NSW Office of Water have advised that this project will be subsidised as part of the existing Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage program. The level of subsidy is expected to be in the order of 30% however this will only be confirmed once a tender for the construction has been let.? There is still uncertainty as to when the State funding may be made available to Council.
The Federal Government has also made a commitment of $10 million to the project.? $1 million of this funding has already been paid to enable completion of the detailed design. The $9 million second stage of funding is conditional on a number of factors the most critical being the commitment of the State Government funds.
ITEM 10.5??? SF1669??????????? 061011???????? Nambucca District Water Supply - Project Management for the Construction Phase of Project
Following a report to Council?s meeting on 21 July 2011 it was resolved to seek a fee offer from NSW Public Works for the project management of the construction contract for the Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Storage Project.
This fee offer has been reviewed and is considered to be reasonable and is therefore recommended to be accepted.
A confidential circularised copy of the fee offer is for Council?s information.
1??????? That Council accept the fee proposal received from NSW Public Works to provide project management services for the construction contract for the Off River Storage Project.
2??????? That Council advise NSW Public Works that the acceptance is conditional on Council securing State and Federal Government funding for the project and also on Council resolving to proceed with construction.
As the fee is considered reasonable and has been obtained in accordance with Council resolution no further option is proposed.
Council has the option of going to tender for the provision of project management services.? The cost of preparing a brief, advertising a tender and then undertaking a tender assessment will likely be in the vicinity of $50,000.
A report to the Council meeting on 21 July 2011 outlined reasons as to why NSW Public Works were considered to be the best option to manage the construction phase of the Nambucca District Water Supply Off River Storage Project.? The reasons which were provided for this conclusion were:
?????????????? The introduction of a new project manager at this stage of the project would come with some degree of risk.? They would have no established relationship with Council or GHD and a lot of time and effort would have to be expended in bringing them up to date with every aspect of the project
?????????????? Public Works have a high level understanding of Council?s expectation of the project and are fully conversant with all the issues and risks the project entails.
?????????????? Project management is the core business of the NSW Public Works regional offices and they have managed the vast majority of major construction projects for the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme on the NSW North Coast.? This includes the current construction contract for the Nambucca Heads Sewerage Augmentation.? They have proven systems in place for managing construction contracts and monitoring and controlling risk.
?????????????? NSW Public Works have project managed construction works on all dams constructed on the NSW North Coast including Stuart MacIntyre (Kempsey Shire), Cowarra (Hastings Shire) and Shannon Creek (Coffs Harbour and Lower Clarence Shire).? The team proposed for this project will comprise of members of the same project management team that recently oversaw the completion of the award winning Shannon Creek Dam Project.
??????????? The experience gained from this similar all be it larger project is considered to be an invaluable resource for Council and one that potential alternatives are unlikely to be able to match.
?????????????? The construction contract is a GC21 contract as adopted by the NSW State Government for the procurement of major construction projects. Public Works are very experienced with this form of contract and this familiarity should ensure that any issues or disputes are resolved by the contracted parties without the need for arbitration.
?????????????? Public Works has a high level of understanding of State and Local Government Legislation related to procurement of construction works, expenditure and control of public money and compliance with the requirements of managing projects subsidised through the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme.
?????????????? Site supervision and contract surveillance is a critical component of the project. The vast majority of expenditure on the project is tied up in the construction contract and Council needs to have the confidence that they end up with the quality of work they expect and are paying for.
Council accepted the recommendation of the report and resolved the following:
1????????? That Council seek a proposal from Public Works to project manage the construction contract for the Off River Storage Project with a view to extending their engagement should the proposal be considered acceptable.
2?????? That the Public Works proposal be reported back to Council for determination
An upper limit fee offer based on hourly rates has now been submitted by NSW Public Works.? The fee offer has been reviewed and is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons.
?????????????? The fee offer assumes a 60 week contract period but also includes a further 6 week allowance for wet weather or prolongation of the contract.
?????????????? The list of tasks is comprehensive and covers all works that can be reasonably expected to be required during the contract period.?
?????????????? The hours allocated to the tasks appear reasonable and include full time on site supervision which is essential for works of this nature.
?????????????? The hourly rates associated with the nominated personnel are very competitive with rates that have been provided by other consultants on recent tendered works that Council has had an interest in.
?????????????? The quantum of the fee appears reasonable as information provided by the Office of Water suggests that final project management fees for the construction phase of most projects, including variations, usually fall into a range of between 2.8% and 4.5% of the final construction phase costs.
?????????????? The personnel nominated are highly experienced in project management and have significant recent experience on dam projects.? In particular the project officer undertaking the site supervision has a wealth of experience in dam construction works which would be hard to match and will be of great benefit to ensuring that Council ends up with a high quality asset.
?????????????? The fee offer is an upper limit fee and can only increase if there are changes in the scope of work or if the engagement is required to run for longer than anticipated due to circumstances outside normal control.
The Office of Water has also reviewed the proposal and offered the following comment:
?In general the proposal looks reasonable. NSW Office of Water would strongly endorse Council engaging NSW Public Works for the construction phase of this project. They have extensive relevant experience in project managing off-river storage projects. It is also noted that Public Works have completed all pre-construction management including management of detailed designs and preparation of contract documents, and they have been engaged by Council to manage the tender process. The knowledge they will bring to the project with continuity will be invaluable to the project?.
?????????????? Director Engineering Services
?????????????? NSW Office of Water
The project aims to provide a social benefit through security of water supply.
The environment impacts of the project have been detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement that has been accepted by Council.
The project will have a significant economic impact on the community as increases in both the typical residential bill and developer charges will be required to service Council?s financial commitment to the project.? However this fee offer is considered to provide good value for money.
This is a major project for the Shire and there are significant risks associated with the procurement and construction. The engagement of NSW Public Works is likely to mitigate some of the construction risk as they have significant recent experience in project managing similar works.?
The key risk at the moment is considered to be the timing of the State Government funding under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme.
Council has committed funding to commence the construction phase of the off river storage project in the 2011/12 budget.? Forward planning budgets also include allocations to complete construction of the project.
Future budgets will be dependent on the timing of Federal and State Government funding.
Funding for the project will be sourced from reserves and loans.
The Federal Government has confirmed the approval of a $10 million grant with $1 million being allocated up front.? The $9million second stage of funding is dependent on securing the State Government funding under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Scheme.
?- CONFIDENTIAL CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - FEE PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (26826/2011)
Nambucca District Water Supply - Project Management for the Construction Phase of Project
CONFIDENTIAL CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - FEE PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (26826/2011)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl