NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

03 March 2011

 

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 - 03 March 2011

 

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 - -Capt John or Nicole Viles (Salvation Army)

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 17 February 2011

5??????? PUBLIC FORUM ? 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm

????????? Council is undertaking community engagement as part of new integrated planning and reporting legislation requirements.? The consultation will be used in preparing a Community Strategic Plan.? Council is interested to hear from residents about issues of concern regarding the services delivered by Council and other levels of Government.

????????? i)??????? Mr Jim McKenna ? Eungai ? Carriage Club and Pony Club

????????? ii)?????? Mr Tony & Mrs Kim Wildsmith ? Eungai - Main Road reseas, Safety Issues Moores Lane & Tanbam, PCYC

????????? iii)????? Mr James Bilson ? Eungai - Parks, Roads, Bridges

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

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

8??????? General Manager Report

8.1???? Mayoral Minute - LGSA's NSW Election Priorities 2011

8.2???? Outstanding Actions and Reports

8.3???? Pensioner Rates and Charges Rebate

8.4???? Proposed 30m Telecommunications Mobile Base Station to improve Optus 3G Mobile Telephone Coverage

8.5???? Constitutional Recognition of Local Government - A Role for Councils

8.6???? Quarterly Performance Review - 31 December 2010

8.7???? December 2010 Budget Review

8.8???? Sale of Closed Road - Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

8.9???? Nambucca District Band Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 8 February 2011

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

9.1???? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 22 February 2011

9.2???? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 10 January 2011

9.3???? Update on Planning Proposal - LEP Amendment 1

9.4???? Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

9.5???? Funding Application Floodplain Management Program 2011-2012

10????? Director Engineering Services Report

10.1?? Tender - T046/2010 Construction of Lunchroom and Amenities at the Nambucca Shire Council Depot ???


 

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

11.1?? Tender - T046/2010 Construction of Lunchroom and Amenities at the Nambucca Shire Council Depot

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

??

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

 

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

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

???? TO CLOSE

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

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

12????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

??????? ?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1????? SF640????????????? 030311???????? Mayoral Minute - LGSA's NSW Election Priorities 2011

 

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

 

Summary:

 

On Monday 7 February 2011, The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) launched its NSW Election Priorities 2011. The document outlines to all political parties the current issues for Councils and the proposed solutions.

 

The LGSA?s NSW Election Priorities 2011 covers major issues of significance for Councils under six key themes, which can be found at www.legsa.org.au/election 2011:

 

1????????? Improved Local Government financial viability

2????????? Restore the balance to land use planning

3????????? Stronger support for communities

4????????? Greater natural environment protection

5????????? Enhanced infrastructure provision and maintenance

6????????? Better local governance

 

The LGSA has requested an official response from all NSW political parties contesting the 2011 NSW Election by Monday 28 February 2011 and will be publishing these responses.

 

The majority of the serious problems facing Local Government in NSW are not new, and the LGSA are seeking the support of all NSW Councils for their NSW Election Priorities 2011 and participation in their campaign at a local level.

 

The LGSA have written to all Councils in NSW encouraging them to review the NSW Election Priorities 2011 and embark on locally based ?sister? campaigns to strengthen the case for Local Government in NSW. Council has been sent a ?tool kit? of useful information to assist with local media campaigns.

 

The LGSA is aiming to strengthen and build a more consultative relationship between the NSW Government, all political parties, independents and Local Government in the future.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Nambucca Shire Council support the LGSA?s NSW Election Priorities 2011 and seek? the position of the Labour Party, Liberal National Coalition and the Greens in relation to the identified priorities.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

3699/2011 - Letter outlining launch

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Mayoral Minute - LGSA's NSW Election Priorities 2011

 


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager

ITEM 8.2????? SF959????????????? 030311???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

JULY 2009

1

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. Fibre optic cable has been laid and computer hardware (backup server) has been ordered.

 

AUGUST 2009

2

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.

Enquiry to be made with D of P re progress of subdivision application.

 

JANUARY 2010

3

SF839

21/01/10

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

 

GM

On-going.

 

 

 


 

MARCH 2010

4

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

 

 

5

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

6

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.

 

7

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.

 

Information sent through to consultant.? Meeting now not likely to late March 2011.

 

SEPTEMBER 2010

8

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.

No response from Minister for Planning as at 22/2/11

.

9

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.

Council?s solicitor, Terry Perkins has been instructed to act on Council?s behalf in pursuing the claim.

 

OCTOBER 2010

10

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.

Information not received.? Still awaiting data. Deferred till information received.?

To be raised at next meeting scheduled for 7 March 2011.

 

11

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.

CPG have advised that UBS CMT, is a Managed Fund and that Council staff were correct in their assumption that the account, albeit that it is a settlement account, would be in breach of the Ministers? Orders.? UBS have advised they have a cash account facility that is not a managed fund and pays higher interest rates than the existing UBS CMT account.? To utilise the ?cash account? a Council needs to maintain a balance of $250,000 for 3 days to meet the wholesale client test.? UBS to provide further details.

 

12

SF1031

21/10/10

New policies be reported back to Council for determination.

 

GM

January 2011.

IPR current priority. Deferred to March 2011.

NOVEMBER 2010

13

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.

 

Awaiting response from CMA.

 

14

PRF54

18/11/10

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

 

GM

Letter written to LPMA 26 November 2010.? Meeting with LPMA and Committee of Management arranged for 27/1/2011.

 

Meeting held on 27/1/2011.? Awaiting advice from LPMA on bringing more crown land into the reserve and grant opportunities.

DECEMBER 2010

15

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

DES

GM

To come with quarterly budget review.

Defer to April 2011.

 

16

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.

17

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 2010.

 

Responses received from 2 of 3 Committees of Management.? Information from 3rd Committee has been followed up.

To be reported in April 2011.

 

18

SF296

2/12/10

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

 

DEP

Report to Council in February 2011

Signs unable to be erected prior to Christmas.? Report deferred to April 2011.

19

PRF53

16/12/10

Council write to Country Energy asking if electricity cables can be bundled in River Street to reduce pruning as a community service.

 

DES

Letter sent 9 February 2011.

 

Response received from Country Energy advising that the matter is being investigated.

20

SF1471

16/12/10

Council write to the Min. for Local Government & Opposition spokesperson seeking a monetary increase in the pensioner rebate to be jointly funded by the State Government & councils on the ratio of 70% to 30%.

 

GM

Letters sent 20/12/2010.? Response received from the Minister.? Awaiting response from the Opposition spokesperson.

21

SF674

16/12/10

Provision of a further report early in the new year re way forward for mixed waste processing.

 

GM

Report to Council in February 2011.? No information received as at 25/1/2011.

No information received as at 22 February 2011.

22

SF1372

16/12/10

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 & Council staff.

 

DEP

Targeting April 2011.

23

SF844

16/12/10

That a Project Implementation Management Plan for the off-stream dam 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 dimension provided in suitable vegetation, with the catchment above the dam top water level.

 

DES

GHD commissioned.? Plan anticipated in March 2011.

24

SF1213

16/12/10

Council consider committing $40,000 to addressing the landslip (Ocean & Matthew Streets, Scotts Head) and receive a report on options for investigation including an onsite inspection and Council seek a quote from a geotechnical expert to provide a report on the work required to stabilise the slippage and an estimate of the cost.

 

DES

February GPC.

 

Included in the report to Council on 17 February on landslips.? Council resolved to accept the priority for remediation works on the landslips.

25

SF339

16/12/10

Unkya Reserve ? matter be deferred to allow the Committee of Management to conduct a planning workshop that includes any interested existing and future user groups or individuals to determine a shared use arrangement.

 

GM

Report in February 2011.

 

Committee of management met on 30 January.? Ray Hadley Continuous Call to proceed.? Deliberations on use of ground by Pony Club continuing.? To be reported to Council?s meeting on 17 March 2011.

JANUARY 2011

26

SF84

20/1/11

Council seek further information from the LGSA re the property based levy (for emergency services)

 

GM

Letter sent 21/1/11

27

SF84

20/1/11

Council write to RFS Commissioner re undertaking that increases in RFS contributions would be subject to review by IPART.

 

GM

Letter sent 21/1/11

28

RF275

20/1/11

Restoration of Bellingen Road

DES

Claim for Natural Disaster Relief funding lodged with RTA by letter dated 7/1/2011.

Follow up letter sent to RTA on 21/2/2011.

 

FEBRUARY 2011

29

SF1611

3/2/11

Council make application to Minister for Emergency Services & Local Member for funding towards cleanup of storm damage from 19 January 2011 pleading hardship.

 

GM

Letter sent 9/2/11

30

SF90

3/2/11

Decision on necessity of Local Development Committee (Traffic) be deferred to seek information from other Councils as to whether they have one and how they manage DA?s not referred to the RTA.

 

DEP

Report in March 2011.

31

SF1306

3/2/11

Council request RFS to confirm whether or not the assessment for the issue of Bush Fire Safety Certificates which are to be moved to LG and certifiers is included in the annual RFS budget which Council contributes to.

 

DEP

Letter sent 9 February 2011.

32

SF1508

3/2/11

Council revert to in-house monitoring of energy consumption and greenhouse gas production and revisit the option of engaging consultants for benchmarking in 12 months time.

 

DES

Report in February 2012.

33

PRF53

17/2/11

Foreshore redevelopment, River Street, Macksville ? defer to March GPC meeting to allow Councillors the opportunity to have input into the revised concept plan.

 

DES

Report to 16 March 2011.

34

SF755

17/2/11

Council defer demolition of the old ruby league amenities at Coronation Park for a period of 3 months to allow the Trust to complete their proposal to restore parts of the building and to demonstrate their ability to fund the project.

 

DES

Report June 2011 GPC.

35

SF1291

17/2/11

Paveline patching machine ? a further report be prepared of the year July 2010 to June 2011 for comparison with the same period in the previous year.

DES

Report to April 2011.

36

SF775

17/2/11

Council liaise with the Saltwater Freshwater Festival Committee with a view to conducting the Festival in the Nambucca Valley in 2013.

 

GM

Letter sent to Committee on 21 February 2011.

37

SF787

17/2/11

Council write to the relevant Minister and Federal Government Department concerned with pest control seeking a more active approach to the control of the Indian Myna and requesting that it be officially declared as a pest.

 

DEP

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.3????? SF848????????????? 030311???????? Pensioner Rates and Charges Rebate

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

Following recent reports to Council and at Council?s meeting of 16 December 2010 the following was resolved:

 

?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 ratio of 70% to 30%?.

 

A letter was forwarded to the Hon. Barbara Perry MP which is attached requesting a review of Pensioner Rates and Charges.? A response attached has now been received.

 

The forwarding of a letter to Mr Chris Hartcher MP, the Opposition Spokesperson, was overlooked but a letter has now been forwarded to him on 11 February 2011.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information received in relation to Pensioner Rates and Charges from The Hon. Barbara Perry MP be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Accept the information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Following representations concerning the diminution of the real value of the pensioner rebate over a period of time Council resolved to write to the Minister for Local Government seeking a monetary increase in the pensioner rebate to be jointly funded by the State Government and Councils on the ratio of 70% to 30%?.

 

The Hon. Barbara Perry MP, Minister for Local Government has responded by acknowledging that the level of pensioner concessions has remained constant for a number of years.

 

According to the Minister, due to recent changes to the Commonwealth Government?s pensioner eligibility arrangements which halved the asset taper rate and the impact of the Global Financial Crisis on self funded retirees, the number of people eligible for the rates concession has correspondingly increased.? As a result, the cost of providing mandatory pensioner concessions on rates increased to over $139 million in 2009/2010.? With the aging of the Australian population, eligibility for the concession and the resulting cost of the scheme is expected to grown significantly in coming years.

 

It is stated that any change to current funding arrangements would impact on the capacity of governments both at State and Local level to provide other programs and services tailored towards supporting retirees in leading a full and active life in the community.

 

The Minister also reiterated that Councils have the discretion to provide further concessions above the maximum levels fixed by the Act, and assist ratepayers that may be experiencing difficulty in paying their rates which are met entirely by the Council by:

 

?????????????? Agreement for periodic payments other than quarterly instalments

?????????????? Writing off interest on unpaid rates

?????????????? Providing relief where hardship has occurred due to changes in land valuations

 

The Minister advised that the NSW Government will keep this issue under consideration.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Letter from the Minister for Local Government

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report is for information only.

 

Social

 

This report is for information only.

 

Economic

 

This report is for information only.

 

Risk

 

This report is for information only.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct and indirect impact on current and future budget with this report for information.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

31596/2010 - Council's letter - Request for review of Pensioner Rates And Charges Rebate

 

2View

3572/2011 - Ministers response - To increase the Pensioner Concession Rebate

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Pensioner Rates and Charges Rebate

 

Enquiries to:? Michael Coulter

Phone No:????? 6568 0200

Email:???????????? michael.coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Mobile:?????????? 0409 153 788

Our Ref:??????? SF848

 

 

 

20 December 2010

 

 

 

The Hon Barbara Perry MP

Minister for Local Government

Governor Macquarie Tower

Level 32, 1 Farrer Place

SYDNEY?? NSW?? 2000

 

Dear Minister Perry

 

PENSIONER RATES AND CHARGES REBATE

 

Council has received representations concerning diminution of the real value of the pensioner rebate over time.

 

Whilst Council appreciates the cost of increasing or maintaining the real value of the rebate, it is not satisfactory for it to remain fixed and lose real value over time.

 

As a consequence Council has resolved to seek your support for a monetary increase in the pensioner rebate to be jointly funded by the State Government and councils on the ratio of 70% to 30%.

 

Your early consideration of this proposal would be appreciated as it can be incorporated in Council?s Community Engagement Strategy and the preparation of its Community Strategic Plan.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Michael Coulter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

MAC:ms

 

Seasons Greetings from the Mayor, Councillors and Council Staff

Please note that Council?s Administration Centre will be closed from

Monday 27 December 2010 and will not reopen until Tuesday 4 January 2011

 

bell_icn.gif (1957 bytes)

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Pensioner Rates and Charges Rebate

 



Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.4????? SF1015??????????? 030311???????? Proposed 30m Telecommunications Mobile Base Station to improve Optus 3G Mobile Telephone Coverage

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Notification has been received from Daly International who contract to Optus regarding a the proposed 30m telecommunications Mobile Base Station installation at a new site without Development Application at 70 Coulter?s Road, Congarinni North.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the notification from Daly International Pty Ltd in relation to the proposed 30m telecommunications Mobile Base Station to improve Optus 3G Mobile Telephone Coverage in the Bowraville township and surrounding rural area.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????????????? Accept the recommendation

?????????????? Not accept the recommendation

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a Consultation Plan as required under the Clause 5.5.2 of the ACIF Code from Daly International, contractors to Optus for a proposed 30m Telecommunications Mobile Base Station installation at Lot 1 DP 592871 - 70 Coulter?s Road, Congarinni North.. The Base is to improve the existing Optus 3G mobile telephone coverage to the Bowraville township and surrounding rural area.? This is more commonly known as the ?3G? Network.

 

The proposal will be carried out under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 Division 21 Clause 116/116A Exempt & Complying Development in relation to telecommunications facilities and consent from Council is not required.

 

Optus has to consult with Council as part of the implementation of the Consultation Plan and provide Council with additional information in relation to Contact details under Clause 5.5.6(g) and 5.5.6(h) of the Code.

 

The Overall Site Plan are attached.

 

Written comments in relation to the Carriers proposed facility are to be provided by 15 March 2011.? Once the Consultation Plan has been implemented and comments received, Optus is required to provide Council with a report about the responses received from those notified and the results of any other consultation conducted.

 

The report will include:

 

a??????? Summary of comments received during the consultation process;

b??????? Carrier?s consideration of the comments; and

c??????? A statement about Carrier?s intended actions regarding the proposed work.

 

It is noted that Optus will not commence the work until after the Consultation Report has been provided to Council.

 


CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed installation will comply with the Australian Communications Authority regulatory arrangements with respect to electromagnetic radiation exposure levels.? Levels for this site have been calculated in accordance with the ARPANSA prediction methodology and report format.

 

Social

 

There will be an improvement to the existing mobile telephone coverage for the residents of Bowraville township and surrounding rural area.

 

There are often complaints about the perceived effects of electro magnetic radiation (EMR).

 

Economic

 

It is healthy to have competition in telecommunications.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no implications to Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications to Council.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

5029/2011 - Overall Site Plan - Proposed Mobile Base Station, Bowraville

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Proposed 30m Telecommunications Mobile Base Station to improve Optus 3G Mobile Telephone Coverage

 


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.5????? SF640????????????? 030311???????? Constitutional Recognition of Local Government - A Role for Councils

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

Inviting Councils to become directly engaged in the campaign for constitutional recognition by endorsing the position that a referendum be held by 2013 to change the Constitution to allow direct funding of Local Government bodies by the Commonwealth Government and also to include Local Government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed.?

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Nambucca Shire Council declares its support for financial recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has power to fund Local Government directly and also for inclusion of Local Government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed.

 

2????????? That Nambucca Shire Council calls on all political parties to support a Referendum by 2013 to change the Constitution to achieve this recognition.

 

3????????? That Council advise the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Local Federal member for Cowper of its declaration.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????????????? Support the recommendation

?????????????? Do not support the recommendation

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Advice has been received on the progress of the Australian Local Government Association?s (ALGA?s) campaign for a Referendum on the constitutional recognition of Local Government.? Council?s have been invited to become directly engaged in the campaign for constitutional recognition by endorsing the position that a referendum be held by 2013 to change the Constitution to allow direct funding of Local Government bodies by the Commonwealth Government and also to include Local Government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed.?

 

The challenge for Local Government is as follows:

 

1??????? to ensure the referendum is held

2??????? to ensure that the type of recognition sought meets the requirements

3??????? make sure that a positive result is achieved in the referendum

 

The importance of the constitutional recognition of Local Government has been highlighted in stark terms by the 2009 decision of the High Court in the case of Pae v Federal Commissioner of Taxation which raises legal doubt over the Commonwealth?s powers to fund Local Government directly.? This needs to be resolved once and for all.? Financial recognition of Local Government will enable the Federal Government to directly fund Local Government.

 

The Federal Governments should have the capacity to fund Councils directly to achieve national objectives.

 

It is the ALGA?s intention that a Constitutional Declaration for Councils be submitted for signature by Council representatives at the conclusion of the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government on 22 June 2011.? The Association?s objective is that all Councils will be in a position to sign the Declaration supporting financial recognition at that time.

 

It has been requested that each Council write to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and our Local Federal Member of Parliament to advise of Councils? support for recognition.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Advise has been received from the ALGA.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There may be environmental implications if the Federal Government is unable to directly fund environmental initiatives undertaken by Local Government.

 

Social

 

Councils do receive funding for social programs directly from the Federal Government.? These may be at risk.

 

Economic

 

Direct funding for economic initiatives may not be available.

 

Risk

 

There are funding risks for all Local Governments if constitutional recognition does not proceed.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

3797/2011 - Letter from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA)

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Constitutional Recognition of Local Government - A Role for Councils

 







Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.6????? SF820????????????? 030311???????? Quarterly Performance Review - 31 December 2010

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 407 of the Local Government Act 1993 I wish to report the extent to which the performance targets set in Councils 2010/2030 Management Plan have been achieved.

 

The Performance Targets for quarter to 31 December 2010 is circularised.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the extent to which the Performance Targets have been achieved for the quarter to 31 December 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Quarterly Performance Targets to 31 December 2010 - 2260/2011

 

?

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Quarterly Performance Review - 31 December 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Quarterly Performance Review - 31 December 2010

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Quarterly Performance Targets to 31 December 2010 - 2260/2011

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.7????? SF1525??????????? 030311???????? December 2010 Budget Review

 

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

 

Summary:

 

General Fund:??????????????? This review revises the net operating result for 2010/11 to a deficit of $229,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,540,969, a decline of $166,500 since the Original Budget.

?????????????????????????????????????

Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is adequate at approximately $340,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

 

Water Supplies:???????????? This review revises the net operating result for 2010/11 to a surplus of $73,400 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,752,337, an improvement of $72,400 since the Original Budget.

 

Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is strong at approximately $1,150,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

 

Sewerage Services:??????? This review revises the net operating result for 2010/11 to a surplus of $11,500 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $739,340, an improvement of $36,100 since the Original Budget.

 

Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity (available working capital at year end) is adequate at approximately $190,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

 

The Circularised budget review document includes, as variances, amounts required to match unexpected income/expenditure items plus resolved inclusions to the budget. Items varying $5,000 or more are briefly discussed commencing page 2 in ledger account order and referenced to the page no. in budget review document. Significant variations influencing the result are discussed further in this report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the budget review for the quarter ended 31 December, 2010 be received.

 

2??????? That the recommended increases and decreases in votes be included as subsequent votes for the financial year 2010/2011.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Not Applicable

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

As mentioned previously, delays to financial reporting have occurred due to implementation issues associated with the conversion of Council?s corporate software. Currently, mapping and converting previous budget data aligned with the Fujitsu system to the new Civica system and grasping the sourcing of information capabilities of the Civica system is taking time. It is expected that financial documents will be back on schedule prior to the end of the financial year with every endeavour being made to ensure the 2011/12 draft budget is presented as close as possible to the deadlines as per the management plan timetable.

 

 

GENERAL ACTIVITIES

 

The summary of current liquid equity is on page 1 of the Budget Review document. The estimated current liquid equity surplus is $1,540,969 inclusive of internal loans.

 

The original 2010/11 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $63,100. Items revoted from 2009/10 amounted to $1,114,100. The balance of internal loans borrowed from current liquid equity was $631,340.

 

The September review revised the result for 2010/11 to a net operating deficit of $214,000 a decline of $150,900.

 

This December review revises the result for 2010/11 to a net operating deficit of $229,600 a decline of $15,600 on the September review and a decline of $166,500 on the original budget.

 

A positive impacts on Council?s budget for the quarter has come from an up to date analysis of investment income, taking into account the January 2011 returns. As a result, it is expected that overall returns should increase by $193,000. The benefit to General?s working funds through unrestricted interest returns is expected to be $66,500. Also, unaccounted parks & reserves flood damage subsidy income of $21,800 is due and included this review after a reconciliation of? income and expenditure relating to the February, May & November 2009 floods.

 

Offsetting the above have been council resolution variances relating to works required at Higginbotham Rd ($25,000) and Pioneer St North ($10,000) as well as the contribution to the Men?s Shed of $43,000.

 

 

WATER SUPPLIES

 

The original 2010/11 budget forecast a net operating surplus of $1,000. Net revotes from 2009/10 amount to $0.

 

The September review revised the result for 2010/11 to an operating surplus of $37,800, an improvement of $36,800.

 

This December review revises the result for 2010/11 to a net operating surplus of $73,400, an improvement of $35,600 on the September review and an improvement of $72,400 on the original budget.

 

In relation to the review of investment income, Water Supplies is expected to receive additional unrestricted interest income of $22,100 equating to Water?s improved result for the quarter when taken into account with additional to estimated? pensioner subsidy of $14,000.

 

 

SEWERAGE SERVICES

 

The original 2010/11 budget forecast a net operating deficit of $24,600. Items revoted from 2009/10 amounted to $25,000.

 

The September review revised the result for 2010/11 to a net operating deficit of $26,600, a decline of $2,000.


This December review revises the result for 2010/11 to a net operating surplus of $11,500, an improvement of $38,100 on the September review and an improvement of $36,100 on the original budget.

 

As with Water Supplies the only major variances relate to an expected increase in unrestricted interest earnings of $29,600 and additional pensioner subsidy of $9,000.

CONSULTATION:

 

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

?????????????? Directors

?????????????? Responsible Officers

?????????????? Accountant

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Social

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Economic

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Risk

 

Not applicable.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Refer to discussion.

 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Refer to discussion.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.8????? SF632????????????? 030311???????? Sale of Closed Road - Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council resolved on 04 June 2006 to permit the closure of a section of road reserve adjacent to lot 1052 DP 849681 to facilitate the sale to the registered proprietor of lot 1052 Mr Trembath.

 

The terms of the road closure and sale are that Mr Trembath meet all costs of the exercise including survey, legal costs, valuation and purchase price.

 

Mr Trembath has rejected Council?s appraisal of land value in the amount $6,000 exclusive of GST on the basis the land values have increased substantially since he first applied for the road closure and acquisition. Mr Trembath has counter offered a purchase price of $5,000 inclusive of GST and legal expenses.

 

It is recommended that Council accept consideration of $5,000 for the land but require Mr Trembath to meet the GST component and to meet Council?s legal fees as per the original Agreement. It should be noted that Mr Trembath was provided an estimate in this amount at the commencement of this process.

 

It is further recommended that future application for Road Closure and Acquisition be the subject of a Deed of Agreement wherein a bond is collected and the applicant and Council agree on the terms of the transaction prior to work commencing.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council offer to sell the portion of closed road adjacent to Lot 1052 in DP 849681 to Mr L G Trembath for $5,000 plus GST and legal costs of not more than $1,000.

 

2????????? That Council require future applications for road closure to be the subject of a Deed of Agreement between the parties which details the terms of the transaction and requires a bond to be paid by the applicant prior to work commencing on the application.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect to accept Mr Trembath?s offer. If Council accepts Mr Trembath?s offer the actual consideration for the land will be $4,545 with GST of $454.54. Council will be required to meet their own legal expenses. To complete the transaction.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council resolved on 04 June 2006 to permit the closure of a section of road reserve adjacent to lot 1052 DP 849681 to facilitate the sale to the registered proprietor of lot 1052, Mr Trembath. (A copy of the plan is attached for Council?s reference.

 

The terms of the sale are that Mr Trembath meet all costs associated with the road closure with the purchase price being established by a valuation of the State Valuation Office.

 

Council staff provided an estimate to Mr Trembath in December of 2007 of, amongst other costs, a land value of approximately $5,000.

 

Mr Trembath was advised that the process of Road Closure through the Lands Department can take up to two (2) years to complete.? In fact, the process has taken 4.5 years.? From the initial report to Council on 4 May 2006 it took until November 2007 for Mr Trembath to finalise advice as to the area of land he wished to acquire.? In November 2007 he advised that he wished to increase the area to be acquired and this was reported to Council in February 2008.? A road closure application was lodged with the Department of Lands in 2008 but it was not approved until April 2009.? Mr Trembath then engaged Amos and McDonald Surveyors to prepare a plan of subdivision and this was not endorsed by the Department Lands until May 2010.? The plan of subdivision was lodged with the LPI in August 2010 but there were requisitions and it was not registered until December 2010 along with the road closure.

 

The road has now been closed and staff seek to complete a sale to Mr Trembath.

Based on current Valuer General?s unimproved land value of Lot 1052 in DP 849681 a pro rata estimate of the value of the subject land has been calculated at $10.35 per square metres with a total land value of $6,000. The lands sale is subject to GST.

 

Mr Trembath has rejected this amount on the basis the time taken to process the road closure means that he is paying proportionately more than anticipated due to the increase in land values in the intervening period. Mr Trembath has advised that he will not proceed with the transfer at this price and has counter offered $5,000 inclusive of GST and legal costs.

 

To date Mr Trembath has paid the Council application fee of $220 and charges levied by the Department of Lands for the Road closure application of $767.20. Mr Trembath has met the cost of surveying and plan lodgement directly.

 

It should noted that other than the initial application fee Council has not charged Mr Trembath for the considerable time attributable to this matter.

 

Notwithstanding the above it is recommended that council offer to sell the subject land to Mr Trembath for $5,000 exclusive of GST and legal costs. This is a pragmatic counter offer which reflects the considerable time already committed to attending to Mr Trembath application for road closure whilst still satisfying council obligation to achieve market value for land sales. It is consistent with the terms advised to Mr Trembath by correspondence dated 06 December 2007.

 

Road closure and sale to adjoining owners constitute a commercial transaction. It is further recommended therefore that future applications for road closure and sale to adjoining owners be the subject of a Deed of Agreement wherein the applicant accepts the method of determining the consideration for the land and undertakes to meet all costs associated with the road closure and transfer including:

 

a??????? Drafting of the Deed of Agreement

b??????? Payment of a security bond equivalent to 50% of estimated costs of the exercise prior to work commencing (to be refunded at the conclusion of the matter or applied as payment to the final purchase price)

c??????? Payment of the Land Department fee for Road Closure Application

d??????? Payment of Council professional fees for survey and administration in processing the matter (levied in accordance with the Revenue Policy )

e??????? Payment of Land & Property lodgement and Registration fees

f???????? Payment of an independent Valuer (if required)

g??????? Payment of all legal fees attributable to the transfer

h??????? Payment of the established land value and any GST attributable to the sale.

??????

The process of road closure and transfer can be a protracted exercise requiring considerable resource, The above process is recommended to provide both the applicant and council a reasonable degree of certainty as to the outcome.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council Surveyor

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

The recommendations do not give rise to any environmental issues.

 

Social

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any social issues.

Economic

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any economic issues.

 

Risk

 

In the event Council can not negotiate an acceptable price with Mr Trembath it is possible that the transaction will not proceed and Council will not receive any reimbursement.

 

The recommendation serves to ensure that council is paid for the work completed on road closure application.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendation do not impact on current and future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The recommendations do not require a variance to working funds

 

Attachments:

1View

4884/2011 - Plan - DP 1155321 P - Sale of Closed Road

 

2View

4885/2011 - Gazette Notice - Sale of Closed Road

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Sale of Closed Road - Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Sale of Closed Road - Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

 


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.9????? SF327????????????? 030311???????? Nambucca District Band Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 8 February 2011

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Annual General Meeting of the Nambucca District Band Committee of Management and the new Committee.? A copy of the minutes of this meeting are attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Nambucca District Band Committee of Management?s minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 8 February 2011 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 District Band Committee of Management was held on Tuesday 8 February 2011 in the Macksville Public School Hall.

 

The Committee of Management for the ensuing year consists of the following Office Bearers:

 

????????? President ?????????????????????? Joanne Waller

????????? Secretary??????????????????????? Sue Marriott

????????? Treasurer???????????????????????? Doug Smith

????????? Musical Director?????????????? Ian Flarrety

????????? Asst. Musical Director????? Bob Boyle

????????? Wardrobe/Instruments????? Ian Flarrety/Ruth Flarrety

????????? Music Librarian??????????????? Ian Flarrety/Mitchell Daley

????????? Band Sergeant???????????????? Mal Rae

????????? Publicity Officer?????????????? Ian Flarrety/Sue Marriott

????????? Drum Major???????????????????? Jane Rayner

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

None

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications to the working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

4845/2011 - Minutes of Annual General Meeting - 8 February 2011

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Nambucca District Band Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 8 February 2011

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1????? SF1589??????????? 030311???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 22 February 2011

 

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
TO 22 FEBRUARY 2011

 

DA Number

Application Date

Development

Address

2011/012

04/02/2011

Storage Shed

Lot 46 DP 774954, 19 Binalong Way, Macksville

2011/013

04/02/2011

Dwelling Additions

Lot 241 DP 262614, 434 Allgomera Road, Allgomera

2011/014

04/02/2011

Cabana, Pool Area and Retaining Walls

Lot 79 DP 1080850, 1 Dickson Street, Nambucca Heads

2011/015

04/02/2011

Carport

Lot 445 DP 755550, 12 Seaview Street, Nambucca Heads

2011/016

09/02/2011

Change of use from class 6 to 5, signage & interior walls

Lot 13 DP 560281, shop 2 6 Cooper Street, Macksville

2011/017

10/02/2011

Extension to Balcony

Lot 10 Section 1 DP 30512, 2 John Avenue, Nambucca Heads

2011/018

09/02/2011

Alterations & Additions - to existing verandah for proposed sunroom & access ramp

Lot 32 DP 730231, 1-3 Short Street, Macksville

2011/019

09/02/2011

Dwelling-House

Lot 7 DP 1063717, 48 McLeod Drive, Scotts Head

2011/020

10/02/2011

Storage Shed

Lot 55 DP 1090473, Corneil Crescent, Gumma

2011/021

10/02/2011

Shed

Lot 1 DP 367481, 4 Willis Street, Macksville

2011/022

11/02/2011

Carport & concrete deck with roof

Lot 3 DP 1054541, 24 Hallidise Street, Nambucca Heads

2011/023

21/02/2011

Attached Dual Occupancy

Lot 129 DP 711481, 20 Raleigh Street, Scotts Head

2011/604

14/02/2011

Shop fit-out

Lot 7 Section B DP 6045, Shop 2 12 Cooper Street, Macksville

 


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO 22 FEBRUARY 2011

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE $

2010/201

Lot 51 DP 1099538, 23 Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach

Strata Title Subdivision of an Approved Dual Occupancy

0

2011/004

Lot 1 DP 1062292, 3 Hill Street, Scotts Head

Dwelling-House

301.880

2006/142/01

Lot 142 DP 809036, 2 Grandview Drive, Macksville

16 Lot Residential Subdivision plus Residue Lot Modification

0

2011/013

Lot 241 DP 262614, 434 Allgomera Road, Allgomera

Dwelling Additions

36,000

2010/294

Lot 144 DP 1072154, 18 Railway Road, Nambucca Heads

Additions to Industrial Shed

24,000

2010/286

Lot 6 DP 28490, 10 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads

Deck

45,000

 

 

COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS DETERMINED TO 22 FEBRUARY 2011

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE $

2011/603

?Lot 82 DP 826419, 20 Letitia Close, Macksville

Above Ground Swimming Pool

5,000

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

Environment and Planning

ITEM 9.2????? SF1589??????????? 030311???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 10 January 2011

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

Response from DoP in regard to KPoM received 24/12/10 making suggested consent conditions

Response from RFS 4/1/11 requiring additional information

Extension granted to submit additional information, to 18/2/2011


 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

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 determined by JRPP, Briefing report for a future GPC meeting.

 

2008/239/01 Modification

22/11/2010

Concrete Batching Plant

Lot 4, DP 549892, 2 Centra Park Street, Macksville

? Concerns with long term noise issues

? Disregard for operating hours noted in original consent

To be presented to Council at a future General Purpose Business Meeting

 

2010/268

19/11/2010

New shopfront awning and signage

Lot 3 Section 18 DP 758749, 22 Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads

? Awning doesn?t conform with other shop frontages

? Water issues

? Post on the awning ? obstruct walkway

Applicant requested time to submit amended plan

 

2010/281

03/12/2010

Meat processing facility

Lot 2 DP 602704, 242 Soldiers Settlers road, Newee Creek

? State of the existing road and the proposed volume of traffic proposed

Condition of consent to be imposed addressing submission concerns.

Awaiting advice from the NSW Food Authority.

 

2002/330/03 Modification

14/12/2010

Driveway, Retaining Wall, General Storage Area, Water Tanks

Lot 78 DP 1080850, 3 Dickson Street, Nambucca Heads

? Clarification on some items in the application ie intention to install a lift, will the window remain or be closed in, driveway entrance

? If using laneway issues with sealing, drainage, etc to be considered.

Concerns will be addressed when assessing the application

To be determined by late February 2011

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF1599??????????? 030311???????? Update on Planning Proposal - LEP Amendment 1

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is advise Council of the results of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal for Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2010 Amendment Number 1.

 

The purpose of this planning proposal is to reclassify three (3) parcels of land from community land to operational land in accordance with previous Council resolutions. The land to be reclassified includes:

 

?????????????? Part Lot 31 DP 248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville;

?????????????? Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road Kingsworth Estate; and

?????????????? Lot 163 DP 822649 Little Tamban Road Eungai Creek

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council proceed with the reclassification of community land to operational land for each of the following:

 

??????????? Part Lot 31 DP 248561 Yarrawonga Street, Macksville;

??????????? Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate; and

??????????? Lot 163 DP 822649 Little Tamban Road, Eungai Creek.

 

??????????? And pursuant to clause 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the planning proposal shall be forwarded to the Minister of Planning for the plan to be made.

 

2????????? That a Plan of Management for the reserve within Kingsworth Estate be prepared by Engineering Services detailing, amongst other matters, pedestrian and vehicular access arrangements.

 

3????????? Those persons who made submission to the plan be appropriately notified of Councils decision.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That Council not proceed with 1 or all of the proposed reclassifications.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council proposed to reclassify and rezone three (3) parcels of land in draft NLEP 2010. These were carried forward from LEP 1995 Amendment No 64.

 

The three parcels of land are:

 

Lot 31 DP 248561 Yarrawonga Street;

Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Kingsworth Estate; and

Lot 163 DP 822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre-School).

 

The NLEP 2010 made by the Minister has given each of these parcels the appropriate land zone to reflect the intended reclassification but has not included the reclassification of the land from community land to operational land under Schedule 4 of NLEP 2010.

 

The DoP provided the following advice in relation to this matter:

 

The three parcels of land listed in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which were to be reclassified operational have been omitted because the procedure for the public hearing was not in accordance with Section 68 of the Act in relation to the Nambucca LEP 2010. Council is encouraged to include this land in a planning proposal to amend the plan.

 

Although it is considered that adequate justification was put to the Department of Planning (DoP) to retain the respective parcels of land in Schedule 4, the DoP decided to delete their inclusion in the schedule for the reclassification of public land. In discussions with the DoP, Council was verbally advised that Parliamentary Counsel and DoP Legal had concerns that the public hearing was held under the previous LEP 1995 Amendment and not the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

Council resolved to pursue the reclassification of the above public land on the 15 September 2010. The following resolution was made:

 

The following Land be reclassified from Community land to Operational land pursuant to clause 30 of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

?????????? Part Lot 31 DP 248561 Yarrawonga Street;

?????????? Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Kingsworth Estate; and

?????????? Lot 163 DP 822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre-School).

 

Based on this resolution a Planning Proposal was prepared and forwarded to the Minister of Planning for consideration under Clause 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Gateway Determination response from the DoP was received on 2 December 2010 which indicated Council could proceed with the planning proposal subject to appropriate public consultation (which did not require Council to undertake another public hearing) [Attachment 1].

 

Public Exhibition

 

To meet the requirement set by the Gateway Determination the Planning Proposal was exhibited for a period of 30 days, from the 13 January to 11th February 2011.

 

During this period Council received a single submission from Mr and Mrs Green [Attachment 2]. The submission raised concerns regarding the following matters related to the reclassification of Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Kingsworth Estate:

 

?????????????? Requested a copy of the Valuation details for the land exchange at Kingsworth Estate;

?????????????? Concerns regarding Access to old Coast Road through Florence Wilmont Drive; and

?????????????? Requests that any access provided to the Dam will be done with consideration to all concerned

 

Planning Response

 

In response to the above matters a copy of the Council report which considered the land valuations was provided? to Mr and Mrs Green.

 

The concerns regarding access between Florence Wilmont Drive and Old Coast Road is not relevant to this planning proposal.

 

Council?s previous recommendation regarding the reclassification of this land was to prepare a plan of management for the reserve. This will be particularly important should access be constructed and provided to the dam on the lower elevations of the reserve. It is recommended that Council duplicate the previous resolution to prepare a plan of management for the Reserve.

 

It is noted the Gateway Determination did not require Council to hold a public hearing in this instance because this had already been undertaken as part of LEP 1995 amendment no. 64. A copy of the consultant report on the public hearing is available from Council?s Strategic Planner should you require it.

 

A Copy of the Planning Proposal which details the proposed reclassifications is attached for your information [Attachment 3].

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Environmental impacts have been appropriately considered through the reclassification process.

 

Social

 

Social impacts have been appropriately considered through the reclassification process.

 

Economic

 

It is not considered that there will be any negative impacts as a result of reclassifying the subject land. In fact various economic benefits may arise from the reclassification including, disposal of surplus Council land (Yarrawonga Street).

 

Risk

 

It is not considered that there are any risks associated with the proposed reclassification of public land.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The sale of other land in the future may contribute to selected project budgets such as embellishment of existing reserves.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No variance to working funds is required.

 

Attachments:

1View

30387/2010 - Gateway Determination - Planning proposal to reclassify land

 

2View

3696/2011 - Submission relating to planning proposal LEP 2010 Amendment No 1 - Colin and Diane Green

 

3View

26367/2010 - Planning Proposal - Public Land Reclassifications

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal - LEP Amendment 1

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal - LEP Amendment 1

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal - LEP Amendment 1

 

 
 


Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Proposal

Nambucca LEP 2010 Amendment no. 1

Reclassification of Community Land to Operational Land

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Department of Environment and Planning

Nambucca Shire Council

 

Dated: 28 October 2010

 

File: SF1599


Table of Contents

 

 

1.0??????? Preliminary.. 1

1.1??????? Context.. 1

1.2??????? Subject Land, Land Use and Zone. 1

1.4??????? Background.. 4

Part 1???? Objectives or Intended outcomes.. 6

Part 2???? Explanation of Provisions.. 6

Part 3???? Justification.. 7

Section A ? Need for the Planning Proposal. 7

Section B ?Relationship to strategic planning framework. 8

Section C ? Environmental, social and economic impact.. 9

Section D ? State and Commonwealth Interests. 10

Part 4???? Community Consultation.. 10

Appendix 1 - State Environmental Planning Policies.. 11

Appendix 2 - Section 117 Directions.. 12

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal - LEP Amendment 1

 

1.0??? Preliminary

 

1.1? Context

 

This planning proposal has been drafted in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and ?A guide to preparing planning proposals? (DoP, 2009). A gateway determination under Section 66 of the Act is requested.

 

This planning proposal proposes the reclassification of Community classified land to Operational Land. Each portion of land subject to reclassification is identified in Section 1.2 of this report.

 

 

1.2? Subject Land, Land Use and Zone

 

The following land is proposed to be reclassified.

 

1.2.1? Part Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville

 

Figure 1 below illustrates the location context of Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville, which located in the south Macksville Industrial Estate approximately 2.3km from the Macksville CBD. The land is presently zoned IN2 Light Industrial which adjoins RE1 Public Reserve to the south, north coast rail to the east and general industrial land to the north.

 

 

Figure 1 Location Context Part Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville

 


Figure 2 Land Zoning Part Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville

 

1.2.2? Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate

 

 

Figure 3 and 4 below identifies land at Kingsworth Estate Nambucca Heads that is proposed to be reclassified from Community to operational land. The land is located at the western end of Kingsworth Estate and is presently part of a public reserve. This reclassification is part of a land swap which will provide Council with a greater opportunity to provide access to the Council reserve.

