NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3        General Manager Report

8.1     December 2009 Budget Review

8.2     Upgrading of the Pacific Highway - Warrell Creek to Urunga - Submission on Environmental Assessment

8.3     Section 94 Progress Report

4        Director Environment and Planning Report

9.1     Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

5        Director Engineering Services Report

10.1   Scotts Head Master Plan

10.2   Kingsworth Estate Public Reserve Access    

 

TIME

DESCRIPTION

WHERE

OS/CC

ITEM NO

PAGE NO

8.30 - 10.30

Nambucca 2009 LEP Report

DELEGATIONS:

   1   Mr Ken Rothe

   2   Ms Ann Hartge (Morgan's Gully)

   3   Mr Kevin Ledger (Car yard North Macksville)

   4   Mr John Golding (Boundaries)

   5   Ms Karen Caves (Tree Preservation Order)

   6   Mr Ted Lourey  (Wellington Drive)

 

CC

9.1

25

10.30-10.50

Morning Tea

10.50-11.30

Nambucca 2009 LEP Report (continued)

CC

9.1

25

11.30-11.45

Kingsworth Estate Public Reserve Access

 

10.2

85

11.45-12.00

Budget Review 31/12/09

CC

8.1

4

12.00-12.30

Pacific Highway Upgrade - Warrell Creek to Urunga

CC

8.2

12

12.30 - 1.00

Lunch

1.00 – 1.15

S94 Progress Report by Bruce Potts

CC

10.1

24

1.15 -

Scotts Head Master Plan

CC

8.3

79

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Email Address – council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

         


General Purpose Committee

17 March 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1      SF1354            170310         December 2009 Budget Review

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services         

 

Summary:

 

General Fund:                This review revises the net operating result for 2009/10 to a surplus of $205,200 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,847,890, an improvement of $211,800 since the Original Budget.

                                     

Council’s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is healthy at approximately $614,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

 

 

Water Supplies:             This review revises the net operating result for 2009/10 to a deficit of $59,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,333,676, a decline of $47,500 since the Original Budget.

 

Council’s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is healthy at approximately $747,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

 

 

Sewerage Services:        This review revises the net operating result for 2009/10 to a deficit of $50,000 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $542,315, a decline of $7,800 since the Original Budget.

 

Council’s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is satisfactory at approximately $136,000 above the minimum level as per Council’s policy.

 

 

The circularised budget review document includes, as variances, amounts required to match unexpected income/expenditure items plus resolved inclusions to the budget. Items varying $5,000 or more are briefly discussed commencing page 2 and are referenced to the page number in the body of the budget review document. Significant variations influencing the result are discussed further in this report. Circularised also is a pictorial review of projects and a Capital Works Quarterly Program Review.

 

Attached is the potential Budget Revotes for 2009/2010 as per Council Resolution 184382010 of 21 January 2010 .

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the budget review for the quarter ended 31 December, 2009 be received.

 

2        That the recommended increases and decreases in votes are included as subsequent votes for the financial year 2009/2010.

 

3        That an additional $35,152 be allocated to the Hennessey Tape Amenities extension noting that these funds may be reimbursed if the grant is successful.

 

4        That $8,000 is provided to meet the cost of the disposal of demolition material for the Cycleway Project.

 

5        That $15,500 is provided to meet the cost of the disposal of mixed waste for the clean up by the Nambucca Heads Land Council Clearing.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Not Applicable

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

GENERAL ACTIVITIES

 

The summary of current liquid equity is on page 1 of the Budget Review document. The estimated current liquid equity surplus is $1,847,890 inclusive of internal loans.

 

The original 2009/10 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $6,600. Items revoted from 2008/09 amounted to $947,900. The balance of internal loans borrowed from current liquid equity was $675,547.

 

The September review revised the result for 2009/10 to a net operating surplus of $361,600 an improvement of $368,200.

 

This December review revises the result for 2009/10 to a net operating surplus of $205,200 a decline of $156,400 on the September review and an improvement of $211,800 on the original budget.

 

The net deficit variance of $156,400 incorporates a number of individual variations of note.

 

Firstly, there is $128,000 of emergency roads and bridges expenditure coming from October and November flood damage that is yet to be approved by the RTA, therefore revenue has not been brought to account. In Other Waste, a loss of expected income in the order of $95,000 from contaminated glass not being processed has been included; however this variance has been more than offset by a revised increase in tipping fees income of $110,000 for bulk contractors.    

 

An additional $38,000 to the budgeted amount will be required for the Rural Fire Service contribution as per advice received by the RFS on its 2009/10 allocations and reflects a greater than expected provision for program costs. Also, some development income items are not expected to reach budget and a combined net variance of $47,000 has been made to this review. A further $31,000 is also expected for town planning legal matters.

 

Approval of the flood damage costs of $28,800 in parks and reserves brought to account at the 30 June 09 has been received and included with this review. Net cost to working funds for the flood damage works in parks and reserves was $26,500 which includes Council’s 25% share of $13,600. The persistent heavy rain has also contributed to the drainage failure of urban culverts and drains resulting in an extra $28,000 in maintenance.  There is also a need for an additional gross pollutant system for the Alberta St stormwater drainage job with a further $22,200 included with this review.

 

Variances associated with capital road works have provided a net saving of $73,100. In addition Council is expected to yield a combined profit of $55,000 relating to private works for the road work associated with the Australian Rail Track Corporation Boom Gate Project at Browns Crossing Road and South Bank Road. Revenue of $31,500 associated with the sale of the closed road at 115 Mann St has also been included with this review.

 

The allocation for the write off of bad debts has been reduced by $25,000 as it is not expected to have the investigation work completed for the sale of land for overdue rates by the June 30. This will require an allocation to be resubmitted with the draft 2010/11 budget. The training room cleaning allocation has also been reduced by $16,000 as this room requires only occasional cleaning with an allocation already incorporated in the RFS cleaning budget.  

 

It should also be noted that the allocations following the latest review of Environmental Levy Plan have been incorporated into this Budget Review which benefits working funds by $30,700 with regard to the Macksville pontoon and beach project.

 

 

 

DIRECTOR ENGINEERING COMMENTARY:

 

Parks and Reserves

 

The tendered prices received for two building projects in the Community Facilities and Open Space Contribution Plan exceed the funds provided for the work. A second round of quotes did not result in reduced prices. The two projects are:

 

1        Hennessey Tape Amenities Extension

 

          Budget provided of $76,848 compared to quotations of $112,000. Additional funds of $35,152 sought.

 

2        Macksville Park Storage

 

          Budget provided of $51,232 compared to quotations of $95,000. Additional funds of $43,768 required.

 

          A stimulus funding application has been made but is yet to be determined. There is a need to deal with this promptly to reduce the impact on sports and to have the upgraded facility in place for planned events.

 

          The Hennessy Tape amenities have the greatest need to address the large numbers of sports participants using that park. The Macksville Park storage is needed but can be included in the revised contribution plan about to be developed and become a project in 2010/11.

 

“In Kind” Contributions

 

Where possible, Council includes “in kind” contributions in grant applications which attract grant funds. Two current projects have “in kind” contributions for waste disposal.

 

This is no longer possible with the strict procedures in place for the weighbridge at the Waste Management Centre. Payment must be made for waste entering the site except for the exempt items such as recycling.

 

It is necessary then to add to the two projects in question a budget for waste disposal as follows:

 

1        Cycleway (South of Nambucca Heads)

 

          Disposal of demolition materials (concrete) $8,000 - part of an $880,000 project.

 

2        Nambucca Heads Aboriginal Land Clearings

 

          Disposal of mixed waste $15,500 collected from public areas and aboriginal housing. A $50,000 grant was received for the rest of the project. A similar proposal for the Bowraville area will include waste disposal fees.

 

Review of contracts

 

Congarini Bridge

 

The Tender was let by Council to Civilbuild Pty Ltd. The company is currently finalising a bridge in the Kempsey Shire. The deck units will be built in Redhead over the next 2 months and they plan to establish a site by mid April to fit the deck.

 

The contractor advises that the construction will be completed by 30 June 2010.

 

Byrnes Bridge - (Bellingen Road)

 

Council let the Tender to Bridge Solutions Australia to design and construction the bridge and approaches. The agreement was finalised on the 3 December 2009. The company has indicated that the design will be received by Council by the end of February 2010. The design has to be certified by an independent engineer to comply with the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) requirements. They are providing 50% of the funding.

 

Allowing 4 weeks for the design certificate and RTA approval together with the nominated construction period of 3 weeks for the bridge, means that the structure should be completed by the end of April. All up including roadworks gives a project completion date of the end of May 2010.

 

Stormwater

 

The company GHD were engaged to analyse and make recommendations to improve the stormwater drainage system in the urban catchment above, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads including streets such as Curlew and Bismark.

 

The Stage 1 report recommended improvements and maintenance requirements for the existing pipework and pumps which has commenced.

 

The Stage 2 of the report is to undertake a more detailed analysis to determine the feasibility of duplicating stormwater pipes, creating temporary storage areas etc. The scope of the report is currently being reviewed within the company to ensure that it meets State Government guidelines that would enable Council to seek grants through the flood programs.

 

The impact on Councils budget at this time is that the $100,000 allocated to implement the recommendations is unlikely to be required in the current budget and is expected to be revoted.

 

To be further assessed at the March Budget Review.  The funds are part of the stormwater levy and cannot be reallocated to other works.

 

WATER SUPPLIES

 

The original 2009/10 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $12,100. Items revoted from 2008/09 amounted to $41,300.

 

The September review revised the result for 2009/10 to an operating deficit of $21,500, a decline of $9,400 on the original budget deficit.

 

This December review revises the result for 2009/10 to an operating deficit of $59,600 a decline of $38,100 on the September review and $47,500 on the original budget.

 

The only variance of note related to higher than expected energy costs contributing to a $40,000 variance for pump stations.

 

SEWERAGE SERVICES

 

The original 2009/10 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $42,200. Items revoted from 2008/09 amounted to $20,000.

 

The September review revised the result for 2009/10 to a net operating deficit of $98,800, a decline of $56,600 on the original budget deficit.

 

This December review revises the result for 2009/10 to a net operating deficit of $50,000, an improvement of $48,800 on the September review and a $7,800 decline on the original budget deficit.

 

The interest free loan secured through the NSW Local Infrastructure Fund has yielded a saving of $158,000 in interest on the original forecast loan of $4,850,000 for this financial year. It should be noted also that both the section 64 reserve and the augmentation revenue reserve are expected to be replenished by $1,800,500 and $1,949,500 respectively in relation to the loan funds.

 

The augmentation revenue reserve has been utilised to offset variances associated with a reduction in revenue from the 5th year of phasing in of the sewerage usage charges ($227,500) and an overestimation in trade waste charges ($93,000).

 

Another variation of note is an additional $70,000 required for the replacement of the Bowraville Drying Beds to match the corresponding tender price.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Directors

Responsible Officers

Accountant

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not applicable.

 

Social

 

Not applicable.

 

Economic

 

Not applicable.

 

Risk

 

Not applicable.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Refer to discussion.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Refer to discussion.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

 - Circularised - Budget Review Document

 

2View

 - Circularised - Pictorial Review of Projects and Capital Works Quarterly Program Review

 

3View

5954/2010 - Potential Budget Revotes 2009/2010

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

December 2009 Budget Review

 

 

 

Circularised Document

 

December 2009 Budget Review

 

 

 

 - Budget Review Document

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

December 2009 Budget Review

 

 

 

 

 

Circularised Document

 

 

December 2009 Budget Review

 

 

 

 - Pictorial Review of Projects and Capital Works Quarterly Program Review

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

December 2009 Budget Review

 

 


General Purpose Committee

17 March 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.2      SF841              170310         Upgrading of the Pacific Highway - Warrell Creek to Urunga - Submission on Environmental Assessment

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The report considers the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed upgrading of the Pacific Highway – Warrell Creek to Urunga.  Council is able to make a submission on the EA up until 29 March 2010.

 

It is proposed that a submission be made to the Department with recommendations concerning the assessment of Endangered Ecological Communities; the consideration of private submissions; the timing and staging of construction; avoiding any financial impacts on Council; flooding and noise.

 

In particular Council commissioned a peer review of the noise and vibration assessment by acoustical consultants, Heggies and the recommendations of that peer review are proposed to be incorporated in the submission to the Department of Planning.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That a submission on the Environmental Assessment for the Upgrading of the Pacific Highway – Warrell Creek to Urunga be made to the NSW Department of Planning incorporating the following points:

 

1        That the Department be asked to clarify the reference on page 188 to the loss of           endangered ecological community representing, “a relatively small proportion of the total           remaining area of each EEC on the Macleay Coastal Floodplain”.

 

2        That the Department be asked to consider the submissions from Kay Donnelly, Chris           Holliday and David, Annette, Natasha, Leilani, Johnteio Grant.

 

3        That the upgrade, at least between Warrell Creek and Ballards Road proceed as a single           stage as soon as possible.

 

4        The cost of all changes to Council owned infrastructure arising out of the upgrading of the           Pacific Highway, whether direct or indirect, should be met by the RTA and this should be a           condition of any project approval.

 

5        That Council is financially unable to accept responsibility, either in whole or in part, for the           existing Pacific Highway and the Macksville Bridge.

 

6        That the Department require the bridge option north of the Nambucca River (option 2) as it           has a lesser flood impact to the earth embankment (option 1).

 

7        That irrespective of recommendation 6. that the RTA undertake further modelling and design           modification to ensure that:

          a        the proposed highway across the Gumma floodplain and the northern side of the

                   Nambucca River has NO effect on the flood levels upstream from the proposed route;

          b        the height of the roadway be well clear of the estimated height of a 1 in 100 year flood                    and the forecast 2050 sea level rise.

 

8        That further details be provided regarding the identification of noise sensitive vacant land           within the study area.  If noise sensitive vacant land is identified then an assessment of           potential noise impacts is recommended at these locations.

 

9        That the predicted existing road traffic noise levels (for current year, 2007) be provided           within (or as an Addendum to) the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report.

 

10      That information be provided with regard to the level of noise reduction achieved by the low           noise road surface and, in particular, what assumptions were made in the road traffic noise           model in this regard.

 

11      That the complete noise modelling results be presented for each scenario to have the           benefit of providing the reader with greater confidence that the design criteria and           allowances have been applied correctly.  This will also provide more clarity to the identified           residents with regard to whether or not they will qualify for further noise mitigation           investigation.  Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to provide the comprehensive noise           modelling results at the detailed design stage when there is more certainty with regard to           the final road design.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

It is a matter for Council what matters are included in its submission to the Department of Planning.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The environmental assessment for the upgrading of the Pacific Highway – Warrell Creek to Urunga is on public display until Monday 29 March 2010.  The RTA has requested Council’s submission by this deadline.

 

Funding for the construction of the proposed upgrading of the Pacific Highway – Warrell Creek to Urunga is outside the current financing agreement between the Australian and NSW Governments and is one of three projects to complete stage 2.  The other projects are the Oxley Highway to Kempsey upgrade and the Frederickton to Eungai upgrade.

 

Stage one involves completing dual carriageway by mid 2014 in three key areas:

 

·      From the F3 Freeway near Hexham to Port Macquarie

·      From Ballina to the Queensland border

·      Sections to the north and south of Coffs Harbour

 

The Environmental Assessment identifies the main beneficial outcomes of the proposed upgrading of the Pacific Highway – Warrell Creek to Urunga as:

 

·      Improved road safety and travel times

·      Greater transport efficiency and safety for intra-state and inter-state movements

·      Improved regional access

·      Retention of the existing highway as an alternate route to the new highway for local access

·      Safer access to the highway from new grade separated interchanges located strategically along the upgrade

·      Improved amenity in the Warrell Creek village, Macksville, Bellwood and through Urunga

·      Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the longer term, relative to the base case of “no upgrade”.

