NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

General Purpose Committee - 14 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 Aboriginals present.

 

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

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3??????? General Manager Report

8.1???? Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

8.2???? Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

8.3???? Saleyard fee comparison

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

9.1???? Extension of Sewer to the Lower Nambucca and Shire Villages

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

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

10.1?? Policy Review - Smoke Free Outdoor Areas

10.2?? Policy Review - Noxious Weeds and Animals - Control of Camphor Laurel

10.3?? Scotts Head Master Plan ?

 

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

Page

Item

8.30-8.40

INTRODUCTION OF NEW STAFF - Annette Welsh (Customer Service Officer) Candice Lopez (Customer Service Officer - Technical) and Dan Finlayson (IT Support Officer)

CC

 

 

8.40 ? 9.00

Policy Review - Smoke Free Outdoor Areas

Policy Review - Noxious Weeds & Animals - Control of Camphor Laurel

CC

56

59

10.1

10.2

 

9.00 -10.00

Scotts Head Reserve (Caravan Park)

CC

67

10.3

10.00 am

Morning Tea

CC

 

 

10.15-10.30

Saleyard Fee Comparison

CC

26

8.3

10.30-10.45

Extension of Sewer - Lower Nambucca & Shire Villages

CC

30

9.1

10.45-11.15

Exhibition of Draft Nambucca DCP - Report 9.5 from 1 July 2010

DELEGATION: Mr Geoff Goesch (Buffer zones)

CC

34

9.2

11.15 -11.45

Regional & Local Community Infrastructure Program Grant - Round 3Macksville Park - Temporary Storage

OS

14

8.2

12.00-1.00

Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Encroachments on Crown Land

OS

4

8.1

1.00

Lunch

V Wall

 

 

 

?


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

??????? ?


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1????? SF1480??????????? 140710???????? Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

 

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

 

Summary:

 

This report is submitted to council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Managers of Reserve R88941.

 

Council has recently considered encroachment lease issues for the reserve abounding the White Albatross Caravan Park in Nambucca Heads. ?The matters raised in this report are essentially the same as the encroachment matters at the White Albatross and the same principles apply.

 

Council is the Reserve Trust Manager of the Nambucca Heads Public Recreation Reserve (R88941) being the Reserve surrounding the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park at Swimming Creek, Nambucca Heads. (Copy of aerial map circularised for Councillors.) ?The Gazetted purpose of the Reserve is for the Public Recreation and Preservation of Native Flora over part Lot 7003 DP 1113130 and part Lot 7001 DP 1117183.? A copy of the site plan for the Caravan Park is a circulated document to Councillors.

 

A number of dwellings, sheds, awning and garden spaces in the Caravan park encroach onto the Reserve.

 

The Trust has previously leased the encroached area to the Park Operator on the proviso the encroachments would be corrected. ?The Minister of Lands has previously consented to the leases notwithstanding the lease was contrary to the gazetted purpose of the Reserve.

 

The current lease is due to expire in May 2011. ?The Lessee has not removed the encroachments and it appears that it is unlikely that the encroachments will be removed prior to the expiry of the lease.

 

The Park Operator has requested grant of further tenure.

 

The Trust can seek to enforce removal of the encroachments or grant a further Lease. Ministerial consent will be required for the grant of a further lease.

 

In the event a further lease is granted the Trust will need to ensure that appropriate fire risk mitigation measures are taken, including the establishment of a satisfactory APZ to the Northern and Eastern boundaries of the park.

 

It is recommended that Council grant further tenure for a period of ten years on the proviso the Lessee meets all costs associated with the preparation and registration of the lease and such other conditions required by Councils legal advisors on the matter.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1????????? That Council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Manager for Reserve R88941 offer to the Registered Proprietor of Lot 162 in DP755560 (?the Operator?) a ten year Lease of part Lot 7003 DP 1113130 and part? Lot 7001 DP1117183 being the area encroached upon by improvements on the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park on the proviso:

 

i?????????? The Operator meets all costs associated with the preparation and registration of the Lease;

ii????????? The Operator, at the operators expense, establishes an APZ on the Northern and Eastern boundaries of the Park in accordance with and pursuant to the recommendations and directions of the Land and Property Management Authority;

iii???????? That the Operator relocate immediately all dwellings situate over the Council rising main the subject of the registered easement;

iv???????? That all other encroachments will be entirely removed prior to or upon expiry of the Lease;

v????????? The Lease contain any other term or condition deemed necessary by Council?s Legal advisors on the matter.

 

2????????? That the rent under the proposed Lease of part Lot 7003 DP 1113130 and part? Lot 7001 DP1117183 be determined by independent market evaluation on a best and highest use basis, such valuation to be obtained at the expense of the Lessee.

 

3????????? The Operator of the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park be advised that Council is unable to renew the Operating Approval for the Caravan Park/Holiday Centre until such time as the encroachment issues are either resolved or a new Lease over part of the adjoining Reserve area R88941 is granted.

 

4????????? That the General Manager and the Mayor be authorised to conclude negotiations for the Lease terms and conditions and execute all documents required to give effect to the Lease of part Reserve R88941.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Options are relatively straight forward. Council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Manager for Reserve R88941 can seek to remedy the encroachments now or later. It is proposed that the grant of long term tenure will afford the Trust and the Park Operator sufficient time to address the encroachment issues whilst reducing the adverse affect on current occupants. ?This approach will of course require ongoing management.

 

Alternatively, Council can seek to resolve the encroachment issue immediately and thereby avoid ongoing operational and management costs. ?It is proffered that aggressive action in this regard will likely result in a costly exercise with significant resistance from affected park patrons.

 

Council can make representations to the Department of Lands for the encroached land to be transferred to the Park Operator at market consideration. ?Note the Department of Lands has indicated that it will not acquiesce to this request

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council is the Reserve Trust Manager for the Nambucca Heads Public Recreation Reserve (R88941).? The Reserve is located at the northern end of Swimming Creek Road, Nambucca Heads.

 

Many of the issues that impact on Council?s role as the Reserve Trust Manager also may impact on Council?s ability to issue ongoing operating approvals for the park, particularly where there are encroachments on the Reserve and no formal Lease in place to recognise these encroachments.

 

Numerous portable buildings, awnings, sheds and gardens in the caravan park encroach onto the Reserve. ?Reportedly infrastructure servicing the park has also been laid on the Reserve. Previously the Trust has leased the area of encroachment to the Park Operator. The current Lease is due to expire in May 2011.

 

The Caravan Park is currently being assessed for renewal of its operating approval and without either removal of all encroachments, or a formal Lease over the Reserves area to recognise these encroachments, a new operating approval can not be issued under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The express intention of the Lease was that the Lessee would, throughout the course of the tenure, remove encroachments from the leased area and deliver the land in its original state and condition, free of encroachments, upon expiry of the Lease.

 

The Lessee has not removed the encroachments and it appears that it is unlikely that the encroachments will be removed prior to the expiry of the Lease.

 

A further dwelling has been erected almost entirely on the Reserve and over the easement for rising main. Councils Health and Building staff, in processing an application for a further operating license, have advised the park operator that this dwelling, irrespective of future lease arrangements, will need to be relocated to within the park.

 

The use of the Reserve as a caravan park (that part of the park that encroaches onto the Reserve) is contrary to the Gazetted purpose of the Reserve, being Public Recreation and Preservation of Native Flora. Previous Lease terms have sought to acknowledge and correct this.

 

Enforcing the removal of the encroachment is problematic because the dwellings are:

 

1??????? The primary residence of the owners;

2??????? May not able to be economically relocated due to their age or type of construction;

3??????? May be unable to be relocated to within the park due to space constraints.

 

Notwithstanding this it is incumbent on the Trust to ensure that the encroachments are managed and controlled so that further encroachment does not occur and efforts are directed to removing the encroachments in due course.

 

The Lessee has requested that the area the subject of encroachments be transferred to them by way of a boundary adjustment with appropriate consideration. (Diagram of Boundary Survey attached.)? The Land and Property Management Authority (Grafton) however resolutely advised that the transfer of the land was not an option.

 

The Lessee has also requested the grant of a further long-term tenure.

 

There have been numerous discussions with representatives from the Land and Property Management Authority (Grafton) on this matter.

 

Issues canvassed include:

 

1??????? The practicality of enforcing the removal of the encroachments including:

 

????????? i???????? The displacement of residents

ii??????? The potential for council becoming embroiled in legal proceedings by the affected park patrons.

????????? iii?????? The cost of enforcing the removal of the encroachment.

 

2??????? The legality of ongoing tenure.

 

3??????? The cost of administering on going tenure.

 

4??????? Liability issues arising to the Trust in light of the deficient APZ on the Eastern and Northern boundaries.

 

Another matter for the Trust to consider is the dual role of Reserve Trust Manager and Local Government Authority.? Council is the consent authority for the issue operating Licence for the caravan park.? Any grant of tenure would need to be reflected in the terms and conditions of the operating license and vice versa.

 


Examining the above issues separately:

 

1??????? Practicality of enforcing the removal of the encroachments

 

Dwelling encroachments are problematic as they are privately owned by the occupiers who use them as their principal place of residence.? Reportedly the dwellings constitute the owners only major asset and therein represent substantial security for the owners.

 

The Park Operator advises that in some instance there is insufficient room within the park to allow for relocation and remain compliant with setback and access requirements.

 

In some instances the dwellings are not in a condition that would allow relocation without substantial cost and/or damage to the structure.

 

Having regard to the above it is likely that any attempt to relocate the residence would result in media attention.? Notwithstanding the legal legitimacy of the action the fact remains that the dwelling encroachments are relatively minor and do not substantially detract from the public use of the reserve.? On this basis it is presumed that enforcement proceedings would attract adverse media attention.

 

The cost of removal and any legal matters arising there from would need to be met by the Trust in the first instance and then recouped from the Lessee and/or owners.

 

Notwithstanding, the Lessee has proceeded to permit the installation of moveable dwellings and outbuildings that encroach upon the reserve contrary to the Lease and Approval to Operate a Caravan Park conditions.? The regulatory provisions of the Local Government Act have not been instigated at this stage pending the outcome of Council's consideration.

