NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

01 July 2010

 

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

 

Our Vision

 

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our? Mission Statement

 

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

 

Our Values in Delivery

 

?                Effective leadership

?                Strategic direction

?                Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

?                Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

?                Enhancement and protection of the environment

?                Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

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

?                Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:? Overview and Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council allows not more than two (2) members of the public per meeting to address it on matters not listed in the business paper provided the request is received before publication of the business paper and the subject of the address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.

 

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

 

Meeting Agenda

 

These are available from the Council's Administration Building, the Regional Libraries in Macksville and Nambucca Heads as well as outlets in all towns and villages of the Shire and Council?s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 June 2010

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

9.5???? Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan ?

(i)????? Mr Geoff Goesch?Objector to Buffer Distances to Zones

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

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

8??????? General Manager Report

8.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports

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

9.1???? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 21 June 2010

9.2???? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority 8-21 June 2010

9.3???? Report on Modification of Development Application 2009/113/01

9.4???? Report on Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 May 2010

9.5???? Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan

 

10????? Director Engineering Services Report

10.1?? Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 June 2010

10.2?? Removal of Barrier at Herborn Street, Bowraville

10.3?? Rural Fire Service - Service Level Agreement

10.4?? Road Naming - Crown Road off corner Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville

 

11????? General Manager's Summary of Items to be Discussed in Closed Meeting

11.1?? Write Off - Sundry Debtor - Macleay Valley Skid Bins Hire

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

11.2?? General Manager's Performance Agreement

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

??


 

??????????? a????? Questions raised by Councillors at 7 above

 

?????? i???????? MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

?????? ii??????? PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

???? TO CLOSE

?????? iii?????? CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

?????????????????? iv??????? DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

12????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

13????? REVERT TO OPEN MEETING FOR DECISIONS IN RELATION TO ITEMS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED MEETING.

 

 


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).

 

??????? ?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1????? SF959????????????? 010710???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS


OCTOBER 2008

1

RF256

 

16/10/08

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

 

 

DES

 

Catchment Assessment:

Final report assessed.? Maintenance recommendation included in works program.? There are a number of existing stormwater inlet pits within the study area which require maintenance.? These pits are blocked with vegetation and debris both within the pit and in the grate and lintel, grates are broken, and lintels are broken, reducing the inlet capacity of each pit.? Maintenance and repair of these pits will at least ensure each pit is functioning to its capacity.

 

Phase 2 analysis of pipeline from Bismark to Nambucca Streets authorised.? Not expected to be completed until 30 June 2010.

 

MAY 2009

 

2

SF1213

07/05/09

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

 

DES

GM

First letter sent 4 December 2007.

November 2009.

Followup letter sent.

26 June 2009.

No reply at 17 July 2009.

No reply at 10 August 2009.

No reply at 21 August 2009.

No reply at 7 Sept 2009.

No reply expected until Scotts Head Master Plan completed.

Followup letter sent 24 May 2010.

Scotts Head Trust has approved Council spending $40,000. Return letter sent advising that $40,000 matching contribution is required.

 

 


 

 

JULY 2009

 

 

3

SF1272

16/07/09

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

 

GM

Report to meeting on 19/11/09.

Deferred to December 2009.

Quotes being sought for fibre optic link to the Library.? Will report when quotes are in.

Indefinitely delayed due to workload, illness and completion of Civica (Authority) implementation.

Provision made in Budget for 2010/11

 

 

 

AUGUST 2009

 

 

4

QWN 262

20/08/09

Taylors Arm Road ? dangerous road sinkage

 

DES

Dip filled.? To be further assessed for Briffen fencing.

(Not suitable).

Guardrail design and costing in progress.

Expected cost $30,000 to install.

Work to be completed June 2010.

Contractor engaged.

 

 

5

5.2

Notice of Motion

20/08/09

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

 

DES

19 November 2009

July 2010

 

6

SF544

20/08/09

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

 

GM

September 2010.

 

OCTOBER 2009

 

 

7

SF1075

15/10/09

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

 

DES

October 2010

 

NOVEMBER 2009

 

 

8

SF1269

5/11/09

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

 

GM

Letters sent 11 November 2009.? Rate notice issued for Scotts Head Caravan Park to Trust Manager.

Follow up letter sent 12 January 2010.

Minister has now responded advising that the Scotts Head Caravan Park, being located on part of Reserve 65963 for Public Recreation and Resting place, complies with the criteria outlined in Section 556 of the Local Government Act 1993 and qualifies for exemption from the general rate.

A copy of the Minister?s letter has been circulated to Councillors.

Notwithstanding the Minister?s response, legal advice is to be sought.

Legal advice has been obtained confirming requirement to pay general rates.? Advice has been referred to Minister for his consideration and comment.

Minister has now responded advising they will not be paying rates and providing reasons.? Response has been sent to Norton Rose for advice.

 

 

JANUARY 2010

 

 

9

SF839

21/01/10

General Manager and Directors be reminded to report on potential revotes at quarterly reviews.

 

GM

On-going.

 

 

 

 

 

10

SF839

21/01/10

General Manager uphold resolution of 18/12/2008 that as a matter of policy Council be forwarded draft Plans of Management by way of memo at least three weeks before a GPC meeting so those comments can be considered after collation and prior to the next GPC meeting.? This also applies to draft policies.

 

GM

On-going

 

 

FEBRUARY 2010

 

 

11

SF1471

18/02/10

Council canvass option on reducing Councillor numbers in the next customer survey

 

GM

Provision for Customer Survey to be made in 2010/2011 budget

 

 

12

SF741

18/02/10

That a further report be prepared on the operation of the Paveline Machine from July 2009 to June 2010

 

MCW

Report in August 2010

 

 

MARCH 2010

 

13

SF430

18/03/10

Council look at funding from the Environmental Levy to clear camphor laurels and that.

 

Council apply for urgent funding from NPWS Conservation grants.

 

Send copies of residents? petitions to Ministers and invite them to meet with Council and residents onsite.

 

DEP

In progress.

Funding application submitted and letter sent to the Minister.

 

Response from the Scientific Committee received.

 

Application made to deccw and Federal Department of Environment for removal of all camphour laurels.? Awaiting response.

No response staff changeover.

DoE application to remove camphor laurels to be determined 11 June.

DECCW application still being processed in Sydney.

Removal of understorey wooden weeds and other noxious weeds currently being removed by Landcare.

 

DoE referral was returned as not controlled action therefore we must look at the section 91 licence.

The DECCW section 91 licence is in draft form with the conditions. A meeting with Landcare will be set up and conditions discussed as to how Council and Landcare will be able to implement them.

 

 

14

SF1354

18/03/10

That Council write to the RFS to query why program costs were underestimated for the current year.

 

DES

Draft budget figures provided to RFP for explanation.

No response as at 23/4/2010.

RFS are changing to a 4 year plan that is reviewable annually.

New RFS Area Manager to be appointed in July.

 

 

 

APRIL 2010

 

 

15

SF1471

1/04/10

Council receive a report which includes a recommended brief and budget to undertake further investigation of an on-stream dam.

 

GM

Report to Council?s meeting on 15 April 2010.? Brief issued to Department of Services for a response on 16 April 2010.? Work underway as at 21 May 2010.

 

 

16

SF1471

1/04/10

Councillors to be advised regarding time and date of special meetings or workshops.

 

GM

On-going

 

 

17

SF1269

15/04/10

That a report with a recommendation on boundaries for collector areas comes back to Council before the end of October 2010 for consideration.

 

DEP

Report in September 2010.

 

 

18

SF30

15/04/10

That Council meet with reps from the other 2 Councils within the next 12 months to discuss the future of the Clarence Regional Library particularly in relation to the 10% per capita contribution increase.

 

DEP

Council?s General Manager has had discussions with General Managers from both Bellingen and Clarence Valley Shire Councils when finalising the 2010-2011 budget.? The matter is to be revisited for additional discussions in November/December 2010 in the lead-up to developing the 2011-2012 budget and in light of the Library Agreement concluding September 2011.

 

 

 

19

SF1031

15/04/10

A report comes to Council in 6 months time to review the take up rate of the new tank rebate and identify any Council buildings where a rainwater storage tank could be installed.

 

DEP

Report to October 2010 GPC.

 

 

MAY 2010

 

 

20

SF380

6/05/10

Loan and lease matters relating to Bowraville Theatre are deferred for one month.

 

GM

To be reported in July 2010.

Loan and lease has been discussed with the BAC who is to meet on 15 June to finalise a position.

 

 

 

21

SF324

6/05/10

That Council defer requesting the Committee of Management to consider the opportunity for transfer of trusteeship of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve to the NPWS until the Minister makes a decision on whether the number of sites can be maintained.

 

GM

Pending advice from Minister/Department.

 

 

22

SF341

6/05/10

Council defer consideration of a request to change the name of the Valla Beach Urban and Hall CoM to the Valla Urban and Hall CoM to provide for consultation with the Valla Public Hall CoM.

 

GM

Letter sent 12 May 2010.? Response received from Valla Public Hall objecting to the name change.? Has been recommended that both Committees meet to consider alternatives.

