NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

16 December 2010

 

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

 

Our Vision

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our? Mission Statement

 

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

 

Our Values in Delivery

?                Effective leadership

?                Strategic direction

?                Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

?                Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

?                Enhancement and protection of the environment

?                Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

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

?                Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:? Overview and Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

1??????? Addressing Council with regard to an item on the meeting agenda:

 

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

 

2??????? Public forum address regarding matters not on the meeting agenda:

 

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

 

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

 

Meeting Agenda

 

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


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 2 December 2010

5??????? Notices of Motion

5.1???? Notice of Motion - Macksville Saleyards Committee ?

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM

Mr Geoffrey Allen on behalf of Forsyths Chartered Accountants

7??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ??

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

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports

9.3???? Pensioner Rates and Charges Rebate

9.4???? Coffs Coast Waste Services - Waste Processing and Resource Recovery

9.5???? Minutes of the Sale yard Advisory Working Group meeting held on 29 November? 2010

9.6???? General Manager - Delegations of Authority - Update

9.7???? Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 16 November 2010

9.8???? Draft Report - 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey

9.9???? Financial Statement and Auditors Report - 30 June 2010

10????? Director Environment and Planning Report

10.1?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 2 December 2010

10.2?? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority 2 December 2010

10.3?? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports July 2010-June 2011, 2002-2010 and Certificates Received 2004-2010

10.4?? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report November 2010

10.5?? Planning Proposal Lot 11 and 12 DP 1017408 and Lot 2 DP514920 Pacific Highway Nambucca

10.6?? Local Adaptation Pathways Program A Regional Approach to Climate Change Kempsey Bellingen and Nambucca

10.7?? Report on Expression Of Interest for Funding - Implementation of Nambucca River Master Plan

11????? Director Engineering Services Report

11.1?? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 December 2010

11.2?? Landslip - Ocean and Matthew Streets Scotts Head

11.3?? Clarification of the role of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee ????

 

GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE MEETING ? 15 DECEMBER 2010


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

???


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1????? SF1471??????????? 161210???????? Notice of Motion - Macksville Saleyards Committee

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? John Ainsworth, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

The Macksville Saleyards Committee has insufficient primary producer representation.

 

Mr George Hicks, through his long association as a primary producer, beginning with his involvement with the initial construction of the Saleyards as well as his knowledge of Council requirements, would bring invaluable knowledge and experience to the Committee.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Mr George Hicks OAM be appointed to the Macksville Saleyards Committee.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

 

Social

 

 

Economic

 

 

Risk

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 161210???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS


OCTOBER 2008

1

RF256

 

16/10/08

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

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

DES

 

Catchment Assessment:

Phase 2 analysis of pipeline from Bismark to Nambucca Streets authorised.? Not expected to be completed until 31 July 2010.

 

GHD advise that ground survey completed.? Capacity analysis starts end of July 2010.

 

Options report received detail design and costing by 26 November 2010.

 

MAY 2009

2

SF1213

07/05/09

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

 

First letter sent 4 December 2007.

November 2009.

Followup letter sent. 26 June 2009.

No reply at 17 July 2009.

No reply at 10 August 2009.

No reply at 21 August 2009.

No reply at 7 Sept 2009.

No reply expected until Scotts Head Master Plan completed.

 

 

DES

GM

Followup letter sent 24 May 2010.

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

Project will not proceed unless budget is $80,000.? Cancel project and reallocate Section 94 funds if Scotts Head Reserve Trust do not contribute $40,000.

At Council?s meeting on 7 October 2010 it was resolved to receive advice on what Council land and what Crown land it concerns and also that the money be allocated to other projects in Scotts Head and be reported back to Council.? Report scheduled for November 2010.? Deferred to December 2010.


 

JULY 2009

 

3

SF1272

16/07/09

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

 

GM

Report to meeting on 19/11/09.

Deferred to December 2009.

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

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

Provision made in Budget for 2010/11.

IT Support Officer now proceeding with implementation.? Work underway.

 

 

AUGUST 2009

 

4

SF544

20/08/09

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

 

GM

September 2010.

Plan currently being reviewed.

Deferred to October 2010.

Not completed ? deferred to November 2010.

MANEX agreed to rehabilitate Bellwood between Pacific Hwy & Mumbler St with existing contributions.

To be included in Works Program for 2011/2012.

 

OCTOBER 2009

 

5

SF1075

15/10/09

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

 

DES

October 2010.

?Planet Footprint? engaged for 1 year at a cost of $3,450 to report on energy consumption by site and also to negotiate lower tariff for halls and museums with Country Energy.? Their first report will be to the October 2010 meeting.

Information not received at business paper deadline.

 

1st quarterly report received - to be reported to Jan 2011 GPC.

 

JANUARY 2010

 

6

SF839

21/01/10

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

 

GM

On-going.

 

 

 

 

MARCH 2010

 

7

SF820

20/05/10

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

 

GM

On-going

 

Report was ready for Nov GPC but didn?t comply with Council?s resolution for circulation to the first meeting of the month.

 

8

SF46

20/05/10

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

 

DEP

Report in May 2011.

 


 

JULY 2010

9

SF755

15/07/10

That Council defer a decision on demolition of the old amenities at Coronation Park to allow the Junior and Senior Rugby League Clubs to put their proposed business plan to Council explaining the uses, and how the work and ongoing maintenance is to be funded.

 

DES

Awaiting response from Clubs by the Committee of Management.

Committee submitted proposal for retention of amenities.

Report deferred to November to allow for further consultation with the clubs.

Clubs finalising their position.

 

10

SF638

15/07/10

Council formulate a plan of management for land which is occupied by the Valla Beach Pre-School.

 

GM

Scheduled for October 2010.

Deferred to November 2010.

Pre School unable to secure an easement over adjoining land for maintenance of bushfire buffer.? Plan of Management to be prepared following resolution of Pre School extensions.

 

11

SF218

15/07/10

Council review investigations to extend sewer to the Lower Nambucca and investigate effluent disposal issues in Eungai.

 

GM/

DEP

Letter sent to owners in Lower Nambucca. ?Briefing and discussion with property owners to be arranged.

DEP to investigate Eungai.

De Groot Benson contacted concerning a meeting date in February 2011.

 

SEPTEMBER 2010

12

SF1471, SF611

2/9/2010

Write to Minister for Local Govt requesting that the LG (manufactured Home Estates etc) Regulation 2005 be amended to require proposals to locate new dwellings in caravan parks to be notified to council prior to placement

 

DEP

Letter sent on 10/9/2010.

 

No response as at 26/10/2010.

Response received from Minister for Local Government 5 November 2010 advising that the matter has been referred to the Minister for Planning for consideration. See Trim document 27096/2010.

 

13

SF725

16/09/10

Council write to Minister for Roads, RTA and Local Traffic Committee re review of speed limit on Pacific Highway b/w Nambucca Heads and Burkes Lane and a median barrier.? Also Traffic Committee be asked to declare section a black spot.

 

GM

DES

Letters? sent on 20/10/2010

 

Listed for Traffic Committee 5 October 2010.

 

Listed for December 2010 meeting.

14

SF959

16/09/10

In regard to item 1 ? Riverside Drive ? GHD be requested to expedite completion of the project and provide a time line for same.

 

DES

Due weekend 1 October and report to Council 21 October 2010.

Options report received detail design and costing by 26 November 2010.

 

15

SF741

16/09/10

That a further report on the Paveline operations be prepared for the half year July 2010 to December 2010 for comparison with the same period in the previous year.

 

DES

Report in February 2011

16

SF741

16/09/10

Council pursue the potential of recovering the cost (of the enlarged sludge lagoon at the Nambucca Heads STP) from the Public Works Department.

 

GM

Contracts have been reviewed and a letter containing a claim has been sent to the PWD on 29 September 2010.? Response received from PWD on 11 October denying liability.? Meeting to be held on 28 October 2010.? Awaiting finalisation of a design for bank of sludge lagoon.

17

T030/2010

16/09/10

Council receive a report outlining the advantages and disadvantages of using contracted traffic control compared to Council staff.

 

DES

MHR

To be reported as part of the Organisation Review in December 2010.


 

OCTOBER 2010

18

SF878

7/10/10

Mid North Weight of Loads Group ? further information to be provided on the Group?s activities.

 

DES

Listed for November 2010.

 

Waiting for additional data.? Deferred to Dec 2010.

19

 

21/20/10

Council receive a report on the River Street Foreshore Plan, including staging, and then visit the site with Joan?s Army, Mr Graham Hughes and other interested people.? Alternative options to removing the trees to be considered.

 

DES

To be referred to December GPC.

20

SF394

21/10/10

Council be provided with advice on details of transfer of funds from ANZ to UBS Wealth Management Australia Ltd.

 

GM

Report to meeting on 18 November 2010.? Advice received on terminating the Macquarie Bank managed fund.?

CPG has now confirmed Council?s assumption that the UBS CMT is a managed fund and notwithstanding it is a settlement account for transacting purposes only, it would be in breach of the Minister?s orders.? CPG have had meetings with UBS to discuss possible alternatives.? Initially, CPG thought the most likely outcome would be that funds would be swept out daily to either Council?s external bank account or an at call cash account.? CPG to advise all their council clients of action to remedy the problem.

 

21

SF1031

21/10/10

New policies be reported back to Council for determination.

 

GM

January 2011.

22

SF593

21/10/10

Council make urgent representations to the Minister for Education re urgent attention to drainage and safety issues at the Nambucca Heads High School and Frank Partridge VC Primary School grounds.

 

DES

Letter sent 27 October 2010.

 

Acknowledgement letter received.

NOVEMBER 2010

23

SF1471

04/11/10

That a Saleyard seminar be held for the community after Council has received the report from Council?s Property Officer and prior to making any final decision on the future of the Saleyards.

 

GM

Report scheduled for December 2010.

 

Report scheduled for January 2011.

 

Property Officer to write to CMA requesting funds for improving Saleyards effluent issue.

24

SF1471

04/11/10

Council receive a report regarding pensioner rebates.

 

GM

Report scheduled for December 2010.

25

SF382

18/11/10

Council approach LPMA with a proposed change to Scotts Head Master Plan ? sketch plan showing 23 sites.? LPMA to discuss at a GPC.? Draft Plan of Management to re-categorise Adin Street Reserve as General Community Use to be placed on exhibition. Report on possible costs and revenue of MoU.

 

GM

Letter sent to LPMA on 22 November.? Will await decision on Master Plan before advertising re-categorisation so that public are properly informed before they have the opportunity to comment.

 

LPMA advised they would like to meet with the Mayor and General Manager to discuss the

alternative master plan.? GM has advised that Council specifically resolved that the discussion be at a GPC meeting.

26

SF29

18/11/10

Mayors and GM?s of the 3 Clarence Regional Library Councils have discussions regarding level of service ASAP.

 

DEP

Letter sent 24 November 2010.

 

Further letter sent 7 December with a suggested meeting date in late January 2011.

27

PRF54

18/11/10

Council approach LPMA re future management of Boultons Crossing (Gumma) Reserve

 

GM

Letter written to LPMA 26 November 2010.

DECEMBER 2010

28

SF1064

2/12/10

Council write to the Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Don Farrell, to seek the formal grant offer for the $10m funding for the Bowraville off -river storage

 

DES

Manager Water and Sewerage to draft letter.

29

SF1471

2/12/10

That a report be provided to Councillors re cost for cleaning the River Street riverbank previously cleaned by Joan?s Army.

 

DES

Report to GPC on 15 December 2010

30

DA2004/136

2/12/10

That a report be provided to Councillors, as part of the quarterly budget review, regarding all costs to Council of all legal issues.

 

DEP

February 2011 GPC.

31

SF339

2/12/10

Council receive a report on the structure & membership of the Unkya reserve CoM including usage and users.

 

GM

Report to GPC on 15 December 2010

32

SF1403

2/12/10

Council write to RTA re safety investigation & speed zone review of Pacific H/w between Nambucca Heads and Urunga.