 

Figure 3 Location Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate

 

Figure 4 Land Zoning Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate

 

 

 

1.2.3? Lot 163 DP822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre School)

 

Figure 5 and 6 below show the location of land at Eungai Creek that is proposed to be transferred from community to operation land. The land is located near to the Rural Village of Eungai Creek at the southern end of the shire. The land is approximately 1100sqm in size. Although the land is zoned for rural purposes it is presently used as the local preschool.

 

Figure 5 Location Lot 163 DP822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre School)


Figure 6 Land Zone Lot 163 DP822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre School)

 

 

 

1.4? Background

 

Prior to commencing the drafting of the Nambucca LEP 2010, Council had commenced a general housing keeping amendment of the Nambucca LEP 1995. Within this house keeping amendment it was proposed to reclassify and rezone three (3) parcels of land, being:

 

?????????????? Part Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville;

?????????????? Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate; and

?????????????? Lot 163 DP822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre School)

 

Council progressed the reclassifications within the house keeping amendment, Nambucca LEP 1995 Amendment No. 64. The reclassifications were exhibited and a public hearing was held to address any community concerns.

 

Upon completion of the public hearing Council staff reported the proposed reclassification to Council at which time changes were made to address community concerns. Also given the progress of the LEP 2010, Council resolved to incorporate the reclassification amendment into the NLEP 2010. Copies of the Council reports and minutes are attached to this Planning Proposal (Attachment 1).

 

The Nambucca LEP 2010 was exhibited in October/November 2009, two workshops were held and no submissions were received in regards to the reclassification of this land. The NLEP 2010 was made by the minister on 30 July 2010. In making the plan, the Minister has given all of subject land parcels to be reclassified the appropriate zone but has not included the reclassification of the land from community land to operational land under Schedule 4 of NLEP 2010.

 


The DoP provided the following advice in relation to this matter:

 

The three parcels of land listed in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which were to be reclassified operational have been omitted because the procedure for the public hearing was not in accordance with Section 68 of the Act in relation to the Nambucca LEP 2010. Council is encouraged to include this land in a planning proposal to amend the plan.

 

Although it is considered that adequate justification was put to the DoP to retain the respective parcels of land in Schedule 4, the DoP decided to delete their inclusion in the schedule for the reclassification of public land. In discussions with the DoP, Council was verbally advised that Parliamentary Counsel and DoP Legal had concerns that the public hearing was held under the previous LEP 1995 Amendment and not the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

The purpose of this planning proposal is to reclassify the subject land from community to operational land in accordance with previous Council resolutions. Further detailed information regarding the reclassification of this land is included as attachment 2 (the facilitator report prepared for Councils consideration as a result of the public hearing previously completed).

 


Part 1??? Objectives or Intended outcomes

 

The primary objective of this LEP Amendment is to:

 

Amend the classification of the Part Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville, Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate, ?Lot 163 DP822649 Eungai from Community to Operational Land pursuant to Clause 30 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Part 2??? Explanation of Provisions

 

The objectives of the LEP amendment will be achieved by:

 

1????????? Amending Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 to include the following:

 

??????????? Part Lot 31 DP 248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville;

??????????? Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Kingsworth Estate; and

???????? Lot 163 DP 822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre School)

 

 

 


 

Part 3??? Justification

 

Section A ? Need for the Planning Proposal

 

1????????? Is the Planning Proposal the Result of any Strategic study or Report

 

??????????? No, the land has been previously identified as surplus to Council needs and there for has been identified for disposal.

 

2????????? Is the Planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

 

??????????? As Council wishes to dispose of this land it must be reclassified in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act.

 

3????????? Is there a net community benefit?

 

??????????? Council envisages that this planning proposal will result in the following net community benefits in consideration of the criteria set out in the NSW Department of Planning?s ?draft Centres Policy - Planning for Retail and Commercial Development?:

 

??????????? Part Lot 31 DP248561 Yarrawonga St Macksville

 

??????????????? This site provides a visual buffer to the railway line and provides a landscape entryway to the South Macksville Industrial Estate. However, the cleared nature of the land and its location below the nearby residential areas and industrial uses on the opposite side of Yarrawonga Street limits its potential as an acoustic buffer. This site?s proximity to the railway line and intersecting roads including Binalong Way, Upper Warrell Creek Road and Yarrawonga Street also limit its potential as a passive recreation area; it would be unsuitable as a site for a playground.

 

The shape of the land parcel and need for setbacks to the street and railway line limit the potential of the southern half of the site to be used for industrial purposes. The site could be developed for a dual purpose: light industrial activities and passive recreation purposes.

 

Any light industrial use should provide a sufficient landscape buffer to the railway line and adjoining residences fronting Upper Warrell Creek Road to screen the use from these residences. Any light industrial use would also need to meet acceptable noise criteria to ensure these residences are not adversely impacted. It is to be noted that a tall industrial building, with low noise levels, could provide some acoustic buffering to the nearby residents.

 

Any passive recreation use should provide a suitable entryway landscape area, possibly signifying the entry to the industrial estate, and could be supplemented with outdoor eating facilities to provide a lunchtime sitting area for workers in the industrial estate; it is acknowledged that there is no centralised outdoor recreation facility elsewhere in the industrial estate.

 

Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate; and

 

The reclassification of this land is the result of a proposed boundary alteration; a land swap between the rural land and open space land. The exchange of land will result in a nett increase in the reserve of 8,940 m2; 4,960 m2 of reserve is proposed to be zoned for rural residential purposes and 1.39 hectares of rural land is proposed to be rezoned for open space purposes.

The proposal will increase the street frontage of the reserve from 60.57 m to 242.67 m and will allow a dedicated road to the existing dam to be used for emergency access for water in times of drought and for water to be used as a dust suppressant at other times.

 

It is accepted that the proposed land swap will provide a community benefit in terms of improved access. It is also accepted that an uncontrolled access to the reserve has the potential of creating land use conflicts in terms of vehicles entering the reserve. It is considered that issues relating to access can be managed through an appropriate Plan of Management for the reserve. The Plan of Management will need to include designated areas for vehicular access and the times that vehicles will be allowed entry to the reserve. It is to be noted that the preparation of any Plan of Management for the reserve is subject to a public consultation process wherein detailed issues concerning the spatial and temporal access arrangements can be addressed.

 

Lot 163 DP822649 Eungai (Eungai Pre School)

 

While Local Government once had a lead role in the provision of childcare facilities and preschool facilities, these functions are now largely run by the private sector or non-profit organisations following the introduction of new avenues of Government Support which has increased their economic viability. This support is in the form of direct support for the facilities and indirect support through family child support schemes. Given these changes, it is reasonable for Council to discharge such lands to an alternative Preschool provider.

 

The social implications of reclassifying this land are minimal.

 

Implications of not proceeding at this time

 

Should Council not proceed with the reclassification at this time, there is unlikely to be any negative implications.

 

 

Section B ?Relationship to strategic planning framework.

 

4????????? Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy.

 

??????????? This planning proposal is not inconsistent with this the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

5????????? Is the planning proposal consistent with the local Council?s Community Strategic Plan, or other strategic plan?

 

The planning proposal is consistent with the Nambucca Structure Plan and other local strategies.

 

6????????? Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies (SEPP?s)?

 

??????????? Yes ? see Appendix 1

 

7????????? Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (S117 directions)?

 

??????????? Yes ? see Appendix 2


Section C ? Environmental, social and economic impact

 

8????????? Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal.

 

??????????? No, there is unlikely to be any detrimental impacts to critical habitat, threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

 

9????????? Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

 

??????????? The proposal is unlikely to result in any detrimental impacts associated with the reclassification of the subject land.

 

??????????? Construction of an access through the Council Reserve at Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate, may result in some environmental impacts. However, these can be managed appropriately when the design and construction of the access is budgeted for and commenced.

 

10???????? How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

??????????? As stated previously these reclassifications have been publicly exhibited and a public hearing was held in relation to these reclassifications during the preparation of the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

??????????? The results of the exhibition and the public hearing are presented in the facilitators report related to the public hearing. Consideration of the matters raised by the public resulted in amendments to the proposed zoning of the land.

 

??????????? The following changes were made to the LEP 2010:

 

??????????? Yarrawonga Street, Macksville

 

??????????? The land was zoned Part IN2 Light Industry and Part RE1 Public Reserve instead of all IN1 General Industry;

 

??????????? Only the portion of the land zoned IN2 Light Industry is proposed to be reclassified.

 

????????? Kingsworth Estate Macksville

 

??????????? Council engaged a land valuation over the land to be reclassified and disposed off prior to resolving to agree to the reclassification;

 

??????????? Council also resolved to prepare a Plan of Management for this land

 

??????????? Eungai

 

??????????? Nil


Section D ? State and Commonwealth Interests

 

11???????? Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

??????????? Yes

 

12???????? What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?

 

??????????? A gateway determination is yet to be issued, however it is unlikely Council will be required to consult with any state or Commonwealth Agencies regarding these reclassifications.

 

 

 

Part 4??? Community Consultation

 

In accordance with Section 4.5 of ?A guide to preparing local environmental plans? the public land reclassification is not considered a low impact proposal and the relevant exhibition period is 28 days. Nevertheless, this reclassification was exhibited previously and the public hearing has already been undertaken and as such it is intended that the exhibition period for the planning proposal will be for 14 days only.

 

In summary it is intended to exhibit the proposed reclassification for 14 days in accordance with Section 4.5 of ?A guide to preparing local environmental plans? and it is not considered necessary to hold an additional public hearing.

 

Any alternative community consultation should be cleared identified by the DoP.


Appendix 1 - State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) have been considered in the preparation of the planning proposal for the reclassification of the subject land:

 

 

?????????????? State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 ? Koala Habitat Protection

 

SEPP 44 encourages the conservation and management of natural vegetation areas that provide habitat for koalas to ensure permanent free-living populations will be maintained over their present range.

 

Under SEPP 44, potential koala habitat is defined as areas of native vegetation where the trees listed in Schedule 2 of the SEPP constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. A koala habitat assessment is required for any significant development in such areas.

 

SEPP 44 may be applicable to the future construction of access on Part Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate. Threatened species investigations undertaken on the land as part of any future development will determine if the land is core Koala Habitat.

 

?????????????? State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The SEPP supports greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities and allows efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government owned land.

 

No infrastructure is proposed to be constructed as part of this reclassification. However, the provisions of this SEPP may be implemented during future embellishment of the Council Reserve at Yarrawonga St Macksville or? Lot 40? DP711098 Kingsworth Estate.

 

 

?????????????? State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Land)

 

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes.

 

The Eungai Pre School is located on Rural Zoned Land and the provisions of this SEPP apply. However the land is an existing small rural parcel presently operating as Pre School. The reclassification of this land is unlikely to have any detrimental implications for rural land.