 

The main adverse outcomes are expected to be:

 

·      Impacts on Aboriginal heritage

·      Impacts on private property

·      Loss of forestry land

·      Loss of native vegetation and threatened species

·      Potential for noise impacts on some residences

·      Impact on endangered ecological communities

·      Potential for indirect impacts on native vegetation and habitat

·      Minor disruption during construction

 

By way of background there has been considerable work undertaken by the RTA to reach the point of preparing an Environmental Assessment for a preferred route.  Planning for the current proposal began in June 2003.  A draft route options report was prepared in 2004 with a second report being prepared in 2004 which assessed route options to the west of Macksville.  The second report was prepared in response to a request from sections of the community and the Macksville Chamber of Commerce.  Following the consideration of submissions, a report on the preferred route from Macksville to Urunga was released in 2005.  The section from Warrell Creek to Macksville was incorporated into a new Project Application report in 2007.

 

This report deals with what are considered to be the major environmental, social, economic and financial implications of the proposed highway upgrade and in particular whether the Environmental Assessment proposes satisfactory mitigation measures.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The Mayor has provided advice in relation to a meeting the RTA convened on 24 February in relation to noise.  Information was also obtained from a meeting of Council’s Nambucca River Estuary and Coastline Management Committee which the RTA and consultants SKM attended on 12 February 2010.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The construction corridor and area of potential impact (10 metre buffer) equates to 431 hectares of which 255 hectares (59%) is occupied by native vegetation, which includes approximately 60 hectares of endangered ecological community.  The remaining 176 hectares (41%) consists of cleared agricultural land plantations, modified rural residential zones and river crossings.

 

In assessing the impact on the loss of endangered ecological communities, there is a reference on page 188 to the losses representing, “a relatively small proportion of the total remaining area of each EEC on the Macleay Coastal Floodplain”.  As it is the Nambucca coastal floodplain, it is unclear whether the figures refer to the Nambucca coastal floodplain which has been wrongly labelled or the figures have been mistakenly carried over into the document from presumably the EA for the Kempsey by-pass.

 

Council should recommend that this be clarified by the Department of Planning.

 

Of the threatened terrestrial species identified, there is the potential for significant impacts on the plant species Marsdenia longiloba (Slender Marsdenia) in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures being implemented as part of the proposal.  The mitigation measures proposed to be implemented in order to minimise the impact on Marsdenia longiloba include the protection and relocation of individual plants within the road corridor during the construction of the proposal where feasible.

 

In relation to habitat removal generally, the EA proposes that habitat compensation and rehabilitation measures would be developed in consultation with the DECCW during the detailed design phase of the proposal in order to mitigate anticipated habitat fragmentation and wildlife corridor impacts.

 

Social

 

Noise

 

A noise and vibration assessment of the proposal has been undertaken.  A number of options exist for managing road traffic noise associated with the proposal.  According to the Environmental Assessment, management solutions are applied based on, “a reasonable and feasible approach to managing traffic noise and in accordance with the NSW Government’s Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (EPA 1999)”.

 

The Environmental Assessment proposes that one or more of the following solutions can be applied in areas where noise criteria are exceeded:

 

·      Provide low noise pavement surfacing

·      Provide noise barriers adjacent to the proposal to attenuate noise at locations with clustered receivers where the noise modelling has identified that relevant criteria would be exceeded and where the proposed barriers would meet relevant RTA cost effectiveness criteria.

·      Provision of architectural or “on property” noise reduction treatments for individual receivers (subject to discussions between the RTA and individual property owners) where noise criteria would be exceeded, with or without the introduction of a noise barrier.

 

The Environmental Assessment (EA) does not list the option of acquiring property if noise criteria are exceeded.  Nor does the EA make provision for the operating costs of any noise reduction treatments such as air conditioning.

 

From a meeting conducted by RTA staff and consultants on 24 February it is also understood that no provision is made in relation to vacant land where noise criteria is exceeded but where a dwelling may be subsequently erected.

 

Council has now received a peer review of the Noise and Vibration Assessment report contained with within the EA.  The peer review has been undertaken by Heggies Pty Ltd and is attached.  Heggies recommendations should be incorporated in the submission to the Department of Planning.

 

Public Submissions

 

Council has received a number of public submissions on the environmental assessment.  These are summarised as follows:

 

Kay Donnelly – “Whispering Pines”, 11 Albert Drive, Donnellyville – Doc no. 4728/2010

 

The RTA has advised they will be acquiring the family home and seeks Council’s support for keeping the property’s garden open for the public, possibly incorporated into a road side layby.  The garden is very important to Ms Donnelly and her family, not only for its horticultural and habitat value but also for the memories associated with her family.

 

Chris Holliday – 22 East West Road, Valla – Doc no. 3044/2010

 

Mr Holliday believes that the existing highway reservation near Valla Beach is wide enough to accommodate the whole of the upgraded Pacific Highway along with a highway for local traffic between Nambucca and Urunga and a service road for local residents.  He claims that the eastern side of the existing road corridor, already owned by the RTA, is not bordered by any private property, yet remains unused in their present plan.

 

“However the RTA wish to retain the present old highway for local traffic, and build all the new highway and the local service road to the west of the existing highway.  They thus have to resume local residents’ land, undertake massive earth works to fill in a valley beside East West Road, demolish an area described by NPSW as an “Area of very high quality flora and fauna habitat” and have overlooked drainage requirements despite several submissions and letters warning that residences to the west will be vulnerable to flooding without adequate drainage.

 

Mr Holliday seeks Council’s support in requesting that the full costs and disadvantages of the present plan and its alternatives are compared and contrasted, taking into account the disadvantages imposed on residents and the local environment.

 

David, Annette, Natasha, Leilani, Johnteio Grant – 40 Burkes Lane, Valla – Doc no. 4893/2010

 

Object to partial acquisition of their land and instead seek full acquisition.  Their letter states that the highway will be 30-40 metres from their home and on the western boundary, the local road between Nambucca and Urunga will be a through fare for local traffic. 

 

Potential Staging

 

A possible risk in relation to the Highway’s social impact could be its potential staging.  The EA lists a number of possible staging opportunities including the bypass of Warrell Creek; Warrell Creek to the Pacific Highway just north of the Nambucca River; the Pacific Highway just north of the Nambucca River to the Nambucca Heads interchange and the Nambucca Heads interchange to Ballards Road interchange.

 

Combinations of the above staging options could also be possible.

 

In order to minimise the social impact of the Highway upgrading it should be recommended to the Department of Planning that the upgrade, at least between Warrell Creek and Ballards Road proceed as a single stage as soon as possible.  Otherwise the uncertainly which is faced by many residents in relation to when they will be forced from their land will be extended.  The other problem is that extended delays in construction may give rise to further design changes, delays, costs and uncertainty for residents.  This has already happened in Warrell Creek in relation to a previous highway upgrade proposal which did not proceed.

 

Aboriginal Heritage

 

The EA indicates the proposal would have direct, indirect and potential impact on 14 identified archaeological sites.  Eight of these are identified as being of moderate or high cultural significance to the local Aboriginal community, and one has been identified as having low-moderate Aboriginal significance.  The EA lists a number of proposed management measures for archaeological and cultural sites.

 

Economic

 

The operation of a “bypass” will result in both positive and negative impacts depending on the nature and location of the businesses in the area.  Those businesses along the existing highway, reliant on passing trade, would be negatively impacted if they are to be bypassed or where direct access to the businesses from the road is removed.  A report on the Karuah bypass one year on found that the bypass saw the closure of a number of highway dependent businesses.  However, the economic impacts and employment losses were less than expected.  The study also found that despite the economic impacts, the majority of Karuah’s population viewed the bypass in a positive light due to the improved amenity in the town centre.

 

In relation to minimising the economic impacts, contact has been made with Caltex Australia in relation to the potential for a new highway service centre to replace the Macksville site.  Caltex have indicated that they will make a decision when planning for the upgrade is completed and there is a timetable for construction.

 

Risk

 

The EA indicates there will be a number of impacts on Council’s utilities with a requirement for the adjustment/relocation of services.  These impacts are as follows:

 

Water

·      Impacts on existing water main along Bald Hill Road (east of upgrade) and north of Bald Hill road (upgrade in cut).

·      Impacts on water main located along Gumma Road (upgrade on fill)

·      Impacts on water main located along Nursery Road (upgrade on fill)

·      Impacts on water main located along Old Coast Road, crossing at Ch 15500 and Ch 19000 (upgrade in cut in both locations)

 

Sewer

·      Impact on existing sewer rising mains leading to the Macksville sewage treatment plant (upgrade on fill)

 

Roads

The Highway upgrade will require connections to local roads with related infrastructure such as signage, guard rail and drainage.

 

The cost of all changes to Council owned infrastructure arising out of the upgrading of the Pacific Highway, whether direct or indirect, should be met by the RTA and this should be a condition of any project approval.

 

It is presumed that at some point the RTA will endeavour to reclassify the existing Pacific Highway and the Macksville Bridge as a regional or perhaps local road.  Council has already been adversely impacted by the reclassification of the Bellingen Road from a regional road to a local road and should flag that it’s financially unable to accept responsibility, either in whole or in part, for the existing Pacific Highway and the Macksville Bridge.

 

Rateable Land

 

There has been some speculation that the loss of land in the highway corridor will result in a reduction of rate income or a significant increase in rates.

 

Every year Council has additional assessments or “growth” in its allowable rate income.  Whilst the impact of the loss of rateable land to the Council has not been modelled, the RTA will be acquiring land and possibly at a later stage will also sell residue parcels, the net impact being the land within the highway reservation comes into State ownership and is not rateable.

 

Whilst this will include some land which had a building entitlement, it will mostly be rural land from which the dwelling has been severed by subdivision.  That land will generally have a lower valuation.  Balanced against this loss of rateable land value will be the growth in new assessments caused by subdivision.  Whilst the highway may cause some decrease in the rate of growth of the total rateable land value, it should not cause any noticeable redistribution of the rating burden.

 

Flooding

 

A change in flood characteristics, particularly upstream of a road or bridge, is a particular risk with the highway upgrade.  The Nambucca River floodplain essentially discharges in an easterly direction whereas the highway will be building barriers to that flow in a north/south direction.

 

The increase in 100 year average recurrence interval flood levels upstream of the new highway crossing of the Nambucca River is estimated at 20mm with option 1 (earth embankment north of the river) increasing to 40mm with climate change; and 15mm with option 2 (bridge structure north of the river) and increasing to 30mm with climate change.  On Upper Warrell Creek at a location 25m upstream of the proposed bridge it is estimated that the 100 year average recurrence interval flood level will increase by 30mm both with and without climate change.

 

The bridge option north of the Nambucca River (option 2) has the lesser flood impact to the earth embankment (option 1) and should be preferred by Council.

 

The EA indicates that the proposal provides flood immunity for at least one highway carriageway for a one in 100 year flood event.  However the EA does not indicate whether this standard takes into account climate change.  If it doesn’t take into account climate change then a higher road surface level may require additional culvert capacity which can only reasonably be provided in the initial construction.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there are no budgetary impacts.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

5961/2010 - Draft Peer Review - Noise & Vibration Assessment

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

Upgrading of the Pacific Highway - Warrell Creek to Urunga - Submission on Environmental Assessment

 


 


General Purpose Committee

17 March 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.3      SF544              170310         Section 94 Progress Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The Section 94 Planner will be in attendance at the General Purpose Committee meeting to brief Council on his work program.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information on the status of the Section 94 works program be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.  The Section 94 Planner will be providing a briefing on his works program.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council’s meeting on 19 November it was resolved that sporting and other organisations be invited to put forward suggested projects for funding under Council’s Section 94 contribution plans.  Council was advised that this would be undertaken as part of the Community Needs Study and it was suggested that Council’s Section 94 Planner provide a briefing on the status of his work.

 

The Section 94 Planner will be in attendance at the General Purpose Committee meeting to brief Council on his work program.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Section 94 Planner.

 

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 no risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no budget impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


General Purpose Committee

17 March 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1      SF241              170310         Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner; Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning         

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the results of the public exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Draft NLEP 2009) and obtain Council approval to make appropriate amendments to the draft plan prior to it being forwarded to the Parliamentary Counsel and the Minister of Planning for approval.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          That Ecotourism be included as a permissible land use with consent in the zones RU1, RU2, R5, SP3, RE1, RE2 and E3.

 

2          That Council note that the DoP has excluded the coastal side of Matthew Street Scotts Head from SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) and that the 6.5m height limit will be exhibited in conjunction with the Consolidate DCP, and the floor space ratio map be amended to 0.4:1 in draft NLEP 2009.

 

3          That Council amend the Draft NLEP 2009 Height Maps to provide the area bounded by Wellington Drive, Lower Lee Street, Buckman Lane and Bay Street with an 8.5m height limit from the Agreed Natural Ground Level.

 

4          That the proposed commercial land at Valla Beach (Lot 7 DP 821952) be provided with a 14m height limit which will allow for a reasonable scale commercial development providing flexibility for shop top housing.

 

5          That the parcel of land currently occupied by Valla Real Estate be zoned B4 Mixed Use.

 

6          That Clause 7.2(2) of Draft NLEP 2009 be amended to enable dual occupancy development to occur on lots less than 600m2 in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

7          That the request to vary the zone boundary over Lot 1 DP 125637 and Lot 90 DP 755554 not be supported as the boundaries are identical to the zone boundary in NLEP 1995.

 

8          That Council note that the exhibition period for Draft NLEP 2009 exceeded the minimum legislative requirements.

 

9          That Council include the optional Preservation of Trees or Vegetation Clause in Draft NLEP 2009, noting that the clause will not take effect until an adopted DCP relating to tree preservation is in force.

 

10        That Council note the advice from the State Government Agencies in regard to the Native Vegetation Act and the R5 Large Lot Residential zone.

 

11        That Council not exclude dwellings as a permissible land use in the E2 zone as dwellings are currently permissible under the NLEP 1995.

 

12        That Council note that the endorsed Nambucca Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy is the basis for all future Rural-Residential land releases in the shire.

 

13        That Council note the submission in regard to the allocation of the Environmental Levy is unrelated to the draft NLEP 2009.

 

14        That Council take no further action at this time in regard to the development of a Biodiversity Management Plan.

 

15        That Council take no action in regard to buffers between SEPP 14 Wetlands and Residential zones at this stage.

 

16        That Council take no further action at this time in regard to the development of a Marine Management Plan.

 

17        That Council take no further action at this time in regard to the development of a Koala Plan of Management.

 

 

18        That Council note that adequate Climate Change provisions exist in Draft NLEP 2009 and further amendment may be required following the completion of the specialist studies.

 

19        That Council note that the E3 and E2 zones applied to the shire are generally a best fit transfer from NLEP 1995 to Draft NLEP 2009. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

20        That Council remove extractive industries and earthworks from the permissible land use table of the E3 zone and replace these with the following note:

 

            ‘Note. State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production, and Extractive Industries) 2007 may apply to this land.’

 

21        That Council note that the E3 and RU 2 zones applied to Morgans Gully are a best fit transfer from NLEP 1995 to Draft NLEP 2009. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

22        That Council not incorporate a Wildlife Corridor between Warrell Peninsula and the Southern Higher Ground at this time, but should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the incorporation of a corridor, Council may consider it at that time.

 

23        That Council not consider applying a RU6 Transition zone in Draft NLEP 2009, between rural, rural residential and environmentally sensitive areas.

 

24        That Council maintain the B7 Business Park zone in the Lower Nambucca Area.

 

25        That Council note that the DoP do not allow for the inclusion of the identified Agreed Growth Areas to be shown on the Urban Release Area Maps.

 

26        That Council not include any changes to the proposed zones in the Warrell Peninsula area.

 

27        That Council not change the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 for Lot 1 DP 876141.

 

28        That Council not make any amendments to Draft NLEP 2009 in regard to road access for Lot 1 DP 876141.

 

29        That Council not include any changes to the proposed E3 and E2 zones. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

30        That Council not change the B2 Local Centre zones to B4 Mixed Use zones in Scotts Head. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

31        That Council not change the R1 Residential zone to E2 Environmental Conservation zone over the land contiguous with Warrell Reserve at Scotts Head. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

32        That Council not change the RE1 Public Reserve zone to E2 Environmental Conservation zone where applied over Crown Land and Beaches.

 

33        That Council note that the B4 Environmental Living Zone has not been used as there was no equivalent zone in NLEP 1995

 

34        That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 does not govern the number of youth facilities available or permissible in the shire.

 

35        That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 does not propose to identify Community Land that should be disposed of as this is a separate process.

 

36        That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 does not address parking at the Visitor Information Centre.

 

37        That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 identifies the maximum building height in Wellington Drive as 12m.

 

38        That Council note that the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone Boundaries are generally controlled by the constraints mapping that it had available at the time and that the final boundary alignment has followed property boundaries, road or geographical features where appropriate.

 

39        That Council note that the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone shall apply to all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions and that Boundaries for the R5 zone are generally controlled by the constraints mapping that it had available at the time and that the final boundary alignment has followed property boundaries, road or geographical features where appropriate.

 

40        That Council note that the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone shall apply to all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions.

 

41        That Council note that approximately 2ha of land is proposed to be zoned for Commercial purposes in Valla Beach.

 

42        That Council note that there are 3 Environmental Zones proposed under Draft NLEP 2009 compared to 4 under NLEP 1995.

 

43        That Council note that the Medium-High density zonings in Draft NLEP 2009 reflect the current Medium–High Density zones under NLEP 1995.

 

44        That Council note that a shop will be permissible with consent in the R1, R3 and R4 Residential Zones which will provide opportunity for a small scale local shop to be developed in Hyland Park.

 

45        That Council note that Clause 5.5 of Draft NLEP 2009 makes provision to ensure public access to the foreshore is considered, provided and maintained.

 

46        That Council amend the R5 Large Lot Residential Boundary over Lot 42 DP 711098 to align with the identified hard vegetation or flooding constraint.

 

47        That Council not amend the R5 Large Lot Residential Boundary over Lot 2 DP 773170 as the boundary in question is identified as a High Hazard Flood Storage area in the Nambucca River Flood Study and adopted Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

 

48        That Council not incorporate an E2 zone on that part of Morgan Gully situated on Lot 103 DP 776168 but should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the incorporation of the E2 zone, Council may consider it at that time.

 

49        That Council not change the RU1 Zone to IN2 Light Industrial Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over part of Lot 1046 DP 826440, and that the land owner be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy can be demonstrated.

 

50        That Council note that Clause 5.10 of Draft NLEP 2009 makes provision to ensure Aboriginal Heritage Items are appropriately considered.

 

51        That Council not change the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone boundary over Lot 1031 DP 629663 as the land is largely covered by constraints.

 

52        That Council change the maximum height limit over Lot 3 DP 773986 from 10m identified in Draft NLEP 2009 back to 14 m.

 

53        That Council not change the proposed part R5 Large Lot Residential zone to RU2 Rural Landscape zone over Lot 31 DP 1067144 as it will not doubt elevate land use conflicts.

 

54        That Council note that the RE1 Public Recreation zone proposed for the Sand Island allows for Recreational Areas and the like.

 

55        That Council not take any action to place Environmental Protection zones over Riparian areas in Draft NLEP 2009, but should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time. 

 

56        That Council note the submission in regard to the maintenance and provision of landscaping and shade trees and that controls currently exist for landscaping required through a development consent and that the maintenance of shade trees in public areas is currently controlled by Council’s Engineering Services Department.

 

57        That Council not prepare a significant tree register in association with the Preservation of Trees or Vegetation Clause at this stage.

 

58        That Council not change the proposed part B3 Commercial Core zone over Lot 10 DP 1125923, noting that the Bus depot may continue under existing use rights.

 

59        That Council not expand the R5 Large Lot Residential zone over Lot 4 DP 1076959 By a further 9.11 ha as it is outside the approved strategy and would likely delay the gazettal of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

60        That Council not change the RU1 Primary Production Zone to R1 General Residential Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over Lots 11 and 12 DP 1017408 & Lot 2 DP 514920, and that land owners be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix of the Mid North Coast Regional Planning Strategy.

 

61        That Council not include a B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone under Draft NLEP 2009 over part of Lot 11 DP 808007 & Lot 21 DP 1064874 at this stage but advise the landowner that should actual demand and the need arise for a B1 Zone in this locality compared to a neighbourhood shop permissible under the R1 zone then Council will review the matter at that time.

 

62        That Council include Forest Lodge as a Heritage Item under the Schedules of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

63        That Council note the request from the Argents Hill Hall Committee for the inclusion of the Argents Hill Hall as a Heritage Item under the Schedules of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

64        That Council note that the additional Land Uses that it supported over Lot 3 DP 749153 were removed by the DoP via the issue of the Section 65 Certificate and the applied zones are a "best fit" from the old IDO to the new Standard Template format

 

65        That Council note Planning Legislation exists in NSW which Council is required to administer which does not allow landowners to do what they want with their land.

 

 

66        That Council note that the rezoning of part of Valla Beach Resort to R3 Residential Medium Density zone through Draft NLEP 2009 has been identified through the Structure Plan process and provides for a logical extension of the residential zone in this area.

 

67        That Council not change the proposed R1 General Residential zone to B2 Local Centre zone in Draft NLEP 2009 for Lot 6 DP 242819 as the B2 zone will provide for incompatible land uses.

 

68        That Council make no changes to mandatory provisions within the Draft LEP 2009.

 

69        That Council not include the Local Model Provisions for Foreshore Building Lines or Foreshore Areas.

 

70        That Council amend clause 7.1 of the Draft NLEP 2009 to reflect the Local Model Provisions as drafted by the DoP.

 

71        That Council not amend the R5 Large Lot Residential Boundary over Lot 2 DP 1013029.

 

72        That Council remove the RU1 Zone and replace it with an R1 General Residential Zone and E3 Environmental Management Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over part of Lot 2 DP 1071503.

 

73        That Council not change the RU1 Zone to a residential zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over Lot 1 DP 85752, and that the land owner be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy can be demonstrated.

 

74        That Council not amend the proposed RU2 Zone on Lot 103 DP 819474 to R5 Large Lot Residential as it would be inconsistent with the Rural-Residential Release Strategy.

 

75        That Council not permit Places of Public Worship within the RU1 Primary Production Zone in Draft NLEP 2009.

 

76        That Council zone the Oyster Creek watercourse as W1 Natural Waterways zone in Draft NLEP 2009 which is consistent with Council’s approach to zoning the waterways in all other areas of the shire.

 

77        That Council note the response from the Department of Transport and Infrastructure and that Draft NLEP 2009 makes provision for opportunities with sustainable transport and major infrastructure through reference to SEPP Infrastructure.

 

78        That Council note the response from Housing NSW and the request for an increased height limit and density be considered when Council completes it Residential Land release Strategy later in 2010.

 

79        That Council require a social impact statement to accompany any application for the redevelopment of low cost housing in caravan parks.

 

80        That Council note the response from the Northern Rivers CMA and should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone or amalgamation of the small E2 zones into the E3 zones, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

81        That Council note the response from the NSW Office of Water and should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone or the inclusion of the suggestions, Council may consider the matters at that time.

 

82        That Council note the response from the DECCW and the matters raised will be further pursued following the Gazettal of the LEP. Further, that should studies be undertaken in the future that warrant amendments, Council may consider making the changes at that time.

 

83        That Council confirm the boundaries of State Forest zoned land prior to forwarding draft NLEP 2009 to DoP for approval and further, that Council note the other matters raised by the Department of Industry and Investment and these matters will be further pursued following the Gazettal of the LEP. Further, that should studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the amendments, Council may consider making the changes at that time.

 

84        Council note the comments provided by the RTA and continue to assess development applications fronting classified roads in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

85        That subject to the inclusion of any changes determined from the above recommendations, Council proceed with Draft NLEP 2009 and forward Draft NLEP to the Department of Planning’s Legal Branch requesting the Department seek the opinion of Parliamentary Counsel.

 

86        That upon Parliamentary Counsel indicating that Draft NLEP 2009 can be made, Council request the Department of Planning forward a report to the Minister under Section 69 of the EP&A Act and request that the Minister make the Plan.

 

87        That those persons making formal written submission be advised of Council’s decision in regard to their submission.

 

88         That a media release be prepared for issue by the Mayor and be sent to the relevant media outlets advising of Council’s decision to proceed with Draft NLEP 2009.

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may decide not to endorse the Draft NLEP 2009 or make alternative amendments to those recommended in this report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

General Discussion

 

As part of the NSW Planning reforms each Local Government Area in NSW was required to prepare a new Local Environmental Plan pursuant to the Standard Instrument Order 2005. Nambucca Shire Council was given a 3 year period to develop the draft Plan.

 

Council completed the Draft LEP 2009 in mid 2009 and received a Section 65 certificate (with conditions and exclusions see attached) from the Department of Planning (DoP) to exhibit the draft plan on the 15 October 2009. The Draft NLEP 2009 was exhibited from 16 October 2009 to the 18 December 2009.

 

Council received a total of 60 public submissions to the Draft NLEP 2009. 10 of these submissions were received after the close of the exhibition period. (See circularised documents)

 

Council received a total of eleven (11) submissions from Government authorities, four (4) of these were received after the close of exhibition. (See circularised documents)

 

Notwithstanding, all submissions received up to end of February have been considered and referred to in this report.

 

Council is reminded that Draft NLEP 2009 has always been a “best fit” transfer from the current NLEP 1995 to the new Standard Instrument format but also utilising the adopted recommendations from the Structure Plan process, the final DoP endorsed Nambucca Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy, the adopted Mid North Coast Regional Strategy, LEP 1995 Amendments 47 and 65 Lower Nambucca, the King and Campbell Report for Lower Nambucca and the identified anomalies that were previously identified through Draft NLEP 1995 Amendment 64.

 

Notwithstanding, all approved rural-residential subdivisions within the “Broken Black Line” under NLEP 1995, which have been approved since June 2005 are to be  included in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone throughout the shire. Whilst every attempt has been made to zone all lawfully approved and registered rural-residential subdivisions (as distinct from former concessional lots and hobby farm subdivisions) greater than five (5) years old and outside of the areas identified in the endorsed Nambucca Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy as R5, any area not captured is unlikely to be detrimentally affected as the approved development will continue under the existing use right provisions and will be reviewed during subsequent LEP amendments. 

 

The legislation requires the preparation of a Local Environmental Study (LES) which supports and justifies the Draft NLEP. The LES included two areas which were not supported in the Section 65 Certificate, those being the inclusion of additional land uses over the land at Lower Nambucca that is not currently zoned under the current LEP and also the proposed residential zoning over land at Lower Nambucca generally between the Motel and the Caravan Park.

 

Both landowners have made submissions to Draft LEP 2009 during the exhibition period and are addressed further in this report. The exclusion of these two items in the Section 65 Certificate was disappointing as Council has been progressing towards the extension of the sewer to the Lower Nambucca area and these two proposals would have contributed to the "critical mass" for the costs to extend the sewer and to remove the risks that currently exist for these unsewered properties along the Nambucca River where a number of major oyster leases currently exist.

 

Whilst a number of the submissions have been recommended for inclusion in the Draft NLEP 2009 as they relate to only minor anomalies or changes, the Department of Planning have reaffirmed its position that any rezoning not in accordance with the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy cannot be brought into the new NLEP 2009 through the submissions process.

 

Council will also recall that in adopting the Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy it also identified that when new data becomes available in regard to the hard constraints it would be utilised to review the Strategy through the regular review process. New aerial photography has now been flown along with laser/digital imaging (LiDAR). The LiDAR data sets should be available in the next few months. In addition, the Deep Creek Flood Study and the continued revision of the Nambucca River Flood Studies will continue up river towards Bowraville utilising the LiDAR mapping providing a more accurate constraints maps for flood affected lands, all of which will be used in the first review of the Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy.

 

The following section of the report addresses each of the submissions made. This section has been broken up into groups for ease of consideration.

 

General Matters and Corrections Required but not the subject of a Submission

 

Ecotourism

 

The DoP planning circular PN09-006 indicates that an ecotourism land use definition is intended to be introduced into the next amendment of the Standard Instrument.

 

The Ecotourism land use will provide a role similar to that provided by Rural Tourist Facilities definition in the NLEP 1995.

 

It is recommended that Ecotourism be included as a land use in the zones RU1, RU2, R5, SP3, RE1, RE2 and E3 as per the recommendations in the planning circular. This circular also recommends ecotourism be included in the E2 zone, however because Council has limited this zone to state significant wetlands and rainforest it is not recommended ecotourism be permitted in this zone. Noting that if the proposed definition of Ecotourism has not been gazetted by the time the NLEP 2009 is made it will not be included.

 

Recommendation 1: That Ecotourism be included as a permissible land use with consent in the zones RU1, RU2, R5, SP3, RE1, RE2 and E3.

 

Matthew Street, Scotts Head

 

On 3 March 2010 Council received notice from the DoP, that Council’s application for a SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) local exclusion to the coastal side of Matthew Street Scotts Head was successful.

 

This means that this area in Matthew Street Scotts Head can no longer be developed to 8.5m in height under the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes).

 

Matthew Street was also subject to a Council prepared place based study and DCP which has been endorsed by Council for exhibition. This plan which recommends a 6.5m height limit will now be exhibited as part of the Consolidated DCP exhibition process.

 

The Draft LEP 2009 was exhibited with a proposed 6.5m height limit for which no submissions were received. A later amendment to the Draft NLEP 2009 will be required to rectify the floor space ratio which is proposed as 0.4:1 as opposed to the 0.55:1 as exhibited in the Draft LEP 2009. All other controls will be appropriately defined in the Consolidated DCP.

 

Recommendation 2: That Council note that the DoP has excluded the coastal side of Matthew Street Scotts Head from SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) and that the 6.5m height limit will be exhibited in conjunction with the Consolidate DCP, and the floor space ratio map be amended to 0.4:1 in draft NLEP 2009.

 

Height Limit in Nambucca Heads opposite Pioneer Park Tennis courts

 

Councils DCP 3 Residential Development provides a specific height limit of 8m from the agreed natural ground level for the parcels of land bounded by Wellington Drive, Lower Lee Street, Buckman Lane and Bay Street. This was the result of the DCP 3 Review Process and a subsequent Council resolution.

 

To maintain consistency with the requirements of DCP 3 and the SEPP Exempt and Comply Development, it is recommended Council amend the LEP Height Maps to provide this area with an 8.5m height limit from the Agreed Natural Ground Level.

 

As the Natural Ground Level is not a term defined in the Standard Instrument Template, should Council encounter difficulties with the DoP on this matter it is recommended Council default to the draft LEP 2009 and use the DCP to address height in this location. 

 

Recommendation 3: That Council amend the Draft NLEP 2009 Height Maps to provide the area bounded by Wellington Drive, Lower Lee Street, Buckman Lane and Bay Street with an 8.5m height limit from the Agreed Natural Ground Level

 


Height Limit Valla Commercial Land

 

No height limit was provided to the proposed commercial land (Lot 7 DP 821952) located at Valla Beach between the existing Landscape Supplies and the North Coast Rail. To ensure that development at this location occurs at an appropriate scale a height limit is required.

 

Other commercial lands located in the shire were designated with either a 10m or 14m height limit. Macksville and Nambucca CBD were designated with 14m, Scotts Head commercial Area 10m. The B4 Mixed Use zone in central Valla Beach was designated with a 10m height limit through the DCP 3 review (SutherlandKoshy).

 

As the site was not identified with a lesser height limit then the default height limit of 14m for the exhibition process it is recommended that the proposed commercial land at Valla Beach be provided with a 14m height limit which will allow for a reasonable scale commercial development providing flexibility for shop top housing.

 

Recommendation 4: That the proposed commercial land at Valla Beach (Lot 7 DP 821952) be provided with a 14m height limit which will allow for a reasonable scale commercial development providing flexibility for shop top housing.

 

Valla Real Estate Anomaly

 

The land parcel currently occupied by Valla Real Estate was shown on the LEP zoning map as R1 Residential. This was an error in the mapping made by overlapping polygons. The land was intended to be a B4 Mixed use zone consistent with adjacent bakery. This zone will permit business or residential type developments to occur on the land.

 

Recommendation 5: That the parcel of land currently occupied by Valla Real Estate be zoned B4 Mixed Use.

 

Remove R3 Medium Density from Clause 7.2 of Draft NLEP 2009

 

The purpose of Clause 7.2 of Draft NLEP 2009 is to ensure that dual occupancy development occurs on suitably sized allotments. Restricting dual occupancy development in a medium density zone to a 600m2 may prohibit some dual occupancy development, suitable to a medium density area from occurring.

 

Recommendation 6: That Clause 7.2(2) of Draft NLEP 2009 be amended to enable dual occupancy development to occur on lots less than 600m2 in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Issues Raised through the LEP Exhibition Process

 

Request that minimum Lot Size be reduce from 100Ha to 40Ha on Lot 1 DP 125637 and Lot 90 DP 755554 Rural Area (Submission July 2009)

 

A submission has requested that the boundary between the existing 1(a3) and 1(a4) zone be adjusted because two allotments within a seven allotment holding are located within the 1(a3) zone (100Ha minimum lot size).

 

By amending the zone boundary the holding would be provided with an additional dwelling entitlement because the allotments would now have a 40HA minimum Lots size.

 

The Draft LEP 2009 controls minimum lot size through the lot size map. The 1(a3) zone in the 1995 LEP was the basis for the100Ha minimum Lot size in the Daft LEP 2009. To maintain consistency in Council’s approach to the LEP it is recommended that the boundary is not amended to reduce the Lot size requirements.

 

Recommendation 7:  That the request to vary the lot size boundary over Lot 1 DP 125637 and Lot 90 DP 755554 not be supported as the boundaries are identical to the zone boundary in NLEP 1995.

 

 

 

Claim that the Exhibition period was to short, at an inappropriate time and should be extended (Submissions 8, 9, 20, 28, 29, 39, 41, 44, 47, 46, 48)

 

The legal requirement for Council to exhibit the draft Plan is 28 days. Council exhibited draft NLEP 2009 for approximately 2 months. All landholders in the shire where sent an information pamphlet on the draft LEP and the Environmental Levy, two public workshops were undertaken, the documents were exhibited on Councils website, libraries and the villages.

 

Recommendation 8: That Council note that the exhibition period for Draft NLEP 2009 exceeded the minimum legislative requirements.

 

Request for the Incorporation of the Optional Preservation of Trees or Vegetation Clause (Submissions 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 24, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)

 

19 of the 60 public submissions, DECCW and CMA recommended that Council adopt the optional Tree Preservation Clause or vegetation management provisions in Draft NLEP 2009.

 

1 submission supported Council’s decision not to include the tree preservation provisions.

 

A number of these submissions referred to various Council documents and policies which commit Council to protection and enhancement of the natural environment.  References to the following extracts were made by submissions as justification for their request for the introduction of a tree preservation clause:

 

“The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment…” also Council values and will deliver “Enhancement and protection of the environment” Mission Statement.

 

“to protect, manage and enhance areas of high quality landscape, natural and scenic resources and environmental values including water resources; wildlife and habitat corridors” Draft LEP 2009 objectives.

 

The original draft of the Nambucca LEP 2009 did include a Tree Preservation Clause which would only be activated once a Development Control Plan was prepared and adopted by Council. However, Council resolved to remove this optional clause on the 3 July 2008.

 

With the community’s growing awareness and concerns on environmental issues, Council may wish to review its previous decision to delete the optional Clause.

 

Council sought options for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) during the consideration of submissions for the Draft NLEP 2009. The situation is that a TPO will only apply to Urban zoned land as the Native Vegetation Act prevails for non-urban land. Application of the Tree Preservation Clause will only apply if Council has detailed guidelines in the way of a DCP.

 

The inclusion of the clause now will provide flexibility for Council in the future should it resolve to prepare a DCP as this will avoid an LEP amendment in the future.  The flexibility also extends to a TPO applying only to one particular area or a number of lots within an urban area if it is Council’s desire.  Notwithstanding, to implement a TPO Council will need to have appropriately qualified staff and equipment to assess the condition of trees when an application is received to remove one. Significant liability will then prevail due to a decision of Council not to remove a tree after being requested to do so due to safety concerns. In addition the following matters need to be considered.

 

·              The removal of vegetation in rural areas is governed by a "maintain and improve policy" under the Native Vegetation Act. The optional tree preservation clause of the draft Nambucca LEP 2009 can not override any provisions of the Native Vegetation Act, therefore any Council adopted controls would only apply to urban zoned Land.

 

·              Council would be required to develop tree preservation controls which would be included in Councils consolidated DCP. This would not slow down the gazettal of the draft plan, as these are Council controls and they would not require the approval from the DoP.

 

·              Any tree preservation controls adopted by Council would need to target pre-emptive clearing on urban allotments with subdivision potential.

 

Attempting to control tree preservation in developed urban areas (typical residential allotments) requires assessment by an arborist with specialist risk assessment skills and may create a suite of legal issues and resource challenges for Council.

 

The introduction of Tree Preservation controls to protect native vegetation from pre-emptive clearing may ensure appropriate consideration is given to clearing of native vegetation on potential development sites however it will come at considerable cost to Council and further expose to liability and litigation.

 

Recommendation 9: That Council include the optional Preservation of Trees or Vegetation Clause in Draft NLEP 2009, noting that the clause will not take effect until an adopted DCP relating to tree preservation is in force.

 

Land Zoned R5 Large Lot Residential Land is not protected by the Native Vegetation Act and should be protected via a tree preservation order (Submissions 29, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48)

 

Advice previously received from the DECCW indicates the R5 Large Lot Residential Zoned land will be subject to the requirements of the Native Vegetation Act. Preliminary advice from the DoP has indicated that the Native Vegetation Act will be applied to the R5 zone; however, it is presently being investigated by a number of State Government Authorities.

 

Based on this advice the following will continue to apply:

 

·              the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority will continue to assess applications for tree clearing in the R5 zone,

·              The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water will continue to regulate clearing in the R5 zone; and

·              Council will assist these authorities where necessary but have no regulatory or assessment role of tree clearing in the R5 zone.

 

Recommendation 10: That Council note the advice from the State Government Agencies in regard to the Native Vegetation Act and the R5 Large Lot Residential zone.

 

The E2 Environmental Protection Zone should not permit dwellings (Submissions 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48)

 

A number of submissions suggested that Dwellings should not be a permissible land use within the E2 Zone. This was considered during the preparation of the draft plan, however it was not applied as the existing 7(a) Environmental Protection (wetlands) and SEPP 14 wetlands permit dwellings subject to appropriate environmental assessment (designated development) being undertaken.

 

Recommendation 11: That Council not exclude dwellings as a permissible land use in the E2 zone as dwellings are currently permissible under the NLEP 1995.

 

The Release of Rural-Residential Land should only be permitted in accordance with the original Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy as exhibited (Submissions 24, 29, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48)

 

Nine (9) submissions indicated that the R5 Large Lot Residential zone should not include unconstrained former 1(c) zoned land that was not originally identified in the Draft Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy as exhibited. The reasons put forward for this include:

 

·              the 1(c) zoned land was created many years ago without consideration of contemporary planning standards or ESD;

·              there is inadequate infrastructure to the former 1(c) zone;

·              the former 1(c) is isolated from the major towns; and

·              release of the former 1(c) along with the short term release area in the strategy will create an oversupply of Rural-Residential land;

 

The Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy has been through a very rigorous process and has been endorsed by the DoP.

 

Recommendation 12: That Council note that the endorsed Nambucca Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy is the basis for all future Rural-Residential land releases in the shire.

 

The Environmental Levy should be spent on the natural not built environment (Submissions 20, 24, 48)

 

This is not the forum to consider what projects the environmental levy will fund.

 

Recommendation 13: That Council note the submission in regard to the allocation of the Environmental Levy is unrelated to the draft NLEP 2009.

 

Request that Council prepares a Biodiversity Management Plan (Submissions 20, 24, 29, 40, 47, 48)

 

Whilst there may be benefits of a biodiversity management plan Council is not in a position to invest the necessary funds and staff resources at this stage.

 

Recommendation 14: That Council take no further action at this time in regard to the development of a Biodiversity Management Plan.

 

Include buffer zones alongside all SEPP 14 Wetlands (Submissions 20, 43, 44, 47, 48)

 

Council presently has controls within DCP 16 Rural Buffers, which designate a buffer to SEPP 14 Wetlands in rural areas only. This DCP recommends a buffer between SEPP 14 Wetlands and Dwellings of 40m and between effluent management systems of 100m. These controls will be included in the consolidated DCP. The inclusion of SEPP 14 Wetlands which adjoin residential zones may be considered in the review of the DCP.

 

Recommendation 15: That Council take no action in regard to buffers between SEPP 14 Wetlands and Residential zones at this stage.

 

Request that Council prepares a Marine Management Plan (Submissions 24, 29, 28)

 

The majority of the marine, estuarine and aquatic environments within Nambucca Shire are controlled through state government authorities.

 

Recommendation 16: That Council take no further action at this time in regard to the development of a Marine Management Plan.

 

Request that Council prepares a shirewide Koala Plan of Management (Submissions 24, 29)

 

SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection provides the mechanism for the preparation of a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM). A KPoM can be prepared for the whole or part of a local government area and it must be approved by the director general prior to it taking effect.

 

Presently in Nambucca a KPoM is prepared by an applicant of a development application (DA) if the land subject to the DA is considered Core Koala Habitat (as defined by the SEPP). Council can not consent to such a DA until a valid KPoM is in place. This means that Council can not approve an application without first having approval from the Director General on the KPoM.

 

Although a Shirewide KPoM would have some benefits to the shire, this project is not considered a priority as limited information exists to the extent of the amount of core koala habitat within the shire due to incomplete and dated vegetation mapping, as well a number of other planning projects still need to be completed which have higher priority at this stage. The preparation of a KPoM would need to be  prepared by a specialist consultant for which no funding has been committed.

 

Recommendation 17: That Council take no further action at this time in regard to the development of a Koala Plan of Management.

 

Request for Council to include specific Climate Change provisions (Submissions 8, 9, 20, 24, 29, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48)

 

Twelve (12) Submissions recommended Council incorporate provisions within the draft LEP to ensure appropriate consideration of Climate Change. More Specifically nine (9) of these submissions suggested Council adopt the recommendations and clauses of the Draft NSW Coastal Planning Guidelines regarding Sea level Rise and Flood Risk Management.

 

Draft NLEP 2009 Clause 5.5 Development in the Coastal Zone gives Council the opportunity to ensure development proposals give appropriate consideration to Climate Change processes. Clause 5.5 states the following in its objectives:

 

…(iv) recognise and accommodate coastal processes and climate change, and”

 

It also states

 

Consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the

coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered:

 

…the effect of coastal processes and coastal hazards and potential impacts, including sea level rise:

i         on the proposed development, and

ii        arising from the proposed development, and

 

This clause provides Council with the appropriate legal mechanism to ensure development applications appropriately consider processes associated with climate change such as coastal hazards and sea level rise.

 

The Draft NSW Coastal Planning Guidelines provide sound advice in relation to hazard identification, strategic planning and development assessment. The first principle of this guideline is to assess and evaluate coastal risks taking into account sea level rise planning benchmarks.

 

Although Council has been actively pursuing funding to assist in climate change risk assessment and evaluation for a number of years, only recently has Council been successful and the following projects are now in progress:

 

·               Nambucca Shire Coastal Hazard Study (SMEC, 2009);

·               Lower Nambucca Flood Study update Part 1 (SKM, 2009);

·               Deep Creek Flood Study (WMA water, 2009);

 

These projects will indicate areas at risk from sea level rise and coastal processes and once complete, Council will have the information to:

 

·              Make the risks known to the public;

·              Avoid intensifying land use in coastal risk areas;

·              Where appropriate, consider options to reduce land use intensity in coastal risk areas.

·              Minimise exposure to coastal risks from proposed development;

·              Implement appropriate Management Strategies

 

It is likely that some of these studies will require future amendments to NLEP 2009, however as suggested in the Draft NSW Coastal Planning Guidelines not all the controls will be appropriate for the NLEP 2009, some should be incorporated into a Development Control Plan.

 

It is recommended that until such time that the specialist studies are complete no changes be made in relation to climate change as Council does not have the required information to support such changes. The recommendations of such reports should be included in the appropriate statutory document being either the DCP or LEP.

 

Recommendation 18: That Council note that adequate Climate Change provisions exist in Draft NLEP 2009 and further amendment may be required following the completion of the specialist studies.

 

Claim that the Application of Environmental Protection zones should be more extensive (Submissions 19, 21, 26, 28)

 

The LEP practice note for Environmental Zones (PN 09-002) states:

 

Prior to applying the relevant zone the environmental values of land should be established, preferably on the basis of a strategy or Environmental Study developed from robust data sources and analysis…for example, in most cases, Councils proposal to zone land E2 needs to be supported by a strategy or study that demonstrates the high status of these values.”

 

Until such time as further detailed investigations are undertaken, which specifically target potential environmental zones the environmental zones as proposed should be maintained.

 

Recommendation 19: That Council note that the E3 and E2 zones applied to the shire are generally a best fit transfer from NLEP 1995 to Draft NLEP 2009. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

Claim that the proposed E3 Zone should have more restricted Land Uses (Submissions 19, 24, 26, 28, 29, 47, 48)

 

The draft E3 zone is basically a transfer of the former 7(a), 7(b), 7(f), and 7(g) zones. The new E3 Zone has been developed to include a range of permissible land uses which are consistent with the zones of NLEP 1995.

 

Council’s application of permissible land uses is generally consistent with the DoP Practice Note (PN 09-002). The difference is that Council has made earthworks, extractive industry, flood mitigation works and natural water based aquaculture permissible with consent.

 

In preparing the landuse tables it is important to note that permissible land uses under any SEPP override the LEP Landuse tables, as such Council is required to ensure the landuse table in the LEP are consistent with the provisions of the SEPP. A number of submissions suggested extractive industry and earthworks should be prohibited in the E3 zone, however these are permissible by default under the SEPP (as agriculture is permissible). As instructed by the practice note Council could remove extractive industry and earthworks from the land use table and replace with a note which states:

 

‘Note. State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production, and Extractive Industries) 2007 may apply to this land.’

 

However, Council should note that extractive industries are presently permissible in the 1995 LEP Zone 7(a) and 7(f) zones and via the SEPP the 7(b) zone as well.

 

Recommendation 20: That Council remove extractive industries and earthworks from the permissible land use table of the E3 zone and replace these with the following note:

 

‘Note. State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production, and Extractive Industries) 2007 may apply to this land.’

 

Protection of Morgans Gully Scotts Head (Submissions 30, 31, 32, 34)

 

A number of submissions and a petition (from persons other than the land owner) recommended that additional environmental protection be given to Morgans Gully at Scotts Head through the land zoning.

 

At present Morgans Gully is partly zoned 7(b), part 1(d) Future Urban and Part 1(a1) Rural. Draft NLEP 2009 proposes to zone Morgans Gully E3 and RU2 Rural.

 

Whilst, the land at Morgans Gully may contain some vegetation with local significance, Council needs to ensure a consistent approach is used to zone the environmental land in the shire. As stated previously for the purposes of this draft plan the zones have been transferred to a zone of best fit from NLEP 1995.

 

Recommendation 21: That Council note that the E3 and RU 2 zones applied to Morgans Gully are a best fit transfer from NLEP 1995 to Draft NLEP 2009. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

Request for the Inclusion of Zone to incorporate a Wildlife Corridor between the Warrell Peninsula and the Southern higher Ground (Submission 26, 47)

 

Until further detailed investigations are undertaken, which specifically target potential environmental zones the environmental zones as proposed should be maintained.

 

Recommendation 22: That Council not incorporate a Wildlife Corridor between Warrell Peninsula and the Southern Higher Ground at this time, but should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the incorporation of a corridor, Council may consider it at that time.

 

RU6 Transition Zone should be incorporated into buffer between rural, rural residential, and environmentally sensitive Areas (Submissions 29, 46)

 

Use of he RU6 Transitional Zone was not supported by the DoP as it was intended to utilise this Zone as the “best fit” transfer for the 1(d) Future Urban Zones.

 

By applying the Transition Zone provides for significant land owner conflict it would essentially sterilise land at the interface of the changing zones.  To consider such an inclusion without a detailed study is not recommended.

 

Recommendation 23: That Council not consider applying a RU6 Transition zone in Draft NLEP 2009, between rural, rural residential and environmentally sensitive areas.

 

B7 Business Park Zone in Lower Nambucca (Lower Nambucca Release Area) (Submissions 15, 21, 22, 50)

 

Three (3) Submissions supported the proposed B7 Business Park in Lower Nambucca. One (1) submission objected to the release area mainly due to amenity and traffic impacts associated with Kingsworth Estate.

 

The area has been identified by the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy as future employment lands and the land has been subject to a number of investigations which support the development of the release area.

 

Recommendation 24: That Council maintain the B7 Business Park zone in the Lower Nambucca Area.

 

Areas being considered for future urban development should be shown on the Urban Release Areas Map (Submissions 20, 24, 29, 40, 43, 48)

 

Under the LEP 1995 future urban areas were zoned 1(d) Rural (Future Urban). Areas identified as future urban are now identified in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy Agreed Growth Area Maps.

 

Council originally identified Agreed Growth Areas on the Urban Release Area Maps, however under instruction from the DoP it was recognized that these areas should only be mapped upon rezoning.

 

Recommendation 25: That Council note that the DoP do not allow for the inclusion of the identified Agreed Growth Areas to be shown on the Urban Release Area Maps.

 

Encourage tourism in the Warrell Peninsula via zone changes to improve long term viability, an RE2 or SP3 Zone is requested (Submission 36)

 

There is limited information to support zoning amendments to this land. Should the owner of the land wish to investigate rezoning of this land it is suggested that this be undertaken outside the comprehensive LEP process. Such amendments would require the support of various specialist studies.

 

The "best fit" zone applied to this land is RU2 Rural Landscape as the previous Zone was 1(a1) Rural.

 

As previously stated ‘Eco tourism’ may be included in the draft LEP 2009 as a new permissible land use in some zones and the definitions. This may provide tourism opportunities on this land that will satisfy the intent of the submission.

 

Recommendation 26: That Council not include any changes to the proposed zones in the Warrell Peninsula area.

 

Request that Lot 1 DP 876141 Barnetts Road Gumma be zoned RE2 to allow tourism and maintain access through the E2 zone (Submission 37)

 

Similar to the above submission there is limited information to support zoning amendments. Should the owner of the land wish to investigate an alternate zoning of this land it is suggested that this be undertaken outside the comprehensive LEP process. Such amendments would require the support of various specialist studies.

 

The "best fit" zones applied to this land are RU2 Rural Landscape, E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management as the previous Zones were 1(a1) Rural, 7(a) Environmental Protection Wetlands including SEPP 14 Wetlands under NLEP 1995.

 

As previously stated ‘Eco tourism’ may be included in the draft LEP 2009 as a new permissible land use in some zones and the definitions. This may provide tourism opportunities on this land that will satisfy the intent of the submission.

 

Draft NLEP 2009 has not proposed any changes to the access to or within this property with all lawfully constructed roads benefiting from existing use rights.

 

Recommendation 27: That Council not change the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 for Lot 1 DP 876141.

 

Recommendation 28: That Council not make any amendments to Draft NLEP 2009 in regard to road access for Lot 1 DP 876141.

 

 

Scotts Head headland and other areas should be amended from E3 to E2 zone (Submission 34)

 

Until further detailed investigations are undertaken, which specifically target potential environmental zones the environmental zones as proposed should be maintained.

 

Recommendation 29: That Council not include any changes to the proposed E3 and E2 zones. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

Support the reduction of Business Zoned land in Scotts Head Bowl, however the Business Zone in this area should be amended to mixed use. Alternatively zone all the existing business zone B4 Mixed Used (Submission 49)

 

In 2003 a rezoning application was made to Council requesting the extent of the Commercial 3(a) zone on Lot 29 DP 1048659 be reduced because there was an excess of supply of commercial zoned land.

 

To investigate this proposal further Council engaged Foresight Planning (2004) to determine the implications of reducing the Commercial zoned land. As part of their investigations, the consultants completed a community survey, a public meeting and held discussions with the landholder, Council and local community groups.

 

The resulting report recommended the commercial area could be reduced from 3.5ha to 0.8ha. The proposed zoning in the Draft LEP 2009 has been prepared to reflect the recommendations of this report.

 

This submission has recommended that the proposed business zone should be zoned B4 Mixed Use, to allow for either residential or commercial development. The submission has also recommended that as an alternative to the reduced commercial area all of the existing commercial area could be zoned B4 Mixed Use.

 

Although there is some merit in allowing a mixed use zone in the area as proposed by the submission, there is no supporting strategy or investigations which endorse this. As proposed in the draft LEP 2009, the B2 Local Centre zone land will be able to undertake shop top housing to provide a range of residential uses in the area. Should Council zone the land Mixed Use the area may be developed entirely for residential purposes.

 

Recommendation 30: That Council not change the B2 Local Centre zones to B4 Mixed Use zones in Scotts Head. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

 

Land Contiguous with Warrell Reserve at Scotts Head is shown R1 Residential. It should be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation (Submission 47)

 

This land was previously zoned 2(d) Residential (Tourist). Applying a best fit transfer to this land resulted in a R1 General Residential Zone.

 

Until further detailed investigations are undertaken, which specifically target potential environmental zones the zones as proposed should be maintained.

 

Note that this submission was made by people other than the land owner.

 

Recommendation 31: That Council not change the R1 Residential zone to E2 Environmental Conservation zone over the land contiguous with Warrell Reserve at Scotts Head. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

Crown Land and Beach zoned RE1 is confusing. It should be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation (Submission 47)

 

RE1 zone is typically provided to public land used for recreation purposes. This is in accordance with the relevant Planning Circulars. Plans of Management are required to be prepared for public reserves – the preparation of a Plan of Management requires public consultation, which provides the community with an opportunity to comment on any proposed use.

 

Recommendation 32: That Council not change the RE1 zone to E2 Environmental Conservation zone where applied over Crown Land and Beaches.

 

Council should include the B4 Environmental Living Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 (Submission 46)

 

Council was advised by the DoP that only those zones that are used in the LEP are to be identified. As there is no equivalent zone in NLEP 1995 there has been no need to use the B4 Environmental Living Zone

 

Recommendation 33: That Council note that the B4 Environmental Living Zone has not been used as there was no equivalent zone in NLEP 1995

 

The LEP should incorporate more Youth Facilities (Submission 45)

 

The draft LEP does not govern the number of youth facilities available in the shire. The permissibility would depend on the type of facility proposed in a particular zone.

 

Recommendation 34: That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 does not govern the number of youth facilities available or permissible in the shire.

 

Community Land should never be sold to private enterprise (Submission 45)

 

This is not a matter for consideration in the LEP as the sale of Community Land must follow a very specific program included a Public Hearing and Public Exhibition.

 

Recommendation 35: That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 does not propose to identify Community Land that should be disposed of as this is a separate process.

 

Parking facilities at the Visitor Information Centre are inadequate (Submission 45)

 

The parking arrangement at the Visitor Information Centre is not a matter for consideration under the draft LEP.

 

Recommendation 36: That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 does not address parking at the Visitor Information Centre.

 

Height in Wellington Drive should be no greater that than 12m (Submission 44)

 

The height at Wellington Drive is proposed to be 12m in the draft plan.

 

Recommendation 37: That Council note that Draft NLEP 2009 identifies the maximum building height in Wellington Drive as 12m.

 

The Constraints Mapping used to identify the Boundary of proposed R5 Large Lot Residential Land unfairly restricts developable land (Submissions 3, 25, 27, 38)

 

The proposed R5 Large Lot Residential Land is largely governed by state policy in terms of restrictions on the amount of land available. Council has complied with the state policy and used the most update information available to it to form the R5 Zone boundary. These boundaries maintain a consistent approach to the application of the R5 Zone and Council should not make amendments to the boundaries. Amendments should only be made where obvious errors have been made by Council in the preparation of the plan.

 

As stated during the preparation of Council’s Rural-Residential Strategy, Council may review the proposed R5 zone as new updated data becomes available.

 

Recommendation 38: That Council note that the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone Boundaries are generally controlled by the constraints mapping that it had available at the time and that the final boundary alignment has followed property boundaries, road or geographical features where appropriate.

 

Part of Lot 215 DP 1022234 Gumma Road, Gumma should be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential to reflect approved development and Concept plans (Submissions 3, 42)

 

The owner of the land has proceeded to develop the land in accordance with a concept plan prepared over the entire “Broken Black Line” area. Up to now 8 of a proposed 14 allotment subdivision have been approved, two (2) of which were approved as part of the ballot. The remainder of the planned subdivision has been unable to proceed due to the quota system previously in place.

 

The submission has requested that the land approved for subdivision (DA 2009/134) through the Ballot in 2009 be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential to reflect its approved use. The submission has also requested that the land identified as constrained also be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential to support the planned subdivision or concept plan.

 

In relation to the first matter it is intended that all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions be mapped R5 Large Lot Residential.

 

In relation to the second matter Council has complied with the state policy and used the most update information available to it to form the R5 Zone boundary. These boundaries maintain a consistent approach to the application of the R5 Zone and Council should not make amendments to the boundaries. Amendments should only be made where obvious errors have been made by Council in the preparation of the plan. In this case it does not appear that a mistake has been made.

 

As stated during the preparation of Council’s Rural-Residential Strategy, Council may review the proposed R5 zone as new updated data becomes available.

 

Recommendation 39: That Council note that the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone shall apply to all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions and that Boundaries for the R5 zone are generally controlled by the constraints mapping that it had available at the time and that the final boundary alignment has followed property boundaries, road or geographical features where appropriate

 

Rezone 82 Smiths Lane Congarinni North to R5 Large Lot Residential to create consistency with existing approvals (Submission 38, 56)

 

It is intended that all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions be mapped R5 Large Lot Residential.

 

Recommendation 40: That Council note that the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone shall apply to all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions.

Valla Beach has no business zone (Submission 23)

 

There is commercial zoned land (approx. 2ha) proposed at Valla Beach between the Landscape supply premises and North Coast Rail. The zone has been provided in accordance with the Nambucca Shire Structure Plan.

 

Recommendation 41: That Council note that approximately 2ha of land is proposed to be zoned for Commercial purposes in Valla Beach.

 

Why are there several different environmental protection zones compared to the single one under the existing LEP (Submission 23)

 

Nambucca LEP 1995 contains 4 Environmental Zones (7a, 7b, 7f, and 7g). The Draft NLEP 2009 contains 3 Environmental Zones (E1, E2 and E3). The E1 zone represents National Parks, the E2 zone contains State Significant wetlands and Rainforest (SEPP 14 and SEPP 26), the E3 zone comprises the remainder of the land that was previously 7a, 7b, 7f and 7g.

 

Recommendation 42: That Council note that there are 3 Environmental Zones proposed under Drfat NLEP 2009 compared to 4 under NLEP 1995.

 

Does Nambucca need all the high and medium density Zones? (Submission 23)

 

The land zones in the Nambucca Area are a reflection of the existing zones eg a “best fit” transfer. Council resolved to increase height limits in certain areas of Nambucca through the DCP review process, these heights are now reflected in the current DCP 3. The draft LEP incorporates densities which will allow these heights to be achieved. Car parking requirements are contained within our existing Car parking DCP.

 

Recommendation 43: That Council note that the Medium-High density zonings in Draft NLEP 2009 reflect the current Medium–High Density zones under NLEP 1995.

 

Is there land available for a small shop in Hyland Park? (Submission 23)

 

Neighbourhood shops are proposed to be permitted with consent in the R1, R3 and R4 residential zones, which allow for small scale commercial development in Residential areas such as Hyland Park and Valla Beach.

 

Recommendation 44: That Council note that a neighbourhood shop will be permissible with consent in the R1, R3 and R4 Residential Zones which will provide opportunity for a small scale local shop to be developed in Hyland Park.

 

Clause 6.5 relating to development along the foreshore should ensure access is maintained to the foreshore (Submission

 

There is no clause 6.5. It is presumed the submissions is referring to clause 5.5 which has specific provisions to ensure public access to the foreshore is considered, provided and maintained.

 

Recommendation 45: That Council note that Clause 5.5 of Draft NLEP 2009 makes provision to ensure public access to the foreshore is considered, provided and maintained.

 

Lot 42 DP 711098 Kingsworth Estate - adjustment of proposed R5 zone Boundary (Submission 25)

 

This submission has requested an adjustment to the proposed R5 Large Lot Residential boundary to allow for flexibility in design.

 

On examination, the proposed R5 Zone boundary on this land was formed via a line of best fit to ensure ease of survey at a later date. Very few properties zoned R5 Zone had their boundary formed in this way, the majority were either defined by a lot boundary, the constraints mapping, geographical features, roads or the existing clause 16 Boundary.

 

It is recommended that Council amend the proposed R5 Boundary in this location to be consistent with the mapped constraints boundary. This approach is consistent with the boundaries created for R5 zone in other locations. Although this will not completely cover the entire area proposed in the submission, other mechanisms are available at the DA stage to justify small encroachments over the zone boundary.

 

 Recommendation 46: That Council amend the R5 Large Lot Residential Boundary over Lot 42 DP 711098 to align with the identified hard vegetation or flooding constraint.

 

Lot 2 DP 773170, 166 Bald Hill Road - Adjustment of proposed R5 Boundary (Submission 27)

 

The owner of this land has provided a survey plan which suggests that the land identified as constrained through the Rural-Residential Strategy is not consistent with the surveyed flood line.

 

During the preparation of the Rural-Residential Strategy Council clearly indicated that the constraints mapping was based on the best information available to Council at the time of preparation and would be subject to review in a five (5) year period.

 

The R5 Large Lot Residential boundary in question follows the High Hazard Flood Storage area identified in the Nambucca River Flood Study and adopted Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

 

Recommendation 47: That Council not amend the R5 Large Lot Residential Boundary over Lot 2 DP 773170 as the boundary in question is identified as a High Hazard Flood Storage area in the Nambucca River Flood Study and adopted Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

 

Extend the E2 zone onto the property at 774 Grassy Head Road Lot 103 and DP 776168 (owners request) (Submission 31)

 

The land owners of 774 Grassy Head Road have requested that part of their land be zoned E2 Environmental Protection in order to provide habitat protection to part of Morgans Gully located on their property.

 

Whilst the E2 zone may provide greater protection, it is not supported in an adhoc manner as this zoning may have wider implications for adjoining landowners. It is for this reason that the same approach should be taken as has been recommended earlier. Should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the incorporation of the E2 zone, Council may consider it at that time.

 

Recommendation 48: That Council not incorporate an E2 zone on that part of Morgan Gully situated on Lot 103 DP 776168 but should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the incorporation of the E2 zone, Council may consider it at that time.

Request that part of Lot 1046 DP 826440 Harrimans Lane Macksville,  be rezoned from RU1 Primary to IN2 (Submission 33)

 

Development Application 2008/267 for a Bus Manufacturing Industry was approved on part of the site on 24 June 2009 which utilised Clause 24 under the current NLEP 1995.

 

This proposal seeks to rezone that part of the land that is identified for the Bus Manufacturing Industry and associated infrastructure as IN2 Light Industry in Draft NLEP 2009. Council will recall that it previously supported this proposal through the Structure Plan Process and also as a submission to the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy when it was being prepared and then again during the exhibition period.

 

Subsequently the proposal was not identified as an agreed growth area in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. Discussions with DoP have indicated they will not support release areas which are not identified in the Mid North Coast Strategy and this is reflected by relevant 117 directions. Should Council insist on pursuing this proposal then it is expected to result in delays to the gazettal of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

The landowner has the opportunity to pursue the rezoning of the land through the “Gateway” Planning Proposal process but would require significant justification and compliance with the Sustainability Criteria in Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

Recommendation 49: That Council not change the RU1 Zone to IN2 Light Industrial Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over part of Lot 1046 DP 826440, and that the land owner be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy can be demonstrated.

Aboriginal Heritage Areas should be protected from development (Submission 20)

 

Clause 5.10 of Draft NLEP 2009 is a mandatory provision which ensures appropriate consideration is provided to Aboriginal Heritage items. Council has been negotiating with the Local Aboriginal Land Council to obtain access to the AHIMS database. Council will continue to refer matters to the Local Aboriginal Council as appropriate.

 

Recommendation 50: That Council note that Clause 5.10 of Draft NLEP 2009 makes provision to ensure Aboriginal Heritage Items are appropriately considered.

 

Lot 1031 DP 629663 Nicks Way, Wirrimbi should be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential (Submission 18)

 

Less than 1ha (0.4ha) of this land was included within the Cl16 Rural-Residential Area under the Nambucca LEP 1995. In this instance the zone boundary to the R5 zone followed the existing Cl16 “Broken Black Line” and the remainder of the land is largely covered by constraints. It is not justified to zone the remainder of the land R5 Large Lot residential.

 

Recommendation 51: That Council not change the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone boundary over Lot 1031 DP 629663 as the land is largely covered by constraints.

 

Lot 3 DP 773986 Nirvana Village Motel change from 10m height to 14m height (Submission 17)

 

This land is zoned 2(d) under the Nambucca LEP 1995 and under clause 28 of NLEP 1995 the Nirvana Village Motel had a 14m height limit. Draft NLEP 2009 has proposed to reduce this height limit to 10m in accordance with the DCP 3 review prepared by SutherlandKoshy and the existing DCP 3 Residential Development.

 

The submission has requested that the height be maintained at 14m as it was prior to Council’s adoption of DCP 3. The submission has indicated that this would allow future development of a 4 storey mixed use development.

 

Recommendation 52: That Council change the maximum height limit over Lot 3 DP 773986 from 10m identified in Draft NLEP 2009 back to 14 m.

 

 

 

The Owner of Lot 31 DP 1067144 7 Cookies Lane considers the Proposed R5 Zone over part of the land is inappropriate and requests that it should be amended to RU2 Rural Landscape (Submission 16)

 

 

 

The owner requests the land to be zoned RU2 in preference to R5 for the following reasons:

 

·              The property is used for grazing cattle and horses and the R5 zone encroaches on this area;

·              The R5 zone encompasses the elevated area of the block which is used to hold stock during flood events;

·              The land cannot be subdivided given site constraints;

 

The proposed R5 zone allows the non-intensive grazing of stock; however, it prohibits intensive animal agriculture. By maintaining the R5 zone over the top portion of the block, Council would allow the land owner to continue to pursue his interests whilst maintaining the largely lifestyle nature of Cookies Lane. The R5 zone as proposed assists in avoiding landuse conflicts – for example if the owner decides he wants to put a feedlot on his block he would be required to place it outside the R5 portion of the allotment providing separation from other dwellings in the area. The R5 zone boundary follows the previous LEP 1995 Clause 16 “Broken Black Line” boundary.

 

Recommendation 53: That Council not change the proposed part R5 Large Lot Residential zone to RU2 Rural Landscape zone over Lot 31 DP 1067144 as it will not doubt elevate land use conflicts.

 

Sand Island at Inner Harbour Nambucca should be Zoned Reserve to allow for recreational activities (Submission 14)

 

The Sand Island is zoned RE1 Public Recreation which allows for recreation areas and the like subject to development applications.

 

Recommendation 54: That Council note that the RE1 Public Recreation proposed for Sand Island allows for Recreation Areas and the like.

 

Riparian areas should be zoned for protection against tree removal and grazing (Submission 14)

 

The Native Vegetation Act provides a “maintain or improve” policy for vegetation clearing, which affords protection to riparian areas on rural lands.

 

Should Council adopt the optional Tree Preservation provisions then Trees in un-developed Urban land would be given some additional protection.

 

Zoning of riparian land for environmental protection/conservation would require appropriate supporting information. As already suggested, should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time. 

 

Notwithstanding, mechanisms are in place to give consideration to these matters under the Native Vegetation Act and the integrated approval process for developments via the Water Management Act.

 

In most instances grazing for agricultural purposes does not require consent; such an imposition on rural landholders would be unreasonable, impractical and difficult for Council to regulate. A number of state programs are available to assist rural landholders with fencing and rehabilitation works which may assist reducing impacts to riparian areas from grazing cattle.

 

Recommendation 55: That Council not take any action to place Environmental Protection zones over Riparian areas in Draft NLEP 2009, but should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant greater protection, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

Include a provision to ensure maintenance and provision of landscaping and shade trees (Submission 13)

 

If Council adopts the optional Tree Preservation provisions there would be an option of adopting a significant tree register which could afford some protection to trees with heritage significant or trees providing significant amenity within the Shire. However, this is one of the matters that would need to be considered before adopting the Tree Preservation provisions.

 

Provisions for landscaping are contained within Council’s existing Development Control Plans and through Development Consent conditions.

 

Recommendation 56: That Council note the submission in regard to the maintenance and provision of landscaping and shade trees and that controls currently exist for landscaping required through a development consent and that the maintenance of shade trees in public areas is currently controlled by Council’s Engineering Services Department.

 

Kaffir Plum Trees in River Street Macksville should be afforded protection under the LEP (Submission 12)

 

If Council adopts the Tree Preservation provisions there would be an option of adopting a significant tree register which could afford some protection to trees with heritage significant or trees providing significant amenity within the Shire.

 

Recommendation 57: That Council not prepare a significant tree register in association with the Preservation of Trees or Vegetation Clause at this stage.

 

Lot 10 DP 1125923 10-12 Willis Street, Macksville (Busways site) Bus Depot was permissible under the NLEP 1995 Transport Depots however are not permissible in the proposed B3 Commercial Core zone (Submission 10)

 

Under the NLEP 1995 the Busways site is zoned 3(a) General Business which permits bus depots. Draft NLEP 2009 proposes to zone this land B3 Commercial Core which does not permit a Transport Depot. The intention of this was to avoid potential land use conflicts as shop top housing is now permissible in the B3 Commercial Core zone.

 

Although this will prevent further development of transport depots in the B3 Zone, Busways can continue to operate on their property under existing use rights and subject to development consent can undertake expansion if necessary. However as the site is constrained on all four boundaries it is unlikely that further expansion of the bus depot can occur.

 

Recommendation 58: That Council not change the proposed part B3 Commercial Core zone over Lot 10 DP 1125923, noting that the Bus depot may continue under existing use rights.

 

 

Lot 4 DP 1076959 Smiths Lane, Bowraville extend the R5 Large Lot Residential zone by 9.11ha (Submission 7)

 

This submission seeks to amend the R5 Large Lot Residential zone to incorporate an additional 9.1 ha of Land. The submission indicates that the justification to amend the LEP in this manner is largely to assist in financing the upgrade of Smiths Lane.

 

The Rural-Residential Release Strategy has been approved by the DoP and Council. The resulting land available for development within Draft NLEP 2009 is significant. A variation to the release of Rural-Residential Land as proposed by this submission is not consistent with the approved strategy and would be likely to delay the gazettal of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

Recommendation 59: That Council not expand the R5 Large Lot Residential zone over Lot 4 DP 1076959 by a further 9.11 ha as it is outside approved strategy and would likely delay the gazettal of Draft NLEP 2009.

Request that Lots 11 and 12 DP 1017408 & Lot 2 DP 514920 Pacific Highway Nambucca, be zoned  R1 General Residential in accordance with the exhibited LES (Submission 6)

 

The land Owners have made further submission to Council to support the proposed rezoning of the land to R1 General Residential as proposed in Draft NLEP 1995 amendment 47 and recommended through the Structure Plan process.

 

Council will recall that this land was excluded from the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy due to “its remote location and lack of services”. Through amendment 47 this proposal supported the extension of services to the Lower Nambucca area providing reasonable density for the cost effective extension of the sewer. As such Council supported this proposal as an agreed growth area leading up to the preparation of the Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and also as a submission to the Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy during the exhibition period.

 

Subsequently the proposal was not identified as an agreed growth area in the Mid North Coast Strategy. Discussions with DoP have indicated they will not support release areas which are not identified in the Mid North Coast Strategy and this is reflected by relevant 117 directions. Should Council insist on pursuing this proposal then it is expected to result in delays to the gazettal of Draft LEP 2009.

 

The landowner has the opportunity to pursue the rezoning of the land through the “Gateway” Planning Proposal process but would require significant justification and compliance with the Sustainability Criteria in Appendix 1 in the Mid North Coast Regional Planning Strategy.

 

Recommendation 60: That Council not change the RU1 Primary Production Zone to R1 General Residential Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over Lots 11 and 12 DP 1017408 & Lot 2 DP 514920, and that land owners be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix of the Mid North Coast Regional Planning Strategy.

 

 

 

Request that the Area Covered by DCP 17 include an area for a B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone over Lot 11 DP 808007 & Lot 21 DP 1064874 Upper Warrell Creek Road Macksville (Submission 5)

 

This particular area was identified in a previous Future Urban area and provided a conceptual layout for residential and neighbourhood shopping area to service the needs of the area.

 

During the rezoning of the Golden Emblem Motel site for the Woolworths commercial development the proposed future neighbourhood shopping area was removed as part of the justification for the additional commercial zoned land for the Woolworths development.

 

For a B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone to be incorporated at this stage is not justified as no residential development has commenced and neighbour hood shops are currently permitted in the proposed R1 General residential zone for this area.

 

As the submitter is the major landowner and still retains ownership of the majority of the land, opportunity will still be available in the future should actual demand and the need arise for a B1 Zone in this locality compared to a neighbourhood shop permissible under the R1 zone.

 

Recommendation 61: That Council not include a B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone under Draft NLEP 2009 over part of Lot 11 DP 808007 & Lot 21 DP 1064874 at this stage but advise the landowner that should actual demand and the need arise for a B1 Zone in this locality compared to a neighbourhood shop permissible under the R1 zone then Council will review the matter at that time.

Include Forest Lodge Lot 3 DP 87913 as a Heritage Item (Submission 4)

 

The owners of this property have recommended that a shed and house on their property be included as heritage items in Draft NLEP 2009. The property has a significant history in the shire as is demonstrated in the Heritage Report accompanying the application. It is recommended it be appropriately included in the schedules of the LEP as a heritage item.

 

Listing these items as heritage items is unlikely to have any adverse implications. Council has already included other heritage items not previously listed within the draft LEP. These included the Pioneer Well

and Horse Trough in Pioneer Park.

 

Recommendation 62: That Council include Forest Lodge as a Heritage Item under the Schedules of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

Include Argents Hill Hall as a Heritage Item (Submission 1)

 

The Argents Hill Hall Committee have sought the inclusion of Argents Hill Hall as a heritage item in Draft NLEP 2009. The property has a significant history for the shire as is demonstrated in the Heritage Report accompanying the application.

 

However, Nambucca Shire Council is the appointed corporate manager of the Argents Hill Public Hall (R140021) Reserve Trust and is responsible for managing Reserve 140021 for Public Hall notified 3 July 1987. The future of the hall has recently been investigated with Council reviewing the cost effectiveness of retaining the hall vs demolition. The hall is presently closed and the costing for the required restoration assessed by Council is significant, if not prohibitive.

 

The Heritage Report was not commissioned by Council nor is there any record of Council proposing such a classification.

 

Note from the General Manager: The Council has received detailed building inspection reports on a number of occasions for the Argents Hill Hall. It is not considered that the use of the Hall can justify he necessary expenditure. As the heritage listing will impose legal and financial obligations on Council concerning ‘wilful neglect’. On asset management grounds the request to list Argents Hill Hall as a heritage item under schedules of draft NLEP 2009 should not be supported.

Recommendation 63: That Council note the request from the Argents Hill Hall Committee for the inclusion of the Argents Hill Hall as a Heritage Item under the Schedules of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

Suggests that the proposed zones and the additional land uses for Lot 3 DP 749153 Pacific Highway Lower Nambucca are a considerable down zoning (Submission 2)

 

Historically this land was not zoned under the Nambucca LEP 1995 and it retained the old Nambucca IDO provisions. A number of investigations have now been undertaken on this land and its surrounds and there is no justification to retain the IDO provisions over this land. The land has been zoned appropriately in accordance with studies undertaken on the site and its surrounds and in a consistent manner to the rest of the shire.

 

Council will recall detailed discussion in regard to this site and it resolved to include additional Land Uses. The DoP through the issue of the Section 65 Certificate advised that it did not support the additional Land Use s for this site and were removed.

 

Recommendation 64: That Council note that the additional Land Uses that it supported over Lot 3 DP 749153 were removed by the DoP via the issue of the Section 65 Certificate and the applied zones are a “best fit” from the old IDO to the new Standard Template format..

 

 

Disagrees with the intent of the LEP to reduce development potential of land, property owners should be able to do what they want with their property and not be restricted by the LEP. (Submission 51)

 

The planning legislation and principals have developed over time to encourage development to occur in a sustainable and appropriate manner. Laissez-faire on development in the shire is an unrealistic request and would result in a range of issues impacting on the environment, health, social environments, traffic, sewer, water and other infrastructure, economics and land use conflicts.

 

Recommendation 65: That Council note Planning Legislation exists in NSW which Council is required to administer which does not allow landowners to do what they want with their land.

 

Land at Valla Beach Resort should not be zoned Residential – it appears to be purely for financial reasons with no planning logic (Submission 57)

 

This particular proposal was one of many proposals received and considered by the Shire Wide Reference Group and Council through the Structure Plan process.

 

The applicant was advised that the proposed rezoning would need to be considered in an LEP review or rezoning; however, the intent for the rezoning was supported in principle.

 

The rezoning proposes to convert a vacant section of the Valla Beach Resort which sits either side of Regatta Drive which extends into the Resort then as an internal private road. The land is between the existing 2(b) Residential (Medium-High Density) to the North and East (Ocean View Drive) and the existing Manufactured Home section of the Valla Beach Resort to the south and west of the proposed area.

 

The proposal is a logical extension of the existing residential zone with all services being readily available. The proposed zone is that of the adjoining residential zone being R3 Medium Density with an 8.5m height limit.

 

Recommendation 66: That Council note that the rezoning of part of Valla Beach Resort to R3 Residential Medium Density zone through Draft NLEP 2009 has been identified through the Structure Plan process and provides for a logical extension of the residential zone in this area.

 

Request that the car yard at North Macksville Lot 6 DP 242819 be zoned B2 Local Centre in preference to the R1 Residential zone identified in the Draft Plan (Submission 55)

 

The land is presently zoned 2(a) Residential in the NLEP 1995 and it is used as a Motor Vehicle Showroom. Although the Motor Vehicle Showroom is prohibited under the existing zone the use has established existing use rights under the EP& A Act which permits it to continue to operate on the land.

 

The Motor Vehicle Showroom is a low key activity located in an area surrounded on three sides by low density residential development. Should the land be zoned for commercial purposes it will provide for wide range of alternative commercial activities to occur on the land, many of which are unlikely to be compatible with the surrounding low density residential area.

 

Recommendation 67: That Council not change the proposed R1 General Residential zone to B2 Local Centre zone in Draft NLEP 2009 for Lot 6 DP 242819 as the B2 zone will provide for incompatible land uses.

 

 

 

Why does Clause 3.2 (requirements for Complying Development) not reflect Clause 3.1 (requirements for Exempt Development)? (Submission 29)

 

The clauses are mandatory provisions contained with the Standard Instrument LEP. Council is not permitted to amend these provisions.

 

Recommendation 68: That Council make no changes to the mandatory provisions within Draft NLEP 2009.

 

Model Provisions for Foreshore Areas should be included in the Draft NLEP 2009 (Submission 29)

 

To date Council has not adopted any Foreshore Building Lines or Foreshores Areas therefore these model provisions would have no application within the Nambucca LGA.

 

Recommendation 69: That Council not include the Local Model Provisions for Foreshore Building Lines or Foreshore Areas in Draft NLEP 2009.

 

The Acid Sulphate Soils provisions in the Draft NLEP 2009 are supported but it is requested that a correction be made to the wording to ensure this clause is consistent with the Model Provisions (Submission 29)

 

This submission detected a minor error in the wording of Clause 7.1 Acid Sulphate Soils. The model local provisions state the following:

 

Despite subclause (2), development consent is not required under this clause to carry out any works if:

 

a          the works involve the disturbance of less than 1 tonne of soil, such as occurs in carrying out agriculture, the construction or maintenance of drains, extractive industries, dredging, the

            construction of artificial water bodies (including canals, dams and detention basins) or foundations or flood mitigation works, or

 

b          the works are not likely to lower the water table.

 

Draft NLEP 2009 has replaced ‘if’ with ‘unless’ this is considered an error in the draft and is required to be corrected

 

Recommendation 70: That Council amend clause 7.1 of Draft NLEP 2009 to reflect the Local Model Provisions as drafted by the DoP.

 

Lot 2 DP 1013029 Lot 32 DP 1031200 Gumma Road Macksville – Request that Council review the proposed zoning on the land as it places serious imposition on the property and could reduce usage of the Land (Submission 54)

 

This submission has requested that Council review and modifies the extent of R5 Large Lot Residential zone land available on this allotment. The owner of this land has provided a survey plan which shows 1 in 100 year flood line overlayed with the Rural-Residential Strategy Constrained Land. This plan shows that the flood line extends into the proposed R5 Large Lot Residential Zone.

 

During the preparation of the Rural-Residential Strategy Council clearly indicated that the constraints mapping was based on the best information available to Council at the time of preparation and would be subject to review in a five (5) year period.

 

The R5 Large Lot Residential boundary in question follows the constrained land as mapped in the Rural-Residential Strategy and the boundary to the road reserve which is consistent with other R5 zoned land in Draft NLEP 2009.

 

Recommendation 71: That Council not amend the R5 Large Lot Residential Boundary over Lot 2 DP 1013029.

Lot 2 DP 1071503 Uriti Road North Macksville - Request that the zoning of the land be amended from RU1 Primary Production to a Residential Zone and the Boundary to SEPP 14 wetland reflect the 1995 LEP (Submission 53)

 

This land is presently zoned 1(a2) Rural (prime/flooding) and is proposed to be zoned RU1 Primary Production, E2 Environmental Conservation, and E3 Environmental Management. Each of these zones has been applied consistent with the best fit transfer methodology used by Council to prepare Draft NLEP 2009. The extent of the E2 zone reflects the extent of the SEPP 14 Wetland and the E3 zone reflects the extent of the existing 7(a) Wetland zone.

 

This land was not identified as an agreed growth area in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. Discussions with DoP have indicated they will not support release areas which are not identified in the Mid North Coast Strategy and this is reflected by relevant 117 directions. Should Council insist on pursuing this proposal then it is expected to result in delays to the gazettal of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

The landowner acknowledges the best fit approach which has been applied with the draft NLEP 2009, however maintains that the applied zoning is mapping anomaly and should be rectified.

 

In this instance it is suggested that Council amend the zone maps over this small area of land of approximately 1.4Ha in total. It is suggested that approximately 1.1Ha (generally cleared area) be zoned R1 General Residential in accordance with the adjoining land zone and approximately 0.3Ha be zoned E3 Environmental Management as this pocket is heavily vegetated. As shown on the diagram below.

 

Should the DoP not support this proposed amendment the landowner has the opportunity to pursue the rezoning of the land through the “Gateway” Planning Proposal process but would require significant justification and compliance with the Sustainability Criteria in Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

Recommendation 72: That Council remove the RU1 Zone and replace it with an R1 General Residential Zone and E3 Environmental Management Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over part of Lot 2 DP 1071503.

 

Lot 1 DP 85752 Egan Street Macksville - Request that the proposed RU1 Primary Production zone be amended to R1 General Residential (Submission 55)

 

This submission has requested that Council consider amending the zone from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential. The submission states that the land is no longer flood prone as it has been filled; it is well serviced and would be a logical extension to the existing residential area.

 

This land was filled without the need for approval as an Agricultural activity (flood free stock refuge). The land was not identified as an agreed growth area in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. Discussions with DoP have indicated they will not support release areas which are not identified in the Mid North Coast Strategy and this is reflected by relevant 117 directions. Should Council insist on pursuing this proposal then it is expected to result in delays to the gazettal of Draft NLEP 2009.

 

The landowner has the opportunity to pursue the rezoning of the land through the “Gateway” Planning Proposal process but would require significant justification and compliance with the Sustainability Criteria in Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

Recommendation 73: That Council not change the RU1 Zone to a residential zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over Lot 1 DP 85752, and that the land owner be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix 1 of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy can be demonstrated.

 

 

Lot 103 DP 819474 508 Wilson Road Congarinni North – Requests that the section of land zoned 1(a1) Rural-Residential in the 1995 LEP be zoned R5 Large Lot Residential in the Draft NLEP 2009 (Submission 58)

 

This submission has requested land previously identified as 1(a1) Rural within the Broken Black Line be considered for zoning as R5 Large Lot Residential in the Draft NLEP 2009.

 

The land in question was not identified in an area of Short/ Medium Term Release in Council’s Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy and therefore the land was zoned RU2 Rural Landscape in the Draft NLEP 2009. Should Council resolve to amend the zoning of this land it would be likely to result in delays to the gazettal of the Draft NLEP 2009. 

 

Recommendation 74: That Council not amend the proposed RU2 Zone on Lot 103 DP 819474 to R5 Large Lot Residential as it would be inconsistent with the Rural-Residential Release Strategy.

Macksville Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses requests that a Place of Public Worship be a permissible land use in the RU1 Primary Production Zone (Submission 60)

 

The Macksville Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses are presently looking to develop a second congregation in the Nambucca area in addition to the existing congregation in Macksville. In searching for land for such a development they have found large volumes of potentially suitable land to be designated flood prone and zoned RU1 Primary Production which prohibits a Place of Public Worship.

 

The submission has requested that a Place of Public Worship be permitted with consent in the RU1 Primary Production Zone.

 

The RU1 Primary Production zone is representative of the former 1(a2) Rural (Prime/Flooding) and Regionally Significant Farmland. Should Council resolve to permit Places of Public Worship within the RU1 zone issues may be created in relation flooding and such a development may detract from the rural character and viability of prime rural land.

 

Recommendation 75: That Council not permit Places of Public Worship within the RU1 Primary Production Zone in Draft NLEP 2009.

 

Government Consultation

 

Bellingen Council has recommended the zoning of Oyster Creek be zoned to reflect the proposed zoning in the Bellingen LEP

 

The submission from Bellingen Council has recommended the W1 Natural Waterways Zone be applied to the Oyster Creek water course located at the Boundary of Nambucca and Bellingen Shires.

 

Planning Response

 

Applying the W1 Natural Waterways zone to this area would be consistent with Council’s approach to zoning the waterways in all other areas of the shire. There does not appear to be any implications of such an amendment.

 

Recommendation 76: That Council zone the Oyster Creek watercourse as W1 Natural Waterways zone in Draft NLEP 2009 which is consistent with Council’s approach to zoning the waterways in all other areas of the shire.

 

Department Transport and Infrastructure

 

The Department of Transport and Infrastructure has recommended Council encourage sustainable transport opportunities through Draft NLEP 2009. They have also recommended that Council ensure the provision of Transport Interchanges for buses, trucks etc.

 

Planning Response

 

In relation to sustainable transport, Council has been awarded a number of grants which are contributing to the provision and development of a cycleway network. The majority of this type of development is permissible through the SEPP Infrastructure.

 

In relation to Transport Interchanges the Pacific Highway upgrade between Warrell Creek and Urunga has proposed a Truck change/rest point in the Boggy Creek area. In addition to this, the Mid North Coast Strategy highlights Nambucca as an area with potential for a Highway Service Centre. Other transport interchanges such as small scale bus stations etc can be developed in a number of zones under the SEPP Infrastructure.

 

Recommendation 77: That Council note the response from the department of Transport and Infrastructure and that Draft NLEP 2009 makes provision for opportunities with sustainable transport and major infrastructure through reference to SEPP Infrastructure.

 

Housing NSW

 

Housing NSW supports the variety of housing types permitted within all the residential zones and the density provisions within Macksville and Nambucca.

 

Housing NSW have recommended that Council should consider a clause to prevent redevelopment of low cost housing in caravan parks and that Council should include additional objectives for affordable housing in the LEP. Re-development of caravan parks or manufactured home estates etc should be accompanied by a social impact statement.

 

Housing NSW have requested an increased height limit to 10m and a floor space ratio of 1:1 in Housing NSW land located in the Bellwood Close, Autumn Close, and Marshall way area.

 

Planning Response

 

The State Government has introduced SEPP Affordable Housing which provides a number of mechanisms to ensure affordable housing opportunities are created throughout NSW, additional provisions within Council’s LEP are not considered necessary at this point in time. Further consideration of this matter can be provided when Council prepares its Residential Land Release Strategy later this year.

 

Should Council receive any development applications which have implications for manufactured home estates or Caravan Parks a social impact statement could be requested.

 

Recommendation 78: That Council note the response from Housing NSW and the request for an increased height limit and density be considered when Council completes it Residential Land release Strategy later in 2010.

 

Recommendation 79: That Council require a social impact statement to accompany any application for the redevelopment of low cost housing in caravan parks.

 

Northern Rivers CMA

 

The Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA) has questioned the number of small portions of E3 zone adjacent to the E2 zone and have recommended that Council should incorporate buffers as identified in the Living and Working in Rural Areas document.

 

The CMA have also requested that Council apply a “maintain or improve” policy to vegetation not covered by the Native Vegetation Act.

 

Planning Response

 

The small areas of E3 zone adjacent to the E2 zone have originated from the Environmental zones under the 1995 LEP. The former Environmental zones are now a combination of the E2 and E3 zones, the E3 component often being residue land not identified as SEPP 14 or SEPP 26 lands. Until Council further investigates the environmental attributes of the shire, these areas will provide discontinuous buffers to sensitive lands. Council also has in place its Buffers DCP which will be incorporated into the consolidated DCP.

 

Recommendation 80: That Council note the response from the Northern Rivers CMA and should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone or amalgamation of the small E2 zones into the E3 zones, Council may consider the rezoning at that time.

 

NSW Office of Water

 

The NSW Office of Water has recommended the following:

 

·              Zone some riparian land in the shire E2;

·              Include Waterway overlay and Sensitive Waterway clause;

·              Include a specific Clause in the LEP to protect wetlands;

·              Include a groundwater protection clause example given;

·              Include provisions to ensure certain developments are not undertaken without connection to Councils sewer;

·              Refer to the Farm Dams policy in the exempt development provisions.

 

Planning Response

 

In the preparation of the Waterways zones Council has zoned some sensitive riparian areas W1, W2, E2 or E3.  Further consideration of the environmental matters raised by the Office of Water will made should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the changes as suggested, Council may consider the issues at that time.

 

Practice Notes used to inform Council how to prepare the LEP re-enforce that cross referencing of legislation within the LEP should be minimised (eg the Farm Dam Policy).

 

Recommendation 81: That Council note the response from the NSW Office of Water and should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the change of zone or the inclusion of the suggestions, Council may consider the matters at that time.

 


Department of Environment Climate Change and Water

 

DECCW has provided a detailed submission with many comments which are contained in the circularised documents and the submission summary; however the following key matters were raised:

 

·              Council should include biodiversity clause similar to those in other Councils;

·              There was no land mapped E2 or E3 zones outside the coastal area;

·              Some identified landuses are inconsistent with the standard instruments;

·              The draft Plan does not include any reference to riparian buffers;

·              There is no reference to any clauses or mapping relating to vegetation maintenance outside the E zones and the Department has suggested Council use Clause 7.3 of Bellingen Draft LEP.

·              Aboriginal heritage items are not addressed adequately within the draft LEP.

·              DECCW has suggested that these points be addressed prior to finalization of the LEP or as soon as possible after the LEP has been gazetted.