 

2??????? Legality of ongoing Tenure

 

The grant of Lease for the encroachment is inconsistent with the gazetted purpose of the Reserve and is not permissible without Ministerial consent.? A Lease exceeding five years would need to be registered and would constitute a subdivision under the EPA Act 1979.? Plans would need to be compiled and lodged. Native Title interest may need to be investigated.

 

Land Property Management Authority staff have advised that they would support an application for ongoing tenure on certain conditions, principally that the rent is at market rates and that efforts were being made to restore the Reserve to its gazetted purpose (see recommendations).

 

 

3??????? Cost of administering ongoing Tenure

 

From a Reserve perspective there is no public benefit in granting tenure to the caravan park for encroachments. Accordingly it is proposed that any costs arising from the tenure be borne by the Lessee.

 

If appraisal of current market rent does not meet these costs then the proposed Lease payment should be increased accordingly.

 

It is proposed that the Lessee be required to submit a bond which would be redeemable by the Trust in the event the terms of the Lease are breached or there are further encroachments onto the Reserve.

 

 


4??????? Establishment of a satisfactory APZ to the Northern and Eastern boundaries

 

Staff obtained legal advice to the effect that the Trust would potentially be liable for damages for injury or damage arsing from bush fires on the basis the encroachments are not protected by a sufficient APZ.

 

On the strength of this advice the Operator was instructed to obtain a fire risk assessment report detailing the risk mitigation measures required at the park to enable the trust to properly consider the issues arising from a potential lease.

 

The recommendations included the establishment of a 30 m APZ to the Northern and Eastern Boundaries. ?The Department of Lands support the recommendation of the risk mitigation report on the proviso a Review of Environmental Factors does not bring to light any adverse environmental impacts (particularly the possible impacts of clearing vegetation on the eastern aspect for the potential of coastal erosion processes).

 

It is proposed that any Lease would include provision for the ongoing maintenance and management of this part of the Reserve by the Operator.

 

It is not considered practical or cost effective to seek to enforce the removal of encroachments at this stage.

 

Proposed terms for a long term tenure to include:

 

1??????? The Lessee at the Lessees expense:

 

????????? i????????????? Obtain an independent market valuation of ?best and highest use? rent for the area of encroachment. Note it is not proposed that any discount be offered with respect to this tenure irrespective of the terms of previous Leases. It should be noted that the Land and Property Management Authority position in this regard is:

 

??????????????????????? ?Our position is that these prior tenures were provided on more than favourable terms to the holder so as to temporarily authorise the occupation of the land and provide an adequate window for the holder to facilitate the removal of the encroachments. Our view is that upon expiry of the initial tenures this window has closed and any new tenure would reflect standard terms and conditions as related to the ongoing commercial use of the land?.

 

ii???????????? Commission a Review of Environmental Factors (and if necessary an Environment Impact Statement) to determine the viability and impact of establishing the recommended APZ.

iii??????????? Establish the APZ pursuant to Land and Property Management Authority guidelines or as they may otherwise direct.

iv??????????? Compile the Plan of Subdivision and all other documents required to register the Lease

v???????????? Meet all legal costs of the Lessor (the Trust)

 

2????????? The premise of the Lease is to remove/relocate the encroaching structures prior to the expiry of the Lease or as they are vacated or sold whichever occurs earlier.

 

3????????? That the perimeter of the Leased area be defined by the erection of a bollard style fence line to be erected at the Lessee expense.

 

4????????? That the Lessee submit a bond of $25,000.00 redeemable by the Trust in the event the terms of the Lease are breached or further encroachments are made onto the Reserve.

 

5????????? The Lessee then satisfying Council's requirements under the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 including the redefining of the boundaries of the park and park site layout.

 

Access to the Reserve from Swimming Creek Road

 

Access to the Reserve from Swimming Creek Road is via a timber bridge construction to Lot 178/727302 being a Crown parcel leased to Shibba Pty Limited.

 

LPMA advises that they have issued the following tenures:

 

1??????? Licence 386469 ? Occupation of Crown land for the purpose of bridge.? Expires 2015.? The terms of the licence includes:

 

i?????????? Licence holder has responsibility to maintain all improvements, now erected or hereafter, in good repair and properly maintained.

ii?????????? Licence holder shall not interfere with the rights of the public to use the premises (bridge) for access to Reserve 93098.

 

It would appear, given the fact that there is a tenure in place, ownership of the bridge is the Crown.? All ongoing responsibility for the bridge rests with Shibba Pty Ltd.

 

2??????? Special Lease 70693 ? Access Lot 178 DP 272302.? No expiry date.

 

Reserve 93098, for Future Public Requirements, incorporates Lot 178/272302.? This tenure is for that land between the northern side of the bridge to the boundary of the freehold

 

The lease provides that the leased area must be available at all times for use by the general public free of charge for access purposes to lands to the east and west.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Senior Land Development Officer (LPMA Grafton)

?????????????? Council Solicitor

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

?????????????? Manager Health and Building

?????????????? Manager Water and Sewerage

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The establishment of an APZ around the park will have an impact on the Reserve immediately surrounding the Park. From recent observation the flora in this area is compromised by introduced and exotic species such as bamboo and lantana. The establishment and maintenance of the APZ, completed pursuant to LPMA guidelines will be a positive outcome in this regard.

 

Social

 

The recommendation proposes that the encroachments will be corrected as and when the dwellings are transferred to new owners or cease to be used as a principal place of residence for the owners.? This provision in effect potentially eliminates the market value of the dwelling, particularly if the Park Operator does not have the room within the park to relocate the dwelling. Whilst not a desirable outcome all owners are aware of the encroachment status of the dwellings and that in due course they will need to be relocated.

 

The requirement to remove all dwelling encroachments on the easement for rising main will specifically impact on two residents, one of which is a recent addition. The Park Operator acknowledges the error in erecting the dwelling on the Reserve and will meet any costs associated with the removal. Again whilst not desirable, the negative impact on the residents is a matter between the Park Operator and the owners, and more particularly, is not a matter for the Reserve Trust.

 

Economic

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any economic issues.

 

Risk

 

Council will almost certainly be joined in any legal action arsing from damage or injury occurring on the Reserve. It is proposed to include Indemnity and Insurance clause in the Lease Agreement which will serve to protect Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendations propose that all costs associated with the lease be drawn from Lease payments.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No Variance to working funds is required at this stage.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

14213/2010 - Boundary Survey - Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - July '09

 

2View

?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Aerial Map (Trim 16174/2010)

 

3View

?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Site Plan for Holiday Park

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT

 

 

Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

 

 

 

- Aerial Map (Trim 16174/2010)

 

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT

 

Nambucca Beach Holiday Park - Proposed Lease for Encroachments onto Reserve R88941

 

 

 

- Site Plan for Holiday Park

 

?

 

?


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.2????? PRF49????????????? 140710???????? Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Bruce Redman, Director Engineering Services; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Commonwealth Government has announced a 3rd round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program which is providing $165,000 to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

The projects proposed for funding are as follows:

 

1.?????? Storage Building? ? Macksville Park - $45,000

 

2.?????? Macksville Pool ? Additional Lane - $20,000

3.?????? E J Biffin Playing Fields carpark rehabilitation -? $68,000

 

4.?????? Nambucca River bank stabilisation - $32,000

 

A request has been received from the Bowraville Junior Rugby League for the approval of a temporary storage unit to be placed at the Macksville Park.? Last year Council made an application for an extension to the existing building for storage but this has not been able to proceed because of the cost.? The grant will allow this work to proceed and obviate the requirement for temporary storage.

 

A site inspection of Macksville Park will be held.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Council nominate the following projects for funding in the 3rd round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program:

 

????????? a.?????? Storage Building? ? Macksville Park - $45,000

 

????????? b.?????? Macksville Pool ? Additional Lane - $20,000

????????? c.?????? E J Biffin Playing Fields carpark rehabilitation -? $68,000

 

????????? d.?????? Nambucca River bank stabilisation - $32,000

 

2.?????? That the Bowraville Junior Rugby League be advised that in lieu of their proposed temporary pantec/container Council will immediately proceed to provide permanent storage facilities at Macksville Park.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? As recommended

2??????? Refuse the application for temporary storage

3??????? Approve the application for temporary storage

4??????? Identify different projects for funding

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Commonwealth Government has announced a 3rd round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program which is providing $165,000 to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

The 3rd round of the program is similar to previous rounds.? The following is a summary of the guidelines.

 

Councils are encouraged to consider projects that:

 

?????? address the needs of the local indigenous population;

?????? address environmental sustainability, and how their RLCIP activities will promote green building technologies, design practices and operations and preparing for climate change impacts; and

?????? involve collaboration with neighbouring councils including joint-projects.

 

Councils can sponsor projects on behalf of not-for-profit community organisations.

 

Funding will be provided to councils for community infrastructure, including new construction and major renovations or refurbishments of assets such as:

 

?????? social and cultural infrastructure (eg art spaces, gardens);

?????? recreational facilities (eg swimming pools, sports stadiums);

?????? tourism infrastructure (eg walkways, tourism information centres);

?????? children, youth and seniors facilities (eg playgroup centres, senior citizens? centres);

?????? access facilities (eg boat ramps, footbridges); and

?????? environmental initiatives (eg drain and sewerage upgrades, recycling plants).

 

Funding cannot be used for:

 

?????? operational costs and maintenance;

?????? roads or related infrastructure;

?????? artworks;

?????? information technology and communications hardware and software;

?????? non-fixed infrastructure eg above ground irrigation systems;

?????? project management costs;

?????? projects which support council operations eg upgrading of Council?s offices;

?????? projects which make a direct contribution to private businesses or benefit specific individuals.

 

Projects must be completed with all funding expended by 31 December 2011.

 

Funding applications have to be lodged by 5pm AEST Friday 30 July 2010 however Councils are encouraged to apply as soon as possible.

 

With previous rounds we have applied the following criteria which prioritizing the expenditure of the grant funds:

?????? priority to existing building/assets in poor condition rather than the creation of new assets

?????? level of usage ? higher levels of usage being obviously preferred

?????? availability of funds which may be required to supplement the grant

?????? ability to complete the project by December 2011.

 

The projects proposed for funding are as follows:

 

1.?????? Storage Building? ? Macksville Park - $45,000

 

The Bowraville Junior Rugby League Club has requested permission to place a temporary storage unit at Macksville Park.? The request has been supported by the Macksville Park and Sports Committee of Management.

 

The current situation of a lack of storage at the Macksville Park amenities has been recognised and the plans for an extension to the existing building have been prepared.? The project was included in the revised Community Facilities and Open Space Contributions Plan in 2009.

 

The Plan provided an amount of $51,232 but after calling for quotation prices between $100,200 and $107,000 were received.? After a second round of quotations a lower price of $95,000 was received still well above the estimate.? One reason given for the high cost was the foundation conditions.

 

There is a proposal from the Bowraville Junior Rugby League Inc for a temporary storage unit.

 

The information provided is limited to a photograph of a pantec body from a truck.

 

Rather than pursuing further information such as size and location it is being placed before Council to determine if the proposal has merit.? The location on the entry to town has a high profile it is not aesthetically pleasing.? Also as it is a confined space, modifications would be required before it could be used for storage on a sports ground.

 

The proposed funding of the storage building will obviate the need for a storage container.

 

2.?????? Macksville Pool ? Additional Lane - $20,000

Council has received advice that the Macksville Pool will be able to conduct zone and regional swimming carnivals if the number of lanes is increased from 7 to 8.? This will involve reducing the lanes to a width of 1.91 metres, relocating the diving blocks, lane rope anchor points, as well as associated tiling and remarking the lines on the base of the pool.? The pool would then be able to host Swimming NSW events, whether they be club, area or state level.? The only level of meets the altered pool will not be able to accommodate will be National and International meets.

 

The proposed investment of $20,000 to conduct zone and regional swimming carnivals is a cost effective one, resulting in increased usage and also economic benefits to the local area.

 

3.?????? E J Biffin Playing Fields carpark ? Rehabilitation - $68,000

 

The E J Biffin Playing Fields carpark is in extremely poor condition.? The sealed surface has degraded to the extent that it is uneven, broken seal with trip hazards.? E J Biffin Playing Fields is well used for local and regional sporting events and the grant will enable the rehabilitation of the car park to be brought forward to this financial year.

 

4.?????? Nambucca River bank stabilisation - $32,000

 

There are large sections of River Street, Macksville where slumping of the river bank has meant that the road pavement itself is now in danger of collapse.? Council has been attending to the stabilisation of the river bank at Ferry Street and also in River Street where the road pavement is most at risk.? It is intended to apply the balance of the funds to bringing forward bank stabilisation work in River Street.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Macksville Park and Sports Committee of Management

?????????????? Bowraville Junior Rugby League Inc

?????????????? Technical Officer ? Assets

?????????????? Councillors

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The river bank stabilisation will reduce sedimentation.

 


Social

 

Greater use and extra sports at Macksville has created a need for additional storage at the Park.? Increased usage of the pool is a positive social outcome.

 

Economic

 

Increased usage of the pool, particularly for zone and regional swimming carnivals is a good economic outcome.

 

Risk

 

There are no particular risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on budgets.? The proposed expenditure is from additional grant income.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

11496/2010 - Request for information regarding Storage at Allan Gillett Oval

 

2View

12306/2010 - Response - building extension - Storage facilities at Macksville Park

 

3View

13287/2010 - Letter of Support - storage at Macksville Park

 

4View

15051/2010 - Photographs - truck with container

 

5View

14973/2010 - Site Plans - proposed storage shed

 

6View

11712/2009 - Design Drawings Q008/2009

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 

Enquiries to:???? Bruce Redman

Phone No:??????? 02 6568 0232

Our Ref:????????? PRF49

Your Ref:????????

 

 

 

19 May 2010

 

 

 

The Secretary

Bowraville Junior Rugby League Inc

PO Box 64

BOWRAVILLE? NSW? 2449

 

 

Dear Mr Ireland

 

BUILDING EXTENSION ? STORAGE FACILITIES AT MACKSVILLE PARK

 

I refer to your letter on the proposal to build storage areas as an extension of the existing amenities building.

 

The plans were prepare and tenders called however the quotations received were far in excess of the Section 94 funds available.? This was true for a number of building projects at that time.? An extra grant was obtained from the Federal Government to allow the extension to the Hennessey Tape Amenities building but not the storage facilities at Macksville Park.

 

The extension of the Macksville building can only occur if extra funds are provided.? This will be placed before Council at the first quarter budget review in the 2010/2011 financial year which will be around November 2010.

 

Your proposal to place a shipping container as a temporary measure will be met by objections from some areas of the community.? Further information is necessary before the matter proceeds as follows:

 

1????????? It is Council?s Policy that only the Park Committee of Management and not individual sporting groups put forward proposals.? You will need a letter from the Committee of Management.

 

2??????? It sounds like the container is in the area so photographs are desirable to understand ?????? the size and shape etc..

 

3????????? An undertaking by the Bowraville Junior Rugby League to paint the container if necessary to ensure that it is not an eyesore.? Further that it will be removed to allow building construction and then removed totally.

 

Please provide the additional information for the application to proceed.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Bruce Redman

DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

BRR:lrh

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 



?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 - $165,000 for allocation to infrastructure projects

 

?


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.3????? SF15??????????????? 140710???????? Saleyard fee comparison

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council considered the report on the workshop for saleyard and safety compliance at the ordinary meeting held 17 June 2010

 

It was resolved to receive further information on what would be considered a reasonable charge for person selling livestock through the Macksville saleyards. Council sought also for information on the fees charged at neighbouring saleyard complexes.

 

Macksville saleyards currently have the second highest yard fees in comparison to neighbouring yards.

 

If the cost of the required effecting the work identified in the safety and compliance audit are to be met by an increase in yards fees the current fee structure would need to at least double. It is reasonable to expect that such an increase will have a dramatic and immediate adverse impact on turnover at the yards.

 

Turnover at the yards would need to remain constant at minimum 10,000 head per annum to service the necessary loans required to meet the cost of remedial work.

 

The cost of livestock haulage to neighbouring yards is not so significant as to offset the necessary increase in yard fees.

 

A letter has been sent to councils Public Liability Insurer requesting advice on how the received audit report impacts on our insurance policy. Their response will be reported when to hand.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1????????? That Council note the contents of this report in considering the recommendations in the report on workshop for saleyard safety and compliance presented to council 17 June 2010.

 

2????????? That Council consult with the Showground committee of Management to clearly identify an area of approximately 7950sq m immediately around the saleyards for the exclusive use for the saleyards and contain the area with appropriate fencing and signage.

 

3????????? That Council undertake the minimum work required to make ready the saleyards for a long term lease arrangement (say 15 years.)

 

4????????? That Council advertise by Tender for suitably qualified parties to operate the saleyard under a 15 year lease arrangement on terms deemed necessary by councils legal advisors.

 

5????????? That a report come to Council on the response to the Tender for suitable parties to operate the saleyard under a long term lease arrangement.?

 

6????????? That in the event there are no parties interested in operating the Saleyards under a long term lease arrangement and Council elects not to commit sufficient funds to meet the cost of works required to complete the list of actions and recommendation detailed in the South Eastern Workplace Safety Report dated 21 January 2010, Council serve notice of termination of the licence agreement on the current Licensee and upon expiry of the notice period cease trading at the Saleyards and close the facility.

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

1????????? Commit to the ongoing operation of the Saleyards and provide sufficient budget allocation to meet the three year action plan.

 

Note:? That in the event Council pursues this option more detailed and accurate costing will need to be compiled.? Given the trading history of the Saleyards, the increasing cost of operations, the lack of market growth potential and the relatively small proportion of the community directly involved in the Saleyards it is difficult to justify the estimated expenditure.

 

2????????? Commit to the identified high priority actions and upon completion advertise for expression of interest to operate the Saleyards under a long term lease arrangement.

 

Note:? That in the event Council pursues this option the following will need to be addressed:

 

?????? Reclassification of the land to operational

?????? Subdivision of the land either completely or for leasing purposes

?????? Redesign of Saleyards area including removal and relocation of some or all of the adjoining stables.

This option may make the saleyards a more attractive proposition for prospective lessees.

 

2a???????? A variation to this option would be to advertise for expression of interest (EOI) immediately on the basis that the minimum works required to render the Saleyards fit for purpose are co-financed by the lessee and Council.? It should be noted, however, that the risk audit has identified matters that require immediate and urgent attention.? It is not recommended that attention to these matters be postponed depending the outcome of an EOI process.

 

3????????? Serve notice of termination of licence agreement on the licensee and upon expiry of the termination period close the Saleyards and dismantle all or part of the facility.

 

Note:? That an option to wind down the operations of the Saleyards has not been presented as this option would necessarily entail attention to the priority actions detailed in this report.? Such costs are not considered justifiable in the circumstances.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council considered the report on the workshop for saleyard and safety compliance at the ordinary meeting held 17 June 2010. Prior to determining the course of action for the saleyards Councillors requested more details on the charges required to meet the necessary expenditure? as well as details of? a comparison of current and proposed charges to neighbouring yards.

 

Current fee comparison

Based on a recent phone and internet survey of Dorrigo, Kempsey, Casino and Grafton saleyards the average yarding fee for grown cattle is $7.13 with a range from $6.10 to $7.70. The Macksville yards currently represent the second highest charge rate.

 

Similarly the average charge for calf yarding is $4.67 with a range from $2.20 to $6.95. Macksville saleyards currently charges the third highest rate.

 

The proposed fees and charges for 2010/2011 financial year are set to increase the Macksville rates to $8.80 and $7.60 for cows and calves respectively. All things being equal and turnover remaining constant this should equate to an increase in revenue of $approximately $13,950.00.[1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below is a comparison table of fees and charges at the neighbouring saleyards. [2]

 

Yarding Fee comparison ? live weight sales* - Northern Region

Phone and internet survey June 2010

 

Grown Cattle

Calf

 

 

 

Casino

6.90

3.20

Dorrigo **

7.70

4.70

Grafton

6.95

6.95

Kempsey

6.10

2.20

Macksville***

7.40

6.30

Average Charge

$7.01

4.67

 

*???? Includes NLIS and Live selling fees.?

**??? Dorrigo yards will also charge buyers a marking fee of .50 per head if cattle are required to be painted/marked.

***?????

Macksville 2010/2011

Cattle 8.80

Calves 7.50

 

 

 

Required Fee structure to meet improvement costs

The saleyard safety and compliance audit estimated the cost of works required to be in excess of $800,000. It was recommended that the work be spread over a three year period. As at 30 June 2009 the saleyard equipment reserve held $20800.

 

Given the time frame for the work to be completed the sum would need to be raised by loan funds (noting that there is currently an outstanding loan balance of $84,906.51 as at 30/06/2010 payable by 2025). The cost of finance would need to be negotiated but at current rates and assuming a 20 year repayment period the loan repayment would equate to not less than $82,000 per year.[3]

 

It was recommended that a further $55,000 per annum be budgeted for ongoing maintenance of the facility.

 

Further on average the saleyards trade at a $10,000 p.a deficit.

 

Assuming that the current sock turnover would remain constant at 10,000 head per year the required yard fees would need to increase by $12.50 to cover the above costs.

 

On the presumption that yard fee will be the sole source of funding to meet the required works the yard fees will need to increase to $21.30 per head for grown cattle and $20.10 for calves.

 

Clearly? this price point will lead to a dramatic and immediate reduction in stock turnover.

 

Livestock haulage rates

Based on haulage fees from two local livestock carriers livestock haulage to the Macksville yards cost on average $215.00 per load (average 20 head per load) or equivalent of $10.75 per head. To Kempsey the average charge is $300 per load or the equivalent of $15.00 per head to Grafton it is $440 per load or equivalent of $22.00 per head. Haulage charges to Bellingen and Casino were not sourced.

 

Based on the above information the additional cost of sending cattle to the Kempsey yards is on average $4.25 per head more than the equivalent cost of haulage to the Macksville yards. Haulage to Grafton is on average $11.25 per head more than the equivalent cost of haulage to the Macksville yards

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Michael Jones GJ Kennedy

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

 

Environment

 

The recommendation does not give rise to any environmental issues

 

Social

 

The recommendation does nto give rise to any social issues

 

Economic

 

The recommendation does not give rise to any economic issues. Although it perhaps should be noted that the ongoing management f the yard or otherwise will have an impact on future budgets.

 

 

Risk

 

There is a risk that the turnover at the yards will decrease if the yarding fees ( i.e the cost of trading at the Macksville yards) is uncompetitive. Based on the information to hand the proposed fees for 2010/2011 represent the upper range of fees considered unlikely to dramatically impact on turnover

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budget im[plications have previously been reported.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The 2010/11 budget makes provision for $100,000 for urgen work, being the effluent disposal arrangements.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1????? SF218????????????? 140710???????? Extension of Sewer to the Lower Nambucca and Shire Villages

 

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

 

Summary:

 

With the new Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2009, nearing its finalisation and adoption by the Department of Planning, it is considered timely that Council now start considering a program for the extension of services to those areas where future development is proposed through the new land zones in the LEP.

 

In addition, Council should be considering the short/medium (5-10 years) term growth of our rural villages which rely upon, Onsite Sewage Management Systems for effluent disposal on small allotments of land, with particular attention being afforded to Eungai Rail and Eungai Creek.

 

The intention of this report is to seek direction from Council as to what level of strategic service provision it wishes to initiate so that time frames and estimates may be prepared to progress these projects.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council undertake a review of the investigations for the extension of a reticulated Sewerage System to the Lower Nambucca area. With the review to include revised cost estimates, an implementation program, potential development yield and options for financing the extension.? There is to be consultation with the property owners as part of the review.

 

2????????? That Council undertake further investigations into the provision of a reticulated Sewerage System to the two villages of Eungai Rail and Eungai Creek or alternative on site sewerage management arrangements that can provide satisfactory treatment.? There is to be consultation with residents as part of the investigation.

 

3????????? There is to be a moratorium on new urban development in the Lower Nambucca until such time as satisfactory arrangements are made for a reticulated sewerage system.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose not to take any action for the Lower Nambucca and rely upon the information that it currently has, requiring the extension of sewerage to the Lower Nambucca area to be undertaken by any future land developer of the proposed B7 Business Park Zone.

 

Council could choose not to undertake any investigations into alternative sewerage services for the Shire's rural villages.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council had preliminary estimates and designs undertaken for the extension of sewerage to the Lower Nambucca area in 2004 through the Local Environmental Study by de Groote Benson Pty Ltd. A gravity sewerage system that services the Kingsworth Estate was costed at $7 million (2010$) This included a number of stages which could be constructed independently, starting from the northern end as the need arose.

 

In addition to the proposed new B7 Business Park Zone, Council has been working with the Pelican Caravan Park and the Nambucca River Motel for improvements to their respective On-site Sewage Management Systems due to their proximity to the many oyster leases in the Nambucca River in this locality.

 

Any extension of sewerage to the Lower Nambucca would provide connection for these two large operations which would assist in the loads in the lines and operation of the pumps etc.

 

Ongoing discussions have also been held with the developers of the Florence Willmont Drive rural-residential subdivision and the possibility of extending the sewerage through that subdivision to the yet to be developed portion of their land and also providing opportunity for existing lots to connect to overcome some of the onsite effluent problems that do exist from time to time.

 

The Lower Nambucca Sewerage extension would also pick up the existing houses, the Jabiru Motel, Beatties Carpets and the vacant residential land fronting the highway south of Edgewater Estate and the land zoned Low Density Tourist Zone (proposed SP3 Tourist in NLEP 2009) on the Western side of the Pacific Highway south of Teagues Creek

 

 

It is also considered that sewerage investigations should look at the possible servicing of residential properties in rural villages especially Eungai Creek (50) and Eungai Rail (30) as these villages are reaching the end of their serviceable life with existing septic or onsite disposal areas and some property owners have no available space to install additional onsite disposal trenches.

 

There are a number of new smaller package sewerage treatment plants and systems that Council could consider for installation in the smaller villages where onsite effluent disposal is becoming a major issue. 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

Manager Health and Building Services

Manager Planning and Assessment

Strategic Planner

Manager Water and Sewerage provided the following comments:

 

I offer the following comments:

 

There are a number of issues involved in extending the sewer to the Lower Nambucca area which I believe will make it difficult for Council to recoup the cost of providing infrastructure. 

 

The development is very linear and not likely to be higher density concentrated development resulting in a high cost per lot

The properties identified as having problems with on site sewage systems are furtherest away from Council's existing infrastructure.

Long pumping distances and detention times mean that odour problems may be an issue adding additional cost to the works 

 

The DE's previous advise to the GM based on a report prepared by de Groot Benson was that the cost to provide sewerage to developments out to the existing Kenwall Ford would be in the order of $6 million, although I believe this included reticulation mains as well.

 

This proposed development and associated costs have not been included in any of Council' sewage planning to date and has therefore not been considered in typical Residential Billing and Developer Charges calculated in works for the IWCM. Obviously if Council was to undertake this work it will impact on these rates and charges

 

The money would have to be borrowed and $6million over 20 years @ 7% would require payment of 46K per month. I believe the pace of development would not be sufficient for Council to generate that any where near that income from developer charges.

 

Council could possibly consider constructing only 3 pump stations and rising mains suitably located to serve catchments within the proposed development area up to Kingsworth Estate. All reticulation would be constructed at the cost of the developer. In this way Council's cost would be limited, but would still be in the order of $1.5 million as a minimum. Even then Council would still have to receive income of around $11.5K per month over 20 years to cover repayments on loans. 

 

I am also not convinced that providing sewerage services to Kingsworth Estate is a good idea let alone Eungai and Eungai Rail. Development in these locations should still be conditional on the property being able to sustain an on site sewer system all be it that it may have to be more sophisticated than the older style septic system. If sewering of these areas is to be seriously considered then alternatives to the traditional gravity reticulation should be investigated. Options available would be common effluent or pressure pump systems.

 

Both these systems would require individual pump stations in each lot pumping effluent or sewerage to an existing sewerage system (Kingsworth) or a new dedicated treatment plant ( Eungai). I do not believe such a system would be cost effective for Eungai however if the developer was prepared to pay all infrastructure costs it may be a possibility for Kingsworth Estate provided that the Lower Nambucca was sewered. However there are likely to be odour control issues that would have to be overcome due to long detention times in the pressure system resulting in the discharge of septic sewer to Council's system.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Installation of a reticulated sewerage system to the Lower Nambucca and Rural Villages will provide considerable environmental and public health benefits

 

Social

 

There are significant social benefits with a reticulated sewerage system which avoids the need for onsite effluent disposal in a high rainfall area with poor permeable soils.

 

Economic

 

There is likely to be a considerable economic consideration for the installation of sewer to the Lower Nambucca and villages.? The costs associated with installing a reticulated sewerage system can be recouped through a Section 64 Sewerage Servicing Plan, connection fees and costs and ongoing return from sewerage service charges however as noted the time required to payback and/or recoup costs will be considerable.

 

Risk

 

The installation of a reticulated sewerage system will considerably reduce the risks associated with effluent possibly finding its way into waterways and exposure to humans.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The costs associated with the investigations are expected to be in the order of $30,000 to be addressed in the September Budget Review.? Future installation and construction impacts would need to be calculated and budgeted in future budgets.? The cost of construction should Council undertake the work rather than require the developer to accept full responsibility, will be significant with Council meeting upfront funding as contributions are collected over many years.

 

Future impacts on sewerage annual charges will include the repayment of the loan funds associated with the $18 million Nambucca Heads Upgrade and other works identified in the IWCM such as Bowraville Sewage Treatment Plant.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The funds would need to come from the Nambucca sewerage fund, loans and a Contribution Plan.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.2????? SF1498??????????? 140710???????? Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Directors Note:

 

Council considered this report at its 1st July Ordinary meeting when it resolved:

 

1??????? That this matter be deferred for further consideration at Council?s next General Purpose Committee meeting on 14 July 2010.

 

2??????? That a report be provided to Council as to when the dwelling was approved on that land (the piggery on Irvines Road) and who approved it.

 

The report is resubmitted with further explanation and advice in regard to resolution 2 above, which is provided at the start of the Discussions section in this report.

