NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

General Purpose Committee - 16 March 2011

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3        General Manager Report

8.1     Proposed Primary School - Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

4        Director Environment and Planning Report

9.1     Emergency Orders 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads DA 2005/364

5        Director Engineering Services Report

10.1   Road Asset Management Plan

10.2   Foreshore Development River Street Macksville

10.3   Nambucca Heads - Main Beach Storm Damage     

 

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

ITEM NO

PAGE NO

8.30 - 9.45

Proposed Primary School - Dudley Street Macksville

Mr Andrew Young & Mr Pat Wall from Lismore Diocese will be available to answer questions from Councillors

CC + OS

8.1

4

9.45 - 10.00

Foreshore Development - River Street Macksville

CC

10.2

27

10.00

Morning Tea with Geoff Baldry (Director TAFE Services) who will sign the MOU together with our Mayor. His EA is Michell on 6659 3012,  Elizabeth is not attending.

CC

 

 

10.30 -11.15

Roads Asset Management Plan

CC

10.1

25

11.15 -11.30

Emergency Orders - 11 Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads

OS

9.1

19

11.30 -12.30

Main Beach - Storm Damage

OS

10.3

29

12.30 -1.00

Lunch

V-Wall

 

 

1.00 pm

Close

CC

 

 

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

         


General Purpose Committee                                                                                              16 March 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1      DA2010/234      160311         Proposed Primary School - Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Applicant:                      Simon Waterworth, GeoLink Pty Ltd

 

Proposal:                       Primary School

 

Property:                        Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

Zoning:                          RU1 – Primary Production

 

Date lodged:                  27 September 2010

 

Estimated Value:           $7.6m         

 

The proposed development is to erect a new Catholic (St Patrick’s) Primary School on rural land comprising an area of approximately 3 ha. The proposal is defined as an 'educational establishment' and the capital investment value is in excess of $5 million. Therefore, in accordance with Part 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005, the development application is required to be determined by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP).

 

The original application included the subdivision of part of the subject land to accommodate the proposed school. Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2010 does not allow the subdivision of the subject land below the minimum 40ha lot size. The subdivision component of the development application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant and is being dealt with as a planning proposal.

 

Whilst Council is not the consent authority, it does have the opportunity to make a submission to the Joint Regional Planning Panel which will be meeting to consider the application in the Council Chambers at 10.00am on Thursday 14 April 2011.  The JRPP will receive a report and recommendation from Council’s Manager Planning and Assessment.  Whilst the Manager Planning and Assessment has not completed his report to the JRPP, he believes the application should be refused essentially for the reasons provided in the peer review of the flooding issue by WMAwater.

 

The key issues with the application relate to the applicable floor height standard for the classrooms and an effective evacuation plan.  There are other issues concerning traffic, drainage and acoustic controls which can be adequately addressed as conditions of development consent.

 

Note:  This matter is not a “planning decision” referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 but regardless it is suggested that Council continue the process of recording a division being the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing any recommendation to the JRPP.  This process improves the transparency and accountability of merit based planning decisions.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council advise the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) that it recommends the development application for the St Patrick’s Primary School (DA 2010/234) be approved subject to conditions.

 

2        In the event that the application is approved, Council request the opportunity to submit or comment on the proposed conditions of consent.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Because of the unique arrangement Nambucca Shire Council has with Kempsey Council in sitting on the other Council’s JRPP, Nambucca Shire Council has a number of options in relation to the application.  These are:

 

1        Council can elect to make no submission on the application to the Joint Regional Planning Panel

2        Council can make a submission in support of the application

3        Council can make a submission opposing the application

4        Council can make a submission neither supporting nor opposing the application but suggesting conditions in the event that the application is approved.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

The application states that the existing St Patrick’s school in Wallace Street is no longer suitable for the needs of the school as the site:

 

·              is of insufficient size to accommodate necessary upgrades and additions to school buildings to cater for current and predicted pupil numbers

·              contains insufficient open space for the recreational needs of students; and

·              is segregated/divided by Wallace Street severely reducing its functionality as a school and increasing the safety risk to students and teachers.

 

The application advises that the Parish has investigated in excess of 20 sites over the past 5 years and has found it very difficult to find a suitable site.  The selected site is located in proximity to the centre of Macksville and is adjacent to existing recreational and other facilities which will be very compatible to the functioning of the school.

 

The site is located at the eastern end of Dudley Street and comprises an area of approximately 3 hectares as shown on the following locality map.

 

The proposed school comprises seven free standing buildings, under cover outdoor learning areas, play grounds, car parking and a bus bay.  The proposed development also includes the construction of a 150m extension of Dudley Street.

 

The applicant advises that 20,000m3 of fill will be required to be delivered to the site for elevating the central COLA area and the proposed classrooms.  A consent condition would be required to repair any Council roads damaged by the transport of this fill.

 

The subject land is zoned RU1 – Primary Production under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010.  The proposed school is defined as an “educational establishment”, which is not a prohibited land use in the RU1 zone.

 

The site is located on the flood plain of the Nambucca River and has existing ground levels of around 1.9m to 2.0m Australian Height Datum (AHD).  Council staff advised the applicant that the site is classified within a Medium Risk Area (High Hazard – Flood Fringe) with a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of RL 3.4m AHD.  It was also advised that in considering the suitability of the school against the Flood Risk Planning Matrix that Council would apply the same controls as those listed under new commercial or industrial.

 

 

In February 2010 Council’s Senior Planner advised that,

 

“this is clearly preferable to classifying the use as unsuitable because it acknowledges the context of the area ((flat/level site close to town, services available, adjoining playing fields, neighbouring school site etc) and allows for merit assessment.  To a large extent we would be relying on the information submitted in your application to demonstrate that flood risks have been considered and mitigated in the design, siting and construction of the development…”.

 

To save paper a copy of the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), excluding the Appendices and with some indicative plans is a circularised document (DA2010/234) to Councillors only.

 

Public Submissions

 

The application was advertised for a period of 28 days from 7 October 2010.  One submission was received from the Planning and Infrastructure Officer of the Busways Group.  A copy of their submission is a circularised document (26519/2010).

 

It is agreed that substantial work will be required to upgrade Dudley Street and also the intersection with East Street and possibly the intersection of East Street and Partridge Street.  Council’s Manager Technical Services is of the opinion that the road engineering aspects of the proposal can be addressed by appropriate conditions.

 

Internal Referrals

 

The application was referred to Council's Engineering and Health & Building Departments.

 

A 5 tonne load limit applies to Dudley Street and other adjoining local roads. This would prevent access to the subject site by buses and heavy construction vehicles. The Manager Civil Works (MCW) has provided the following advice regarding the 5 tonne load limit:

 

'Following discussion with Council’s Senior Overseer I believe that the 5 tonne load limit was imposed for the following reasons:-

 

1.       Benkleman beam testing identified a deficiency in the road pavement. Subsequent                                 cement stabilizing failed to rectify the problem.

2.       Residents were concerned at the use by heavy vehicles.

3.       The road width was considered insufficient to allow use by heavy vehicles.

 

In relation to the current development proposal any consideration for the removal of the load limit would require:-

 

1.       A structural analysis of the existing pavement design and reconstruction, as required,                             to current standards for use by heavy vehicles.

2.       Geometric design of the section of road to provide adequate width, turning and                                       passing movements.

3.       Community consultation to advise residents of the anticipated traffic implications and                             possible parking restrictions.'

 

Any approval for the proposed school would depend on Council lifting or amending the load limit before the consent became operational.

 

Roads and Traffic Authority

 

Council received comments from the RTA on 1 November 2010 and 18 November 2010. The RTA raised a number of traffic related matters, however, it advised that:

 

          “The RTA has no objection in principle to the proposed school although it should be noted that the building of the new school has inherent implications for the surrounding road network.”

 

The site is located within 400m of the future Pacific Highway bypass. In this regard the RTA advised that it would be appropriate to impose a condition to comply with the Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (EPA 1999).

 

A copy of the RTA comments is circularised (26551/2010, 28405/2010).

 

Local Development (Traffic) Committee:

 

The application was referred to the Local Development (Traffic) Committee to review and consider the traffic aspects of the proposed development. This committee is an advisory group that includes representatives from Council, RTA and Police.

 

The Committee considered the traffic related matters at a meeting on 2 November 2010. The committee raised a number of concerns and advised that, 'it is unable to provide a full and proper assessment until the issues have been addressed.'

 

A copy of the Committee’s comments is circularised (26830/2010).

 

Local Emergency Management Committee:

 

The proposal was discussed at the Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) meeting on 15 February 2010. Advice was sought from the committee regarding flood evacuation procedures that may affect the proposed development. This committee is an advisory group that includes representatives from Council, State Emergency Service (SES), Ambulance Service, Fire Brigade and the Police. The LEMC provided the following advice:

 

'That the Nambucca Local Emergency Management Committee has expressed some significant concerns about this proposed development within a flood plain and the evacuation procedures and recommends that this be referred to the State Emergency Services at Regional and State level as the combat agency and body responsible for flood emergency planning and flood rescue.'

 

A copy of the Committee’s comments is circularised (4272/2011).

 

The applicant was asked to obtain comment from the SES at either the Regional or State level.  They have sought comment from both the Regional office in Grafton and also the State office in Wollongong but have been advised that the SES is not allowed to comment on local flood emergency plans associated with proposed development.

 

79C Evaluation

 

79(C)(1) Matters for Consideration

 

Assessment of a development application requires the following matters to be taken into consideration:

 

79(C)(1)(a)(i) the provisions of any environmental planning instruments

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010:

 

The subject site is zoned RU1 – Primary Production under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2010. The proposed development is defined as an 'educational establishment' which is not a prohibited land use.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the RU1 zone. In particular, the proposed development does not 'encourage sustainable primary production' and it is considered that the proposed school may result in 'fragmentation of resource lands' and possibly create 'conflict between land uses within the zone'. However, it is considered that fragmentation of rural land and likely conflict are only minor impacts and not sufficient justification to refuse the development application.

 

Clause 5.5 (Development within the coastal zone) of NLEP 2010 applies. In accordance with Clause 5.5(1)(b)(iv), it is not considered that the application adequately addresses climate change for a proposed school building which if approved is likely to remain on the site until 2100.

 

Clause 7.1 (Acid sulfate soils) of NLEP 2010 applies. The objectives of this clause have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant in accordance with Section 4.4 (Soils) of the SEE and Appendices F & G of the SEE.

 

Clause 7.3 (Flood planning) of NLEP 2010 applies. In accordance with Clause 7.3(3)(a) it is not considered that the proposed development is 'compatible with the flood hazard of the land'

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

 

It is considered that the following SEPPs are relevant to the proposed development.

 

SEPP No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

 

The land has an area of more than 1 hectare and therefore this policy applies. The proposed school site is within a cleared rural property used for cattle grazing. The property does not contain any koala feed trees listed under Schedule 2 and therefore does not comprise potential koala habitat.

 

SEPP No 55 – Remediation of Land

 

The applicant has undertaken a potential land contamination assessment. The SEE adequately demonstrated that the land is not contaminated and therefore does not require any remediation works to be carried out in accordance with this Policy.

 


SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection

 

The matters for consideration set out in Clause 8 have been taken into account in accordance with Clause 7(b) and the proposed development is not inconsistent with the aims of the Policy set out in Clause 2.

 

SEPP (Major Development) 2005

 

The proposal is defined as an 'educational establishment' and the capital investment value is in excess of $5 million. Therefore, in accordance with Part 3 (regional development), the development application is required to be determined by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP).

 

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The proposed development is an 'educational establishment' comprising more than 50 students. It is therefore traffic generating development under Schedule 3 of the Policy. The RTA comments were taken into consideration in accordance with Clause 104(3) of the Policy.

 

79(C)(1)(a)(ii) the provisions of any draft environmental planning instruments

 

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land.

 

79(C)(1)(a)(iii) the provisions of any development control plan

 

The following Parts of Nambucca Development Control Plan (NDCP) 2010 apply to the subject land:

 

Part A3.0 – Notification and public participation:

 

The application was advertised and notified to adjoining and nearby residents for a period of 28 days. The Unkya Local Aboriginal Land Council was also notified of the proposed development. As a result of such action one submission was received from the Planning & Infrastructure Officer of the Busways Group Pty Ltd.

 

Part A4.0 – Contributions.

 

Any approval granted would include a condition for the payment of S64 contributions towards water and sewer augmentation.

 

Part A5.0 – Environmental Context

 

The SEE has addressed the environmental context of the proposed development. Any approval granted would include conditions to comply with environmental management of the site in respect to: acid sulfate soils; flood levels; Aboriginal cultural heritage; noise; etc.

 

Part C – Car Parking and Traffic

 

The SEE has addressed the car parking and traffic requirements of the proposed development. Any approval granted would include conditions to comply with car parking and traffic requirements of the DCP.

 

Part D – Sediment and Erosion Control

 

The SEE includes a sediment and erosion control plan (Appendix E). Any approval granted would include a condition to ensure appropriate measures are put in place in accordance with the sediment and erosion control requirements of the DCP.

 

Part F1.3.2 – Buffers

 

The required buffers generally apply to dwellings to ensure there is adequate separation from rural land uses. These buffers can equally apply to other permissible land uses such as the proposed school. The proposal does not comply with the minimum buffer distance of 60m. It is considered that the lack of any separation between the open play area and the adjoining grazing land is unlikely to result in conflicts between the respective land uses.

 

79(C)(1)(a)(iiia) the provisions of any planning agreement

 

There is no planning agreement or draft planning agreement that apply to the proposed development.

 

79(C)(1)(a)(iv) the regulations

 

The NSW Coastal Policy 1997 has been considered in accordance with Clause 92(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

79(C)(1)(b) the likely impacts

 

There are some concerns about the likely impact of the proposed development in respect to traffic, stormwater management and to a lesser extent, noise impacts and fragmentation of rural lands. However, the major concern relating to the proposed development is the likely impact of flooding. Each of these issues is discussed below:

 

A preliminary assessment of the application indicated that the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) did not adequately address the potential impacts of the proposed development relating to traffic, flooding, stormwater management, and acoustic assessment. The applicant was therefore requested to submit additional information by letter dated 15 November 2010.

 

Traffic:

 

A response to the traffic issues was provided by de Groot & Benson (letter dated 23 December 2010).

 

The response from de Groot Benson is accepted.  Consent conditions would be required to formalise the agreed construction works; including the widening of Dudley Street, the provision of a footpath, the provision of a cul-de-sac, and the investigation and possible upgrading of the pavement in East Street between Dudley Street and Partridge Street.

 

Dudley Street has an existing 4.5m wide pavement which is in very poor condition.  All of Dudley Street should be reconstructed as part of the proposed widening and lengthening.  Council should reimburse the cost of rehabilitating the existing 4.5m of pavement as its need for reconstruction is not related to the proposed school.

 

Flooding:

 

The subject site is located in a flood prone area.

 

A flood assessment report (Appendix C of the SEE) dated 15 February 2010 was prepared by de Groot & Benson, Consulting Engineers & Planners. Following a review of this report it was considered that inadequate information was provided to support the conclusions that the development will not affect the flood plain storage capacity or not unduly affect flood flow behaviour.

 

A response to the flooding issues was provided by de Groot & Benson, letter dated 16 December 2010.

 

Webb, McKeown and Associates Pty Ltd (trading as WMAwater) were subsequently engaged to undertake a peer review of the flood assessment report.  It will be recalled that WMAwater recently undertook the peer review of  the flooding implications of the proposed Pacific Highway by-pass of Macksville.  The report from WMAwater is attached (6151/2011).

 

WMAwater identify the key issues are:

 

1        Appropriate floor level/flood level

2        Evacuation route for the students and staff

3        Obstruction to flood flow by the development

4        The fact that the development is a school and the associated risk

 

Appropriate floor level/flood level

 

Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Plan contains a flood risk planning matrix where development controls are placed on proposed developments based on the development type and flood risk categories.  The proposed development is located in a Medium Risk area defined as being located up to and including the 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) Flood and outside the Floodway.

 

The available development categories in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan are Essential Community Facilities; Subdivision and Filling; New Residential; New Commercial or Industrial; Redevelopment; Infill Development and Additions.  Essential Community Facilities are denoted as an unsuitable land use in medium risk areas whilst the other land use categories are regarded as acceptable subject to the imposition of specific controls eg, floor height.

 

The assessment by WMAwater that the school does not easily fit into nominated development categories is agreed.  It is not an essential community facility which although not defined in the Plan is generally regarded as a service which is needed during a flood, such as a hospital.

 

de Groot and Benson and Council’s Senior Planner in his initial advice both classified the development as a “new commercial or industrial” development, which is permitted within a medium risk area, if the floor level is equal to or greater than the 1% AEP.  At this location the floor level would need to be 3.4m Australian Height Datum (AHD).

 

WMAwater consider that given the risk profile, the school is more appropriately classified as “new residential” of about 100 houses with 4 children per house.  WMAwater believe that the floor level of the school should be the 1% AEP flood level of 3.4m AHD plus an allowance for climate change (the SKM study considered a 0.55m sea level rise which corresponds to 2070, and 390mm-430mm increase at the site) plus a 0.5m freeboard.  Council has previously resolved to use a sea level rise component of 400mm to 2050 and 900mm to 2100 for all land use planning which if applied to the WMAwater recommendations means the minimum floor level would have to be 4.3m compared to the 3.85m proposed.

