NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

19 November 2009

 

Council has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to describe its philosophy and to provide a focus for the principal activities detailed in its Management Plan.

 

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.?

 

Our Values in Delivery

 

?                Effective leadership

?                Strategic direction

?                Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

?                Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

?                Enhancement and protection of the environment

?                Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

?                Addressing social and cultural needs of the community through partnerships and provision of facilities and services

?                Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:? Overview and Proceedings

 

When are Council Meetings Held?

 

Council meetings are held on the first and third Thursday of each month commencing at 5.30 pm.? Council meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre?44 Princess Street, Macksville.

 

Confidential items (ie Items for Closed Meeting) are dealt with at the end of the Ordinary (Open) meeting.? This session of a Council meeting is closed to the media and general public.? The Council then returns to Open Meeting and any members of the public are welcome to attend.

 

How can a Member of the Public Speak at a Council Meeting?

 

Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings and address the Council providing the item is listed on the agenda.? Registration to speak may be made by telephone or in person before 2.00 pm on a meeting day.? These items will be brought forward at 5.30 pm in agenda order, and dealt with before other items.? Public addresses are limited to five (5) minutes per person with a limit of two people speaking for and two speaking against an item.?

 

Speakers should address issues and refrain from making personal attacks or derogatory remarks.? You must treat others with respect at all times.

 

Meeting Agenda

 

These are available from the Council's Administration Building, the Regional Libraries in Macksville and Nambucca Heads as well as outlets in all towns and villages of the Shire.

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

 

Acknowledgement of Country????????? ? (Mayor)

 

I would like to Acknowledge the Gumbaynggirr people who are the Traditional Custodians of this Land.? I would also like to pay respect to the elders both past and present and extend that respect to any Aboriginals present.

 

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

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 5 November 2009

5??????? DELEGATIONS?Motion to hear Delegations

12.6?? Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

????????? i)??????? Mr Geoff Goesch?Objector

????????? ii)?????? Mr Bill Rainey?Objector

13.4?? Scotts Head Master Plan - Financial Models

????????? i)??????? Mr Christopher Preston?In favour of Option A

????????? i)??????? Mr Dennis Houghton?In favour of Option A

 

6??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

7??????? QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

8??????? Notices of Motion

8.1???? Notice of Motion - Leave of Absence? - Cr Janet Court - 18 December 2009 to 16 January 2010 Inclusive

8.2???? Notice of Motion - Load Limited Bridges - Browns Crossing Road

8.3???? Notice of Motion - Bushfire Risk - Valla Beach Reserves

8.4???? Notice of Motion - Licensing of Riverbank Restoration Works

8.5???? Notice of Motion - Expenses for Councillors at Conferences

8.6???? Notice of Motion - Use of Hearing Loop and PA system ifor Council Meetings

9??????? Notices of Rescission

9.1???? Notice of Rescission - Scotts Head Master Plan - Presentation by Department of Lands and Integrated Site Design (ISD) ???

10????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

11????? General Manager Report

11.1?? Outstanding Actions and Reports

11.2?? Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

11.3?? Revised Guidelines for Councillor Expenses and Facilities

11.4?? Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management - Financial Statement

11.5?? Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government

11.6?? Invitation to Comment on the Commercial Release of a Genetically Modified Live Viral Vaccine to Protect against Japanese Encephalitis (IMOJEVtm)

11.7?? Amendments to Code of Meeting Practice

11.8?? Review of Community Infrastructure and Infrastructure needs study and Section 94 Community Facilities and Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule ?


12????? Director Environment and Planning Report

12.1?? Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 6 November 2009

12.2?? DAs and CDCs Received and Determined under Delegated Authority 26 October-6 November 2009

12.3?? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports July 2009-June 2010, 2002-2009 and Certificates Received 2004-2009

12.4?? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report - October 2009

12.5?? Report on Nambucca Valley's Walk of Fame Project

12.6?? Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

12.7?? Report on Registrations for the 50th Anniversary Floodplain Management Authority Conference - 23-26 February 2010

12.8?? Report on Review of Aboriginal Youth Worker Position

13????? Director Engineering Services Report

13.1?? Grading Program

13.2?? Cycleway Indigenous Youth Employment Project

13.3?? Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields - Review of the Plan of Management

13.4?? Scotts Head Master Plan - Financial Models

13.5?? Street Lighting - Country Energy Annual Report

13.6?? Winifred Street, Macksville - Parallel Parking

13.7?? Flood Damage - February, March/April, May, October and November 2009

13.8?? Review of Electricity Supply - Contestable Sites ?

 

 

GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE ? 18 NOVEMBER 2009

????????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Quarterly Performance Review - 30 September 2009

9.2???? Risk Management and Fraud and Corruption Prevention

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

10.1?? Report on DA 2009/182 Two (2) Lot Rural Boundary Adjustment

10.2?? Report on the SOE Submissions from Public Exhibition and Final 2008/2009 SoE Report

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

11.1?? Policy - Commercial Activities on Community Land

11.2?? Wallace Street, Macksville - Traffic Management

11.3?? River Street Foreshore - Macksville - Landscape Development Plan

11.4?? Visitor Information Centre Finger Wharf

11.5?? Memorial in Honour of Caleb Jarrett - Nambucca Heads

 

 

 


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).

 

???


Notice of Motion

ITEM 8.1????? SF1269??????????? 191109???????? Notice of Motion - Leave of Absence? - Cr Janet Court - 18 December 2009 to 16 January 2010 Inclusive

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Janet Court, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

Leave of absence is requested for the period 18 December 2009 to 16 January 2010 inclusive, for personal reasons.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Cr Janet Court be granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 18 December 2009 to 16 January 2010 inclusive.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

DISCUSSION:

 

CONSULTATION:

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Social

 

Economic

 

Risk

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Notice of Motion

ITEM 8.2????? SF1269??????????? 191109???????? Notice of Motion - Load Limited Bridges - Browns Crossing Road

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Rhonda Hoban, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

There are eight residences beyond the load limited railway bridges on Browns Crossing Road who have no alternate access. These residences are reliant on rainwater tanks and septic systems.

 

The septic tanks need to be pumped out occasionally and in dry times the residents need to bring in water to fill tanks.

 

The load limits are such that the local water carting and septic pump-out operators cannot legally traverse the bridges with a full load.

 

Some rail over-bridge load limits have been imposed as a result of desk top assessments based on the age and construction type of the bridge and not an actual on-site inspection.?

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council write to Australian Rail Track Corporation requesting an urgent on-site review of the load limits on their bridges on Browns Crossing Road and, if the limits are justified, requesting in the short term, urgent repairs to improve the load limit to accommodate water and septic pump out trucks, and in the longer term, priority for replacement.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

 

Council can choose to take no action.

?

DISCUSSION:

 

Refer to summary

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There is potential for environmental impacts if a septic system cannot be pumped out when necessary.

?

Social

 

Potential social impacts arise with the lack of potable water for residents and the health risks associated with septic tank failure.

?

Economic

 

Residents may face high costs in transporting water or removing sewage in small amounts.


 

Risk

 

There is a risk that residents will run out of potable water or have a septic system fail.

?

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

27784/2009 - Letter from A Nowland

 

??


?


Notice of Motion

ITEM 8.3????? SF1269??????????? 191109???????? Notice of Motion - Bushfire Risk - Valla Beach Reserves

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Rhonda Hoban, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

A number of Valla Beach residents have expressed concern about the fuel load that has accumulated on reserves adjacent to their properties.

 

Areas of particular concern are properties along Ocean View Drive and properties adjacent to Jagun Nature Reserve.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council request that the Rural Fire Service conduct an appraisal of all public reserves in the Valla Beach area that interface with residential land and notify reserve owners of any steps necessary, on their land, to minimise the risk to life and property.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose to take no action.

?

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Refer to summary

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Action to reduce fuel load may impact on habitat, but any impact must be weighed against the habitat damage caused by a catastrophic fire event.

 

Social

 

The associated social impacts of loss of life and/or property are obvious.

 

Economic

 

There would be substantial economic impacts if losses occurred as a result of a major fire event.

?

Risk

 

If no action is taken there is an increased risk of loss of life and property.

?


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications to Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

N/A

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Notice of Motion

ITEM 8.4????? SF1269??????????? 191109???????? Notice of Motion - Licensing of Riverbank Restoration Works

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Rhonda Hoban, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

For a number of recent riverbank projects, including restoration work, the Department of Lands has required a formal license to be issued prior to commencement.

 

The license application process has taken more than five months. Council has a number of areas where there is a high risk that riverbank erosion may cause road collapse and loss of access.

 

One specific area of concern is Gumma Road. This road services a large number of households and there is no alternate access.

 

A road collapse during a flood or storm event would require immediate restoration work, and delays of up to five months to obtain a license would be unacceptable to the community.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council write to the Department of Lands and ask what consent procedures Council must follow in the case of emergency riverbank restoration work and whether a license is required.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose to take no action.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Refer to summary

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Delays in repair to riverbank erosion would increase the risk of further erosion and subsequent environmental impacts.

 

Social

 

Where riverbank erosion impacts road access there is the potential to leave parts of our community isolated or inconvenienced for prolonged periods.

 


Economic

 

Prolonged road closures while license applications are processed will impact on any business reliant on that particular road access and there would be increased costs to all road users where a longer alternate route is available.

?

Risk

 

There is a risk that delays in attending to emergency restoration where riverbank collapse affects infrastructure will lead to further collapse and further damage and cost.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Delays in attending to restoration may result in further damage and increased costs.

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Any restoration not covered under disaster funding would need to be covered by working funds. Delays in repair and further damage would escalate the costs.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Notice of Motion

ITEM 8.5????? SF1269??????????? 191109???????? Notice of Motion - Expenses for Councillors at Conferences

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Moran OAM, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

Councillors are each allocated a sum of money to cover attendance at conferences. It is up to the individual Councillor to determine which conferences they will attend.

 

There have been occasions where extra budgetary allocations have been made for some Councillors to attend specific conferences that are on top of their usual allocation.

 

Like every one else Councillors must learn to live within economic constraints.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That all expenses associated with Councillor attendance at conferences are covered by members expenses allocation and that no separate or additional allocations be made in Council?s budgets.

 

 

 

 

GENERAL MANAGER'S NOTE

 

A separate budgetary allocation in 2009/2010 was made for the attendance of Councillors at both the Coastal Conference and also the Floodplain Management Conference. It is suggested that in future there be no separate budgetary allocation for conferences and instead, any conference attendance come from the budget allocated to each Councillors.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Notice of Motion

ITEM 8.6????? SF1269??????????? 191109???????? Notice of Motion - Use of Hearing Loop and PA system ifor Council Meetings

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Paula Flack, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council installed the hearing loop and PA system in 2004 in response to a complaint by an individual that it was breaching the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 by not having a PA/Hearing Loop in the Council Chamber to accommodate people with a hearing disability.?

 

A subsequent conciliation conference arranged by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was held at Coffs Harbour on 10 November 2003, to seek a resolution to the complaint.?

 

The system is designed to be used by Councillors from a sitting position using their own individual microphone.? The sitting position also has the benefit for the speaker of proximity to the loudspeaker contained in each tabletop unit.

 

The issue of sitting or standing to speak arose from an individual Councillor stating they were unable to hear other Councillors due to them covering their mouths or looking down when speaking.? A request was made for Councillors stand to speak to overcome this issue. As a result Council resolved to seek confirmation that the hearing loop would still function effectively if councillors stood to speak.

 

In the Manager of Community and Cultural Service?s report to Council on 1 November 2007, Councillors were informed of the testing of the hearing loop by In Phase Productions, who found that the system was working well, however they noted that it had not been working to its full potential on some occasions and there had been some operation issues.?

 

These matters were subsequently addressed.? The consultants also stated that the system could be used from a standing position however the speaker would have to remain stationary and speak directly down in to the microphone which would need to be fully extended.? This would require some speaker to lean forward and down to ensure their voiced was picked up. This requirement would disadvantage speakers who are tall, have spinal/back health issues or health issues which render standing and/or sitting difficult.

 

Speaking down into the microphone from a standing position, like hands in front of mouths, hides the mouth from clear view rendering lip reading difficult.? Speaking directly forward into the microphones from a sitting position offers a better opportunity to observe the speakers face for those wishing to lip read.

 

Speakers referring to their papers from a standing position must either bend forward to read from the table notes or lift the notes to a suitable reading distance from their face which is likely to block their voice reaching the microphone.? Either way the intention of the original request is not met.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Councillors use their own discretion as to whether they stand or sit to speak but either way, ensure that their microphone is switched on prior to speaking, that they speak clearly without obstructing their mouths and that they speak directly into the microphone to ensure that the hearing loop is fully functional and that Councillors meet their legal obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

All Councillors sit to speak thereby maximising effectiveness of the hearing loop system.

 

 


DISCUSSION:

 

I have observed on numerous occasions microphones not being switched on to speak, indeed I am aware of my own failure to do so on occasions.? I am also aware that usually when Councillors speak they move their heads and in the case of standing speakers, their entire bodies around, usually in the direction of the Chair.? This practice renders the hearing loop ineffective, but much more so in the case of standing speakers.

 

I believe it is each Councillors responsibility to make sure that the hearing loop is fully functional for the benefit all Councillors and observers who depend on the facility.? Councillors should be able to exercise their discretion in terms of potential individual liability for failing to use the PA/hearing loop system in a way that satisfies those who require the facility.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning

 

 

RISK

 

The use of the hearing loop and PA system is a direct recommendation from Council?s Disability Action Plan and minimises Council's exposure to complaints and litigation relating to disability discrimination.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Notice of Rescission

ITEM 9.1????? SF382????????????? 191109???????? Notice of Rescission - Scotts Head Master Plan - Presentation by Department of Lands and Integrated Site Design (ISD)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Paula Flack, Councillor; Michael Moran OAM, Councillor; Anne Smyth, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

We believe that the resolution of Council to notify the Department of Lands (DoL) of Council?s ?in principle support for the draft Scotts Head Master Plan? should be reconsidered

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council rescind resolution 1663/09: That Council support in principle the model put forward by Integrated Site Design but review the financial details of alternate modelling Option B before proceeding with further detailed discussions.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

We believe that the resolution of Council to notify the Department of Lands (DoL) of Council?s ?in principle support for the draft Scotts Head Master Plan? should be reconsidered for the following reasons:

 

??????????????? The issue of the future use of the Scotts Head Reserve and Caravan Park, in particular the use of Council owned community land is highly controversial and relates to a change of use of community land which has to date raised significant community interest and opposition.? The matter should have been dealt with when all Councillors were present, however Cr Ballangarry was an apology and was absent from the meeting.

 

??????????????? The motion to provide in principle support for the draft was not mentioned at the General Purpose Committee (GPC) on the previous day, when a number of the local Scotts Head community had attended specifically for the presentation. Whilst the resolution was in order, it has significant implications and is very different to the recommendation made in front of community members at the General Purpose Committee meeting ie that the status quo remain in terms of the Masterplan process until Council had considered the business plan.? Making such a resolution in such a way will further undermine public trust in the Masterplan process, which has already drawn community criticism.

 

??????????????? The business plan was not made available to Councillors at the GPC meeting and in fact was not fully presented, despite Council?s specific resolutions from its Ordinary Meeting 6 August 2009, stating:

 

1 (Ainsworth/Flack) That a business plan be prepared to identify the cost/benefit of the ? Masterplan to Council, the Lands Department and the community.