 

Original 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??????? table F1 relating to separation and 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:

 

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

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

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Additional Information and Clarification following the Council meeting of 1st July 2010

 

Consolidated Nambucca Shire Development Control Plan 2010:

 

Rural Buffers within Nambucca Shire Council have been controlled through Development Control Plans since at least 4 January 2001, under the Rural Subdivision DCP. The Buffers have been reviewed on several occasions since and a specific Rural Buffers Development Control Plan (DCP 16) was developed and took effect on 21 April 2005.

 

The Aim and Objectives of DCP 16 are repeated below:

 

The general objective of this Plan is to ensure that rural development occurs in such a way as to minimise land use conflict, protect sensitive natural and cultural resources and provide adequate bushfire protection, through compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in the Local Government Act 1993.

 

In addition to the buffers identified in the DCP, there are additional considerations relating to amenity, odours, water pollution, etc under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, for certain types of development, in particular Designated Development, which includes amongst other things, Intensive Livestock Keeping (Cattle Feed Lots, Piggeries, Poultry Farms) and also under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 30 ? Intensive Agriculture.

 

These considerations are triggered upon the size of the operation which require the lodgement of a Development Application, and would need to be detailed and addressed in the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement as required for these types of development.

 

For developments that require consent and are not identified as either Designated Development (EP&A Act) or Intensive Agriculture (SEPP 30), the buffer provisions of Council's DCP would apply depending upon the nature of development as identified in Table 2.1 of the current DCP 16 ? Rural Buffers and Table F1 in the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

 

The buffers identified in both the current and Draft DCP, refer to separation between a Commercial Activity (rural activity) and Dwellings (including Rural, Rural Residential and Residential dwellings) on the adjoining land. It is not a buffer between zones or property boundaries The Table identifies a separation distance and also an optional reduced separation distance if combined with an acceptable Vegetation Buffer.

 

Part F of Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 is the specific Part of the new Draft DCP that deals with buffers and is attached as exhibited.

 

One matter of concern at the recent 1st July Ordinary Council meeting related to where, when and how the buffers are considered and measured.

To clarify this, it is important to understand that the buffers identified in the DCP are for guidance and general compliance at the initial proposal stage. There may be other means of providing separation which address odour and amenity issues and would be considered on their merits.

 

There will be occasions however, where the identified buffers may not be achieved or achievable and a variation will need to be considered on its merits. Such situations will arise where a vacant lot in an approved subdivision, with an identified building envelope, is proposed to be developed and it may adjoin an existing Intensive Livestock Keeping activity which had a lesser buffer when it was originally approved.

 

Notwithstanding, the application of the separation buffer will apply at the time of lodgement of a proposed activity which requires development consent, and will be measured from the nearest point of the proposed or existing commercial activity (building, holding yards etc) and the nearest part of the proposed or existing adjoining dwelling or outdoor living area of that dwelling etc as the case may be.

 

Table 2.1 from the current DCP 16 is reproduced below.

 

Table 2.1 Buffers between Commercial Activities

and Rural Dwellings

Land Use

Separation Distance

Vegetation Buffer 1

 

High Voltage Power Lines

20 metres

N/A

 

Grazing Land

60 metres

20 metres minimum width

80 metres

None

 

Agriculture crops/horticulture

80 metres

40 metres minimum width

150 metres

None

 

Rural industry

80 metres

40 metres minimum width

150 metres

None

 

Banana plantation 2, 3

150 metres

N/A

 

Cattle dip site 2

200 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

300 metres

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Intensive dairies ? less than 500 head

 

Intensive livestock keeping establishments

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

Piggeries ? less than 500 pigs

Poultry farms

Sawmills

Macadamia de-husking plants 4

 

Sewerage Treatment Plants

400 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

500 metres

N/A

Intensive dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 500 pigs or more

Waste Management Facilities

 

Abattoirs

1000 metres

N/A

Extractive industry or mines


 

 

1??????? See Section 2.3 Vegetation Buffers for more information.

 

2??????? While development consent is not generally required for agriculture, including banana plantations, landowners are requested to use these setbacks for farm planning purposes.

 

3??????? Where a banana plantation requiring spraying is proposed, the Pesticide Act 1999 permits no variation to the 150 metre minimum setback.

 

4??????? De-husking plants should preferably be set back even where development consent is not required.

 

 

Table F1 from the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 as exhibited is reproduced below:

 

Table F1: Buffers between Commercial Activities and Rural Dwellings

Land Use

Separation Distance

Vegetation Buffer 1

 

High Voltage Power Lines

20 metres

N/A

 

Grazing Land

60 metres

20m minimum width

80 metres

None

 

Agriculture crops/horticulture

80 metres

40m minimum width

150 metres

None

 

Rural industry

80 metres

40m minimum width

150 metres

None

 

Banana plantation 2, 3

150 metres

N/A

 

Cattle dip site 2

200 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

300 metres

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

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

Sawmills

Macadamia de-husking plants 4

 

Sewage Treatment Plants

400 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

500 metres

N/A

Dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 200 pigs or more

Waste Management Facilities

 

Abattoirs

1000 metres

N/A

Extractive industry or mines


 

 

5??????? See Section 1.3.4 Vegetation Buffers for more information.

 

6??????? While development consent is not generally required for agriculture, including banana plantations, landowners are requested to use these setbacks for farm planning purposes.

 

7??????? Where a banana plantation requiring spraying is proposed, the Pesticide Act 1999 permits no variation to the 150m minimum setback.

 

8??????? De-husking plants should preferably be set back even where development consent is not required.

 

 

The two separation setbacks where submissions have been received are identified below with the exhibited 300 metres and 500 metres and the recommended increase setback in (bold Italics and brackets)

 

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

300 metres

 

(500 metres)

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

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

Sawmills

Macadamia de-husking plants 4

 

Sewage Treatment Plants

400 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

500 metres

 

(1,000 metres)

N/A

Dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 200 pigs or more

Waste Management Facilities

 

Abattoirs

1000 metres

N/A

Extractive industry or mines

 

Dwelling Entitlement and Dwelling Consent Lot 516 DP 632883 Irvines Road, Tewinga

 

The second resolution from the 1st July 2010 Ordinary Meeting requested that a report be provided in regard to when and who gave consent to a dwelling on the above parcel of Land.

 

Lot 516 was created via a Crown (Electricity Commission of NSW) subdivision for the purposes of the Nambucca 132kv Substation and registered in 1983.

 

A Section 149 Certificate was requested in 2005, at which time a detailed search of Council's records was undertaken. This included determination as to whether Lot 516 was an "Existing Holding" pursuant to Nambucca LEP 1995. This identified that at the appointed day, Lot 516 was contained within the parent Portion 487 owned by the Crown. Notwithstanding, Nambucca LEP 1995 which was gazetted on 1 December 1995 provided for an extended Rural Residential area bounded by a Broken Black Line. This boundary extended into Lot 516 and provided an area of approximately 1ha which, under the provisions of the NLEP 1995, provided for a dwelling entitlement.

 

In addition to the above, a search of previous subdivision files for Portion 487, Lots 516 & 517 DP 632883 identified a file note dated 14 September 1999 by the previous Director Planning which provided the same determination in regard to dwelling entitlement as identified by Council staff in 2005.

A Development Application was subsequently lodged with Council on 13 March 2006, for a dwelling-house within 20m of the Broken Black line as permitted under Clause 53 of Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995. Conditional Consent was issued for a dwelling-house on 11 April 2006.

 

Original Report

 

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 eg 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 40ha or 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 40ha 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

 

2View

16177/2010 - Part F - Draft Nambucca DCP 2010

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan

 


?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Report on Exhibition of the Draft Nambucca Development Control Plan

 

PART F ? RURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT (R5 RU1 RU2 RU3 E2 and E3)

 

 

F1.0?? INTRODUCTION

 

F1.1?? APPLICATION OF PART

 

This part applies to all areas in the Nambucca Shire zoned R5, RU1, RU2, RU3, E2 and E3.

 

F1.2?? ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

In addition to any requirements specified in Parts A, B, C, D, E, or other specific legislative requirements the following items need to be addressed with developments proposed on land to which this part applies.

 

F1.2.1???????? Rural Dwellings and Subdivisions

 

??????????? Where an applicant proposes a rural dwelling or a rural subdivision, Council requires the submission of the following details to enable assessment of potential land use conflict:

????????? -???????? details of the use of all adjoining landholdings;

????????? -???????? the location of dwellings or dwelling envelopes within the subject site; and

????????? -???????? details and location of any existing or proposed vegetation buffers.

??????????? For rural or large lot residential subdivisions involving more than 20 lots, Council will also require submission of details regarding the use of all landholdings within 500 metres.

??????????? Where no details are available for the use of an adjoining landholding, Council will assess buffers in accordance with Table F1.

 

F1.2.2???????? Rural Industry and Commercial Activities

 

??????????? Where new commercial activities are proposed, Council will require the submission of:

????????? -???????? the location of dwellings or dwelling envelopes on adjoining landholdings.

??????????? For dairies, cattle feed lots (with 50 head or more), extractive industry and mines (producing 10,000m3 or more per annum), piggeries (with 200 pigs or more) and abattoirs, Council will require the submission of:

????????? -???????? the location of dwellings or dwelling envelopes on adjoining landholdings;

????????? -???????? details of the use of landholdings within 500m, including the location of any dwellings; and

????????? -???????? a detailed assessment of potential impacts arising from the proposed use (ie dust, fumes, light, noise, odour, smoke, spray drift), including any amelioration achievable by way of proposed vegetation buffers.

 

 

F1.3?? PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

 

F1.3.1???????? Building Lines

 

The purpose of this section is to ensure new rural dwellings maintain the rural character of an area, do not obstruct line of sight on rural roads and are not adversely impacted by vehicle dust and noise.

 

Objectives

 

??????????? To provide developers with a degree of certainty as to Council?s requirements in relation to building line setback standards.

??????????? To control building line setback requirements on all land zoned rural, environmental protection and large lot residential.

??????????? To minimise adverse impact on adjacent and adjoining properties.

??????????? To minimise dust nuisance from unsealed rural roads.

??????????? To maintain rural amenity and character.

??????????? To maintain lines of sight where necessary for vehicular safety.


Controls

 

1??????? Rural buildings in zones RU1, RU2, RU3, E2, and E3 shall be set back a minimum 20m to a sealed road.