 

GM

Letter including submission from Ms Tahnee Milgate sent to RTA on 10 December 2012.

33

SF358

2/12/10

Council endeavour to increase reserve for the Macksville Aquatic Centre to $119,000 in 2011-12.

 

GM

To be included in budget for 2011/2012.

33

SF341

2/12/10

Council request from CoM involved with markets info regarding their insurance cover and a copy of any policies.

 

GM

Letters sent on 10 December 2012.

34

SF296

2/12/10

Signage at Ferry Street Macksville ? Council review after the Christmas break.

 

DEP

Report to Council in February 2011

35

PRF71

2/12/10

Council look at means of restricting car access via the bush to the rear of the skate park.

DES

To be arranged.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF1471??????????? 161210???????? Pensioner Rates and Charges Rebate

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The real value of the pensioner rebate is diminishing over time which imposes additional costs on pensioners.

 

There is a policy issue concerning the extent to which local government should be involved in income or welfare distribution rather than a user pay or fee for service model.? Is it more efficient for a single level of government, ie the Commonwealth Government, to determine taxation and income redistribution than three levels of government?

 

There is an even bigger question as to whether a single Council in NSW should be acting differently to other Councils.? For example, the proportion of our population over the age of 65 is 23% compared to 13.9% for NSW as a whole.? It is expected that the proportion of pensioners in the Nambucca local government area would similarly exceed the NSW average.? Should the Nambucca Shire Council be financially responsible for this additional financial burden?

 

Should Council wish to fund an increase in the pensioner rebate, either itself or under the existing 55% to 45% split with the State Government, will require a special variation to increase rates and/or a significant reduction in service levels.? The best opportunities to reduce service levels are in those services judged as lower importance and high satisfaction in the recent resident survey.? These were:

 

?????? Pool complex in Macksville

?????? Public halls

?????? Tourism and tourism promotion

?????? Dog control

?????? Sporting facilities

?????? Saleyards

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council write to the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Barbara Perry, as well as the Opposition spokesperson, Mr Chris Hartcher, seeking a monetary increase in the pensioner rebate to be jointly funded by the State Government and councils on the existing 55% to 45% split.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can unilaterally increase the value of the pensioner rebate under Section 582 of the Local Government Act.? In this scenario Council would have to provide all of the additional funding either by a special variation to increase its rate revenue or a reduction in services or both.? Council could propose this option in its community engagement strategy for integrated planning and reporting.

 

A second option is for Council to lobby the State Government to provide a monetary increase in the pensioner rebate to be jointly funded by the State Government and Local Government on the existing 55% to 45% split.

 

A third option is for Council to lobby the State Government to provide a monetary increase in the pensioner rebate at no cost to Council.

 

Council obviously has a high degree of control over the first option but effectively no control over the 2nd and 3rd options.


 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 18 November 2011 it was resolved that:

 

?Council receive a report regarding the current pensioner rebate situation, including:

 

?????? Options for addressing the declining pensioner rebate;

?????? Financial implications for Council of any options;

?????? Options for Council in terms of requests to State Government eg, increasing State Government proportion of the rebate and indexing it to CPI and opportunities for lobbying the State Government and Opposition.?

 

In $ terms the maximum pensioner rebate which is available is:

?????? Up to $250 for ordinary rates and domestic waste management services

?????? Up to $87.50 for water supply special rates or charges

?????? Up to $87.50 for sewerage special rates or charges

 

The State Government providing 55% of the funding of the rebate granted to eligible pensioners, with Council covering the remaining 45%.

 

The State Government has not reviewed the pensioner rebate since its inception in 1989.? Rates rise each year but the pensioner rebate has remained the same.? As a consequence the rebate has lost a substantial amount of its real value and there has been an increasing financial burden on pensioners.

 

The comparison below indicates that over the past ten years pensioners who are entitled to the full rebate are effectively paying an additional 12% of their rates from their own pocket.

 

2000/2001

Total number of pensioners???????? 1956

Total Granted??????????????????????????? $734,114.28

 

2010/2011

Total number of pensioners???????? 2380

Total Granted??????????????????????????? $837,548.51

 

Sample assessment comparison:

 

2000/2001

Assessment ??????????????????????????? 123456

Rates levied: ??????????????????????????? $1093.70

Concession Granted: ??????????????? $? 425.00

Rates Payable: ??????????????????????? $? 668.70

% of rates payable = ?????? ???61.14%

 

2010/2011

Assessment ??????????????????????????? 123456

Rates levied: ??????????????????????????? $1,589.04

Concession Granted: ??????????????? $?? 425.00

Rates Payable: ??????????????????????? $ 1164.04

% of rates payable =? ????? ????73.25%

 

The comparison also indicates the quantum of the problem wherein the cost of maintaining the rebate in real terms means that expenditure on the rebate would need to increase by 12% to maintain parity with the situation in 2000/2001 let alone 1989.

 

As the expenditure on the pensioner rebate was $837,548 in 2010/2011, this would need to increase by $100,505 to maintain parity with its real value in 2000/2001.

 

Section 582 of the Local Government Act allows Council to grant a further rebate at its own discretion on a voluntary basis (with no subsidy from the State Government) to eligible pensioners.? If Council was interested in this option, it would need to identify how the $100,000 would be funded.? Funding can only be achieved by increasing revenue or reducing expenditure or both.

 

In relation to increasing revenue via a special rate variation, this could be considered in the Integrated Planning and Reporting legislative requirements which have to be completed by March 2012.? Council is about to embark on a community engagement strategy which could consider a special rate variation to provide additional funding for pensioner rebates.

 

In relation to reducing expenditure, with an asset renewal ratio estimated at 0.60, it is suggested this funding could only be achieved by a substantial reduction in existing service levels of one or more activities.? Opportunities for reducing service levels may be found in those activities judged as lower importance and high satisfaction in the recent resident satisfaction survey.? These were:

 

?????? Pool complex in Macksville

?????? Public halls

?????? Tourism and tourism promotion

?????? Dog control

?????? Sporting facilities

?????? Saleyards

 

Of the above list, Council has a statutory obligation in relation to companion animal/dog control so it is difficult to reduce service levels and remain legally compliant.

 

Besides the option of Council funding an additional rebate under Section 582, it could make representations to the State Government to increase the monetary value of the rebate under the same terms that currently apply, ie that the State Government fund 55% of any increase and Council fund 45%.

 

In the example quoted above, to maintain parity in real terms with 2000/2001 would mean this Council providing $45,000 to the State Government?s $55,000.? Whilst the State Government has provided no indication that it is considering an increase in the pensioner rebate, this option would have a greater chance of success than a third option of seeking the State Government to provide all funding for an increase in the pensioner rebate.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Council?s Rates Officer.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The real value of the pensioner rebate is diminishing over time which imposes additional costs on pensioners.

 

There is a policy issue concerning the extent to which local government should be involved in income or welfare distribution rather than a user pay or fee for service model.? Is it more efficient for a single level of government, ie the Commonwealth Government, to determine taxation and income redistribution than three levels of government?

 

There is an even bigger question as to whether a single Council in NSW should be acting differently to other Councils.? For example, the proportion of our population over the age of 65 is 23% compared to 13.9% for NSW as a whole.? It is expected that the proportion of pensioners in the Nambucca local government area would similarly exceed the NSW average.? Should the Nambucca Shire Council be financially responsible for this additional financial burden?

 

Another issue is that the rapidly ageing population will see substantial increases in the number of pensioners.? For example, in 2021 the number of people aged 65 and over in the Nambucca local government area is expected to increase from the current 4,555 persons to 6,417 persons.? Whilst not all of these persons will be pensioners there is nothing to indicate any change in the pensioner ratio.

 

Economic

 

The provision of additional pensioner rebates will provide pensioners with more disposable income, some of which is likely to be spent locally.

 

Risk

 

Council may wish to consider the precedent that it would create should it wish to fund an additional pensioner rebate under Section 582 of the Local Government Act.? Once the funding is provided it will be difficult to remove, notwithstanding it is voluntary and that Council?s financial position may deteriorate.? Council will be effectively locking itself into a larger financial liability regardless of its financial circumstances.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Depending upon the option selected there could be a significant and long term impact on Council?s budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF674????????????? 161210???????? Coffs Coast Waste Services - Waste Processing and Resource Recovery

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A change in regulations for the production of compost from mixed (red bin) waste is causing major issues for the Coffs Coast Waste Service with the potential for significant impacts on the cost of the service.? Currently the mixed waste is being used as landfill whilst the contractor investigates options to meet new disposal standards set down by the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water.

 

The report is for information pending more detailed information on a way forward.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? Council make representations and lobby the NSW Government and the Department of Climate Change and Water, in concert with Coffs Coast Waste Service partner Councils, the Waste Management Association of Australia, other NSW Councils and the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, to seek to remedy elements of the new regulatory regime that unreasonably constrain waste resource recovery and which impose significant costs on our communities.

 

2??????? Council support the Waste Management Association of Australia in its representations to the Director General of the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, to collaboratively work to address and resolve barriers to enable the production and utilisation of organic wastes for the production of renewable energy.

 

3??????? A further report be presented to Council early in the new year, with more detailed information, and independent expert advice, that will recommend the way forward for mixed waste processing to satisfy the new requirements under the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005, and Part 6, Clause 51 and 51A, of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

At this stage there are no feasible options other than to lobby the State Government in relation to the regulations and to continue investigations as to the future processing of the mixed waste stream.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 29 November 2010, Council?s Waste Management Officer and myself met with our counterparts from Bellingen and Coffs Harbour Councils and also representatives from Handybin Waste Services and Biomass Solutions to discuss the impact of new waste regulations on the cost of waste processing and its future direction.? There were discussions with and without the contractor being present.

 

The following report has been compiled by Mr Jeff Green, the Acting Director Land Use, Health & Development and Executive Manager, Strategy and Sustainability at Coffs Harbour City Council, to provide an overview of the issue.? It is significant and potentially costly for the ratepayers of the three Councils.? The recommendations have been drafted by the Acting Director and it is agreed that unless there is some regulatory change the Coffs Coast Waste Service will be effectively ?penalised? for having a best practice solid waste resource recovery plant.

 

Coffs Harbour City Council, Bellingen Shire Council and Nambucca Shire Council operate in partnership to deliver joint waste management services and resource recovery operations under the banner Coffs Coast Waste Services (CCWS).

The partnership is reinforced by a Tripartite Agreement between the three Councils, and a joint waste collection and recycling contract.

CCWS provides a three-bin domestic waste collection service for organics including food waste, recyclables, and mixed waste, and processing of these streams at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and an Alternate Waste Treatment (AWT) facility to produce beneficial products.

The contract for processing organics, mixed waste plus biosolids was awarded to Biomass Solutions (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd in 2004.? For the purposes of the Contract Biomass is referred to as the Waste Processing Contractor (WPC)

The Biomass Solutions AWT facility was commissioned in two stages:

Stage one ? Processing of streamed Organics commenced March 2007

Stage two ? Processing of streamed Mixed waste commenced January 2008

Under the waste processing contract streamed organics that includes food waste, green waste and biosolids are shredded and processed via an agitated composting bay process, and subsequently screened and mixed as necessary to produce ?A? Grade compost that meets market and regulatory requirements.?

Streamed Mixed waste undergoes a process involving primary manual and mechanical sorting, autoclaving, secondary mechanical and manual separation of output fractions to produce recyclables, a screened organic fraction for reuse, and residual waste that is destined for landfilling.?

The sterilised organic fraction generally undergoes composting in the agitated bay system, followed by screening and mixing with other products as necessary to produce B Grade compost that met the then prevailing Biosolids Guidelines.?

On 24 April 2008 the NSW Government introduced amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 which took effect on 28 April 2008.?? The amendments, required, inter alia, that wastes including any products produced from wastes, must not be used without the benefit of a relevant General or Specific Exemption pursuant to Part 6, Clause 51 and 51A, of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

These changes have created turmoil in the waste processing and resource recovery industry across NSW.? Numerous Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) plants, and Councils throughout NSW have been affected, and contracts for new AWT facilities have been put on hold. Refer Attachments 1, 2, and 3.

In particular the legislation was implemented without the benefit of a General Exemption with respect to AWT outputs from mixed waste. That Exemption was delayed for around two years.

In January 2010, Coffs Harbour City Council, Nambucca Shire Council and Bellingen Shire Council submitted an Issues Paper to Hon. Frank Sartor, Minister for Climate Change, and the Environment. The Issues Paper highlighted the significant concerns of the councils and urged the Minister to take decisive action.

 

In April 2010 the NSW Government released the ?The organic outputs derived from mixed waste general exemption? pursuant to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 ? General Exemption under Part 6, Clause 51 and 51A.

 

The long awaited General Exemption introduced much more stringent requirements with respect to the use of AWT organic outputs for land application in terms of: processor and consumer responsibilities, chemical and other material concentrations, types of agricultural use, application rates and buffers, and sampling and testing requirements.

 

The effect of this legislation was to significantly change the goal posts in respect to the processing of mixed waste and utilisation of beneficial organics.

Coffs Harbour City Council entered into the contract with Biomass Solutions (Coffs Harbour) Pty for the Coffs Harbour Regional Resource Recovery Project.? Bellingen Shire Council and Nambucca Shire Council are party to the scheme by way of a binding Tripartite Agreement between the three Councils.? With respect to the change of laws that has occurred, Clause 7.4.3 of the Contract provides:

 

Change in Laws

Risks associated with the need to adapt the process to environmental or other laws which may be enacted over the term of the operating contract will be assumed by the WPC.?

However, if an environmental or other law is enacted and the WPC forms the view the cost to the WPC of performing the Contract, having regard to the change in the law, will be greater than the cost to the WPC of implementing the Contract before the change in the law (Increased Costs) and gives written notice to the Council, within 28 days after the date the law was changed, of that view and of the WPC?s opinion of the amount of the Increased Costs:

?????? the parties must negotiate in good faith to determine if and how the Council should compensate the WPC for the Increased Costs;

?????? if the parties fail, within 28 days after service of the notice on the Council, to agree if and how the Council should compensate the WPC for the Increased Costs, the matter will be referred for determination by an Expert appointed for that purpose by the President of the NSW Chapter of the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators of Australia, at the request of the parties or either of them; and,

?????? the decision of the Expert will be final and binding on both parties.

With respect to the change of laws that has occurred the contractor argues that performance of the contract is being impeded, and is seeking relief.? The matter remains the subject of legal argument and negotiation.

Issues:

 

???? Whilst councils and the industry generally support the NSW Government?s efforts to enhance controls regarding the use of waste materials on land or in thermal applications so as to protect the environment, the rationale for aspects of the new requirements are unfathomable, and lacks scientific basis. The effect of which is to unreasonably constrain the use of beneficial waste products.

???? The General Exemption as gazetted? introduced much more rigorous requirements than previously applied in respect to

-??? physical and other contaminant levels of mixed waste organics that can be land applied

-??? sources of mixed waste that can be processed

-??? the types of agricultural and non agricultural uses of such products

-??? the application rates per hectare

-??? testing and reporting requirements.

 

???? The manner in which the new regulatory requirements have been introduced by DECCW and the NSW government has resulted in significant costs to the Coffs Coast Councils and their communities to date, that could have been largely avoided.

 

???? The requirements in respect to DECCW?s ?Organic outputs derived from mixed waste General exemption? are excessively onerous and at this stage the DECCW has made no determination with regard to Biomass Solutions? application for a Specific Exemption that pertains to the particular circumstances of local CCWS operations.

 

???? It should be noted that at this stage workable General Exemptions are in place with regard to the Biomass?s Organics and Biosolids streams. The current impasse pertains to Biomass?s mixed waste processing stream, and similarly with other AWT operators across NSW.

???? Biomass advise that their current AWT mixed waste process cannot achieve the new more rigorous product quality requirements without significant feedstock controls, and plant modifications that would entail further capital investment and increased labour and operational costs. Since the release of the General Exemption, Biomass Solutions (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd has been conducting detailed process trials and investigations, end use marketing studies and financial analysis to derive options that will conform to the new regulatory regime. In the meantime organics derived from mixed waste processing that would otherwise be applied to land are being directed to landfill.

???? The plant continues to process the Organics and Biosolids streams to produce high quality compost for beneficial use, and these products are being successfully marketed.

???? Biomass Solutions has now developed processing solutions that would achieve the new standards, and has provided the Councils with the preliminary costs for various options.? However the processing solutions require endorsement of DECCW by way of a Specific Exemption. The latter has been lodged with DECCW but is still under consideration.

???? There is potential to beneficially use AWT organics as a fuel to produce Green Power, to supplement feedstock requirements at large and small scale power stations, such as the Broadwater Sugar Mill and Harwood Sugar Mill, or coal-fired power stations.? There are ready markets and heightened demand for AWT organics for this purpose. However DECCW has thus far prevented the use AWT organics for power generation, and has resisted industry and local government representations to unlock this market.? As recently as last month, formal representations were made in this vein by the Waste Management Association of NSW to the Director General of DECCW, Lisa Corbyn, copied to the President of the Local Government Association of NSW, Mayor Keith Rhoades.

In short the NSW government?s new regulatory requirements have significantly changed the goal posts and thus introduced major new costs to NSW Councils and their communities.? Relevant media articles are attached.

 

Over the coming months, options that are being distilled to satisfy the new regulatory requirements will be comprehensively reviewed, with the aid of independent external consultants and legal advisors. It is anticipated that a report will be presented to the Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Councils with recommendations as to the way forward.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Coffs Harbour City Council has had extensive consultation, discussions and high level meetings concerning the regulatory changes and related issues, with DECCW, the Waste Management Association of NSW and AWT industry players.? There was a meeting at Coffs Harbour on 29 November 2010 involving the General Managers of the three Councils as well as their Waste Management Officers to discuss the problems.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Coffs Coast Waste Services are designed to optimize recycling and resource recovery, beneficial reuse, and to minimize waste to landfill.

 

The recovery of mixed waste organics to produce compost for land application has environmental benefits in terms of soil carbon levels, soil fertility, improved agricultural outputs, rehabilitation of sites, and avoided carbon emissions.

 

As it stands, with the change in legal requirements and standards, mixed waste organics from the CCWS councils is currently being land filled and Council will need to prepare to receive its share next year.

 

Social

 

The community has demonstrated strong support for recycling and resource recovery as is evident by the high levels of recycling and low levels of contamination in the domestic green bin and yellow bin service.?

 

Surveys have demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with Coffs Coast Waste services and the recycling and resource recovery systems.

 

Councils are obliged to provide sustainable waste services on behalf of their communities.?

 

It is important that the Bellingen, Nambucca and Coffs Harbour Councils continue to provide sustainable waste management services, recycling and resource recovery commensurate with community expectations.

 

The change in laws has detrimentally affected numerous Councils and AWT operations across NSW.? It is therefore appropriate that the Councils continue to voice concerns to the NSW Government both directly and in concert with the Local Government Association of NSW, the Waste Management Association of NSW, the AWT industry and other Councils.

 

Economic

 

The recovery of waste resources including organics reduces the quantities of waste that are directed to landfill.? Landfilling is an expensive activity, more so since the introduction of the NSW governments Section 88 waste levy payment requirements. Effective from July 2009 mid north coast and north coast councils are required to pay a waste levy to the NSW government for waste that is directed to landfill.? The rate for the 2010/2011 financial year is set at $20.40 per tonne.? Further, NSW statute provides that the Levy is to rise cumulatively at the rate of CPI + $10 each year until 2015/16.

 

Waste processing and the marketing and utilization of waste products generate local employment.

 

The legislative changes in relation to mixed waste are currently resulting in reusable materials wastefully going to landfill, and therefore causing higher waste disposal costs to the councils, and additional waste levy payments to the NSW Government.

 

The impacts of the change in laws, and additional waste processing costs to satisfy the new laws needs to be more fully evaluated in terms of short and long term implications taking into account sustainability criteria, the remaining 17 year contract term with Biomass Solutions, the rising Section 88 waste levy payments and landfill costs, landfill space and waste transport costs, government policy and the legal framework now and going forward, community expectations, and projected long term waste processing costs and resource recovery rates.?

 

To this effect a consultant?s brief is being prepared with a view to calling for quotations from reputable, duly qualified and experienced consultants to independently review the options being put forward by Biomass Solutions, to audit the contractors financial records and calculations and to provide recommendations to the Councils.

 

It is expected that this investigation will be concluded late February and a report will be put to the Councils shortly thereafter.

 

 

Risk

 

The risks are outlined in the report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The issues discussed in this report will have financial implications in terms of the waste processing costs that will be reflected in higher annual domestic waste charges and higher gate fees at the Council?s waste disposal facilities.

 

At this stage the financial implications have not been fully determined, however provision will be made in the 2011/2012 fees and charges for higher waste processing costs.? Waste facility gate fees will also need to be increased by amounts to be determined.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

30321/2010 - Copy of Media Articles

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Coffs Coast Waste Services - Waste Processing and Resource Recovery

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF21??????????????? 161210???????? Minutes of the Sale yard Advisory Working Group meeting held on 29 November? 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Minutes of the Saleyards Advisory Working Group meeting held on 29 November 2010. 

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Saleyards Advisory Working Group meeting held on 29 November 2010.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.  Council requires the expertise of the active users of the saleyards to guide them in developing a plan for the future of the sale yards.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Saleyards Advisory Working Group meeting was held on 29 November 2010.

 

The Group comprises Council representative, Council administration representatives and members from the different user groups patronising the Saleyards including:

 

President??????????????????????? Cr R Hoban ( Mayor)

Vice Presidents?????????????? M Jones

Secretary??????????????????????? S Williams (Property Officer)

Committee????????????????????? T. Stanton, A Noble, P Kedzlie, R Andrews,

????????????????????????????????????? W Lowe (Manager Business Development)

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The recommendation does not give rise to any environmental issues.

 

Social

 

The recommendation does not give rise to any social issues

 

Economic

 

The recommendation does not give rise to any economic issues

 


Risk

 

The recommendation does not present any additional risk to Council

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proposal for upgrade of the saleyard facility will present significant and substantial costs to Council

 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds at this juncture.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

29613/2010 - Minutes - Saleyards Advisory Working Group - 29 November 2010

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Minutes of the Sale yard Advisory Working Group meeting held on 29 November? 2010

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Michael Jones

Wayne Lowe (Manager Business Development)

Tom Stanton,

Steven Williams (Property Officer & Secretary)

Rick Andrews

Tom Parkins

George Hicks OAM

Michael Coulter

 

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Alan Noble

Peter Kedzlie

 

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

The Saleyards Advisory Working Group declares that its members comprise entities who have a vested interested in the continued operations of the Macksville Saleyards.

 

Councillor R Hoban declared a non-pecuniary less significant conflict of interest in the continued operation of the Macksville Saleyards under the Local Government Act as Cr Hoban has family members who sell all through the Macksville Saleyards.?

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:??????????????? (Jones/Andrews)

 

That the Committee note the adoption and endorsement of the recommendations of the Minutes of the Meeting held 4 May 2010 , by Council at its meeting on 6 May 2010.

 

 

?

General Manager Report

ITEM 5.1????? SF21????????????????? 291110????? Report on Effluent Management - Macksville Saleyards

Recommendation:????? (Jones/Andrews)

 

1???? That Council consider the proposed Effluent Management Plan and other options for the Macksville Saleyards as part of the overall future Management Plan for the Saleyards.

 

2???? That Council?s Grants Officer explore grant opportunities to contribute to or meet the cost of installing the proposed Effluent Management System at the Macksville Saleyards.

 

 

 

ITEM 5.2????? SF21????????????????? 291110????? Macksville Saleyards Traffic Management and Infrastructure

Recommendation:????? (Hoban/Hicks)

 

1?????? That Council consider the proposed Traffic Management Plan for the Macksville Saleyards as part of the overall future Management Plan for the Saleyards.