 

The applicant indicates that the selected 3.85m floor level is 60mm higher than the 1% AEP (3.77m) recently determined for the Pacific Highway by-pass of Macksville just to the east of the site allowing for the 20mm increase in flood levels due to the highway itself.  He also indicates that it is 450mm higher than the current Council flood level.

 

In summary the proposed 3.85m floor level exceeds Council’s current requirement for industrial and commercial development (3.4m) as well as providing a 400mm allowance for sea level rise as a consequence of climate change.  The 3.85m floor level also exceeds the 3.77m 1% AEP which was the result of recent modelling for the Pacific Highway by-pass.  The major difference between the level recommended by WMAwater and the proposed floor level is the 500mm freeboard.

 

According to Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Plan, freeboard is defined as:

 

“a factor of safety typically used in relation to the setting of floor levels, level crest levels etc.  It is usually expressed as a height above the adopted flood planning level and the flood used to determine the flood planning level.  Freeboard provides a factor of safety to compensate for uncertainties in the estimation of flood levels across the floodplain, such as wave action, localised hydraulic behaviour, and impacts that are specific event related, such as levee and embankment settlement, and other effects such as “greenhouse” and climate change.  Freeboard is included in the flood planning level”.

 

The assessment by WMAwater that the school is more appropriately classified as “new residential” of about, “100 houses with 4 children per house” has similar definitional problems to the commercial and industrial categories.  Unlike a residential neighbourhood, a primary school is generally only occupied between 9am and 3pm Monday to Friday for 42 weeks of the year.  That is about 6 hours per day for 210 days per year.  People are not sleeping there and “situational awareness” as to a potential flood risk will be high, not just from the schools but also the bus company providing the transport.  Unlike public holidays or hours of darkness, awareness and transport capability are at their maximum during the school day.

 

Based on the precautionary principle, Council could insist on the provision of 500mm additional freeboard so as to make provision for a 900mm increase in sea level by 2100.  However this is a long planning period with considerable uncertainty.  The opportunity would exist in the future for the school to further elevate its floor, not dissimilar to the approach of the RTA with the proposed Macksville by-pass.

 

Evacuation route for the students and staff

 

According to WMAwater approximately 1.2km of the 1.8km evacuation route is flooded in a 20 year event.  An evacuation plan was not submitted with the application although discussions with the Principal of St Patrick’s Primary School indicate they have a developed and functioning procedure for the closure and evacuation of the existing school during flood events which can be achieved in 30 minutes to 1 hour.

 

With a school population of 400 students there is no reason why evacuation to higher ground could not be achieved in less than 60 minutes with 2 to 3 operational buses.  The applicant has advised that an evacuation plan is being prepared and will be available for assessment by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

A flood emergency management plan has now been submitted to Council by the applicant and is a circularised document (6178/2011).  The plan indicates that in terms of warning times the school has a minimum 8.5 hours of warning from when moderate flood levels are reached at Bowraville and Taylors Arm and 2.5 hours of warning from when minor levels are reached at the Macksville gauge.  The flood emergency management plan builds on an existing emergency management system which the Catholic Education Commission has developed for any emergency type including flooding, bushfires or other natural disasters.

 

Allowing for climate change there is still significant warning times compared to the estimated 1 hour required to undertake a school closure during the school day.

 

Stormwater Management

 

A stormwater management plan (Appendix D of the SEE) was prepared by Northrop Engineers (Plan No C02DA). Council's Manager Technical Services (MTS) reviewed this plan and assessed the proposed method of stormwater disposal. The MTS provided the following advice:

 

·              Having regard to water ponding in adjacent open drains, the expectation that stormwater will be absorbed into the ground is probably unrealistic.

·              The open drain has virtually no fall and ponding will likely occur.

·              On-site detention/retention is required to limit the peak discharge from all stormwater to pre-development flows or better.

 

Council's Manager Health and Building also raised concerns that large shallow surface ponding of water in the area will attract mosquito breeding.

 

With respect to Dudley Street, the MTS provided the following advice:

 

·              There are no details of drainage for the proposed upgrade and extension of Dudley Street.

·              Parts of Dudley Street regularly floods and additional paved areas and a substantial increase in traffic can only exacerbate the existing situation.

·              Stormwater/drainage infrastructure will need to be installed as part of the road upgrade to provide the best chance of flood free access to the school site.

 

A response to the stormwater drainage issues was provided by Northrop Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. Comments were also provided by de Groot & Benson, letter dated 14 January 2010.

 

In the event that the application is approved consent conditions should provide for the piping of low flows in Dudley Street with a discharge beyond the school.

 

Acoustic Assessment

 

An acoustic assessment report (Appendix B of the SEE) dated 22 July 2010 was prepared by Wilkinson Murray to assess traffic noise impacts. Following a review of this report it was considered that inadequate information was provided to identify the likely extent of noise from the future highway upgrade or provide any mitigation measures to limit potential noise impacts on the proposed school. The report did not address any likely noise impacts from the proposed school on residents in the locality.

 

A response to the acoustic issues was provided by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd, report dated January 2010.  Appropriate conditions can be attached to any consent to ensure the school achieves a satisfactory acoustic environment.

 

Rural lands

 

The land is identified as regionally significant farmland in the Mid North Coast Farmland Mapping Project. The proposed development would cause the loss of 3ha of prime crop or pasture land.

 

The subject site is located on the fringe of Macksville and the rural zone has been applied due to the flooding character of the land and not necessarily because of the agricultural value of the subject land. It is therefore not considered that fragmentation of the rural zoned land in the particular location is a major issue.

 

79(C)(1)(c) suitability of the site

 

It is considered that concerns relating to traffic, stormwater drainage, and noise can be overcome, albeit at considerable cost to upgrade the road and stormwater infrastructure

 

The report identifies that a satisfactory floor height standard has been achieved under Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Strategy.  However if an additional 500mm freeboard is sought to make allowance for sea level rise beyond 2050 then the floor height is inadequate.

 

The School Principal has advised that with previous flood events, the existing school can be evacuated within 30 to 60 minutes of a decision being made.  The evacuation procedure should be formalised in a plan and made available for review.  The applicant has now submitted a flood emergency management plan.

 

79(C)(1)(d) submissions

 

Submissions were received from the RTA. However, only one submission was received as a result of the public notification process. The RTA and the public submission raised concerns about traffic related matters. A copy of the submissions are attached to this report

 

79(C)(1)(e) public interest

 

There was a lack of response to the notification process.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENTS

 

2View

6151/2011 - Advice on flooding issues

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 March 2011

Proposed Primary School - Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Proposed Primary School - Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENTS

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 March 2011

Proposed Primary School - Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 




 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                              16 March 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1      LF2445             160311         Emergency Orders 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads DA 2005/364

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning         

 

Summary:

 

Residents and the Body Corporate of the adjoining residential flat building to 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads have again raised concerns regarding the stability of the construction site and the possible impact on their property should the retained excavations let go.

 

The consulting Engineer who undertook the original design for the structure approved through DA 2005/364 was contacted to put together a fee proposal to undertake a detailed investigation on the site and recommendations for any remedial action that may be required (circulated in confidence).

 

The inspection of the site will provide Councillors with an appreciation of the site before they determine what if any action they may wish to take in regard to the concerns from the adjoining property owners.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          That Council engage Michael Samms and Associated Pty Ltd to undertake an inspection and prepare a report as outlined in their fee proposal for the incomplete building project on 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads.

 

2          That once the Engineers report is completed a costing be prepared for any recommended mediation works outlined in the report and be presented to Council for consideration.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option to engage the Consulting Engineer to prepare a report or choose to do nothing further

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council issued Emergency Orders on Markosh Pty Ltd in November 2009, only to find out that the company had been deregistered and the site under the control of the Australian Investment and Securities Commission (ASIC). Orders were subsequently re-served on ASIC as the body controlling the land seeking immediate action to rectify a number of matters considered urgent by Council.

 

ASIC responded advising that whilst they were in control of the site they had no responsibility or requirement to comply with the Emergency Orders issued suggesting that Council apply the provisions of the Local Government Act to carry out the necessary work and charge the costs back against the land.

 

ASIC also suggested that Council could consider reinstating the company pursuant to the Corporations Act and then pursue the Directors of the company. Council sought legal advice on this process, which concluded that Council could incur considerable costs in doing so with no effective relief forthcoming (see attachment).

 

Council sought legal advice in regard to the matter and a copy of that advice is circulated in Confidence (see attachment).

 

Council at its 21 January 2010 meeting resolved as follows:

 


1          That Council note that Emergency Orders have been issued on the deregistered company Markosh Pty Ltd, C/- the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

 

2          That Council attend to the inadequate perimeter fencing and soil and sediment controls to ensure that the site is secured and the sediment controls are adequate.