Appendix 2 - Section 117 Directions

 

 

A number of directions under Section 117 of the EP & A Act 1979 are relevant to this planning proposal.

 

1??????? Employment and Resources

 

Direction 1.1???????? Business and Industrial Zones

 

The objectives of this direction are to:

 

a??????? encourage employment growth in suitable locations,

b??????? protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and

c??????? support the viability of identified strategic centres.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that affects land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone (including the alteration of any existing business or industrial zone boundary).?

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

a??????? give effect to the objectives of this direction,

b??????? retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones,

c????????? not reduce the total potential floor space area for employment uses and related public services in business zones,

d??????? not reduce the total potential floor space area for industrial uses in industrial zones, and

e????????? ensure that proposed new employment areas are in accordance with a strategy that is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning.

 

Council owned industrial zoned land at Yarrawonga St is presently classified as community land. The purpose of this amendment is to reclassify this land to operational which will facilitate the disposal of this land and create and opportunity for a future light industry to occur on the land.

 

Direction 1.2???????? Rural Zones

 

The objective of this direction is to protect the agricultural production value of rural land.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that affects land within an existing or proposed rural zone (including the alteration of any existing rural zone boundary).

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

a??????? not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone.

b????????? not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone (other than land within an existing town or village).

 

A draft LEP may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if council can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the draft LEP that are inconsistent are:

 

a??????? justified by a strategy which:

i???????? gives consideration to the objectives of this direction,

ii??????? identifies the land which is the subject of the draft LEP (if the draft LEP relates to a particular site or sites), and

iii?????? is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or

b????????? justified by an environmental study prepared in accordance with section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which gives consideration to the objectives of this direction, or

c????????? in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or

d??????? is of minor significance.

 

The reclassification of the land currently being used for the Eungai pre-school is of minor significance.

 

Direction 4.4???????? Planning for Bushfire Protection

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a????????? to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas, and

b??????? to encourage sound management of bush fire prone areas.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that affects, or is in proximity to land mapped as bushfire prone land.

 

In the preparation of a draft LEP a Council shall consult with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service under section 62 of the EP&A Act, and take into account any comments so made.

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

a??????? have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006,

b??????? introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas, and

c??????? ensure that bushfire hazard reduction is not prohibited within the APZ.

 

A draft LEP shall, where development is proposed, comply with the following provisions, as appropriate:

 

a??????? provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) incorporating at a minimum:

i???????? an Inner Protection Area bounded by a perimeter road or reserve which circumscribes the hazard side of the land intended for development and has a building line consistent with the incorporation of an APZ, within the property, and

ii??????? an Outer Protection Area managed for hazard reduction and located on the bushland side of the perimeter road,

b????????? for infill development (that is development within an already subdivided area), where an appropriate APZ cannot be achieved, provide for an appropriate performance standard, in consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service. If the provisions of the draft LEP permit Special Fire Protection Purposes (as defined under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997), the APZ provisions must be complied with,

c????????? contain provisions for two-way access roads which links to perimeter roads and/or to fire trail networks,

d??????? contain provisions for adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes,

e??????? minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed,

f???????? introduce controls on the placement of combustible materials in the Inner Protection Area.

 

Although the subject land is Bushfire Prone land or Part Bushfire Prone Land, the reclassification and future disposal of this land is of minor significance. Future Development applications on any of the subject land will be required to address Planning for Bushfire Protection as appropriate.

 

6??????? Local Plan Making

 

Direction 6.1???????? Approval and Referral Requirements

 

The objective of this direction is to ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

a????????? minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority, and

b????????? not contain provisions requiring concurrence, consultation or referral of a Minister or public authority unless the council has obtained the approval of:

i???????? the appropriate Minister or public authority, and

ii??????? the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General),

prior to a certificate under section 65 of the Act being issued, and

c??????? not identify development as designated development unless the council:

i???????? can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the class of development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and

ii??????? has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) prior to a certificate being issued under section 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The reclassification of the subject land does not require any concurrence provisions.

 

Direction 6.2???????? Reserving Land for Public Purposes

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a??????? to facilitate the provision of public services and facilities by reserving land for public purposes, and

b????????? to facilitate the removal of reservations of land for public purposes where the land is no longer required for acquisition.

 

A draft LEP shall not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes without the approval of the relevant public authority and the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

 

When a Minister or public authority requests a council to reserve land for a public purpose in a draft LEP and the land would be required to be acquired under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the council shall:

 

a??????? reserve the land in accordance with the request, and

b????????? include the land in a zone appropriate to its intended future use or a zone advised by the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), and

c??????? identify the relevant acquiring authority for the land.

 

When a Minister or public authority requests a council to include provisions in a draft LEP relating to the use of any land reserved for a public purpose before that land is acquired, the council shall:

 

a??????? include the requested provisions, or

b????????? take such other action as advised by the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) with respect to the use of the land before it is acquired.

 

When a Minister or public authority requests a council to include provisions in a draft LEP to rezone and/or remove a reservation of any land that is reserved for public purposes because the land is no longer designated by that public authority for acquisition, the council shall rezone and/or remove the relevant reservation in accordance with the request.

 

A draft LEP may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if council can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that:

 

a????????? with respect to a request referred to in paragraph (7), that further information is required before appropriate planning controls for the land can be determined, or

b????????? the provisions of the draft LEP that are inconsistent with the terms of this direction are of minor significance.

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 


Direction 6.3???????? Site Specific Provisions

 

The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP to allow a particular development to be carried out.

 

A draft LEP that amends another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out shall either:

 

a??????? allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or

b????????? rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or

c????????? allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended.

 

A draft LEP shall not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal.

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF1607??????????? 030311???????? Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is advise Council of the results of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal for Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2010 Amendment Number 2.

 

The purpose of this planning proposal is to amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to land on the seaward side of Matthew Street, Scotts Head from 0.55:1 to 0.4:1. This amendment will ensure that the Floor Space Ratio contained in the NLEP 2010 for this land is consistent with the Floor Space Ratio provisions in the Nambucca DCP 2010.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council amend the Floor Space Ratio Map from 0.55:1 to 0.4:1 on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Section B DP 17707; Lots 1, 2, 3 DP 548827; and Lots 51, 52 DP 1093411; Matthew Street, Scotts Head.

 

2????????? Pursuant to Clause 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the planning proposal shall be forwarded to the Minister of Planning for the plan to be made.

 

3????????? Those persons who made submission to the plan be appropriately notified of Council?s decision.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Nil. Should Council resolve not to proceed with this amendment then Council will have conflicting land use planning instruments.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Amendment applies to the following land:

 

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Section B DP 17707; Lots 1, 2, 3 DP 548827; and Lots 51, 52 DP 1093411; Matthew Street, Scotts Head.

 

Background

 

Land at Matthew Street, Scotts Head was exhibited in draft NLEP 2010 with an R1 General Residential zone; 6.5m Height Limit; and, a 0.55:1 FSR. These development standards were generally consistent with the existing provisions of NLEP 1995. The land in Matthew Street was also subject to an Urban Design Strategy prepared by Bennell and Associates. The provisions of the draft Strategy, which included a 0.4:1 FSR, were subsequently included and exhibited as part of the consolidated DCP 2010. The final version of the draft plan was amended to include the 0.4:1 FSR in accordance with the Strategy. However, the Department of Planning (DoP) did not retain this amendment in the final plan. In this regard the DoP has provided the following advice:

 


?The land in Matthew Street, Scotts Head has been given a Floor Space Ratio of 0.55:1 as exhibited, because it is not appropriate to reduce the floor space ratio applying to land without appropriate community consultation. Council is encouraged to include a floor space ratio of 04:1 in a planning proposal to amend the plan.?

 

Based on this recommendation from the DoP Council resolved the following on the 15 September 2010:

 

??????????? ?Land at Matthew Street, Scotts Head be amended to include a 0.4:1 Floor Space Ratio in accordance with the Urban Design Strategy prepared by Bennell and Associates.?

 

Based on this resolution a Planning Proposal was prepared and forwarded to the Minister of Planning for consideration under Clause 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Gateway Determination response from the DoP was received on 10 December 2010 which indicated Council could proceed with the planning proposal subject to appropriate public consultation [Attachment 1].

 

A Copy of the Planning Proposal which details the proposed amendments is attached for your information [Attachment 2].

 

Public Exhibition

 

To meet the requirement set by the Gateway Determination the Planning Proposal was exhibited for a period of 24 days, from the 20 January to 11 February 2011.

 

During this period Council received two submissions [Attachment 3] from Mr and Mrs Constantine and Acumen Assets. The submissions raised concerns regarding the following matters:

 

Mr and Mrs Constantine

 

?????????????? Uncertain as to the nature of the amendment, it was assumed it was for an amendment to increase heights;

?????????????? Designers continuing with folly similar to Tweed, Gold and Sunshine Coasts. High Density on the coast only benefits a select few at the expense of others;

?????????????? Designers should aim to keep Scotts Head assets as communal as possible;

?????????????? Design should capitalize on natural beauty; and

?????????????? High density in Scotts Head is a backward step so Council is forcing porn design on the community;

 

Planning Response

 

The details of the planning proposal were explained in detail within the exhibition documents which were available on Councils website and at the Council chambers. In addition to this an acknowledgment letter was sent to Mr and Mrs Constantine advising that the proposal was for an amendment to the Floor Space Ratio.

 

During the preparation of the Urban Design Analysis all the items raised in this submission were examined and a key objective of the analysis was to ensure an appropriate level of development whilst also maintaining the character and context of the local area.

 

To achieve this the consultant recommended building controls which are now incorporated into the Nambucca DCP 2010. To ensure that the DCP 2010 controls are effective the council needs to reduce the floor space ratio from 0.55:1 to 0.4:1 in the NLEP 2010. By doing this the development density in the area will be reduced. Essentially this planning proposal will reduce the density of the development in the area and not increase it which is the basis of the request in this submission.

 


Acumen Assets Pty Ltd

 

?????????????? The general theme of this submission is that the Urban Design Analysis prepared by Bennell and Associates placed unequal development opportunities in a similar locality and the analysis should have encompassed the entire locality.

 

Planning Response

 

The Urban Design analysis for this area has been adopted by Council and is presently operating under the Nambucca DCP 2010. Ideally the urban analysis would have looked at a broader area, however such an exercise would have been at considerably more cost and time to prepare. In addition to this, the key issue requiring consideration at the time was the height of development on the seaward side of Matthew for which there was conflicting land use provisions.

 

Although Council could resolve to examine the broader area of Scotts Head in a dedicated Urban Analysis it is not recommended at this time and funding has not been allocated to do so. Furthermore other areas of shire may warrant further urban analysis prior to the area recommended in the submission.

 

Based on the results of these submissions it is recommended that Council make no changes to planning proposal.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil ? Environmental impacts have been appropriately considered through the LEP amendment and DCP preparation process.