 

2??????? That a complete costing of the project be compiled and reported to Council as part of the overall future Management Plan for the Saleyards.

 

???

 

?

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held in March 2011 or earlier as required.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 6.10 pm.?

 

 

 

RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6????? SF35??????????????? 161210???????? General Manager - Delegations of Authority - Update

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The General Manager?s delegations were last reviewed on 17 June 2010.

 

Legislative change arising out of the new Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provisions require further amendment of the delegations?specifically to Delegation 8.3.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to perform functions in relation to Development Matters in accordance with the following amended Delegations arising out of the new Environmental Planning and Assessment Act:

 

8.3??????? In respect of the processing of draft LEP?s and to the extent permitted by the Act, Regulation and Council policy, to:

 

(a)????? determine matters that a planning proposal shall have regard to (subject to any specifications from the Department of Planning);

(b)????? determine the public authorities or bodies, other Councils and such other persons with whom to consult (subject to any specifications from the Department of Planning);

(c)????? determine the form, manner, place/s and timing for public exhibition of (any) Planning Proposal and draft LEP (subject to any specifications from the Department of Planning);

(d)????? make appropriate changes to any Planning Proposal as a result a gateway determination made by the Department of Planning under Section 56 of the Act.

(e)????? confirm to the Department of Planning that any minor changes to draft LEP?s conform generally to those adopted by Council, ie for insignificant changes such as different wording required by the Parliamentary Draftsman;

(f)?????? prepare planning proposal associated with any draft LEP?s prepared under Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in accordance with any delegations from the Department of Planning which may exist at the time;

(g)????? Report to the Minister on the result of any public consultation and public hearing related to a planning proposal and LEP?s, under Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in accordance with any delegations from the Department of Planning which may exist at the time;

(f)?????? Report to the Minister on draft LEP?s, under Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in accordance with any delegations from the Department of Planning which may exist at the time.

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The delegations of authority to the General Manager are at the discretion of Council.? The General Manager then has discretion to delegate such authorities to individual staff members.

 

 


DISCUSSION:

 

Section 377 of the Local Government Act provides that a Council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the Council) any function other than a specified list of items (a) to (u).

 

The General Manager may then delegate those functions to other staff.

 

The changes are shown in bold in 8.3 of the delegations below:

 

In respect of the processing of draft LEP?s and to the extent permitted by the Act, Regulation and Council policy, to:

 

(a)????? determine matters that a planning proposal shall have regard to (subject to any specifications from the Department of Planning);

 

(b)????? determine the public authorities or bodies, other Councils and such other persons with whom to consult (subject to any specifications from the Department of Planning);

 

(c)????? determine the form, manner, place/s and timing for public exhibition of (any) Planning Proposal and draft LEP (subject to any specifications from the Department of Planning);

 

(d)????? make appropriate changes to any Planning Proposal as a result a gateway determination made by the Department of Planning under Section 56 of the Act.

 

(e)????? confirm to the Department of Planning that any minor changes to draft LEP?s conform generally to those adopted by Council, ie for insignificant changes such as different wording required by the Parliamentary Draftsman;

 

(f)?????? prepare planning proposal associated with any draft LEP?s prepared under Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in accordance with any delegations from the Department of Planning which may exist at the time;

 

(g)????? Report to the Minister on the result of any public consultation and public hearing related to a planning proposal and LEP?s, under Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in accordance with any delegations from the Department of Planning which may exist at the time;

 

(f)?????? Report to the Minister on draft LEP?s, under Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in accordance with any delegations from the Department of Planning which may exist at the time.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Environment and Planning.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The purpose of regularly reviewing delegations of authority is to minimise the risk of Council staff acting outside their delegations.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There are no budgetary implications although it needs to be acknowledged that in the absence of appropriate delegations of authority, decision making is slower and there will be the potential for increased costs.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7????? SF326????????????? 161210???????? Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 16 November 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Macksville Showground Committee of Management and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting and the Financial Statement are attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club?s Annual General Meeting held on 16 November 2010 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Annual General Meeting of the Nambucca Senior Citizens Club?s Committee of Management was held on Tuesday 16 November 2010.

 

The Committee of Management for 2010/2011 comprises:

 

????????? President??????????????????????? June Boag

????????? Vice Presidents?????????????? M Parker

????????? Secretary??????????????????????? P Shales

????????? Assistant Secretary???????? C Neizgoda

????????? Treasurer???????????????????????? L Simpson

????????? Assistant Treasurer????????? P Shales

????????? Publicity/Welfare Officer?? L Florent

????????? Public Officer?????????????????? C Neizgoda

????????? Committee????????????????????? G Gray; G Adam; B Adam; R Newman

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

This report poses no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council consider the rehabilitation of the internal roadway at the Showground in its 2011-2012 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

29018/2010 - Minutes of AGM held 16 November 2010

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Nambucca Senior Citizens Club Inc Committee of Management - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 16 November 2010

 





?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8????? SF1533??????????? 161210???????? Draft Report - 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council has now received the draft report on the 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey which is circularised (document no. 29958/2010).

 

Satisfaction with Council?s overall performance had risen by 5.8% since the 2007 survey, with a mean rating (on a scale of 1-5) of 3.26.? This is a good result.? All towns surveyed recorded improved satisfaction with Council?s overall performance, except Scotts Head where there was a reduction in satisfaction of 4% compared to the 2007 survey result.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Jetty Research be advised that Council accepts the draft report ? 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey subject to the provision of recommendations within the Executive Summary; the provision of a classification of the ?other comments? in Appendix 2; and the correction of typographical/spelling errors.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option of seeking the collation of different mixes of information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has now received the draft report on the 2010 Resident Satisfaction Survey which is circularised (document no. 29958/2010).

 

The 2010 Nambucca Shire resident satisfaction survey was conducted as a random and representative telephone survey of 400 adults who had lived in the Shire for 12 months or more.? Councillors and permanent Council employees were precluded from participating.? Surveying was conducted by Jetty Research on weeknights from 11 October to 21 October 2010.

 

The sample size for the survey provides a margin of error at +/- 4.9% at the 95 percent confidence level.? This means that if the same poll was conducted 20 times, results should reflect the views and behaviour of the overall survey population to within +/- 4.9 percent in 19 of those 20 surveys.

 

The survey results are important for measuring the Council?s performance and also in compiling the 10 year Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program required under the Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation.? The information is also used by Council?s Grants Officer in providing justification for particular grant applications.

 

The survey?s major results are:

 

1.? Resident satisfaction had risen by 5 or more percent in 15 of the 26 facilities and services measured.? It had fallen by 5 or more percent in only one category, that of bridges.

2.? In terms of importance, three facilities ? libraries, the Macksville swimming complex and sporting facilities were deemed of greater importance in 2010 than they had been in 2007.? Only environmental monitoring and protection registered a 5% decline in importance.

3.? Seven facilities and services lay in the ?higher importance/low satisfaction quadrant being sealed roads, estuary management, environmental monitoring, public toilets, footpaths and cycleways, youth activities and bridges.

4.? Satisfaction with Council?s overall performance had risen by 5.8% since the 2007 survey, with a mean rating (on a scale of 1-5) of 3.26.? This is a good result.? All towns surveyed recorded improved satisfaction with Council?s overall performance, except Scotts Head where there was a reduction in satisfaction of 4% compared to the 2007 survey result.

5.? For those who had personally visited Council within the past six months (being 44% of the overall sample) satisfaction with the service received rose from 2007 levels to an extremely high 4.24 mean (again on a 1-5 scale).? Given that Council actually reduced customer service staffing, this is a very good result.

6.? However for those who had written to or called Council within the past year satisfaction levels were down slightly.

7.? Use of the Council website had almost doubled over the past 3 years, from 12 to 22% of respondents.? Age appears no barrier, with 17% of those aged 60 plus having accessed the site.? This highlights the growing role of the Council website as a community communication tool.

8.? When asked how they would spend a hypothetical $5m general use grant, almost half (45%) nominated building and maintenance of roads, with 21% nominating improvements to bridges.? Specific infrastructure projects were nominated by 14%, while a similar proportion nominated youth programs or facilities.

9.? In relation to Councillor numbers, opinion was almost evenly split between the 43% seeking a reduction in numbers (from nine to seven) and 47% wanting numbers to remain as is.? This indicates there is no clear cut mood for change.

10.???? When asked to what extent they were anti or pro-development, the consensus ? as in 2007 ? was for a balanced approach between these two extremes.

11.???? Over 90% of respondents agreed with the notion that Council needs to spend more on road and bridge maintenance.? And 64% of those surveyed said they would be prepared to pay a small (50 cents to $1.50 per week) levy to be spent specifically on improved roads and bridges.

 

Jetty Research is seeking any comments from Council prior to finalising the document.? Besides correcting spelling/typographical errors, James Parker from Jetty Research has offered to provide recommendations with the Executive Summary.? Another suggestion would be to have a classification of ?Appendix 2? other comments.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Jetty Research.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The survey results do not have any environmental implications.

 

Social

 

The survey results do not have any social impacts.

 

Economic

 

The survey results do not have any economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost of the community satisfaction Survey was $14,520 and came in under budget as $15,000 was allocated.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9????? SF1403??????????? 161210???????? Financial Statement and Auditors Report - 30 June 2010

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Pursuant to Section 418 and Section 419 of the Act, Council is required to present the audited Financial Statements and Auditor?s Reports to the public.

 

The Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2010, have been completed and the audit reports required by the provisions of Section 417 of the Local Government Act 1993 have been received and copies are attached.

 

As a result of end of year processes consolidated Current Liquid Equity has decreased by $37,994. General activities? net CLE balance is $1,770,570, Water Supplies $1,678,937 and Sewerage Services $727,840.

 

The attached Audit Report under Section 417(2) and 417(3) provides an independent and comprehensive explanation of Council?s financial position and Mr Geoffrey Allen of Forsyths is expected to attend the public meeting to report on the Statements.?

 

The financial statements indicate Council?s financial position remaining sound.? The Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Changes in Equity and Statement of Cash Flows consolidate the information contained in the notes to the accounts and provide the big picture of Council?s operations and financial position and are attached for Council?s information.? Copies of the Consolidated Financial Statements are available on council?s website and hard copies can be provided upon request.?

 

Financial indicators regarding asset management are also discussed as part of this report.

 

Also attached is a copy of Council?s investments detailing external and internal restrictions for which the investments are held as at 30 June 2010.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Financial Statements and the Auditor?s Reports for the year ended the 30 June 2010 be received.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Presentation of the audited Financial Statements and Auditor?s Reports is a requirement under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

CURRENT LIQUID EQUITY

 

Council at its meeting of the 4 November 2010, as part of the 30 June 2010 budget review, was provided with details of the current liquid equity position, operating results for 2009/10, and list of revotes for General Activities, Water Supplies and Sewerage Services.

 

As a result of the audit process consolidated current liquid equity decreased by $37,994.

 

General activities decreased by $103,396 with Water Supplies and Sewerage Services increasing by $48,223 and $17,179 respectively. These adjustments are a result of either/or transfers to/from restricted assets, movements between the current and non current classification within debtors and principal repayments of internal loans.

 

The estimated positions in the June budget review were General Activities $3,619,405, Water Supplies $1,630,714 and Sewerage Services $735,661.

 

The final current liquid equity positions as at the 30 June 2010 (excluding revotes) are, General Activities $3,516,009, Water Supplies $1,678,937 and Sewerage Services $752,840 still reflecting a sound working funds position for each fund.

 

OPERATING RESULT

 

The Income Statement shows a consolidated operating surplus for the year of $4,517,000. Council?s operating result before capital grants and contributions is a deficit of $20,000. Variation to the previous year?s result predominantly relate to the fair value adjustment of the interest free loan secured through the NSW Local Infrastructure Fund and a turn around in the investment environment and subsequent increase in investment revenue. Slightly offsetting this revenue was an increase in borrowing costs reflecting Council?s special rate variation renewal strategy in general fund and funding for the water storage project in water. There was also an increase in operational materials and contracts which would be expected due to the flood damage works required for the year.

 

For Council?s category 1 business activities Water Supplies and Sewerage Service, the continuing operations result for the year after imputation of tax equivalents is a surplus of $560,000 and $3,497,000 respectively.

 

The operating results distinguish from the 30 June Budget Review figures as they do not include capital expenditure and include non cash items of depreciation, fair value adjustments and increase in employees leave entitlement liability. In addition, the results do not recognise the transfers to and from restricted assets, or items of expenditure revoted to 2010/2011.

 

TOTAL EQUITY

 

Council?s Total Equity or Net Assets increased to $295,399,000 from the $275,338,000 held as at 30 June 2009. The Balance Sheet lists the items that make up this equity and the Statement of Changes in Equity shows the increase from 08/09 to 09/10.

 

DEBT SERVICE RATIO

 

The Debt Service Ratio highlights the amount of annual revenue necessary to service annual debt obligations (loan repayments).

 

The consolidated ratio as shown in the attached Note 13 of the Financial Statements is: 6.19%. An industry benchmark set by Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) is between 10 - 15%.

 

The ratio for each of General Activities, Water Supplies and Sewerage Services is:

 

 

2009/2010

2008/2009

2007/2008

2006/2007

2005/2006

General

4.96%

4.18%

4.12%

6.06%

6.92%

Water

6.99%

2.77%

0.40%

0.74%

0.88%

Sewerage

8.96%

17.22%

13.55%

12.49%

13.74%

 

 

The ratios reflect a disparity of positions between the funds and the different borrowing situations of each.

 

It has previously been advised that Council?s intended borrowing program in relation to the Water Storage and Sewerage Augmentation projects would impact significantly on the ratios. The above ratios for Water and Sewerage activities are reflecting this scenario although the securing of the 10 year interest free loan under the State Government's Local Infrastructure Fund for the upgrade of the Nambucca Heads Sewerage Treatment Plant has reduced the Sewerage ratio due to the to the fair value adjustment.

 

 

ASSET RENEWAL EXPENDITURE

 

The asset renewal expenditure indicator reflects the extent to which council is maintaining the condition of its assets.

 

The measure used is capital expenditure on existing assets over annual depreciation and is the capital renewal capacity of council i.e. the amount of funds spent on renewing assets (as opposed to maintaining them).

 

The consolidated ratio as shown in Note 13 of the Financial Statements is: 76.07%. A 1:1 ratio is the ideal benchmark.

 

It is encouraging to see general fund almost aligned with the 1:1 benchmark. It appears figures are beginning to reflect Council?s commitment to it?s rate variation strategy to renew its road and bridge network which commenced five years ago.

 

As mentioned in past reports, the comparatively low ratios for both water and sewerage reflect a different capitalisation methodology of renewal works to that of general. Council?s Manager Water & Sewerage has indicated that an asset management system will give scope to note the type, value and date of each major work done on a particular asset and this will provide a clear indication of whether it was capital works or maintenance.

 

 

2009/10

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

General

97%

77%

82%

57%

Water

25%

23%

18%

77%

Sewerage

18%

2%

5%

18%

Consolidated

76%

60%

61%

54%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ratio needs to be taken into account with Special Schedule 7 which is attached. Special Schedule 7 summarises the condition of Council?s assets. Based on the substantial increase in the overall cost to bring up to a satisfactory condition/standard a continued injection of funds appears to be needed particularly with sealed roads and buildings which will require committed planning and focus.

 

Council?s Manager Assets has advised that the overall condition for sealed roads deteriorated from a 2 (Superficial Deterioration) to a 3 (Deterioration Evident) which means a significant number of additional roads would be candidates for upgrade. This assessment has come about from the change from in-house to a comprehensive condition assessment by ARRB. The data provided by ARRB has been used in subsequent cost modeling. The cost is calculated based on the current value of the road.  As the value has increased slightly through the revaluation process this will also contribute to the increased cost to bring roads up to standard. Similar issues have contributed to the increase in estimated cost to bring buildings up to a satisfactory standard.

 

It is expected that the above and other sustainability issues will be brought to the table during Council?s asset management and integrated planning and reporting processes.

 


RE ? VOTES OF EXPENDITURE

 

This indicator is not a requirement for disclosure in the Financial Statements but is considered important for asset management to illustrate how well Council is planning and utilising its resources. Re-votes at year end are the commitments of expenditure that were not carried out during the budget year.

 

The ratio is intended to highlight the effectiveness of planning and the co-ordination of resources in terms of meeting project objectives in Council?s management plan.

 

The measure used to indicate this level is the percentage of expenditure re-votes to the total ordinary and capital expenditure of Council for the year. It should be noted that to prevent a distortion of the ratio expenditure relating to the Water Storage and Nambucca Augmentation projects have been excluded.

 

 

Total Expenditure Re-Votes

 

Year

Ordinary & Capital Expenditure

Ratio

 

 

 

 

2009/2010

$3,660,100

9.4%

 

$38,912,000

 

 

 

 

2008/2009

$4,338,100

12.2%

 

$35,596,000

 

 

 

 

2007/2008

$3,645,900

12.1%

 

$30,203,000

 

 

 

 

2006/2007

$3,361,500

12.5%

 

$26,979,000

 

 

 

 

2005/2006

$2,783,000

10.5%

 

$26,482,000

 

 

It is pleasing to see the ratio at its lowest since the ratio has been calculated and down almost 3 percentage points from 2008/09. It should be noted however that almost $1m in flood damage was unspent at the 30 June 2010 and when spent will therefore be a factor against meeting planned works in 2010/11.

 

As mentioned in past reports, having the capacity to spend on capital works is important for the long term sustainability of Council. It allows Council to plan for the future and to ensure assets are maintained at an acceptable level. The capacity to spend on capital works not only refers to the ability to allocate funds but also the ability to plan and allocate resources to ensure that works are completed satisfactorily and timely.

 

Considering the magnitude and diversity of Council?s expenditure, revotes cannot be avoided as factors such as weather will always impact on annual commitments. Council should however continue to aim to reduce this ratio. A ratio of 5% or below is considered adequate by the industry.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Local Government Act 1993

Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

Local Government Asset Accounting Manual

Accountant

Manager Civil Works

Manager Water & Sewerage


 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not applicable

 

Social

 

Not applicable

 

Economic

 

 

Not applicable

 

Risk

 

Not applicable

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council?s financial position and performance are presented with this report and by Council?s Auditors and were also discussed as part of the 30 June Budget Review presented to Council?s Meeting 4 November 2010.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council?s financial position and performance are presented with this report and by Council?s Auditors and were also discussed as part of the 30 June Budget Review presented to Council?s Meeting 4 November???????????? 2010.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

30329/2010 - Financial Statements, Auditors Report & Investments

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Financial Statement and Auditors Report - 30 June 2010

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF1261??????????? 161210???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 2 December 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

TOTAL APPLICATIONS OUTSTANDING 12 MONTHS OR MORE:? 0

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2004/136

Ongoing from Court Decision

11 Lot Rural-Residential Subdivision

Lot 2 in DP 548175, 346 East West Road, Valla

? Dust issues and related health problems

? Clearing of koala habitat

? Impacts on biodiversity

? Threatened Species Act ? 7 part assessment ? doesn?t believe it satisfies it

? Further consideration should be given to soil testing and endangered species

Further additional information received by letter dated 30 July 2010. DA readvertised and renotified until 13/9/10.

Request further information from applicant on 22 September.

Response received indicating information should be with Council by 29/10/10.

Further information received from Applicant. Matter now referred to DoP and Rural Fire Services 8/11/10 Still awaiting responses.

 


 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2008/242
2006/056
2006/092
2006/198
2007/056

Modification

02/09/10

Subdivision Modifications

Lot 34 DP 1042500, 80 Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

? Original fencing requirements to be maintained

? Height limits on Lots 61-66 and distances from common boundary ? for privacy and security

? Encroachment to be dealt with

? Sewer to be available to all lots

? There is more than enough land on the market at present not sold ? do not release any further lots

? Run-off from properties ? drainage issues already exist

Concerns will be dealt with in the assessment of the applications.

Meeting to be held with applicant and consultants to discuss a number of matters.

Meeting held on 16/11/10 and outstanding issues resolved. Modification applications being processed.

 

 

 

2006/142/01

Modification

27/09/2010

19 Lot Residential Subdivision - Alter the lot layout and carry out the subdivision in two stages

Lot 142 DP 809036, 2 Grandview Drive North, Macksville

? Request for fencing to replace barbed wire fence

? Concern with ROW

? Request for final plan to be exhibited prior to final approval

? Issue with overgrown nature of the property

 

Additional information requested 15/10/10 ? received 16/11/10.

Awaiting response from RFS.

 

2010/234

27/09/2010

New School and 2 Lot Subdivision

Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

? Concerns with traffic and road conditions for buses in Dudley & East Streets

? Traffic Study lacking in accuracy

Discussed at a Development Traffic Committee meeting. Appropriate conditions of consent to be applied if the application is approved.

DA to be deterred by JRPP, Briefing report for a future GPC meeting.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF1261??????????? 161210???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority 2 December 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
2 DECEMBER 2010

 

DA Number

Application Date

Development

Address

2010/272

23/11/2010

Relocate dwelling house, convert existing dwelling to workshop/shed

Lot 3, DP 1126012, 446 Lower Buckrabendinni Road, Buckra Bendinni

2010/273

23/11/2010

Dwelling house - residential

Lot 24, DP 1158229, 3 Fairway Cove, Macksville

2010/274

23/11/2010

Attached Dual Occupancy Units

Lot 21, DP 1142388, 40 McLeod Drive, Scotts Head

2010/275

25/11/2010

Subdivision - General

Lot 1, DP 884337, Railway Road, Nambucca Heads

2010/276

25/11/2010

Subdivision - Rural

Lot 21, DP 551142, 816-846 Gumma Road, Gumma

2010/277

25/11/2010

Dwelling house ? Large Lot Residential

Lot 55, DP 1090473, Corneil Crescent, Gumma

2010/278

26/11/2010

Demolition of nominated shed, pour concrete slab & erect kit shed

Lot 1, DP 390644, 27 Bowra Street, Bowraville

2010/279

29/11/2010

Dwelling house - Rural

Lot 23, DP 605456, 203 Allgomera Road, Allgomera

2010/280

30/11/2010

2 Lot Rural Subdivision

Lot 2, DP 792726, 818 North Arm Road, Argents Hill

 

 


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2 DECEMBER 2010

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE $

2010/253

Lot 56 DP 260426, 8 Hibiscus Crescent, Nambucca Heads

Glass Enclosure

34,400

2010/233

Lot 17 SP 20271, 78 Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads

New Lift Facility

200,000

2010/266

Lot 800 DP 631778, 95 Browns Crossing Road, Eungai Creek

Shed

15,500

2010/256

Lot 2 DP 1119448, 43 Wirrimbi Road, Newee Creek

Machinery Shed

16,000

2005/017/02

Lots 2-18 DP 1099448, Strawberry Road, Congarinni (Formerly Lots 147, 148, 151, 210, Pt Lots 61 & 71 DP 755539 and Lots 1 & 2 DP 127647, Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

47 Lot Rural-Residential and 2 Lot Rural Subdivision Modification

0

 

COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS DETERMINED 2 DECEMBER 2010

 

None were received or determined

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF1261??????????? 161210???????? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports July 2010-June 2011, 2002-2010 and Certificates Received 2004-2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for July 2010-June 2011 compared with July 2009-June 2010.

 

2????????? That Council note Occupational Certificate released for the years 2004 to 2010.

 

3????????? That Council note the statistical information for Applications and Certificates received by Council for 2004-2010.

 

4????????? That Council note the statistical breakdown of development applications thus far for the current year beginning 1 January 2010.

 

 

Development Application Statistics

 

The figures show a 16.67% increase in the number of DA?s received to November 2010 with construction costs increasing by 55.70% compared to the same period in 2009/2010. The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of November was 22 plus 1 modifications.

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

July 2009-Nov 2009

$? 9,036,892

90

103

July 2010-Nov 2010

$20,400,068

108

95

 

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

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

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

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


 

TURNAROUND TIMES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 2010

Month

Mean Time

Median

#Average age of DA?s (Days)

Average

Highest

Lowest

January

64.63

38.00

89.75

287

38

February

30.29

22.00

38.92

75

6

March

38.88

27.00

56.56

203

1

April

37.00

34.00

42.42

88

6

May

36.00

34.43

67.8

301

6

June

34.31

36.00

54.47

122

1

July

33.67

35.00

42.13

95

10

August

36.00

37.00

50.20

102

12

September

29.06

27.00

48.06

156

26

October

34.94

16.00

52.25

229

2

November

29.80

27

41.52

135

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#Average age of DA?s

 

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

f


COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS RECEIVED

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

2007 Private Cert

5

3

4

1

2

4

4

3

5

4

6

1

42

2007 Council

0

3

3

1

3

4

7

0

1

2

6

3

33

2008 Private Cert

0

3

1

4

6

2

6

4

2

2

6

6

44

2008 Council

2

2

2

3

2

5

2

2

2

7

1

3

33

2009 Private Cert

3

7

6

4

3

2

11

3

2

7

4

7

59

2009 Council

1

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

5

5

3

2

32

2010 Private Cert

3

6

6

3

4

0

12

1

2

1

1

 

39

2010 Council

3

6

2

1

2

1

9

3

1

2

2

 

32

 

CONVEYANCING CERTIFICATES ISSUED

 

YTD (November)

Drainage Diagrams

Section 149 Certs

Outstanding Notices

2004

321

777

221

2005

234

661

162

2006

266

680

195

2007

259

692

202

2008

244

625

155

2009

229

702

158

2010

204

608

127

 

OCCUPATION CERTIFICATES RELEASED

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL

Average/
Month

2004

11

15

17

20

18

20

20

17

16

23

26

30

233

19.41

2005

10

28

29

18

26

12

14

28

26

24

19

18

252

21.00

2006

26

26

12

20

27

24

20

18

25

23

10

15

246

20.50

Private
2007

1

0

0

3

7

5

3

2

3

2

9

5

40

3.33

Council
2007

6

20

14

7

22

13

12

10

14

13

8

12

151

12.58

Private
2008

4

0

4

2

4

5

5

8

7

11

4

7

61

5.08

Council
2008

12

16

9

9

29

12

19

25

16

20

17

13

197

16.41

Private
2009

1

4

5

3

2

3

10

4

7

7

9

6

61

5.08

Council
2009

21

11

19

14

14

15

10

17

13

20

16

12

182

15.16

Private
2010

4

4

12

2

7

2

4

5

7

1

3

 

51

4.63

Council
2010

10

14

9

12

11

7

11

7

6

3

2

 

92

8.36



Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF1261??????????? 161210???????? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report November 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Contract Regulatory Officer?s Report for November 2010.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report from the Contract Regulatory Officer for November 2010 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

Dogs

Total

Total

Seized

 

20

Returned to Owner

2

 

Impounded

18

 

Total Seized

20

20

Breakdown

Total

Total

Seized

 

20

From Previous Month

 

1

Stolen Dog Recovered

 

0

Released to Owner

1

 

Returned to Owner

2

 

Euthanized

16

 

Currently in Pound

2

 

Sold

0

 

Stolen from Pound

0

 

Total in Pound

21

21

Dumped

5

 

Surrendered

0

 

 

 

Cats

Total

Total

Seized

 

14

Returned to Owner

0

 

Impounded

14

 

Total Seized

14

14

Breakdown

Total

Total

Seized

 

14

From Previous Month

 

0

Released to Owner

0

 

Returned to Owner

0

 

Euthanized

14

 

Currently in Pound

0

 

Sold

0

 

Escaped from Pound

0

 

Total in Pound

14

14

Dumped

0

 

Surrendered

0

 

 


 

Cattle

Breakdown

Total

Seized

 

0

Returned to Owner

0

 

Impounded

0

 

Total Seized

0

0

 

 

Kilometres travelled

3,159

 

 

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

61

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.5??? SF1541??????????? 161210???????? Planning Proposal Lot 11 and 12 DP 1017408 and Lot 2 DP514920 Pacific Highway Nambucca

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that a planning proposal has been received for the rezoning of rural land to residential land to occur at Lot 11 and 12 DP 1017408 Lot 2 DP514920 Pacific Highway Lower Nambucca.

 

Councils is required to determine whether or not the planning proposal should proceed.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That pursuant with section 56 of the EPA Act the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for Consideration through a Gateway Determination once the required fees have been paid and the additional information presented and acceptable to Council.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That Council not support the proposed LEP amendment and the applicant be advised accordingly.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On the 17th November 2010 Council received a Planning Proposal prepared by Geoff Smyth Consulting for land at Lots 11 and 12 DP 1017408 and Lot 2 DP514920 Pacific Highway Nambucca see location map attached. The purpose of the proposal is to amend the land zoning RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential.

 

The land has previously been pursued as potential residential land through Nambucca LEP 1995 amendment no. 47, during the preparation of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and under Draft NLEP 2009.?

 

Prior to receiving the S65 certificate to exhibit the Draft LEP 2009, Council had included this land as residential land. However Council received a conditional s65 certificate which required Council to remove the residential zone from the land prior to exhibition. The s65 Certificate stated the following:

 

????????? This land was required to be excluded from Draft LEP amendment no. 47 of the Nambucca LEP 1995 because the land is isolated from Nambucca Heads and available services. The land has not been identified in the mid north coast regional strategy for urban development and it is therefore inappropriate to zone this land R1.

 

During the exhibition of the Nambucca LEP 2009 Council received a submission from the landholders consultant requesting that the zoning of this land be reconsidered. Council?s resolution in relation to this submission was the following:

 

????????? That Council not change the RU1 Primary Production Zone to R1 General Residential Zone in Draft NLEP 2009 over Lots 11 and 12? DP1017408 & Lot 2 DP514920, and the land owners be advised to pursue the proposal through the Gateway Planning Proposal process providing the justification and compliance with Appendix of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

This resolution is the basis for the Planning Proposal presently before Council.

 

Given Councils previous agreement to pursue this matter, it is recommended that the applicant be requested to pay the appropriate fees to consider the matter, and then a more detailed review of the planning proposal be undertaken by Council staff. Based on Council staffs initial review the applicant be advised to provide the following information:

 

?????? A statement which addresses the applicability of the Regionally Significant Farmland in relation to the subject land and relevant 117 Directions (specifically Implementation of Regional Strategies).

?????? An amendment zoning map which addresses the current Lower Nambucca Flood Study (areas subject to flooding should not be zoned residential and all subsequent maps should adhere to the extent of the zone map);

?????? A height of buildings map with a maximum building height of 8.5m;

?????? A floor space ratio map with a maximum floor space ratio of 0:55:1;

?????? A minimum lot size map indicating a minimum Lot size of 450sqm;

 

Each of these maps should be prepared in accordance with the Standard Instrument Order format, required by the Department of Planning for Planning Proposals.

 

Legislative Context and costs

 

Section 54 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 indicates that Council may pursue an LEP amendment if requested to do so by a landholder and require investigations and costs associated with the amendment to be provided or met by the landholder.

 

At any stage during consideration of this matter, should the planning proposal require amendments or additional information, the applicant be requested to provide this information at their cost.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

A sparsely spaced nut tree grove exists on part of the land with the remainder being predominately cleared land. Any future development of the land should give appropriate consideration to stormwater and nutrient detention, setbacks and buffers to sensitive environmental receptors and the Nambucca River, noise and access issues associated with the Pacific Highway.

 

Social

 

The proposal will contribute to the land stock presently available within shire and provide opportunities for diversified housing type and availability.

 

Economic

 

The proposal will improve affordability of connecting services to the local area which is required to develop the lower Nambucca Business Park, and service the local accommodation facilities.

 

Risk

 

The planning proposal is not identified as an agreed growth area under the mid north coast strategy and therefore any funds and resources put towards the rezoning process may not gain the proposed result.

 

Because of this the planning proposal should have low priority in the strategic planning program and the applicant will be required to address all matters raised through this process in order to minimise Council resources applied to the project.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Strategic Planning Program

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The applicant is required to pay for all studies and investigations relating to the planning proposal along with the initial $1500 rezoning application fee.

 

Attachments:

1View

30160/2010 - Location Map (Trim 30160/2010)

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Planning Proposal Lot 11 and 12 DP 1017408 and Lot 2 DP514920 Pacific Highway Nambucca

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.6??? SF1372??????????? 161210???????? Local Adaptation Pathways Program A Regional Approach to Climate Change Kempsey Bellingen and Nambucca

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with the results of the public exhibition of the Draft Local Adaptation Pathways Project Report.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?? Council endorse the Climate Change Risk Assessment and Adaptation Strategy.

 

2.?? Council?s Strategic Planner Prepare a Climate Change Adaptation Policy for future adoption by Council to ensure that actions contained in the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy are given consideration in future decision making, policy implementation, strategy development by Council and Council staff.

 

3.?? That the final Climate Change Risk Report and Adaptation Strategy be made publicly available through Council?s Libraries and Council?s Website in order to raise awareness in relation to risks associated with Climate Change and assist interested individuals and community groups to adapt to potential future change and build community resilience.

 

4.?? That Council staff make appropriate arrangements to ensure that the requirements of the funding agreement with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have been satisfied.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Nil

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A copy of the Draft Reports have previously been circularised document, only minor changes have been made to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

 

In February 2009 the Australian Government ? Department of Climate Change announced Round 2 of the Local Adaptations Pathway was open for applications. The Local Adaptation Pathways Program provides assistance to local governments to carry out a risk management process to identify likely impacts of climate change on council operations and to initiate the development of an adaptation plan (which is separate from mitigation measures, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

 

The overarching objective of the Program is to increase the adaptive capacity of local governments to deal with the impacts of climate change and more specifically to:

 

?????????????? identify and prioritise risks that climate change impacts pose to the operations and responsibilities of local governments;

?????????????? develop strategies for managing risks, adaptive actions, and building resilience within communities;

?????????????? identify where knowledge gaps may be and where further investigation is needed; and

?????????????? Prioritise adaptive actions.

 

The Program was open to all local governments, however, expressions of interest were particularly encouraged from:

 

?????????????? local governments in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas of Australia;

?????????????? consortia of local governments; and/or

?????????????? established regional organisation bodies.

 

Council officers from Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey Shire Council, prepared and submitted a joint application which successfully received $140 000 to complete a risk and adaptation reports for the region.

 

Climate Risk Pty Ltd in association with Climsystems and SMEC were engaged in October 2009 to prepare the project. The project has resulted in the preparation of a draft Risk Assessment for each of the Bellingen, Kempsey and Nambucca Local Government Areas as well as a Regional Adaptation Report which provides a detailed Adaptation Plan for each Local Government Area in the Appendix.

 

Note: This climate change project follows the AS/NZS 4360 standard (as directed by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change for the funding requirements of the Local Adaptation Pathway Program).

 

Risk Report

 

The objective of the risk assessment part of the project was to undertake a scoping risk assessment to identify potential climate change risks for the shire. The assessment explores potential risks specific to each Council as well as at a Regional Level.

 

The Risk assessment is separated into two (2) parts. Part A presents the methodology, introduces climate change, climate variability for the region, presents climate change scenarios for the 2030, 2050, and 2070 and outlines types of Climate change hazards.

 

Part B explores anticipated impacts that projected climate change impacts may have on Council operations; the community; the local economy and the natural environment.

 

Some key outcomes of the risk modelling prepared to accompany the Nambucca Risk Report are identified below:

 

Overview of Results

Note: The risk report identifies many other impacts/ potential changes not highlighted in this overview

Issue

Risk Analysis (Climate Risk Report)

Seal Level Rise

An estimate of Sea Level Rise of 63.95cm by 2100 (excluding potential ice sheet melt), however Council needs to consider other predicted ranges as well particularly DECCW 0.4 -0.9.