 

2 (Flack/Smyth)? That the business plan include the cost/benefit analysis for scenarios that ??? include Council and the Department managing their respective land separately; Council?s land ???????? being vacated (ie no long terms casuals); and leasing the existing land occupied by the long ??????? term casuals to the Department.

 

The DoL?s consultant only presented one scenario in detail, that being the DoL?s preferred option as per the draft Masterplan.? Council was informed that a second scenario had been modelled however no details were provided at the presentation.


 

There is no urgency to notify DoL of Council?s position.? Council requested a business plan with scenarios so that it could fully consider the economic implication of management options before proceeding, but it has yet to be provided with one.? Delays in the progress of the Scotts Head Masterplan have been due to the lengthy time taken by the DoL to prepare the draft plan.? Council should not rush into a decision regarding its position until it has fully considered the business plan as per its earlier resolution.?

 

Council should also be mindful of the public scrutiny that the Masterplan process has generated, especially given that the vast majority of submissions received by Council strongly oppose the loss of community open space to the Lands Department as proposed in the draft Masterplan.

 

Duly signed by the following councillors:

 

Cr Michael Moran OAM???? ????????????????

 

Cr Paula Flack?????????????????? ????????????????

 

Cr Anne Smyth????????????????? ????????????????

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?????


General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.1??? SF959????????????? 191109???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The following table is a report on all outstanding resolutions and questions from Councillors (except development consents, development control plans & local environmental plans). Matters which are simply noted or received, together with resolutions adopting rates, fees and charges are not listed as outstanding actions. Where matters have been actioned they are indicated with strikethrough and then removed from the report to the following meeting. Please note that the status comments have been made one week before the Council meeting.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the list of outstanding actions and reports be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

JULY 2008

1

Item 9.9

03/07/08

Council make representation to Minister for Lands seeking agreed compensation for subdivision of Reserve 91694

 

GM

Letter sent 15/07/08.

Follow up letter sent 14/11/2008.

Minister for Lands has advised by letter dated 8/1/09 that land will be made available to Council as per the agreement following finalisation of an Aboriginal Land Claim.

Follow up letter sent 9 April.

 

2

Item 11.4

03/07/08

That a new plan of management be prepared for Farringdon Playing Fields

DES

Awaiting outcome of grant application before proceeding.

Outcome of grant expected early December but not yet received.

Funding declined.? Work on preparing plan to be scheduled.

Interested parties will need to identify potential uses for inclusion in revised plan of management.

Local cricket and soccer associations to be contacted regarding use of the fields.

No response as at 22 June 2009.

Consider no interest.? Prepare draft plan November 2009.

Preparation of Plan of Management commenced.

 


 

OCTOBER 2008

3

RF256

 

16/10/08

Notice of Motion - Riverbank Erosion - Riverside Drive Nambucca Heads ? report re geotechnical engineers re stability of Riverside Drive

 

 

DES

 

Subject to GHD undertaking evaluation.

Separate assessments underway for:

Ellis Ave & Doyle Lane Landslips:

????? Survey complete. GHD site mapping complete. Lab testing completed.? Property boundaries defined. Draft report received.

Catchment Assessment:

?????? Draft report received on 21 August 2009

????? Under review by Council staff.

Final report available.

 

NOVEMBER 2008

4

SF544

6/11/08

Council review biennial the Community Infrastructure and Infrastructure Needs Study and review annually the Section 94 Community Facilities and Open Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule.

 

GM

Report November 2009

DECEMBER 2008

 

5

SF688

4/12/08

That during the first half of 2009/10?? Council to call for community input into a new Environmental Levy program for the 5 year period to the end of 2014/2015.

 

DEP

Programmed for September 2009.

Ads to appear 17 September 2009.

Submissions being received and considered.

It is proposed to prepare a brochure on the achievements of the Environmental Levy over the past 4? years and to undertake a community survey on the continuation on the Environmental Levy and includes the Committees views on this Council?s commitment to Climate Change.

Questions in survey circulated to Councillors.

Report to Council Dec GPC on current Env Levy and report to Feb GPC on Proposed New Env Levy.

 

 

6

SF1046

18/12/08

That the Wellington Drive component of the Urban Design Strategy be deferred pending a further report to Council in relation to further studies re land slip, rising sea level and traffic/parking.

 

DEP

Report March 2009.

Deferred in Draft Budget.

16 April 2009 meeting.

Deferred until draft Nambucca River Master Plan prepared.

 

 

FEBRUARY 2009

 

7

SF241

5/02/09

That a new plan of management for the reserve within Kingsworth Estate be prepared by DES.? To include pedestrian and vehicular access arrangements and management of environmental values.

 

DES

October 2009

Preparation of Plan of Management commenced.

Requests for information sent to Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Land Council and DECC.

 

The Lands Council has advised they will charge for an archaeological assessment.

 

In respect to the Kingsworth Lake Reserve the potential for Aboriginal objects to be found near this area is HIGH and inspections should be carried out as a walk over site survey should any activity be planned for this area..

 

8

SF869

19/02/09

Council write to Country Energy concerning energy being wasted with street lighting at the Pearl Estate off the Pacific Highway at Valla, pointing out there are no houses and the road is blocked to prevent access.

 

DES

DES to meet Country Energy to discuss further.

Meeting 15 June 2009?Cancelled

Now 13 July 2009

Country Energy advises:

??????? Council can nominate a future time to energise the lights rather than with subdivision release

??????? There have been a number of faulty light sensitive cells installed that are allowing lights to turn on during the day

??????? They will shortly be reconsidering energy saving street lamps for new and replacement situations

??????? The annual report from Country Energy will shortly be available.

A full report will be prepared on all these matters when the annual report arrives.

See Report 19 November 2009

 

MARCH 2009

 

9

DA09/049

5/03/09

The RTA requested to revise the speed limit along the Pacific Highway at Bellwood to 50km/hr.

 

DES

Letter sent.

No response as at 24 March 2009.

RTA advised 6 April 2009 that they will review and advise Council of outcome.

Follow up letter sent to RTA.

Verbal advise that on-site assessment done.

Verbal request to provide a response.

No written notification 10 August 2009.

No written notification 21 August 2009.

Further requests for response made 3 Sept 2009.? No written notification as at 21 Sept.

No reply as at 30 September 2009.

Further request made 22 October 2009.

Further request made 6 November 2009?verbally refused.

 

 

10

SF791

19/03/09

That a report back to the Land Development Committee on the outcome of advertising for expressions of interest for the purchase and development of industrial land in Nambucca Heads.

 

 

GM

Report to come back following advertising.

DES to investigate potential for closure of part of the road to add to the industrial land.

Surveyor to identify services and boundaries.

Services already allowed for in lot plan.

No expressions of interest received.? Report to come to Land Development Committee.

 

 

APRIL 2009

 

11

SF959

16/04/09

Sub-Committee continue a review of Draft Management Plan so that it can be presented to Council in March 2010.

Clrs

A report is to be prepared to the Sub-Committee on a staged process for reviewing the Draft Management Plan.? Report to be completed by June 2009.? Subcommittee to report by March 2010.

Review will now have to be in accordance with new legislation.? Meeting date for Committee is 10 August 2009.

Next meeting for Councillors Court, Flack, Smyth and South is scheduled for 9.00 am Meeting held Monday 24 August 2009.

Meeting held 8 Sept 2009.

Next meeting scheduled for 30 Sept 2009.

Council resolved on 5 November 2009 that the Sub-Committee provide progress reports on their work.

 

 

12

SF1305

16/04/09

Council make representations to the Minister for Emergency Services and Minister for Roads to seek funding for the repair of landslips in Nambucca Heads which occurred as a consequence of the flood events in February and March 2009.? Also that Council make representations to the Insurance Council for the provision of insurance for land slip damage.

 

GM

Letters sent 21 April 2009.

Follow-up letter sent 28 May 2009.

DES to write to RTA requesting a program as to when they will make determinations and when emergency funds will be available.

Letter sent.

No response at 10 August 2009.

 

Mayor has made representations to Andrew Stoner MP.

 

MAY 2009

 

13

SF959

07/05/09 & 4/6/09

That the report concerning Wia-Ora sand and gravel quarry consider options for calling in bonds to undertake works.

 

DEP

To be reported 21 May 2009.

Deferred to June 2009 to enable all options to be considered.

See item in business paper 4/6/2009.

Council again write to Dept Water & Energy

Letter sent 10 June 2009.

No response as at 6 July 2009.

Further follow up letter sent 27 July 2009.

Further follow up letter sent 10 September.

No response as at 22 September 2009.

Council has resolved on 1 October 2009 to write to the Premier concerning the delay.

Letter sent 28 October 2009.

 

 

14

SF21

07/05/09

Council investigate the implementation and costs of an effluent management system at the Saleyards

 

GM

August 2009.? Council?s Engineering Designer? is delayed with natural disaster work and preparing a design for Council?s industrial land in Nambucca Heads.? To be reported in November along with the future operation of the saleyards generally.

 

Report nearly complete.? To be reported to Sale Yards Committee in first instance late November.

 

 

15

SF1213

07/05/09

Allocation for retaining wall at Little Beach be deferred for consideration at the September Quarterly Review

 

DES

November 2009

Follow-up letter sent.

No reply at 17 July 2009

No reply at 10 August 2009.

No reply at 21 August 2009.

No reply at 7 Sept 2009.

No reply expected until Scotts Head Master Plan completed

 

 

16

SF1213

07/05/09

Council consider a report on the operation of the saleyards as a business unit and what, if any, subsidy is to be applied to its operations.

 

GM

November 2009.? Report nearly complete.? To be reported to Sale Yards Committee in first instance in late November.

 

17

SF1213

07/05/09

Council review the cycleway plan so as to ensure its funding requirements are realistic.

 

DES

December 2009

The revision of the Plan will need to be deferred so that staff can give priority to the construction of the cycleway south of Nambucca Heads.? April 2010

 

 

18

SF1213

07/05/09

Council receive a report on the funding and use of the reserves for the Council Chambers Upkeep, Self Insurance and Tourist Centre Upkeep.

 

GM

September 2009.? Delayed to October 2009.

 

Delayed till November 2009.

 

Obtaining information on cost/benefit of increasing self insurance reserve and reducing the schedule of insured buildings.

 

Report in December 2009.

 

19

SF452

21/05/09

Council seek from the Minister for the Environment acceptance that the sampling data for the old landfill indicate down stream impacts are minimal and re-installation of the leachate interception trench is not justifiable.

 

DES

Local DECC office advised by letter of Council?s intention.

Formal proposal for Minister being prepared.

Positive progress being made with DECC rep.

Information provided on sampling to DECC.

For determination.

 

 

20

SF452

21/05/09

Council consider the provision of additional monitoring bores at the landfill with a report on the cost for installation and monitoring.

 

DES

Report to July 2009.

Proceeding to provide 3 addition monitoring bores at the Cost of $3,000.

Defer until need determined.

Water quality meets standards downstream.

On-hold.

 

 

JUNE 2009

 

21

SF1269

4/6/2009

Report on options for pedestrian safety for Wallace Street in consultation with M&D Chamber of Commerce

 

DES

Report September GPC.

Preliminary concepts forwarded to Chamber for 1st round of comment.

Report will be prepared for Council once comment is received.

 

Listed for 19 November 2009.

 

 

JULY 2009

 

22

SF769

2/7/2009

Council make representations in conjunction with Bellingen Shire Council to the RTA and Minister for Roads, the Hon. Michael Daley MP objecting to the change in classification of the Bowraville to Bellingen Road and seek a deputation to meet the Minister

 

GM

Letters drafted 6/7/09

Agreement obtained from Bellingen Council. ?Agreement being sought from RTA. Brief prepared for Geotechnical Consultants.

Expressions of interest being sought for an Options Study.

RTA has approved options study.

In relation to deputation follow up letter sent 10 Sept 2009.

 

 

23

SF736

2/7/2009

A review of the strategic direction for the Aboriginal Youth Worker project be undertaken early 2010 or possibly before if there are changes to funding programs by the State Government.

 

DEP

January 2010

Due to the resignation of the Officer this project is now being reviewed in consultation with State Government Agencies and will be reported to Council.

Report targeted for 19/11/09

 

 

24

SF225

16/07/09

That Council write to the NPWS concerning relocation of dingoes to Yarrahapinni/Way Way area.

 

GM

Letter sent 21/7/09.?

Follow up letter sent 23/10/09.

Response received and circulated to Councillors.? NPWS advises that there has been no relocation of dingoes.

 

 

25

SF283

16/7/09

Option for a rebated access ramp in lieu of removal of podium in Council Chambers be put to the Access Committee.

 

DEP

Matter presented to Access Committee 28 July 2009.

Matter deferred for consideration at next Access meeting.

 

26

SF1272

16/07/09

Council consider as a first priority the provision of a data link and adequate server for backup in the quarterly review.? That Council consider suitable remote office space to house disaster recovery equipment at the quarterly review.

 

GM

Report to meeting on 19/11/09.

 

Deferred to December 2009.

 

27

SF1272

16/07/09

Council consider the need and cost of a consultant to identify and recommend improvements to existing records management practices in the 2010/11 budget.

 

GM

To be reported on in March 2010.

 

28

SF741

16/07/09

Council persevere with improving the operator and equipment efficiency of the Paveliner for a further 6 months before receiving a report and assessing other options including pothole patching being undertaken by contractors.

 

DES

January 2010.

 

AUGUST 2009

 

29

SF1269

06/08/09

Council receive a report on the tests conducted on the piers of the Congarinni Bridge.

 

DES

15 October 2009.

Tenders called for major maintenance.? Close on 28 October 2009.

Report to Council 19 November 2009

Deferred to December 2009 Council meeting.

 

 

30

SF285

06/08/09

Council write to Coffs Harbour City Council enquiring as to whether the proposed Coffs Coast rail motor service has progressed.

 

GM

Letter sent to Coffs Harbour GM on 14/8/09.

No response as at 6 October 2009.

Follow up letter sent 28 October 2009.

 

31

SF1131

06/08/09

A meeting be sought with the Minister for Roads to outline and support the submission for funding for Riverside Drive.

 

DES

Letter sent.

Mayor has also met with Andrew Stoner MP.

 

32

QWN 262

20/08/09

Taylors Arm Road ? dangerous road sinkage

 

DES

Dip filled.? To be further assessed for guard rail..

 

33

QWN 263

20/08/09

Irvines Road ? Piggery - DA

 

DEP

DA received and being assessed.

Assessment deferred pending outcome of legal advice.

Report to this meeting.

 

 

34

5.2

Notice of Motion

20/08/09

Council receive a bimonthly report that individually lists all required flood restoration work and the current status of each job.

 

DES

19 November 2009

18 February 2010

15 April 2010

 

35

5.5

Notice of Motion

 

20/08/09

Council review its Street Tree Guidelines policy

 

DES

December 2009.

Delayed to allow community members to have input.

 

 

36

SF544

20/08/09

Council adopt the draft Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan and review within 12 months.

 

GM

September 2010.

 

37

SF843

20/08/09

That an approach be made to Port Macquarie Hastings Council and Kempsey Council seeking a special Professional Fishes Vehicles on Beaches Permit.

 

DES

Letter sent to both Councils.

No response at 21 September 2009.

No response at 30 September 2009.

Verbal agreement received from Port Macquarie-Hastings.

