NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

 

AGENDA?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

????????? APOLOGIES

????????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

1??????? General Manager Report

8.1???? Marketing Slogan

8.2???? Ongoing Drainage Complaints from Albert & Gaye Junge - 26 Bluegum Street Nambucca Heads

8.3???? Request for Lease of Unused Part of Scotts Head Road Reserve

8.4???? Bowraville Theatre - Request for Grant Funding - Onsite Inspection

2??????? Director Environment and Planning Report

9.1???? Report on Liquor Outlets, Social Implications and Council's Role

9.2???? Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

9.3???? Resubmitted Report on Section 138 Applications, bonds and footpath specifications

9.4???? Report on Draft Development Control - Sediment and Erosion Control

9.5???? Report on endorsement of Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street, Scotts Head ?

3??????? Director Engineering Services Report

10.1?? Presentation of Building Inspections of Council Owned Buildings

10.2?? Grants Hall, Bowraville Building Maintenance Report

10.3?? Relocation of Men's Shed - Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Inc ???

 

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

Officer

Item No

Page

8.30 - 8.45

Marketing Slogans

CC

GM

8.1

4

8.45 - 9.15

Liquor Outlets, Social Implications & Council's Role

CC

MCCS

9.1

19

9.00 - 9.20

Resubmitted Report ? 138 Applications

CC

DEP

9.3

50

9.20 - 9.40

Presentation of Building Maintenance Report

CC

MCW

10.1

121

10.30 - 10.45

Ongoing Drainage Complaints from A & G Junge - 26 Bluegum Street, Nambucca Heads

OS

DES

8.2

 

10

11.00 - 11.40

Grants Hall Building Maintenance Report

OS

MCW

Ron

10.2

123

11.45 - 12.00

Bowraville Theatre - Inspection of request for grant funds (confirmed time of 11.45am)

OS

GM

Ron

8.4

18

12.15 - 12.30

Resubmitted Report on Conditions of Consent for DA 2009/113 & 2009/119 Smiths Lane

OS

DEP

9.2

24

1.00 - 1.45

Report on Endorsement of Urban Design Strategy - Matthews Street Scotts Head

CC

MPA SP

9.5

77

1.45 - 2.00

DCP - Sediment and Erosion Control

CC

DEP

9.4

56

2.15 - 3.15

Relocation of Mens Shed - Inspection of sites -Showground, Depot & Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields

OS

DES

10.3

125

3.30 - 4.00

Resubmitted Report - Request for Lease of Unused Part of Scotts Head Road Reserve - Cookies Lane - Ms Lyndal Gregory to address Council onsite - please phone her on 6569 7043 to confirm time when arranged.

OS

GM

8.3

 

13

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

????????? (name)

 

 

 

 

Pecuniary ? must leave chamber, take no part in discussion and voting.

 

 

 

Non Pecuniary ? Significant Conflict ? Recommended that Councillor/Member leaves chamber, takes no part in discussion or voting.

 

 

Non-Pecuniary ? Less Significant Conflict ? Councillor/Member may choose to remain in Chamber and participate in discussion and voting.

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council?s Email Address ? council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

(Instructions and definitions are provided on the next page).

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

Pecuniary ? An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

A Councillor or other member of a Council Committee who is present at a meeting and has a pecuniary interest in any matter which is being considered must disclose the nature of that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

 

The Council or other member must not take part in the consideration or discussion on the matter and must not vote on any question relating to that matter. (Section 451).

 

 

Non-pecuniary ? A private or personal interest the council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act (for example; a friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

 

If you have declared a non-pecuniary conflict of interest you have a broad range of options for managing the conflict.? The option you choose will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of your interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.? You must deal with a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in at least one of these ways.

 

?        It may be appropriate that no action is taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.? However, council officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

?        Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not in decision making or visa-versa).? Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

?        Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting duties to another officer).

?        Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in section 451(2) of the Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest).

 

??


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1????? SF939????????????? 190809???????? Marketing Slogan

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Arising out of a discussion of Council?s Vision/Mission and Values, at Council?s meeting on 15 January 2009 it was resolved:

 

?That Council develop a marketing slogan for the Shire.?

 

The matter was reported to Council?s meeting on 2 April 2009 with a recommendation that Council use ?Industry, Lifestyle and Tourism? as the marketing slogan, this being the branding used for the Shire?s economic development strategy over many years.

 

It was resolved to seek the views of the Chambers of Commerce, Nambucca Valley Tourism and High Schools to the proposed marketing slogan, ?Industry, Lifestyle and Tourism?, and the proposed billboards to replace ?Unpack your Bags? and any alternative proposals.

 

The preferred branding or slogan is either, ?Industry, Lifestyle, Tourism? or ?Enterprise and Lifestyle?.? Enterprise and lifestyle is preferred only because it is more succinct.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council use ?Enterprise and Lifestyle? as a marketing slogan.

 

2??????? That Council ask Nambucca Valley Tourism to develop a replacement billboard for ?Unpack ????????? your Bags?.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are many options in terms of marketing.? However any message needs to be simple.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Arising out of a discussion of Council?s Vision/Mission and Values, at Council?s meeting on 15 January 2009 it was resolved:

 

?That Council develop a marketing slogan for the Shire.?

 

The matter was reported to Council?s meeting on 2 April 2009 and it was resolved as follows:

 

?That Council seek the views of the Chambers of Commerce, Nambucca Valley Tourism and High Schools to the proposed marketing slogan, ?Industry, Lifestyle and Tourism? and the proposed billboard to replace ?Unpack you Bags? and any alternative proposals they may have and be reported back to Council in three months.?

 

Following Council?s resolution, letters seeking suggestions were sent to the three Chambers of Commerce, Nambucca Valley Tourism and the Valley?s three High Schools.? Responses have now been received from the Macksville and District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc.; Council?s Tourism Co-ordinator and Ms Libby Foster.? Ms Foster has assisted in preparing marketing strategies for Nambucca Valley Tourism.? Their suggestions are attached.

 

The suggestions are as follows:

 

Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc.

 

Marketing Slogan:

Enterprise & Lifestyle ? at its best!

Best for Enterprise & Lifestyle

Huge on Enterprise & Lifestyle

Opportunities & Lifestyle Abound

Opportunities & Lifestyle, Naturally

 

Billboard Slogan:

Nambucca Shire ? sharing enterprise and lifestyle with nature.? Welcome!

Nambucca Shire ? sharing enterprise and lifestyle with you.? Welcome!

Nambucca Shire ? sharing enterprise and lifestyle with nature ? and you.? Welcome!

Nambucca Shire ? enterprise and lifestyle comes naturally.? Welcome!

Nambucca Shire ? sharing our enterprise and lifestyle ? naturally with you!? Welcome!

Nambucca Shire ? sharing opportunities and lifestyle with you.? Welcome!

Nambucca Shire ? sharing opportunities and lifestyle with you, naturally.? Welcome!

 

Maita van Stockum, Tourism Coordinator

 

Nambucca Valley ? DISCOVER THE MAGIC

 

Libby Foster

 

?The Nambucca Valley

Live it.? Discover it.? Love it!?

 

As reported to Council?s meeting on 2 April 2009, Council?s Manager Business Development has used the branding, ?Industry, Lifestyle and Tourism?, in economic development for a number of years.

 

It is suggested that any ?slogan? be restricted to three of four words as a simple message will be more easily read and recalled.? The concern with ?DISCOVER THE MAGIC? is that for many years Bellingen have used the terms ?Bellinger magic? and ?Magical Bellingen Shire? in their marketing.? In fact ?magic? in tourism seems to have widespread appeal as a short troll of the internet found:

 

?East Gippsland Naturally Magic?

?Daintree Magic?

?Lithgow in Winter, Magic?

 

Given these considerations, the preferred branding or slogan is either, ?Industry, Lifestyle, Tourism? or ?Enterprise and Lifestyle?.? Enterprise and lifestyle is preferred only because it is more succinct.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Business Development; the three Chambers of Commerce; Nambucca Valley Tourism and the three high schools.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no particular social implications.?

 

Economic

 

It is important that Council reinforce its reputation for achieving the relocation of new industry and jobs into the Nambucca Valley.

 

Risk

 

There are no significant risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost of replacing the existing billboard signs will be $2,997.? Nambucca Valley Tourism Inc. believe the billboard signs are in their ownership and consequently they should be responsible for their replacement.? Therefore there is no impact on Council?s budget.? The Tourism Association may be able to seek a grant to assist in the replacement of the billboard message.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

15658/2009 - Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce

 

2View

19236/2009 - Tourism Co-ordinator

 

3View

19237/2009 - Libby Foster

 

?

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Marketing Slogan

Attachment 1

15658/2009 - Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Marketing Slogan

Attachment 2

19236/2009 - Tourism Co-ordinator

 

 

 

 

 

Michael

I would like to suggest to stick with the slogan Nambucca Valley - DISCOVER THE MAGIC with some pictures of rainforests and beaches.

I haven?t heard any suggestions from NVTA so far. Since the NVTA meeting in June could not address all agenda items due to time constraints, could the deadline for them be extended by a couple of days since the next meeting is tomorrow?

Kind regards,

Maita van Stockum

Tourism Coordinator

Nambucca Valley Visitor Information Centre

PO Box 540

NAMBUCCA HEADS  NSW  2448

Phone:  02 6568 6954

Fax:      02 6568 5004

email nambuccatourism@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

web www.nambuccatourism.com.au

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Marketing Slogan

Attachment 3

19237/2009 - Libby Foster

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Michael,

 

I would like to submit the following slogan for consideration for the Billboards on the outskirts of the Valley.

 

?The Nambucca Valley

Live it. Discover it. Love it!?

 

I would like to think this slogan covers the areas of Industry/Business, life and tourism within the Valley; is catchy; easily read and remembered plus it provides a positive energy for those who read it or say it.

 

Many thanks

 

 

Libby Foster

0411 797 333

 

?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.2????? LF4144???????????? 190809???????? Ongoing Drainage Complaints from Albert & Gaye Junge - 26 Bluegum Street Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Mr and Mrs Junge of 26 Bluegum Street Nambucca Heads have had ongoing concerns about drainage through their land.? They believe that Council is responsible for rectifying the drainage problem.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the inspection of 26 Bluegum Street Nambucca Heads and associated drainage problems be noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect to undertake drainage works but there is no funding.? Given the extent of drainage problems in Nambucca Heads, it is not recommended that Council proceed to undertake work otherwise than in accordance with an agreed list of priorities.?

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Mr and Mrs Junge have been complaining about the drainage of their property for about ten years.

 

Minimal work has been carried out to the existing stormwater pit which is situated on the land.?

 

There have been frequent inspections of the property by Council staff but they believe Council needs to undertake further drainage works.?

 

The advice I have received from Council's Engineering Section is that the property is located in a natural gully with overland flows and possibly roof and hard stand areas from nearby private property contributing to drainage through the land.?

 

Advice from Mr John Hembry, Engineer, is that a stormwater pit should be installed upslope of the dwelling and connected to the existing system.? The stormwater pit and shaping of the surrounding yard should be designed to interrupt flows from the upslope properties.?

 

Whilst Council staff believe that Council is not responsible for dealing with overland flow drainage, putting that aside, the storm event of June 2008 and recent floods requires a prioritisation of expenditure and unfortunately, there are higher priority works to alleviate flooding of houses which need to be attended to first.

 

As an impasse has been reached with Mr and Mrs Junge the matter has been scheduled for inspection by Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Council's Engineering staff and an exchange of correspondence with Mr and Mrs Junge.

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No implications on the environment.

 

Social

 

The property owners are dissatisfied with Council's lack of action to date.

 

 

Economic

 

No economic implications.

 

 

Risk

 

There is always a risk of legal action in relation to these types of drainage issues.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no provision in the budget for any drainage work.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

20025/2009 - Drainage Problems Plan

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Ongoing Drainage Complaints from Albert & Gaye Junge - 26 Bluegum Street Nambucca Heads

Attachment 1

20025/2009 - Drainage Problems Plan

 

?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.3????? SF1321??????????? 190809???????? Request for Lease of Unused Part of Scotts Head Road Reserve

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Steven Williams, Property Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

This item was deferred from Council's meeting on 6 August 2009.

 

Ms Lyndal Gregory of 15 Cookies Lane Scott?s Head has requested Council consider selling or leasing a portion of Scotts Head Road located between Scotts Head Road and Cookies Lane.? A location diagram is attached as annexure ?A? to this report.? The land is not fenced and is devoid of any structures or improvements.

 

Council is the Roads authority for Scotts Head Road pursuant to the Roads Act 1993.

 

Section 38 of the Roads Act 1993 precludes Council from closing a portion of unformed road with the intention of re-sale.

 

There are no legal impedients to leasing the land as requested.

 

Should council elect to lease the land provision would need to be made in the lease to ensure, amongst other things, that the land is adequately fenced at the cost of the lessee to prevent stock from accessing Scott?s Head Road.

 

Fencing, shelter , legal and administration costs for a Lease over say five? years would exceed the current average market rate for horse agistment.? Ms Lyndal Gregory is aware of this and has indicted that notwithstanding the estimated costs she is prepared to proceed with a Lease.

 

Council?s Engineering Department has advised that the unused portion of road is superfluous to Councils needs at this stage and for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council agree in principal to the proposed lease of an area of approximately 4600m2 being the unused portion of road reserve between Scotts Head Road and Cookies Lane to Ms Lyndal Gregory and to exhibit a public notice inviting submission to the proposed Lease for a period of not less than 28 days.

 

2????????? That Council obtain a non refundable payment from Ms Gregory in the amount $325.00 in consideration for the anticipated administration and advertising cost to be incurred in processing her request for the lease

 

3????????? Subject to there being no objections to the proposed Lease that Council Lease an area of approximately 4600m2 being the unused portion of road reserve between Scotts Head Road and Cookies Lane to Ms Lyndal Gregory on terms to be agreed between the parties but including:

 

i)????????? A requirement for the Lessee, at the Lessees expense, to erect fencing around the perimeter of the identified land of a form and from materials satisfactory to Council.

 

ii)???????? A requirement for the Lessee at the Lessee expense to maintain the fencing around the perimeter of the identified lease area for the duration of the Lease so as to securely contain stock within the demised area.

 

 

iii)??????? A requirement for the Lessee to effect public liability insurance for the duration of the Lease for an amount not less than $20 Million and noting the interest of Nambucca Shire Council.

 

iv)??????? A requirement for the Lessee to meet all legal expenses associated with the preparation of the Lease.

 

v)???????? The term of the Lease to be 5 years.

 

vi)??????? The annual base rental for the leased area to be not less than $1,000.00 plus GST per annum.

 

vii)?????? The Lessee to advise Council at the commencement of each year of the number of horses to be agisted on the land for the ensuing year and the base rental to increase in an amount $260.00 Plus GST for each horse exceeding two horses.