 

3          That Council not, at this stage, undertake any works in regard to the excavations or shoring up, but carefully monitor the site and review its position as required.

 

4          That Council write to ASIC and request that the matter be expedited.

 

Council staff attended to the perimeter fencing and have been monitoring the site since to ensure the site is secured. ASIC were written to as resolved above and responded with similar advice regarding the options available to Council.

 

Following the General Purpose Committee site inspection, Council will be in a better position to determine whether or not it wishes to engage the Consulting Engineer to undertake the works outlined in the proposal, a further report would need to be prepared should works be recommended, to identify the costs that would be born by Council and charged back as a debt against the land with no guarantees of recovering those costs.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Professional Consulting Engineer – Michael Samms & Associated Pty Ltd

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no identified environmental issues with this report.

 

Social

 

The report has been generated due to public interest in the construction site.

 

Economic

 

The company responsible for the development is in receivership and has been deregistered with the site now falling under the control of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission

 

Risk

As concerns regarding this site have previously been raised, Emergency Orders having been previously issued, the provisions of the Local Government Act which allow for Council to enter upon the land and undertake the necessary works to bring the site into compliance with the Orders, Council's exposure and liability is relatively high.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The initial engagement will have no impact on Council's budget as it would be accommodated through the consultancy budget.

 

Any subsequent remedial works has the potential to significantly impact on Council's budget as no funds are specifically identified for such work.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds for the initial report would come from the current budget with any subsequent works coming from General Fund with no guarantee of recovering those costs.

 

Attachments:

1View

 - Circularised Document - IN CONFIDENCE
Fee Proposal
Legal Advice

 

2View

5509/2010 - Advice for ASIC regarding Markosh Pty Limited (Deregistered)

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 March 2011

Emergency Orders 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads DA 2005/364

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Emergency Orders 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads DA 2005/364

 

 

 

Circularised Document - IN CONFIDENCE / Fee Proposal / Legal Advice

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 March 2011

Emergency Orders 11 Ridge Street Nambucca Heads DA 2005/364

 


 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                              16 March 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.1    SF1575            160311         Road Asset Management Plan

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Peter Baynes, Manager Assets         

 

Summary:

 

Asset Management Plan for Sealed and Unsealed Roads are nearing completion.  A presentation has been prepared for Council to highlight the key issues addressed in this plan.

 

A copy of the presentation notes will be distributed at the meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the Road Asset Management Plan presentation.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Asset Management Plan for Sealed and Unsealed Roads are nearing completion.  A presentation has been prepared for Council to highlight the key issues addressed in this plan.

 

Key issues include:

 

·              Asset Profile

·              Level of Service Requirements

·              Asset Condition

·              Required Maintenance Levels

·              Rehabilitation Plans

·              Funding Requirements

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              General Manager

·              Director Engineering Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

No issues arise from this report.

 

Social

No issues arise from this report.

 

Economic

No issues arise from this report.

 

Risk

No issues arise from this report.


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The Asset Management Plan will not have direct budget impact, however, they do raise the need for an increased workload in the years ahead to maintain road assets in a condition to provide acceptable levels of service.  The four year delivery plan developed through the IPR process will almost certainly call for an increased budget allowance.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

General Fund, RTA Funding and Grants.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                              16 March 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.2    PRF53              160311         Foreshore Development River Street Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council at the Ordinary meeting on 17 February 2011 resolved to defer the foreshore redevelopment on River Street, Macksville until the March 2011 General Purpose Committee meeting to allow Councillors the opportunity to have an input into the revised Concept Plan.

 

Council were provided with a survey plan and a concept plan on 3 February 2011 and at the time of preparing this report two (2) submissions have been received from Councillors.

 

As anticipated, there are a wide range of opinions as to the development, from both within Council and the general public, and it will be difficult to deliver a plan that meets all views expressed.

 

Following any further input emanating from the General Purpose Committee meeting, Council design staff will incorporate the responses into a further concept plan(s) for Council consideration, with the view to preparing a final plan (or potentially series of plans) that can be costed and go onto public exhibition for further comment.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the comments provided by Councillors for the design on the foreshore redevelopment on River Street, Macksville be received and noted and a further concept plan(s) be prepared for Council consideration.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·           Consider the comments raised.

·           Adopt the recommendation.