 

 

23

SF1064

6/05/10

Council make urgent representations to both the NSW Government and Opposition concerning the removal/deferral of funding from the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program arising out of the November 2009 Mini Budget and the impact that this will have on the proposed off river storage.

 

GM

Letters sent 10 May 2010.

 

24

SF1461

20/05/10

Council respond to the draft Library Regulation 2010 with strong representations on the inadequacy of the current State Government subsidy and seek the support of the Shires Association.

 

DEP

Submissions were sent from the Mayor and Manager Community and Cultural Services (8 June 2010) objecting to the level of the subsidy and its lack of indexation.  The submissions also requested that increases be from additional State funding and not just a redirection from other library funding programs

 

 

25

SF98

20/05/10

Road naming ? item be deferred so that Unkya LALC can be consulted regarding appropriate local Aboriginal names.

 

DES

No response at this stage.

 

 

26

SF820

20/05/10

Quarterly performance review be presented to Clrs for comment at the first Council meeting of the month; with comments to be received by the next business paper deadline; and with the Performance review + Councillors comments to be considered at the following GPC.? Also dot points be replaced with no?s & an electronic copy to be provided to those Councillors who want it.

 

GM

On-going

 

 

27

SF46

20/05/10

Council consider becoming a member of the NSW Cemetery and Crematoria Association in 12 months time.

 

DEP

Report in May 2011.

 

 

JUNE 2010

 

 

28

PRF71

3/06/10

That a report be brought to Council regarding the history of attendances at the Skate Park, any disciplinary actions and that recommendations 1 to 4 be deferred until the report comes to Council.

 

DEP

Report to be prepared following consultation with the Ranger targeting July 2010 GPC.

 

 

29

SF358

3/06/10

In relation to the Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre, that Council receive a report on funding sources for the projected expenditure which will be required to maintain the facility.

 

GM

August 2010.

 

 

30

SF1480

17/06/10

Council conduct an inspection of the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park (Swimming Creek)

 

GM

July 2010 GPC

 

 

31

SF15

17/06/10

Council receive a report on what might constitute a reasonable charge for persons selling livestock through the Macksville saleyards and provide information regarding fees charged at neighbouring saleyard complexes

.

GM

July 2010 GPC

 

 

32

SF1092

17/06/10

Council receive a report on management arrangements for the Bowraville Golf Course

 

GM

July 2010 Council

 

 

33

SF653

17/06/10

Council receive a report on Council?s value of assistance provided to Ganly?s Gardeners.

 

DES

 

 

 

34

SF1446

17/06/10

That a report be brought forward on the existing policy on tree removal relating to the fee payable.

 

DES

 

 

 

35

SF841

17/06/10

RTA to erect flood markers showing anticipated 1:100 year FFL with and without the new highway at Kings Point and River Street.

 

DEP

This will be followed up with the RTA.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

??


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1????? SF1261??????????? 010710???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 21 June 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

TOTAL APPLICATIONS OUTSTANDING 12 MONTHS OR MORE:? 0

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2010/123

11/02/2010

Dual Occupancy? - Second Dwelling

Lot 3 Section 7 DP 244537, 1 Henderson Street, Valla Beach

? Height and density not consistent with current community

? Lot size too small for proposed dwelling

? Concerns with stormwater provisions

DES is considering stormwater impact and feasibility of pumping stormwater to the street.
4/06/10 Applicant engaging engineer to address stormwater concerns. Applicant given further 14 days to lodge information or withdraw application.

In accordance with Council Policy, the applicant has been given reasonable opportunities to withdraw the application or submit the required information for Council to make a proper assessment of the proposal. The applicant has not responded to Council?s last letter. Final 7 day letter issued 23 June 2010 offering to withdraw the application or application will be determined with a refusal.


 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2010/146

27/04/10

Demolition of existing dwelling & construction of 3 townhouses

Lot 11 Section N DP 20823, 60 Wallace Street, Scotts Head

? Sun and natural light reduction to neighbouring dwelling

? 2 storey building imposition on skyline

? Potential noise issues

? Privacy issues

The matters raised will be addressed in the determination of the application.

The proposal generally complies with Council?s planning requirements and appropriate conditions of consent will address the concerns raised in the submissions.

To be determined by mid July.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.2????? SF1261??????????? 010710???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority 8-21 June 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
8-21 JUNE 2010

 

DA Number

Application Date

Development

Address

2010/168

04/06/2010

Build deck on back of house

Lot 341 DP 755550, 8 Short Street, Nambucca Heads

2010/169

04/06/2010

Change of use of building to residential purposes & installation of bathroom & laundry area

Lot 86 DP 755560, 172 Mitchells Road, Valla

2010/170

04/06/2010

Carport & Shed

Lot 2 DP 1136027, 22B Sandpiper Drive, Scotts Head

2010/171

07/06/2010

Rural Shed

Lot 3 DP 749153, 6040 Pacific Highway, Nambucca Heads

2010/172

09/06/2010

Patio Cover

Lot 1 DP 789498, 215a Wallace Street, Macksville

2010/173

10/06/2010

School Library Building

Lots 8-10, Section D DP 11590, Dudley Street, Macksville

2010/174

11/06/2010

Rural Shed

Lot 162 DP 863383, 561 Wilson Road, Congarinni North

2010/175

15/06/2010

Shed

Lot 101 DP 710507, 41 Banksia Crescent, Nambucca Heads

2010/176

15/06/2010

Gates, Signs, Display shelving, Fence, Change of use to a nursery and residential.

Lot 1 DP 121639, 49 High St, Bowraville

2010/177

16/06/2010

Dwelling Additions

Lot 101 DP 711481, 7 Raleigh Street, Scotts Head

2010/178

16/06/2010

Industrial Shed Extensions

Lot 43, DP 771519, 25 Yarrawonga Street, Macksville

2010/179

16/06/2010

Dwelling

Lot 112, DP 1094949, 26 Max Graham Drive, Valla Beach

2010/631

08/06/2010

Garage

Lot 11 DP 818820, 4 Pade Crescent, Newee Creek

 


 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO 8-21 JUNE 2010

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE $

2010/150

Lot 2 DP 544563, Lot 13 DP 654087 & Lot 14 DP 654086, T5 37 Cooper Street, Macksville

Additions and alterations to commercial premises for a medical centre

85,000

2010/153

Lot 3 DP 1064161, Clayholes Road, Way Way

Rural Shed

18,900

2010/144

Lot 2 DP 331437, 38 Wallace Street, Macksville

Change of Use to part of commercial premise for a Hair Salon

3,000

2010/136

Lot 1 DP 880468, 114 Ocean View Road, Valla Beach

Two (2) Lot Residential Subdivision

0

2010/149

Lots A & B DP 5611, 7 Adam Lane, Bowraville

Garage

18,300

2010/630

Lot 32 DP 813322, 7 Alfred Close, Nambucca Heads

Storage Shed

11,861

2010/631

Lot 11 DP 818820, 4 Pade Crescent, Newee Creek

Garage

9,500

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.3????? DA2009/113????? 010710???????? Report on Modification of Development Application 2009/113/01

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Arthur Tsembis, Manager Planning and Assessment; Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning ????????

 

Summary:

 

DA 2009/113 was granted approval under delegated authority on 27 May 2009. Condition 6 of the consent requires the upgrade of Smiths Lane, which is a Crown Road, to a public road standard. Condition 3 requires the landowner/developer to initiate the transfer of Smiths Lane to Council. These conditions are consistent with the relevant provisions of LEP 1995, DCP 4 ? Subdivision, and the rural-residential subdivision ballot process.

 

Council considered a report to vary the terms and conditions of the development consent at its meeting on 3 September 2009. Council subsequently obtained legal advice on how to deal with the modification application and the proposal to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to make a cash contribution in lieu of upgrading Smiths Lane to a public road standard and the transfer of Smiths Lane into Council?s ownership. Council considered the report dealing with the legal advice at its meeting on 18 February 2010.

 

The purpose of this report is to make a determination of the modification application to amend the conditions of consent relating to DA 2009/113 and enter into a VPA in lieu of upgrading Smiths Lane. Council has various options, none of which are in accordance with the ballot criteria, except the option to retain the status quo and retain conditions 3 and 6 of the development consent.

 

Notwithstanding, the applicant has lodged a Class 1 action in the Land and Environment Court objecting to Conditions 3 and 6 claiming "they do not fairly and reasonably relate to the development and that they are so unreasonable that no reasonable consent authority would have imposed them".

 

This matter is listed for a telephone directions hearing is to take place on Monday 28 June at 10.10 am. Norton Rose have been instructed to attend to the directions hearing on Council's behalf.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council not accept the Voluntary Planning Agreement as presented by Mr Turnbull and defer determination of the modification application for DA 2009/113 and suggesting to the applicant that they may wish to reconsider and resubmit an amended Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for an amount of $20,000 per lot (that is a total of $60,000) in lieu of upgrading Smiths Lane.