2??????? Buildings in an R5 Zone shall be set back a minimum 10m to a no through sealed road or right-of-carriageway or 20m to a sealed classified road or local road.

3??????? Rural buildings in all zones to which this part applies shall be set back a minimum 300m to an unsealed road. Variation to this setback will only be permitted by Council where the applicant can demonstrate:

-???????? the shape, size or physical constraints of the lot do not permit the required setback;

-???????? the adjoining road is sealed for a minimum distance of 100m or other distance acceptable to Council?s Director Engineering Services, or

-???????? other appropriate mitigation means are provided by way of adequate landscaping existing or proposed to alleviate the dust nuisance. A plan of landscaping will need to be submitted for Council?s consideration.

 

Any variation to this Part requires the dwelling to be set back as far as possible to reduce dust nuisances.

 

 

F1.3.2???????? Buffers

 

Failure to ensure adequate setbacks from dwellings to rural activities and industries is likely to result in land use conflicts subsequently impacting on rural production, local employment and economic activity.

 

In addition to this, failure to provide appropriate setbacks to sensitive environmental receptors such as creeks, native vegetation, wetlands and reserves may result in detrimental impacts to the local environment.

 

The purpose of this section is to ensure appropriate setbacks are applied to varying rural land uses and environmental receptors.

 

Objectives

 

??????????? Minimise land use conflict primarily between dwellings and permissible land use activities;

??????????? Ensure adequate landuse and vegetation buffers are provided between commercial activities and rural dwellings;

??????????? Protect natural resources and sensitive environmental receptors; and

??????????? Ensure adequate buffers are provided between various rural land uses and sensitive natural areas.

 

Controls (Rural Land Use Buffer Distances)

 

1??????? Rural dwellings and proposed dwelling envelopes are to be separated from other rural land uses in accordance with Table F1.

 

2??????? Where new dwellings are proposed on existing vacant lots which have dwelling entitlements, the buffers indicated in Table F1 will not necessarily apply. In such cases, Council will require the maximum practical buffer possible and the provision of a suitable vegetated buffer where necessary.

 


 

Table F1: Buffers between Commercial Activities and Rural Dwellings

Land Use

Separation Distance

Vegetation Buffer 1

 

High Voltage Power Lines

20 metres

N/A

 

Grazing Land

60 metres

20m minimum width

80 metres

None

 

Agriculture crops/horticulture

80 metres

40m minimum width

150 metres

None

 

Rural industry

80 metres

40m minimum width

150 metres

None

 

Banana plantation 2, 3

150 metres

N/A

 

Cattle dip site 2

200 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? less than 500 head

 

 

 

 

 

300 metres

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

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

Sawmills

Macadamia de-husking plants 4

 

Sewage Treatment Plants

400 metres

N/A

 

Cattle feed lots ? 500 head or more

500 metres

N/A

Dairies ? 500 head or more

Piggeries ? 200 pigs or more

Waste Management Facilities

 

Abattoirs

1000 metres

N/A

Extractive industry or mines

 

1??????? See Section 1.3.4 Vegetation Buffers for more information.

 

2??????? While development consent is not generally required for agriculture, including banana plantations, landowners are requested to use these setbacks for farm planning purposes.

 

3??????? Where a banana plantation requiring spraying is proposed, the Pesticide Act 1999 permits no variation to the 150m minimum setback.

 

4??????? De-husking plants should preferably be set back even where development consent is not required.

 

 

 

F1.3.3???????? Vegetation Buffers

 

Vegetation buffers may be used to reduce the total buffer distance required between dwellings and adjoining land uses. However, caution must be exercised when considering the appropriateness of a vegetation buffer. Vegetation buffers take time to establish, require on-going maintenance and are subject to storm and insect damage. Trees only have a limited life span. Therefore, vegetation buffers will not be appropriate in all circumstances.

 

Where vegetation buffers are proposed to satisfy the requirements of Table F2 the following will be required:

 

??????????? The vegetation needs to be established along the relevant boundaries prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate (in the case of subdivision) or prior to commencement of other uses.

??????????? The minimum width of a vegetation buffer is that of the canopy at maturity.

??????????? Vegetation buffers are to be located such that they will not compromise Asset Protection Zones required in accordance with ?Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006?.

??????????? A detailed landscape plan is to be submitted with the development application.

??????????? A variety of species is to be included with a variety of heights at maturity, including ground cover, shrubs, and small and large trees.

??????????? Trees at least 10m in height at maturity are to be included.

??????????? Tree rows should be planted at a maximum spacing of 10m, with rows of smaller plants between.

??????????? Species with long, thin and rough foliage should be included where the adjoining land use may involve chemical spraying, as these facilitate capture of spray droplets.

??????????? A mixture of fast growing pioneer species and slower-growing, longer lived species should be used. The pioneer species will ensure that the buffer is effective as soon as possible. The longer lived species will over time replace the pioneer species.

??????????? Suggested species are included in Table F2 other suitable species may also be used.

??????????? A refundable cash bond is to be paid to Council to ensure success and maintenance of any planted vegetation for a period of 24 months. Council will refund 50% of this bond after 12 months, dependent upon Council being satisfied that a suitable planted buffer is well established. The remainder is to be refunded at the end of the 24 month period, dependent upon the planted buffer having satisfactorily developed over the period.

??????????? Council will require the inclusion of positive covenants on the title, under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act, requiring maintenance of any planted vegetation buffers. Where existing native vegetation forms the proposed buffer, Council will require the inclusion of Section 88B restrictions-to-user on the title prohibiting the clearing of vegetation that comprises the buffer.

 


 

Table F2: Suggested Species for Vegetation Buffers

Species

Common Name

Preferred Habitat/Range *

Height at Maturity

Notes

 

Acacia fimbriata

Brisbane Wattle or Fringed Wattle

Riverbanks and shady gullies. Does not like sandy soils

4-8m

Pioneer species

Acacia floribunda

White Sally Wattle

Forested slopes, sheltered gullies,

creek banks

Up to 8m

Pioneer species

Acacia melanoxylon

Sally Wattle or Blackwood

Common on various sites

15-30m

Pioneer species

Acmena Smithii

Lilly Pilly

Sheltered or shady eucalypt forests, rainforest margins, sheltered coastal areas

20m

Fast growing & long living

Casuarina glauca

Swamp She-oak

Open forests, woodlands, saltwater estuaries and rivers.

8-30m

Pioneer species

Allocasuarina littoralis

Black She-oak

Woodland/ Tall Heath

8-15m

Thrives in Sandy soils

Allocasuarina torulosa

Forest She-oak or Rose She-Oak

Moist open forests

8-30m

Pioneer species

Backhousia anisata

Aniseed Tree

Lowland subtropical rainforest in gullies

Generally 10-12m, exceptionally up to 45m

Long lived

Callistemon sp.

(all Callistemon species including cultivars)

Bottlebrush

Various, widespread

Various ? up to 20m

Pioneer species

Casuarina cunninghamiana

River She-oak

Freshwater stream, banks in open forests

12-35m

Pioneer species

Elaeocarpus reticulatus

Blueberry Ash

Sheltered forests, rainforest edges

2-3m

Fast growing & long living

Eucalyptus microcorys

Tallowwood

Wet forests or rainforest margins on moderately to highly fertile soils, often on slopes

60m

Fast growing & long living

Eucalyptus pilularis

Blackbutt

Wet sclerophyll or grassy coastal forests on lighter soils of medium fertility

65m

Fast growing & long living

Eucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red Gum

Wet or dry forests or woodlands on soils of medium to high fertility

20-50m

Fast growing & long living

Jagera pseudorhus

Foam bark

Wet forests and rainforest

Up to 15m

Pioneer species

Leptospermum petersonii

Lemon-scented Tea Tree

Coastal heath, forest fringes

4m

Long lived

Leptospermum species

Tea Tree

Most habitats dependent on species

1-4m

Long lived

Lomandra species

Mat Rush

Widespread ? open forest,

rainforest margins,

hind dunes, ridges,

creek banks

Up to 1 metre

Pioneer species and Understorey

Melaleuca linariifolia

Fine-leaved Paperbark

Wet and swampy places near the coast, also on the coastal plateaux, often on shale

4-6m

Long lived

Syncarpia glomulifera

Turpentine

Taller eucalypt forests

60m

Long lived

*???? Note: the Habitat and Range indicated here, is a general guide, and most of these species are suitable for planting in most vegetation areas within Nambucca Shire.

 

 

F1.3.4???????? Buffers to sensitive Environmental Receptors

 

Council wishes to minimise the impact of development on sensitive natural resources such as the coastline, wetlands, watercourses, scenic backdrop areas, national parks and nature reserves. Accordingly, rural dwellings, dwelling envelopes and other rural land uses requiring consent should be set back from sensitive natural resources in accordance with Table F3.

 


 

Table F3: Buffers to Sensitive Natural Resources

Sensitive Natural Resource

Adjoining Land Use

Buffer

 

Coastline 1

All uses requiring development consent

40 metres

 

 

SEPP 14 wetlands 2

Dwellings

40 metres

On-site effluent disposal systems 3

100 metres

Uses listed in Table F1 that require development consent:

50 metres

 

Other wetlands 4

All uses requiring development consent

40 metres

 

Watercourses

On-site effluent disposal systems 3

50 metres

 

Watercourses 1, 5

All uses requiring development consent

40 metres

 

 

National parks and nature reserves

Dwellings

60m

On-site effluent disposal systems 3

100 metres

Uses listed in Table F1 that require development consent:
50m

 

Visually Prominent Location 6

Dwelling

20m min 7

 

1??????? To minimise impacts and the need for approval under the Water Management Act 2000.

 

2??????? State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 ? Coastal Wetlands.

 

3??????? Irrigation fields and the like.

 

4??????? These include coastal wetlands not mapped under SEPP 14 and inland wetlands.

 

5??????? Watercourses are shown as blue lines on CMA 1:25,000 maps.

 

6??????? Areas in a visually prominent location include ridgelines, hilltops etc.

 

7??????? The applicant may be requested to provide a visual impact assessment demonstrating how the development will be unobtrusive in the landscape. Design features such as landscaping, colour schemes articulation, modulation etc may be used as methods to reduce the visual impact of a proposal on the landscape.

 

Where a sensitive environmental receptor is located on or adjacent to a proposed development site, Council may require the establishment, conservation or rehabilitation of a vegetation buffer to that receptor. For example Council may require the restoration of a drainage line which traverses through a proposed large lot residential subdivision site.

 

 

F1.3.5???????? Buffers and Conditions of Consent

 

Should Council require establishment of buffers, revegetation or restoration works associated with a development consent, conditions of consent may require their protection and maintenance through Section 88B or 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

 

??


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF1031??????????? 140710???????? Policy Review - Smoke Free Outdoor Areas

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council adopted a policy on Smoke Free Outdoor Areas on 2 October 2008 which identified public areas in which smoking is banned.? Those locations being:

 

i)??????? within 10 metres of all children?s playgrounds

ii)?????? within 10 metres of a bus shelter

iii)????? within 10 metres of Council owned building entrances.

 

This has proven to be successful without having to impose infringements.? It is likely that this level of community support will continue as smoke free areas are expanded across the State in other local government areas.

 

It is recommended that Council expand the smoke free areas and amend the policy accordingly.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council extend the areas covered under the Smoke Free Outdoor Policy to include:

 

1??????? Areas within 10 metres of the marked perimeter of sports fields

2??????? On public beaches between the lifeguard flags

3??????? The frontage and within 50 metres of a hotel property side boundary on each side on the public footpath

4??????? Within the area designated as outdoor dining on a public footpath for new approvals.? Commencement date for existing approvals is 1 October 2011.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Revise policy as recommended.

2??????? Retain existing policy, unchanged.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council adopted a policy on Smoke Free Outdoor Areas on 2 October 2008 which identified public areas in which smoking is banned.? Those locations being:

 

i)??????? within 10 metres of all children?s playgrounds

ii)?????? within 10 metres of a bus shelter

iii)????? within 10 metres of Council owned building entrances.

 

The banned areas are signposted and have been effective by people accepting the ruling and choosing to comply with little enforcement required.

 

The policy also mentions that Council will consider additional areas in the future.? Those locations being:

 

a??????? at all ocean and harbour beaches

b??????? in all bushland, parks, reserves and public plazas

c??????? in all enclosed Council carparks

d??????? at all covered taxi ranks

e??????? Council owned buildings and outdoor dining areas that are leased, licensed or hired from Council by way of a smoke free clause in the agreement

f???????? at all events run or sponsored by Council.


 

It is now two years later and a number of changes have occurred.? This includes Council?s adoption on 21 January 2010 of the policy on outdoor Dining Areas that requires them to be a smoke free environment and the increase in the number of councils that have also put in place smoking bans in certain public areas.

 

Problem areas do exist on the footpaths outside of hotels and complaints do come forward occasionally on smokers in Bowra Street Nambucca Heads and Cooper Street Macksville.

 

The policy does not need a full revision but could be amended by addition extra public areas where smoking is banned.

 

The recommended extra areas are:

 

1??????? Within 10 metres of the marked perimeter of sports fields.?

????????? It is in this location that spectators, both adults and children, watch sport taking place.

 

2??????? On public beaches between the lifeguard flags.

????????? This is the area of greatest concentration of people on the beach.? The ban would not apply when no patrols are in operation.

 

3??????? Within 50 metres of a hotel property side boundary on each side on the public footpath.

????????? This addresses a current problem area.

 

4??????? Within the area designated as outdoor dining on a public footpath.

????????? Recognition of another policy adopted on 21 January 2010.

 

Comments from Cr Anne Smyth

 

Page Number

Proposed Changes/Comments/Questions

Staff Response

 

I agree with the proposed additions.? I believe they are a responsible extension of the existing policy, which will enable the community to attend public areas without having to breathe air polluted by cigarette smoke.

?

In the future, I would like to see our CBD areas included, as well as the footpaths outside schools (under the Drugs in Schools Policy of the NSW Department of Education and Training, smoking on school premises, including school buildings, gardens, sports fields and car parks, is prohibited. This includes students, employees, visitors and other people who use school premises, including community groups.)?? This would not only address passive smoking issues, but also the litter problem.?

 

Noted.

 

 

 

 

Future consideration at next Policy review.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Councillors

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 


Environment

 

Cigarette butts are a major environmental hazard particularly in coastal areas where stormwater and litter are washed into the waterways.

 

Social

 

There is a growing community expectation that more restrictions are imposed on smokers in public areas.

 

Economic

 

Risk

 

Non compliance will still occur to some degree.? The most likely ?hot spots? are expected to be outside the hotels but they also have a responsibility to address this issue.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No impact at this time.? If high levels of non-compliance occur it will be necessary to allow time for Council?s Ranger to attend to problem areas.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

None required.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF1031??????????? 140710???????? Policy Review - Noxious Weeds and Animals - Control of Camphor Laurel

 

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

 

Summary:

 

In 2004 Council adopted a policy on the control of Camphor Laurel which was classified a W4 noxious weed. Copy of policy attached.

 

This policy was superseded in 2006 when the adopted approach changed to the development of a Plan of Management for all Class 4 Noxious Weeds.? That plan is due for renewal in 2011 (5 year plan). Copy of Plan of Management attached.

 

Council?s specific policy for Camphor Laurel has never been withdrawn.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council delete the Policy?Noxious Weeds and Animals ? Control of Camphor Laurel noting that it has been replaced with the Class 4 Noxious Weeds Plan of Management.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Delete as recommended.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

See Summary above.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Noxious Weeds Inspector.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The control of noxious weeds is necessary to protect native species from encroachment.

 

Social

 

Noxious weeds can be poisonous and cause allergies.? They can also overrun properties.

 

Economic

 

Noxious weeds reduce the economic viability of agricultural land.

 

Risk

 

Not controlling noxious weeds has a major cost impact on the productivity of land.

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Current budget is sufficient.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council funds and grants from the Department of Industry and Investment.

 

Attachments:

1View

25296/2007 - POLICY - Noxious Weeds and Animals - Control of Camphor Laurel

 

2View

6372/2008 - Plan of Management - Class 4 Noxious Weeds

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Policy Review - Noxious Weeds and Animals - Control of Camphor Laurel

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

POLICY

NOXIOUS WEEDS AND ANIMALS

CONTROL OF CAMPHOR LAUREL

 

 

 

Function:? ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

 

Adopted: 15 JANUARY 2004 (048)

Last reviewed:? 15 DECEMBER 2005 (080)

 

 

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.?

 

 

1.0???? Policy objective

 

2.0???? Related legislation

 

3.0?????? Definitions

 

4.0???? Policy statement

 

All Camphor Laurel must be controlled as per the declaration under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

 

For the purposes of Camphor Laurel on private property, targeted species are where it has a height of less than 3 metres from ground level.? Occupiers with trees over this size will be advised to plant more desirable species of trees to replace the established plants within the next 10 years.? This policy will outline the control expected and plans to upgrade this weed within a period of time.

 

This policy should be read in conjunction with any Local Weed Control Plan for Camphor Laurel in Nambucca Shire that may apply from time to time.

 

4.1???? History

 

Declaration

Action for W4 ? Noxious Weed Category:-

 

In accordance with Sections 8 (3) and 9 of the Act, where a letter follows the letters W4, in the third column of the Schedule, the action as specified below must be taken in respect of the W4 weeds as follows:

 

W4d? Camphor Laurel? Cinnamomum camphora

W4d? -The weed:

????????????? a)?????? Must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed; and

????????????? b)?????? Must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed unless it is:

??????????????????????? i)???? Listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977;

 

??????????????????????? ii)??? Listed for preservation or protection as a heritage item under an ??????? Environmental Planning Instrument under the Environmental Planning and ???????? Assessment Act 1979.

 

??????????????????????? iii)?? Listed for preservation or protection in a Tree Preservation Order of the ????? Council for the Local Government Area;

 

??????????????????????? iv)?? Included for preservation or protection in a Plan of Management for a local ? government area under Section 40 of the Local Government Act 1993; or

 

??????????????????????? v)??? Included for preservation or protection in a noxious weed control policy or a ???????? noxious weed control program approved by the local control authority for the ???????? area for which it is the local control authority.

 

File Note:????????? Local Strategy:? The weed must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed and the weed must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed if it is:

 

i??? Three (3) metres in height or less, or

ii?????????? Within half a kilometre of remnant urban bushland, as defined by SEPP 19, and is not deemed by Council as having historical or heritage significance, or

iii????????? Is over three (3) metres in height and not included in a Management Plan approved by the local control authority

 

Issues for Private Property

 

Some concern is raised in regard to large trees that had some sentimental value, were protecting homes and sheds, and/or providing the only shade for stock.? All of these concerns will be taken into consideration.? As the large trees were not to be addressed at this time, it was not considered an issue at this time and would be addressed when the 10 year period is expired.

 

DIPNR formerly DLWC

 

Consult DIPNR if you will impact on protected land.? Approval is required to control woody weeds on protected land and stream banks in shires where they are not declared noxious.

 

NPSW

 

Approval is required from NPWS if your work will affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities or aboriginal relics or sites.

 

EPA

 

A licence is required from EPA if you will pollute waters, (including herbicides).

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE

 

Consent by Council is not required to control Camphor Laurel or other environmental weeds except on land zoned as 7 environmental protection and areas identified as ?significant vegetation and wildlife corridors?.? Within these areas approval from Council is required before any vegetation control occurs.

 


Issues for Council Land

 

The responsibility remains with the occupier, and action for Councils are specified in the Local Weed Control Plan for Camphor Laurel,? Significant cost will need to be borne over the 10-20 years to reduce the problem, and actions are currently targeted towards infestations where Camphor Laurel is less than three metres in height.? Matched funding available from NSW Agriculture is limited and will determine the extent of control.

 

 

Policy Guidelines

 

As per Order No 18 for the category W4d ? must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed.? For declared areas in Nambucca Shire ? all trees less than 3 metres must be controlled.

 

 

Exemptions

 

1??????? Where an acceptable Management Plan is forwarded to Nambucca Shire Council

??? Any exemption will have an expiry date at which time of the exemption will be reviewed.

 

2??????? Where tree/s are providing the only suitable shade for stock:

 

??? i???????? Within a paddock

??? ii??????? Within stock yards

??? iii?????? Within an area used for flood refuge where inadequate shade exists.