 

viii)????? The provision of the Roads Act to otherwise apply.

????????????????

4????????? That Council authorise the General Manager and the Mayor to conclude negotiation of the terms of the lease for the area of approximately 4600m2 being the unused portion of road reserve between Scotts Head Road and Cookies Lane to Ms Lyndal Gregory and to execute any and all documents required to give effect to the Lease.

 

5????????? That Council authorise the affixing of Council Seal to the Lease for the area of approximately 4600m2 being the unused portion of road reserve between Scotts Head Road and Cookies Lane to Ms Lyndal Gregory.

 

6????????? That Council obtain a valuation on a hectare basis for leasing land for grazing purposes.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Refuse the request and leave the land unused.

 

Close the portion of road, whereupon the land would be vested in the Crown and allow Ms Gregory to negotiate with the Crown (Note:? There is no rational economic reason for Council to pursue this option).

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Ms Lyndal Gregory is one of the registered proprietors of 15 Cookies Lane. Ms Gregory?s land abounds? Cookies Lane adjacent to a portion of unused road forming part of Scotts Head Road. ? see annexure ?A?.

 

Ms Gregory has requested Council consider either selling or leasing the portion of unused land to enable her to agist her horses. ?Ms Gregory currently owns one horse which is soon to foal. Ultimately she expects to hold up to four horses.

 

The land is devoid of any structures or improvements and is not fenced.

 

Ms Gregory has advised that in the event Council favour the proposal it is her intention to:

?

1??????? Erect stallion proof fencing to the perimeter of the proposed lease area to prevent stock access to Scotts Head Road;

2??????? Erect relocatable shelters and small water tanks to service the agisted animals;

3??????? Obtain public liability insurance.


 

Authority to sell or lease portions of unused road

 

Section 38 of the Roads Act provides that land comprising a former road in the case of a public road that was previously vested in a Council (other than a public road in respect of which no construction has ever taken place), remains vested in the Council, and in any other case, becomes vested in the Crown as Crown land.

 

As this portion of the road is unformed, upon closure title would vest in the Crown and Council therefore would be precluded from dealing with it by way of sale or transfer.

 

The request to purchase the land should be refused.

 

????? Division 2 Section 153 - 157 of the Road Act makes provision for short term leases of unused public road. The term of the Lease may not exceed 5 years and may only be granted after a prescribed public notification period of not less than 28 days.

 

????? There are therefore no legal impediments to Council leasing the unused portion of Scotts Head Road, subject of course to no opposition being presented in the prescribed public notification period.

 

Issues to consider:

 

Council should consider the following in determining a response to Ms Gregory?s request:

 

1????????? This portion of Scotts Head road is on a crest and that the speed limit is un-restricted up to 110 km per hour. ?Being a rural road there is no street lighting.

 

2????????? The land is unfenced.? A Lease Agreement would need to stipulate that the land be fenced, at the lessees expense (at no costs to Council) to a standard deemed sufficient to prevent stock from accessing Scotts Head Road.

 

3????????? Despite the relative simplicity of the proposed lease administrative requirements including lease and insurance reviews, billing and accounting will need to be recouped under the lease. I estimate that an annual rental in the order of $500.00 + GST would not be unreasonable in consideration of the administration requirements ( this equates to approximately 7 hours of work per annum at the charge rate for professional services).

 

4????????? It would not be unreasonable to realise a return on the land.? I am advised that currently agistment for horses can range between $5.00 per head per week to $30.00 per head per week.? Accounting for the lesser amount, agistment for the number of horses that Ms Gregory proposes would equate to between $500.00 and $1,000.00 per annum.

 

5????????? Legal and advertising costs should be met by Ms Gregory.? I would propose that a retainer be paid by Ms Gregory for the anticipated administration and public advertising costs to be incurred in processing her request, such amount to be not less than $325.00 dollars (being approximately 2.5 hours of administration fees and $150.00 of advertising costs).

 

6????????? Ms Gregory to effect Public Liability Insurance in the amount $20 Million noting councils interest in the amount? $20 million.

 

The above cost estimates have been discussed with Ms Gregory who has advised that she is prepared to meet the above expenses and has in fact accounted for these expenses in her budgeting.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services ? Nambucca Shire Council

Surveyor ? Nambucca Shire Council

Stock & Station Agents A J Gallagher


 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Ms Gregory has advised that she intends to request the Rural Fire Service to attend the property to back burn as a means of clearing the undergrowth on the land.

 

Social

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any social issues.

 

Economic

 

Councillors will note an emphasis on the Lessee paying out of pocket expenses and administration costs to be incurred? as a consequence of the Lease.

 

Risk

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any foreseeable risk.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendation provide for a small return on the land and endeavour to recoup all costs from the end user.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There will be no variance to working funds other than the proposed net income stream.

 

Attachments:

1View

20007/2009 - PROPOSED LEASE AREA COOKIES LANE

 

?

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Request for Lease of Unused Part of Scotts Head Road Reserve

Attachment 1

H:\200908\PROPOSED LEASE AREA COOKIES_LANE LAYOUT (1).TIF - PROPOSED LEASE AREA COOKIES LANE

 

?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.4????? SF923????????????? 190809???????? Bowraville Theatre - Request for Grant Funding - Onsite Inspection

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Bowraville Theatre has requested Council support in regard to an application for grant funding.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council undertake an onsite inspection of the Bowraville Theatre in relation to determining its support for an application for grant funding.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That Council not inspect the Bowraville Theatre.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Bowraville Theatre Committee of Management.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report has no implication on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no direct or indirect impacts on the current or future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1????? SF1397??????????? 190809???????? Report on Liquor Outlets, Social Implications and Council's Role

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Coral Hutchinson, Manager Community and Cultural Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has recently received a letter inviting input into a Community Impact Statement (CIS) which will support an application for a ?packaged liquor licence? at a proposed retail outlet at 50-54 Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads.

 

Note: A CIS is a summary of consultation with the community about any concerns or issues with the proposal.

 

Alcohol-related health issues, crime and violence are well reported in the community at large. They are no less prevalent in the Nambucca Shire, in fact there is evidence to say that they are at a level which should cause community concern. That is not to suggest that the proposed liquor outlet in Riverside Drive will make this worse or be directly responsible for an increase in alcohol related crime or a worsening of health issues but it has evoked some community debate and prompted the following questions:

 

1????????? Do we need additional liquor outlets in the Nambucca Shire?

2????????? What, if anything, should Council do to control the number?

3????????? What role can Council play in assisting to address the negative impacts of alcohol abuse on the community?

4????????? Is there a need for some kind of policy response to the issue?

 

This report will be discussing Council?s role in the processes around establishing any new licensed premises or liquor licence. The Riverside Drive proposal is a useful point of reference for this report, and will be the subject of a Development Application which will be submitted to Council in the future (subject to the granting of a liquor licence) and will be assessed on its merits at that stage.

 

A further consideration in this matter is that at Council?s meeting on 6 August 2009, Council considered the possibility of making a submission to the Riverside Drive liquor licence application however the proposed resolution was lost.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the status quo remain in regard to Council?s approach to managing liquor licences, with the following response being provided at the time Council is invited to make comment: ?Nambucca Shire Council does not support or oppose such application but suggests that the statistics relating to alcohol related crime and health issues be taken into account.?

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

This report will discuss the following options for Council in regard to alcohol-related community issues:

 

?????????????? Make no particular comment in regard to liquor licence applications

?????????????? Deal with requests as they arise and provide a specific response to each one

?????????????? Develop a general policy response to apply to all applications for liquor licences

?????????????? Undertake community initiatives to address the impacts of alcohol abuse

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Applications for a liquor licence (LL) are made to the NSW Casino, Gaming and Racing Control Authority and all applications come to Council for comment. Further, Council has other opportunities to have input into the licensing process eg where there are proposed changes to operating hours, transfers of licenses between premises or owners and transfer of a licence off-site.

 

Also, Council receives notification when a charity or community group seeks an application to sell liquor at a sporting or community event.

 

Not all applications for a liquor licence require the preparation of a CIS, but most do ie. Hotel, Club, Packaged liquor and On-premises. For the latter it depends on the type of business. Applications relating to restaurants or a public entertainment venue (except a cinema or theatre) will require a CIS. ?Limited? applications and those for Producer/Wholesaler don?t. A CIS also provides Council with the opportunity to determine if an existing premises has development approval.

 

Liquor licence Only

 

For some premises which have an appropriate development approval for the activity, only a liquor licence application will be necessary.

 

These applications are currently dealt with by Council?s Health and Building staff who assess the proposal, however this is largely based on building and development controls with the following main areas being the focus:

 

?????????????? that an approval has been issued for public entertainment where this is proposed for a venue;

?????????????? any temporary structures for the activity have approval (Section 68 of the Local Government Act);

?????????????? the type of activity and timing of a function and its potential to create a noise problem; and

?????????????? compliance with other regulations eg. food handling/preparation.

 

Liquor licence and Development Application

 

Some proposals for a licensed premises will also require a Development Application ? as is the case for 50-54 Riverside Drive. For these proposals, the process is more complicated.

 

Two separate processes will be commenced ? one dealing with the LL and the other with the DA. Again depending on the type of licence a CIS may or may not be required, however the planning requirements may still require a social assessment in the form of a Social Impact Study (SIS). The two are similar in that they address similar issues, the difference is how they are prepared and for whom.

 

Where a CIS is required, the applicant must seek input from and consult with numerous people and organisations including the local council. This would be a council?s first opportunity for input into a LL in terms of social impact. A council may choose to make comment at this stage, or alternatively wait until the assessment of the DA. The latter will be the case for the Riverside Drive proposal.

 

Note: For the Riverside Drive Development Application, Council staff have met with the applicant and advised that a Development Application is needed, together with a social assessment as part of the Statement of Environmental Effects. This will be in the form of the Community Impact Statement.

 

In summary, for all applications for a LL in the Nambucca Shire, Council has the opportunity for direct input into proposal at the initial stage in the process and subsequently if a DA is required. Providing input at both stages can be useful, however it poses some problems and can create a dilemma for Council where a Development Application is involved ? how to have input into an assessment document (the CIS) that will be part of an application to be assessed by Council?

 

Additional liquor licences

 

According to the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing February 2009 report, there are currently 41 liquor licences in the Nambucca Shire consisting of 9 clubs, 7 hotels, 6 limited, 11 on-premises, 2 producer wholesaler and 6 packaged liquor. This level roughly equates to the NSW rate of 220 per 100,000 population, Nambucca is 229 per 100,000.

 

Note: The number of licences does not equate to number of premises as a location can have more than one licence eg. hotel plus packaged liquor. Also some licences are for events.

 

It is debatable that additional liquor licenses alone will have a negative impact on the community as there are many factors to take into account, not least the type and location of the premises proposed. Each proposal has its own set of considerations which should be considered on its own merits or otherwise.

 

Negative Impact of Alcohol Abuse on Community

 

When it comes to health and crime statistics, there are areas of concern in regard to the affects of alcohol consumption on the people of Nambucca Shire. During 2007 there were 143 alcohol related assaults in the Shire. This equates to a rate of 799:100,000 (NSW is 506 per 100,000 population). Unfortunately the Nambucca is also ahead of the State rates for weekend alcohol related assaults, alcohol related assaults occurring on licensed premises and incidents of driving under the influence of alcohol.

 

There may be factors other than the availability of alcohol which contribute to these statistics such as lack of transport and hours of operation of licensed premises however that is outside the scope of this report.

 

Statistics from NSW Department of Health also show areas of concern ? the North Coast Area Health Service region (which includes the Nambucca) show higher than state levels for Risk and High Risk Drinking Behaviour (2007 Report) and Alcohol Related Hospitalisations per Year (Reports in 2005-06 and 2006-07).

 

Where to from here?

 

For Nambucca Shire Council, the following are the main options:

 

1????????? Make no particular comment in regard to liquor licence applications

 

Council may decide not to provide comment on LL applications, however it would lose an opportunity to assist in the management of them and to request conditions about their operation. In addition, not commenting does not obviate Council from having to consider the social implications of additional licensed premises where a DA is lodged for Council?s determination.

 

2????????? Deal with requests as they arise and provide a specific response to each one

 

In general this is the approach Council currently takes. Applications arrive one by one and a response is prepared based on the individual details of each.

 

Choosing to use this option provides the opportunity for an application to be dealt with on its merit and for conditions of operation to be suggested to the NSW Casino, Gaming and Racing Control Authority for each individual premises eg hours of operation, improved lighting.

 

With or without a CIS, the applications can be assessed for social impacts in terms of hours of operation, noise and neighbourhood amenity. Comments can be submitted and conditions suggested to the NSW Casino, Gaming and Racing Control Authority for its determination. Largely these will be based around development and building. Issues such as community health, community well being and harm minimisation could be considered but how in reality how are these assessed and measured, and against what?

 

3????????? Develop a general policy response to apply to all applications for liquor licences

 

There are a number of paths Council could take when applying a policy response to applications for liquor licenses, ranging from a blanket objection to all LL applications, to developing a policy to manage how applications are dealt with eg. Social Impact Assessment Policy.

 

An objection to new applications for a LL may be desirable as a matter of principle and in recognition of the impacts of alcohol abuse on the community, however it is not a practical or desired approach as all applications would be treated the same whether for a drive-through bottle shop, an out-door dining area or new licensed restaurant. Further, there may be implications from a planning point of view as this may conflict with the outcome of a DA determination.

 

Perhaps a more general ?position? statement is appropriate, whereby Council can acknowledge the community concern regarding alcohol related violence, crime and health issues. This would be in the form of written advice to the NSW Casino, Gaming and Racing Control Authority to bring to its attention the high levels of alcohol related assault, drink driving and high risk drinking behaviour. Using this approach brings to the Authority?s attention Council?s and the community?s concern about the negative impact liquor can have on the community, whilst allowing due process to continue in the form of individual assessment of each liquor licence application.

 

4????????? Undertake community initiatives to address the impacts of alcohol abuse

 

Council is already undertaking some initiatives in this area and is taking a proactive approach. It has already made its views known in regard to consumption of alcohol in public places and the related crime and behaviour issues, by establishing two Alcohol Free Zones (Nambucca Heads and Bowraville). There are also numerous alcohol prohibited zones located in Council?s parks and reserves.

 

Council?s resolution in December 2008 to submit for funding for the ?Safer Women Around Nambucca Shire? project and then appoint a Community Safety Project Officer indicates a further commitment to community safety and well-being.

 

Council also has an endorsed Crime Prevention Plan and through its community services staff provides programs which include these types of issues (eg Resilient Young People?s Program in High Schools).

 

Council staff also attend and provide input into the Nambucca Valley Liquor Consultative Committee.

 

In researching other councils in the Mid North Coast, it appears that the type and level of involvement in applications for a LL vary depending on the council. Where a council has a Crime Prevention, Community Safety or Social Planning officer, the involvement may be quite specific and detailed. For Nambucca Shire Council with its limited resources, it appears the current approach is probably the most appropriate.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Director Environment and Planning

Manager Planning and Assessment

Manager Health and Building

Ranger

Various local Councils

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environment issues arising from this report.

 

Social

 

The appropriate management of applications for a liquor licence will have improved social outcomes for the community.

 

Economic

 

There are no identified economic impacts.

 


Risk

 

Nothing identified

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nothing identified.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No funding required as the report is for information.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.2????? DA2009/113????? 190809???????? Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning ????????

 

Summary:

 

Two separate subdivision applications submitted under the Rural-Residential Ballot were recently approved under Delegated Authority in accordance with the criteria set down by Council for the consideration of applications under the ballot.

 

Both subdivision proposals have vehicular access from Smiths Lane Congarinni North, which is a gravel unsealed Crown Road. In instances were subdivisions are proposed with access from Crown Roads, the Department of Lands require that the road is dedicated to Council as public road. To protect the public interest, Council has a long standing policy as stated in DCP(4) Subdivision, that Crown Roads required for access to a proposed subdivision will need to be upgraded and dedicated to Council as public road, with all costs being met by the applicant. The consents were issued on this basis, with requirements for Smiths Lane to be constructed to public road standard (including bitumen sealing) and dedicated to Council. It was hoped that the issuing of identical subdivision approvals would provide an opportunity for both landowners to share the costs of the road works. However, both landowners have requested that Council not enforce the requirements of the DCP in regard to road works on Smiths Lane.

 

One of the landowners (Mr Turnbull) does not wish to comply, because he feels it places an inequitable and unreasonable financial hardship on his development. The other landowner (Mr Smith) does not wish to comply because he feels that a strict interpretation of clause 16 of the NLEP 1995, allows the subdivision of his land, without requiring any upgrading of Smiths Lane. For reasons of convenience and consistency, both requests are dealt with in this report.??

 

As Council was very specific in establishing the criteria for applications under the ballot and a variation as requested to Council?s DCP(4) could result in Council having to construct a road which services private development from general ratepayers funds, the applications are presented to Council for direction before the applicants are provided with further advice.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council enforce its road upgrading requirements in accordance with DCP(4) and maintain its position as outlined to each applicant who sought to submit an Expression of Interest in the Rural-Residential Ballot.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are numerous option open to Council including the following:

 

1????????? Advise one or both of the applicants that no road upgrading is required in which case general ratepayers funds would be required to be expended on the construction of Smiths Lane to a public road standard.

 

2????????? Advise one or both of the applicants that partial road works or road works to a lesser standard are? required in which case general ratepayers funds would be required to be expended on the remaining or proper construction of Smiths Lane to a public road standard, and/or

 

3????????? Prepare a locality based Section 94 plan which would levy contributions and share the costs of road construction, based on the potential for future development off Smiths Lane. This could only be achieved if both applicants and Council were in agreement as the applications have already been issued.? Noting that ratepayer funds may need to be used to upgrade the road pending further development in the area (if ever).

 

Options 1 & 2 could have the effect of setting an undesirable precedent where developers are not prepared to accept the financial costs of servicing land and there is an unreasonable expectation that Council will subsidise private development.

 

Option 3 could be a costly and time consuming process that may not be justified given the limited development opportunities in the area. Additionally Council would be expected to make an initial upfront financial commitment to the road works in expectation that future developer contributions would fund the works.

 

All options are based on Smiths Lane being transferred to Council and dedicated as public road, as required by the Department of Lands.?

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

Following numerous representations to the Department of Planning (DoP) by Council seeking an additional/increased allocation of the "Quota" for the release of Rural-Residential lots within the shire, the DoP provided Council with a further 40 lots on 6 June 2008.

 

Leading up to this formal advice from the DoP, Council considered a report at its 5 June 2008 meeting when it was resolved:

 

5??????? That in the event that the Department of Planning provides an interim Quota over the entire ?broken black line? area of NLEP 1995, the following steps and criteria be applied for determining acceptance of rural-residential subdivision proposals under the interim Quota:

 

??????????? Call for Expressions of Interest (advertise for a 30 day period in the local paper and on Council?s Web site and include a note with the issue of Rates Notices mid July 2008).

??????????? Maximum number of lots in any one subdivision from any one person over any holding or existing holding would be three plus a residual.

??????????? The land the subject of the proposal must be accessed by a Class 1, 2 or 3 Bitumen sealed road.

??????????? The land not to be affected by the 1% ARI level.

??????????? A building envelope incorporating all necessary Fire Protection Zones must not require the removal/clearing of Native Vegetation.

??????????? The required rural buffers are achievable on the subject site and within the broken black line.

??????????? Must not require referral to DoP, DWE, DECC for separate approvals or permits.

??????????? Must meet all provisions of Council?s subdivision codes and LEP.

??????????? Applications must be able to be completed and lodged within 3 months.

??????????? Following the closing of the EOI process and provided the applications meet the above criteria a ballot system being applied.

 

6??????? That Council hold a public meeting regarding the draft Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy and the Department of Planning be invited to attend.

 

Council considered a further report at its 19 June 2008 meeting when it resolved:

 

That the following criteria be added to the criteria adopted at the 5 June 2008 Council meeting for the allocation of the 40 rural-residential lots:

 

The land being identified as Red on Map 23 of the Draft Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy.

 

A public meeting was subsequently held on 1 July 2008, at the Indoor Stadium at the Macksville High School which was attended by Councillors, Council staff, the Consultants, Department of Planning staff and a wide cross section of affected land owners.

 

Following the public meeting a Notice of Motion in regard to the "Criteria" for the acceptance of EOI's under the ballot was presented to the 3 July 2008 meeting when it was resolved:

 

That Council accept Expressions of Interest over the entire "broken black line" area of NLEP 1995 that is not coloured yellow on the Draft Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy maps.

 

2??????? That the allocation of the 40 lots be awarded by ballot for those proposals that meet the following criteria:

 

????????? Maximum number of lots in any one subdivision from any one person over any holding or existing holding would be three plus a residual.

 

????????? Must meet all provisions of Council's subdivision codes, LEP and DCP's.

 

????????? Applications must be able to be completed and lodged within three months.

 

????????? Following the closing of the EOI process and provided the applications meet the above criteria a ballot system being applied.

 

3?????? That, in consideration of applications submitted by those balloted persons, Council strictly adheres to its Incomplete Development Application policy.

 

That the Subdivision must be registered within three years of the date of consent.

 

The above criteria as set by Council following the public meeting on 1 July 2008 was very specific, with the following extract from Cr Hoban's Notice of Motion being relevant now as it was at the public meeting which led to the Notice of Motion.

 

SUMMARY

 

A number of equity issues were raised at the public meeting held 1 July 2008. In the interest of affording equal opportunity to all affected landholders, ?.

 

This Notice of Motion followed sentiments expressed by landowners at the meeting questioning why they should be excluded if they didn't meet the original road access criteria "The land the subject of the proposal must be accessed by a Class 1, 2 or 3 Bitumen sealed road." They claimed that they should be able to make this decision and if the road required upgrading then they are fully aware of that requirement.

 

 

Main Discussion

 

Both landowners (Mr Turnbull and Mr Smith), submitted Expressions of Interest (EOI) on 12 August 2008 and 1 September 2008 respectively. Both EOI's were acknowledged on the same day of receipt (see attached).

 

Following the ballot on 15 October 2009, the landowners were advised on 17 October 2008 (see attached) of their success in the ballot and advised of the requirements for the lodgement of a complete Development Application.

 

In relation to DA 2009/113 (Mr Turnbull) conditional approval was issued on 27 May 2009, which included the requirement to upgrade Smiths Lane to Council's public road standards in accordance with DCP(4). Being unsatisfied with the conditions, the landowner sought a Review of the Determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. However the application could not be reviewed under Section 82A as it was an Integrated Development and a review is not available under this section of the Act. The landowner was subsequently advised and has requested that the matter be referred to and considered by Council.

 

It should be noted that in 2003 Mr Turnbull completed a rural residential subdivision and was granted an exemption from bitumen sealing part of Smiths Lane on the provision of a landscape buffer being established along the road frontage in accordance with Council?s Policy.

 

In relation to DA 2009/119 (Mr Smith) conditional approval was issued on 12 June 2009, which included the identical requirement to upgrade Smiths Lane to Council's public road standards. In this case and despite the requirements of DCP(4), the landowner is asserting that a strict interpretation of Schedule 1 - Clause 16 (section d i) of the LEP does not require him to undertake any road works on Smiths Lane. The landowner has also requested the matter be considered by Council.

 

DCP(4) ? Subdivision (2006)

 

6.1.2? Vehicular Access and Road Frontage

 

Crown Roads

 

Crown roads that are required for access to a proposed subdivision will need to be upgraded and dedicated to Council as a public road. All costs associated with dedication are to be met by the applicant. Construction of the road will be to Council?s current standard as specified in its Aus-Spec #1 Design Specification.

 

The requirements of the DCP in relation to Crown Roads are unambiguous and both rural residential subdivision applications were correctly approved in accordance with the criteria set down by Council, ie Must meet all provisions of Council's subdivision codes, LEP and DCP's.

 

The applicants dispute with Council in relation to DA 2009/113 is one based on the perceived inequity of the imposition of the condition. This is in contrast to DA 2009/119, where the applicant asserts that there is an inherent inconsistency between the LEP and DCP and in such instances the LEP prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. Again, Council's criteria were that all applications Must meet all provisions of Council's subdivision codes, LEP and DCP's. (My emphasis for underline)

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 - Schedule 1 ? Clause 16 :

 

d?????? The land to be subdivided must be linked by a bitumen sealed road of at least two lane's width to the nearest urban centre, except where:

 

???????? i??????? the subdivision will excise not more than three allotments (which must be contiguous) from land that comprised a single allotment on 1 December 1995 or from land that comprised two or more adjoining or adjacent allotments on that date all of which were then owned by the same person or persons; and

????????????????? ii?????? the excised allotments and the residue allotment resulting from the subdivision will each have an area of 2ha or more, and

????????????????? iii????? the single allotment has not, or the adjoining or adjacent allotments have not, been subdivided since that date otherwise than to excise allotments each having an area of 40ha or more or to alter a boundary pursuant to Clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 4 - Development Without Consent;

 

In response to this point it is argued that the specific clause in the LEP is designed to ensure that rural residential subdivisions are serviced by bitumen sealed public roads and developers are required to upgrade existing public roads where necessary. The exception is where the applicant can demonstrate that they satisfy the relevant parts of clause 16. In this regard DA 2009/119 satisfies the above criteria, except that the land is not accessed from a public road under Council control, but a Crown Road under the control of the Department of Lands. Having referred the applications to the Department of Lands, Council have been notified that upon issuing of subdivision approval, the Department will transfer control of Smiths Lane to Council. This process is beyond Council?s control and is not recognised by clause 16 of the LEP.

 

The inclusion of the specific criteria requiring that all application Must meet all provisions of Council's subdivision codes, LEP and DCP's specifically addresses this particular issue and the argument put forward by the applicant is irrelevant as the application without the upgrading of Smith's Lane does not meet all provisions of Council's subdivision codes, LEP and DCP's.

 

Should Council resolve to not enforce its stated criteria for road access, it leaves itself open for criticism or possible class challenge from those landowners who initially made enquiries and were made aware of the access requirements of the LEP and DCP's and subsequently chose not to lodge an EOI due to the costs to comply.

 

All applications under the ballot have been determined under delegated authority in strict accordance with the criteria set down by Council and through its LEP and DCP's.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

 

Department of Lands

 

Both applications were referred to the Department of Lands on the basis that access is from Smiths Lane, which is an unsealed Crown Road not under the control of Council. The Department of Lands initiated their protocols for road transfer and advised Council that their authorisation for the application was subject to Smiths Lane being transferred to Council as Public Road.

 

The condition of consent requiring the landowners to construct and dedicate Smiths Lane is standard Council procedure as required by the Department of Lands in these circumstances.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are limited environmental issues associated with the construction of Smiths Lane, provided that the road works proceed in accordance with the conditions of development consent and any matters identified in the Statement of Environmental Effects are implemented and complied with.

 

Social

 

The combined subdivisions will result in an additional six (6) lots, each with a dwelling entitlement and dependent on access over Smiths Lane. At present Smiths Lane is maintained by private landowners, however it is considered unsuitable for the level of traffic likely to be generated by the development of the land.

 

There have already been concerns expressed to Council from adjoining landowners in relation to the standard of Smiths Lane. Two separate landowners took the opportunity to make a submission to Council during the notification period for the subdivision applications raising concerns with dust and on-going maintenance issues. They have an expectation that Smiths Lane will be upgraded to public road standard.

 

Economic

 

The upgrade of existing roads and construction of new roads is a standard requirement imposed on rural residential subdivision applications. It is consistent with a user pays principle that places the financial costs of the development on the landowner who benefits from the subdivision of their land and generates the demand for services. The alternative is for Council to take on additional responsibility by subsidising the true costs of private development.

 

Risk

 

At present Council is under no obligation to construct or maintain Smiths Lane. If Council choose to remove the conditions which require upgrading of the road, but the road is transferred and dedicated to Council as required by the Department of Lands, then landowners will have an expectation that Council should construct the road to public road standard and maintain the road. This places a large financial burden on Council and could set a precedent which would be unsustainable.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Impacts on budgets will be dependent on Council's decision whether to retain or remove the requirement for road works.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

Attachments:

1View

21831/2008 - Expression of Interest Rural-Residential Quota - A & B Smith

 

2View

21924/2008 - Acknowledgement of submission - Smith

 

3View

19986/2008 - Expression of Interest Rural-Residential Quota - P & A Turnbull

 

4View

20008/2008 - Acknowledgement of submission - Turnbull

 

5

24381/2008 - Data letter advising successful applicants of Ballot result EOI

 

6

18984/2009 - Memo with additional information

 

?

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 1

21831/2008 - Expression of Interest Rural-Residential Quota - A & B Smith

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 2

21924/2008 - Acknowledgement of submission - Smith

 

Enquiries to:???? Mr Nelson

Our Ref:????????? SF529

 

 

 

2 September 2008

 

 

 

Mr A W Smith

82 Smiths Lane

CONGARINNI NORTH?? NSW?? 2447

 

Dear Mr Smith

 

SUBMISSION IN RELATION TO NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) RURAL-RESIDENTIAL QUOTA

 

Council acknowledges receipt of your submission, received by Council on the 1 September 2008 in relation to the above EOI.

 

At the conclusion of the submission period your application will be considered in light of the criteria required and if it meets this criteria will be part of the ballot system for those who will be permitted to lodge a development application for rural-residential subdivision with Council as part of the 40 lot Quota.

 

Council thanks you for your submission and will contact you following the submission period and ballot to advise whether you were successful in being permitted to lodge a development application for rural-residential subdivision.

 

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact Council?s Environment and Planning Department on 6568 0229 between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm Monday to Friday.

 

Yours faithfully

G Meyers

DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING

 

bs

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 3

19986/2008 - Expression of Interest Rural-Residential Quota - P & A Turnbull

 


?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 4

20008/2008 - Acknowledgement of submission - Turnbull

 

Enquiries to:???? Mr Nelson

Our Ref:????????? SF1175

 

 

 

12 August 2008

 

 

 

Mr P M & Mrs A M Turnbull

13 Coogee Road

POINT CLARE? NSW? 2250

 

 

Dear Mr & Mrs Turnbull

 

SUBMISSION IN RELATION TO NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) RURAL-RESIDENTIAL QUOTA

 

Council acknowledges receipt of your submission, received by Council on the 12 August 2008 in relation to the above EOI.

 

At the conclusion of the submission period your application will be considered in light of the criteria required and if it meets this criteria will be part of the ballot system for those who will be permitted to lodge a development application for rural-residential subdivision with Council as part of the 40 lot Quota.

 

Council thanks you for your submission and will contact you following the submission period and ballot to advise whether you were successful in being permitted to lodge a development application for rural-residential subdivision.

 

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact Council?s Environment and Planning Department on 6568 0229 between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm Monday to Friday.

 

Yours faithfully

G Meyers

DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING

 

sh

 

 

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 5

24381/2008 - Data letter advising successful applicants of Ballot result EOI

 

Enquiries to:???? Mr Meyers

Our Ref:????????? SF1175

 

 

 

17 October 2008

 

 

 

?AuthorTitle? ?AuthorInitials? ?AuthorLast_Name?

?AuthorMailing_Address?

 

Dear ?AuthorTitle? ?AuthorLast_Name?

 

RURAL-RESIDENTIAL 40 LOT QUOTA ? SUCCESSFUL BALLOT

 

I wish to advise that your Expression of Interest (EOI) was one of the successful EIO?s to be drawn in the ballot for the available 40 lots (ballot draw attached).

 

The opportunity is now afforded to you to prepare your development application in accordance with Council?s Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plans and Policies and submit your completed and compliant application no later than close of business on Friday, 27 February 2009.

 

Should you have difficulty in meeting this deadline you should at your earliest convenience, advise Council outlining in specific detail, the reasons why you are unable to comply with the 27 February 2009 deadline. Whilst, Council may provide a short extension to submit the application, there are no guarantees that an extension may be afforded as Council has set clear and firm deadlines to ensure that the 40 lots are brought onto the market as soon as possible.

 

To assist you in preparing you application Council strongly recommends that you engage the services of a duly qualified and experienced professional to ensure that you address all requirements and provide sufficient information with your application. For your information, all of Council?s Planning documents are available for viewing and downloading free of charge from Council?s website www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au. Copies may also be purchased from Council?s Administration Centre, 44 Princess Street Macksville.

 

Council has resolved that it will strictly adhere to its Incomplete Development Application Policy to ensure that applications are determined promptly. An incomplete application may result in a refusal due to a lack of information.

 


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 5

24381/2008 - Data letter advising successful applicants of Ballot result EOI

 

2

 

?AuthorTitle? ?AuthorInitials? ?AuthorLast_Name?

17 October 2008

SF1175

 

 

 

The following resolution of Council is also provided for your information:

 

?????? Maximum number of lots in any one subdivision from any one person over any holding or existing holding would be three plus a residual.

 

?????? Must meet all provisions of Council's subdivision codes, LEP and DCP's.

 

?????? Applications must be able to be completed and lodged by 27 February 2009.

 

?????? That, in consideration of applications submitted by those balloted persons, Council strictly adheres to its Incomplete Development Application policy.

 

?????? That the Subdivision must be registered within three years of the date of consent.

 

To further assist you, please find enclosed Council?s Development Application Form, Requirements for Statement of Environmental Effects, Explanatory Notes and an extract from Council?s Bushfire Hazard Map showing your property in relation to Bushfire Prone Land. This latter information is provided as you may need to engage the services of a Bushfire Consultant to prepare a Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report to meet the requirements of the Rural Fire Service.

 

Your application may require referrals and approval from other Government Agencies (Integrated Development) which will require additional fees. You should ensure that you clarify these matters early and prior to submitting your application as other specific and more detailed information may be required.

 

Should you require further information in relation to this matter please contact Mr Grant Nelson on 02 6568 0248.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

G Meyers

DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING

 

GM:bs

Encs

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Resubmitted Report on conditions of consent for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119

Attachment 6

18984/2009 - Memo with additional information

 

M E M O R A N D U M

 

 

TO:???????????????????????????? MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND GENERAL MANAGER

 

FROM:?????????????????????? DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING

 

SUBJECT:?????????????? AGENDA FOR MEETING OF 6 AUGUST 2009 ? ITEM 10.4

 

DATE:??????????????????????? 31 JULY 2009

 

FILE NO:?????????????????? DA 2009/113 AND DA 2009/119

 

 

 

In relation to Item 10.4 of Council?s Agenda for its meeting of 6 August 2009, please find attached copies of submissions received this week in relation to these development applications, from Mr Turnbull and Mr Trent Wink (on behalf of Mr Smith).

 

Please consider these submissions when considering the report in Item 10.4.

 

 

 

 

Barb Sadler

 

bs

Enc


 

?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF1214??????????? 190809???????? Resubmitted Report on Section 138 Applications, bonds and footpath specifications

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council considered the following report at its 18 June 2009 meeting when it resolved:

 

That the matter be deferred so as to enable more information to be provided on the standard of concrete which can be provided with a rollover kerb.

 

The Director of Engineering has subsequently followed this matter up and confirms that a higher quality concrete may be used in conjunction with Kerb Machines when laying both roll over kerb and square kerb.

 

Having now confirmed the above, the matter is again submitted for Council's consideration and determination as to how it wishes to address implementation of a Road Access Bond, Section 138 applications and specifications for footpaths behind rollover kerb.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council implement the requirement for the payment of a Road Access bond where applicable, with the bond being $2,000, and that the proposed new charge be advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act after which a further report being prepared and presented to Council..

 

2????????? That Council require the lodgement and approval of Section 138 applications for all new developments and also where work will be required within the road reserve which must be accompanied by the required Road Access bond and a suitable Traffic Management Plan.

 

3????????? That Council amend its footpath specification where it is proposed to be installed with roll over kerb to require a minimum of F72 reinforcing mesh with 100mm thick concrete paving on a 50mm consolidated crushed granular bedding (90% compaction).

 

4????????? That Council accept the lodgement of an appropriate cash bond or bank guarantee where a developer wishes to defer the installation of footpaths which are required by a development consent. The cash bond or bank guarantee shall include estimated additional costs to cover inflation and restoration and repairs to the nature strip.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has a number options available to it from adopting the recommendations above, or adopting alternative recommendations.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report was presented to Council at its 18 June 2009 meeting when the matter was deferred pending further investigations which have subsequently been completed as outlined in the Summary section (above).

 


Report presented to Council 18 June 2009.

 

Council at its 21 May 2009, meeting resolved that a further report be prepared for a future General Purpose Committee meeting as follows:

 

a???????????????? That Council make a submission to the Nambucca Shire Council 2009 ? 2014 Draft Management Plan to reintroduce the requirement for the payment of Gutter and Footpath bonds where applicable, with the bonds being $750 each.

 

b???????????????? That Council require the lodgement and approval of Section 138 applications for all new developments and also where work will be required within the road reserve.

 

c???????????????? That Council amend its footpath specification where it is proposed to be installed with roll over kerb to require a minimum of F72 reinforcing mesh with 100mm thick concrete paving on a consolidated base.

 

d???????????????? That Council note the concerns of the Developer in regard to the drainage pits and lines associated with the "cut" and that a Cash Bond or Bank Guarantee covering Council estimated costs to do the works will be accepted as compliance with condition 14 of Development Consent for DA 2007/244.

 

e???????????????? That Council receive a bond from the developer for footpath construction with the construction not to occur until after the majority of houses have been built.

 

This report will further address the numerous issues, benefits and disadvantages along with the potential budget issues and liabilities.

 

The discussion section of the report is prepared in the same order of the above resolutions.

 

a????????? That Council make a submission to the Nambucca Shire Council 2009 ? 2014 Draft Management Plan to reintroduce the requirement for the payment of Gutter and Footpath bonds where applicable, with the bonds being $750 each.

 

b????????? That Council require the lodgement and approval of Section 138 applications for all new developments and also where work will be required within the road reserve.

 

Council's Draft Management Plan is currently on exhibition until Wednesday 10 June 2009. As this meeting is scheduled to occur after the closing period for the Draft Management Plan a submission has been made in accordance with this report and recommendation.

 

In the previous report Council was advised that considerable footpath damage has occurred to the footpaths that were laid in accordance with the conditions of consent for the Ocean Waves Estate in Valla Beach. Whilst the footpath damage in this instance is significant, footpath damage is often caused due to heavy construction vehicles driving over the footpaths during the construction phase of new dwellings and alterations and additions being built in both new and already established areas of the shire.

 

In the past Council used to charge a Kerb and Gutter bond and a footpath bond to ensure that any damage was rectified prior to the final inspection/Occupation Certificate was issued. The bonds used to be $500 each. The cost for accounting for these bonds was always an issue when final inspections were never requested etc and Council has for many years held bonds that were not claimed and/or refunded.

 

With numerous Legislative changes, the increase in Private Accredited Certifiers issuing Complying Development Certificates and representations to the General Manager from several local developers and project home builders regarding Nambucca Shire's requirements for Section 138 Certificates (Work within the Road Reserve) a meeting was held between Engineering, Planning and Building staff and the General Manager to try and resolve the issues with S138's, bonds and Council's regulatory responsibilities with Traffic Management and Controls when working in the Road Reserves, inspection of footpath/gutter crossings, provision of cross fall levels for that part of the driveway within the road reserve and the process to activate a release of the bonds.

 

From this meeting a directive was issued that from 1 July 2007, bonds were no longer to be required, and a reduced level of information was required for Section 138 applications.

 

At the 20 May 2009, GPC meeting discussions were had in regard to the amount of the bond that should be required by Council. The report recommended $750 as it was considered that the previous $500 was insufficient.

 

The cost to have the damaged footpath will vary depending upon the amount of damage. Often 2 -3 meters of footpath needs replacing. A typical cost for this would be: 2 workers for 1 day, formwork, truck & bobcat to remove damaged concrete, new reinforcement and concrete. The suggested $750 - $1,000 footpath/nature strip bond would normally cover the repair costs if the contractor was not to repair the damage.

 

Damage to the kerb and gutter can be equally or even a more expensive process due to the removal and forming up for kerbs and gutters and the rectification works associated with the road and/or nature strip. As such, a suggested $750 - $1000 kerb and gutter bond is reasonable.

 

For a new development, both bonds would be required or alternatively Council could instigate one bond of $1500 - $2000 and call it a road access or road reserve bond.

 

In regard to lodgement of Section 138 applications and Council's responsibilities to regulate the Roads Act, Council has in the past only dealt with matters as resources permit. There are many instances where applications are not made and many occurrence of trucks parking in a street to deliver building material with no traffic control or cranes operating in or over a road reserve again without traffic control or approval.

 

Section 138 applications are not related only to new developments but any work or activity undertaken within a Road Reserve, such as furniture removalists where they park illegally, sign writers who erect scaffold within the road reserve, builders renovating business awnings etc.

 

Issues regarding Bonds and Section 138 applications are:

 

?????????????? Requiring Bonds with the S138 application for new development or where a building or development approval is required provides some recourse for Council to have damaged gutters/footpaths repaired or replaced, irrespective of whether the PCA is Council or a Private Certifier.

?????????????? The requirement for a S138 can always be controlled where a building or development approval is required irrespective if it is a full Development Application or Complying Development as it can be conditioned in the DA consent and for Complying Developments it is a Legislative Requirement that a S138 approval is first obtained.

?????????????? Occupation or Interim Occupation Certificates must be issued for either a full DA proposal or Complying Development which would trigger the inspection of the site for possible refund of the bond.

?????????????? The non refund of bonds provides for additional Trust Account management and a liability for Council if a vigorous process is not instigated and maintained.

?????????????? The provision of Traffic Management Plans (TMP) to accompany the S138 can only be meet by engaging an appropriately qualified and accredited person/company to prepare the plan and have the plan implemented when works within the road reserve are undertaken, to remove Council's exposure should an accident or incident arise.

?????????????? Council's inconsistent ability to regulate and police the requirements of the Roads Act due to lack of resources provides considerable risk to Council.

?????????????? Impact on Council's Works Overseer or Assistant Overseer to inspect all gutter crossings and driveways within the road reserve.

 


Actions that need to be implemented:

 

?????????????? An internal referral process needs to be ratified between Environment and Planning Support staff when the request for an Occupation Certificate is made or received from a Private Certifier, the Building Surveyor or Engineering Staff inspecting the footpaths and the Finance Staff involved in the refund of the bonds.

 

c??????? That Council amend its footpath specification where it is proposed to be installed with roll over kerb to require a minimum of F72 reinforcing mesh with 100mm thick concrete paving on a consolidated base.

 

e??????? That Council receive a bond from the developer for footpath construction with the construction not to occur until after the majority of houses have been built.

 

 

Council's current specifications for pedestrian footpaths provides for 1200mm wide, 100mm thick on 50mm compacted sub grade if on fill or poor subgrade material. Reinforcing is only required at vehicular crossings along with an increased thickness of 125mm.

 

Whilst the above specifications may be adequate for square kerb and gutter, they are inadequate where rollover kerb is used. Council has no special specification in this regard which has led to some degree to the problems at Valla Beach.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council develops a specification for rollover kerb requiring pedestrian footpaths to be 100mm thick with F72 reinforcing fabric on 50mm compacted crushed granular bedding (90% compaction).

 

Accepting bonds for footpaths in new subdivisions in lieu of the footpaths being constructed provides both advantages and disadvantages.

 

The engineering designs for the subdivision will be assessed and the developer advised of their approval. In some instances the developer will elect to install the footpaths (as in the Valla Waves Estate) or may elect to bond them and Council installs the footpaths at a later stage (as in Langsford Way and Edgewater Estate).

 

With the footpaths being laid at subdivision stage the levels are generally set which control driveway crossfalls etc. However, as was noticed at Valla Waves Estate due to the topography and cut and fill, some sections of the footpath have been cut out and married into suit the driveway which makes for an uneven footpath. The footpaths are also then vulnerable to damage from construction vehicles crossing or driving on or over the footpaths.

 

By not installing the footpaths initially, and deferring their installation until 50-75% of lots are developed does overcome a large amount of the damage that can occur. However, should Council head down this path it may be met with some reluctance from the developer as the cash bond/bank guarantee will need to take into account additional costs that are likely to be encountered due to the passage of time from when the bonds are provided, the time taken for lots to be developed and varying landscaping and finished levels within the road reserve which will need to be married in or made good once the footpath goes in. If these additional costs are not taken into account General Fund would have to contribute to any shortfall.

 

As is identified there are both benefits and disadvantages for deferring footpath installation. It is considered that an amended specification for footpaths for rollback kerbs, the reintroduction of a road access bond, requirements for Section 138 certificates to be lodged and the option of deferring footpath installations subject to an appropriate cash bond or bank guarantee being provided will go some way towards addressing the issues.

 


d????????? That Council note the concerns of the Developer in regard to the drainage pits and lines associated with the "cut" and that a Cash Bond or Bank Guarantee covering Council estimated costs to do the works will be accepted as compliance with condition 14 of Development Consent for DA 2007/244.

 

This matter has progressed between the Developers and Council staff and several steps have been implemented and being pursued to negate the need for bonding the works where an agreement will be provided by the vacant landowners acknowledging and requiring the retaining wall drainage lines to be installed and connected during and in conjunction with the construction of buildings on the sites.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Health and Building Services

Manager of Works

Senior Health and Building Surveyor

 

The General Manager does not support the proposed regulatory system for domestic work because of its costs, delays and staffing requirements. An inadequately resourced regulatory regime may pose more risk than a regime which placed more onuses on the application.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Damage to footpaths, kerb and gutter and nature strips can contribute to soil and erosion run off which does impact on the environment.

 

Social

 

Damage to footpaths, kerb and gutter and nature strips has social impacts as pedestrians are inconvenienced due to the damaged footpaths etc.

 

Economic

 

Repairs to damaged footpaths by those who damaged or responsible for the damage will incur a financial cost. The provision of a cash bonds or bank guarantees will incur additional costs for the developer.

 

Risk

 

Damaged footpaths expose Council should anyone trip on them. Undertaking work within a Road Reserve may lead to that person being liable in the event of an accident. Not regulating working within a Road Reserve places considerable risk on Council

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Where the footpaths are not rectified by contractors etc, Council will need to undertake the repairs which will impact on its footpath program or other maintenance works as this would be funded directly from General Fund.

 

Accepting Bonds for footpaths as part of a subdivision could incur costs on Council and the ratepayers if the footpaths are not constructed for a considerable time and the bonds fall short of the actual costs.

 


Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

General Fund

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF532????????????? 190809???????? Report on Draft Development Control - Sediment and Erosion Control

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Compliance Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with the recommendations and Actions from the recently adopted Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan, a Draft Development Control Plan - Guidelines for Sediment and Erosion Control, has been developed to ensure tighter development control of pollution incidents on building and development sites within the Shire.

 

This DCP together with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 will provide Council staff? with additional guidelines to ensure less sediment and pollution from building sites end up in Council's stormwater infrastructure and our waterways.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the draft Development Control Plan - Guidelines for Sediment and Erosion Control be placed on public exhibition for a period of twenty eight (28) days.

 

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 DCP.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Draft DCP be placed on exhibition for public comment as recommended.

 

2??????? Draft DCP be amended prior to placing it on public exhibition.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Erosion is the degradation and removal of soil by the movement of water. Sediment control is the physical control of erosion and the depositional processes that produce excess sediment on building sites. Erosion occurs in a short period during, and immediately after, the site disturbance stages of a development or activity on a site.

 

Sediment removed by erosion damages lower land, blocks stormwater drains, and is eventually deposited in the receiving waters. The result is turbidity in natural water bodies, a reduction of recreational value, damage to the aquatic environment, smothering of seagrasses and shoaling further downstream in the estuary.

 

Eroded land represents a cost to the landowner/developer, the purchaser, or the rate paying community. Restoration may require the repair or renewal of underground services, reforming the soil surface to fill minor gullies and rills, importing topsoil to replace that lost by erosion or burial during the construction process, and establishing stabilising ground cover. For example a single building block can lose four truckloads of soil in one major storm event.

 

Erosion control measures must be implemented during all stages of development to minimise sediment generation. The control of erosion as close to the source as possible can reduce the subsequent demand on sediment trapping structures,

 

The implementation of a range of erosion control techniques, to manage stormwater run off at a non-erosive velocity and by protecting disturbed soil surfaces, can maintain stability and prevent erosion.

 

The aim of the sediment and erosion control DCP is to:

 

?????????????? Enable Council officers to educate the community and enforce the accepted methods of erosion and sediment control to all sites where development is taking place.

?????????????? Minimise erosion and sedimentation from all sites within Nambucca Shire, resulting from the disturbance of the soil surface associated with urban development, building works, changes in land use, installation of services and infrastructure and the subsequent disposal of stormwater into receiving waters.

?????????????? Conserve vegetation cover throughout the catchment by control of the location, timing, extent and nature of land clearing.

?????????????? Minimise erosion of disturbed ground within building and development sites through the control of surface water quantity and flow paths.

?????????????? Intercept and contain eroded material from building and development sites, avoiding the transfer to adjoining lands and waters of mobilised sediments from these sites.

?????????????? Ensure prompt, practical and effective stabilisation of disturbed lands through control of the location, timing, extent and nature of rehabilitation and landscaping measures.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director, Environment and Planning

Manager, Health and Building

Strategic Planner

Senior Town Planner

Building Surveyors

Councillors

 

Reprinted below are the comments received and Council staff response to those comments and noted where it is now included in the Draft DCP (attached).

 

 

Page Number

Proposed Changes/Comments/Questions

Staff Response

1

Title page

Why is this doc referred to as Guidelines, when they are enforceable under leg? A suitable title might be ?Erosion and Sediment Control Plan? or ?Manual?

Title is now ?Erosion and Sediment Control?

2

General comment

It would be useful to have photos of good practice and bad practice, plumes, erosion types, rilling etc also diagrams of appropriate structures, construction. Photos will probably be too expensive to produce for hard copy but would be possible for electronic version

It is not recommended practice, as site specific works maybe required and this can make Council liable. There are fact sheets available of Council?s website with more information on typical examples of controls

3

P1 1.1

Change to - ?Guidelines and Requirements for Erosion and Sediment control (2009)?

See point 1

4

P1 1.4

Again the reference to only a guideline here suggests the doc has no teeth, when in fact under the Act it does. Section 2.3 set out the requirements. Although aspects of the doc might be guideline ? ish other parts are requirements so perhaps it could read ?This DCP provides guidelines for best practice and covers requirements for erosion and sediment control under the Nambucca Local Environment Plan? etc

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

5

P1 1.5 3rd para

This plan is to be implemented 1) at the development application stage, 2) prior to commencement of any works when the extent of the earthworks is revealed 3) during works and 4) if any amendment to a development approval requires further erosion and sediment control considerations.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

6

P2 1.6 (a)

The first aim refers to education of the community but nowhere in the plan is there any explanation as to how this might be achieved. A small section relating to education/awareness would be useful. It should outline actions which staff and council as a whole can take to improve the public?s awareness of erosion and sediment control. The section can be qualified with regard to actions and or extent of actions being dependant upon available funds etc.? Actions (apart from the obvious one of staff talking with developers re DAs and requirements) could include media releases, newsletter articles, info sessions for developers, builders, a dedicated section of website with good links, perhaps a best practice pamphlet. Awareness raising should also include information as to how community members can respond to possible pollution events or potential pollution event ie by contacting Council etc.

Point a now reads ?To enable Council offices to reinforce the???

7

P 2 1.6 (c)

?To conserve vegetation cover throughout the catchment by minimizing land clearing and where vegetation removal is necessary, by controlling the location, timing extent and nature of land clearing?

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

8

P2 1.6

Suggest additional point (g) ensure effective use of this plan for improved sediment and erosion control practices within the catchment and to enforce compliance of relevant standards therein.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

9

P3 2.1 first sentence

Should include wind ie ?Erosion is the degradation and removal of soil by the movement of water and/ or wind?.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

10

P3 2.1 2nd sentence

Key statement but rather ?lumpy? and only refers to building sites. Might read better as ?Sediment control is the physical control by various means, of erosion and sediment run off created by disturbance of soil surfaces?.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

11

P3 2.1 3rd sentence

This sentence is misleading. Erosion hopefully won?t occur if adequate measures are taken. But to say that it only occurs in a short period during and immediately after the construction stage of a site is patently wrong. It can occur during, immediately after and for considerable time after perhaps even ongoing in poorly managed, monitored, enforced examples. There are plenty of examples around the shire. Take for example rural roads!! This sentence should be deleted

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

12

P3 2.1 3rd para

Suggest ?Eroded land represents a cost to the developer, the purchaser, the environment and downstream water users and industries. It can also represent a cost to ratepayers if remediation is required.?

Statement at end of this para would benefit from a reference.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

13

P3 2.1 last para.

Might read better as ?The implementation of a range of erosion control techniques to manage stormwater run off at a non-erosive velocity protection of disturbed soils surfaces, can maintain ?etc

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

14

P4 2.2

I think the second and third paras would be better as the first and second ? they are clear position statements.?

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

15

P4 2.3.2

Last qualifying statement could also state Council retains the discretion to decide whether a proposed sediment control plan is adequate.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

16

P4 2.3.7 last sentence

Why only within reinstatement of control measures within same working day. If they are removed for example on a Fri night this plan would only require reinstatement by Mon pm ? this is not good enough. Structure should be reinstated within 24hrs and if this is not possible clear justification should be provided as to why not, in which case Council should take action to ensure no risk of pollution to the environment and charge works to developer.

?Working? deleted from sentence

17

P5 3.0

I agree with the statements in the 1st para however there is very little real information in the DCP for the general community with regard to sediment controls. Perhaps this aspect could be expanded upon in this or future versions.

This document is a DCP and will be part of Development Conditions, Fact sheets available on Council?s website is more tailored to thel community.

18

P6 4.2.1

ESCP also necessary to give clear concise directions relating to erosion and sediment control requirements to all relevant parties involved in the development/activity.

Also the 2nd dot doesn?t make sense. Disturbance of erosion? Suggest ?soil disturbance is kept to a minimum and the potential for erosion and sedimentation is either eliminated or a least kept to a minimum.?

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

19

P6 4.3.1 Second dot

needs to be clearer ie ?features and limitations of the site? is not specific enough. Should refer to slope, existing vegetation esp. ground cover and, watercourses, drainage lines, soil types (? Soil mapping) including ASS, built structures affecting runoff etc

 

This info is fundamental to developing an adequate ESCP

listing every feature and limitation any omissions, Council may be liable. Albeit it is general but a ESCP is more concise and will identify the unique features and limitations of the site in question..

20

P6 4.3.1

Last dot

Suggest ?Minimise the potential for sediment laden water to leave the site and/or enter a stormwater drain, water body or water course?.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

21

P6 4.5

Suggest ?An ESCP shall include but not be limited to the following details:?

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

22

P6 4.6 (c)

This point ie overall site rehabilitation is critical to the success of any erosion and sediment control strategy and should be part of the actual ESCP rather than ?additional information? (and brief at that!), which suggests an afterthought. Suggest placing this point in the list above at 4.5 and that it not be just ?brief? but detailed.

This is supporting information and is not a part of the ESCP. Many developments have a Site Vegetation Plan as part of the DA.

23

P8 5.2

Reference should be made to suitable publications eg Nambucca Valley Vegetation and Planting Guide (available online at Nambucca Landcare website at

http://www.nvlandcare.org.au/downloads/dlVegPlantGuide.pdf

?and sources of information ie NV Landcare for appropriate species selection

This maybe a good idea, although the planting guide is for native species only and some owners may prefer different species. Copies are available at the front counter.

24

P 8 5.3

Why the reference to ?opening large tracts of land?!!!! suggest take climatic considerations into account before ANY vegetation removal and soil disturbance.

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

25

P8 5.6

The statement that ? There are various methods of sediment traps and the most appropriate method should be implemented? is obvious but unhelpful. Surely reference should be made specifically to various methods and application. This whole section is I think very light on in solid info and guidance.

If Council recommends specific silt traps and they fail, Council may be liable

26

P9 5.9 (c)

Diverting upslope water might not be appropriate in all circumstance eg if there is a dependant ecosystem downstream. This should be considered and measurers implemented to deliver the water downstream of the site to the original receiving ecosystem.

Change not accepted

If water is allowed to flow through a building site to collect sediment, then the sediment lain water will reach the ecosystem, upslope diversion is only around the building site to allow excess water to drain away clear and not impact upon the receiving waters.

27

P9 5.9 (g)

Washing should not just be ?unacceptable? but forbidden

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

28

P9 5.9 (i)

Structures should be maintained until site is stabilized and risk of erosion and/or sedimentation has ceased ie this may be for some time after construction completed

Accepted, changes made to draft DCP

29

General comment

Judging by the reference section it appears that other council?s erosion and sediment Control Plans were not considered. There are some very good plans out there that could provide guidance in developing a more comprehensive plan over time. In particular Sunshine coast regional Council November 2008

http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/environment/erosion/Erosion_manual_ackn_contents.pdf

This plan is very detailed with its site assessment chapter giving significant detailed information regarding erodibility etc. Getting the site assessment right is the critical first step to developing an appropriate ESCP.

Auburn Council, Manly Council, Port Stephens Council and Liverpool Councils? Erosion and Sediment DCP?s were used in the making of the Nambucca DCP, the information contained in them was technically all the same as they used the documents referenced in the Nambucca DCP.

 

The Nambucca DCP was completed in May 2008 before the Sunshine Coast one was released.

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

With the implementation of a DCP it is expected that there will be a reduced loss of sediment from development sites. Water quality improved with decreased turbidity from development site run off. Sedimentation of seagrass beds will be reduced downstream, fish habitat will improve in the river. Decreased silting of nearby wetlands in new subdivisions.

 

Social

 

None identified

 

Economic

 

The time spent by Council staff dealing with sediment control issues on building sites will be reduced as issues will be easily dealt with, by using the DCP. The reduced maintenance on Council drainage infrastructure.

 

Risk

 

None identified

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

 

Attachments:

1View

17416/2009 - DCP - Erosion and Sediment Control

 

?

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on Draft Development Control - Sediment and Erosion Control

Attachment 1

17416/2009 - DCP - Erosion and Sediment Control

 

 

Nambucca Shire Council

 
 

 

 

 

 


Development Control Plan

 

 

2009

 

 

 

Erosion and

Sediment Control

 


Our Vision

 

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best

 

Our Mission Statement

 

?The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.?

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on Draft Development Control - Sediment and Erosion Control

Attachment 1

17416/2009 - DCP - Erosion and Sediment Control

 

Table of Contents

 

 

1.0?????? INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1?????? CITATION....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2?????? ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3?????? LAND TO WHICH THIS PLAN APPLIES.................................................................................................................. 1

1.4?????? APPLICATION OF PLAN............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.5?????? RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.6?????? AIMS OF THIS PLAN................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.7?????? DEFINITIONS (ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979)........................................... 2

2.0?????? EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA???? 3

2.1?????? WHAT IS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL.................................................................................................. 3

2.2?????? EXPECTATIONS OF NAMBUCCA COUNCIL......................................................................................................... 4

2.3?????? REQUIREMENTS OF THE DCP................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0?????? IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN...................................................................... 5

4.0?????? EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS (ESCP?s)..................................................................................... 6

4.1?????? FORM OF ESCP?s.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2?????? NEED FOR A ESCP........................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.3?????? AIM OF ESCP................................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.4?????? PREPARATION OF ESCP............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.5?????? THE SITE PLAN............................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.6?????? SUPPORTING INFORMATION................................................................................................................................... 7

4.7?????? CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, CIRCULATION AND NOTES.................................................................................. 7

5.0?????? MINIMUM EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STANDARDS....................................................................... 8

5.1?????? BUILDING MATERIAL STOCKPILES....................................................................................................................... 8

5.2?????? PROGRESSIVE REVEGETATION AND STABILISATION..................................................................................... 8

5.3?????? CLIMATE CONSIDERATION...................................................................................................................................... 8

5.4?????? ROOF GUTTERING........................................................................................................................................................ 8

5.5?????? SEDIMENT FENCING.................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.6?????? SEDIMENT TRAPS........................................................................................................................................................ 9

5.7 ?????? SITE ACCESS.................................................................................................................................................................. 9

5.8?????? TURF FILTER STRIPS................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.9?????? CHECKLIST OF EROSION AND CONTROL MEASURES FOR A DEVELOPMENT SITE................................ 9

6.0?????? PENALTIES FOR NON COMPLIANCE...................................................................................................................... 10

6.1?????? CAUSING A POLLUTION INCIDENT...................................................................................................................... 10

6.2?????? FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBMITTED ESCP............................................................................................... 11

6.3?????? LEGISLATION.............................................................................................................................................................. 11

7.0?????? REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.......................................................................................................................................... 12

 


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on Draft Development Control - Sediment and Erosion Control

Attachment 1

17416/2009 - DCP - Erosion and Sediment Control

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on Draft Development Control - Sediment and Erosion Control

Attachment 1

17416/2009 - DCP - Erosion and Sediment Control

 

1.0?????? INTRODUCTION

 

1.1???????? CITATION

 

This Plan may be cited as Nambucca Control Plan (DCP) No XX ? Erosion and Sediment Control (2009).

 

 

1.2???????? ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN

 

This plan was adopted by Council on XXXXXXXXX

 

 

1.3???????? LAND TO WHICH THIS PLAN APPLIES

 

This plan applies to land to which Nambucca Local Environment Plan 1995 (NLEP) applies.

 

It also applies to all sites for which an application for development activity outlined in clause 2.3, including those carried out by or on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council where there is internal site works or other works that have or could have the potential to involve:

 

???????? The disturbance of the soil surface including that which arises from clearing, levelling, shaping, filling, excavation and/or placement of fill thereon; or

 

???????? Any changes in the rate and/or volume of run-off entering, directly or indirectly, to any waters or flows over land.

 

 

1.4???????? APPLICATION OF PLAN

 

This DCP provides guidelines for best practice and covers requirements for erosion and sediment control on building development sites within the Nambucca Shire Council Local Government Area. In assessing development proposals, Council will have regard to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979; how the development conforms to the provisions of this DCP; and how it satisfies the objectives and principles of other relevant legislation and planning controls.

 

 

1.5???????? RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS

 

This DCP applies to all forms of development as defined under the Nambucca Council Local Environment Plan 1995 or otherwise defined under this plan and meets the objectives of the Protection of the Environmental Operations Act 1997 and the regulations made thereunder.

 

This DCP should be read in conjunction with Councils existing Development Control Plans and Policies for the type of development proposed and more specific requirements.

 

The Plan is to be implemented at 1) the development application stage; 2) prior to commencement of any works when the extent of the earthworks for the site is revealed; 3) during works and; 4) if any amendment to a development approval requires further erosion and sediment control considerations. Developers and applicants are encouraged to consult with Council Officers prior to the preparation of their development applications.

 


1.6???????? AIMS OF THIS PLAN

 

The aims of this DCP are:

 

a??????? To enable Council officers to educate the community and reinforce the accepted methods of erosion and sediment control to all sites where development is taking place.

b??????? To minimise erosion and sedimentation from all sites within Nambucca Shire, resulting from the disturbance of the soil surface associated with urban development, building works, changes in land use, installation of services and infrastructure and the subsequent disposal of stormwater into receiving waters.

c??????? To conserve vegetation cover throughout the catchment by minimising land clearing and where vegetation removal is necessary, by controlling the location, timing extent and nature of land clearing.

d??????? To minimise erosion of disturbed ground within building and development sites through the control of surface water quantity and flow paths.

e??????? To intercept and contain eroded material from building and development sites, avoiding the transfer to adjoining lands and waters of mobilised sediments from these sites.

f???????? To ensure prompt, practical and effective stabilisation of disturbed lands through control of the location, timing, extent and nature of rehabilitation and landscaping measures.

g??????? To ensure effective use of this plan for improved sediment and erosion control practices within the catchment and to enforce compliance of relevant standards therein.

 

 

1.7???????? DEFINITIONS (ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979)

 

Activity:

a??????? the use of land, and

b??????? the subdivision of land, and

c??????? the erection of a building, and

d??????? the carrying out of a work, and

e??????? the demolition of a building or work, and

f???????? any other act, matter or thing referred to in Section 26 that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition, but does not include,

g??????? any act, matter or thing for which development consent under Part 4 is required or has been obtained, or

h??????? any act, matter or thing which is prohibited under an environmental planning instrument, or

i???????? exempt development, or

j???????? development carried out in compliance with an order under Division 2A of Part 6, or

k??????? any development of a class or description that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.

 

Approval ? Consent or authorisation given by an appropriate authority.

 

Building Works ? Any physical activity involved in the erection of a building.

 

Council ? Nambucca Shire Council.

 

Council Activity ? Includes any activity on land owned by or on behalf of Council outlined in section 2 of Council?s Erosion and Sediment Control Development Control Plan.

 

DCP ? Development Control Plan.

 

Development ? In relation to use of land:

a??????? The erection of a building on that land;

b??????? The carrying out of a work in, on, over or under that land;

c??????? The use of that land or of a building or work on that land; and

d??????? The subdivision of that land.

 

EP&A Act ? Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Erosion ? The removal and/or transport of soil or materials from a given area, by the processes of wind, water and or/gravity.

 

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESCP) ? A plan showing how potential erosion and sedimentation occurring on a given site, as a result of building, development or an activity, will be minimised.

 

Land Use ? Refer to definition for activity.

 

Sediment ? Material of varying size, both mineral and organic, that is being, or has been, moved from its site of origin by the process of wind, water and or gravity and comes to rest on the earth?s surface either above or below sea level. Fine sediment is a fraction of sediment consisting of silt (particles 0.002mm ? 0.02mm in diameter) and clay (particles <0.002mm in diameter).

 

Sedimentation ?The deposition of eroded soil, sediment or other material.

 

Subdivision ? Dividing land into parts.

 

Waters ? Any river, stream, lake, lagoon, swamp, wetlands, unconfined surface water, natural or artificial watercourse, dam or tidal waters (including the sea), or part thereof, and includes water stored artificial works, water mains, water pipes, and water channels, and any underground or artesian water, or any part thereof.

 

 

 

2.0?????? EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

 

2.1???????? WHAT IS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

 

Erosion is the degradation and removal of soil by the movement of water and/or wind. Sediment control is the physical control by various means, of erosion and sediment run off created by disturbance of soil surfaces. Erosion can occur in a short period such as prior (after vegetation clearing), during, and after, the construction stage of a site.

 

Sediment removed by erosion damages lower land, blocks stormwater drains, and is eventually deposited in the receiving waters. The result is turbidity in natural water bodies, a reduction of recreational value, damage to the aquatic environment, smothering of seagrasses and shoaling further downstream in the estuary.

 

Eroded land represents a cost to the developer, the purchaser, the environment and downstream water users and industries. It can also represent a cost to ratepayers if remediation is required. Restoration may require the repair or renewal of underground services, reforming the soil surface to fill minor gullies and rills, importing topsoil to replace that lost by erosion or burial during the construction process, and establishing stabilising ground cover. For example a single building block can lose four truckloads of soil in one storm (DECCW 2009).

 

Erosion control measures must be implemented during all stages of development to minimise sediment generation. The control of erosion as close to the source as possible can reduce the subsequent demand on sediment trapping structures,

 

The implementation of a range of erosion control techniques, to manage stormwater run off at a non-erosive velocity protection of disturbed soil surfaces, can maintain stability and prevent erosion.


2.2???????? EXPECTATIONS OF NAMBUCCA COUNCIL

 

This DCP is a statement of Nambucca Shire Council?s requirements and expectations for the MINIMUM standards for erosion and sediment control.

 

Should you require further information regarding Nambucca Shire Council?s Development Control Plan - Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control please contact Council's Environment and Planning Department.

 

The successful implementation of this DCP will establish the minimum standards that Nambucca Shire Council expects from development sites. Combining both education and compliance, pollution caused by excessive sediment loads from the construction sites will decrease over time and lessen the impact that development has on the Shires land and waterways.

 

Nambucca Shire Council has a commitment to minimise the amount of soil that is being removed from our catchment through stormwater run-off, by ensuring that the development activities within the Nambucca LGA are approached in an ecologically sustainable manner.

 

 

2.3???????? REQUIREMENTS OF THE DCP

 

2.3.1????? During the undertaking of any works specified in clause 1.3, all soil materials arising from the removal of vegetation, clearing, levelling, filling, excavation and/or disturbance of any site, including the placement of any building material stock piles shall be wholly contained on the site and not be permitted to enter adjacent lands, street gutters, drains and/or waters.

 

2.3.2????? To satisfy clause 2.3.1, the person responsible for a site to which this DCP applies shall:

 

????????? Prepare and implement an approved ESCP which specifies how erosion and sedimentation will be controlled, including the removal method of excess water on site; and

????????? Act upon a condition(s) attached to the development consent which specifies how erosion and sedimentation will be controlled; and

????????? Implement erosion and sediment control measures specified in the development application, Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993, or activity specification. These provisions are covered in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979; and

????????? Implement erosion and sediment control measures specified in this DCP.

????????? Council retains the discretion to the discretion to decide whether a proposed ESCP is adequate.

 

Nambucca Shire Council retains the discretion to decide when an erosion and sediment control plan is required.

 

2.3.3????? Where an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) is required, Council, or Private Certifier approval must be obtained prior to any soil disturbance (as per clause 1.3) occurring.

 

2.3.4????? The person/s supervising the construction and maintenance of all erosion and sediment controls shall:

 

????????? Have appropriate training or demonstrated knowledge and experience in erosion and sediment control; and

???????? Act with due diligence during the design, implementation and maintenance of the erosion and? sediment control plan and measures; and

???????? Conduct modifications and changes as required and as directed; and

???????? Will remove such structures when the site is no longer prone to erosion or sedimentation; and

???????? Have the appropriate authority (Council or Private Certifier) to make decisions on the site without further consultation.

 

2.3.5????? During the course of the development or work, control designs and measures may need to be amended and the approved ESCP reviewed. Any deviations from the original approved ESCP are to be approved by the appropriate authority.

 

2.3.6????? The approved control measures must be implemented prior to any land disturbance (as per clause 7.2.1) commencing and be maintained until the completion and/or effective establishment of stabilisation works. Once in place, the approved control measures shall be effectively maintained for as long as they are required (If unsure, Council staff are available to comment on whether controls are adequate or still needed).

 

2.3.7????? All site personnel are responsible for notifying the appropriate people for the authorised or unauthorised removal of any erosion and sediment control measures. The control measures must be reinstated within the same day.

 

 

 

3.0?????? IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

Council will implement the DCP by incorporating requirements for erosion and sediment control as conditions of consent for each development application approval. All personnel on the site are responsible for ensuring that the conditions of consent are complied with. It is Council?s and/or the PCA?s responsibility to enforce this plan.

?

Another way that Council will enforce the DCP is by ensuring that during the environmental assessment of an application, erosion and sedimentation control is considered and amended where required.

 

Council officers and/or the PCA will inspect control measures as part of their routine inspections.

 

Council officers and/or the PCA will also conduct random inspections to ensure compliance with environmental legislation.

 

 


 

4.0?????? EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS (ESCP?s)

 

4.1???????? FORM OF ESCP?s

 

4.1.1????? ESCP?s can vary depending on the complexity, scope and nature of the development. The plan can be in the form of a simple statement for minor proposals to detailed plans and associated documentation for major proposals.

 

4.1.2????? For major proposals that are staged over an extended time, a staged ESCP should be prepared.

 

4.1.3????? An ESCP must demonstrate that the appropriate controls have been planned and when implemented will be effective in minimising erosion and sedimentation, including the removal of excess water off the site without causing environmental harm.

 

4.1.4????? Unsatisfactory ESCP?s will be rejected and development applications will not be approved until an amended plan satisfactory to Council has been submitted.

 

4.1.5????? An ESCP outlines how potential erosion and sedimentation from any site will be minimised. Nambucca Shire Council?s Erosion and Sediment Control DCP demonstrates in detail, three (3) main issues regarding erosion and sedimentation plans:

 

???????? The need for an ESCP

???????? The aim of an ESCP

???????? The preparation of an ESCP

 

 

4.2???????? NEED FOR A ESCP

 

4.2.1????? Erosion and sediment control plans are necessary to ensure that:

 

???????? erosion and sedimentation control and development activities are planned and completed together;

???????? soil disturbance is kept to a minimum and the potential for erosion and sedimentation is either eliminated or at least kept to a minimum; and

???????? a strategy to manage erosion and sedimentation is considered early in the planning stage and is integral in the initial site development.

 

Refer to sections 1.3 and 2.3 to determine whether an ESCP is required.

 

 

4.3???????? AIM OF ESCP

 

4.3.1????? The aims of an erosion and sediment control plan are to:

 

???????? effectively control the movement of water and sediment from the top of the site through to the bottom of the site;

???????? gauge an understanding of the features and limitations of the site in order to prevent and minimise erosion and sedimentation;

???????? progressively rehabilitate the disturbed areas of the site; and

???????? minimise the potential for sediment laden water to leave the site and/or enter a stormwater drain, water body or watercourse.

 

The ESCP must account for all aspects of development of the site and must be effective from the initial clearing of the site through to the completion of the development.

4.4???????? PREPARATION OF ESCP

 

4.4.1????? To enable an ESCP to be effective, the correct format must be used. The nature and size of the development or work will determine the preparation and detail of the plan. The standard format for an erosion and sediment control plan consists of:

 

???????? a site plan; and

???????? supporting information; and

???????? construction details, calculations and notes; and

???????? details of reasons for staging.

 

 

4.5???????? THE SITE PLAN

 

An ESCP shall include, but not be limited to the following details:

 

???????? be to a recognised scale ie (1:100, 1:200),

???????? locality plan,

???????? contours,

???????? existing vegetation,

???????? existing site drainage,

???????? land slope gradient,

???????? location of stockpiles,

???????? erosion control measures,

???????? sediment control measures,

???????? location of roads, driveways, access-ways and all impervious surfaces,

???????? details of site revegetation program,

???????? outline of maintenance program for erosion and sediment control,

???????? details of method for pumping out/removal of excess water from the site,

???????? name of person responsible for implementing ESCP.

 

 

4.6???????? SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 

4.6.1????? Supporting information to be submitted along with the ESCP may include:

 

a??????? A brief description of any areas on site that have the potential for serious erosion or sedimentation, together with the proposed management details;

 

b??????? A maintenance strategy for all control measures, including the nomination of responsibility for the follow?up maintenance required;

 

c??????? A brief description of the overall site rehabilitation program; and

 

d??????? Stormwater management plan.

 

 

4.7???????? CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, CIRCULATION AND NOTES

 

4.7.1????? Construction drawings and/or written specifications must be provided for the structural erosion and sediment controls proposed.

 

Applicants are strongly advised to use the services of a suitably qualified and experienced person to design their ESCP?s. All submitted plans should bear the names and qualifications of such persons, acknowledging authorship.

 


5.0?????? MINIMUM EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STANDARDS

 

The following are minimum requirements that Nambucca Shire Council expects from all development and work sites described in section 1.3 of this development control plan.

 

All erosion and sediment control, pollution control and rehabilitation measures undertaken in accordance with this DCP shall conform to the specifications and standards contained in publications listed in Section 7.

 

 

5.1???????? BUILDING MATERIAL STOCKPILES

 

Stockpiles of building materials shall not be stored on nature strips, footpaths, roadways, access ways, public lands or within drainage lines and easements. The stockpiles on site are to be retained wholly within the site boundaries and protected with appropriate sediment and erosion control measures.

 

 

5.2???????? PROGRESSIVE REVEGETATION AND STABILISATION

 

All disturbed areas are to be progressively stabilised and/or revegetated as soon as practicable as a staged development is preferred. Appropriate erosion control measures are to be implemented to effectively minimise erosion until the disturbed areas are restored. A Nambucca Valley Vegetation and Planting Guide for native species is available at:

http://www.nvlandcare.org.au/downloads/dlVegPlantGuide.pdf

 

 

5.3???????? CLIMATE CONSIDERATION

 

Taking climatic and seasonal variations into account before any vegetation is removed and/or soil disturbance. During wetter months large amounts of sediments are lost from the site, if work is held up due to rain periods, then this may create problems with maintaining sediment control structures.

 

 

5.4???????? ROOF GUTTERING

 

The stormwater guttering and downpipes are to be installed and connected to Council?s approved drainage system. Connecting the stormwater early will improve site access and drainage and prevent erosion.

 

 

5.5???????? SEDIMENT FENCING

 

A sediment fence is to be erected along or adjacent to the down-slope boundary(s) of the site and constructed from an approved geotextile filter fabric to capture the sediment from stormwater run-off. Either ends of the fence should be keyed into the ground and turned up-slope. Excessive sediment build up behind the fence must be regularly removed in order for the fence to stay effective. In circumstances where the sediment fence is located adjacent to the street, the fence is to be erected on the development side of the turf filter strips and within the property boundary.

 

 


5.6???????? SEDIMENT TRAPS

 

Sediment traps are to be located at all points where stormwater leaves the site and enters the street stormwater gutter or drainage system. There are various methods of sediment traps and the most appropriate method should be implemented. The sediment traps are to be cleaned regularly in order to maintain effectiveness.

 

 

5.7 ??????? SITE ACCESS

 

An all weather site access pathway for vehicles is to be provided. All vehicles entering and exiting the site must be limited to a single controlled area so as to avoid excessive ground disturbance. Appropriate sediment controls must be implemented at the entry/exit point to prevent sediment being tracked off the site such as aggregate extending a minimum of 6 metres into the site for a shaker. The all weather access may require additional aggregate from time to time. All run-off from driveways, access ways and water used to clean sediment off wheels of vehicles must be drained into an approved sediment trapping device on site.

 

 

5.8???????? TURF FILTER STRIPS

 

A strip(s) of turf 600mm wide, should be installed adjacent to the street gutter should the soil on the nature strip be disturbed. The turf aids in filtering stormwater run-off and prevents erosion of the site. Native vegetation of the nature strip should not be removed to make way for turf.

 

 

5.9???????? CHECKLIST OF EROSION AND CONTROL MEASURES FOR A DEVELOPMENT SITE

 

a??????? Minimise area to be cleared and leave as much vegetation as possible.

b??????? Install sediment fence(s) along low side of the development before work begins.

c??????? Divert up-slope water around the work site and stabilise channels, but ensure that the neighbouring property is not flooded.

d??????? Provide a single stabilised entry/exit point for the site that is clearly marked for deliveries to the site. Any additional vehicles are to park on the roadway and not on Council?s footpath.

e??????? Leave or lay a kerb side turf filter strip to slow the speed of water, minimise erosion and trap excess sediment.

f???????? Stockpile soil and other materials within the sediment controlled boundaries.

g??????? Sweep the road every day and dispose of waste material on site. Washing of roads, driveways and footpaths is forbidden.

h??????? Provide guttering and downpipes, connected to an approved stormwater system once the roof framework has been completed.

i???????? Maintain erosion and sediment control measures for entire period of construction including during the final rehabilitation period.

j???????? Keep logs of maintenance and cleaning schedules and have them signed by the appropriate person at the end of each day.

k??????? Protect all stormwater entry points with approved filtration device e.g. sand bags, geotextile fabric installed under the stormwater grate, hay bales wrapped in geotextile fabric.

l???????? Ensure all staff on site are aware of their obligations under current environmental legislation and conditions of consent for the development.

 


 

6.0?????? PENALTIES FOR NON COMPLIANCE

 

Council?s approval of development applications will be subject to compliance with submitted erosion and sediment control plans.

 

Section 125(1) and 76A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 deals with the development not carried out in accordance with development consent. A person found guilty of an offence against this Act shall, for every such offence, be liable to the fixed penalty (approx $600) expressly imposed and if found guilty in a court a penalty is imposed not exceeding 10,000 penalty units and to a further daily penalty not exceeding 1,000 penalty units.

 

 

6.1???????? CAUSING A POLLUTION INCIDENT

 

A pollution incident is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as;

 

?an incident or set of circumstances during or as a consequence of which there is or is likely to be a leak, spill or other escape or deposit of a substance, as a result of which pollution has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur. It includes an incident or set of circumstances in which a substance has been placed or disposed of on premises?.

 

A person who is found to be responsible for or to be causing a pollution incident may be liable to set penalties under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

???????? Section 91 - Clean Up Notice

o?? Issued to polluter to direct them to clean up the pollution

o?? Attracts an administration fee

 

???????? Section 96 - Prevention Notice

o?? Issued to person in control of site to prevent a pollution event from occurring

o?? Attracts an administration fee

 

???????? Section 104 - Cost Compliance Notice

o?? Issued to polluter and/or person in control of site to repay Council for costs incurred in the clean up when the action of the polluter was too slow or non existent.

o?? Invoices the costs incurred

 

???????? Section 120 - Pollute waters

o?? Fixed Penalty Notice can be issued to polluter (approx $750 for individual $1500 for corporation)

o?? Person who is found guilty of this offence in Court is liable, on conviction, a penalty of:

?? Up to $1 000 000 or 7 years imprisonment for an individual or both

?? Up to $5 000 000 for a corporation

 

???????? Section 167 - Failure to maintain and/or operate control equipment

o?? Fixed Penalty Notice can be issued to polluter (approx $750 for individual $1500 for corporation)

o?? Person who is found guilty of this offence in Court is liable, on conviction, a penalty of:

?? Up to $250 000 for an individual and in the case of a continuing offence a further penalty of $60 000 for each day the offence continues

?? Up to $1 000 000 for a corporation and in the case of a continuing offence a further penalty of $120 000 for each day the offence continues.

 


6.2???????? FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBMITTED ESCP

 

6.2.1 ???? Failure to comply with the submitted ESCP causing a pollution incident to occur will result in Council issuing a penalty notice under Section 120 and/or Section 167 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 for every day that the offence occurs. More serious matters may be heard in the Local Court or in the Land and Environment Court.

 

6.2.2 ???? Failure to comply with the submitted ESCP will result in Council serving either a Clean Up Notice and/or a Prevention Notice under Sections 91 and 96 respectively of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997, or a penalty notice under Sections 125(1) and 76A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Again, more serious matters may be heard in the Local Court or in the Land and Environment Court.

 

????????????? Further to this Council may issue an order under Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to comply with development consent.

 

 

6.3???????? LEGISLATION

 

Other Legislation that may be used where compliance is not met includes:

 

???????? Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

???????? Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997

???????? Local Government Act, 1993

???????? Fisheries Management Act, 1994

???????? Water Management Act, 2000

???????? Soil Conservation Act, 1938


7.0?????? REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

 

Information contained in this DCP has been taken from specifications and standards contained in the following available publications.

 

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) (2009)

[http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/water/stormwater.htm]

 

Dwyer. P.J. and Brook. I, (1992) Urban Erosion and Sediment Control - Field Guide, Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) August 1992. [http://www.shop.nsw.gov.au/pubdetails.jsp?publication=123]

 

Hunt. J. S, (1992) Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM).???

[http://www.shop.nsw.gov.au/pubdetails.jsp?publication=849]

 

Landcom, (2004) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, Volume 1, Landcom NSW Government, 4th Edition, March 2004. (also known as the ?Blue Book?)

[http://www.landcom.nsw.gov.au/bluebook.aspx]

 

Landcom, (2004) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction - the Hip Pocket Handbook, Landcom NSW Government, 1st Edition, March 2004

[http://www.landcom.nsw.gov.au/bluebook.aspx]

 

NSW Legislation Website [www.legislation.nsw.gov.au]

 

?


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF1309??????????? 190809???????? Report on endorsement of Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street, Scotts Head

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with a Council resolution Bennell and Associates has prepared a draft Urban Design Strategy (see attachment) and recommended development controls for the Matthew Street precinct, to be included in DCP 3 ? Residential Development.

 

The draft Urban Design Strategy and the recommended development controls have been used as a guide to modify draft LEP 1995 Amendment No 68.

 

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and endorse the draft Urban Design Strategy, incorporate the recommendations of the draft Strategy into DCP 3, and modify draft LEP Amendment No 68 in accordance with the proposed development controls, including the 6.5m height limit for the Matthew Street precinct, and exhibit the draft plans simultaneously.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council endorse the Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street, Scotts Head as prepared by Bennell and Associates.

 

2????????? That Council resolve to modify Draft LEP Amendment No 68 in the following manner:

 

a??????? LEP Amendment No 68 shall provide site specific development controls for a sensitive scenic location in Matthew Street Scotts Head. These controls shall be based on well justified place based urban design investigations.

 

b??????? In order to remove this land from the provisions of Complying Development under the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes), the subject land shall be designated in accordance with Clause 1.9(2)(j) of the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes).

 

3????????? That Council inform the Director-General of the Department of Planning of its decision to modify draft LEP Amendment No 68 and request a section 65 certificate or provide Council with delegated authority to exhibit the draft plan and the draft Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street Scotts Heads.

 

4????????? That upon receipt of a Section 65 certificate or delegated authority from the Department of Planning, draft LEP Amendment No 68 (as amended), be exhibited along with the draft Urban Design Strategy, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5????????? That following the conclusion of the exhibition period a further report be prepared and presented to Council.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That council not proceed or vary the proposed amendments to the existing controls which apply to Matthew Street Scotts Head.

 

 


DISCUSSION:

 

General

 

SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 came into force on 27 February 2009. This Policy has affected Council?s current height provisions within certain areas, particularly residential areas previously designated with a 5m height limit under DCP 3. Dwelling houses that satisfy the complying development provisions can now be erected under a Complying Development Certificate up to a height of 8.5m under the SEPP. This generated considerable debate about the affect on residents in Matthew Street, Scotts Head.

 

Given community concern over the potential impacts, particularly loss of views, Council at its meeting on 6 November 2008, resolved:

 

??????????? That pursuant to Section 54(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council resolve to prepare a draft Amendment to amend the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 by restricting building height to 5m above natural ground level on the land shown on the attached map.

 

In accordance with section 54 of the EP&A Act, the draft LEP was submitted to the Department of Planning (DoP). However, prior to proceeding with the draft LEP amendment, Council at its meeting dated 19 February 2009 resolved:

 

??????????? That Council commission an independent place based study of the north-east side of Matthew Street and report back to Council regarding height limits and seek a variation to keep the height limit at 5 metres until this study is completed, with Council making a submission to the Department, before the deadline of 27 February 2009.

 

Pursuant to this resolution, Council applied for a local exclusion for the Matthew Street precinct from the provisions of the SEPP. Council received an acknowledgement letter from the DoP stating that its submission was under consideration. However, no further response has been received to date.

 

In accordance with the above resolution, Council also engaged Bennell and Associates to prepare the independent place based study and site specific development controls for the precinct.

 

Bennell and Associates have prepared a draft Urban Design Strategy (see attachment). The draft Strategy study makes a number of recommendations including, but not limited to:

 

?????????????? A 6.5m max building height;

?????????????? A max density of 1 dwelling per 450m2;

?????????????? No multi-dwelling housing;

?????????????? Max site coverage of 40%;

?????????????? Min Deep Soil Zone of 40%;

?????????????? Modular development style no greater than 140m2 (single storey), and 120m2 (two storey);

?????????????? Front setbacks of 4.5m;

?????????????? Rear setbacks of 6m;

?????????????? Min side setbacks of 1.5 (ground level), and 3m (upper level).

 

The place based study and the development controls have been used as a guide to modify draft LEP 1995 Amendment No 68 (see attached). This draft LEP amendment has incorporated the suggested height and density controls and prohibits multi-dwelling housing. The draft LEP has also identified the area as a ?Foreshore Scenic Protection Area?. The foreshore scenic protection area provision has been specifically included to exclude complying development from this precinct in accordance with Clause 1.9(2)(j) of the SEPP.

 

The placed based study ensures that appropriate justification is provided to support the proposed height limit variation over the Matthew Street precinct. By placing the proposed 6.5m height limit in the LEP, any variation can only be considered under the provisions of SEPP 1 (Development Standards).

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Draft LEP Amendment No 68

 

Council?s initial resolution for draft LEP Amendment No 68 specifically maintained a 5m height limit in the Matthew Street precinct. However, the draft Urban Design Strategy prepared by Bennell and Associates recommends a 6.5m height limit. Should Council wish to proceed with this recommendation, then some additional administrative actions are required prior to the exhibition of the draft LEP. Specifically Council is required to:

 

?????????????? obtain approval from the DoP to modify draft LEP Amendment No 68 to reflect the recommendations of the draft Urban Design Strategy prepared by Bennell and Associates; and

?????????????? obtain DoP authorisation to exhibit the draft plan with the proposed changes.

 

Public Consultation

 

As part of their engagement Bennell and Associates held a workshop in Scotts Head to gain an appreciation of the issues in relation to the Matthew Street precinct.

 

The details of the workshop are summarised in the draft Urban Design Strategy and copies of the attendees and issues raised at the meeting are attached.

 

The purpose of this report is to enable simultaneous public exhibition of the draft Urban Design Strategy and draft LEP Amendment No 68 (as amended), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning;

Manager Planning and Assessment.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Incorporation of the development controls identified in the draft Urban Design Strategy into Councils DCP and LEP will provide an effective mechanism to ensure sustainable environmental outcomes are achieved for the precinct.

 

Social

 

Incorporation of the development controls identified in the draft Urban Design Strategy into Councils DCP and LEP will provide good urban design outcomes for residents in the Matthew Street precinct.

 

Economic

 

Incorporation of the development controls identified in the draft Urban Design Strategy into Councils DCP and LEP will provide improved economic benefits for future development in the Matthew Street precinct.

 

Risk

 

It is considered that with the detailed and very specific Urban Design Strategy in place, consistency will be achieved thereby minimising impacts on adjoining landowners.


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The place based urban design strategy has been funded though the Strategic Planning Budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Should Bennell and Associates be requested to undertake any work outside the scope of the current contract, this would be at additional cost and funding would need to be sourced from the strategic planning budget.

 

Attachments:

1View

18641/2009 - Draft Urban Design Analysis Jul 27

 

2View

18818/2009 - Draft LEP amendment? 68 - Written Instrument

 

3View

19799/2009 - Public Meeting

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on endorsement of Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street, Scotts Head

Attachment 1

H:\200908\DRAFT URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS JUL 27.TIF - Draft Urban Design Analysis Jul 27

 


































?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on endorsement of Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street, Scotts Head

Attachment 2

18818/2009 - Draft LEP amendment? 68 - Written Instrument

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Amendment No 66)

 

 

I, the Minister for Planning, make the following local environmental plan under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

 

 

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Minister for Planning

Sydney,????????????????????? ??????????2009

 

 

 


1????????? Name of plan

 

??????????? This plan may be cited as Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Amendment No 68).

 

2????????? Commencement

 

??????????? This Plan commences on the day on which it is published on the NSW Legislation website.

 

3????????? Aims of plan

 

This plan aims to amend Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995:

 

(a)??????? to restrict development on land to which this plan applies to a maximum height of 6.5m.

 

(b)??????? to describe land to which this plan applies as a ?foreshore scenic protection area?

 

3????????? Land to which the plan applies

 

This plan applies to land identified as Lot 13 Section B DP 17707; Lot 12 Section B DP 17707; Lot 11 Section B DP 17707; Lot 10 Section B DP 17707; Lot 9 Section B DP 17707; Lot 8 Section B DP 17707; Lot 3 Section DP 548827; Lot 2 Section DP 548827; Lot 1 Section DP 548827; Lot 52 Section DP 1093411; Lot 51 Section DP 1093411; Lot 4 Section B DP 17707; Lot 3 Section B DP 17707; Lot 2 Section B DP 17707; Lot 1 Section B DP 17707; Matthew Street, Scotts Head, as hatched and edged heavy black and indicated by black text ?foreshore scenic protection area? on the map marked Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Amendment No 68) deposited in the office of the Nambucca Shire Council.

 

Schedule 1???????????????? Amendment of Nambucca Local

??????????????????????? Environmental Plan 1995

 

[1]???? Clause 5 How are terms defined in this plan?

 

????????? Insert in appropriate order in the definition of the map in clause 5(1):

???????????????????????????? Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Amendment No 68).

 

[2]???? Part 3: Residential Zones

 

????????? Insert in appropriate order Clause 31:

 

????????? 31???? What specific controls apply to the erection of dwellings at Matthew St Scotts ????????? Head?

 

?????????????????? 1?????? This clause applies to land shown hatched and edged heavy black and ???????????????????? indicated by black text ?foreshore scenic protection area? on the map.

 

?????????????????? 2?????? Despite any other provision in this plan, the following applies to ??????????????????????? development on land to which this clause applies:

 

???????????????????????????? i???????? the height of a building must not exceed 6.5m; and

 

???????????????????????????? ii??????? multi-dwelling housing is prohibited; and

 

???????????????????????????? iii?????? density must not exceed one dwelling per 450m2.

 

 

 


I have not included the floor space ratio because it would require the definition and calculation clause from the new LEP. The remainder of the controls can be adequately addressed by the DCP.

 

?

?


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Report on endorsement of Urban Design Strategy for Matthew Street, Scotts Head

Attachment 3

19799/2009 - Public Meeting

 

URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY MATTHEW STREET SCOTTS HEAD

 

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP

 

SCOTTS HEAD SURF CLUB ? 6 JULY 2009

 

 

Consultants Bennell and Associates held a community workshop at Scotts Head on Monday 6 July as part of their preparation of the Urban Design Strategy for the Matthew Street precinct.

 

The workshop was attended by 34 residents and interested members of the community Council's Director Planning and Environment, Manager Planning and Strategic Planner. Along with 2 representatives from Bennell and Associates.

 

Those attending were:

 

Janet Court, Faye Barron, Robert Barron, John Bond, Anna Viale, John Viale, Greg Bell,

Malcolm Cresswell, Chris Cresswell, Russell Simmons, Janet Simmons, Pat Poynter,

Jenny Coleing, David Tether, Paula Flack, Lex van Dyken, Moira Ryan, John Schmidt,

John Ewing, Susy Brien, Louise Freebairn, Robert Freebairn, Mary Anne Turner,

Allan Turner, Greg Birkett, Christine Saya, Mary Webb, Chris Bell, D Teather, Paul Gan,

Olma Gan, Anne Falk, Anne Smyth, Fiona Waddy, Greg Meyers, Arthur Tsembis, Grant Nelson, Fiona Bennell, Rick Bennell.

 

There was no doubt that those residents in attendance overwhelming oppose a height limit greater than 5 metres over the entire Matthew Street precinct (coastal side of Matthew Street).

 

At the workshop the attendees were split into 4 different work groups and were asked to identify the attributes of the study along with the benefits and disadvantages. These points were recorded and were presented to the attendees at the conclusion of the workshop.

?

The following points/issues have been copied from the workshop sheets:

?

Sheet 1

 

Pros

?? Views

?? Minimal bulk

?? Unique coastal reserve frontage

?? Vistas ? cars, buses, walkers

?? Headland ? pedestrian, passive recreation

?? Natural walkway ? setting

?? Prominent coastal views ?

‐??????? near shore rocky (Elephant Head)

‐??????? distance ? coastal, hinterland

?? Natural amphitheatre ? low set character

?? Significant views to the north ? heritage, intergenerational equity, active ocean/surf views

?? Lack of fencing

?? No McMansions


Cons

?? Drainage ? stormwater

?? Street parking

?? Power poles

?? Pump station

?? Lack of formal access

?? Formed pedestrian footpaths (roadside)

?? Lack of fencing (demarcation)

 

Other Issues

?? No tourist development in area (Tourist Accommodation) ? high use

 

Density

?? Increased height provides increased density ? this considered a problem for precinct

?? Maintain compatible densities as is (25%)

 

Setback

Reserve:

‐??????? Maximise rear setbacks for view retention (min 6m)

‐??????? Would like more

 

Front:

‐??????? Retain existing (4m ish)

 

Sides:

‐??????? More than current minimum (900mm)

 

Heights

5m brought through to LEP

 

Building Design

As per DCP 3 (3.1.2 1 and 3)

No McMansions

 

Landscape

Same as height limits

 

 


Sheet 2

 

Most important 5m height level

 

1?????? Elephant Head

2?????? Village atmosphere ? character

3?????? Grassy amphitheatre

4?????? Views from street level for visitors especially from John Street

5?????? Changing tourist expectations ? natural attractions eg whales, diving gannets, visible from street

6?????? Setback from reserve to 8-10m

7?????? Low site coverage

8?????? Low bulk coverage

9?????? Parking becoming a problem ? visibility of children on the narrow road

10???? Cars parking on footpaths on eastern side

11???? Setback of 4m at the front

12???? 900mm side setback too narrow ? need to keep views between houses

13???? Landscaping ? native plants to attract birds, etc ? not to obstruct views

14???? Maintain native grasses ie kangaroo grass

15???? Maintain varied architecture ? varied building materials

16???? Council should enforce the completion of residences in a reasonable time

 

 

Sheet 3

 

Density

 

?? Single dwellings ? maintain village character

?? 450m2 for subdivision is too small

 

Height

 

5m??? -? no variations

????????? -? views from public areas are important. In particular, the Matthew Street Reserve and roads into Scotts Head

 

Setbacks

 

Rear setbacks:

?? An average no?s 26-18a

 

Front:

?? 27 Matthew seems to encroach on views from adjoining residences set too far forward

?? Average setbacks from front setbacks

 

Side Setbacks:

?? Maximising keeping view sharing and maintaining privacy is open space areas

 

Landscaping:

?? No more pines

?? Tree heaths and species

 


Sheet 4

 

1?????? Height 5m - natural GL to point on roof vertically above

 

2?????? Step floors with land eg 12 Matthew

 

3?????? Reserve setback as for 22-26 (8-10)

 

4?????? Side Setbacks 900 (4) or 1.2m (6)

 

5?????? Not looking for development controls requiring pitching roofs

 

6?????? Not more than dual occupancy

 

7?????? Articulation and lighter building elements

 

 

??


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF949????????????? 190809???????? Presentation of Building Inspections of Council Owned Buildings

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council?s Technical Officer ? Assets is continuing with inspections of Council?s buildings.? This includes the identification of faults and defects.? A sample of the photographs of the maintenance requirements will be presented.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the presentation on the inspection of Council owned buildings be noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options for this report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A PowerPoint presentation will be shown in order to keep Council aware of the condition of its building assets, the range of issues and the considerable financial costs associated with the repairs.

 

Only 30 to 40% of the buildings have been assessed to date.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Technical Officer ? Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental issues as a result of this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social issues as a result of this report

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues as a result of this report

 

Risk

 

There are no risk issues as a result of this report

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budget implications associated with the presentation.? Building maintenance will be an on-going commitment.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variance to working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF365????????????? 190809???????? Grants Hall, Bowraville Building Maintenance Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The maintenance of Grants Hall was completed this week with the painting of the foyer and kitchen.

 

The result is a well presented building that complies with fire and building standards.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the building maintenance works undertaken at Grants Hall, High Street, Bowraville.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

No other options.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The opportunity is being taken to show Councillors the maintenance work that has now been completed to bring Grants Hall, High Street, Bowraville up to standard.

 

The range of work is extensive and includes:

 

?????????????? Replacement of the roof;

?????????????? Installation of roof anchors for safety harness;

?????????????? Hall floor sealed and new linemarking for sports courts;

?????????????? New kitchen including floor coverings;

?????????????? Ceiling repaired and painted;

?????????????? New energy efficient lights;

?????????????? Twelve new ceiling fans;

?????????????? Upgrade of essential fire and safety measures;

?????????????? Painting of foyer, office and kitchen;

?????????????? Rebuilt verandah;

?????????????? External path;

?????????????? Replacement of electrical wiring (ceiling);

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Technical Officer ? Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No significant change.? Weeds have been removed from the grounds and low energy lights installed.

 


Social

 

The building provides a community facility for social, sports and educational use.? Increased usage is expected because of the upgrade.

 

 

Economic

 

There is an on-going need to maintain the building to the current standard.

 

Risk

 

Low patronage will mean the expenditure of funds has a low benefit.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The total cost has been almost $100,000.00.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Grants of $45,000.00 have been used with the remainder from allocated budgets.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee

19 August 2009

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF652????????????? 190809???????? Relocation of Men's Shed - Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Inc

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Alternative sites have been identified as potentially suitable for the Men's Shed as follows:

 

1??????? Macksville Showground

2??????? Council's Works Depot, Macksville

3??????? Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields.

 

An inspection of each will be carried out with representatives of the Men's Shed.

 

A copy of a location plan is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council undertake further feasibility of

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Macksville Showground

2??????? Council's Works Depot, Macksville

3??????? Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields

4??????? Other sites

5??????? No sites.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Men's Shed organisation is seeking land sufficient to enable the erection of a shed 7.5m X 22m in dimensions.

 

The identified options are:

 

1??????? Macksville Showground

 

The Committee has inspected the proposal to place; the Shed near the other buildings due to the impact on Show activities.

 

The Men's Shed has identified another site for consideration.

 

2??????? Council's Works Depot, Macksville

 

The Nambucca/Bellingen Community Transport organisation was permitted to erect a shed for vehicle storage at the rear of Council's Works Depot.

 

A site to the immediate south is possible but requires considerable fill material and is not able to be sewered.

 

3??????? Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields

 

The existing building is only partly used by the cricket association.? It is feasible to extend this building and allow use of half the existing shed.

 

There are already toilets that can be used.

 

Initially the Men's Club could be involved in upgrading the buildings.

 

The Cricket Association has indicated agreement with the proposal.

 

The building needs to comply with the Plan of Management with the major factors being:

 

i)??????? Compatibility with adjoining land use

ii)?????? New buildings subject to DA approval

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nil at this stage.? Minor clearing may be required.

 

Social

 

The Men's Shed is all about providing a social outlet and community assistance.

 

Economic

 

Nambucca Valley Community Services Council has access to funding to ensure the viability of the project.

 

Risk

 

The lack of a suitable site will see the Men's Shed remain in rented premises that is not entirely suited to the needs of the organisation.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council would require the applicant to meet all costs.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nambuca Valley Community Services Council Inc has funding.

 

Attachments:

1View

19847/2009 - Site Location Plan - Men's Shed

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 19 August 2009

Relocation of Men's Shed - Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Inc

Attachment 1

19847/2009 - Site Location Plan - Men's Shed

 

???