 

2????????? Notwithstanding Recommendation 1 above, Council?s Department of Corporate Services proceed to prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan for the upgrade of Smiths Lane noting that the maximum amount of the contribution is likely to be capped at $20,000 per lot.

 

3????????? That subject to the applicant resubmitting an amended VPA offering to pay $60,000 towards the upgrade of Smiths Lane, Council amend consent DA 2009/113 by deleting condition 3 and deleting the ?Full Width Road Construction? and ?Intersection? components of condition 6.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has various options including:

 

1????????? Retain the status quo and require the applicant(s) to dedicate and upgrade Smiths Lane in accordance with conditions 3 & 6. (Noting that this would then be argued through the Land and Environment Court)

 

2????????? Amend the consent for DA 2009/113 to require the dedication and upgrade of Smiths Lane before development occurs and prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan that requires Council to complete the upgrade of Smiths Lane and then recover the partial cost from subdivision approvals for the land along Smiths Lane.

 

3????????? Amend the consent for DA 2009/113 to require the dedication and upgrade of Smiths Lane before development occurs and prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan that requires Council to collect funds towards upgrading Smiths Lane from subdivision approvals for land along Smiths Lane and then complete the upgrade of Smiths Lane.

 

As previously advised options 2 & 3 are in accordance with Council?s legal advice. In addition to the above Council also has the following options:

 

4????????? That Council amend the consent for DA 2009/113 to delete conditions 3 and 6 relating to ?Transfer of Smiths Lane? and ?Full Width Road Construction? and accept the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in the amount of $34,000 as presented by the applicant.

 

5????????? That Council amend the consent for DA 2009/113 by deleting condition 3 and deleting the ?Full Width Road Construction? and ?Intersection? components of condition 6 and include the following conditions:

 

??????????? Development shall not occur until satisfactory arrangements have been put in place for the upgrade of Smiths Lane to a public road standard in accordance with Council?s requirements.

??????????? Development shall not occur until payment of a contribution is made in accordance with a future Section 94 Contributions Plan to upgrade Smiths Lane to a public road standard.

 

Option 5 is in keeping with Council?s previous resolution that; ?consideration be given to amending the consent to give effect to a requirement for ?satisfactory arrangements to be in place to upgrade Smiths Lane in accordance with the provisions of NLEP ????????? 1995? and ?payment of a Section 94 contribution in accordance with a future Section 94 Contributions Plan?.?

 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

As Council is aware a ballot was undertaken to allow 40 additional rural residential lots to be created within the ?broken black line? for owners of land not identified in Stage 1 of the Rural Residential Land Release Strategy. The ballot included a proviso that all applications would be required to ?meet all provisions of Council?s subdivision codes, LEP and DCPs?.

 

Access to the subject site for DA 2009/113 is off Smiths Lane which is an unsealed Crown Road. Item (d) of Schedule 1 relating to Clause 16 of LEP 1995 requires land to be subdivided to be linked by a bitumen sealed road. Clause 6.1.2 of DCP 4 ? Subdivision, requires the upgrade and dedication of a Crown Road to Council as a public road. The DCP requires the upgrade and costs associated with the dedication of the road to be met by the applicant.

 

DA 2009/113 was granted approval under delegated authority, subject to conditions that requires Smiths Lane to be upgraded and dedicated to Council in accordance with the relevant provisions of LEP 1995 and DCP 4 ? Subdivision.

 

In accordance with condition 3, ?The land owner/developer is responsible for initiating the application by paying all fees and charges associated with the transfer of control application.? It is then up to Council to submit the application for the transfer of the Crown Road to the Department of Lands. This matter is required to be addressed prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Condition 6 requires copies of engineering construction plans, including the ?Full Width Road Construction? of Smiths Lane. These details are also required to be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Condition 17 requires all works, including road construction, to be completed prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

 

Following representations from the owner and applicant, a further report was considered by Council on 3 September 2009. This report included details of an estimated cost to upgrade Smiths Lane. A very approximate proportional cost to the owner of the subject land was estimated at $45,000 - $58,500 for a full standard road upgrade and $30,000 - $39,000 for a reduced standard road upgrade. Council resolved to adopt the following recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council advise both of the applicants for DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119 that Council is prepared to consider a reduced standard of upgrading of Smith's Lane to a single lane standard and that they should each submit a Section 96 Modification application.

 

2????????? That Council advise the two applicants that should they not be prepared to share the full costs of upgrading Smiths Lane to a reduced standard and propose to submit a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPR) or other form of contribution, that they seek their own legal advice as to whether they can submit a VPA with a Section 96 Modification application.

 

3????????? In the event that Council proceeds with recommendations 1 and 2 above Council seek its own legal advice in regard to accepting a Voluntary Planning Agreement with a Section 96 Modification application, or if a VPA is not submitted whether Council would have to advertise any financial benefit to a local developer if only partial contribution towards the upgrade of Smiths Lane is proposed.

 

In accordance with items 1 and 2 above the owners of the property relating to DA 2009/113 lodged a modification application to delete conditions 3 and 6 and replace them with a requirement to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). The VPA is for an offer to pay $34,000 ?for the purpose for the provision of public amenities, namely, the sealing and other improvement of Smiths Lane?.

 

In accordance with Council?s resolution (item 3), Council staff sought legal advice from Deacons (now known as Norton Rose). The details of the legal advice were reported to Council on 18 February 2010.

 

Council may recall that the legal advice recommended:

 

?????????????? Council does not consider entering into a VPA as it is likely to be considered void because it would breach the provisions of NLEP 1995, which requires the upgrade of Smiths Lane.

?????????????? Council does not approve the Section 96 Application because the proposed modification is unlikely to be considered ?substantially the same development? as it only proposes a monetary contribution in lieu of road upgraded works.

 

Council when dealing with the matter was also advised in terms of the following:

 

An alternative ?Grampian? condition may be to include a condition that requires ?satisfactory arrangements have been put in place for the upgrade of Smiths Lane in accordance with Council?s requirements? and ?payment of the Section 94 contribution in accordance with a future Section 94 Contributions Plan?. This would allow Council to prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan and make provision for a fair and equitable contribution from all landowners who may benefit from the future subdivision potential of land having frontage to Smiths Lane.

 


Having regard to the above, Council resolved to adopt the following recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council staff continue to process the Section 96 Modification Application for DA 2009/113 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EP&A Act and consideration be given to amending the consent to give effect to a requirement for ?satisfactory arrangements to be in place to upgrade Smiths Lane in accordance with the provisions of NLEP 1995? and ?payment of a Section 94 contribution in accordance with a future Section 94 Contributions Plan?.

2????????? That Mr & Mrs Smith be advised that upon submission of a Section 96 Modification Application to amend the development consent approval for DA 2009/119, similar consideration will be given to the application in accordance with 1 above.

3????????? That Council undertake to prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan to upgrade Smiths Lane in accordance with Council?s requirements.

4????????? That the Section 94 Contributions Plan be prepared to allow Smiths Lane to be constructed in stages and stage 1 shall incorporate expending any contributions received from the amended Turnbull and/or Smith subdivision approvals to the partial upgrade of Smiths Lane.

 

 

TRANSFER OF THE CROWN ROAD:

 

The Department of Lands (DoL) provided its consent to the submission of the development application subject to a number of requirements, including:

 

??????????? ?Council seeks transfer of the road in accordance with ?Protocols for Transfer of Crown Roads Required to Service Developments? as previously provided.?

 

In accordance with the protocols and Council?s normal practice condition 3 was included in the development consent approval. The DoL by letter dated 17 August 2009 advised Mr Turnbull that ?the subject Crown road will soon be transferred to Council?s control in accordance with the conditions of the Department?s consent and Council?s determination of Development Application DA 2009/113.? A Copy of this letter is attached for Council?s information.

 

Notwithstanding condition 3, on 21 September 2009 the Department of Lands (DoL) initiated action to transfer Smiths Lane to Councils ownership. The DoL verbally advised that when it became aware other subdivision approvals were previously granted by Council it decided to initiate its prerogative to transfer the Crown Road in accordance with the provisions of the Roads Act 1993. As such, the transfer of Smiths Lane to Council would have occurred regardless of the outcome of DA 2009/113 and DA 2009/119.

 

When the transfer is affected it will be Council?s responsibility to maintain Smiths Lane in its current condition until the road can be constructed to an appropriate public road standard.

 

 

LEGAL ADVICE:

 

Norton Rose advised Council that it could consider entering into a VPA in conjunction with a Section 96 Application. However, this advice was qualified with information regarding Council?s consideration of any modification application. As stated above, the legal advice recommended that ?Council does not consider entering into a VPA? and ?Council does not approve the Section 96 Application?. The legal advice also stated that the proposed VPA and modification would be contrary to the terms of the ballot.

 

Norton Rose suggested that Council could include a ?Grampian? condition that ?requires the upgrade and dedication of the road prior to any development.? This is in effect a ?deferred commencement? condition that leaves it for the owner/applicant or Council or another party to implement the upgrading of Smiths Lane to a public road standard. Norton Rose also advised that in satisfying the ?Grampian? condition Council could prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan that requires Council to either:

 

?????????????? complete the upgrade of Smith Lane and then recover the cost of doing so upon granting subdivision approvals for the land along the Lane: or

?????????????? collect funds for upgrading Smiths Lane upon granting subdivision approval for land on the Lane and then complete the upgrade of Smiths Lane once adequate funds have been received.

 

As previously advised, the first option puts a significant cost burden on Council to expend unallocated funds. The second option could result in the necessary road works not being completed for a considerable number of years, and in all probability not before the approved development consents expire.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the legal advice also raised concern that conditions 3 and 6 may not be fair and reasonable and therefore the consent may be considered ?ultra vires? which means ?beyond one?s legal power or authority?.

 

On behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs Turnbull) PJ Donnellan & Co, Solicitors and Attorneys, submitted a letter dated 5 March 2010. A copy of this letter is attached for Council?s information. The information and advice provided by PJ Donnellan disputes the legal advice provided by Council?s solicitors. In particular PJ Donnellan states that it does not agree with Council?s legal advice that ?the modification application should not be approved because it is likely to be considered void and that the proposed modification is unlikely to be considered substantially the same development.? PJ Donnellan also disputes ?the imposition of a condition requiring a condition pursuant to a s94 plan yet to be made?.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Engineering Services:

 

The Manager Technical Services has provided the following information:

 

An estimated amount of $13,000 will be required to cover surveying expenses for both Smiths Lane and a 600m of Wilson Road

 

An estimated amount of $20,000 will be required to cover costs associated with Preliminary and detailed design for both Smiths Lane and a 600m of Wilson Road.

 

Construction costs for the Intersection of Wilson Road Total $96,000

 

Construction costs for Smiths Lane Total $500,000

 

Survey Expenses ???????????????? $13,000

Design Expenses???????????????? $20,000

Construction Intersection????? $96,000

Construction Smiths Lane???? $500,000

 

TOTAL ?????????????????????????????? $629,000

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In accordance with Council?s normal practice the modification application was advertised, and adjoining and nearby neighbours notified. As a result of such action no further submissions were received. However, Council is advised that the original application attracted two (2) submissions, neither of which objected subject to a requirement to upgrade and bitumen seal Smiths Lane.

 

The subject land, and all contiguous land along Smiths Lane is proposed to be zoned R5 ? Large Lot Residential under draft NLEP 2009. This is in keeping with Council?s resolution (18 March 2010) that ?the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone shall apply to all lawfully approved rural-residential subdivisions.?

 

Subject to the Minister making the plan and retaining the proposed zoning in the draft NLEP 2009, the subject land will be zoned R5 - Large Lot Residential. This however does not, nor will it in the future obviate the need to comply with Clause 6.1.2 of DCP 4 ? Subdivision relating to Crown Roads. This provision has been included in the consolidated DCP that is required to be in place when NLEP 2009 is gazetted. This provision ensures that Council does not accept the transfer of a Crown Road as a result of an approved subdivision unless the road has been upgraded to the appropriate public road construction standards. This principle was applied in approving DA 2009/113. However, as stated above, the DoL has already initiated the transfer of Smiths Lane to Council.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it could be reasonably argued that due to the length of Smiths Lane and the limited number of lots created in the approved subdivision, the condition to upgrade Smith Lane to a public road standard in accordance with Council?s requirements may have been unreasonable. However, the alternative would have been to refuse the original application, which would not have been in keeping with the ballot process.

 

Council was previously advised that to enable the approved subdivision to progress without the landowner having to bear the full cost of upgrading Smiths Lane, Council could amend the development consent and include a condition that requires satisfactory arrangements to upgrade Smiths Lane to be in place before development occurs. The amended consent could also include a condition that requires payment from the landowners towards the upgrade of Smith Lane under a future Section 94 Contributions Plan. Alternatively, and subject to the applicant?s agreement, Council may consider entering into an amended VPA which is equivalent to an amount likely to be required if a formal S94 Contributions Plan is prepared.

 

Irrespective of the outcome of this application, it would be prudent for Council to prepare a Section 94 Contributions Plan to ensure that Smiths Lane is ultimately upgraded to an appropriate public road standard. The DEP previously estimated that 25-35 additional rural-residential lots could be created from the properties proposed to be zoned R5 ? Large Lot Residential and accessed via Smiths Lane.

 

Based on 30 additional lots and the preliminary estimates provided by Engineering Services the contribution is likely to be in the order of approximately $21,000 per lot. For the proposed subdivision, this equates to $63,000, which is considerably more than $34,000 offered under the VPA.

 

To enable a properly formulated S94 Contributions Plan a detailed road construction plan would ordinarily be required to be prepared. This would allow an accurate determination of the cost of construction. A concept subdivision plan would also assist to determine the likely number of lots that could be created. These plans would enable a more accurate estimate of the per lot contribution for any future subdivision with access off Smiths Lane.

 

Notwithstanding the above the DoP, via Planning Circular (PC) 10-014 issued on 4 June 2010, advised that a Council cannot now impose a development contribution in excess of $20,000 per lot. As such, it is considered that the need to prepare a detailed road construction plan and a concept subdivision plan before the S94 plan is prepared may not be necessary because it is highly unlikely that the cost to upgrade Smiths Lane will be less that $20,000 per lot. A copy of the PC 10-014 is attached for Council?s information.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council has various options available in its determination of the modification application. However, it is considered that the best course of action to resolve the modification application is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to enter into an amended VPA to pay an equivalent amount of $20,000 per lot, permitted in accordance with the recent DoP advice via PC 10-014 dated 4 June 2010.

 

Whilst Council?s legal advice has recommended against accepting a VPA, it is considered that if the applicant agrees to an amended VPA in the amount of $60,000, this would be the most fair and equitable arrangement to overcome the cost burden of requiring only a couple of individuals and/or Council having to pay for the full cost to upgrade Smiths Lane. It is also considered that a VPA in the amount of $20,000 per lot will overcome the need to prepare a S94 Contributions Plan before final determination of the modification application.

 

It should be noted that any decision made by Council regarding this modification application is likely to apply to a similar modification application for DA 2009/119, which as been submitted but not yet determined.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Any approval of the proposed modification application is not likely to have significant environmental impacts, other than allowing a low-standard road to remain until Council has sufficient funds to upgrade Smiths Lane to an improved public road standard.

 

Social

 

In accordance with previous advice, the main concern is in relation to the standard of Smiths Lane. Two separate landowners put in submissions to the original subdivision applications raising concerns with dust and on-going maintenance issues. There is an expectation that Smiths Lane will be upgraded to a public road standard.

 

The recommended course of action will result in Smiths Lane not being fully upgraded as part of the amended development consent approval. This will no doubt cause some short to medium term traffic conflict and safety issues. However, if the road is upgraded in stages as funds become available, this will progressively overcome any potential traffic conflict and safety issues. It is considered that this will provide the most fair and equitable outcome for all existing and future residents in the locality.

 

Economic

 

In accordance with previous advice, the recommended course of action will result in Smiths Lane not being fully upgraded as part of the amended development consent approval. It is expected that the road will be upgraded in stages as funds become available from contributions by all land owners who will benefit from future subdivision approvals. It is considered that the subsequent preparation of a Section 94 Contributions Plan will provide a more equitable economic outcome for all existing landowners in the locality.

 

Risk

 

There is a risk that a third party appeal could be lodged by a person(s) who lodged a submission and/or persons aggrieved that his/her development application was not lodged when they had the opportunity because their application did not satisfy all the ballot criteria.

 

As noted in the Summary section of the report the landowner has lodged an appeal to the Land & Environment Court dissatisfied with Council original determination. This option will also exist should the landowner be dissatisfied with this determination of the S96 modification application.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

If Council decides to adopt the recommendations there is likely to be a financial burden on Council to maintain a sub-standard public road. There may also be pressure on Council to upgrade Smiths Lane before sufficient S94 contributions have been collected, or if there are insufficient contributions received to pay for the road to be upgraded to an acceptable standard.

 

Should the matter continue through the Courts, Council will be exposed for costs to defend its position.

 


Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The only source of funds for legal costs will be from the General Fund.

 

Any costs incurred by Council for the upgrade of Smiths Lane will be from several areas; through Voluntary Planning Agreements, funds raised through a Section 94 Plan and General Fund

 

Attachments:

1View

11519/2010 - Letters and Planning Circular for DA 2009/113/01

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Report on Modification of Development Application 2009/113/01

 



 

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF1487??????????? 010710???????? Report on Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 May 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Attached for Council?s consideration are the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 May 2010.

 

The minutes contain 1 recommendation as follows:

 

1.?? That the complaint regarding lack of access at the Salvation Army Thrift Store in Macksville be looked into, and that Council seeks comment from its Planning staff regarding whether a Development Application was required for the change of use from furniture manufacturing to charity/retail store, and therefore whether there were any conditions requiring wheelchair access into the store.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the complaint regarding lack of access at the Salvation Army Thrift Store in Macksville be looked into, and that Council seeks comment from its Planning staff regarding whether a Development Application was required for the change of use from furniture manufacturing to charity/retail store, and therefore whether there were any conditions requiring wheelchair access into the store.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Endorse the minutes and their recommendations

Not endorse the minutes and recommendations

Endorse the minutes with amended recommendations

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In its role as advocate for people with disabilities, the Access Committee is sometimes requested to look into areas of poor access to see if positive steps can be take towards improvement.? However before undertaking advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities wishing to access the Salvation Army Thrift Shop, the Committee requests feedback from Council staff as to the access requirement for this business.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nothing identified.

 

Social

 

Access for people with disabilities (or lack of it) has a direct bearing on their ability to socialise and participate in the community independently.?

 

Economic

 

Nothing identified.

 

Risk

 

Nothing identified.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications resulting from this report.?

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nothing required.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

12639/2010 - Minutes - Access Committee Meeting - 25 May 2010

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Report on Minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 May 2010

 

PRESENT

 

Ms Margaret Hutchinson (Chairperson)

Dr Dorothy Secomb

Cr A Smyth

Ms Alba Sky

Mr Keith Davis

Mr Les Small

Mr Matthew Sullivan

Ms Coral Hutchinson

 

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Ms Donna Primmer

Mr Peter Shales

Ms Fiona Holmes

Mrs Shirley Holmes

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

There were no Disclosures of Interest declared.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1/10 RESOLVED:?? (Secomb/Smyth)

 

That the Committee noted the adoption and endorsement of the recommendations of the Minutes of the Meeting held 27 April 2010, by Council at its meeting of 20 May 2010.

That the Committee note apologies had been sent from Alba Sky, Les Small and Matthew Sullivan who were unable to attend due to staffing issues on the day.

 

?

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

 

Director Environment and Planning Report

ITEM 5.1????? SF1487????????????? 250510????? Business Arising from the Previous Meeting held 27 April 2010

2180/10 RESOLVED:?????? (Smyth/Sky)

 

That the Committee note Cr Smyth?s verbal report following discussions with staff at the Nambucca Heads Post Office including the following points which will be included in the letter to Australia Post:

 

1??????? Staff are not particularly happy with the new post box arrangements due to the difficulty they have in emptying the boxes and then dragging mail into and through the Post Office.

2??????? There? wasn?t a choice offered regarding the type of mail box installed.

3??????? They understand the Access Committee?s concern about the height of the boxes and general lack of access.

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM 5.2????? SF1487????????????? 250510????? Report on Correspondence to the Access Committee meeting held 25 May 2010

2181/10 RESOLVED:?????? (Smyth/Hutchinson)

 

That the correspondence from Coffs Coast Regional Disability Committee and the Bellingen Access Committee, including an invitation to the opening of the Ian Cooper Memorial, be noted.

 

 

ITEM 5.3????? SF1487????????????? 250510????? Report from Access Committee members on local issues and areas of concern

2182/10 RESOLVED:?????? (Smyth/Secomb)

 

That the complaint regarding lack of access at the Salvation Army Thrift Store in Macksville be looked into, and that Council seeks comment from its Planning staff regarding whether a Development Application was required for the change of use from furniture manufacturing to charity/retail store, and therefore whether there were any conditions requiring wheelchair access into the store.

 

2183/10 Resolved:?????? (Smyth/Sky)

 

The complaint regarding access issues at the Catholic Church in Nambucca Heads would be best addressed by direct contact between the person who had difficulty at the church and the local Minister so that the specific access issues could be brought to his attention.?

 

The Committee noted the progress of work towards the pedestrian refuge in Wallace Street Macksville although no formal resolution was made.

 

 

 

ITEM 5.4????? SF1487????????????? 250510????? Report on the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP)

 

The Committee continued discussion on the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan document with a particular focus on priority improvements in the three towns.

 

Note:? Keith Davis arrived at the commencement of this item and the time was 3.10 pm; and Alba Sky, Les Small and Matthew Sullivan left during this item and the time was 3.20 pm.

???

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 commencing at 2.00 pm

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson closed the meeting, the time being 3.33 pm.

 

 

 

????????????.

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF1498??????????? 010710???????? Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to present Council with the Nambucca Development Control Plan (DCP) required to be in place by the Department of Planning (DoP) upon gazettal of draft Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2009 (NLEP 2010). This report provides a summary of the key issues raised during the exhibition period and any changes recommended by Councils Planning Staff. The report recommends that Council endorse the Draft Nambucca DCP.

 

New copies of the Draft DCP will be provided to Councillors once the amendments as resolved by Council are made to the document and following advice of the operational date of the DCP.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council adopt the Nambucca DCP, subject to the following amendments:

 

a??????? the buffer distances for intensive livestock agriculture be amended to reflect the following:

 

 

Land Use

Amended DCP Separation Distance

 

 

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

500m

Dairies ? less than 500 head

 

Intensive livestock keeping establishments

(other than cattle feed lots, piggeries and poultry farms)

Piggeries ? less than 200 pigs

Poultry farms

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

1000m

Dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 200 pigs or more

 

b???? all ?major? development applications to be notified and/or advertised for a minimum period of 14 days.

 

3????????? That Council advertise the adoption of the Nambucca DCP 2010 in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and specify that the Nambucca DCP 2010 will commence upon gazettal of the NLEP 2010.

 

4????????? That Council notify all persons who made a submission to the draft Nambucca DCP 2010 and advise that the Nambucca DCP 2010, was adopted by Council subject to the amendments identified in 1 above.

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????? That Council make further changes to Nambucca DCP 2010;

?????? That Council not adopt the Nambucca DCP 2010

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

As part of the NSW Planning Reforms undertaken by the Department of Planning (DoP) all Council?s in NSW are required to ensure each allotment is only subject to the requirements of a single Development Control Plan. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979) was amended accordingly. Section 74C(2) of the EP&A Act states:

 

?Only one development control plan made by the same relevant planning authority may apply in respect of the same land.?

 

The DoP requires the Consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP) to be in place upon gazettal of Draft Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2009 (NLEP 2010). Draft NLEP 2010 has been referred to the Minister for Planning for gazettal. Council therefore needs to progress the finalisation of the Draft DCP.

 

Exhibition

 

Council endorsed the Draft Nambucca DCP 2010 for exhibition on the 6 May 2010. The DCP was then exhibited from 14 May to 11 June 2010.

 

The exhibition of the Draft DCP was completed in accordance with the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the completion of the exhibition period Council had received three (3) submissions. All the submissions related to the issue of buffer requirements, more specifically buffers to intensive livestock agriculture such as piggeries. Each of the submissions is provided in attachment.

 

An overview of the issues raised is presented below.

 

Buffers Distances

 

The submissions received indicated that buffer distances to livestock agriculture were too small and recommended that they be increased.

 

Planning Comment

 

The following table presents Council?s draft Nambucca DCP buffer requirements between Rural Dwellings and intensive livestock agriculture against those recommended by submissions:

 

Land Use

DCP Separation Distance

Submission Recommendations

 

 

1

2

3

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

300m

 

800m

 

800m

 

1000m

Dairies ? less than 500 head

 

Intensive livestock keeping establishments

(other than cattle feed lots, piggeries and poultry farms)

Piggeries ? less than 200 pigs

Poultry farms

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

500m

1500m

1500m

1000m

Dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 200 pigs or more

 

Since the Development of Councils DCP 16 Rural Buffers a number of documents have been released which recommend buffers to Piggeries and other Intensive uses.

 

The Department of Industry and Investment requires the following buffer distances within their document ?Living and Working in Rural Areas ? A handbook for Managing Landuse Conflict Issues on the NSW North Coast? (DPI, 2007).

 

 

The National Environmental Guideline for Piggeries (AustPork, ltd 2004) apply the following buffers from certain activities to piggeries:

?

 

Based on past and ongoing issues related to livestock agriculture undertaken in the shire and the figures presented in the above documents it may be appropriate to consider increasing the buffers for agricultural activities.

 

The following amendments are recommended to the buffer requirements of the Nambucca DCP (ie 300m to 500m and 500m to 1000m). They are a reasonable extension to the existing buffer provisions and are generally consistent with ?Living and Working in Rural Areas? (DPI, 2007). Should Council apply these buffers to future rural residential development and rural activities, Council will be less likely to encounter conflicting land use issues.

 

 

Land Use

Amended DCP Separation Distance

Buffer distances as exhibited

 

 

 

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

500m

 

 

 

 

 

300m

Dairies ? less than 500 head

 

Intensive livestock keeping establishments

(other than cattle feed lots, piggeries and poultry farms)

Piggeries ? less than 200 pigs

Poultry farms

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

1000m

500m

Dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 200 pigs or more

 

Note: It is noted that by applying these additional buffers there may be instances where variations need to be considered where existing allotments with dwelling entitlements cannot achieve the required separation to an existing activity.??

 

Buffers distances to Zones

 

The submissions received indicated consideration should also be given to buffers between zones and rural activities. For example a buffer should be provided between a Rural Residential zone and a piggery.

 

Planning Comment:

The DCP provides buffer distances from rural dwellings to rural activities and from sensitive environmental receptors to rural activities. It does not require buffers to land use zones.