 

The occupier must plant more desirable tree species to replace the established plants in a period of time.

 

3????????? Where tree/s are providing shelter for a shed or dwelling from high winds and violent storms.

????? It must be clear that removal would subject the building to extreme risk ? The occupier must plant more desirable tree species to replace the established plants in a period of time.

 

4??????? If totally removed can result in erosion on the advice of an approved engineer.

????? A management plan must be submitted that includes revegetation by the occupier that is over a set period of time.

 

Householders will be requested to plant more suitable species to allow for their possible removal in the future.

 

A list of suitable species will be promoted.? (see Camphor Laurel Kit)

 

Landholders that have large trees will be pressed to plant more suitable species in order that they are not unduly inconvenienced when asked to remove the trees at a later date.

 

 

Situation in the Nambucca Valley

 

Large areas do not exist in the valley, mainly small dense infestations particularly on river banks.? This policy outlines a variety of situations.? These would include where the plant is on banks, river banks, hillsides or steep slopes.? In this situation, removal could result in erosion and revegetation would be required by the occupier.


 

In such cases a program would be required outlining the percentage of large plants that would have to be removed over a set period of time.? The occupier, as outlined in Councils General policy, could submit a program to Council.

 

Council would have to find the occupiers program to be acceptable, or one would be imposed onto the occupier.? Preferred replacement vegetation would have to be outlined and a list of suitable species, compiled with National Parks and Wildlife Service.

 

 

?


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Policy Review - Noxious Weeds and Animals - Control of Camphor Laurel

 

CLASS 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS - PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

This Noxious Weed Plan of Management aims to reduce the environmental, economic and social impacts of Class 4 Noxious Weeds.

 

 

SCOPE

 

This Plan of Management will apply throughout the Nambucca Shire Council Local Government Area.? All land, public and private is covered by the Plan.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Plan is prepared under the authority of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, Order 19 Schedule 4 gazetted 23 December 2005, Council?s Noxious Weeds Policy and all related legislation.

 

Class 4 noxious weeds are plants that pose a threat to primary production, the environment or human health, are widely distributed in the area and are likely to spread in or to another area.

 

 

CONTROL MEASURES

 

All land owners/occupiers must ?minimize the negative impact of these Class 4 weeds on the economy, community and environment of New South Wales?.

 

Control requirements as listed under Section 7 of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 are:

 

Control Type A???? Plants must be prevented from flowering or setting fruit.

 

Control Type B??????????? Land owners/occupiers must reduce the numbers and limit the distribution of the plant.

 

Control Type C??????????? All plants below three (3) metres in height must not be allowed to seed and 10 percent of all plants above three (3) metres in height must be removed per year over the next ten (10) years.

 

Control Type D??? Plants must be prevented from impacting on human health.

 

Control Type E??????????? Owners/occupiers of land must establish a ten (10) metre buffer zone on all boundary fences and internal driveways.

 

Control Type F??????????? Owners/occupiers of land must implement farming practices including chemical control, strategic grazing and pasture improvement to reduce the spread and distribution of the weed.

 

Control Type G??????????? A ten (10) metre buffer zone must be established on all boundaries adjacent to properties that are implementing a control program.

 

Control Type H??? Plants must not be knowingly sold, propagated or distributed.

 


CLASS 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS - PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

 

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

CONTROL TYPE

Bathurst/Noogoora/Californian Burrs

Xanthium Species

A

Bitou Bush/Boneseed

Chryanthemoides Monilifera

A, H

Blackberry

Rubus Fruticosus (agg. Spp)

H

Camphor Laurel

Cinnamomum Camphora

C, H

Chilean Needle Grass

Nassella Neesiana

A, H

Columbus Grass

Sorghum x Alum

A

Crofton Weed

Ageretina Adenophora

B

Fireweed

Senecio Madagascariensis

F

Harrisia Cactus

Harrisia Species

A

Johnson Grass

Sorghum Halepense

A

Lantana

Lantana spp

G, H

Mistflower

Ageratina Riparia

B

Pampas Grass

Cortaderia Species

A

Parramatta Grass

Sporobolus Fertilis

E

Prickly Pear

Opuntia Species

A

Privet (Broad leaf)

Ligustrum Lucidum

C, H

Privet (Narrow leaf/Chinese)

LigustrumLucidum

C, H

Rhus Tree

Toxicodendron Succedanea

D

Serrated Tussock

Nassella Trichotoma

A

Spiny Burrgrass

Cenchrus Incertus

A, H

 

Where physical control is required owner/occupiers may use a variety of techniques including chemical, mechanical and biological treatment.

 

Council will provide inspections and serve notices as required to ensure compliance with the Plan of Management.

 

 

DURATION

 

The Plan commences on 1 March 2006 and is valid for five (5) years with an annual review being undertaken.

 

 

ASSISTANCE

 

Enquiries regarding treatment methods maybe obtained by contacting Council?s Noxious Weeds Inspector on 0417 271 378.

 

 

Prepared By:???????????????? Noel Chapman????????????? Tim Woodward

???????????????????????????? Manager Civil Works????????????? Noxious Weed Inspector

April 2006

?


General Purpose Committee

14 July 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF382????????????? 140710???????? Scotts Head Master Plan

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Project Facilitation Team (PFT) met on 24 June 2010 to further discuss the Scotts Head master Plan.

 

A lease period of 21 years is necessary for the pay back period of the project but the value of the lease payment has yet to be negotiated.

 

The project will be developed over a five (5) year period and it is proposed that the lease payment increase each year inline with an increase in the income potential.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council adopt a period of 21 years as the period of the lease.

 

2??????? That Council advise the Land and Property Management Authority of the staged lease payment proposal starting at $17,500 in year 1 and reaching $50,000 in year 5 adjusted by CPI each year.

 

3??????? That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated the authority to negotiate the lease payment if necessary.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? As recommended.

2??????? Alternative schedule or value of lease payment.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The next stage of the negotiations was undertaken with the Land and Property Management Authority (L&PMA) on 24 June 2010 when the PFT met.? The Mayor, General Manager and Director Engineering Services met with L&PMA staff to discuss Council?s ?support in principle? and to identify areas that need further deliberation.

 

It must be stated up front that only the exhibited Master Plan is acceptable to L&PMA.? If no agreement is reached then the management of the semi-permanents will lapse in 2013 and devolve to Council.

 

Lease Area

 

The area is to include that part of Adin Street Oval utilised for the semi-permanents.? This is estimated to be an area of 7600 sq metres.? This is wholly Council owned land.

 

They pointed out that an area near the current entry would be converted from caravan park to a day-use area.? That area is estimated to be 2500 sq metres.? This is Crown Land.

 

Lease Term

 

The maximum term permitted under the Local Government Act 1993 of 21 years is preferred.? In setting the lease payment or rent, Council is asked by L&PMA to take into account the improved public benefit.

 

There is no standard method of valuing land under these circumstances to determine the lease payment, so the current fee and a reasonable level of growth has been taken into account in determining the proposed lease payment.

 

The current semi-permanent area attracts a payment of $15,800 while the Master Plan indicates an increase to $17,500.

 

A substantial increase should be sought on the fully developed caravan park.? The proposal is for redevelopment over five (5) years and the lease payment could reflect this by increasing as the ?capacity to pay? increases.

 

Proposed lease payments for negotiation:

 

Year 1????????? (2010/11)????? $17,500 (+CPI)

Year 2????????? (2011/12)????? $25,625 (+CPI)

Year 3????????? (2012/13)????? $33,750 (+CPI)

Year 4????????? (2013/14)????? $41,875 (+CPI)

Year 5????????? (2014/15)????? $50,000 (+CPI)

 

This or any other proposal has yet to be put to the L&PMA for acceptance or rejection

 

Reserve Trust Income

 

The L&PMA state in their letter (copy attached) that any monies raised by the Reserve Trust will be disbursed in accordance with the Crown Lands Act 1989 with the funds used on the general purposes of the Reserve Trust unless the Minister directs otherwise.

 

This project is being funded by the Reserve Trust and other external funds so there is unlikely to be surplus funds for many years that can be directed elsewhere by the Minister.

 

Other Issues

 

The agreement on the lease details will result in the following actions:

 

1??????? L&PMA and Trust will fund a hydraulic study on the stormwater and detention basin impact

 

2??????? Council will commence the development of a Plan of Management.

 

The main issue appears to be the level of lease payment.? The community of Scotts Head expect a reasonable return on the Council land be utilised while the L&PMA can only accept a payment that is financially viable.? Staging the lease payment from $17,500 to $50,000 over five (5) years attempts to address both positions.

 

Summary

 

Following the discussion with the L&PMA the options for Council are now limited to whether firstly it wishes to negotiate on the Master Plan or alternatively, whether it wishes to take over the ?semi-permanent section? of the caravan park.

 

Council has already resolved that it is not viable to operate the semi permanent section as a stand alone caravan park in which case Council?s choice is either between the Master Plan as advertised or a caravan park minus the semi permanent sites.? With the latter option, Council would also have the unenviable task of taking responsibility for vacating the semi permanent sites.

 

If Council wishes to maintain the status quo and the economic benefit the existing caravan park provides, the only option is to negotiate a lease on the basis of the advertised Master Plan.? The negotiation would be conditional on the retention of the Trust and the Trust?s responsibility for the maintenance of the day area.

 

Besides the revenue from the lease payments proposed in the report, Council and the community will also benefit from a $220,000 contribution towards a hydraulic study and construction of a needed retention basin and other drainage.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Mayor, General Manager

L&MPA

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Considered in the Master Plan

 

Social

 

Considered in the Master Plan

 


Economic

 

Considered in the Master Plan

 

Risk

 

Negotiations do not lead to an agreement.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Project has a self contained budget

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Lease payment to be negotiated.

 

Attachments:

1View

16343/2010 - Letter from L&PMA & Proposed Lease Plan

 

??


General Purpose Committee - 14 July 2010

Scotts Head Master Plan

 


?? ?



[1] Based on turnover ratio of 95:5 cows to calves.

[2] Phone survey June 2010

[3] Advice from finance department based on loan of $800,000 at 8.5% over 40 repayments (20 years)