 

Planning Response

 

In relation to the Aboriginal Heritage matters, Council had originally mapped some aboriginal heritage items within the Heritage Maps. Council was instructed by the Department of Planning to remove these items from the maps but maintain them within the schedule. Council is presently negotiating with the Local Aboriginal Land Council’s and DECCW to obtain access to the Aboriginal Heritage register (AIHMS), if successful additional items may be added to the Heritage Maps.

 

The use of the term ‘relic’ in the Draft NLEP 2009 is appropriate as it is defined in the Dictionary.

 

DECCW has made a number of recommendations regarding permissible and prohibited land uses. In reviewing land uses it is important to note that uses do not have to be directly referred to in the table as they are often covered by the term “any development not specified in …. Or ….”. Many of the uses recommended by DECCW are addressed in this manner, for example earthworks and flood mitigation are permitted in the RU zones by default because they not listed as prohibited.

 

The permissible land uses within the waterways zones have been drafted to avoid more intense land uses such as Marinas and Boat Repair Facilities within the more sensitive areas. Other permissible land uses would be subject to consideration when a development application is lodged.

 

A number of matters raised by the DECCW pertained to matters regarding mandatory provisions or definitions contained within the Standard Instrument which Council cannot amend.

 

A number of matters raised by DECCW were also raised by the community and have been addressed in the body of this report.

 

DECCW were advised during the preparation of this plan that it was Councils intention to complete a “best fit” transfer from NLEP 1995 to the Standard Instrument format. Further consideration of the environmental matters raised by the DECCW will made should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the changes as suggested.

 

Recommendation 82: That Council note the response from the DECCW and the matters raised will be further pursued following the Gazettal of the LEP. Further, that should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the changes, Council may consider making the changes at that time.

 

Department of Industry and Investment

 

The Department of Industry and Investment has provided a detailed submission with many comments which are contained in the circularised documents and the submission summary, however the following key matters were raised:

 

·              Extensive use of the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone is a concern;

·              Objectives of the LEP should address mineral/extractive resources;

·              Extensive use of RU1 and RU2 zones is supported, in some areas the RU1 zone could be extended;

·              Several Mapping errors with the RU3 Zone;

·              E3 zone should not be used over existing quarries;

·              Use of the Waterways zones and Environmental Zones is supported;

·              Recommends intensive plant agriculture be permitted in RU zones without consent;

·              Identify a number of uses which should be permitted with consent;

·              Additional provisions should be included for environmentally sensitive lands;

·              Encourage a future rural lands review;

·              Should consider increasing lot sizes around Extractive industries;

·              Unclear if the LEP is consistent with 117 Direction of Oyster Aquaculture

 

Planning Response:

 

The Department of Industry and Investment were advised during the preparation of this plan that it was Councils intention to complete a “best fit” transfer from NLEP 1995 to the Standard Instrument format. Further consideration of the rural, resource and environmental matters raised by the Department will made should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the changes as suggested.

 

In relation to the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone Council has prepared the draft NLEP 2009 in accordance with the approved Rural-Residential Land Release Strategy which has reduced the extent of available Rural-Residential Land. The strategy recommends a minimum lot size of 1Ha. No further amendments to R5 zone are recommended.

 

The RU1 zone has been developed to incorporate the former 1(a2) Rural (Prime/ Flooding) zone and Regionally Significant Farmland. No amendments are recommended to the RU1 zone.

 

In relation to the RU3 zone Council received the boundaries to the State Forest Land early in the preparation of the plan. Therefore it is recommended that Council confirm the boundaries of State Forest zoned land prior to forwarding the draft NLEP 2009 to DoP for approval.

 

As already stated the Draft NLEP 2009 has been prepared as a best fit transfer and the landuse table have been prepared to transfer from the existing LEP 1995. Where appropriate the land use table were also prepared to reflect the provisions State Policy such as SEPP Infrastructure, SEPP Mining Petroleum Production and Extractive Industry.

 

Recommendations 83: That Council confirm the boundaries of State Forest zoned land prior to forwarding draft NLEP 2009 to DoP for approval and further, that Council note the other matters raised by the Department of Industry and Investment and these matters will be further pursued following the Gazettal of the LEP. Further, that should further studies be undertaken in the future that warrant the changes, Council may consider making the changes at that time.

 

RTA

 

The NSW RTA has provided a detailed submission with many comments that are provided in the circularised documents and the submission summary. The following key points are noted:

 

·      The LEP needs to be consistent with the SEPP Infrastructure;

·      The LEP should include provisions for developer contributions;

·      Ensure Roads are permitted without consent in the SP2 zone;

·      Roads should be permitted with consent in all other zones;

·      Child care centres should be prohibited on properties with frontage to classified roads;

·      No access to classified roads should be provided from individual properties;

·      Future development on classified roads should incorporate noise mitigation measures;

 


Planning Response

 

In relation to roads and associated infrastructure the NLEP 2009 has been prepared to reflect the provisions of the SEPP Infrastructure and to provide a best fit transfer from the NLEP 1995. In addition to this the provisions of the SEPP Infrastructure permit roads without consent on any land if undertaken by or on behalf of a public authority.

 

To prohibit child care centres on classified roads Council would require a special provision. If DoP develop a Model Local Provision for such a purpose Council can consider incorporating it at a later date.

 

It would be unreasonable to entirely prohibit access to classified roads from private property as there would be a number of properties with a single access point, being the access fronting a classified road.

 

Council may request noise mitigation measures be incorporated into developments proposed on or adjacent to a classified road. This would be subject to consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Recommendation 84:

 

Council note the comments provided by the RTA and continue to assess development applications fronting classified roads in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Extensive internal staff, Community and Government Agency consultation has taken Place during the preparation of Draft NLEP 2009, during and following the exhibition of Draft NLEP 2009 and during the preparation of this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Local Environmental Plans provide opportunity and the tools for Local Council’s to manage land use activities within a Local Government area and maintain and facilitate Sustainable Development through the assessment process.

 

Broader opportunities are available to Council to apply significant land use controls however such broader controls must be supported through the relevant and appropriate justification studies before they can be implemented. Nambucca Shire is not currently in a position to invest the funds necessary to prepare the relevant studies that may lead to complete sustainability.

 

Social

 

Land use controls, conservation management, land zones, sustainable development all impact or benefit the community. Endeavouring to achieve a balance is more the challenge than the task.

 

Local Environmental Plans are only one component of the equation. However, provided the LEP is prepared in accordance with the legislative provisions and through consultation with its community an LEP is a common tool for all land dwellers to refer.

 

Economic

 

The preparation of Draft NLEP 2009 has for the most part been prepared in house with Council’s Strategic Planner being the driving force. All areas of Council’s operations have contributed in some way towards the LEP.

 

The Department of Planning have provided some funding for the development of the Draft Nambucca Local Environmental plan 2009.

 

The “best fit” transfer from NLEP 1995 to NLEP 2009 has maintained equity for the majority of the ratepayers.

 

Risk

 

The greatest risk for Council is the level of amendments that may be proposed through the submissions and beyond the recommendations from staff. As any major changes will significantly delay the finalisation of the Draft LEP and may in fact require the re exhibition of the Draft LEP if the amendments are supported and considered to significant by the DoP.

 

Opportunities are available for any major changes to zones outside this Draft LEP process under the Gateway Planning Proposal process where an applicant can demonstrate justification and comply with the land compatibility test under the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on Council in the current budget for the finalisation of Draft NLEP 2009 as the costs have been covered through the wages cost centre and the grant funds from the Department of Planning.

 

Should however, Council proceed to undertake future studies as requested through the submissions such as a shire wide Koala Plan of Management, Tree Preservation DCP, Vegetation Management Plan, Marine Management Plan and Biodiversity Management Plan, there will need to be an allocation of funds or successful grant applications for these to occur.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

All funds have been provided under the current 2009/2010 budget and the former 2008/2009 budget along with the external grant funds from the Department of Planning through their Planning Reform Fund.

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT: Submissions Received

 

2View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT: Summary of Submission and submission received prior to exhibition of LEP 2009 (Chistofersen)

 

3View

26902/2009 - DoP Section 65 Certificate- Subject to making Amendments in Schedule 2 for Nambucca Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT

 

Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

 

 

 

Submissions Received

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT

 

Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

 

 

 

Summary of Submission and submission received prior to exhibition of LEP 2009 (Chistofersen)

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

Report on exhibition of NLEP 2009

 



  


General Purpose Committee

17 March 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF382              170310         Scotts Head Master Plan

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council will conduct a workshop to assist Councillors make a determination on the Scotts Head Master Plan that will then allow the Land and Property Management Authority to determine how and if it will proceed with the upgrading of the Scotts Head Caravan Park.

 

Council can only control the use of its own land which is the reserve area abutting Adin Street, Scotts Head including the Adin Street Oval.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council supports in principle the model put forward by Integrated Site Design being the exhibited plan.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        That Council supports in principle the model put forward by Integrated Site Design being the exhibited plan;

 

2        That Council does not agree to the use of Adin Street oval for any redevelopment but agrees to enter into a long-term lease over the area currently used for semi-permanent camping;

 

3        That Council believes that an alternative option could be developed that reduces the level of development on Adin Street and has a different entry point either from West Street or Ocean Street.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Land and Property Management Authority advertised for public comment on their preferred option for the redevelopment of the Scotts Head Caravan Park.

 

This generated a large response which was summarised in a report to Council on 5 November 2009.  There has continued to be feedback from the community since the formal exhibition.  Broadly the point of the submissions is to leave the semi permanents where they are currently located and turn Adin Street into the Village Green.

 

The Land and Property Management Authority are not asking Council to decide on what are the best alternatives rather they are asking the question about what type of use is acceptable for the Council managed land which includes the current leased area and Adin Street oval.

 

To assist Council, the Workshop will be based on a PowerPoint presentation that addresses the following points:

 

·              Revised proposal

·              Issues of residents (Public Exhibition)

·              Alternatives from submissions

·              Are there other variations?

·              What next?

 

The Trust needs to be advised of Council’s position in relation to the semi permanents, use of Adin Street and if a long term lease is proposed.

 

The matter should not be deferred any further.  A decision needs to be made and put to the Land and Property Management Authority.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

No new consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Any redevelopment will be subject to conditions of consent.

 

Social

 

The feedback from the consultation shows a range of social values apply depending on the authors’ circumstances and views etc.

 

Economic

 

The caravan park and the adjacent business houses will be affected financially on the changes.

 

Risk

 

Option 1

 

Sections of the community may remain hostile to the decision.

 

The semi permanents while reduced in number will be offered upgraded facilities.

 

Option 2

 

Adopting the status quo will see the loss of an opportunity to redevelop the public space.

 

The semi permanents will be reduced in number to meet the fire standards.

 

Option 3

 

The Land and Property Management Authority may not be prepared to accept any changes.  This could result in the caravan park retracting to the Crown Land and relinquishing the lease area.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council receives an annual loan fee of $15,800.00.  It is intended to retain this or a higher income of say $20,000.00 or $30,000.00.

 

Option 1 includes a contribution of $200,000 from the Caravan Park project to Council towards upgrading the stormwater system.  No costs have been prepared as the actual work is unknown but could be worth $400,000 in total.

 

Any other option will see Council liable for future improvements for the full amount.

 

If the semi permanent area is excluded from the redevelopment then Council will have to determine whether to remove the site or manage it separately.  No compensation is payable to the site residents only the giving of due notice to vacate the land.

 

Retaining the semi permanent area will mean that Council has to put a management structure in place, resolve the fire separation issues, upgrade the roads, create an entry and build and amenity block.

 

An amenities block would be some $500,000 and the other works say $400,000.  These prices are very broad without actual proposals.  There would be recurrent costs associated with amenity clearing, mowing, waste, electricity, water, administration etc of say $150,000 pa.  The income is around $120,000 pa for this section.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The redevelopment will be done by the Scotts Head Trust (Administrator) through loans and the business plan.  There is no provision in the budget for any expenditure.

 

Attachments:

1View

2116/2010 - Land and Property Management Authority Response

 

2View

 - Circularised Copy of PowerPoint Presentation

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

Scotts Head Master Plan

 


 


General Purpose Committee - 17 March 2010

Scotts Head Master Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Circularised Document

 

 

Scotts Head Master Plan

 

 

 

 Copy of PowerPoint Presentation

 

 

 


General Purpose Committee

17 March 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2    PRF72              170310         Kingsworth Estate Public Reserve Access

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council has agreed to exchange a parcel of land at the Kingsworth Estate that will enable access to be created from Old Coast Road for the reserve around the lake.

 

The valuation for each parcel of land indicates that Council’s land exchanged will be worth $25,000.00 more than the land received.

 

The original intention was a land exchange at equal value as both parties benefited.  Council should not seek the payment of $25,000.00 in addition to the land.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council agree to a land exchange between part Lot 40 DP 711098 and part Lot 63 DP 1058432 to provide road access to the Kingsworth Estate Public Reserve from Old Coast Road with each parcel of land treated as equal value.

 

2        That each party meet their own legal costs.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Land exchange without additional payment

2        Land exchange with $25,000 payment to Council

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Item 9.1 in the Director Environment and Planning’s General Purpose Committee report for 17 March 2010 includes the reclassification of part of Lot 40 DP 711098 Kingsworth Estate.

 

The Landowner of the adjacent property, Lot 63 DP 1058432 approached Council with a proposal for a boundary adjustment to enable a land swap between the Council reserve land and the rural road within Lot 63.

 

Council supported the land exchange and reclassification as it will provide better access to the reserve.  There is no suitable legal access from the end of Florence Wilmont Drive to the reserve.  The existing access way between Lots 5 and 6 Florence Wilmont Drive is suitable for pedestrian or bicycle access but is not suitable for vehicular access to the dam within the reserve.  This is required for emergency drought situations to collect water for roadworks.

 

On 5 February 2009 Council resolved to proceed with the reclassification subject to a property valuation.

 

Lot 40 DP 711098 (Council Reserve)

 

Although the size of the land is increased by approximately 1.3 ha based on the restrictions bound to the land by the zone the value does not significantly increase.

 

The land value rose from $95,000 to $100,000 after the reclassification.

 


Lot 63 DP 1058432 (adjacent land)

 

The land value rose from $240,000 to $270,000 after reclassification.

 

The valuer has assessed the amount payable as a result of the land swap from the registered proprietors of Lot 63 to Nambucca Shire Council as at 4 January 2010 to be $25,000.

 

Based on the results of the valuation it is suggested that Council require payment of $25,000 for the land exchange.

 

The original intention was a land swap with no payment as both parties benefited from the arrangement.

 

Council needs this land to enable a useable access to the reserve to be created and should proceed on the basis of a land exchange at equal value.  Each party can meet their own legal costs.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Environment and Planning.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

Environment

 

Clearing required for the construction of an access track.  An assessment will be undertaken once the exact route of the entry is determined.

 

Social

A useable legal access to the reserve is established for the general public.  This reserve receives virtually no use at present because of the lack of vehicular access.

 

Economic

Council’s parcel of land is enhanced and has the potential for new recreational use of the Kingsworth Lake.

 

Risk

Reserve may not be developed for some years and the land exchange will have no immediate value.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil impact on current budget or even projected for 2010/2011.  Eventually there will be costs to construct the access road from Old Coast Road and once developed the area will require maintenance dependant on the level of use.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The development of the reserve would be eligible for Section 94 funding once identified in the Contribution Plan.

 

Maintenance will need to be funded from revenue.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.