 

 

38

SF652

20/08/09

Report to Council on feasibility of Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields as site for Men's Shed

 

DES

Men?s Shed to proceed.? They will prepare building plans.? Land will need to be leased.

Plan of Management to be revisited.? Report to Council 19 November 2009.

 

 

SEPTEMBER 2009

39

SF1407

3/09/09

When Council next conducts a ratepayer survey, pose questions concerning importance of climate change and what expenditure priority should be attached to it.

 

GM

Next ratepayer survey scheduled for late 2010, 3 years after the last survey.

Proposed to bring forward survey with Environmental Levy Survey.? Being undertaken early November 2009.

 

40

SF1360

3/09/09

That Council seek a meeting with the NSW Minister for Transport to request a significant contribution to the replacement of the bridge over Deep Creek.? Andrew Stoner MP to be advised of the situation.

 

DES

Letter signed by Mayor sent on 18 September 2009.

Verbal advice that no new information available requiring RTA to contribute.

RTA to meet with Mayor, GM and DES?meeting arranged for 30 November 2009.

41

SF941

17/09/09

Tourism ? list of promotional priorities; opportunity for MOU between Council and NV Tourism Inc; MOU with neighbouring Councils; options for structuring a special rate for tourism marketing.

 

GM

Work in progress

42

SF444

17/09/09

That the DES providing a grading program which is a schedule rather than a policy.

 

DES

Monthly program to be provided on website.

 

Report to Council 19 November 2009.

OCTOBER 2009

43

SF1269

01/10/09

Additional information relating to sustainable water management be included on website including water conservation and reuse, links to appropriate sites, all water restriction levels and details of Council?s tank rebate scheme.

 

DES

Proposed to engage a contractor, www.savewater.com.au to provide and update the information and links at a cost of approximately $0.54 per water service.

44

SF1269

01/10/09

Council review the tank rebate scheme asap to encourage greater uptake and promote to the community.

 

DES

DEP

Report to GPC in December 2009.

45

SF1269

01/10/09

Council investigate opportunities for funding for a part time Natural Resources Officer in a possible alliance with Bellingen Shire Council at no cost and that a report be prepared on the roles and responsibilities of the position.

 

DEP

Report to December 2009.

46

SF1426

01/10/09

Council call for expressions of Interest for a Risk Based Water Based Water Quality Management Plan

 

DES

MWS

January 2010 GPC

47

SF1075

15/10/09

Council review staffing requirements & costs for CCP milestones as well as the savings made in 12 months time.

 

DES

October 2010

NOVEMBER 2009

48

SF1269

5/11/09

Council write to the Premier and Lands Department and to the Minister for Local Government requesting that caravan parks on crown land pay general rates.

 

GM

Letters sent 11 November 2009

49

SF1269

5/11/09

Council check with the ABS regarding the population of the Macksville Urban Area.

 

DEP

Enquiry to be made with ABS

50

SF1269

5/11/09

Council object to State Government legislation re councils paying for damage to property due to sea level rises.

 

GM

Letter sent to the Hon. John Robertson MLC, Minister for Climate Change on 10 November 2009.

51

PRF53

5/11/09

River Street foreshore master plan to be listed for next GPC with the consultant to address and Joan?s Army to be invited.

 

DES

To be held on 18 November 2009

52

SF382

5/11/09

Council?s Code of Meeting Practice be reviewed as a matter of urgency to ensure rescission motions are lodged within 2 working days and dealt with at the next Ordinary meeting of Council.

 

GM

Report in this business paper.

53

SF1102

5/11/09

Council conduct a Value Management Workshop to examine financial components of the IWCM; rate modelling; forecast developer contributions and residential bills.

 

GM

Being discussed with Dept. of Commerce.? Suggested early February 2010 following completion of exhibition period for EIS.

54

SF1102

5/11/09

Council visit neighbouring off stream dams to get a better understanding of them.

 

DES

Scheduled for GPC in December 2009.

55

SF61

5/11/09

Council write to the Scotts Head Reserve Trust and request assistance in funding the provision of surf life saving facilities.

 

DES

Letter written.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.2??? SF624????????????? 191109???????? Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Northern Rivers CMA proposes that Council and the CMA enter into an agreement based on a set of principles for a coordinated regional approach to managing natural resources, to define the roles of each organisation, to promote information sharing and investment and to publicly demonstrate our intent to work together.? The agreement would be in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

 

The effective management of natural resources, and particularly our river system, does require a coordinated approach by relevant government agencies.? For this reason, Council should enter into the MOU for an initial period of 3 years.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority as proposed in their letter of 22 September 2009.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can either enter into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as proposed or suggest amendments or not enter into any MOU.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached letter from the General Manager of the Northern Rivers Catchment management Authority (CMA).

 

The Northern Rivers CMA proposed that Council and the CMA enter into an agreement based on a set of principles for a coordinated regional approach to managing natural resources, to define the roles of each organisation, to promote information sharing and investment and to publicly demonstrate our intent to work together.? The agreement would be in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

 

The proposed MOU is attached.? It is in the form of a general statement of intent that is founded on the desire of both parties to facilitate the effective management of natural resources by working in partnership.? It does not require council to make any financial commitment nor does it obligate Council to determine any matters in any particular way.

 

The effective management of natural resources and, in particular, our river systems, does require a coordinated approach by relevant government agencies.? For this reason Council should enter into the MOU for an initial term of three (3) years.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Northern Rivers CMA.

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

A coordinated approach to the management of natural resources will result in a positive outcome for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.? The Northern Rivers CMA operates in a consultative manner and it's difficult to perceive any adverse social outcomes.

 

Economic

 

A coordinated approach to natural resources management should not have any adverse economic implications.? In fact the reverse should be the case.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct or indirect impact on budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

25217/2009 - Letter and Proposed Memorandum of Understanding

 

??




?


General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.3??? SF42??????????????? 191109???????? Revised Guidelines for Councillor Expenses and Facilities

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Department of Local Government has released revised Guidelines for the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities for mayors and councillors in NSW.? Refer Circular No. 09-36 issued on 7 October 2009.

 

Council adopted amendments to its existing policy, ?Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Councillors? at its meeting on 1 October 2009.? The policy has again been amended to reflect the new ?guidelines? but retains all of the substantive provisions of the recently amended policy.? The amended policy is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council adopt the revised policy, ?Payment of Fees, Expenses and Provision of ????????? Facilities to Councillors?.

 

2??????? That the revised policy be submitted to the Division of Local Government, Department of ????????? Premier and Cabinet.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can amend its policy but it must be consistent with the ?Guidelines for the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities for mayors and councillors in NSW?.

 

There are no real options.? The amended policy which is attached incorporates the new mandatory provisions but otherwise there have been no changes to the policy which Council only recently reviewed (1 October 2009).

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Department of Local Government has released revised Guidelines for the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities for mayors and councillors in NSW.? Refer Circular No. 09-36 issued on 7 October 2009.

 

Revisions include:

 

1.?? Addition that councillor expenses may not be used to support attendance by councillors at political fund raising functions

2.?? Addition to and consolidation of the legal expenses provisions, including reference to matters before a council?s Conduct Review Committee/Reviewer

3.?? Addition that councils should establish and document an appropriate process to resolve any disputes that arise about expenses and facilities

4.?? Addition that gifts and benefits given by councillors should be of token value and in accordance with a policy developed by the council

5.?? Addition to training and development expenses provisions

6.?? Clarification on the need for limits for all expenses

7.?? Clarification that policies should disallow general expense allowances and private benefit from expenses and facilities (unless incidental or reimbursement mechanism in place)

8.?? Clarification of processes for approval, reconciliation and reimbursement of expenses

9.?? Clarification that councillor annual fees do not fall within the scope of councillor expenses and facilities policies

10.? Clarification that adopted expenses and facilities policies apply to Administrators of councils

11.? Updates to legislative provisions and references

12.? Restructuring of information and format to make the Guidelines easier to follow

 

Councils are required to submit their expenses and facilities policies to the Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet by 30 November each year.

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act provides that a Council policy must comply with the provisions of the Act, the regulations and any relevant ?guidelines? issued under section 23A.? Hence they are mandatory guidelines.

 

Council adopted amendments to its existing policy, ?Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for Councillors? at its meeting on 1 October 2009.? The policy has again been amended to reflect the new ?guidelines? but retains all of the substantive provisions of the recently amended policy.? The amended policy is attached.

 

Section 253 of the Local Government Act provides that a council need not give public notice of a proposed amendment to its policy for the payment of expenses or provision of facilities if the council is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is not substantial.? As the amendment simply incorporates new mandatory provisions, there is no purpose in again advertising the policy and it can simply be adopted.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

There are risks if there is non-compliance with the policy.? The provisions of the existing policy are operating satisfactorily.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

28205/2009 - DRAFT POLICY - Councillors - Payment of Fees and Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors

 

??


 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

COUNCILLORS?

PAYMENT OF FEES, EXPENSES &

PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO COUNCILLORS - POLICY

 

 

 

Function:? CORPORATE SERVICES

 

 

Adopted: 8 April 2004 (038)?????

Last reviewed: 15 February 2007 (049)

15 November 2007

18 December 2008

11 March 2009

1 October 2009

19 November 2009

 

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.?

 

 


PART 1 - INTRODUCTION

 

 

Purpose of the Policy

 

1.0??????? The purpose of the policy is to ensure that Councillors receive adequate and reasonable expenses and facilities to enable them to carry out their civic duties.? It ensures that these are provided in an accountable and transparent manner.

 

Policy objective

 

1.1?????? To comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and the Code of Conduct.

 

1.2?????? To ensure that Councillors are able to effectively carry out their responsibilities as members of the Council and as community representatives without suffering financial hardship

 

1.3?????? To provide appropriate insurance coverage for Councillors in respect of Personal Accident, Public Liability and Professional Indemnity and Councillors' and Officers' Liability.

 

Related legislation and Government Policy

 

1.4???? Local Government Act 1993, particularly Sections 248 to 254A

1.5???? Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, particularly Clauses 403 and 404

1.6???? Code of Conduct

1.7??????? Department of Local Government Guidelines for the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities to Mayors and Councillors

1.8??????? ICAC publications

 


PART 2 ? PAYMENT OF EXPENSES

 

 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

No general expense allowance

 

2.1??????? Under clause 403 of the Regulation this policy does not include a general expense allowance being a sum of money paid by a Council to a Councillor to expend on an item or a service that is not required to be receipted and/or otherwise reconciled according to a set procedure and within a specific timeframe.

 

Monetary limits for all expenses

 

2.2??????? The payment of expenses and the provision of equipment and facilities to Councillors is not open ended.? Monetary limits are set for all expense provisions within this policy.

 

No private benefit

 

2.3??????? Councillors should not obtain more than incidental private use of facilities.? For example Councillors should not obtain private benefit from the provision of equipment and facilities, nor from travel bonuses such as ?frequent flyer? schemes or any other such loyalty programs whilst on council business.

 

No use of Council resources for political purposes

 

2.4??????? A person?s re-election is considered to be a personal interest.? Official Council material such as letterhead, publications, websites as well as Council services and forums must not be used for such personal interests.? Situations in which the appearance may be given that these are being used for such purposes are also to be avoided.? The fundraising activities of political parties, including political fundraising events, are considered to be personal interests.? Council will not pay expenses or provide facilities to Councillors in relation to supporting and/or attending such activities and events.

 

Gifts and benefits to be of token value

 

2.5??????? In circumstances where it is appropriate for Councillors to give a gift or benefit (for example, on a Council business related trip or when receiving visitors), these gifts and benefits are to be of token value.

 

Participation, equity and access

 

2.6??????? This policy is intended to be non-discriminatory and to encourage participation on Council by people of diverse backgrounds that represent the demographics of the local community.? Primary care givers and people with a disability should not be disadvantaged in undertaking the civic duties of a councillor.

 

Approval and dispute resolution processes

 

2.7??????? The policy sets out what approvals, if any, are required for all expenses and facilities provided under this policy.? Any dispute arising out of the application of the policy is to be referred to the next Ordinary meeting of Council for determination.

 

Reimbursement and reconciliation of expenses processes

 

2.8??????? In general, the reimbursement of expenses incurred under this policy will require the submission of receipts unless otherwise specified.

 

Payment in advance process

 

2.9??????? When requested by a Councillor, the General Manager will give consideration to the provision of an advance payment for the cost of a service associated with a civic duty.? Advance payments are to be reconciled with receipts within 14 days of the expense being incurred.

 

 

SPECIFIC EXPENSES FOR COUNCILLORS (INCLUDING LIMITS)

 

Councillor Training and Development

 

2.10????? Individual budget allocations will be provided to support the training and development activities undertaken by the Mayor and Councillors and progress against expenditure of the budget allocation will be reported on an annual basis.? In 2009/2010 the budget for Councillor?s training and development activities is $2,500 per Councillor and $3,500 for the Mayor.

 

The allocation is permitted to accumulate for a period of two years.? Councillors may exceed their budget allocation by resolution of Council.? Training and development includes attendance at conferences and seminars.?

 

Travel whilst on Council Business

 

2.11.???? Councillors will be reimbursed for travelling to and from meetings of Council or meetings of any Committee of Council or meetings of any Organisation to which a Councillor has ?? been appointed as a delegate or any other activity including training and development which has either been authorised by Council or endorsed by this policy.

 

2.12????? Travel by private motor vehicle will be reimbursed at the kilometre rate applicable in the Local Government (State) Award for the most direct route.

 

2.13????? Councillors should determine from the General Manager the availability of a Council vehicle for travel outside the Shire.

 

2.14????? If a Council vehicle is available and a Councillor chooses to use a private vehicle, only fuel costs will be reimbursed.

 

2.15????? If air travel is the most cost efficient transport, then Councillors will travel by economy class by the most direct route.

 

2.16????? Council will meet the cost of transferring Councillors from their place of abode to the airport and return from the airport to their place of abode.

 

2.17????? Should a Councillor be accommodated in a hotel not being the site of a conference or seminar, Council will meet the cost of travelling from the hotel to the site of the conference or seminar and return each day.

 

2.18????? Claims for travel expenses must be made on the Councillors expenses claim form and will be reimbursed with the normal monthly claim.

 

Accommodation whilst on Council Business

 

2.19???? Accommodation will be booked and paid for by Council at accommodation where government rates apply.

 

2.20???? Accommodation booked for attendance at a conference will be at the venues suggested by the conference organiser.

 

2.21???? Accommodation shall be paid on a single room per night basis, based on reimbursement for actual costs involved.

 

2.22???? The standard of accommodation is not to exceed four stars except where a conference or seminar venue exceeds four stars, or as determined by the General Manager.

?????????

Sustenance

 

2.23????? A meal and refreshments will be provided for Councillors at Council and Committee meetings and Working Parties or any other time deemed appropriate by the Mayor or General Manager while on Council business.

 

2.24????? Councillors will be reimbursed for sustenance expenses if the Councillor partakes of a meal not provided by Council as part of official function, while on Council business.

 

2.25????? The maximum level of reimbursement will be appropriate to the circumstances of ???? attendance and will be determined by the General Manager.

 

2.26????? Claims for sustenance expenses must be supported by receipts and will be reimbursed with the normal monthly claim.

 

Reimbursement of Costs

 

2.27?? All costs associated with travel on Council business will be paid in advance by Council ie

i. Conference/seminar registration and associated documentation

ii. Travel

iii.? Accommodation

iv.? Sustenance

v. Councillors partners may accompany them on Council business trips at no expense to Council.

 

Note: Specific provisions relating to conferences and seminars are now contained within Council?s Councillor Training and Development Policy.

 

Out of Pocket Expenses

 

2.28????? Reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred while attending an authorised Council function will be reimbursed as determined by the General Manager.

 

2.29?? Expenses of a personal nature are excluded.

 

2.30????? Claims must be supported by a receipt and must be made no later than 14 days after the expenses were incurred.

 

Legal Expenses

 

2.31????? Councillors are entitled to reimbursement of some legal expenses and to the extent described below:

 

a????????? A Councillor defending an action arising from the performance in good faith of a function under the Local Government Act (section 731 refers); or

 

b????????? A Councillor for proceedings before the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal or an investigative body provided the subject of the proceedings arises from the performance in good faith of a function under the Act and the Tribunal or investigative body makes a finding substantially favourable to the Councillor.? Investigative bodies include ICAC; the Office of the NSW Ombudsman; the Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet; NSW Police Force; Director of Public Prosecutions; Council?s Conduct Review Committee/Reviewer.

 

c????????? Legal expenses incurred in relation to proceedings arising out of the performance by a Councillor of his or her functions under the Act should be distinguished from expenses incurred in relation to proceedings arising merely from something that a Councillor has done during his or her term in office.? An example of the latter is expenses arising from an investigation as to whether a Councillor acted corruptly by using knowledge of a proposed rezoning for private gain.? This latter type of expense will not be reimbursed by Council.

 

d????????? Prior approval for a potential legal expense should be sought from the General Manager before the expense is incurred.

 

e????????? Council will not meet the costs of an action in defamation where a Councillor is either the plaintiff or defendant.

 

f?????????? Council will not meet legal expenses in respect of any legal proceedings initiated by the Mayor and/or councillors in any circumstances.

 

 

Insurance Expenses

 

2.32????? Councillors will receive the benefit of insurance cover to the limit specified in Council's insurance policies.? The following summarises the extent of cover available..

 

????????? Personal Injury

 

??????????? Personal injury or death whilst on Council business, worldwide, covering bodily injury caused by accidental, violent, external and visible means.? Personal injury insurance also provides specified benefits for lost income and other expenses arising from permanent disablement, temporary total disability and temporary partial disability.? The cover does not include medical expenses.? Full details of personal accident insurance are available from Council's Risk Manager.

 

????????? Professional Indemnity

 

??????????? Professional Indemnity insurance applies in relation to claims arising out of the Councillors' (alleged) negligent performance of civic duties or exercise of their functions as a Councillors, provided the performance or exercise of the relevant civic duty or function is in the opinion of council bona fide and/or proper.? This is subject to any limitations or conditions set out in the policy of insurance that is taken out at the direction of Council.

 

????????? Public Liability

 

??????????? Public Liability insurance applies in relation to claims arising out of the Councillors' (alleged) negligent performance of civic duties or exercise of their functions as Councillors. This is subject to any limitations or conditions set out in the policy of insurance that is taken out at the direction of Council.

 

????????? Councillors' and Officers' Liability (Including Employment Practices Liability)

 

??????????? Applies to cover expenses incurred by Councillors in respect of claims made against them for any alleged wrongful acts arising out of their official capacities (but excludes cover for statutory penalties.

 

????????? Statutory Liability

 

??????????? Applies to cover penalty and defence costs payable by Councillors to any regulatory authority pursuant to any Act of a (not deliberate) wrongful statutory breach, while acting within the scope of their duty.

 

????????? Personal Effects?Council Premises

 

????????? Councillors are not covered for loss or damage of personal effects.

?????????

Use of Private Motor Vehicle while on Council Business

 

??????????? Councillors using their private motor vehicles to undertake civic duties or when attending Council and Committee meetings or Conferences are not covered for the loss or damage to their vehicles.? This is covered by the kilometre hire rate.

 

Internet Connection

 

2.33????? Upon submission by a councillor of a claim for internet access which is to include a copy of an invoice for such access, the Council will reimburse the cost of such access on a monthly basis up to a maximum of $40.00 per month.

 

??????????? Note:? In accepting this expense Councillors shall abide by Council?s policy on the use of the internet and email.? Councillors shall also forward any email which may concern Council business to Council?s email address, council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au so that it may be stored on Council?s electronic records systems in accordance with the State Records Act.? A copy of Council?s policy on the use of the internet and email as well as Councillor?s responsibilities under the State Records Act will be provided upon receipt of an initial claim.

 

Carer Expenses

 

2.34????? Upon submission by a Councillor of a claim for carer?s expenses which is to include a copy of an invoice for such expenses, the Council will reimburse the cost of those expenses up to a maximum annual limit of $500.? Expenses for carer arrangements, including child care expenses and the care of elderly, disabled and/or sick immediate family members of Councillors, are payable when a Councillor attends meetings of Council or meetings of any Committee of Council or meetings of any organisation to which a Councillor has been appointed as a delegate or any other activity which is authorised by Council.

 

 

PART 3 ? PROVISION OF FACILITIES

 

 

3.1???? The following facilities will be provided to assist Councillors in the performance of their duties:

 

????????? Councillors

 

a????????? Provision of business cards and name badges, but not specialist secretarial services.

b????????? Provision of official stationary including letterheads upon application to the General Manager.

c????????? Postage of official correspondence?all mail is to be directed through the Council's own mailing system.

 

d????????? A Councillor's Room for official business, located in the Administration Centre and use of the computer in that room.

e????????? Use of Council's copying facilities for official business.

f?????????? Suitable personal protective equipment in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2001 as amended, relating to general construction site requirements.

 

????????? Council Information

 

a????????? Council staff will provide appropriate information and documentation to assist Councillors in the performance of their duties.

b????????? Where copies of documents or information are required a request should be made to the General Manager, the appropriate Director or Manager.

c????????? Requests from Councillors for in depth information, research or reports to Council shall be initiated by way of either Council resolution or by authorisation from the General Manager or Mayor.

d????????? Requests for information or assistance should be made to the appropriate Director or Manager or, if such officers are not available, to the most senior person available at the time.

 

????????? Mayor

 

??????????? In addition to those facilities that may be provided to the Councillors as set out in above, the Mayor is entitled to receive the benefit of:

 

a????????? A fully serviced and maintained motor vehicle for the purposes of discharging the function of civic office

b????????? Full private use of the motor vehicle in accordance with Council's Use of Council Vehicle Agreement

c????????? A furnished office located in the Administration Centre

d????????? Secretarial services associated with the office of Mayor

e????????? Administrative assistance associated with functions of the office

f?????????? Office refreshments

g????????? A 24 hour access card to the Council offices

h????????? A facsimile machine at place of residence

i?????????? A mobile telephone with car kit, serviced and maintained

j?????????? Use of a computer.

 

 

PART 4 ? OTHER MATTERS

 

 

Accountability

 

4.1??????? In accordance with clause 271 of the Regulations and for the purposes of transparency and accountability, Councils are required to include detailed information in their annual reports about the payment of expenses and facilities to Councillors..

 

4.2??????? In addition, a letter will be issued to all Councillors showing all fees, expenses and all payments made to Councillors in performance of their duties for the financial year.

 

Annual Fees

 

4.3??????? The Mayor and Councillors will be paid an annual fee in accordance with the determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

4.4??????? The Mayor and Councillors will be paid the maximum annual fee for the category ???? classification for Nambucca Shire Council determined from time to time by the Tribunal.

 

4.5??????? If a Councillor is absent, with or without leave of the Council, from ordinary meetings of the Council for any one period of more than 3 months, payment will not be made for the period in excess of 3 months.

 

 

 

?


General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.4??? SF321????????????? 191109???????? Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management - Financial Statement

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report acknowledges the receipt of the Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management's Financial Statement (copy attached) which was omitted from the minutes of their annual general meeting held 15 July 2009 and reported to Council at its meeting on 17 September 2009.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management's Financial Statement for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to accept the Financial Statement.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The AGM for the Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management was held on 15 July 2009 and reported to Council on 17 September 2009.? There was no financial statement with the minutes and they have now been provided for Council's information.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There is no impact on the environment.

 

Social

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

There is no risk arising from this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no impact on the budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

28355/2009 - Income and expenditure 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management - Financial Statement

Attachment 1

Income and expenditure 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009

 

 

MISSABOTTI COMMUNITY CENTER ANNUAL REPORT FOR INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

From 1 July 2008? to? 30 June 2009

Item

Expenditure

Income

GST+

GST-

$1 account

$10 account

$20 account

Cash Box

Telstra

$344.33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country Energy

$765.78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building supplies/ Repairs

$2474.34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kitchen Supplies

$415.43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moneys raised from events

 

$924.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hall hire

 

$824.45

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petrol, Oil & garden expenses

$142.64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertising

$151.04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stationary

$101.92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Printer Link

$286.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money from NSC for RepairS/ Projects

 

$1546.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market expense

$1108.67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market income

 

$1934.45

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mural expenses

$220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kitchen expense non food

$191.95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRRR Grant money

 

$27500.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRRR Coffee Machine

$2200.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRRR? Coffee Grinder

$715.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Materials to fit coffee machine

$235.51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coffee

$25.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fridge

$990.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sand for concrete slab

$308.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plastic for under slab

$69.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reo & chair

for slab construction

$585.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deposit for shed purchase

$1080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest on FRRR grant money

 

$379.16

 

 

 

 

 

 

GST.

 

 

$2609.02

 

 

 

 

 

Petty Cash

 

 

 

$553.96

 

 

 

$41.80

Balance in accounts

 

 

 

 

$2025.66

$362.86

$21676.35

 

TOTAL

$12410.06

$33108.76

$2609.02

$553.96

$2025.66

$362.86

$21676.35

$41.80

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.5??? SF42??????????????? 191109???????? Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet has developed tendering guidelines for NSW Local Government.? They were released via circular 09-39 dated 26 October 2009.

 

Council?s procedures will need to change to provide for a report in an open meeting with a confidential attachment containing the evaluation.? If there are any questions concerning the evaluation then the report would need to be deferred and considered in closed meeting.

 

It is proposed that Council adopt evaluation criteria and weighting for a range of ?standard? tender types.? If it is proposed to apply criteria and weighting other than from the ?standard? types then this would need to be reported to Council before the tender is advertised.

 

In relation to the acceptance or rejection of tenders, for transparency, it is suggested that the minutes record the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That there is a report on tenders in open Council with an evaluation report circulated as a ????????? confidential attachment.

 

2??????? That a report is brought to Council recommending the adoption of evaluation criteria and ????????? weighting for a range of ?standard? tender types.

 

3??????? That there is a division for tenders so as to record the names of Councillors who supported ????????? the decision and the names of any Councillors who opposed it.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

As part of the Division of Local Government?s aim to encourage and support the spread of best practice, it has produced Tendering Guidelines for NSW local government.? They are prepared by the Director General of the Department under Section 23A of the Act and therefore must be considered by councils as part of the tendering process.? Council should not undertake any practice which is inconsistent with the guidelines.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet has developed tendering guidelines for NSW Local Government.? They were released via circular 09-39 dated 26 October 2009.? The Guidelines can be found on the ?Publications? page of the Divisions? website at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.

 

The Guidelines have been adopted by the Deputy Director General (Local Government), Department of Premier and Cabinet under section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993.? Accordingly, the Guidelines must be taken into consideration by all councils when exercising their tendering functions.

 

The Division of Local Government advises that the Guidelines have been prepared to encourage and support best practice procurement within the local government sector.

 

The key principles that should be observed when tendering include:

 

1??????? Councils are generally required to call tenders where the estimated expenditure or receipt exceeds $150,000.

 

2??????? Councils are encouraged to consider using tendering processes when a lesser amount is involved to ensure they obtain best value.

 

3??????? Councils must not adopt practices, such as contract splitting, to avoid their obligations under the Act.

 

4.?????? Tendering processes should involve councillors, managers and those responsible for the on-ground delivery of services.

 

Aspects of the new guidelines which are of interest or relevance to this Council are summarised as follows:

 

1.3???? Confidentiality

 

Councils must not disclose tender information received from tenderers that is intellectual property, proprietary, commercial-in-confidence or otherwise confidential, without their prior consent.? In addition, council staff or councillors must not disclose information regarding the specific details of a tendering process, including a recommendation of the tender evaluation or assessment panel before the outcome of the tender has been determined.

 

Where a council is dealing with a tender pursuant to section 55 of the Act and confidential information needs to be disseminated to councillors for the purpose of deciding whether or not to accept any submitted tender, the confidential information should be issued as a separate confidential attachment to the Council report with the non-confidential information included in the council business paper which is available to the public.

 

Section 10A of the Act outlines the circumstances under which a council or council committee meeting may be closed to the public.? This includes information that would, if disclosed:

?????? Confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business with, or

?????? Prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

?????? Confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or

?????? Reveal a trade secret.

 

Councils are reminded that the Act emphasises openness and transparency in decision making and councils should consider whether any information provided in the report to the council is intellectual property, proprietary, commercial-in-confidence or otherwise confidential before considering any report in closed session.

 

Comment

Whilst the Act emphasises openness and transparency in decision making, tenders can readily be labelled ?commercial-in-confidence? which means the tender evaluation cannot be undertaken in an open meeting.? By definition this cannot be an open and transparent process.? Clarification is being sought from the Department as to what can and can?t be reported to an open meeting.? In any case, Council?s procedures will need to change to provide for a report in an open meeting with a confidential attachment containing the evaluation.? If there are any questions concerning the evaluation then the report would need to be deferred and considered in closed meeting.

 

Examples of this style of reporting from both Port Macquarie ? Hastings Council and Coffs Harbour City Council are attached.? There are some differences in style, the most notable being there is an officer recommendation in relation to the preferred tenderer at Port Macquarie ? Hastings, but not at Coffs Harbour.

 

1.6???? Local Preference Policy

 

?The implementation of local preference policies is not necessarily inconsistent with the principles of National Competition Policy.? However, the use of local preference in the evaluation of tenders and awarding of contracts possesses inherent risks in terms of anti-competitiveness and the maintenance of defensibility, accountability and probity.

 

Where a council wants to consider local preference as a factor in the supply of goods and services or the disposal of property, it should develop and adopt a local preference policy.? This policy should be based on sound reasoning and outline the circumstances in which the council would bring this policy into effect.? For example, where an additional cost would be incurred by the council in implementing its local preference policy, the maximum amount or percentage of that additional cost should be specified and the particular circumstances in which the amount should also be acceptable to the local community.

 

The policy, as well as a statement indicating the basis for its use, should be provided to any potential tenderers prior to their decision to submit a tender.? Such a policy should be included in the tender documents and identified in the evaluation criteria.

 

When reporting the result of a tender evaluation process, the application of the policy should be clearly referred to and details provided regarding any additional costs to be incurred by the council if it accepts a tender, other than the lowest tender, as a result of the implementation of the policy.

 

Comment

Council?s existing Procurement Procedures Manual adopted in 2008 provides for local preference with a weighting of 10%.

 

 

1.7???? Aboriginal Employment Participation

 

In certain circumstances tenderers will be required to indicate measures they intend to implement if awarded the contract, which are designed to lead to improved conditions in Aboriginal communities.

 

These measures may relate to employment of Aboriginal people, procedures to develop the business skills of Aboriginal people and the provision of economic benefits to Aboriginal communities.