 

 

Temperature

Mean monthly temperature are predicted to increase by 6% in 2030; 14% in 2050 and 22% by 2070

 

Average max temperature is predicted to increase by 0.89 degrees in 2030; 1.77degrees in 2050 and 2.92 degrees in 2070

 

Average December max temperature may increase by? 2 degrees in 2050 and 4 degrees by 2070

 

5 or more days over 35 degrees presently occur every 12.71 years which is expected to decrease to 5.9 years (2030); 1.95 years (2050)

 

Number of days over 35 degrees increase from 1-3 per year at present to 14-16 days per year by 2070

 

 

Precipitation

Rainfall is predicted to increase in late spring to autumn and decrease during winter to early spring

 

+ 22% rainfal in summer and - 22% rainfall in winter 2070'

 

3 day intense summer rainfall events are predicted to increase by greater than 20% in 2050 and up to 45% by 2070; Autumn also predicts large increases

 

The present 1 in 50 year event is predicted to equal a 1 in 20 year event by 2070

 

The present 1 in 100 year event is predicted to equal a 1 in 50 year event by 2050

 

 

Roads

A 2% increase in temperature may result in an increase of road maintenance by 17%

 

Approx 5% of Councils roads are rehabilitated annually at a cost of $3,659,000 to maintain current standards; With a carbon price of $20/ tonne within the next 5 years this amount could increase by $183,000 (no discount rate); and carbon price is expected to increase to $84/ tonne by 2030

 

Climate induced increases in maintenance costs in addition to an increased Carbon cost may equate to Business as usual road maintenance costs increasing by $620, 000 by 2050.

 

 

Economic (Council)

Carbon Pricing may result in potential impact on Council expenses from 2-3% in the short term and increase over time.

 

An ageing population may result in the percentage of rateable properties receiving concessions increase by approx 17%.

 

 

Economic (General)

Flooding due to intensified precipiation may result in? a reduction in gross regional product by 3% by 2050

 

Increases in the no. of hot days may result in a reduction in gross regional product by 1.4% and water availability 1%

 

Over the period 2010 - 2050 the cumulative impact on gross regional product (Nambucca, Bellingen, Kempsey) to the 3 primary hazards is approx.? 3.7 billion dollars; this is not considered a catastrophic risk but gives good reason for investment into adaptive measures.

 

The effect of a carbon price will decrease gross regional product, wages and land prices.

 

The strategic opportunities for the region especially in agriculture and tourism under a low carbon economy will tend to boost the local economy, tending to increase each of the three economic indicators.

 

The net effect is the low carbon economy opportunities will tend to partially off-set the effect of physical and carbon price impacts (assuming no adaptation is attempted).

 

The final risk report was previously circularised.

 

Adaptation Report

 

The Adaptation Strategy provides a comprehensive set of actions to assist in developing climate change resilience and adaptive capacity within Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey Councils.

The objective of this part of the project was to increase the resilience to climate change of the evolving society, environment and economy in Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey, and to develop the adaptive capacity to cope with effects that cannot be accurately predicted. Based on the results of the risk assessments and the workshops held in relation to the project, the consultants developed options for risk reduction, resilience building and adaptive capacity (Regional Risk and Adaption tables presented in section 6.4 of the Adaptation report).

Each council circulated these Regional Risk and Adaptation Tables to key staff for comment. Based on comments received and discussions with project leaders from each Council, Council staff developed Adaptation Plans for their LGA.

The Adaptation Plans were developed to identify adaptation actions, the Council plan/policy/strategy or process applicable to the specific actions, gaps required to implement the actions, the current status of the action and responsibilities in relation to the action.

Developing the adaptation plan in this way allows each Council to implement Climate Changes Adaptation Actions into existing or proposed Council frameworks or governance, rather than having to complete stand alone climate change management plans or similar reports.

It is noted that the report has been prepared as a resource for the community as well as Council. In many cases Council does not have the resources, funding or authority to be able to pursue some of the identified options. For these reasons a number of the identified actions may be the responsibility of community groups, utility providers, other government authorities or even individuals. By making the project available to the community or other authorities these parties can then consider the risks and use adaptation options identified in the strategies to improve their own resilience, and in turn improving the resilience of the community.

Exhibition of the Plan

 

During the preparation of the risk report and adaptation plan a staff and community workshop was held in each shire for both the Risk and Adaptation Strategies (a total of 12 Workshops).? Staff workshops were comprised of senior staff and Councilors, Community Workshops comprised Councilors and representatives of community groups.

 

The exhibition of the reports was coordinated with each Council to be through the Nov-Dec period, for Nambucca the exhibition was undertaken from 11 November 2010 to 10 December 2010. A public information session was held in Nambucca on 24 November 2010 and Kempsey 25 November 2010. Bellingen Shire Council chose not to provide an information session given previous consideration by Council.

 

At the time of writing this report and as a result of this final round of community involvement Council received no submissions and no attendees at the public information session. Similar to this Kempsey received no submissions and no attendees at the public information session and Bellingen received no submissions.

 

The three obvious explanations for the lack of feedback are that:

 

a.?????? The community was not aware that the process was underway despite advertising;

b.?????? The community was satisfied with the content of the reports; and

c.?????? The community lacked interest in the subject matter.

 

Although the final exhibition was not a requirement of the grant funding it is disappointing to receive so few comments. To ensure that the community is fully aware when projects of this nature are on exhibition in the future, alternative mechanisms of community engagement will be included in future budgets where community feedback is sought.

 

Case Study

 

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency selected Nambucca LGA as one of 3 Councils involved in the LAPP program throughout Australia to prepare a case study. Nambucca has was selected due to the innovation in Councils approach to climate change adaptation as shown in the LAPP report and the lessons that can be learned from this approach. 

As part of the case study DCCEE representatives held interviews with the General Manager; Mayor; Director Environment and Planning; the Manager of Water and Sewer and Councils Strategic Planner. The representatives were also taken to key sites in the shire effected by recent storm events including Scotts Head Beach; Deep Ck Bridge; Landslips in Nambucca; the proposed off river storage dam and Bellingen Road landslips.

It was apparent from the questions asked during the interviews that the federal government is assessing the direction of future rounds of LAPP funding, and how future funding can be of most benefit to local government.

Our consensus response to this was that the future rounds should be directed to on ground works and/or improvements. Having now completed our adaption plan should these future rounds of funding become available Council would be in good standing to address specific actions endorsed by Council in the strategy.

 

 

Implementation and Adoption of the Strategies

 

The implementation of the reports will include but not be limited to the following:

 

?????? Many of the actions and options presented in the Adaptation Strategy are implemented in some manner already. This report can give direction to these actions and a permanent place in Council framework.

 

?????? The proposed actions may provide Council with alternative options to address certain specific issues as they arise.

 

?????? This project will give support to applications for grant funding or other similar opportunities which may arise. By identifying gaps in our resources, funding or other aspects of Council processes Council staff can target funding and grants required to fill the gaps.

 

?????? The modelling undertaken as part this project will also assist consultants undertaking specialist studies or projects in the shire.

 

?????? The reports will provide the Council, the community and other authorities the information and potential tools required to improve their resilience climate change.

 

The adaptation plan provides guidance to Council on where certain actions fit within our policy framework and who should be responsible for their implementation it also identifies any gaps which need to be filled to implement actions.

 

To ensure that the adaptation strategy and actions are embedded into Council decision making it is recommended a climate change policy be prepared.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The Climate Change Risk Assessment and Adaptation Strategy will assist in prioritising and directing resources to Council activities.

 

It also complements Council?s work on climate change mitigation measures, such as Our Living Coast Urban Sustainability Program with Coffs Harbour and Bellingen Councils, the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan, Flood Studies, and programs that relate to Cities for Climate Protection.

 

The project should assist in acquiring grant funding for related projects in the future.

 

Social

 

The project identifies risks to local communities, public infrastructure and local government operations whilst planning for appropriate adaptive responses.

 

Economic

 

Modelling undertaken as part of the project has made predictions in regards to the economic impacts climate change may have on the region.

 

No matching funding is required from Council, only in-kind contributions.

Risk

 

The aim of the project is to minimise climate change related risk to Council and its operations as well as the community.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

This project is externally funded with only in kind contributions required from Council;

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council has limited funds available within the project budget (for all 3 councils) through the LAPP funding to cover any variances that may occur prior to finalising the contract. Any additional variation would be likely to be at cost of Council.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.7??? SF1267??????????? 161210???????? Report on Expression Of Interest for Funding - Implementation of Nambucca River Master Plan

 

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

 

Summary:

 

To advise Council and seek endorsement of an Expression Of Interest lodged under the DECCW 2011/2012 Estuary Management Program for the implementation of high priority actions from the Nambucca River Master Plan and the Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note and endorse the Expression of Interest for funding under the DECCW 2011/2012 Estuary Management Program for the implementation of the high priority actions from the Nambucca River Master Plan and the Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose not to endorse the EOI submitted under the DECCW 2011/2012 Estuary Management Program

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Continuing with the ongoing practice of applying for external funds to match identified Environmental Levy allocations, an Expression of Interest was submitted to the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water under the 2011/2012 Estuary Management Program for the implementation of the high priority actions from the Nambucca River Master Plan and Nambucca River Estuary management Plan.

 

The specific projects include the revegetation and river bank stabilisation within the Bellwood highway precinct and Stuart Island precinct, formalisation of part and use of, permeable road surfaces and Interpretive Signage on Stuart Island.

 

The Ministerially approved and Council endorsed 2011/2012 Environmental Levy budget allocation for the implementation of the Nambucca River Master Plan is $50,000. An equivalent $50,000 in external funding has been sought.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Landcare

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

DECCW

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed environmental protection works include the removal of environmental weeds, installation of rock revetment works, revegetation of eroding riverbank areas, formalisation of existing small watercraft access, formalisation of part of the parking and roads on the northern end of Stuart Island and the installation of Interpretative signage in conjunction with the Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Lands Council

 

Social

 

The installation of Interpretative signage in conjunction with the Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Lands Council will outline the importance of Stuart Island to the history and ongoing association with the river and the Gumbaynngirr people

 

Economic

 

Access to an additional $50,000 in matching external funding will provide a significant boost to the Environmental Levy and the identified projects.

 

Risk

 

The main risk is the possibility the application may be unsuccessful. The works would then be reduced to equal the funds allocated.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council has allocated $50,000 in the 2011/2012 Environmental Levy which is being used as Council's matching contribution. Any further works after the 2011/2012 budget would be subject to Council consideration.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Allocation under the Environmental Levy

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1??? SF844????????????? 161210???????? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 December 2010

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage ????????

 

Summary:

 

The minutes of the Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee meeting held on 1 December 2009 are attached for Council information and adoption.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council adopt the minutes of the Steering Committee Meetings held on 1 December 2010.

 

2??????? That a Project Implementation Management Plan shall be developed to include provision for hollow bearing trees that are removed as part of the pre-clearing survey to be replaced by nesting boxes of similar dimensions provided in suitable vegetation, within the catchment above the dam top water level.

 

3??????? That the Nambucca District Water Supply Newsletter be distributed to the wider community, including libraries, Council front counters and to the directly affected landholders

 

4??????? That Council accept an upper limit fee of $34,600 excluding GST from GHD to prepare an Operational Adaptive Management Strategy, including initial baseline monitoring and consultation with relevant statutory agencies.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Adopt the minutes or seek further clarification on particular items

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee meets on a monthly basis to discuss the Off River Storage Project in terms of progress, risks, budget and consultant engagements.

 

The members of the Committee met on 1 December 2010 and discussed a number of matters as per the attached minutes.

 

The resolutions of the Committee detailed in Items 5.3 and 8.3 of the minutes were reported to the Council meeting on 2 December 2010 as a Mayoral minute, and formal resolutions of Council regarding these matters were made at that meeting.