·           Not adopt the recommendation.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

As directed by Council the existing Nambucca River foreshore at River Street, Macksville has been surveyed and a scaled plan of the area prepared and supplied to Council on 3 February 2011.  In addition, a draft concept plan was supplied for discussion and consideration by Councillors.

 

As anticipated, there are a wide range of opinions as to the development, from both within Council and the general public, and it will be difficult to deliver a plan that meets all views expressed and meet the constraints of budget limitations. Council design staff will prepare a further plan(s) that incorporates the comments from Councillors following the General Purpose Committee meeting.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

Manager Civil Works

Manager Technical Services

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no issues to the environment as a result of this report.  The final plan will take environmental issues into account.

 

Social

 

There are no direct social issues as a result of this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no direct economic issues as a result of this report.

 

Risk

 

The final design for the site will address any public safety issues.  There are no issues as a result of this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct cost to the budget as a result of this report.  The adoption of a final plan for the site will have budgetary implications.  Council has made provision for funding in the current 2010/11 and the budget for 2011/12 to undertake the foreshore improvements.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Sourced from working funds and grant funding where available.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                              16 March 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 10.3    PRF65              160311         Nambucca Heads - Main Beach Storm Damage

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Peter Baynes, Manager Assets         

 

Summary:

 

Recent high tides and large swells have washed a considerable amount of sand from Main Beach at Nambucca Heads.  This recent damage comes on top of considerable loss of sand over the past for or five months.

 

As well as the loss of sand there has also been considerable damage to a retaining wall along the foreshore in front of the surf club.  In one location the retaining wall has been undermined with loss of soil from behind the wall.

 

This damage has compromised access to the beach for the Surf Lifesaving Club and the general public.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council approve the allocation of $40,000 from the General Fund to reconstruct the retaining wall at Main Beach, Nambucca Heads.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That the wall not be reconstructed and some other form of temporary access be provided to the beach.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Recent high tides and large swells have washed a considerable amount of sand from Main Beach at Nambucca Heads.  This recent damage comes on top of considerable loss of sand over the past for or five months.

 

As well as the loss of sand there has also been considerable damage to a retaining wall along the foreshore in front of the surf club.  In one location the retaining wall has been undermined with loss of soil from behind the wall.

 

This damage has compromised access to the beach for the Surf Lifesaving Club and the general public.  The lifesaving club are unable to access the beach with their equipment, thus compromising their ability to provide service.

 

Advice form the Land and Property Management Authority is that this land is part of the Nambucca Heads Headland Reserve Trust (R63811) of which Council is the Trustee.

 

Similar damage was experienced toward the northern end of the beach in the early 2000’s and restoration work was undertaken by Council.  That work included reconstruction of a retaining wall in natural rock.  This construction appears to be providing a more serviceable structure than the wall currently damaged at the southern end of the beach.   The damaged section of wall has been constructed from large concrete blocks stacked on top of each other.

 

Given the undermining of the existing wall and loss of foreshore there is a possibility of further damage to Council infrastructure on the foreshore.  This includes the surf club, car parking and shower facilities.  The potential for further damage combined with the immediate access issues for the surf lifesavers is seen as sufficient justification to expedite reconstruction of the retaining wall.

 

It is proposed to reconstruct the damaged section of wall with the same technique as the work undertaken at the northern end of the beach.  This type of construction will also enhance the appearance of the foreshore and beach frontage as well as facilitate further beautification work as funding permits.

 

Preliminary estimate for the reconstruction work is $40,000.

 

Photos of the damage are circularised.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director Engineering Services

·              Senior Overseer

·              Property Officer

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Reconstruction of the retaining wall will help alleviate further erosion of the foreshore.

 

Social

 

Reconstruction of the retaining wall will ensure access to the beach for the Surf Lifesaving Club and the general public.

 

Economic

 

Ongoing access to the beach will enhance tourist appeal.

 

Risk

 

Reconstruction of the retaining wall will mitigate the risk of further foreshore erosion and possible damage to other infrastructure.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

This proposal will require the commitment of $40,000 from General Funds.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

When Council resigned as Trustee of the Headland Reserve Trust (140081) an agreement was reached that LPMA would pay Council $10,000pa as compensation for rental foregone.  It is a requirement of the Crown Lands Act that this income be included in a General trust for foreshore reserves, as such over the next few years this income may offset the majority of the reconstruction costs.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENTS - Photographs (6209/2011)

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 March 2011

Nambucca Heads - Main Beach Storm Damage

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Nambucca Heads - Main Beach Storm Damage

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENTS - Photographs (6209/2011)