 

The Construction Agency Coordination Committee has produced Aboriginal Participation in Construction Guidelines, which set out what is required of parties involved in construction projects for the NSW government.? The website may be found at www.dpws.nsw.gov.au.

 

Comment

The opportunities which certain contracts may provide for Aboriginal employment should be considered.

 

 

3.1???? When is a tender required?

 

? In addition to types of contracts outlined in this section (55(1)), councils are encouraged to use the tendering process in the following circumstances:

 

?????? Where estimated expenditure (including on costs such as GST) is close to the tendering threshold specified in the Regulation (currently $150,000).? The calculation of estimated expenditure should be a critical element of planning and contract scoping.

?????? Councils should not invoice or order split to avoid tendering requirements as such activities would be contrary to the requirements of council?s charter under the Act.

?????? Where the aggregated or cumulative cost of a contract conducted over more than one accounting period is likely to exceed the tendering threshold specified in the Regulation.

?????? Where the sale of purchase of a good or services may be considered controversial, contentious or political.

?????? Where the sale or purchase of land may be considered controversial, contentious or political.? Acknowledging that the sale or purchase of land is specifically exempt under 55(3) of the Act, council should still consider using the tender process in such circumstances.

?????? Where there is a risk that ?would be? tenders could claim that council has ?preferential? arrangements with a single supplier.

?????? Where there is a risk that ?would be? tenders could claim that they would have tendered for the work if a public tendering process had been undertaken

 

Comment

It is agreed that tendering is advantageous in the circumstances listed and indeed Council utilised a tender for the possible sale of the Bowraville Pioneer Community Centre.? However controversial, contentious or political matters or disgruntled would be ?tenderers? cannot always be identified before the event, and such risks exist with nearly all procurement.

 

Council?s Procurement Procedures Manual adopted in 2008 goes well beyond the provisions of the Act in seeking at least 3 written quotations for work with a value of between $20,000 and $150,000.

 

3.4???? Developing the Evaluation Criteria

 

?? Evaluation criteria should be included in the tender documents, although councils should consider whether to indicate the weighting of each criterion.? While advice regarding weightings is more transparent, such advice may influence a potential tenderer?s response.? The weighting of the evaluation criteria and the evaluation methodology should be determined prior to calling of tenders and must not be determined later than close of tenders.?

 

Comment

Presumably the knowledge of weightings would and should influence a potential tenderer?s response.? Otherwise the tenderer will never fully appreciate the qualities which are sought in a contractor.

 

The application of evaluation criteria and weightings is a particular issue where Council is determining tenders.? Whilst the guidelines are silent on the involvement of Councillors in this process, how can the elected Council be expected to endorse a recommendation as to a preferred tenderer when they have had no involvement in the specification of evaluation criteria and weightings?

 

It is proposed that Council adopt evaluation criteria and weighting for a range of ?standard? tender types.? If it is proposed to apply criteria and weighting other than from the ?standard? types then this would need to be reported to Council before the tender is advertised.

 

3.17?? Acceptance or Rejection of Tenders

 

?? For transparency, it is suggested that the minutes record the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

 

Comment

Whilst there is a disconnect between the stated procurement considerations of transparency and accountability and the recommendations of the guidelines to keep confidential the evaluation of tenders, there is no problem in calling a division for tenders and recording the names of councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed it.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been discussion with the Director Engineering Services and Manager Civil Works as to Council?s response to the Guidelines.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.


 

Social

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

There are many risks with procurement.? Whilst compliance with the guidelines will not remove all risk, the adoption of best practice should reduce risk.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

28623/2009 - Examples of Tender Reporting

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government

Attachment 1

Examples of Tender Reporting

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.6??? SF1321??????????? 191109???????? Invitation to Comment on the Commercial Release of a Genetically Modified Live Viral Vaccine to Protect against Japanese Encephalitis (IMOJEVtm)

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council has now received a request for advice in relation to a licence application for the commercial release of a genetically modified live viral vaccine to protect against Japanese encephalitis.

 

As Council does not have any position in relation to genetically modified organisms, it is not proposed to make any response.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information from the Gene Technology Regulator in relation to the commercial release of a genetically modified live viral vaccine to protect against Japanese encephalitis be noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can make a submission.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

There was a lost motion at Council?s meeting on 6 August 2009 in relation to how Council should deal with invitations from the Gene Technology Regulator for advice on matters relevant to the preparation of a risk assessment and risk management plan (RARMP).? It was recommended that pending the outcome of a community survey on a GE free declaration, that Council take no action in relation to risk assessment and risk management plans which may be referred to Council by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in relation to applications to release genetically modified organisms.

 

Council has now received a request for advice in relation to a licence application for the commercial release of a genetically modified live viral vaccine to protect against Japanese encephalitis.

 

The details of the request are shown in a circularised document.

 

Apparently the GM vaccine is based on a vaccine strain of Yellow fever virus, YF 17D, which has been modified to contain genes from Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV).? Expression of these genes has been shown to elicit a protective immune response in vaccinated people.? Sanofi is seeking approval for a commercial release of this vaccine in Australia.

 

The applicant proposes the commercial release to occur in medical facilities throughout Australia.? The vaccine is intended for people travelling to areas where JEV is endemic and, if approved, would be prescribed by registered medial practitioners to persons over 18 years of age.

 

For those with a biological bent, the proposed genetic modification and its effect can be simply expressed as follows:

 

?The YF 17D parent virus has been modified to remove the endogenous envelope (E) and pre-membrane (prM) proteins that make up the outer surface of the viral particle and replace them with the equivalent proteins from JE SA14-14-2.

 

The effect of the genetic modifications is to create a chimeric virus in which the non-structural proteins involved in viral replication are from YF 17D, and the surface glycoproteins that mediate binding to host cells and interactions with the host immune system are derived from JE SA14-14-2.? The vaccine viral particle therefore consists of a YF core surrounded by an envelope comprised of the JEV M and E glycoproteins.

 

After inoculation with the GM vaccine, the subsequent expression of the viral genes in host cells elicits humoral and cell mediated immune responses against the viral membrane and envelope proteins (ie M and E), which provides protective immunity against infection with pathogenic strains of JEV.?

 

The Gene Technology Regulator is seeking advice on risks to human health and safety and the environment that he should consider in preparing the RARMP by 5 January 2010.

 

As Council does not have any position in relation to genetically modified organisms, it is not proposed to make any response.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The environmental implications are unknown.

 

Social

 

The social implications are unknown.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications to the Nambucca Valley.

 

Risk

 

The risks are unknown.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Document Only

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Invitation to Comment on the Commercial Release of a Genetically Modified Live Viral Vaccine to Protect against Japanese Encephalitis (IMOJEVtm)

Attachment 1

Circularised Document Only

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Invitation to Comment on the Commercial Release of a Genetically Modified Live Viral Vaccine to Protect against Japanese Encephalitis (IMOJEVtm)

 

 

 

Circularised Document Only

 

??Pages

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.7??? SF611????????????? 191109???????? Amendments to Code of Meeting Practice

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet has now revised and updated Practice Note 16 ? Meetings Practice and advised Councils by Circular 09/32 dated 31 August 2009.? The Practice Note has been developed to help Councillors and staff conduct Council meetings in accordance with best practice standards.

 

Some of the commentary in Practice Note 16 ? Meetings Practice is contrary to Council?s existing practice and recent resolutions.

 

A number of amendments are proposed to Council?s existing Code of Meeting Practice dealing with the notice of meetings (posting of business papers); removing ?Questions without Notice? from the Order of Business; requiring a Division for all planning matters and tenders at both Council and Committee meetings; providing an opportunity for the public to address Council; and requiring that rescission motions be dealt with at the following Ordinary Council meeting and also that resolutions not be acted upon following the receipt of a rescission motion.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the amended Code of Meeting Practice.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can make changes to its Code of Meeting Practice as it sees fit.? Any change must not be contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Act or Regulations.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet has now revised and updated Practice Note 16 ? Meetings Practice and advised Councils by Circular 09/32 dated 31 August 2009.? The Practice Note has been developed to help Councillors and staff conduct Council meetings in accordance with best practice standards.? The practice note explains the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 as they relate to Council meetings and decision making processes.? A copy of the Practice Note has been circularised to Councillors.? It can also be found on the Division?s website, www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.

 

Some of the commentary in Practice Note 16 ? Meetings Practice is contrary to Council?s existing practice and recent resolutions.? There are also some other suggestions arising out of the Practice Note that Council may wish to consider.

 

Notice of Meetings

 

At Council?s meeting on 30 April 2009 it was resolved that posting of the business papers for Council?s second Ordinary monthly meeting and the General Purpose Committee meeting occur on a Wednesday.? It was also resolved that the Code of Meeting Practice be amended when Council next reviews the Code.? It is appropriate that the Code of Meeting Practice now be amended to reflect this resolution and practice.

 


Questions Without Notice

 

The Guidelines state that having an agenda item, ?questions without notice? is inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulation that require notice to be given of matters to be discussed at Council meetings (cl 241).

 

?Allowing questions without notice would avoid the notice provisions of clause 241 of the Regulation.? That clause enables all Councillors and the public to be aware, by reading the agenda, of matters that will be raised at each meeting.? It also enables Councillors to give careful thought to any pecuniary interest or conflict of interest they might have in a matter, rather than having to hastily confront an issue during the meeting?.

 

The practice note suggests that agendas contain an item ?questions with notice?, with Councillors providing questions to the general manager to be asked at the meeting and included on the agenda, in accordance with the notice provisions.

 

Therefore Council?s Code of Meeting Practice should be amended to remove ?Questions without Notice? from the order of business and to require ?Questions with Notice? to be submitted to the General Manager prior to publication of the business paper.

 

Removal of an Item of Business from the Agenda

 

Occasionally, an item of business has been removed from the agenda because of an error or matters which arise after the publication of the business paper which makes the item redundant.? The Practice Note advises that items of business cannot be removed from the agenda and instead the Council should resolve to defer that business to another meeting or resolve not to consider the matter, as the case may be.

 

Recording of Votes in the Minutes and the Use of Divisions

 

The Practice Note advises that it is good practice for Councils to consider the recording of voting on important matters, such as tendering.

 

The Practice Note also clarifies that, ?a division is always required whenever a motion for a planning decision is put to the vote at a meeting of Council or a meeting of a Council committee?.

 

Therefore the Code of Meeting Practice should be amended to require a division for all planning matters and tenders at both committee and Council meetings.

 

Public Questions and Addresses

 

There is no provision within the existing Code of Meeting Practice for the public to ask questions or make an address, except if it concerns a matter listed on the agenda.

 

Occasionally the General Manager receives requests from members of the public to address Council on matters which concern them, eg where they are dissatisfied with a response provided by the staff.? Providing a general opportunity for members of the public to address Council improves public participation.?

 

It is recommended that the Code of Meeting Practice be amended to include in the Order of Business a provision for ?Public Access? close to the start of the meeting, whereby not more than 2 persons can be listed to address Council provided their request is received before the publication of the business paper and the subject of their address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.

 

This will also provide an opportunity for the public to put matters directly to the Council when previously such matters may have been brought forward by Councillors in ?Questions without Notice?.

 


Rescission Motions

 

At Council?s meeting on 5 November 2009 it was resolved that, ?Council?s Code of Meeting Practice be reviewed as a matter of urgency to ensure that Rescission Motions are lodged within two (2) working days and dealt with at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council.?

 

This issue is specifically addressed in the Practice Note (page 39) as follows:

 

?Can a Council add extra time restrictions on the lodging of rescission motions?

 

No.? Section 372 of the Act contains two (2) time restrictions on the lodging of rescission motions.? The first, in section 372(1), requires notice of a rescission motion to be given in accordance with Council?s Meeting Code.? The second restriction, in section 372(5), stops a similar motion being brought within three (3) months after a rescission motion has been defeated.

 

Any additional restrictions within a Council?s Meeting Code that limit the lodging of rescission motions would be inconsistent with the Act and would have no effect.?

 

Therefore according to the Practice Note, Council?s resolution on 5 November to require rescission motions to be lodged within two (2) working days is unlawful.? Whilst unlawful, the provision presents some practical difficulties as Council will be potentially liable in relation to any resolution which is acted upon and then subsequently overturned.? For example, with development applications once the applicant has been formally advised of Council?s decisions, there may be issues of compensation to the applicant if consent is later rescinded.

 

Section 372(2) of the Act makes it plain that if a notice of a rescission motion is given during the meeting at which the resolution is carried, the resolution cannot be put into effect until the rescission motion has been dealt with.? However this provision does not apply in the more common circumstance of a rescission motion being received after the meeting.??? On page 58 of the Practice Note it is suggested that Council?s Code of Meeting Practice deal with this circumstance.

 

It is recommended that the following provision be added to Council?s Code of Meeting Practice.

 

Dealing with Rescission Motions

 

(1)????? A rescission motion will be dealt with at the following Ordinary Council meeting.

 

(2)????? Following a Council meeting, where a Councillor advises the General Manager of their intention to lodge a rescission motion in relation to a particular matter, the resolution will not be acted upon until after the expiration of five (5) calendar days from the date of the meeting.

 

(3)????? Following receipt of a rescission motion by the General Manager there will be no action to implement that resolution.

 

The proposed changes to Council?s Code of Meeting Practice are circularised.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

Section 362 of the Act provides that if the Council decides to amend its draft code, it may publicly exhibit the amended draft in accordance with the requirements of the Division (28 day exhibition plus 42 day period for public comment) or, if the Council is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, it may adopt the amended draft code without public exhibition.

 

Given the nature of the amendments it is not recommended that Council incur the expense and delay of a public exhibition process.? The proposed amendments effectively increase public participation, accountability and review mechanisms.


 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

An increase in public participation should have positive social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are risks if Council does not comply with what is deemed as, ?best practice?.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no impacts on budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Documents Only

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Amendments to Code of Meeting Practice

Attachment 1

Circularised Documents Only

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Amendments to Code of Meeting Practice

 

 

 

Circularised Documents Only

 

??Pages

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

General Manager's Report

ITEM 11.8??? SF544????????????? 191109???????? Review of Community Infrastructure and Infrastructure needs study and Section 94 Community Facilities and Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Bruce Potts, Section 94 Co-ordinator; Faye Hawthorne, Accountant ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 6 November 2008 it was resolved that Council review annually the Section 94 Community Facilities and Open Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule.

 

Community Facilities Needs Study:

 

No progress has been made with the Community Infrastructure and Infrastructure Needs Study to date. The Section 94 Contribution Planner is managing the same study for Bellingen Council and it is expected to be reported to their Council at the April 2010 meeting.? He is about to begin the processes for the same study for Nambucca Council to get it underway before Christmas, with a report to Council in June 2010.

 

Section 94 Community Facilities and Open Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule:

 

Attached is the revised works schedule for this plan.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council note that the Community Facilities Needs Study for Nambucca Council will commence in November and the study reported to Council in June 2010 .

 

2??????? That Council note the changes in the Section 94 Community Facilities and Open Space Contribution Plan Works Schedule.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

This report is for information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 6 November 2008 it was resolved that Council review biennial the Community Infrastructure and Infrastructure Needs Study and annually the Section 94 Community Facilities and Open Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule.

 

Community Facilities Needs Study:

 

A brief has recently been sent to three firms inviting them to submit a fee proposal to undertake a study for Bellingen.? Proposals are due on Wednesday 18 November 2009.? The time frame is to report back to Bellingen Council at the April 2010 meeting.

 

The Section 94 Contribution Planner is it to organize the same brief for a study for the Nambucca Council and the time frame is to report to? Council in June 2010.? Funding for this study of $30,000 is provided for in the current budget.

 

Section 94 Community Facilities and Open Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule:

 

The works schedule for this plan has been revised with some jobs completed, some deferred and others funded by other monies.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Engineering Services

Director of Environment & Planning

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No identified environmental impacts on this report.

 

Social

 

No identified social impacts on this report.

 

Economic

 

No identified economic impacts on this report.

 

Risk

 

No identified risks to this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Funding of $30,000 for this project was approved in the original 2009-2010 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

28988/2009 - Section 94 Updated Works Schedule November 2009

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Review of Community Infrastructure and Infrastructure needs study and Section 94 Community Facilities and Space Contributions Plan Works Schedule

Attachment 1

Section 94 Updated Works Schedule November 2009

 


??


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.1??? SF1261??????????? 191109???????? Outstanding DAs greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 6 November 2009

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Barbara Sadler, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with Council resolution from 15 May 2008 meeting, the development applications listed below are in excess of 12 months old (Table 1).

 

Table 2 are development applications which have been received but not yet determined due to submissions received. In accordance with Minute 848/08 from Council meeting of 18 December 2008, should any Councillor wish to ?call in? an application a Notice of Motion is required specifying the reasons why it is to be ?called in?.

 

If an application is not called in and staff consider the matters raised by the submissions have been adequately addressed then the application will be processed under delegated authority. Where refusal is recommended the application may be reported to Council for determination.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the list of outstanding development applications (at least 12 months old) and applications received, be noted and received for information by Council.

 

2????????? That the applications where submissions have been received be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

TABLE 1: ????? UNRESOLVED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN EXCESS OF 12 MONTHS OLD

 

TOTAL APPLICATIONS OUTSTANDING 12 MONTHS OR MORE:? 0

 

TABLE 2:?????? DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WHERE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ARE NOT YET DETERMINED

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/STAFF COMMENTS

2009/182

3/06/09

Boundary Adjustment resulting in dwelling entitlement

Lots 9 and 10 DP 1033603, Scotts Head Road, Way Way

? Future dwelling can be built on environmentally sensitive land

? Visual impacts on headland

? Because of sensitivity of land should be in public ownership

? No future development to be undertaken in the cross-hatched area

? Sacred Aboriginal sites

? Loss of habitat for wildlife (birds)

? 7(f) Protected Coastal Lands not marked on plans

? Restrict public access to recreational areas

17/6/09 - Application referred to NSW RFS, LALC and DoP for comment

Application called in

See Item in Agenda


 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/STAFF COMMENTS

2009/197

19/06/09

Additions to Museum

Lot 151 DP 801984, 29 High Street, Bowraville

? Drainage Issues

Issues being considered

Determination of application by mid-November

2010/004

06/07/09

13 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 95 DP 1099538, Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach

? Farming and horticulture activities on adjoining land ? spraying carried out which may cause noise issues at night

? Prospective purchasers to be informed of this

Land proposed to be subdivided is zoned Residential 2(a). Buffer distances comply with Council?s DCP 16.

Assessment being prepared with consideration given to earthworks and drainage issues

Awaiting information from Engineers re various issues with the design of the subdivision

Determination of application by late-November

 

2010/013

17/07/09

Rural-Residential Shed

Lot 252 DP 843060, 5 Cocos Court, Nambucca Heads

? Believe it is going to be used for commercial reasons and therefore should be not approved

? Loss of privacy and lifestyle

? Loss of outlook and views

? Size and position of the shed

? Would the use of the shed create more traffic?

12/08/09 ? Advice received from applicant

Issues being assessed

Site meeting held with applicant 14/09/09.

Applicant to seek variation to bushfire easement to improve separation between shed and neighbouring properties
Verbal advice from applicant ? application to be withdrawn.

WITHDRAWAL ADVICE? received 9/11/09

 

2010/031

24/08/09

Rural Shed - Animal Establishment

Lot 516 DP 632883, 266 Irvines Road, Tewinga

? A number of support for application

? Industry that is needed in the Valley

? Has always been clean when visiting

? Pigs have been there 2 years with no previous complaints

? Various issues with odour, visual amenity

? Not suitable to area

Upon receipt of clarification from Council?s Solicitor, a report will be presented to a future meeting of Council

See Item in Agenda

 


 

2010/047

22/09/2009

Drive In Liquor Store

Lot 2 DP 129506, 50-54 Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads

? Anti-social behaviour

? Already 2 liquor stores within walking distance

? Traffic issues

A large number of objections have been received - Issues will be addressed in the assessment of the application

Still awaiting a response from the RTA.

30/10/09 - Following a detailed assessment of the application, the applicant was requested to submit additional information which includes car parking for the entire site.

 

2010/055

01/10/09

6 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 3 DP 1061694, Waratah Street, Scotts Head

? Position of garbage collection hardstand

? Safety issues for access from Waratah Street

? Minimum availability of land for building

? No walking track/steps from the ?bowl? to Waratah Street

Awaiting internal referrals

Issues will be considered and addressed as part of the DA Assessment.

Determination of application by late-November

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.2??? SF1261??????????? 191109???????? DAs and CDCs Received and Determined under Delegated Authority 26 October-6 November 2009

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Barbara Sadler, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

For Council?s information, below are listed Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received by Council and applications determined under Delegated Authority.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the Development Applications/Complying Development Applications received and determined under delegated authority.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
26 OCTOBER-6 NOVEMBER 2009

 

DA Number

Application Date

Development

Address

2010/609

30/10/2009

Rear Deck

Lot 56 DP 239693, 10 Hibiscus Way, Scotts Head

2010/610

30/10/2009

Swimming Pool

Lot 102 DP 1126852, Mackay Place, Newee Creek

2010/611

30/10/2009

Admin/Library Building

Lot 1 DP 436488, 21 Vernon Street, Scotts Head

2010/064

01/11/2009

Dwelling-House

Lot 2 DP 731255, 261 Congarinni Road South, Congarinni

2010/065

05/11/2009

Patio Cover & glass enclosure

Lot 1 SP 76307, 1 Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads

 

 

Note:? Complying Development Applications have a suffix starting with ?6? ie 2010/601

 


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO 6 NOVEMBER 2009

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE $

2010/040

Lot 275 DP 732464, 5254 Taylors Arm Road, Thumb Creek

Dwelling-House

$80,000

2010/039

Lot 1 DP 406493, 47 High Street, Bowraville

Commence Activity ? Refreshment Room

$1,500

2010/009/01

Lot 21 DP 1096192, 24 Nancye Roberts Drive, Macksville

Dwelling-House Modification

$189,557

2010/053

Lot 77 DP 1099528, 46 Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach

Dwelling-House

$211,000

2010/026

Lot B DP 413487, 19 Liston Street, Nambucca Heads

Raise and alter dwelling-house

$150,000

2010/045

Lot 7013 DP 810423, 412 Browns Crossing Road, Eungai Creek

Rural Shed

$20,000

2010/052

Lot 3 DP 1090410, 74 O?Dells Road, Warrell Creek

Shed

$10,000

2009/116

Lot 1 DP 1098738, Sullivans Road, Valla

4 Lot Rural-Residential Subdivision

0

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.3??? SF1261??????????? 191109???????? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports July 2009-June 2010, 2002-2009 and Certificates Received 2004-2009

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Barbara Sadler, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

Environment and Planning Department Development Application statistics for the financial year 2009-2010 compared with 2008-2009 and Certificate Applications received and determined, are provided in the body of the report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for July 2009-June 2010 compared with July 2008-June 2009.

 

2????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for the years 2002 to 2009.

 

3????????? That Council note the statistical breakdown of development applications thus far for the financial year 1 July 2009-30 June 2010.

 

4????????? That Council note the statistical information for Certificates received by Council for 2004-2009.

 

 

Development Application Statistics

 

The figures show a -9.33% increase in the number of DA?s received for October 2009 with construction costs decreasing by 295.32% compared to the same period in 2008/2009 (there were some very large developments during this comparison period). The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of October was 15 plus 2 modifications.

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

July 2008-Oct 2008

$31,635,243

82

72

July 2009-Oct 2009

$8,002,442

75

81

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The above comparisons will be considered in the next quarterly budget review to identify what impact the development application numbers will have on our projected income.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

An average income is estimated at the start of each budget year and is reviewed at each quarterly review.


 

TURNAROUND TIMES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 2009

Month

Mean Time

Median

#Average age of DA?s (Days)

Average

Highest

Lowest

January

41.75

40

51

83

32

February

90.00

54

165.1

575

17

March

36.27

33

51.70

140

3

April

34.59

21

53.23

153

2

May

62.94

36

72.72

307

12

June

45.60

35

85.36

939

12

July

48.78

29

70.52

198

24

August

52.19

29

67.09

305

17

September

76.38

64

93.38

204

13

October

57.00

48

105.46

458

37

 

#Average age of DA?s

 

The average age of all DA?s for the month is derived from the total number of days from when the applications were lodged with Council until determined. This average is provided for information as many applications required additional information by Council and/or other Government Agencies to enable them to be processed (ie Stop Clock applied).

 

 


COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS RECEIVED

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

2007 Private Cert

5

3

4

1

2

4

4

3

5

4

6

1

42

2007 Council

0

3

3

1

3

4

7

0

1

2

6

3

33

2008 Private Cert

0

3

1

4

6

2

6

4

2

2

6

6

44

2008 Council

2

2

2

3

2

5

2

2

2

7

1

3

33

2009 Private Cert

3

7

6

4

3

2

11

3

2

7

 

 

48

2009 Council

1

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

5

5

 

 

27

 

 

CONVEYANCING CERTIFICATES ISSUED

 

YTD (October)

Drainage Diagrams

Section 149 Certs

Outstanding Notices

2004

280

704

196

2005

213

613

145

2006

239

612

177

2007

231

632

183

2008

231

583

146

2009

206

649

140

 

 

OCCUPATION CERTIFICATES RELEASED

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL

Average/
Month

2002

20

3

7

8

15

7

13

13

16

13

13

14

142

11.80

2003

18

7

7

14

24

19

18

10

17

17

21

19

191

15.90

2004

11

15

17

20

18

20

20

17

16

23

26

30

233

19.41

2005

10

28

29

18

26

12

14

28

26

24

19

18

252

21.00

2006

26

26

12

20

27

24

20

18

25

23

10

15

246

20.50

Private
2007

1

0

0

3

7

5

3

2

3

2

9

5

40

3.33

Council
2007

6

20

14

7

22

13

12

10

14

13

8

12

151

12.58

Private
2008

4

0

4

2

4

5

5

8

7

11

4

7

61

5.08

Council
2008

12

16

9

9

29

12

19

25

16

20

17

13

197

16.41

Private
2009

1

4

5

3

2

3

10

4

7

7

 

 

46

4.60

Council
2009

21

11

19

14

14

15

10

17

13

20

 

 

154

15.40

 



Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.4??? SF1148??????????? 191109???????? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report - October 2009

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Phillip Gall, Manager Health and Building ????????

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Contract Regulatory Officer?s Report for October 2009.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report from the Contract Regulatory Officer for October 2009 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

Dogs

Total

Total

Seized

 

13

Returned to Owner

2

 

Impounded

11

 

Total Seized

13

13

Breakdown

Total

Total

Seized

 

13

From Previous Month

 

2

Stolen Dog Recovered

 

0

Released to Owner

0

 

Returned to Owner

2

 

Euthanized

5

 

Currently in Pound

7

 

Sold

1

 

Stolen from Pound

0

 

Total in Pound

15

15

Dumped

4

 

Surrendered

0

 

 

 

Cats

Total

Total

Seized

 

3

Returned to Owner

0

 

Impounded

3

 

Total Seized

3

3

Breakdown

Total

Total

Seized

 

6

From Previous Month

 

0

Released to Owner

0

 

Returned to Owner

0

 

Euthanized

6

 

Currently in Pound

0

 

Sold

0

 

Escaped from Pound

0

 

Total in Pound

3

3

Dumped

0

 

Surrendered

0

 

 


 

Kilometres travelled

3,116

 

 

Cattle

Breakdown

Total

Seized

 

0

Returned to Owner

0

 

Impounded

0

 

Total Seized

0

0

 

 

CSR?s (Customer Service Requests) Actioned ? Not including Merit

41

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.5??? SF1430??????????? 191109???????? Report on Nambucca Valley's Walk of Fame Project

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Patricia Walker, Aboriginal Community Development Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report is to advise Council about:

 

??????????????? the Sidney Myer Fund - Arts and Humanities Small Grants Program application,

??????????????? the Nambucca Valley's Walk of Fame project, and

 

to seek Council's endorsement for the Walk of Fame project.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Sidney Myer Fund ? The Arts & Humanities Small Grants application for the Walk of Fame project.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option of not endorsing the Sidney Myer Fund ? The Arts & Humanities Small Grants application.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council's Grants Officer with the assistance of the Community Development Officer, have prepared and submitted an application for funding through the Sidney Myer Fund ? The Arts and Humanities Small Grants Program, for the Nambucca Valley's Walk of Fame project. The project is estimated to cost $17,950 ? including Councils in kind contributions valued at $4,550. The project launches and advertising costs at each stage, estimated at $800 per stage, will be contributed from the Community Development Officers program funding budget.

 

This project came about as a response to some public comments made in the Sutherland Koshy Community Consultation Report 2005 for the Nambucca Valley Structure Plan. The formulated project envisages that 30 cast bronze plaques (10 per town) would be embedded into constructed pathways in the three main townships of Bowraville, Macksville and Nambucca Heads. (According to Phoenix Foundry, cast bronze is most commonly used in outdoor situations like this, require little if any maintenance and will remain legible for many generations).

 

To address the issue of vandalism, the plaques will have lugs with threaded studs and are cast on or welded to the back of the plaque. The threaded studs are screwed into the lugs. Studs are placed in holes drilled into the concrete and fixed with adhesive, with the plaque to sit flush in the footpath thereby not creating any hazard to the public.

 

To compliment the plaques, there will also be an information booklet which will be unique to each township and its districts. The information booklet, will also contain the Gumbaynggirr 'Welcome To Country' and the Gumbaynggirr traditional meanings for the towns.

 

The proposed location of the constructed pathways are:

 

Bowraville???????????????? -????? High Street, from the Folk Museum to Belmore Street

Macksville??????????????? -????? River Street, across from the Star Hotel

Nambucca Heads???? -????? Cnr Wellington Drive & Bowra Street, footpath to Gordon Park

 


The plaques are for 'Recognising, Honouring & Commemorating' local identities that can be seen as role models in the community. Local emerging artists will be included in the project by holding a competition for the design of the plaques. Local businesses will be invited to sponsor a plaque which will also entitle that business to be advertised in the information booklet.

 

In September 2009, the Community Development Officer gave two brief Power Point presentations to the Bowraville and Macksville Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Both Chambers have provided positive feedback and have shown overwhelming support for the idea. To date, Council has received two support letters from the Bowraville Chamber of Commerce and is awaiting a support letter from Macksville Chamber of Commerce. No response has yet been received from the Nambucca Heads Chamber of Commerce. Information about the Walk of Fame project will be further discussed at the next meeting of the Aboriginal Community Advisory Committee.