 

There was discussion of the Adaptive Management Strategy (AMS) as noted in items 5.5 and 6.2 including a fee proposal from GHD to complete baseline monitoring.? It was noted that the development of suitable strategy monitoring requirements would necessitate negotiation with government agencies and confirmation was sought from GHD as to whether they had allowed for this in their fee offer.

 

An updated fee offer has now been obtained from GHD for the amount of $34,600 excluding GST.? This allows for the preparation of an operational adaptive management document which will define the agreed framework for what is required, initial baseline testing and 3 meetings with agencies.? This is considered to be an encouraging starting point for determining Council?s ongoing AMS requirements and is readily accommodated in the current pre construction budget.

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

NSW Public Works

NSW Office of Water

GHD Pty Ltd

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The environment impacts of the project have been detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement that has been accepted by Council.

 

Social

 

The project aims to provide a social benefit through security of water supply.

 

Economic

 

The project will have a significant economic impact on the community as increases in both the typical residential bill and developer charges will be required to service Council?s financial commitment to the project.

 

Risk

 

This is a major project for the Shire and there are significant risks associated with it particularly with regard to the availability of Federal and State Government subsidies.? An updated project risk register is kept by the Project Managers and the risks are discussed during the meetings.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council has committed funding to complete the preconstruction phase of the off river storage project in the 2010/11 budget.

 

Future budgets will be dependent on the availability of Federal and State Government funding.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funding for the project will be sourced from reserves and loans.

 

The Office of Water has provided written confirmation that this project is eligible for subsidy as part of the existing Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage program. A subsidy in the order of 30% has been suggested however the final amount will only be determined and confirmed once a tender for the construction has been let.

 

The Federal Government has also promised a grant of $10 million and Council is seeking formal confirmation of this offer and when and how it will be made available.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

29878/2010 - Minutes of the Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting - 1 December 2010

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 December 2010

 







?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2??? SF1213??????????? 161210???????? Landslip - Ocean and Matthew Streets Scotts Head

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Noel Chapman, Acting Director Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council at its meeting on 7 October 2010 requested a report on the extent of the landslip adjacent to Ocean and Matthew Streets Scotts Head.

 

The area in question is shown on the attached plan.? The slippage is resulting in the footpath separating from the kerb and causing heaving of a drainage structure.

 

The majority of the slip is on Council land.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council commit $40,000 to the restoration of the landslip subject to a matching contribution from the Scotts Head Trust.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Proceed with the restoration.

 

2??????? Cancel the project.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council Surveyor

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Further slippage would deposit material on to the Crown Reserve and ultimately on to the beach.

 

Social

 

Disruption to vehicle and pedestrian access could result.

 

Economic

 

There are no issues as a result of this report.

 

Risk

 

Further slippage will jeopardise the integrity of the footpath and roadway.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Funds identified in S94 plan and budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Section 94 plus contribution from Scotts Head Trust

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Document - Survey of Slip Area Ocean and Matthew Streets Scott Head

1 Page

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Landslip - Ocean and Matthew Streets Scotts Head

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Landslip - Ocean and Matthew Streets Scotts Head

 

 

 

Circularised Document - Survey of Slip Area Ocean and Matthew Streets Scott Head

 

1 Pages

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting

16 December 2010

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.3??? SF90??????????????? 161210???????? Clarification of the role of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee

 

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

 

Summary:

 

At its meeting 2 December 2010 Council resolved to defer consideration of the Minutes of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee held 2 November 2010 until it received clarification regarding the authority of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council note Local Development Committees under SEPP 11 ? Traffic Generating Developments have been repealed.? The planning provisions previously in SEPP 11 have been updated and carried over into the Infrastructure SEPP.? Clause 104 of the Infrastructure SEPP outlines the planning requirements for traffic generating development listed in Schedule 3 of the SEPP.? As previously with SEPP 11, if development is proposed that meets the traffic generating criteria in Schedule 3, the RTA must be consulted. For details on consultation requirements and statutory timeframes refer to the SEPP (Clause 104).

 

2??????? That based on the above information and as Council was not officially notified of the RTA structure change for Local Traffic Committees, the report submitted by Department of Environment and Planning including the minutes of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee held 2 November 2010 attached to discuss DA 2010/234 be noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Council adopt the recommendations.

 

2??????? Council recommend that all major developments receive a referral to the NSW Police and Department of Transport.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A Local Development (Traffic) Committee meeting was held on 2 November 2010 to discuss traffic issues associated with DA 2010/234 Primary School Dudley Street Macksville.? The minutes are attached for Council?s information.

 

At its meeting 2 December 2010 Council resolved to defer consideration of the minutes of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee held 2 November 2010 until it received clarification regarding the authority of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee.

 

Council staff contacted the Roads and Traffic Authority seeking clarification and they offered the following information:

 

?The Local Development Committees (LDC) has been in operation since 9 August 1985 under SEPP No 11. However, since the introduction of SEPP (Infrastructure 2007), now known as I SEPP, the referral process has changed.

 

Under I SEPP a consent authority is required to consult with the RTA on land use development matters on classified roads (Clause 100) and certain traffic generating developments with access on any road (Clause 104 Schedule 3 column 2) or any road that connects within 90m to a classified road.

 

These referral procedures are contained in I SEPP. While the old LDC's / RDC are redundant and the I SEPP has been adopted in the Northern Rivers there has not been any official notification advising of this.  RTA Land Use Development unit in the Grafton Office now comes under the Planning and Analysis unit (Tony Donohoe Manager ) It is my understanding that our system in the Northern Region has abandoned the LDC/RDC and is processing DA's in accordance with I SEPP. Hope this sheds some light on the situation ?

 

In short the role of The Local Development Committee was to advise Councils on developments in terms of road safety and traffic generation.

 

A Local Development Committee consists of the following members:

 

Representative???????????????? Role Description

 

Council?????????????????????????? Council representative acts as the Chairperson and is responsible for the operation and administration of the Local Development Committee.

 

RTA??????????????????????????????? RTA representative is involved in the consultation and gives advice on traffic generation, traffic impacts, traffic management and road access.

 

NSW Police??????????????????? NSW Police representative provides consultation and advice on enforcement and road safety.

 

Department of Transport ? This representative is a casual member only.

 

Since the introduction of SEPP (Infrastructure 2007) and the adoption of I SEPP in the Roads and Traffic Authority Northern Rivers Region, the consent authority is required to consult with the Roads and Traffic Authority seeking their advice thereby making the Local Development Committee redundant.? However there has not been any official notification advising Council of this.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Roads and Traffic authority

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant environmental issues.

 

Social

 

Eliminating the NSW Police from the approval process could lead to Council approval of ?no go areas? or potentially dangerous traffic related issues.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk to Council in making a referral to the RTA.

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budget impacts to Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

26830/2010 - Minutes of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee - for DA 2010/234

 

2View

2207/2008 - Planning Circular PS 08-001 regarding State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

3View

30020/2010 - State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
Schedule 3??

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Clarification of the role of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee

 

PRESENT

 

Arthur Tsembis??????????????????????? (Nambucca Shire Council)

Noel Chapman???????????????????????? (Nambucca Shire Council)

Keith Williams???????????????????????? (Nambucca Shire Council)

Sergeant Jarrod Langan??????????? (NSW Police)

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

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

 

DA 2010/234 - New School

 

 

An on-site meeting was held starting at 12.30 pm, at Dudley Street, inspecting the site and the east and west ends of the street.

 

The Committee looked at the location of the proposed development and discussed issues relating to the upgrade of the road and also stormwater drainage issues related to road construction as well as looking at the intersection of East/Dudley Streets, and Partridge/East Streets.

 

Note:? This matter will not be dealt with by Council ? it is a JRPP matter. Council is providing the necessary notification and consultation processes and is preparing a report for the JRPP?s consideration.

 

1:15 met back at Council?s Administration Centre for further discussions.

 

Issues from the Statement of Environmental Effects

 

Traffic Assessment by de Groot Benson

 

Section 3.1 ? Traffic Generation from development

 

Report states 82% of students will travel by bus. Bus Company indicates current usage is 50% - requires clarification by the applicant. Traffic analysis is to be adjusted accordingly.

 

Existing traffic on Dudley Street ? report indicates students are all driven to and from the SDA school by family members. It is understood that at least one and possibly two buses service the SDA School.

 

Traffic analysis needs to identify existing load limit on East Street of 5 tonnes as this will impact on traffic movements of school buses, including construction traffic.

 

Validation is required of assumptions regarding traffic movements out of Dudley Street turning right instead of left. The majority of development in Macksville is in the southern area and this would indicate a left turn movement.

 

A summary of all traffic numbers and percentages need to be reconsidered and validated.

 

Traffic make-up car/buses will have an impact on intersections Boundary Street/Pacific Highway, Partridge Street/Pacific Highway, Partridge/East Streets, East/Dudley Streets. Concept layouts for intersection upgrades including the need for any swept paths for buses are to be provided prior to further assessment of the application.

 


Section 5 ? Road Upgradings

 

Report indicates no proposed works in East Street. Concern over levels of road pavement in East Street being suitable for use by buses accessing Dudley Street.

 

Redesign of horizontal and vertical alignment of East/Dudley Streets intersection needs consideration to facilitate bus access through the existing open drain across Dudley Street. This is likely to require major road upgrading with provision of splay corners and relocation of existing services and the reconstruction of sections of East Street.

 

Concept layout for proposed improvement to Dudley Street should be provided and include: table drain and footpath layouts; consideration of shared footway; and, the impact on the adjoining Public Reserve.

 

To make traffic movements functional, ?No Stopping? signs may be required along the northern side of Dudley Street, opposite bus turning area. This requirement could be a condition of any consent granted. A detailed sign schedule and layout to Australian Standards should be submitted to Council with the Construction Certificate Application.

 

The Committee has concerns that buses are unable to adequately access the turning bay. A concept plan should be provided that demonstrates buses can practically access the bus lane and the parking/stopping spaces. A cul-de-sac should be considered at the end of Dudley Street.

 

The Committee has concerns that the bus bay does not allow for buses to enter and depart from designated parking bays and maintain an efficient flow of traffic.

 

The applicant needs to demonstrate that buses can pass one another and move in and out of the bus zone in all directions. There is a need to ensure the constant bus flow can be achieved, and that buses can access and depart the parking bay without disruption to traffic flow.

 

The application should be referred back to the Local Development (Traffic) Committee following receipt of additional information.

 

 

Recommendation

 

As the Development Committee (Traffic) has concerns relating to the access arrangements for buses and the expected number of vehicular movements onto the local road network and the extent of road upgrading required at the various intersections referred to above, it is unable to provide a full and proper assessment until the issues have been addressed. It is therefore recommended the applicant address these matters prior to any further assessment of the application.

 

Having regard to the above, the main issues to be addressed are:

 

1????????? Number of students travelling by bus which is inconsistent with the information supplied by the bus company.

 

2????????? Report indicates only parents drop off students at the SDA School, however at least one school bus taken students to the school each day.

 

3????????? A revised traffic analysis of East Street, including intersections with Partridge and Dudley Streets and Boundary/Pacific Highway, Partridge Street/Pacific Highway, is required.

 

4????????? Validation of traffic numbers and movements.

 

5????????? Concept layouts for intersection upgrades including swept paths for buses.

 

6????????? East Street road works required for bus access and use.

 

7????????? Bus turning and movement without disruption to flow of traffic. Applicant needs to demonstrate buses can park in the bays shown in one continuous movement, can pass buses already parked in one continuous movement, from Dudley Street and sufficient room is available for buses to pull out and around a bus parked in front of it.

 

Note:

 

Dudley Street reconstruction should address flood issues and provide flood-free access to the school. Council?s Manager Traffic Services will address this issue separately.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson then closed the meeting the time being 2.28 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Arthur Tsembis

Manager Planning and Assessment

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Clarification of the role of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee

 







?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 December 2010

Clarification of the role of the Local Development (Traffic) Committee

 

?? ?