 

New subdivisions, dwellings or proposed activities are required to demonstrate they can achieve the required separation distance. It does not appear necessary to apply the buffer to the zone boundaries.

 

Definitions and enforcement of buffer zones under 200 pigs

 

The submissions requested Council consider a definition of a piggery for the DCP. An example was provided which suggested a piggery is represented by 2 or more breeding sows.

 

A submission also suggested that Council could not enforce a buffer zone on a piggery that held less than 200 pigs or 20 breeding sows as the DCP is overridden by the SEPP.

 

Planning Comment:

As stated previously the Draft DCP will only become operational once the NLEP 2010 is gazetted and the NLEP 2010 defines ?intensive livestock agriculture? as:

 

?means the keeping or breeding, for commercial purposes, of cattle, poultry, goats, horses, or other livestock, that are fed wholly or substantially on externally-sourced feed, and includes the operation of feed lots, piggeries, poultry, farms or restricted dairies, but does not include the operation of facilities for drought or similar emergency relief or extensive agriculture or aquaculture?

 

A piggery would be captured by this definition if it is a commercial operation substantially or wholly reliant on an external feed source. It is not dependent on the number of pigs or breeding sows. Within the RU1 and RU2 Rural Zones intensive livestock industry is only permitted with consent.

 

In addition to the requirement of a Development Application, Council will require the provisions of SEPP 30 Intensive Agriculture to be applied once the thresholds of SEPP 30 are met by a proposal. For example an application for a piggery which has a capacity of 200 or more pigs or 20 breeding sows needs to be considered under clause 7 of SEPP 30.?

 

SEPP 30 does not contain any provisions which state another Planning Instrument may apply outside the application of SEPP 30 e.g SEPP 30 states the following:

 

?in the event of an inconsistency between this Policy and another environmental planning instrument, whether made before or after this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.?

 

In summary, a normal DA would be required if an application meets the definition of Intensive Livestock Agriculture under LEP, if an application also meets the threshold requirements of the SEPP then a DA which addresses the SEPP would be required.

 

Is it considered unnecessary to develop another definition for piggeries, as it is adequately captured by the definitions within the Nambucca LEP 2010 and SEPP 30.

 

Buffers to public roads

 

The submissions indicate that literature states public roads should have buffers to assist combating the spread of the disease as well as maintaining the public health and amenity of the area.

 

Planning Comment:

The DCP requires setbacks of 20m to a sealed rural road and 300m to an unsealed rural road and Council has not encountered any issues with these setbacks. These setbacks are related to the construction of buildings/dwellings not activities.

 

Ensuring agricultural activities are separated from public roads is not unreasonable, however it would have the following implications to rural activities:

 

?????? reduce the extent of land available to undertake rural pursuits; and

?????? add significant cost to rural activities in relation fencing etc;

 

Should Council wish to formally implement such buffers it is recommended they be consistent with ?Living and Working in Rural Areas? (DPI 2007) which range from 20m to 100m depending on the activity. Alternatively Council could rely on staff appropriately conditioning development consents to restrict activities adjacent to public roads if necessary.??

 

Intensive Livestock agriculture and lot size

 

The submissions raised concerns that the DCP does not consider Lot size of the land in which livestock agriculture may occur and they recommended that buffers should be required to be contained fully within the property boundaries.

 

Planning Comment:

The NLEP 2010 will restrict intensive livestock agriculture to certain rural zones. Any future subdivision of these zones is restricted to a 40or 100Ha minimum lot size. Due to this later LEP provision the majority of Rural Land will be 40HA, 100HA or greater in size.

 

Those existing lots which are zoned rural and less than 40 HA in size should still be able to undertake Intensive Livestock Agriculture if appropriate consideration is given to buffers and other relevant matters. Restricting this type of development from occurring on smaller rural lots may needlessly reduce the potential for agricultural pursuits to be undertaken in the shire.

 

Councils DCP is designed to ensure conflicting land uses do not arise between residential and rural activities. Its effectiveness is not governed by land on which a buffer lies, but the distance between the activities. By requiring buffers to be fully located within allotment boundaries may unnecessarily reduce agricultural and rural residential potential.

 

It is considered unnecessary to further restrict activities to certain lot sizes and it is considered unnecessary to restrict buffers to allotment boundaries.

 

Notification and Advertising

 

The consolidated DCP requires a minimum period of 21 days for the receipt of submissions for ?major? development applications. A large proportion of these applications do not have any significant environmental impacts. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the 21 day notification and advertising period may be excessive and unnecessarily add to the processing time for the majority of ?major? development applications. It is therefore suggested that all ?major? development applications should only be notified and/or advertised for a minimum period of 14 days.

 

It should be noted that the DCP includes a provision to allow Council to extend the notification and/or advertising period up to 28 days where there may be significant community interest and/or where potential environmental impacts are anticipated.

 

The proposed 14 day advertising period is in keeping with the statutory provisions under Clause 89 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The Draft Nambucca DCP will provide Council with development controls which aim to achieve environmentally sustainable development outcomes. The DCP should improve environmental management by including provisions that are consistent with best planning practice.

 

Social

 

The Draft Nambucca DCP provides the detailed planning framework to protect the existing and future amenity of Council?s urban and rural communities.

 

Economic

 

The Draft Nambucca DCP provides development controls that will influence the future sustainable economic development of the Shire.

 

Risk

 

The exhibition of the Draft Nambucca DCP has provided the community with an opportunity to review and comment on amendments and additions to Council?s development controls. The submissions received have been given appropriate consideration within this report and Council.

 

Should Council not proceed with the adoption of the draft Nambucca DCP at this time, it may reduce the opportunity to have a DCP adopted and in place when the NLEP 2010 is gazetted.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The new consolidated DCP has been prepared ?in house?. The cost for advertising the new DCP was sourced from the current Department of Environment and Planning budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

NIL

 

Attachments:

1View

15252/2010 - Submissions - Draft Nambucca DCP

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan

 


??


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF90??????????????? 010710???????? Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 June 2010

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services; Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The minutes of the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee meeting held 1 June 2010 are attached for Council information and adoption.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee meeting held on 1 June 2010.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Seek clarification or refer matters back to Traffic Committee.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

1??????? That Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee meets every 2 months, generally on the first Tuesday of that month.

 

2??????? The members of the Committee met on the 1 June 2010 and determined a number of matters as per attached minutes.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Sergeant J Langan (NSW Police)

?????????????? Ms T McAuley (Roads and Traffic Authority)

?????????????? Mr B Redman (Nambucca Shire Council/Chairperson)

?????????????? Mr K Williams (Nambucca Shire Council/Manager Technical Services)

?????????????? Mr B Duffus (Representing State Local Member for Oxley)

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental issues involved in the approval process.

 

Social

 

There are no social issues involved in the approval process.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues involved in the approval process.

 

Risk

 

Decisions are based on guidelines and regulations.

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budget contains provision for actions associated with the recommendations of the Committee.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No variance to works funds required.

 

Attachments:

1View

14163/2010 - Minutes - Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting - 1 June 2010

 

?

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 June 2010

 

PRESENT

 

Bruce Redman

(Nambucca Shire Council & Chairman)

Keith Williams

(Nambucca Shire Council)

Sergeant Jarrod Langan

(NSW Police)

Ms T McAuley

(Roads and Traffic Authority)

Mr B Duffus

(Local State Member Representative)

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

There were no apologies for this meeting.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

There were no Disclosures of Interest declared.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

21/10 Resolved:

 

That the Committee note the adoption and endorsement of the recommendations of the Minutes of the Meeting held 19 April 2010, by Council at its meeting of 6 May 2010.

 

 

?

Director Engineering Services Report

ITEM 5.1????? SF90????????????????? 010610????? Bellwood Park - Pedestrian Traffic Conflict

22/10 Resolved:

 

Council endorse the safety enhancements proposed for the Bellwood Park access road with the through road speed limit of 50km/h to be retained.

 

 

ITEM 5.2????? SF90????????????????? 010610????? Dangerous Intersection Winifred and Princess Streets Macksville

23/10 Resolved:

 

Install a STOP line and supporting signage at the intersection of Princess and Winifred Streets Macksville to improve vehicular safety as warranted by RTA Guidelines.

 

 

 


 

ITEM 5.3????? SF90????????????????? 010610????? Parking Restrictions in Nancye Roberts Drive Macksville

24/10 Resolved:

 

That Council install appropriate signage on a section of Nancye Roberts Drive Macksville to create a No Parking zone to maintain hospital access.? No Stopping zone on the eastern side and intersection with Boundary Street to have Regulatory signs upgraded.

 

 

ITEM 5.4????? SF90????????????????? 010610????? Ferry Street, Macksville Parking Arrangements

25/10 Resolved:

 

1??????? That the double barrier centre line on Ferry Street be extended from number 58 to the Pacific Highway a distance of 350 metres, essentially restricting any on road parking or stopping on this section of Ferry Street to allow for safer vehicle movements.

 

2??????? Remove the current No Stopping zone on the southern side of Ferry Street opposite numbers 56 and 57.

 

???

GB14/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Application for B-Double Route from Burgundy Heights Pty Ltd (Ref SF1499)

Council received an application for B-Double routes from Burgundy Heights Pty Ltd.? The proposed routes extend along:

 

a??????? Old Coast Road from Pacific Highway to Newee Creek sawmill via Siding Road and Wirrimbi Road.

b??????? Old Coast Road from Siding Road to Sacks Ridge Road

 

A preliminary assessment has been conducted by Council staff who recommend refusal of the applications due to the windy road alignment, potential for traffic accidents and potential for extensive use by other

B-Double operators.

 

26/10 Resolved:

 

Burgundy Heights be invited to conduct a field trial of the proposed routes in conjunction with the next Nambucca Shire Local Traffic Committee meeting.

 

 

GB15/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Removal of Bus Zone Outside Nambucca Heads Uniting Church Ridge Street Nambucca Heads (Ref SF90)

It has been brought to Council?s attention that there is an existing obsolete bus zone outside the Uniting Church, Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

27/10 Resolved:

 

That the obsolete bus zone on Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads outside the Uniting Church be removed and replaced by an extension of the adjacent 1 Hour Parking zone.

 

 

 

 

 


GB16/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Request for Parking Restrictions outside 44 Riverside Drive Nambucca Heads (Ref SF90)

A resident has requested the installation of a No Parking area in front of a private driveway adjacent to Bellwood Store, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads.? Emergency access may be required by the occupant who has cancer and customers using the Bellwood store continually block the driveway with their vehicles.

 

28/10 Resolved:

 

That Council staff develop a Concept Plan for the parking area outside Bellwood Store Nambucca Heads for Council to consider as a future project.

 

 

GB17/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Request for Temporary Road Closure to Conduct Drag-Ens Hot Rod Club Display (Ref SF90)

An Application for an Event On Public Road has been received from the Drag-Ens Hot Rod Club for the annual street display to be held on the 2 October 2009 in Bowra Street Nambucca Heads.

 

29/10 Resolved:

 

That approval is granted to the Drag-Ens Hot Rod Club Inc for the Drag-Ens Hot Rod Display to be held on 2 October 2009 in Bowra Street Nambucca Heads subject to:

 

??????????? The placement of signs in accordance with the Traffic Control Plan provided with your application.

??????????? Signs are to be removed immediately following the event.

??????????? Advise emergency services of the road closures eg NSW Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance.

??????????? Event to be advertised by roadside signs and in a local newspaper.

 

 

GB18/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Request for a Disabled Parking Bay and an Emergency Vehicle Parking Bay (Ref SF90)

Council have received a request for the installation of a Disabled Parking Bay and an Emergency Vehicle Parking Bay outside the Bowraville Healthcare Centre, High Street, Bowraville.

 

30/10 Resolved:

 

The Applicant is to provide a letter of concurrence from the Bowraville Chamber of Commerce stating their approval and concurrence to the request for the installation of a Disabled Parking Bay and an Emergency Vehicle Parking Bay outside the Bowraville Healthcare Centre, High Street, Bowraville.

 

 

GB19/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Provision of Disabled Parking and Emergency Vehicle Parking Bay within the Woolworths complex at Macksville (Ref SF90)

A medical centre may look at relocating their rooms to the speciality shops within the Woolworths complex at Macksville.? Council staff have advised Centre Management that a request for Disabled Parking and Emergency Vehicle Parking may well eventuate.

 

31/10 Resolved:

 

This is not a matter for the Nambucca Shire Local Traffic Committee and that the medical centre will have to negotiate any parking requirements with the Woolworths Centre management.

 

 

GB20/10 - Ms T McAuley - Speed Zone Reviews (Ref SF90)

The RTA representative has recommended any speed zone review requests be tabled at the local Traffic Committee meeting in an effort to gain as much information as possible and collect any support data.

 

32/10 Resolved:

 

That the Traffic Committee members concur with the RTA?s representative recommendation to table all speed zone reviews at the local Traffic Committee meetings.

 

 

GB21/10 - Mr Barry Duffus - Various Issues (Ref SF90)

Mr Duffus has requested further consideration to the following issues:

 

1??????? Clearing of vegetation at the intersection of Boggy Creek Road and the Pacific Highway.

2??????? Why was the Woolworths development allowed to proceed without improvements to Fraser Street , which has now been deemed a ?Black Spot? and funding attained from the State Government to reduce the risk of traffic accidents?

3??????? Why didn?t the Traffic Committee require the Woolworths install turning lanes into the service station on Mann Street, Nambucca Heads?

4??????? Can Seaview Street speed limit be reduced to 40 km/h to reduce the possibility of vehicle conflict?

 

33/10 Resolved:

 

1??????? That the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee note the concerns raised by Mr Barry Duffus and that Council?s Director Engineering Services has previously written to Mr Duffus addressing his concerns.

 

2??????? Seaview Street does not warrant a speed reduction as per RTA guidelines.

 

 

GB22/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Pavement Markings in Boundary Street Macksville (Ref SF90)

Stephen Webb has expressed his concerns regarding the new traffic signals at the intersection of Boundary and Cooper Streets Macksville and the impact it is having on his service station.

 

Mr Webb has requested Council install a Keep Clear area in front of the service station access on Boundary Street, Macksville.

 

34/10 Resolved:

 

That Council staff notify Mr Webb that marked Keep Clear areas are not provided for access to businesses or properties.

 

 

GB23/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Sight Distance Wallace Lane Macksville (Ref SF90)

Council has received a request to install a mirror at the intersection of Wallace Lane and Wallace Street Macksville to improve the sight distance for pedestrians of oncoming vehicles along Wallace Lane.

 

35/10 Resolved:

 

Council does not encourage the use of convex mirrors in these circumstances as they distort the perception of distance of vehicles for pedestrians.? Further investigations will be carried out to improve safety at the intersection.

 

 

 

GB24/10 - Mr Keith Williams - Truck Movements on to the Pacific Highway from Beaurepairs Macksville (Ref SF90)

Trucks leaving Beaurepairs adjacent to Cooper Street Macksville are entering the new slip lane on the Pacific Highway and causing damage to the new kerbline. Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority have concerns about these movements and recommend the installation of barriers to encourage use of the existing layback.

 

36/10 Resolved:

 

Roads and Traffic Authority will investigate the possibility of installing kerbside bollards to prevent damaging truck movements from heavy vehicles exiting from Beaurepairs Macksville.

 

 

 

 

?

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held on 3 August commencing at 10.30 am.

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson then closed the meeting the time being 1.30 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________

Bruce Redman

DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

CHAIRPERSON

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2??? RF103????????????? 010710???????? Removal of Barrier at Herborn Street, Bowraville

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Bowraville Local Aboriginal Land Council has requested the removal of the guardrail barrier that exists across Herborn Street, Bowraville.

 

The barrier was erected in the mid 1980?s at the request of the residents in the street.

 

Council revue? the situation in 2006 and resolved to retain the barrier.

 

The opportunity should be taken to remove the barrier and permit traffic flow again.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the guardrail barrier across Herborn Street, Bowraville, near the South Arm Road intersection be removed and open to through vehicular traffic.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Remove guardrail barrier

2??????? Retain guardrail barrier

3??????? Defer until 2011/2012 when upgrading the bitumen surface is scheduled

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In the mid 1980?s a barrier was placed across Herborn Street, Bowraville to stop through traffic using this street to access South Arm Road.? I understand the reason was pedestrian safety.

 

This matter was revisited by Council on 16 November 2006.? A Works Inspection was held on-site and the resident of the house nearest to the corner objected to the proposal to remove the barrier.? The Bowraville Chamber of Commerce at that time supported the removal of the barrier.

 

The Bowraville Local Aboriginal Land Council has now come forward on behalf of Bowraville Aboriginal Community members who live in the area are seeking the removal of the barricade.

 

Over the last few years footpaths have been constructed in Carbin Street and South Arm Road thereby improving pedestrian safety.

 

In terms of traffic flow, residents of Herborn Street will be able to avoid any congestion that arises at the school or the Recreation Club at busy times.

 

The guardrail barrier across Herborn Street represents an unnecessary impediment to traffic flow and further there is support from residents in close proximity for its removal.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Bowraville Local Aboriginal Land Council

?????????????? General Manager

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No changes.

 

Social

 

The guardrail across Herborn Street is a physical barrier within a neighbourhood.

 

Economic

 

No significant change.

 

Risk

 

There will still be residents that do not agree with removing the barrier even if the majority agree.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost of removing the guardrail and repairing the road is estimated at $600.

 

Herborn Street will need general pothole repairs to make it serviceable.? It is listed for a ?hot-mix? surface in the next budget (2011/2012) at a cost of $27,000.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The existing streets maintenance budget for Bowraville is sufficient to meet this cost.