 

The Walk of Fame project can be seen as one component of the holistic strategy for the Nambucca Valley to form a commitment to achieving an appreciation for cultural identity that is socially inclusive. This unique and powerful project will add to community identity whilst building a cohesive and strong community alliance between individuals, local government, community based organisations and local business.? The plaques also intend to empower individuals to strive towards success by recognising the achievements of fellow community members

 

Attached for Councillor?s information are the following:

 

?????????????? allocated footpath & plaque spacing plan,

?????????????? sample of initial plaque, and

?????????????? sample information booklet.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Director Environment and Planning

Director of Engineering Services

Manager Community and Cultural Services

Manager Business Development

Manager Civil Works

Engineering Designer

Grants Officer

Visitor Information Centre Coordinator

Bowraville Chamber of Commerce

Macksville Chamber of Commerce

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nil

 

Social

 

Positive social benefits.

 

Economic

 

Whilst this project has little impact on the economic status of the Valley, it is envisioned that the project can be one important component to the tourism strategy for the Nambucca Shire.

 


Risk

 

This is identified as a low risk activity.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

This does not affect Council's budget as the project will be fully funded.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil.

 

Attachments:

1View

28514/2009 - Maps, Plaque Drawing, Sample of booklet

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Nambucca Valley's Walk of Fame Project

Attachment 1

Maps, Plaque Drawing, Sample of booklet

 



 



?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.6??? DA2010/031????? 191109???????? Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Arthur Tsembis, Manager Planning and Assessment ????????

 

Summary:

 

Applicant:????????????????????? Mrs K Henderson

 

Proposal:?????????????????????? Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment and Rural Shed

 

Property:??????????????????????? Lot 516 DP 632883, 266 Irvines Road, Tewinga

 

Zoning:?????????????????????????? 1(a2) Rural

 

DA 2010/031 for an ?animal establishment? and 'rural shed', was lodged on 25 August 2009. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) stated that there would be a maximum of 20 breeding sows and a total of 240 pigs on the property at any given time. The rural sheds were subsequently removed from the application as the applicant had already commenced with their construction and are being dealt with under the Building Certificate process (if they are not Exempt Development)

 

The applicant by letter dated 14 September 2009 advised that it was her intention to never have more than 20 breeding sows and never exceed 200 pigs in aggregate. As such, the applicant contended that the operation was ?agriculture? and did not now require development consent. The applicant therefore intended to withdraw the development application.

 

Following a meeting with the applicant and others on 15 September 2009 it was agreed that Council will obtain a legal opinion to determine if the land use is defined as ?agriculture? pursuant to Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995, which does not require development consent.

 

Deacons by letter dated 19 October 2009, advised that the proposal would most likely be characterised as ?agriculture? under the LEP and is accordingly permitted without development consent under the LEP. Deacons also provided advice on the correct procedures to be followed in the event the operation of the piggery created unacceptable environmental outcomes such as odour emissions or other offences.

 

NOTE: This matter requires a ?Planning Decision? referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the applicant be advised that she is entitled to withdraw DA 2010/031 and development consent is not required providing the operation comprises not more than 200 pigs, including not more than 20 breeding sows.

 

2????????? That the applicant be requested to confirm, in writing, that the number of pigs will not exceed the prescribed threshold that would otherwise require development consent under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 30 ? Intensive Agriculture.

 

3????????? That all persons who lodged written submissions to DA 2010/031 be advised in terms of Council?s legal advice that development consent is not required.

 

4????????? That all persons who lodged objections be advised that upon receipt of any further complaints regarding noise, odour or other pollution events, Council may not necessarily pursue the matter and it may be up to individuals to gather evidence and/or institute their own common law action.

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

In light of Deacons advice Council may consider seeking an opinion from as Barrister on this matter before making its final decision.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Following receipt of several complaints about a "piggery" operating from the subject premises, Council?s Senior Town Planner undertook a site inspection. The owner of the property was advised, by letter dated 22 July 2009, in terms of the following:

 

Reference is made to my recent site inspection of your property and our discussions regarding the keeping and breeding of pigs.

 

The purpose of the meeting was to convey a number of concerns which had been raised by adjoining landowners in relation to the activity and its impacts on their amenity, primarily arising from noise and odour and disturbance to the natural environment. I appreciate that you are aware of these issues and are taking measures to reduce the impacts of the activity.

 

As discussed, the zoning of the land and the characteristics of the locality determine the permissibility and scale of land use activities. The keeping and breeding of pigs is an intensive activity that is permissible in the rural 1(a2) zone which applies to your land, however the close proximity of rural residential development and the requirement for buffers to adjoining land, will have the affect of limiting the scale and intensity of the activity. Should you wish to continue the activity you are required to submit a development application to Council, seeking approval to operate an intensive livestock keeping establishment. Council will be particularly concerned with how you intend to limit the scale of the activity and minimise the impacts to neighbours and the natural environment.

 

The owner subsequently lodged a development application (DA) on 25 August 2009. The DA included a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) which described the operation as an ?animal establishment?. However, in accordance with Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1995, it was considered that the definition of the land use is more accurately described as an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?, which means:

 

a building or place in which or on which cattle, sheep, goats, poultry or other livestock are held for the purpose of nurturing by a feeding method other than natural grazing and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes:

??????????? a??????? feed lots;

??????????? b??????? piggeries;

??????????? c??????? poultry farms; and

??????????? d??????? similar land uses,

but does not include an animal establishment or the keeping of livestock or poultry intended solely for personal consumption or enjoyment by the owner or occupier of the land.

 

Various letters and e-mails were exchanged between the applicant and the Manager Planning and Assessment regarding the development application. The applicant by letter dated 14 September 2009 advised that it was her intention to never have more than 20 breeding sows and never exceed 200 pigs in aggregate. As such, the applicant contended that the operation did not require development consent as it is agriculture' and therefore she intended to withdraw the development application.

 

Following a meeting with the applicant and others on 15 September 2009, it was agreed to seek legal advice to determine if the use of the subject property as a ?piggery? requires development consent or the land use could be defined as ?agriculture? for which development consent is not required. Council?s solicitors, by e-mail dated 16 September, were advised in terms of the following:

 

On the 25 August 2009 Ms Kate Henderson (owner of the property) lodged a development application (DA) for an ?animal establishment? comprising 200 pigs, including 20 sows.

 

A preliminary review of the application indicated that the land use was more in keeping with the definition of an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment? under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1995. The application included sketch plans and a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). In accordance with Council?s DCP (Notification & Advertising) the DA was advertised, and notified to adjoining and nearby residents. Whilst not a statutory requirement, the application was also referred to Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). No comments have been received from the DECC to date.

 

The DPI, now known as Industry and Investment (I&I), has provided their comments by letter dated 15 September. I&I advised that it ?supports regional development and small scale sustainable agricultural enterprises that can operate within the relevant environmental guideline and codes that apply?. However, it has expressed some reservations about the operation and has suggested that the proponents need to further address issues such as nutrients, soils, pasture type, water demands and water security, feed demands and supply, animal welfare, etc.?

 

Prior to receipt of the advice from I&I, Ms Henderson by e-mail dated 28 August provided further information in support of her application, which included the following advice:

 

?Coinciding with construction of the feed and shelter shed, 25 metres of poultry manure was delivered to the farm for pasture improvement. This delivery was just prior to another significant rain event in June 2009 which prevented the pile of poultry manure from being spread on the paddock as it became soggy and cloddy and had to be left to ?dry out? before it could pass through a mechanical spreader.? ??.?In a short space of time the poultry manure began to anaerobically breakdown leading to a offensive odour. It was at this time that several complaints were made to council about the ?unbearably smelly? pig farm ? despite explanations and evidence to the contrary regarding the poultry manure.??.??I would like to re-iterate, this is a free-range pig farm and the so termed "intensive animal establishment" will not be used to intensively house livestock. It is merely a feed and shelter shed and martialling facility.??.? In conclusion:

 

????????? there were never any complaints from adjoining landowners until the experience with the poultry manure ? in fact, we had very good neighbourhood relations until that time

????????? to control the poultry manure odour, it was moved away from the pig feed site and turned into a large pile of saw dust - it has since began to compost properly and there is no smell at all!

????????? There is currently absolutely no offensive odour on the paddock despite the presence of the pigs.? Even at a distance of 10m to the feed site there is only the mildest detectable odour.

????????? Given the effectiveness of the sawdust to entirely eliminate the odour of the poultry manure, there can be no doubt about its effectiveness on the vastly milder and much less concentrated pig manure that will be present in the feed shed in future.

 

Following discussions with Ms Henderson, a file note dated 11 September 2009 included the following information:

 

In our discussion she questioned the definition of the operation as an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?. An ?intensive livestock keeping establishment? means ?a building or place in which??..?livestock are held for the purpose of nurturing by a feeding method other than natural grazing?. Ms Henderson contended that the ?piggery? predominantly involved ?natural grazing? in defined paddocks and the use of the proposed shed would be used for occasional feeding and during inclement whether to shelter the animals.

 

It is considered that the land use does not fit neatly into what would ordinarily be described as a ?piggery? where pigs are kept in a confined space. It could be argued that the predominant use is in fact ?agriculture? which means ?the keeping or breading of livestock? and that the proposed shed is ancillary to the use of the land for the purpose of ?agriculture?.

 

I advised Ms Henderson that if the operation was deemed to be ?agriculture? then development consent was not required. However, this would require a legal opinion to make such a determination. In the absence of any such opinion, Council could only consider the operation as an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?, for which development consent is required. Ms Henderson advised that she always considered the operation as an agricultural land use and only lodged a DA after she was requested to by a Council officer. She advised me that she may pursue further advice to establish that the operation can be defined as ?agriculture? and therefore does not need development consent.

 

Ms Henderson subsequently advised Council that she proposed to withdraw the application for the reasons outlined in her latter dated 14 September 2009. In response to her letter she was advised by e-mail dated 15 September 2009 in terms of the following.

 

I agree that your proposal is not an ?animal establishment? in accordance with the definition under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1995. It is for this reason that the application was notified and advertised as an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?. I also agree that the current operation does not fit neatly into what would ordinarily be described as an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?, where pigs are kept in a confined space. However, the definition of an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment? does not differentiate between a confined space or otherwise. The definition states ?a building or place used? and includes ?piggeries?. In accordance with the Oxford Dictionary a ?piggery? is defined as ?a pig-breeding farm?. As discussed, definitions are sometimes open to interpretation and often challenged in the Land & Environment Court. However, it is Council?s view that the operation is an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?, for which development consent is required. As such, if you withdraw your application Council will have no alternative but to consider taking further action against you to cease the unauthorised land use (piggery).

 

Council staff has taken the view that if the piggery does not ?accommodate 200 or more pigs or 20 or more breeding sows?, then State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 30 ? Intensive Agriculture does not apply. The applicant has indicated that she is prepared to limit the number of pigs to ensure that the piggery is less than the threshold and therefore does not require consent under clause 6 of SEPP 30. However, Council staff has been of the opinion that the piggery still requires development consent in accordance with the definition of an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment? under LEP 1995.

 

A meeting was held on the afternoon of 15 September 2009 to discuss the application and the applicant?s proposal to withdraw the application as she believed that the land use could be defined as ?agriculture? and therefore the use of the property for the purposes of grazing pigs did not require development consent. Ms Henderson was accompanied by her partner and her farther, Mr Peter Henderson, who was introduced as a retired barrister.

 

A number of questions were raised regarding agricultural land uses, including the application of SEPP 30 ? Intensive Agriculture, and its relationship and/or relevance to the DA. Mr Henderson suggested that by virtue of SEPP 30 describing intensive agriculture as comprising more than 200 pigs and 20 sows, a ?piggery? with less numbers is not considered to be ?intensive? and therefore not an ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?.

 

If I understand Mr Henderson?s argument correctly, he contends that if the piggery is not described as ?intensive? under the SEPP then the operation could only be described as ?agriculture? and therefore does not require development consent. His argument extended to the fact that the SEPP prevails over any other subordinate legislation which means that any other definition under the LEP is irrelevant and does not apply for the purposes of this particular operation.

 

At the meeting it was agreed that before any further assessment or determination was made regarding the DA Council would seek a legal opinion to determine if the land use could be defined as ?agriculture?.

 

Deacons provided their draft advice by letter dated 19 October 2009, a copy of which is attached. In summary, Deacons have provided the following advice:

 

2.1????? It appears that the proposal (as subsequently modified in correspondence) would most likely be characterised as ?agriculture? under the LEP, rather than an ?animal establishment? or ?intensive livestock keeping establishment?, and is accordingly permitted without development consent under the LEP."

 

2.2????? The proposal does not require development consent under State Environmental Planning Policy No 30 ? Intensive Agriculture (SEPP 30). We recommend that the Applicant confirms in writing that the Applicant intends to carry out the proposal for fewer than 200 pigs and under 20 breeding sows.

 

Deacons also provided the following advice:

 

6.1???? The neighbours adjoining the property have concerns regarding the impact of the development, including odours, manure and potential runoff from the manure and other material on-site. It is a well established principle that development consent to carry out a certain development (or as in the present circumstances? not requiring a development consent) is not a defence to a breach of the pollution provisions contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) ? Therefore, if there are offensive odours emanating from the subject property, or other offences potentially occurring, the Council, or other parties such as the EPA can still take action against the applicant in this respect.

 

Having regard to the above, Deacons were advised by e-mail dated 20 October 2009, in terms of the following:

 

Having regard to your advice at Item 6.1, it would be helpful to advise Council of the correct processes to follow in response to any complaints received regarding the operation, particularly relating to any odour emissions, which can often be very subjective.

 

Therefore, your advice is sought in regard to the appropriate legislation that Council would need to rely upon and the correct procedures to follow in such instances as there is no doubt that given the level of objection already received, Council will continue to receive complaints regarding the operation. In this regard, Council will need to understand its role and responsibilities to attend to any complaints and when it should refer any complainant to the appropriate State Government Agency, such as the DECC to deal with any offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

On 3 November 2009 Deacons provided further advice relating to the potential actions available for odour and other offences relating to the piggery, and the correct procedures to be followed in these circumstances. Advice was also provided about obtaining a declaration from the Land and Environment Court as to the permissibility of the use and the potential cost of such action. A copy of this advice is attached to this report. A copy of the ?Table of Potential Actions and Offences relating to operation of Piggery at Premises? (Appendix A) provided by Deacons is attached to this report. A copy of the document entitled Technical Framework ? Assessment and management of odour from stationary sources in NSW (November 2006), prepared by the Department of Environment and Conservation, is also attached and is publicly available on the DECCW website http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/air/odour.htm.

 

Some of the points of Deacons advice are:

 

?????????????? Council is generally the appropriate regulatory authority.

?????????????? The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) is the main legislation for the pollution prevention and control and contains a number of potential avenues for both the Council and residents to address potential odour and noise issues (Item 3.1).

?????????????? The appropriate regulatory authority can issue a prevention notice where the authority reasonably suspects that an activity has been or is being carried out in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner at any premises (Item 3.3).

?????????????? Under Section 6 of the POEO Act, Council is the correct party to take action, be it Court action, issuing orders or Penalty Infringements Notices (PIN?s) (Item 3.8).

?????????????? An individual or other party may obtain the leave of the Court to prosecute criminal offences under the POEO Act (Item 3.9).

?????????????? In addition to criminal proceedings, any person may bring civil enforcement proceedings in the Court seeking an order to remedy or restrain a breach of the POEO Act or the POEO regulations (Item 3.10).