 

Social

Social impacts have been appropriately considered through the LEP amendment and DCP preparation process.

 

Economic

It is not considered that there will be any negative impacts as a result of planning proposal.

 

Risk

Should council resolve not to proceed with the amendment to the Floor Space Ratio in the NLEP 2010 then conflicting land use controls will remain in place and Council will be at risk of legal challenges to these controls.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Nil

 

Attachments:

1View

31281/2010 - Gateway Determination and conditions - Planning proposal

 

2View

26441/2010 - Planning Proposal - Matthew Street, Scotts Head

 

3View

3370/2011 - Submission in relation to LEP Amendment 2 - L and P Constantine

 

4View

3458/2011 - Submission in relation to LEP Amendment 2 - Acumen Assets Pty Ltd

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

 

 
 


Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nambucca LEP 2010 Amendment No 2

Part Matthew Street

Scotts Head

 

 

Planning Proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Department of Environment and Planning

Nambucca Shire Council

 

Dated: 29 October 2010

 

File: SF1607


Table of Contents

 

 

1.0??????? Preliminary.. 1

1.1??????? Context.. 1

1.2??????? Subject Land.. 1

Figure 1 ? Local Context and Subject Land. 1

1.3??????? Current Zoning and Use. 2

Figure 2 Nambucca LEP 2010 Land Use Zones. 2

1.4??????? Background.. 3

Part 1???? Objectives or Intended outcomes.. 4

Part 2???? Explanation of Provisions.. 4

Part 3???? Justification.. 4

Section A ? Need for the Planning Proposal. 4

Section B ?Relationship to strategic planning framework. 5

Section C ? Environmental, social and economic impact.. 5

Section D ? State and Commonwealth Interests. 5

Part 4???? Community Consultation.. 6

Appendix 1 - State Environmental Planning Policies.. 7

Appendix 2 - Section 117 Directions.. 8

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

 

1.0??? Preliminary

 

1.1? Context

 

This planning proposal has been drafted in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and ?A guide to preparing planning proposals? (DoP, 2009). A gateway determination under Section 66 of the Act is requested.

 

 

1.2? Subject Land

 

The Planning Proposal applies to Lot 13 Section B DP 17707; Lot 12 Section B DP 17707; Lot 11 Section B DP 17707; Lot 10 Section B DP 17707; Lot 9 Section B DP 17707; Lot 8 Section B DP 17707; Lot 3 Section DP 548827; Lot 2 Section DP 548827; Lot 1 Section DP 548827; Lot 52 Section DP 1093411; Lot 51 Section DP 1093411; Lot 4 Section B DP 17707; Lot 3 Section B DP 17707; Lot 2 Section B DP 17707; Lot 1 Section B DP 17707; Matthew Street, Scotts Head.

 

Figure 1 ? Local Context and Subject Land


1.3? Current Zoning and Use

 

The subject land is presently zoned R1 General Residential it has a 6.5m Height Limit and a 0.55:1 FSR. These development standards are generally consistent with the existing provisions of NLEP 1995.

 

The Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) contains a site specific Urban Design Analysis for the subject land with specific design standards for the land. A copy of this analysis has been attached to this proposal. The recommended Floor Space Ratio for the subject land in the DCP is 0.4:1 which is in conflict with the LEP 2010 standard. The purpose of this Planning Proposal is to align the LEP standards with the DCP controls.

 

The land use over the subject land is residential and the dominate themes within the residential area as follows:

 

?????????????? The majority of dwellings appear to have been built in the 1970?s and 1980?s, with some original cabins still retained;

?????????????? Skillion and gable roofs predominate;

?????????????? Light weight wall and roof construction are more common than masonry; and

?????????????? Single storey dwellings comprise approximately 35% of the dwelling types.

 

 

Figure 2 Nambucca LEP 2010 Land Use Zones


1.4? Background

 

The Nambucca LEP 1995 and former DCP 3 Residential Development contain conflicting standards which resulted in contentious debate and community concern regarding recent development applications.

 

In brief, the Nambucca LEP 1995 permitted development on the subject land to 8m. Given the sensitivity of the subject land, DCP 3 allowed development to 5m at the front and 8m at the lower side of a proposed development.

 

These provisions were subject to recent land and environment Court decision where the resulting development height was approximately 6.2m. The main issue of the proceedings was permissible height and its relationship to view sharing.

 

Based on the results of these proceedings, Council engaged Bennell and Associates to prepare an Urban Design Analysis for the subject land (Attachment 2). The objective of this analysis was to provide sound planning principles and standards for incorporation into the LEP and DCP.

 

The height provisions of this analysis were incorporated into the LEP 2010 during exhibition. Unfortunately the 0.4:1 FSR was not included until after the exhibition was complete. That is, the final version of the draft Nambucca LEP 2010 was amended to include the 0.4:1 FSR in accordance with the Strategy. However, the DoP did not retain this amendment in the final plan. In this regard the DoP has provided the following advice:

 

?The land in Matthew St Scotts Head has been given a Floor Space Ratio of 0.55:1 as exhibited, because it is not appropriate to reduce the floor space ratio applying to land without appropriate community consultation. Council is encouraged to include a floor space ratio of 04:1 in a planning proposal to amend the plan.?

 

The provisions of the Urban Design Analysis, which included a 0.4:1 FSR, were subsequently included and exhibited as part of the consolidated DCP 2010 whilst council was awaiting gazettal of the Nambucca LEP 2010. During the exhibition period Council received no submissions in relation to the Urban Design Analysis for Matthew Street. Council has since adopted the DCP and Urban Design Analysis and it is presently being used by staff to assess relevant development applications.

 

Notwithstanding its incorporation into the DCP and having regard to the DoP advice, this planning proposal has been prepared to reduce the FSR on subject land from 0.5:1 to 0.4:1 in accordance with Urban Design Strategy prepared by Bennell and Associates.

 

It is noted that the subject land has recently been excluded from the provisions of the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, which has also been a consideration during this process.


Part 1??? Objectives or Intended outcomes

 

The primary objective of this LEP Amendment is to:

 

To ensure development on Lot 13 Section B DP 17707; Lot 12 Section B DP 17707; Lot 11 Section B DP 17707; Lot 10 Section B DP 17707; Lot 9 Section B DP 17707; Lot 8 Section B DP 17707; Lot 3 Section DP 548827; Lot 2 Section DP 548827; Lot 1 Section DP 548827; Lot 52 Section DP 1093411; Lot 51 Section DP 1093411; Lot 4 Section B DP 17707; Lot 3 Section B DP 17707; Lot 2 Section B DP 17707; Lot 1 Section B DP 17707; Matthew Street, Scotts Head, occurs at an appropriate density giving effect to the Urban Design Analysis prepared by Bennell and Associates.

 

 

 

Part 2??? Explanation of Provisions

 

The objectives of the LEP amendment will be achieved by:

 

1????????? Amending the Floor Space Ratio Map to 0.4:1 on the subject land in accordance with the proposed Floor Space Ratio Map shown at attachment 1.

 

 

Part 3??? Justification

 

Section A ? Need for the Planning Proposal

 

1????????? Is the Planning Proposal the Result of any Strategic study or Report

 

??????????? The Planning Proposal is a result of or has been identified within the following Strategies:

 

??????????? -???????? Urban Design Analysis Matthew St Scotts Head (Bennell and Associates, 2009); and

??????????? -???????? North Coast Urban Design Guidelines (DoP, 2009);

 

2????????? Is the Planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

 

??????????? Yes, the design controls identified for the subject land within the Urban Design Analysis function as a whole. If only some of the standards are implemented the desired outcomes of the Urban Design Analysis will not be achieved.

 

??????????? Height has already been amended to 6.5m, through the LEP 2010, other design criteria are contained within the Nambucca DCP which has been adopted by Council. The only outstanding amendment is to ensure the Floor Space Ratio in the LEP is consistent with the FSR in the DCP and the urban Design Analysis. Therefore the FSR on the subject land needs to be amended to 0.4:1.

 

3????????? Is there a net community benefit?

 

??????????? Council envisages that this planning proposal will result in the following net community benefits in consideration of the criteria set out in the NSW Department of Planning?s ?draft Centres Policy - Planning for Retail and Commercial Development?:

 

??????????? A bulk and scale of future development that is consistent with the character of the area; and

??????????? The reduced FSR along with other development controls will assist in optimising view sharing and providing view corridors between neighbouring properties; and

??????????? Consistent Planning Controls within the DCP and LEP ensuring certainty for landowners and developers;

 

 

Implications of not proceeding at this time

 

Should Council not proceed with the rezoning at this time development within the subject land will be subject to conflicting standards within the LEP and DCP.

 

 

Section B ?Relationship to strategic planning framework.

 

4????????? Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy.

 

??????????? Yes, The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy recommends neighbourhood planning principles be implemented within settlements such as Scotts Head, having regard to the North Coast Urban Design Guidelines. Councils Urban Design Analysis Matthew St Scotts Head has given regard to these guidelines and principles.

 

5????????? Is the planning proposal consistent with the local Council?s Community Strategic Plan, or other strategic plan?

 

??????????? Yes, the planning proposal is consistent with the Urban Design Analysis Matthew Street Scotts Head and Nambucca DCP 2010.

 

6????????? Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies (SEPP?s)?

 

??????????? Yes ? see Appendix 1

 

7????????? Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s117 directions)?

 

??????????? Yes ? see Appendix 2

 

Section C ? Environmental, social and economic impact

 

8??????? Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal.

 

????????? No, the reduction of the FSR is likely to result in a reduced building footprint and therefore reduce environmental impact.

 

9??????? Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

 

????????? No.

 

10???????? How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

??????????? The reduced FSR will, when combined with other development controls, provide for a more appropriate bulk and scale of development for the area. The resulting designs should be more acceptable to the local community whilst still providing adequate building envelopes for the subject land.

 

Section D ? State and Commonwealth Interests

 

11???????? Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

??????????? Yes.

 

12???????? What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?

 

??????????? A gateway determination is yet to be issued. However it is expected that the only state government authority which should be consulted regarding this planning proposal is the Department of Planning. As stated previously the Department of Planning has already identified their support for the lodgement of this planning proposal.

 

 

Part 4??? Community Consultation

 

The Urban Design Analysis Matthew St Scotts Head has already been exhibited through the Development Control Plan process and no submissions were received in relation to the proposed 0.4:1 FSR. The proposal is consistent with existing development controls.

 

The proposal is considered to be a low impact proposal in accordance with Section 4.5 of ?A guide to preparing local environmental plans?. As such it is intended that exhibition period for the planning proposal will be a minimum of 14 days and the exhibition will be undertaken in accordance with Section 4.5 of ?A guide to preparing local environmental plans?.