 

Attachments:

1View

14758/2010 - Letter from Bowraville Chamber of Commerece Requesting removal of barrier

 

2View

12141/2006 - Letter to Bowraville Chamber of Commerce - Advising not to remove the guardrail

 

3View

14754/2010 - Map of Herborn Street, Bowraville

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Removal of Barrier at Herborn Street, Bowraville

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Removal of Barrier at Herborn Street, Bowraville

 

Enquiries to:???? Mr B Redman

Our Ref:????????? RF103

 

 

 

17 November 2006

 

 

 

Mr B Lawler

The President

Bowraville Chamber of Commerce

PO Box 104

BOWRAVILLE? NSW? 2449

 

 

Dear Mr Lawler

 

HERBORN STREET, BOWRAVILLE

 

Council considered removing the guardrail across Herborn Street near South Arm Road at a meeting on the 16 November 2006.

 

There was some concern by one of the residents in that street about road safety resulting from ?loutish? behaviour in cars and Council resolved not to remove the barriers.

 

Your consultation in this matter has been appreciated.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

B R REDMAN

DIRECTOR

OPERATIONS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

BRR:tb

 

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Removal of Barrier at Herborn Street, Bowraville

 

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF85??????????????? 010710???????? Rural Fire Service - Service Level Agreement

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Nambucca Shire Council, Kempsey Shire Council and the NSW Rural Fire Service operate as the Lower North Coast Zone.

 

The arrangement is formalised through a Service Agreement.? A new Agreement has been presented for Council?s adoption.? Typically the Agreements are revised every four years.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council sign and seal the Lower North Coast Zone Rural Fire District Service Agreement for the period commencing 1 July 2010 until terminated.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Sign and seal the Agreement

2??????? Seek amendments before signing and sealing the Agreement

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service operates as the Lower North Coast Zone for both the Nambucca and Kempsey Shire Councils.? The arrangement is formalised through the Rural Fire District Service Agreement.? That document outlines the roles of the Rural Fire Service and each Council as defined by the Rural Fires Act 1997 and as delegated.

 

The Agreement is ready for renewal to cover the next four years starting 1 July 2010.? This is the third Agreement.

 

The Agreement is administered by a Liaison Committee which comprises:

 

a??????? One Councillor from each of the Councils appointed by resolution of the Councils;

b??????? The General Manager of each of the Councils or his or her delegate (Director Engineering);

c??????? One volunteer rural fire fighter from each of the Districts appointed by the local branch of the NSW Rural Fire Service Association Inc (?the RFSA?), or, in the absence of a local branch of the RFSA, elected in accordance with the applicable Service Standard;

d??????? One member of the RFS staff assigned to the Zone nominated by the Zone Manager and approved by the Regional Manager for the Zone;

e??????? The RFS Zone Manager who will be the Committee?s Executive Officer.

 

Council?s current representatives are Councillor Ainsworth and the Director Engineering Services Mr Bruce Redman as determined in September of each year.? The Committee meets quarterly or six monthly as determined.

 

The Agreement has worked satisfactorily and provides a forum for the Rural Fire Service and the two Councils to meet on an regular basis to discuss issues and performance measures.

 

Kempsey Shire Council have signed the Agreement. A draft copy of the Agreement is attached.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

NSW Rural Fire Service Acting Area Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No new issues.

 

Social

 

No new issues.

 

Economic

 

No new issues.

 

Risk

 

The three parties of NSW Rural Fire Service, Nambucca Shire Council and Kempsey Shire Council must concur with the Agreement.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No change to costings.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Already provided in annual budgets.

 

Attachments:

1View

15016/2010 - Draft Agreement for the NSW Rural Fire Service

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Rural Fire Service - Service Level Agreement

 













































?


Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF98??????????????? 010710???????? Road Naming - Crown Road off corner Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has received a request to name a previously unnamed Crown Road off Lower Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville.

 

Ms Robyn McDonald will be moving to a property that has access off the aforementioned Crown Road in August 2010 and has asked Council to name the road for ease of Emergency Services navigation in case of an incident.

 

Ms McDonald has contacted four neighbouring property owners who have access to the Crown Road, with signed consent of two of the neighbours concurring to the name Deer Hill Road.

 

The proposed name Deer Hill Road was advertised for a period of 21 days.? Council received 2 objections to the proposed name from the remaining two neighbours, one of whom offered an alternative name Sunnyside that was rejected by Ms McDonald on principal.

 

Council is not the naming Authority for Crown Roads, however in an attempt to satisfy Ms McDonald?s request? an attempt is being made to achieve a satisfactory resolution.

 

It appears there will not be an agreement by all parties on a road name therefore Council has the opportunity to recommend one name to the Department of Lands for their adoption.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council recommend to the Department of Lands to adopt either Deer Hill Road or Sunnyside Road as the name of the previously unnamed Crown Road off Lower Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Adopt one of the recommended names and advise the Department of Lands

2??????? Council take no part in the naming of the Road

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a request by a Ms Robyn McDonald to name a previously unnamed road off Lower Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville.

 

Ms McDonald intends to move to her property Lot 1 DP 816887 Lower Buckrabendinni Road in August 2010.? Her only access comes off an unnamed Crown Road.

 

The request for a road name relates to having a street number off a named road for Emergency Services purposes.

 

Ms McDonald has an intellectually disabled child and is also concerned Emergency Services will not be able to find her property in case of an emergency or an incident.

 

Ms McDonald has previously contacted four neighbours who have properties adjoining the Crown Road with a view to agreeing on a name.

 

Ms McDonald has provided three signed letters including her own concurring to the name Deer Hill Road.

 

Council staff advertised this name on 22 April 2010 for a period of 21 days and also notified the owners of Lots fronting the Crown Road.

 

Two objections were received within the advertising period, one written and one verbal.? Both objectors took offence to the name Deer Hill Road as Deers are considered a feral animal locally.

 

A counter name Sunnyside was offered by one of the objectors, Mr Rozenboom where he suggests the other objector concurs to.

 

Ms McDonald has been advised of the objection and asked if she supported the name ?Sunnyside? she flatly refused to support this name.

 

The Crown Road has access to Lower Buckrabendinni Road via a Right of Carriageway through Lot 3 DP 821906 (Mr Rozenboom) therefore supplementary signage will be required to direct traffic to Crown Road.? Physical access to the Crown Road from Lower Buckrabendinni Road is restricted due to the terrain.

 

To further complicate the issue Mr Rozenboom intends to purchase a section of the Crown Road, this will have an impact on the Road Numbering.

 

The property was known as Sunnyside and housed to the community tennis courts from the late 1800?s.

 

Council staff have previously written to the Land and Property Management Authority requesting their concurrence to Council?s role in the administration of the naming of the Crown Road while acknowledging their care and control of the Crown Road.

 

As there is a need to name the Crown Road and a unanimous Agreement cannot be achieved by joining owners.? Council now has the opportunity to nominate a name for the Department of Lands to adopt.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Department of Lands

?????????????? Surveyor

?????????????? Manager Technical Services

?????????????? Adjoining Property Owners

?????????????? Mayor

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No impact on the Environment.

 

Social

 

The names and support provides means of identification.

 

Economic

 

Ongoing maintenance cost is low.

 


Risk

 

Poor identification of addresses can lead to difficulties for Emergency Services, visitors and services.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council will meet all sign costs.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No variances to working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

8556/2010 - Location Map for proposed naming of Crown road off Lower Buckrabendinni Road

 

2View

10121/2010 - Advice on proposed naming of Public Road - Deer Hill Road

 

3View

11493/2010 - Objection - Austact (P Rozenboom)

 

4View

8558/2010 - First notification - Department of Lands

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Road Naming - Crown Road off corner Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville

 

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Road Naming - Crown Road off corner Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Road Naming - Crown Road off corner Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 July 2010

Road Naming - Crown Road off corner Buckrabendinni Road, Bowraville

 

Enquiries to:???? Mr K Williams

Phone No:??????? 02 6568 0237

Our Ref:????????? SF98

 

 

 

8 April 2010

 

 

Mr Stephen Houlahan

Department of Lands

PO Box 272

GRAFTON? NSW? 2460

 

Dear Sir

 

NAMING OF CROWN ROAD OFF LOWER BUCKRABENDINNI ROAD

 

I refer to our telephone conversation earlier today regarding the naming of a Crown road off Lower Buckrabendinni Road, Buckra Bendinni.

 

We acknowledge that Land Property management Authority have care and control of the Crown road that provides access to the following properties:

 

Lot 3???????? DP 821906????????? Lot 1? DP 816887

Lot 21?????? DP 835589????????? Lot 1? DP 1120931

Lot 22?????? DP 835589

 

Please confirm that the Land and Property Management Authority approves Council?s role in the administration of naming of the Crown road.?

 

This is the first notification that Council proposes to name this previously unnamed Crown road and that subject to advertising and notification, Council intends to adopt the following proposed name:

 

Location???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? New Name

Crown road off Lower Buckra Bendinni Road ??????????? Deer Hill Road

 

See attached plan for locality.? Your comments would be appreciated on or before the 2.00 pm on the 6 May 2010.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Keith Williams

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

KW:hl

 

Enc?? Location Map (Our Ref: TRIM 8556/2010)

?? ?