 

Deacons advice highlights that in addition to Council, individuals can take certain action under the provisions of the POEO Act. Deacons also outline the following Common Law Actions available to individuals:

 

?????????????? Nuisance is a common law action, available where there is an indirect interference with a person?s land or enjoyment of it, such as by way of noise, odours and other forms of air or waterborne pollution. Nuisance may be classed as private or public, depending upon whether individual landholders or the public at large are affected (Item 5.1).

?????????????? An action in private nuisance may be available to an affected person, such as a neighbour. Private nuisance involves an act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance of or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her ownership or occupation of land. In such circumstances, the affected person, rather than Council, will need to bring the action before a Court (Item 5.2).

?????????????? The owners of neighbouring properties may have an action in private nuisance if they can show that the piggery interferes, by way of noise, odour or pollution, with enjoyment of their land (Item 5.4).

?????????????? A nuisance which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public at large may be actionable as a ?public nuisance?. Deacons have cited Baulkham Hills SC v Domachuk (1988) where it was held that offensive smell and fly nuisance could constitute a public nuisance (Item 5.5).

 

Deacons have provided the legislative requirements and advice to Council on its role and responsibility to deal with any complaints received regarding the operation. Council obviously has to institute appropriate action if it is established that there are any non-compliance issues under the relevant provisions of the POEO Act and the EP&A Act. However, Deacons have essentially advised Council that it is not necessary to pursue any complaints unless the operation exceeds 200 pigs or 20 sows, or there is a real possibility that the operation is likely to have some detrimental impact on the environment or if there is or there is likely to be any noise, odour or pollution events that contravene the provisions of the POEO Act. Deacons have made it clear that it is open for any person to take civil action to remedy any nuisance that affects the enjoyment of their land.

 

With respect to obtaining a declaration from the Court about the permissibility of the piggery, Deacons describes other Court proceedings and concludes that it is unlikely the Court would be willing to hear the matter and make a declaration.

 

Deacons state that ?the proposal would most likely be characterised as agriculture?. The legal advice is essentially based on probability. However, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to disregard Deacons legal advice and take an alternative view on the need for a development application and/or seek a declaration from the Court to this effect. Alternatively, and as eluded to by Deacons, Council could seek an opinion from a Barrister familiar in such agricultural cases.

 

Whilst the above commentary relates to the lawful use of land and the provisions of Council's Local Environmental Plan. It is noted that a number of concerns have been raised in regard to the suitability of the site to accommodate the activity of a "free range" piggery. The Department of Primary Industry raise similar concerns.

 

These concerns are legitimate matters for consideration. However, in this case they are not a matter for consideration until either the activity is one that requires development consent or where a breach of the POEO Act or EP&A Act has been identified.

 

Council could seek expert advice from an agronomist in regard to the carrying capacity of the site for the free range piggery, however this in itself would not quantify or assist in the decision presented to Council at this time, as the legal advice indicates that 'agriculture' in this instance allows up to a maximum of 200 pigs in total including 20 breeding sows.

 

In the event that the site is over stocked and pastures are unable to cope, resulting in offsite feed having to be imported as the main source of sustenance, opportunity would then arise where this could be pursued.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Deacons.

Department of Industry and Investment

Director Environment and Planning.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not being able to assess the development application precludes Council from imposing conditions to mitigate any potential environmental impacts such as; noise and odour emissions, soil and sediment control measures, etc. However, there is other State Legislation in place for Council or private individuals to remedy any of the above issues should they arise.

 

Social

 

The operation demonstrates the difficulty in managing land use conflict issues vis-?-vis the ?right to farm? and protecting rural residential amenity.

 

Economic

 

Notwithstanding the amount of opposition, the operation is an agricultural business enterprise on a rural property.

 

Risk

 

There is a risk that an objector may seek alternative legal advice and challenge Council's position in the Land & Environment Court (L&EC). If successful, the applicant would be required to submit a DA for Council?s consideration. Council would then need to make a determination to either approve or refuse the application, in which case there would be another opportunity for either party (objector or applicant) to challenge the decision in the L&EC.

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost for Deacons legal advice will need to be taken out of the 2009/2010 budget. Any future legal challenge may also impact on the current budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Current working funds in the 2009/2010 budget will need to be varied to account for the payment to Deacons.

 

Attachments:

1View

29014/2009 - Deacon's Correspondence

 

2

24142/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Australian Pork Ltd

 

3

24141/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Dangerous Dan's Butchery

 

4

24050/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - A Nowland

 

5

23994/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - B & L Wright

 

6

23991/2009 - Submission and photographs in relation to DA 2010/031 - G & J Goesch

 

7

23988/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - K & V Mannington

 

8

23963/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - C & A Miles

 

9

23954/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 -? S Schmidt and E Cowles

 

10View

23953/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - S Foley

 

11View

23952/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - W Rainnie and S Tritton

 

12View

23950/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - GHD and Residents

 

13View

23919/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - K & G Dean

 

14View

23913/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - S Henry

 

15View

23779/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - W & M Churchill

 

16View

23776/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 (letter of support) - B Good

 

17View

23598/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - B Swan

 

18View

23276/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Reiss

 

19View

29011/2009 - Submission - Bowraville Central School

 

20

29013/2009 - Submission - P Coxon

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 1

Deacon's Correspondence

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 2

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Australian Pork Ltd

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 3

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Dangerous Dan's Butchery

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 4

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - A Nowland

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 5

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - B & L Wright

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 6

Submission and photographs in relation to DA 2010/031 - G & J Goesch

 








?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 7

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - K & V Mannington

 








?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 8

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - C & A Miles

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 9

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 -? S Schmidt and E Cowles

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 10

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - S Foley

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 11

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - W Rainnie and S Tritton

 








?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 12

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - GHD and Residents

 





?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 13

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - K & G Dean

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 14

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - S Henry

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 15

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - W & M Churchill

 




?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 16

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 (letter of support) - B Good

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 17

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - B Swan

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 18

Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Reiss

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 19

Submission - Bowraville Central School

 



?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 19 November 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

Attachment 20

Submission - P Coxon

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.7??? SF776????????????? 191109???????? Report on Registrations for the 50th Anniversary Floodplain Management Authority Conference - 23-26 February 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Registrations are now open for the 50th Anniversary Floodplain Management Authority Conference to be held at Gosford from 23-26 February 2009.

 

Early bird registrations up to 27 November 2009 are $860 per delegate which provides a saving to Council.

 

$2000 has been provided in the current 2009/2010 budget for 3 delegates (2 Councillors and 1 staff) to attend this Conference. Should Council resolve to send additional Councillors and staff to attend the Conference, additional funds would be required. Notwithstanding, the costs for other Councillors wishing to attend could come from the respective Councillors expense allowance.

 

Travel would be by Council vehicle, thereby minimising travel costs.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council nominate 2 Councillors to accompany the Director Environment and Planning or his nominated Officer, to attend the 50th Anniversary Floodplain Management Authority Conference to be held at Gosford, 23-26 February 2010.

 

2????????? That Council endorse attendance by any other interested Councillor provided the additional costs come from the individual Councillor expense allowance.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose not to be represented at the 50th Anniversary Floodplain Management Authority Conference thereby providing a $2000 saving in its budget.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Registrations are now open for the 50th Anniversary Floodplain Management Conference to be held in Gosford over 23-26 February 2010. Opportunity exists for Council to make a saving on each registration if the registrations are made before 27 November 2009. Registrations if made by this date, are $860. Attendance at the Workshops held on Tuesday 23 February, are an addition $175 per person.

 

Council has provided approximately $2000 in the current 2009/2010 budget for attendance at this Conference. This allocation would enable two Councillors to attend the Conference, notwithstanding that should other Councillors wish to attend, scope exists for the costs to come from the respective Councillor?s expense allowance.

 

Travel would be by Council vehicle thereby minimising travel costs.

 

The Conference agenda is included at the end of this report and as can be seen the agenda is once again very broad touching on the relevant issues which Council is currently working through or dealing with.

 

A full copy of the Conference information is available in hard copy from Executive Assistant Barbara Parkins or online at www.iceaustralia.com/gosford2010fma/program.html.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Environment and Planning

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Topics and discussions at the Floodplain Management Authority Conference take into account a whole range of Environmental matters and issues in relation to flooding and floodplain management.

 

Social

 

Topics and discussions at the Conference take into account a whole range of social matters and issues.

 

 

Economic

 

Topics and discussions at the Conference take into account a whole range of economic matters and issues.

 

 

Risk

 

Topics and discussions at the Conference take into account a whole range of Environmental, Social, Economic, Insurance and Liability matters and issues.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

$2000 has been provided in the current 2009/2010 budget under Job Number 162.000 for the Floodplain Management Conference.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Job Number 162.000. No variation is expected.


 

Speakers / Program

The conference program will include a combination of plenary sessions, panels, papers and trade exhibits.

Please visit this page regularly for updates prior to the conference.

Preliminary Conference Speakers / Program

 

Tuesday
23 February

Wednesday
24 February

Thursday
25 February

Friday
26 February

 

Registration

Registration

Registration

 

Conference Opens/ Plenary Session

Plenary Session

Field Trips

 

 

Morning Tea

Morning Tea

Exhibition Bump-in

Plenary Session

Concurrent Sessions

Concurrent Sessions

Concurrent Sessions

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Registration

Concurrent Sessions

Concurrent Sessions

Concurrent Sessions

Afternoon Tea

Afternoon Tea

Afternoon Tea

Welcome Reception

Concurrent Sessions

Concurrent Sessions

Closing Session

 

 

Conference Dinner

 

 

Keynote Speakers

 

Robert Runice

 

Robert Runcie
Robert is the Director of Flood and Coastal Risk Management for the Environment Agency.

A Chartered Civil Engineer with over 30 years professional experience. His career has developed through Engineering Consultancy, in the UK and abroad, and for the past 20 years in senior positions in the public sector. He has been a Regional Director for the Environment Agency leading Anglian, North West and Thames Regions.

A committed champion of sustainable development Robert?s other interests and activities have led him to become a member of the ICE Policy Panel, a London Sustainable Development Commissioner and advisor to Brixton Green a Sustainable Community / Business initiative.

 

George Riedel

 

George Riedel
George Riedel joined the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) in 2005 as Deputy Executive Director, where he coordinates the Association?s financial and personnel functions and oversees conference, workshop, and publications operations. Before coming to ASFPM, George was the Mitigation Programs Manager for the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), where he was responsible for directing floodplain management programs and developing and implementing goals and objectives designed to promote efficient use of the floodplains, working closely with local communities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program. He served as ASFPM Chair, Vice Chair and Treasurer between 1998 and 2003. He helped establish the Missouri Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association and attain Chapter status with ASFPM. Prior to joining the floodplain section of SEMA in 1995, Riedel worked for the Office of Administration in Facilities Management in leasing and state building management and for the Division of Design and Construction. Additionally, he managed different aspects of the Hearnes Multipurpose Building for the University of Missouri at Columbia. He has an A.A. in business from Missouri Baptist College, Hannibal, MO, and B.S. in Business Administration and Economics from Culver Stockton College, Canton, MO, and is a Certified Floodplain Manager.

 

Workshops

Workshops will be held on Tuesday 23 February 2010. Attendance at the work shops is at an additional fee of $175 per person.

Managing Flood Risk with Strategic Land Use Planning
This workshop provides an outline of how practical strategic land planning can be undertaken to achieve and maintain desirable levels of protection against the risks from flooding given the pressures faced by councils for new development on floodplains. It involves several presentations and a workshop where participants will be asked to make decisions on how to best develop flood prone land in consideration of the vulnerability and risk exposures associated with different types of land use and development options and a look at the types of conditions that are necessary to enable the full range of flood risks faced by the community to be managed adequately and effectively.

Managing Changing Standards in Flood Risk Assessment
Australian Rainfall and Runoff ? the Technical Bible for Rainfall and Runoff assessment in Australia, is being updated as are other relevant standards. The update of AR&R is likely to have impacts on design flood estimates as design rainfall estimates and patterns change along with approaches to
modelling flooding and technical advice is expanded on issues such as climate change and joint probability of catchment and coastal flooding. This workshop will discuss the practical aspects of how to deal with the uncertainty arising from these potential changes in current, new and completed studies and the associated ramifications on decision making.

 


 

Social Programs & Field Trips

Social Functions

 

Welcome Reception

Date:

 

Tuesday 23 February

Time:

 

6.00pm ? 8.00pm

Venue:

 

Indigo Restaurant, Mingara Centre

Dress Code:

 

Smart Casual

Ticket Cost:

 

One ticket is included in all full registrations. Additional tickets cost $55

 

We invite you to attend the Conference Welcome Reception which will be held on the evening of Tuesday 23 February in Indigo Restaurant at the Mingara Centre. Enjoy drinks and canap?s while acquainting yourself with colleagues both past and present.

 

Conference Dinner

Date:

 

Thursday 25 February

Time:

 

7.00pm ? 11.00pm

Venue:

 

Australian Reptile Park, Gosford

Dress Code:

 

Dinner Suit

Ticket Cost:

 

$120

Transfers:

 

A shuttle bus will be available from conference hotels

 

Enjoy a balmy summer evening at the Australian Reptile Park for the 50th Anniversary Jungle themed Dinner. Start your evening with pre dinner drinks on the verandah while keepers introduce you to koalas, possums and the giant python. Savour a scrumptious three course dinner and wine in the outdoor marquee amidst an evening of exciting jungle entertainment guaranteed to keep everybody enthralled. This is an opportunity for you to relax with friends new and old and meet the park?s resident reptiles. This truly is an evening not to be missed!

Field trips

 

Field Trip 1- Gosford

Date:

 

Wednesday 24 February 2010

Time:

 

1.30pm ? 5.30pm

Location:

 

Bus Trip off site

 

This field trip will allow delegates to visit various sites of the Gosford area stretching from Lisarow to Umina Beach and back along the coast via the areas pristine beaches. Delegates will view numerous creeks, rivers, lagoons, beaches and other waterways that have made Gosford one of the most topical Councils with respect to the diversity of flooding problems. The tour will also take in a variety of flood mitigation works which have alleviated flooding problems including rock lined, revegetated and widened channels; and also creeks choked with vegetation which have been returned to semi-natural open riparian corridors through the application of environmentally friendly methods.

 


 

Field Trip 2 - Virtual Field Trip

Date:

 

Wednesday 24 February 2010

Time:

 

1.30pm ? 5.30pm

Location:

 

The Showroom, Mingara Centre

Cost:

 

Inclusive in Registration

 

All delegates take an interest or are involved in some way with Floodplain Risk Management; whether it be planning, designing or constructing works, collecting and reporting data, emergency management or setting development controls and policies/regulations. However the benefit is not realised until it is viewed or read about when a flood event occurs. This brand new concept style workshop will provide delegates with the opportunity to work through the exercise of Floodplain Risk Management (FRM) from the initial recording of data through to the SES rescuing people and attempting to minimise damage to property in a typical flood event. The field trip is designed to take participants through a flood scenario where little or no FRM has been implemented. This is followed by the same scenario where appropriate FRM has been applied to the floodplain. Delegates will be encouraged to be involved in making decisions as part of the management of the floodplain and also the emergency management operations during the flood event.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 12.8??? SF736????????????? 191109???????? Report on Review of Aboriginal Youth Worker Position