 

 


Appendix 1 - State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) have been considered in the preparation of the planning proposal for Matthew St.

 

 

?????????????? State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 ? Coastal Protection

 

The object of this policy is to provide for the protection and management of sensitive and significant areas within the coastal zone. Part of the subject land is located within the coastal zone. Therefore, in preparing the final LEP, Council must consider the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of land within the coastal zone to ensure that public access to foreshore areas, Aboriginal heritage, visual amenity, coastal flora and fauna, coastal processes and cumulative impacts are addressed.

 

 

?????????????? State Environmental Planning Policy ? (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

 

Streamlines assessment processes for development that complies with specified development standards. The policy provides exempt and complying development codes that have State-wide application, identifying, in the General Exempt Development Code, types of development that are of minimal environmental impact that may be carried out without the need for development consent; and, in the General Housing Code, types of complying development that may be carried out in accordance with a complying development certificate as defined in the www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type=act%20AND%20Year=1979%20AND%20no=203&nohits=y" \t "_blank.

 

Given the sensitive coastal location of subject land and Council Urban Design Analysis regarding design standards for the area, Council made successful application to the DoP to have this land excluded from the provisions of this SEPP. Council is awaiting the update of this SEPP for the exclusions to become operational.

 


Appendix 2 - Section 117 Directions

 

 

A number of directions under Section 117 of the EP & A Act 1979 are relevant to this planning proposal.

 

2??????? Environment and Heritage

 

Direction 2.1???????? Environment Protection Zones

 

The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP.

 

What a council must do if this direction applies:

 

a????????? A draft LEP shall include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas.

b????????? A draft LEP that applies to land within an environment protection zone or land otherwise identified for environment protection purposes in a LEP shall not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying development standards that apply to the land). This requirement does not apply to a change to a development standard for minimum lot size for a dwelling in accordance with clause (5) of Direction 1.5 ?Rural Lands?.

 

This Planning Proposal provides a reduced FSR and as such is likely to reduce the potential environmental impact associated with development of the land.

 

 

Direction 2.2???????? Coastal Protection

 

The objective of this direction is to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy.

 

This direction applies to the coastal zone, as defined in the Coastal Protection Act 1979.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that applies to land in the coastal zone.

 

A draft LEP shall include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with:

 

a??????? the NSW Coastal Policy: A Sustainable Future for the New South Wales Coast 1997, and

b??????? the Coastal Design Guidelines 2003, and

c????????? the manual relating to the management of the coastline for the purposes of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the NSW Coastline Management Manual 1990).

 

As stated previously the reduced FSR ratio provision is a result of the Urban Design Analysis Matthew St Scotts Head. The Urban Design Analysis has given consideration to Coastal Policies and Guidelines where necessary.

 

 

3??????? Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

 

Direction 3.1???????? Residential Zones

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a????????? to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs,

b????????? to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and

c??????? to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that affects land within:

 

a????????? an existing or proposed residential zone (including the alteration of any existing residential zone boundary),

b????????? any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted.

 

A draft LEP shall include provisions that encourage the provision of housing that will:

 

a??????? broaden the choice of building types and locations available in the housing market, and

b??????? make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

c????????? reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban development on the urban fringe, and

d??????? be of good design.

 

A draft LEP shall, in relation to land to which this direction applies:

 

a????????? contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it), and

b??????? not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of land.

 

This planning proposal meets the objectives of this direction.

 

 

6??????? Local Plan Making

 

Direction 6.1???????? Approval and Referral Requirements

 

The objective of this direction is to ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

a????????? minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority, and

b????????? not contain provisions requiring concurrence, consultation or referral of a Minister or public authority unless the council has obtained the approval of:

i???????? the appropriate Minister or public authority, and

ii??????? the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General),

prior to a certificate under section 65 of the Act being issued, and

c??????? not identify development as designated development unless the council:

i???????? can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the class of development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and

ii??????? has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) prior to a certificate being issued under section 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The planning proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

 

Direction 6.3???????? Site Specific Provisions

 

The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP to allow a particular development to be carried out.

 

A draft LEP that amends another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out shall either:

 

a??????? allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or

b????????? rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or

c????????? allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended.

 

A draft LEP shall not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal.

 

Although this planning proposal contains a site specific FSR, the FSR is the result of an adopted Urban Design Strategy. The incorporation of these site specific standards do not rely on specific provisions in the LEP, rather they are incorporated into the NLEP 2010 FSR Maps.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 3 March 2011

Update on Planning Proposal LEP Amendment 2

 



Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF1418??????????? 030311???????? Funding Application Floodplain Management Program 2011-2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that an Application has been made to the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water under the 2011-2012 Floodplain Management Program for the continuation of the review of the Nambucca River Flood Study including tributaries Warrell Creek, Taylors Arm, Macksville and Bowraville.

 

The funding is based on $2 DECCW and $1 Council. The $50,000 allocation under the Environmental Levy for flood studies has been used as Councils 1/3 contribution.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the lodgement of an application to DECCW under the Floodplain Management Program for 2011-2012.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose not endorse the funding application

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has an approved ongoing program for the review of the 1999 Nambucca River Flood Study which is being funded each year until completed.

 

We are currently in stage 4 with the Hydrological Study and assessment being undertaken which should address a number of the anomalies identified in the Peer Review of the RTA flood Study/Report for the proposed Pacific Highway Upgrade at Macksville.

 

Stage 5 & 6 are included in the application under the 2011-2012 program which will target the Nambucca River up to and including Bowraville, Warrell Creek and Taylors Arm reach.

 

This application flags Stage 7 for 2012-2013.

 

Council's 1/3 contribution comes from the approved Environmental levy which has seen Council triple its own funds to enable these studies to be undertaken.

 

With the use of the LiDAR data, better and more accurate modelling and mapping will result providing an increased confidence in inundation areas of the floodplains.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

DECCW

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Continued review of flooding within Nambucca Shire will assist Council in better management of the environment.

 

Social

Continued review of flooding within Nambucca Shire will assist Council to reduce the community impact due to flooding.

 

Economic

 

Continued review of flooding within Nambucca Shire will assist Council in its planning and decision making bringing about a positive economic benefit to the community.

 

 

Risk

 

Continued review of flooding within Nambucca Shire will ensure that Council is well placed in understanding the risks associated with flooding in regard to planning decisions and future infrastructure development.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Costs associated with any future flood mitigation works will need to be considered on their merits and grant funds sought to minimise budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council's 1/3 contribution is identified in its Environmental levy.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 March 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1??? T046/2010??????? 030311???????? Tender - T046/2010 Construction of Lunchroom and Amenities at the Nambucca Shire Council Depot

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Stephen Fowler, Engineering Designer ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with Council?s procurement and tendering procedures, the General Manager gave approval on the 30 November 2010 to invite tenders for T046/2010 Construction of Lunchroom and Amenities at Nambucca Shire Council Works Depot and tenders were invited by public advertisement in accordance the Local Government Act and tendering regulations.

 

The Tender closed on 3 February 2011 at 2.00 pm.

 

Fifteen (15) tenders were received from the following:

 

?????????????? Bilas Knight Pty Ltd

?????????????? Boulus Constructions Pty Ltd

?????????????? Cavalier Homes North Coast

?????????????? Contract Control Services Pty Ltd

?????????????? Costa Builders Pty Ltd

?????????????? Garard Moulded Pre-Cast

?????????????? L D & R L Ainsworth General Building

?????????????? Osborne & Dowling

?????????????? Patterson Building Group Pty Ltd

?????????????? Peterkin Constructions

?????????????? Port Stephens Construction Group Pty Ltd

?????????????? Robin snow Constructions Pty Ltd

?????????????? RTC Commercial Pty Ltd

?????????????? Sherlock Homes Constructions

?????????????? Simpson Building Group Pty Ltd

 

The tender is for a single project.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council accept the Tender for T046/2010 Construction of Lunchroom and Amenities as recommended in the confidential report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????????????? Accept the recommendation.

?????????????? Not accept the recommendation

?????????????? Not accept the recommendation and select another tender

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 30 November 2010 the General Manager gave approval to invite tenders for T046/2010 Construction of Lunchroom and Amenities at Nambucca Shire Council Works Depot.

 


The proposal is for a 150 m2 building including the following facilities:

 

??????????? Lunchroom with kitchen and seating for 24 persons

??????????? Covered verandah for additional wet weather seating

??????????? First Aid Room

??????????? Disable Access/ Female WC and shower

??????????? Male locker room and showers

??????????? Male WC

??????????? Paved courtyard with shade sails (28.5 m2)

 

The design is for a skillion roofed building on a concrete slab. The external wall and roof cladding is corrugated colorbond and with aluminium windows. Clerestory windows are included above the verandah in lieu of skylights.

 

The tender includes the demolition of the existing buildings and the provision of temporary amenities during the construction period

 

The Tender closed on 3 February 2011 at 2.00 pm.

 

Fifteen (15) tenders were received from the following:

 

?????????????? Bilas Knight Pty Ltd

?????????????? Boulus Constructions Pty Ltd

?????????????? Cavalier Homes North Coast

?????????????? Contract Control Services Pty Ltd

?????????????? Costa Builders Pty Ltd

?????????????? Garard Moulded Pre-Cast

?????????????? L D & R L Ainsworth General Building

?????????????? Osborne & Dowling

?????????????? Patterson Building Group Pty Ltd

?????????????? Peterkin Constructions

?????????????? Port Stephens Construction Group Pty Ltd

?????????????? Robin Snow Constructions Pty Ltd

?????????????? RTC Commercial Pty Ltd

?????????????? Sherlock Homes Constructions

?????????????? Simpson Building Group Pty Ltd

 

The tender is for a single project.

 

Council has made provision within the 2010/11 budget to construct new amenities at the Depot.

 

The assessment criteria used to select the successful tender were identified as follows and is as set out in Clause 2.8 of the tender documents:

 

Criteria?????? Weighting

 

Conformity with the tender documents??????????? 10%

Value for money?????????????????????????????????????????? 50%

Evidence of expertise and resources????????????? 20%

Proposed construction period??????????????????????? 10%

Enhancement of local business???????????????????? 10%

 

The assessment panel consisted of:

 

Stephen Fowler - Engineering Designer and Project Manager

Keith Williams - Manager Technical Services

Ron Monk - Technical Officer Assets

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Civil Works

Tender Assessment Panel

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The project will have no negative environmental impact. The inclusion of insulation and energy efficient lighting will result in efficient power usage.

 

Social

 

The improved Council facility will have a positive impact on staff morale.

 

Economic

 

The funding for the project has been included in the Council budget for 2010/2011.

 

Risk

 

Risk:??????????? Cost overruns due to contract variations

 

Mitigation: ?? Detailed design drawings and specifications

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The funding for the project has been included in the Council budget for 2010/2011.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council allocation.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ???