NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

07 April 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 - 07 April 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

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

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

5??????? Notices of Motion

5.1???? Notice of Motion - Strategic Planning and Development Committee

5.2???? Notice of Motion - New Development Applications Lodged in Previous Month ?

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM

 

Ms Joy Lane on behalf of Public Forum - Roads & Heavy Transport

 

Ms Dawn Smyth on behalf of Public Forum - Taylors Arm Reserve

 

Ms Julie Gooch on behalf of Public Forum - Taylors Arm Hall

 

Mr Sam Aboud on behalf of Public Forum - tender criteria for gym

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

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

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports

9.2???? S94E Ministerial Direction - Smiths Lane Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2010

9.3???? Review of Council Policy - Payment of Fees, Expenses & Provision of Facilities to Councillors

9.4???? Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 16 March 2011

9.5???? Licence to Nambucca Holiday Park for encroachment onto Crown Land

9.6???? Clarence Regional Library Service - Draft Library Agreement and Level of Members' Financial Contributions

9.7???? Integrated Planning and Reporting - Discussion Paper on Civic Leadership

9.8???? Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan

9.9???? Fuel Tax Credit Additional Claim

9.10?? Grant Application Status Report - 7 February 2011

9.11?? Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

10????? Director Environment and Planning Report

10.1?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 28 March 2011

10.2?? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 28 March 2011

10.3?? 'A Celebration In Dance' held for Seniors Week 2011

11????? Director Engineering Services Report

11.1?? Minutes of the Vehicular Access to Beaches Committee - 11 March 2011

11.2?? Mid North Weight of Loads Group

11.3?? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting - 30 March 2011 ???

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

12.1?? Tender Management of Macksville Aquatic Centre

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) (d) 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; AND the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

??

??????????? a????? Questions raised by Councillors at 8 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

13????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

14????? 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?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1????? SF1595??????????? 070411???????? Notice of Motion - Strategic Planning and Development Committee

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Brian Finlayson, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

<Type summary in box>

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council undertakes the creation of a Strategic Planning and Development Committee comprising prominent Nambucca Valley business people and entrepreneurs with a view to those people making a contribution to directions and degrees of development within the Shire.

 

2??????? That the Committee comprises two Councillors, Council?s Economic Development Officer and twelve members of the business community.

 

3??????? That Council invites expression of interest by publication of an appropriate notice in local media and that members of the Committee be appointed by Council.

 

 

Discussion:

 

a??????? This motion is not intended to be any reflection on or criticism of the efforts of Council?s Economic Development Officer ? indeed to some extent the object here is to provide some assistance and direction for him.? It is a common criticism in the community that Council does not do enough to encourage economic development in the Shire and with respect to Councillors and Council staff, none of us appear to have great personal experience or expertise in commercial or business matters.? That being the case, it is appropriate that we seek advice from those that do

 

b??????? With perhaps a few exceptions, the brightest stars in our business community are those that are not relying on producing anything that is to be to be paid for by our local population, and yet they are significant employers.? The bus manufacturer, the concrete beam manufacturer, the truck sales business and the school bus company are some that come to mind.? Woolworths is probably one of the exceptions ? one source says that Macksville has nearly twice the turnover of the Nambucca store.? It is apparent that these shops have damaged local businesses but the population votes with its feet and it is equally apparent that these facilities are valued by locals.? The market place is not for the faint hearted ? any thriving business can be annihilated by somebody else coming along and doing it bigger and better.

 

c??????? It is acknowledged that our Shire enjoys great beauty and an enjoyable climate.? However, all the way along our east coast are hundreds of places with at least equal attraction, and many with much more.? That feature alone is not enough to ensure preservation of the economic status quo, let alone improvement of it.? To survive, ensure the prosperity of the community, ensure a need for retention of the public resources we have (schools, hospitals etc) we need people ? people who are working and not reliant on Centrelink benefits.? To provide employment and somewhere for those people to live, we need developers and substantial business operators.? This Council needs to encourage those people and to consider any suggestions they have as to how we can do things to make their endeavours more successful.? We can?t do that if there is no communication between we and they and that is the purpose of this proposed Committee.

 

Manex Comment

 

Council?s Manager Business Development supports the proposed Committee.? A report should be brought forward on the Committee?s terms of reference; including its role, selection of members, frequency of meeting, voting arrangements and any delegations of authority.? The role of the Committee should be strategic in providing guidance to Council on economic development opportunities and impediments to attracting new business.

 

To avoid confusion with town planning it is suggested that a more appropriate name for the Committee could be the Nambucca Valley Futures Committee or the Economic Directions Committee.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2????? SF1589??????????? 070411???????? Notice of Motion - New Development Applications Lodged in Previous Month

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Brian Finlayson, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

At the first ordinary Council Meeting of each month, Council is to receive a report of all new Development Applications lodged the previous month where the value of such development exceeds the sum of $500,000.00. Such report is to include:-

 

a)???????? identity of applicant

b)???????? brief description of nature of application (eg. school, steel mill, residential subdivision etc)

c)???????? location of site of the proposed development.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That at the first ordinary Council Meeting of each month, Council is to receive a report of all new Development Applications lodged the previous month where the value of such development exceeds the sum of $500,000.00. Such report is to include:-

 

a)?????? identity of applicant

b)?????? brief description of nature of application (eg. school, steel mill, residential subdivision etc)

c)?????? location of site of the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

MANEX NOTE

 

Please refer to item 10.2 in the business paper which is the new format in line with this Notice of Motion and will appear in the business agenda in future.

 

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 070411???????? 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

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.

 

DoP confirmed that subdivision application submitted, but not ready for public exhibition yet (8/3/11)

 

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.

 

Consultant advised that meeting will need to be deferred to May 2011 due to unavailability.

 

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.

 

No response from Minister for Planning as at 28/3/11.

 

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.

 

GM met with PWD representatives on 2 March.? Verbal agreement has been reached on a $48,000 settlement being the foregone subsidy on the additional work.? PWD to put in writing to Council.

 


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.

 

Report to be presented to Council 7 April 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.

 

Council staff have now withdrawn funds from the UBS CMT and are establishing a new cash management at call account, possibly with the ANZ bank.? Interest rates being checked before a final decision is made.

 

12

SF1031

21/10/10

New policies be reported back to Council for determination.

 

GM

January 2011.

IPR current priority. Deferred to March 2011.

IPR and reformatting of Management Plan remain priorities.? Have had to defer again to April 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.

 

Report further deferred to after April school holidays.

 

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.

21

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.

 

Due to workloads this report has been deferred ? now likely to be May 2011.

22

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.

 

To be included within the contract documentation as a condition imposed on the contractor obligations and compliance with the EIS.

 

JANUARY 2011

24

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

25

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

FEBRUARY 2011

29

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.

Letter received from RFS (23/2/11) advising that the matter is being considered and an informal response will follow.

 

Letter received from RFS 29/03/11 indicating that there will be no direct reduction in annual budget allocation. Copy attached TRIM Doc 8289/2011

 

30

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.

32

SF755

17/2/11

Council defer demolition of the old rugby 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.

33

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.

 

Report to August 2011.

34

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.

35

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

Letters sent 3 March 2011.

 

Response from Minister Sartor received 15/3/11 advising that matter is being considered and a formal response will be sent in due course.? See Trim doc 6789/2011 (attached)

 

MARCH 2011

36

SF640

3/3/11

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

 

GM

Letters sent 8/3/2011.

 

37

RF275

17/3/11

Council write to the Minister for Roads requesting an immediate decision on the total reconstruction of the Bowraville to Bellingen Road.

 

GM

Letter sent 22/3/2011

38

SF261

17/3/11

 

Council request the RTA to provide a breakdown of the $10m expenditure on safety improvements to the Pacific Highway between Urunga and Nambucca Heads.

 

GM

Letter sent 22/3/2011

39

SF1595

17/3/11

Council be provided with a report on other councils? (Mid North Coast Group of Councils) garbage services inclusive of waste management processes, environmental outcomes and the rate per annum.

 

DES

Report May 2011

40

SF788

17/3/11

Council write to CHCC requesting the audit report (on biomass solutions) as soon as it?s received and request a presentation on the 3 options with the opportunity to comment before CHCC determines their position.? Copy of letter to go to Bellingen SC.

 

GM

Letter sent 22/3/2011

41

DA2010/234

17/3/11

Council develop a policy as to the cumulative impacts of locating fill on the floodplain at Macksville and also review the matrix in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan

 

DEP

Brief to be prepared and new floodplain study to be undertaken during 2011.

42

PRF53

17/3/11

Further concept plans on the River Street foreshore redevelopment be prepared for Council?s consideration.

 

DES

Report April 2011.

Attachments:

1View

6789/2011 - Ministers letter - Indian Myna Bird

 

2View

8289/2011 - RFS response to Council's letter

 

?

?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Outstanding Actions and Reports

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Outstanding Actions and Reports

 


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2????? SF544????????????? 070411???????? S94E Ministerial Direction - Smiths Lane Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2010

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Bruce Potts, Section 94 Co-ordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has recently been advised of the inclusion of the Smiths Lane Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2010 in Schedule 2 of the s94E Ministerial Direction issued on 4 March 2011.? The inclusion of the contribution plan in the Schedule permits Council to charge the full contributions payable on land within the plan?s catchment to a limit of $30,000.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the Report on S94E Ministerial Direction, Smiths Lane Local Roads and Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2010, be received and contents noted.

 

2??????? That it be noted that new development applications for subdivision on Smiths Lane will have Section 94 contributions of $24,188 per additional lot instead of $20,000 per additional lot.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options. This Report is for the information of Councillors.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

On 4 June 2010 Premier Keneally announced a revised approach for setting local development contributions including a $20,000 limit on per residential lot/dwelling unit s94 contributions.? This was subsequently legislated in the S94E Ministerial Direction of 4 June.? The Direction also provided for Councils to apply for a special rate variation to cover legitimate Council costs arising from development.

 

The impact of this decision on NSW Councils was to restrict the s94 contribution stream to essential infrastructure provision established in local contributions guidelines.

 

At the time of the release of the June s94E Direction, the Smiths Lane CP was in final review and ready to be placed on public exhibition.? Council resolved to place the contribution plan on public exhibition at the Ordinary meeting of 15 July 2010, and exhibit the contribution plan from 29 July to 25 August 2010.

 

On 31 August Councils were invited to make application to the Minister to raise the cap above the $20,000 limit where it could be demonstrated through the contribution plan the costs were genuine, and where the site met the criteria as a greenfield development.? At that stage the Smiths Lane CP remained in Draft form, however Council responded to the invitation and was subsequently advised by the Department that the application was unsuccessful, on the basis that the plan was not yet in force.

 

At Council?s Ordinary meeting of 16 September 2010 Council resolved to adopt the Smiths Lane Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan.? The contribution plan subsequently came into operation on 30 September 2010.

 

Ministerial Review of the Contributions Cap

 

The Smiths Lane Contribution Plan authorises Council to levy a contribution on future large lot residential development, within a limited release catchment, for the reconstruction and upgrading of Smiths Lane and the intersection with Wilsons Road.? Costs associated with the works are to be funded one hundred percent through section 94 contributions levied via the contribution plan.? Additionally, the land within the release area is subject to the payment of contributions under the Nambucca Shire Community Facilities and Open Space Contribution Plan 2008; the Nambucca Shire Surf Life Saving Infrastructure Contribution Plan; and the Administration Levy.

 

Total s94 contributions payable within the Smiths Lane Catchment are $24,188.

 

On 16 September 2010 Planning Circular PS 10-022 released a S94E Direction to the effect that after further consultation, the cap on contributions in new release or greenfield areas would be increased to $30,000 and established areas would remain capped at $20,000.? A Schedule of Council?s Contributions Plans where the Minister had permitted increases in the contribution cap was included.

 

Request for Ministerial Review of Contribution Cap

 

On 7 February this year Council submitted a new request for a Ministerial review of the contribution cap as it related to the Smiths Lane release.

 

On 4 March 2011, Council was advised of a successful outcome of the review process with the release of a s94E Ministerial Direction that included the Smiths Lane Release in Schedule 2 of the Direction, giving authorisation to Council to levy the full contribution payable on land within the Smiths Lane catchment, up to a limit of $30,000.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The inclusion of the Smiths Lane Release on Schedule 2 of the s94E Direction provides Council with some certainty that the full contribution amount can be levied to a value of $30,000, allowing the full value of the proposed works on Smiths Lane to be undertaken under the authority of the s94 contribution plan.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Consultation was undertaken with the Department of Planning.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Section 94 Plans form an important strategic planning tool for Council and as such provide longer term sustainability of infrastructure and facility delivery. Any changes to the current Legislation could impact on Council?s capacity to deliver future community facilities and infrastructure required to meet increased demand.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Section 94 developer contributions represent a significant income stream for Council. An increase in the contributions cap provides Council with certainty that the full cost for infrastructure associated with the Smiths Lane release will be recovered.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF42??????????????? 070411???????? Review of Council Policy - Payment of Fees, Expenses & Provision of Facilities to Councillors

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Section 253 of the Local Government Act requires that Council review this policy at least annually.

 

It is not proposed there be any changes to the Policy adopted in November 2009.? This is because the previous review was substantial and there have been no identified issues in the operation of the policy since.? However Council can elect to make changes to the Policy which will then be advertised for public comment.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council provide public notice of its intention to adopt its existing Policy ? ?Payment of Fees, Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors? without amendment.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can amend its policy as it sees fit.? Any proposed change should be assessed against the Division of Local Government?s revised Guidelines for the Payment of Expenses and the Provision of Facilities for Mayors and Councillors in NSW.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Section 253 of the Local Government Act requires that Council review this policy at least annually.

 

The policy, which is attached, was last reviewed in November 2009 in response to revisions by the Division of Local Government of their ?Guidelines for the Payment of Expenses and the Provision of Facilities for Mayors and Councillors in NSW?.

 

The Division of Local Government has advised that the policy should have again been reviewed before 30 November 2010 with a copy forwarded to the Director-General.

 

Notwithstanding, the recommendation that the existing policy not be altered, Council has to resolve its intention to adopt or amend the attached policy and then provide public notice of its intention and allow for a period of at least 28 days to receive public submissions.

 

Following the 28 day public exhibition period there has to be a further report to Council which considers any submissions at which time Council can finally determine the policy with or without amendment.? The adopted policy has then to be forwarded to the Director-General within 28 days.

 

Whilst acknowledging the oversight it has been suggested to the Division of Local Government that the reporting arrangements in Section 253 are onerous for circumstances where the policy provides very modest support for Councillors and where no changes are proposed.

 

It is not proposed there be any changes to the Policy adopted in November 2009.? This is because the previous review was substantial and there have been no identified issues in the operation of the policy since.? However Council can elect to make changes to the Policy which will then be advertised for public comment.

 


CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the NSW Division of Local Government.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk issues.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendation does not change the provision made in the current or future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

10901/2010 - POLICY - Payment of Expenses & Provision of Facilities for Councillors

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Review of Council Policy - Payment of Fees, Expenses & Provision of Facilities to Councillors

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

COUNCILLORS?

PAYMENT OF FEES, EXPENSES &

PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO COUNCILLORS - POLICY

 

 

 

Function:? CORPORATE SERVICES

 

 

Adopted: 8 April 2004 (038)?????

Last reviewed: 15 February 2007 (049)

15 November 2007

18 December 2008

11 March 2009

16 July 2009

2 October 2009

 

Our Vision

 

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our? Mission Statement

 

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

 

 

1.0???? Policy objective

 

1.1?????? To comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and the Code of Conduct.

 

1.2?????? To ensure that Councillors are able to effectively carry out their responsibilities as members of the Council and as community representatives without suffering financial hardship

 

1.3?????? To provide appropriate insurance coverage for Councillors in respect of Personal Accident, Public Liability and Professional Indemnity and Councillors' and Officers' Liability.

 

1.4?????? To limit claims by Councillors for resources and expenses to those specifically identified in this policy.

 

2.0???? Related legislation

 

2.1???? Local Government Act 1993, Section 232

2.2???? Local Government Act 1993, Sections 248 to 254

2.3???? Code of Conduct

2.4???? Local Government Remuneration Tribunal

 

 

3.0???? Policy statement

 

3.1???? Annual Fees

 

??????????? 3.1.1???????? The Mayor and Councillors will be paid an annual fee in accordance with the ??? determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

??????????? 3.1.2???????? The Mayor and Councillors will be paid the maximum annual fee for the category ?????? classification for Nambucca Shire Council determined from time to time by the Tribunal.

 

??????????? 3.1.3???????? If a Councillor is absent, with or without leave of the Council, from ordinary meetings of ??????? the Council for any one period of more than 3 months, payment will not be made for the ?????? period in excess of 3 months.

 

3.2???? Expenses

 

????????? 3.2.0? Responsibility and Accountability

 

a????????? Councillors are responsible for providing original receipts to support claims for reimbursement of expenses and to complete any documentation in support of a claim for reimbursement.? Only those expenses explicitly covered in this policy will be reimbursed.

 

b????????? Requests for reimbursement must be received within one month of the cost being incurred.

 

c????????? Any advance payment made for the cost of a service associated with a civic duty must be reconciled within one month of receiving such payment.

 

????????? 3.2.1? Travel

 

??????????? a???? Councillors will be reimbursed for travelling to and from meetings of Council or meetings ????? of any Committee of Council or meetings of any Organisation to which a Councillor has ????? been appointed as a delegate or any other activity which has been authorised by Council.?

 

??????????? b???? Travel by private motor vehicle will be reimbursed at the kilometre rate applicable in the ??????? Local Government (State) Award.

 

??????????? c???? Councillors should determine from the General Manager the availability of a Council ?? vehicle for travel outside the Shire and during? business hours.

 

??????????? d???? If a Council vehicle is available and a Councillor chooses to use a private vehicle, only ???????? fuel costs will be reimbursed.

 

??????????? e???? Claims for travel expenses must be made on the Councillors expenses claim form and will ?? be reimbursed with the normal monthly claim.

 

????????? 3.2.2? Sustenance

 

a????? A meal and refreshments will be provided for Councillors at Council and Committee ??? meetings and Working Parties or any other time deemed appropriate by the Mayor or ??? General Manager while on Council business.

 

b????? Councillors will be reimbursed for sustenance expenses if the Councillor partakes of a ???????? meal not provided by Council as part of official function, while on Council business.

 

c????? The maximum level of reimbursement will be appropriate to the circumstances of ?????? attendance and will be determined by the General Manager.

 

d????? Claims for sustenance expenses must be supported by receipts and will be reimbursed ?????? with the normal monthly claim.

 

????????? 3.2.3? Out of Pocket Expenses

 

a????????? Reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred while attending an authorised Council ???????? function will be reimbursed as determined by the General Manager.

 

b????????? Expenses of a personal nature are excluded

 

c????????? Claims must be supported by a receipt and must be made no later than three (3) months ????????? after the expenses were incurred.

 

????????? 3.2.4? Internet Connection

 

a?????????? Upon submission by a councillor of a claim for internet access which is to include a copy of an invoice for such access, the Council will reimburse the cost of such access on a monthly basis up to a maximum of $40.00 per month.

 

??????????? Note:? In accepting this expense Councillors shall abide by Council?s policy on the use of the internet and email.? Councillors shall also forward any email which may concern Council business to Council?s email address, council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au so that it may be stored on Council?s electronic records systems in accordance with the State Records Act.? A copy of Council?s policy on the use of the internet and email as well as Councillor?s responsibilities under the State Records Act will be provided upon receipt of an initial claim.

 

????????? 3.2.5? Carer Expenses

 

Upon submission by a Councillor of a claim for carer?s expenses which is to include a copy of an invoice for such expenses, the Council will reimburse the cost of those expenses up to a maximum annual limit of $500.? Expenses for carer arrangements, including child care expenses and the care of elderly, disabled and/or sick immediate family members of councillors, are payable when a Councillor attends meetings of Council or meetings of any Committee of Council or meetings of any Organisation to which a Councillor has been appointed as a delegate or any other activity which has been authorised by Council.

 

????????? 3.2.6? Councillor Training and Development

 

Council has a separate policy on Councillor training and development.? Council allocates $2,500 per Councillor and $3,500 for the Mayor to support their training and development activities.? The allocation is permitted to accumulate for a period of two years.? Councillors may exceed their budget allocation by resolution of Council.

 

????????? 3.2.7? Legal Costs

 

Councillors are entitled to reimbursement of some legal expenses and to the extent described below:

 

a????????? A Councillor defending an action arising from the performance in good faith of a function under the Local Government Act (section 731 refers); or

 

b????????? A Councillor for proceedings before the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal or an investigative body provided the subject of the proceedings arises from the performance in good faith of a function under the Act and the Tribunal or investigative body makes a finding substantially favourable to the Councillor.

 

c????????? Legal expenses incurred in relation to proceedings arising out of the performance by a Councillor of his or her functions under the Act should be distinguished from expenses incurred in relation to proceedings arising merely from something that a Councillor has done during his or her term in office.? An example of the latter is expenses arising from an investigation as to whether a Councillor acted corruptly by using knowledge of a proposed rezoning for private gain.? This latter type of expense will not be reimbursed by Council.

 

d????????? Prior approval for a potential legal expense should be sought from the General Manager before the expense is incurred.

 

e????????? Council will not meet the costs of an action in defamation where a Councillor is either the plaintiff or defendant.

 

f?????????? Council will not meet legal expenses in respect of any legal proceedings initiated by the Mayor and/or councillors in any circumstances.

 

3.3???? Provision of Facilities

 

The following facilities will be provided to assist Councillors in the performance of their duties:

 

????????? 3.3.1? Councillors

 

a????????? Provision of business cards and name badges, but not specialist secretarial services.

b????????? Provision of official stationary including letterheads upon application to the General Manager.

c????????? Postage of official correspondence?all mail is to be directed through the Council's own mailing system.

d????????? A Councillor's Room for official business, located in the Administration Centre and use of the computer in that room.

e????????? Use of Council's copying facilities for official business.

f?????????? Suitable personal protective equipment in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2001 as amended, relating to general construction site requirements.

 

????????? 3.3.2? Council Information

 

a????????? Council staff will provide appropriate information and documentation to assist Councillors in the performance of their duties.

b????????? Where copies of documents or information are required a request should be made to the General Manager, the appropriate Director or Manager.

c????????? Requests from Councillors for in depth information, research or reports to Council shall be initiated by way of either Council resolution or by authorisation from the General Manager or Mayor.

d????????? Requests for information or assistance should be made to the appropriate Director or Manager or, if such officers are not available, to the most senior person available at the time.

 

????????? 3.3.3? Mayor

 

??????????? In addition to those facilities that may be provided to the Councillors as set out in 3.3.1 above, the Mayor is entitled to receive the benefit of:

 

a????????? A fully serviced and maintained motor vehicle for the purposes of discharging the function of civic office

b????????? Full private use of the motor vehicle in accordance with Council's Use of Council Vehicle Agreement

c????????? A furnished office located in the Administration Centre

d????????? Secretarial services associated with the office of Mayor

e????????? Administrative assistance associated with functions of the office

f?????????? Office refreshments

g????????? A 24 hour access card to the Council offices

h????????? A facsimile machine at place of residence

i?????????? A mobile telephone with car kit, serviced and maintained

j?????????? Use of a computer.

 

 


3.4???? Travel on Council Business

 

????????? 3.4.1? Accommodation

 

a????????? Accommodation will be booked and paid for by Council at accommodation where government rates apply.

b????????? Accommodation booked for attendance at a conference will be at the venues suggested by the conference organiser.

c????????? Accommodation shall be paid on a single room per night basis, based on reimbursement for actual costs involved.

d????????? The standard of accommodation is not to exceed four stars except where a conference or seminar venue exceeds four stars, or as determined by the General Manager.

 

????????? 3.4.2? Travel

 

a????????? Councillors will travel by air service, economy class

b????????? Where air travel is not available or unsuitable, a Council vehicle will be provided

c????????? Where a Councillor elects to travel by private vehicle, reimbursement will be on a rate per kilometre as per 3.2.1 or equivalent air travel cost, whichever is the least cost.

d????????? Council will meet the cost of transferring Councillors from their place of abode to the airport and return from the airport to their place of abode.

e????????? Council will meet the cost of transferring Councillors from the airport to the hotel and return

f?????????? Should a Councillor be accommodated in a hotel not being the site of a conference or seminar, Council will meet the cost of travelling from the hotel to the site of the conference or seminar and return each day.

 

????????? 3.4.4? Reimbursement of Costs

 

a????????? All costs associated with travel on Council business will be paid in advance by Council ie

i. Conference/seminar registration and associated documentation

ii. Travel

iii.? Accommodation

iv.? Sustenance

v. Councillors? partners may accompany them on Council business trips at no expense to Council.

 

Note: Specific provisions relating to conferences and seminars are now contained within Council?s Councillor Training and Development Policy.

 

3.5???? Insurance

 

Councillors will receive the benefit of insurance cover to the limit specified in Council's insurance policies for the following:

 

????????? 3.5.1? Personal Injury

 

??????????? Personal injury or death whilst on Council business, worldwide, covering bodily injury caused by accidental, violent, external and visible means.? Personal injury insurance also provides specified benefits for lost income and other expenses arising from permanent disablement, temporary total disability and temporary partial disability.? The cover does not include medical expenses.? Full details of personal accident insurance are available from Council's Risk Manager.

 

????????? 3.5.2? Professional Indemnity

 

??????????? Professional Indemnity insurance applies in relation to claims arising out of the Councillors' (alleged) negligent performance of civic duties or exercise of their functions as a Councillors, provided the performance or exercise of the relevant civic duty or function is in the opinion of council bona fide and/or proper.? This is subject to any limitations or conditions set out in the policy of insurance that is taken out at the direction of Council.

 

????????? 3.5.3? Public Liability

 

??????????? Public Liability insurance applies in relation to claims arising out of the Councillors' (alleged) negligent performance of civic duties or exercise of their functions as Councillors. This is subject to any limitations or conditions set out in the policy of insurance that is taken out at the direction of Council.

 

????????? 3.5.4? Councillors' and Officers' Liability (Including Employment Practices Liability)

 

??????????? Applies to cover expenses incurred by Councillors in respect of claims made against them for any alleged wrongful acts arising out of their official capacities (but excludes cover for statutory penalties (see 3.5.5 below).

 

????????? 3.5.5? Statutory Liability

 

??????????? Applies to cover penalty and defence costs payable by Councillors to any regulatory authority pursuant to any Act of a (not deliberate) wrongful statutory breach, while acting within the scope of their duty.

 

????????? 3.5.6? Personal Effects?Council Premises

 

????????? Councillors are not covered for loss or damage of personal effects.

 

?????????

3.5.7???????? Use of Private Motor Vehicle while on Council Business

 

??????????? Councillors using their private motor vehicles to undertake civic duties or when attending Council and Committee meetings or Conferences are not covered for the loss or damage to their vehicles.? This is covered by the kilometre hire rate.

 

 

4??????? Accountability

 

4.1??????? The Annual Report for a year shall include a disclosure of the Councillor expenses incurred during that year pursuant to the provisions of Section 428(2)(f) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

4.2??????? In addition, a letter will be issued to all Councillors showing all fees, expenses and all payments made to Councillors in performance of their duties for the financial year.

 

4.3??????? Facilities supplied to Councillors are not to be converted or modified in any way and may only be used for carrying out the functions of civic office.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF332????????????? 070411???????? Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 16 March 2011

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Annual General Meeting of the Scotts Head Tennis Club?s Committee of Management and the new Committee.? A copy of the minutes, including the financial statements, is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management?s minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 16 March 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 Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management was held on Sunday 13 March 2011.

 

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

 

????????? President ?????????????????????? Andrew Pearson

????????? Vice President???????????????? Paul Crane

????????? Secretary??????????????????????? Tracey Ross

????????? Treasurer???????????????????????? Darren Hawkes

????????? Committee????????????????????? Peter Ross, Rob Luff, Heather Hawke

 

 

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

7446/2011 - Minutes of Annual General Meeting held 16 March 2011

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 16 March 2011

 










Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF1480??????????? 070411???????? Licence to Nambucca Holiday Park for encroachment onto Crown Land

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Manager for Reserve R88941 has previously resolved to offer the operator of the Registered Proprietors of Lot 162 in DP 755560 (the operators), being Nambucca Beach Holiday Park a twenty one year Lease of Part lot 7003 in DP 1113130 and Part lot 7001 DP 1117183 being the area encroached upon by improvements on the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park.

 

The Park Operator has written to the Minister for Lands formally requesting that the encroachment issue be resolved by way of a boundary adjustment.

 

Both the Department of Lands and the operator advised that no action would be taken on processing a Lease Agreement until a response from the Minister was to hand.

 

The Ministers response has now advised that a boundary adjustment will not be granted but that a long term Lease would be endorsed.

 

Staff are now taking steps to initiate the lease but this process will take time.

 

It is recommended that a three year Licence be granted on similar terms to the current Lease Agreement pending finalisation of the Lease preparation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Manager for Reserve R88941 and pending finalisation of a long term Lease Agreement grant a Licence to the registered proprietor of Lot 162 in DP 755560 ?for occupation of the area of encroachment onto part lot 7003 in DP 1113130 and part lot 7001 DP 1117183 for a period of three years subject to terms and condition deemed reasonable and appropriate by Council?s legal advisor on the matter.

?

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

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are few options. Previous consideration of the matter identified the immediate removal of all encroaching structures as problematic and inequitable to the owners of the dwellings.

 

The recommendations make arrangements for the interim period between the lapse of the current Lease and the finalisation of a new Lease Agreement

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council in its capacity as Reserve Trust Manger has wrangled with this matter for some time.

 

In essence we are obliged to ensure that Crown Reserves are not used in a manner that is not consistent with the Gazetted purpose of the Reserve. Encroachments by Caravan Parks clearly fall into this category.

 

The Trust has previously managed this by way of a Lease with the operative provision being that the Lessee removes the encroachment prior to the expiry of the Lease term. This has not happened.

 

The immediate solution would be to enforce the Lease. This however is problematic as the owners of the dwellings which encroach were in some instances unaware of the terms of the lease and in most instances without the resources to relocate what is in effect their principle place of residence.

 

Council preferred solution was to offer a long term Lease with a view to correct the encroachments during the term of the Lease as and when the affected dwellings are sold or otherwise cease to be used as the owners principle place of residence.

 

The Operator whilst not adverse to a long term Lease sought to pursue a boundary adjustment through a sale process and made a formal request of the Minister of Lands in this regard.

 

The Minister has responded (copy attached) stating that ?it is not in the public interest to execute a boundary adjustment through a sale process?. The Minister further advised that his department would endorse a long term Lease arrangement on the proviso the terms of the lease is sympathetic to the interests of the residents during any disposal or transfer process.

 

Staff are now working towards the grant of a long term Lease in this form.

 

Finalisation of this process however will post date the expiry of the current lease which expires in May this year. It is recommended therefore that a Licence Agreement largely on the same terms as the current Lease be granted for a period of three years.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Department of Lands.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any environmental issues.

 

Social

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any social issues. Although it should be noted that the proposed lease and the license serve to protect the interest of the current resident owners.

 

Economic

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any economic issues.

 

Risk

 

The recommendations serve to reduce the risk exposure to the Reserve Trust by ensuring appropriate arrangements are in place for the period between the expiry of the current lease the finalisation of a new long term Lease.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There will be no impact on current or future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Working funds are not required.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

8049/2011 - Letter from Minister for Lands

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Licence to Nambucca Holiday Park for encroachment onto Crown Land

 


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6????? SF29??????????????? 070411???????? Clarence Regional Library Service - Draft Library Agreement and Level of Members' Financial Contributions

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Clarence Valley Council has responded to a letter from this Council advising that the level of annual increase in the financial contribution by members of the Regional Library be set as the annual rate peg limit plus 6% with a minimum level of 8% increase per annum for the life of the new Library Service Agreement.

 

The proposed agreement will operate from 1 November 2011 until 30 June 2013 to bring it in line with the requirements of the new integrated planning and reporting legislation.? Under that legislation, all Councils must review their Community Strategic Plans within 9 months of the September 2012 elections.? Therefore the new agreement will have a life of only 20 months.? Council has already resolved to make provision for a 10% increase in its budget for the Clarence Regional Library for the 2011/12 financial year, so effectively the finance issue under the new agreement only relates to a single year.

 

Even though Clarence Valley Council has not accepted this Council?s request, given the short life of the agreement and the costs associated in developing an agreement with another Council or ?going it alone?, it is recommended that Council enter into the new agreement on the terms resolved by Clarence Valley Council and then consider its further involvement as part of the review of the Community Strategic Plan in the 2012/2013 financial year.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council accept the financial terms for a new agreement for the Clarence Regional Library as resolved by Clarence Valley Council on 15 March 2011 subject to the proposed new Agreement lapsing on 30 June 2013 (at the latest).

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect not to participate in the new Clarence Regional Library Agreement in which case it will need to make arrangements for the work currently being undertaken by the Regional Library being done by Council staff or through an arrangement with another Council, external party or a combination of all three.

 

Any decision to withdraw from the Regional Library needs to be made as early as possible as it will have significant budgetary implications for all 3 Councils in 2011/2012.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached letter from Clarence Valley Council in response to a letter from this Council dated 21 February 2011 which is also attached.

 

At this Council?s meeting on 17 February 2011 it was resolved as follows:

 

?1?????? That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner Councils that it will consider entering into a new Library Agreement which sets the contribution to the Clarence Regional Library at the Rate Peg plus 2%.? This would be the minimum with partner Councils having the opportunity to agree on a larger increase.

 

2??????? That Council investigate the opportunity for a relationship with other local libraries including Coffs Harbour.?

 

The response from Clarence Valley Council indicates a slight change in the previous position of a 10% per annum increase to the annual rate peg plus 6% with a minimum level of 8% increase per annum for the life of the new Agreement.? The rate peg for 2010/2011 is 2.8% which means the contribution would be 8.8% instead of 10%.

 

The proposed agreement will operate from 1 November 2011 until 30 June 2013 to bring it in line with the requirements of the new integrated planning and reporting legislation.? Under that legislation, all Councils must review their Community Strategic Plans within 9 months of the September 2012 elections.? Therefore the new agreement will have a life of only 20 months.? Council has already resolved to make provision for a 10% increase in its budget for the Clarence Regional Library for the 2011/12 financial year, so effectively the finance issue under the new agreement only relates to a single year.

 

Even though Clarence Valley Council has not accepted this Council?s request, given the short life of the agreement and the costs associated in developing an agreement with another Council or ?going it alone?, it is recommended that Council enter into the new agreement on the terms resolved by Clarence Valley Council and then consider its further involvement as part of the review of the Community Strategic Plan in the 2012/2013 financial year.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Clarence Valley Council.? This Council?s position has also been made known to Bellingen Shire Council.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

Council?s libraries provide an important community service, particularly for youth and the aged.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

There are significant financial and service level risks should this Council decide to opt out of the Clarence Regional Library.? These risks have previously been reported to Council on 17 November 2010.? A copy of that report is attached.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budgetary implications of the recommendation are limited to the 2012/2013 financial year where Council will have to pay a minimum 8% increase in the operating cost of the Clarence Regional Library.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

4640/2011 - Letter to Clarence Valley Council

 

2View

8033/2011 - Advice from Clarence Valley Council

 

3View

26748/2010 - Nambucca Shire Library Operations

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Clarence Regional Library Service - Draft Library Agreement and Level of Members' Financial Contributions

 

Enquiries to:? Michael Coulter

Phone No:????? 6568 0200

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

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

Our Ref:??????? SF29

 

 

 

21 February 2011

 

 

Mr Stuart McPherson

General Manager

Clarence Valley Council

Locked Bag 23

GRAFTON?? NSW?? 2460

 

 

Dear Mr McPherson

 

DRAFT LIBRARY AGREEMENT FOR CLARENCE REGIONAL LIBRARY

 

Reference is made to the draft minutes of the Clarence Regional Library Advisory Committee meeting held on 4 February 2011.

 

It is noted that the Committee did not endorse a motion from this Council?s representatives for a deferral of the endorsement of the Draft Library Agreement.? As you are aware, this Council had a number of concerns with the Draft Agreement, including the contribution requirement, which we believed should be the subject of further discussion.

 

Consequently at this Council?s meeting on 17 February 2011 it was resolved as follows:

 

?1???????????? That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner Councils that it will consider entering into a new Library Agreement which sets the contribution to the Clarence Regional Library at the Rate Peg plus 2%.? This would be the minimum with partner Councils having the opportunity to agree on a larger increase.

 

2????????????? That Council investigate the opportunity for a relationship with other local libraries including Coffs Harbour.?

 

It would be appreciated if you could convey this Council?s position to your elected Council when it deliberates on the Draft Library Agreement.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Michael Coulter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

MAC:ms

cc????? Ms Liz Jeremy, General Manager, Bellingen Shire Council


Enquiries to:? Michael Coulter

Phone No:????? 6568 0200

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

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

Our Ref:??????? SF29

 

 

 

21 February 2011

 

 

Ms Liz Jeremy

General Manager

Bellingen Shire Council

PO Box 117

BELLINGEN?? NSW?? 2454

 

 

Dear Ms Jeremy

 

DRAFT LIBRARY AGREEMENT FOR CLARENCE REGIONAL LIBRARY

 

Reference is made to the draft minutes of the Clarence Regional Library Advisory Committee meeting held on 4 February 2011.

 

It is noted that the Committee did not endorse a motion from this Council?s representatives for a deferral of the endorsement of the Draft Library Agreement.? As you are aware, this Council had a number of concerns with the Draft Agreement, including the contribution requirement, which we believed should be the subject of further discussion.

 

Consequently at this Council?s meeting on 17 February 2011 it was resolved as follows:

 

?1???????????? That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner Councils that it will consider entering into a new Library Agreement which sets the contribution to the Clarence Regional Library at the Rate Peg plus 2%.? This would be the minimum with partner Councils having the opportunity to agree on a larger increase.

 

2????????????? That Council investigate the opportunity for a relationship with other local libraries including Coffs Harbour.?

 

It would be appreciated if you could convey this Council?s position to your elected Council when it deliberates on the Draft Library Agreement.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Michael Coulter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

MAC:ms

cc????? Mr Stuart McPherson, General Manager, Clarence Valley Council

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Clarence Regional Library Service - Draft Library Agreement and Level of Members' Financial Contributions

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Clarence Regional Library Service - Draft Library Agreement and Level of Members' Financial Contributions

 

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.1????? SF29??????????????? 171110???????? Nambucca Shire Library Operations

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Greg Meyers, Director Environment and Planning; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 


 

Summary:

 

Council considered a report at its 20 October 2010 General Purpose Committee meeting in regard to its contribution to the Clarence Regional Library (CRL).

 

Council after receiving a report from Regional Librarian Ms Anne D'Arcy and considering the recommendations contained in the report resolved to defer its determination and that a workshop be held and additional information be provided on options for providing Library Services within the Shire.

 

The report provides comparisons of library costs for a number of Councils and also assesses the opportunities to achieve a reasonable level of service at less cost.

 

 


 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner councils that it will enter into a new Library Agreement conditional upon:

 

??????????? a???? the agreement being tied to the 4 year delivery program in the IPR legislation and

 

??????????? b??????? that the funding arrangements provided for in the new agreement be set as the rate peg plus or minus an agreed percentage, and where the Councils can?t agree on the percentage, that it be the average of the percentage change put forward by each Council.

 

2????????? That Council advise its Clarence Regional Library partner councils that the contributory funding for the Clarence Regional Library for 2011/12 should be set at the rate peg plus 2%.

 

3????????? That when opportunities for staff redeployment arise that Council further consider the closure of the Nambucca Heads library on one day per week.

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

There are many options depending upon the desired level of service sought for our libraries. The selected standard of service comes at a cost and must be evaluated against all of the other demands on Council?s resources.

 

The Strategic Plan adopted in 2008 responded to data which indicated there had been a real decline in the quality, age and number of books being purchased from the book vote. The Strategic Plan anticipates that a 10% per annum per capita increase in funding would yield the best results in terms of collection size, collection age, and reaching the recommended acquisition rate; although even at this rate, the CRL would still not equal the State average items per capita at the end of 10 years.

 

Whilst the Strategic Plan establishes a worthy goal, the rate of improvement in the standard of service will greatly exceed any other Council function. A lesser standard of service would be to seek the support of the CRL partner Councils to reduce the percentage increase in the Strategic Plan.

 

Another option is to consider other operating expenses. The only significant expense is wages and a reduction in library opening hours does provide the opportunity for reducing costs, albeit with a further decline in the level of service.

 

The least preferred option is opting out of the Clarence Regional Library Service which is unlikely to achieve savings and also result in a substantial reduction in the level of service. However this will be the outcome if a new CRL agreement is not executed.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Nambucca Shire Council signed the Clarence Regional Library Services Agreement on 1st November 2006. The Agreement is between Clarence Valley, Bellingen Shire and Nambucca Shire Councils?. The current Agreement terminates on 1st November 2011.

 

On 20 November 2008 Council resolved to endorse the draft Clarence Regional Library Strategic Plan to guide the direction of the regional library service for the ensuing 10 years.

 

In adopting the Strategic Plan it was noted that Council would have an opportunity to monitor, manage and oversee the implementation of the Strategic Plan via an Operational Plan or Plans and associated actions and budgets, which will be brought to Council for endorsement at a future date.

 

In April 2010, Council was presented with a report following a Clarence Regional Library Committee meeting when the Committee considered the Regional Library Service Model.

 

From this meeting the following resolutions were made by Council

 

1????????? That Council confirm its commitment to involvement in library services under a Modified Hybrid Model with its associated core conditions as the easiest to implement and most cost effective option for future delivery of library services.

 

2????????? This new arrangement be affected as soon as practicable.

 

3????????? That Council arrange to meet with representatives from the other two Councils within the next twelve months to discuss the future of the Clarence Regional Library particularly in relation to the 10% per capita contribution increase.

 

There were discussions with the General Managers from Clarence Valley and Bellingen Shire Council's who indicated that they support the continued operation of the Regional Library Service and the 10% per capita contribution increase. A written response dated 7 April 2010 was received from the General Manager of Clarence Valley Council which is attached.

 

Arrangements were also made for Ms Anne D?Arcy, the Executive Officer of Clarence Regional Library, to address Council?s General Purpose Committee on 20 October 2010.? This was in the context of Council?s resolution to meet with the representatives from the other two Councils within the next 12 months to discuss the future of the Clarence Regional Library particularly in relation to the 10% per capita contribution increase.

 

Bellingen Shire Council has now also asked this Council whether it wishes to remain a member of the Clarence Regional Library Service for a further period of 5 years commencing on 1 July 2011, under the existing service model. They want a final position by 30 December 2010 as a decision by any Council to withdraw from the Regional Library Service will have financial implications for the remaining Councils as from 1 July 2011. All Councils will be preparing their budgets after new year.

 

The Clarence Regional Library Agreement sets out the terms and conditions with schedules 1, 2 & 3 setting out the responsibilities of the services provided by Clarence Valley Council to the Regional Library, the facilities and services to be provided by each participating Council and how the assets will be distributed at the end of the Agreement if the Regional Library Service does not continue (see attachments).

 


Library Comparisons and Costings

 

The following Table 1 outlines some basics statistics for the adjoining and nearby Councils in regard to the total operations of their Library Services and in order of per capita expenditure from lowest to highest.

 

Table 1

COUNCIL

FORM OF DELIVERY

NET OPERATIONAL COST 2010/11

PER CAPITA COST

(population)

Coffs Harbour

Stand Alone

$1,522,476

(71,677) $21.24

Kempsey#

Stand Alone

$725,928

(29,331) $24.75

Clarence Valley

Regional

$1,404,651

(51,007) $27.54

Port Macquarie #

Stand Alone

$2,152,853

(75,104) $28.67

Nambucca

Regional

$619,500

(19,186) $32.29

Bellingen

Regional

$450,700

(13,153) $34.27

Armidale Dumaresq

Stand Alone

$1,608,193

(25,228) $63.75

 

# Both Kempsey Shire Council and Port Macquarie Hastings Council operate independently they have a Co-Operative arrangement where they share their computer catalogue network which is located in Port Macquarie and pool their annual book votes to purchase books. The Co-Operative arrangement entitles residents of Kempsey to borrow from the Port Macquarie Hastings Libraries and vice versa.

 

Both Council's provide their own staff resources, own their own books and are responsible for their own buildings, fittings and Fixtures. The Co-Operative approach has been in place for some 20 years between these two Council's. The Co-Operative is not a Regional Library.

 

Approaches have not been made to either Kempsey or Port Macquarie Hastings Council's in regard to any proposal, as Nambucca Shire would still need to provide additional funding for staffing, computer networks etc as if it were to go it alone. These costs are outlined in Table 7 below.

 

Nambucca Shire Council?s net contribution to the Clarence Regional Library Service is $177,086 which is $9.23 per capita or 28% of our library?s total net cost of $619,500.

 

Proportional membership based on per capita to the CRL equates to:

 

?????????????? Clarence Valley Council?????????? 61%

?????????????? Nambucca Shire Council?????????????????? 23%

?????????????? Bellingen Shire Council???????????????????? 16%

 

The following Table 2 indicates the cost of the 10% per capita increase for the remaining 7 years of the 10 year action plan for increased contribution to the CRL Services. The subsequent Tables 3, 4 & 5 provide differing scenarios on different increased rates of 7%, 5% & 3% respectively.

 

Table 2

YEAR

PER CAPITA RATE

(+10%PA)

POPULATION (STATIC)

 

TOTAL

Contribution

INCREASE

(Annually on previous year)

Accumulated increase above current $177,086.78

2010/2011

$9.23

19,186

$177,086.78

 

 

2011/2012

$10.15

19,186

$194,737.90

$17,651.12

$17,651.12

2012/2013

$11.17

19,186

$214,307.62

$19,569.72

$37,220.84

2013/2014

$12.29

19,186

$235,795.94

$21,488.32

$58,709.16

2014/2015

$13.52

19,186

$259,394.72

$23,598.78

$82,307.94

2015/2016

$14.87

19,186

$285,295.82

$25,901.10

$108,209.04

2016/2017

$16.35

19,186

$313,691.10

$28,395.28

$136,604.32

2017/2018

$17.98

19,186

$344,964.28

$31,273.18

$167,877.50

 

$608,579.92

 


Table 3

YEAR

PER CAPITA RATE

(+7%PA)

POPULATION (STATIC)

 

TOTAL

Contribution

INCREASE

(Annually on previous year)

Accumulated increase above current $177,086.78

2010/2011

$9.23

19,186

$177,086.78

 

 

2011/2012

$9.88

19,186

$189,482.85

$12,396.07

$12,396.07

2012/2013

$10.57

19,186

$202,746.65

$13,263.80

$25,659.87

2013/2014

$11.31

19,186

$216,938.92

$14,192.27

$39,852.14

2014/2015

$12.10

19,186

$232,124.64

$15,185.72

$55,037.86

2015/2016

$12.95

19,186

$248,373.37

$16,248.73

$71,286.59

2016/2017

$13.85

19,186

$265,759.51

$17,386.14

$88,672.73

2017/2018

$14.82

19,186

$284,362.67

$18,603.17

$107,275.89

 

$400,181.16

 

Table 4

YEAR

PER CAPITA RATE

(+5%PA)

POPULATION (STATIC)

 

TOTAL

Contribution

INCREASE

(Annually on previous year)

Accumulated increase above current $177,086.78

2010/2011

$9.23

19,186

$177,086.78

 

 

2011/2012

$9.69

19,186

$185,941.12

$8,854.34

$8,854.34

2012/2013

$10.18

19,186

$195,238.17

$9,297.06

$18,151.39

2013/2014

$10.68

19,186

$205,000.08

$9,761.91

$27,913.30

2014/2015

$11.22

19,186

$215,250.09

$10,250.00

$38,163.31

2015/2016

$11.78

19,186

$226,012.59

$10,762.50

$48,925.81

2016/2017

$12.37

19,186

$237,313.22

$11,300.63

$60,226.44

2017/2018

$12.99

19,186

$249,178.88

$11,865.66

$72,092.10

 

$274,326.70

 

Table 5

YEAR

PER CAPITA RATE

(+3%PA)

POPULATION (STATIC)

 

TOTAL

Contribution

INCREASE

(Annually on previous year)

Accumulated increase above current $177,086.78

2010/2011

$9.23

19,186

$177,086.78

 

 

2011/2012

$9.51

19,186

$182,399.38

$5,312.60

$5,312.60

2012/2013

$9.79

19,186

$187,871.36

$5,471.98

$10,784.58

2013/2014

$10.09

19,186

$193,507.51

$5,636.14

$16,420.73

2014/2015

$10.39

19,186

$199,312.73

$5,805.23

$22,225.95

2015/2016

$10.70

19,186

$205,292.11

$5,979.38

$28,205.33

2016/2017

$11.02

19,186

$211,450.88

$6,158.76

$34,364.10

2017/2018

$11.35

19,186

$217,794.40

$6,343.53

$40,707.62

 

$158,020.92

 

As identified above the CRL component of Council's Library budget is 28% with the remaining 72% relating to the following:

 

?????????????? Staff ????????????????????????????????????? $171,500???????????????????????? 27%

?????????????? Overheads????????????????????????????? $148,300???????????????????????? 24%

?????????????? Buildings?? ???????????????????????????? $103,800???????????????????????? 17%

?????????????? Depreciation?????????????????????????? $ 18,600????????????????????????? 3%

?????????????? Sundries??????????????????????????????? $? 8,000????????????????????????? 1%

 

The current operational hours for both the Macksville and Nambucca Heads Libraries are:

 

?????????????? Macksville operates Tuesday to Friday 9.00am to 5.30pm (Closed Monday). 2 permanent part-time staff members working a total of 45 hrs per week (1.2 EFT).

?????????????? Nambucca Heads operates Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.30pm and Saturday morning 9.00am ? 12.30pm. 3 permanent part-time staff members working a total of 64.5hrs per week (1.7 EFT).

 

Based on the State average of population per staff member the requirement for Nambucca Shire would be 19,186 / 3,317 = 5.7 EFT. The current EFT for Nambucca is 2.9 with the administration responsibility provided by CRL equivalent of (approx) 1.75 EFT. This would increase the Nambucca current EFT rate to approximately 4.65 EFT which is 1.05 EFT less then the state average.?

 

The majority of the employee time is worked on their own with an overlap of 11hrs per week (24%) at Macksville Library and 18.5hrs per week (28%) at Nambucca Heads Library

 

Besides reducing the contribution to the Clarence Regional Library, another option to reduce library costs would be to close Nambucca Heads Library one day per week. Two scenarios have been costed:

 

?????????????? Close Nambucca Heads Library on Saturday (3.5hrs week) - approx saving $7,000 pa

?????????????? Close Nambucca Heads Library one full day per week (8.5hrs week) ? approx saving $18,000 pa.

 

Such a step would obviously impact upon the current service level and likely result in complaints from both library users and staff. If Council was to make an existing position redundant, either in whole or in part, then it would be liable for a redundancy payout to the affected employee. This would largely remove any saving in the first year. A preferred approach is that an affected employee be offered a redeployment to a position within the organisation that is comparable with their skills and experience.

 

To assist Council the 2010/2011 Library budget is provided in Table 6 below.

Table 6

FUNCTION - RECREATION AND CULTURE

 

?

 

 

ACTIVITY - PUBLIC LIBRARIES

 

?

 

 

OPERATING EXPENSES

 

?

 

 

?? - CONT TO CLARENCE REGIONAL LIBRARY CMTTE

?? 218,600

?218,600

?236,900

Contribution $175,900 (10% increase on per capita contribution), subsidies $61,000

?? - LIBRARY - AREA ASSISTANCE GRANT EXPENSES

 

? 12,700

 

 

?? - SALARIES - LIBRARY STAFF??

?? 145,400

?145,400

?146,300

Includes 3.2% award increase

?? - ELE EXPENSE

??? 15,400

? 17,600

? 19,400

Less additional leave to be taken to last year

?? - ELE PROVISION

??? 12,300

? 12,300

?? 5,800

Refer above

?? - BUILDINGS OPERAT./MAINT. - MACKSVILLE

??? 23,200

? 27,000

? 35,400

Additional to fixed costs: $12,600

?? - BUILDINGS OPERAT./MAINT. - NAMBUCCA HEADS

??? 37,000

? 48,000

? 48,600

Additional to fixed costs: $15,600

?? - DEPRECIATION?

??? 19,800

? 19,800

? 18,600

 

?? - INTEREST ON LOAN

???? 2,200

?? 2,200

?? 1,700

 

?? - SUNDRY EXPENSES - MACKSVILLE

???? 3,800

?? 4,500

?? 4,000

 

?? - SUNDRY EXPENSES - NAMBUCCA HEADS

???? 3,800

?? 3,800

?? 4,000

 

 

 

?

 

 

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

?? 481,500

?511,900

?520,700

 

 

 

?

 

 

OPERATING REVENUE

 

?

 

 

?? - LIBRARY SERVICES SUBSIDIES

??? 60,300

? 61,000

? 61,000

To be confirmed by State Library in Nov 2010

?? - DONATIONS

??????? - ?

?? 1,500

????? -?

 

?? - SUNDRY INCOME

???? 2,000

?? 2,000

?? 2,000

 

 

 

?

 

 

TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE

??? 62,300

? 64,500

? 63,000

 

 

 

?

 

 

NON OPERATING EXPENSES?

 

?

 

 

?ACQUISITION OF ASSETS

 

?

 

 

?? - OFFICE EQUIPMENT

???? 3,000

?? 3,000

?? 3,000

 

?? - LIBRARY FURNITURE & FITTINGS

???? 5,000

?? 5,000

?? 5,000

 

????????????? SUB TOTAL

???? 8,000

?? 8,000

?? 8,000

 

?REPAYMENT OF LOANS

 

?

 

 

?? - PRINCIPAL ON LOANS?????

???? 9,600

?? 9,600

? 10,100

Macksville Library

??????? ??????SUB TOTAL

???? 9,600

?? 9,600

? 10,100

 

?TRANSFERS TO RESTRICTED ASSETS

 

?

 

 

?? - LIBRARY SUBSIDY

??? 17,400

? 17,400

? 17,300

Part of subsidy for 1 July to 31 December, 2010.

 

 

?

 

 

TOTAL NON OPERATING EXPENSES?

??? 35,000

? 35,000

? 35,400

 

 

 

?

 

 

NON OPERATING REVENUE

 

?

 

 

?GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONS

 

?

 

 

?? - CONT TO TALKING TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

??????? -?

?

????? -?

 

????????????? SUB TOTAL

??????? -?

?

????? -?

 

?TRANSFERS FROM RESTRICTED ASSETS

 

?

 

 

?? - LIBRARY SUBSIDY

??? 17,500

? 17,500

? 17,400

Part of subsidy for 1 July to 31 December 2009.

?? - SECT 94 PUBLIC REC (CONT. TO LOAN REPAYMENTS)

???? 4,500

?? 4,500

?? 4,500

 

?? - LIBRARY LINKS T/F FROM

??????? -?

? 12,700

????? -?

 

??????????? SUB TOTAL

??? 22,000

? 34,700

? 21,900

 

 

 

?

 

 

TOTAL NON OPERATING REVENUE

??? 22,000

? 34,700

? 21,900

 

 

 

?

 

 

OVERHEADS

 

?

 

 

?TRANSFERS FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES

 

?

 

 

?? - CORPORATE SUPPORT

??? 70,900

? 70,900

? 73,600

 

? - HEALTH STAFF COSTS

??????? -?

????? -?

????? -?

 

?? - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES STAFF COSTS????????

???? 2,600

?? 2,600

?? 2,600

 

?? - COMMUNITY SERVICES STAFF COSTS???

???? 8,400

?? 8,400

?? 9,300

 

?? - SUPERVISORY VEHICLES

??????? -?

????? -?

????? -?

 

? - ENGINEERING STAFF COSTS

??? 13,500

? 13,500

? 18,300

 

? - ENGINEERING OTHER COSTS????????

??? 10,800

? 10,800

? 12,800

 

?? - SUPERANNUATION

??? 28,500

? 28,500

? 29,300

Previous year increase still applicable

?? - WORKERS COMPENSATION INS.

???? 2,800

?? 2,800

?? 2,400

 

TOTAL OVERHEADS

?? 137,500

?137,500

?148,300

 

 

 

?

 

 

NET PUBLIC LIBRARIES COST

?? 569,700

?585,200

?619,500

 

 


Withdrawal from Regional Library Service

 

Council also discussed the option of how to manage the Library should it withdraw from the CRL.

 

Should Council not renew its agreement and withdraw from the CRL Service, Council would retain the assets outlined in Schedule 2 see below:

 

SCHEDULE 2

Facilities and Services to be provided by the Delegating Councils

 

1??????? The library buildings within their local government areas.

 

2??????? The management of those library buildings, including:

a??????? all maintenance costs

b??????? all service costs

c??????? all insurances

 

3??????? Branch library staff and volunteers, including all services associated with their employment including salaries, workers compensation, taxes, leave entitlements and superannuation, membership of professional associations, expenses for attendance at conferences and training.

 

4??????? All IT hardware, software and services relating to all computers located in branch libraries (other than the provision of an on-line catalogue).

 

Council would receive an apportioned return of Assets as outlined in Schedule 3 of the Agreement see below:

 

SCHEDULE 3

Distribution of Assets

 

Upon termination of this Agreement the net assets, after payment of all liabilities, shall be apportioned among Clarence Valley Council and the Delegating Councils in the ratio of the respective contributions paid by them over the immediately preceding three years or current life of the Agreement (whichever is the longer) to the total of all contributions paid by them over that period.

 

Council would retain all buildings, furniture and fitting assets, computers and software, all maintenance and staff costs and all insurance and industrial liabilities.

 

Council would retain any donated books that are not catalogued and any books/journals received by subscription which Council pays for. The remaining book stock would have to be distributed in accordance with Schedule 3 above and would be based on the proportional membership breakdown of the CRL with Clarence Valley Council 61%, Nambucca Shire 23% and Bellingen Shire 16%. Effectively Nambucca Shire Council would receive less than a quarter of the Regional Library?s general book stock.

 

The current total catalogued book stock for the CRL is 146,500 (approx). Currently we have 19,490 books and 14,950 books at the Nambucca Heads and Macksville Libraries respectively which approximately equates to the 23% proportional membership.

 

Withdrawal from the CRL would mean the loss of easy access to over 112,000 library books from within the CRL, a significant reduction in service. Council would then be faced with book acquisition and replacement costs which currently retail at approximately $38 average per book cost.

 

Withdrawal from the CRL would also see the loss of the on-line catalogue system, thereby requiring the acquisition of an electronic catalogue system for Council and all remaining books would then need to be re-catalogued through the new system.

 

Under the Regional Library Service, compliance with NSW State Library administration requirements are managed through the Regional Librarian for which Council contributes.

 

Should Council withdraw from the CRL, Council would then have to address these duties most likely through the employment of a full time qualified Librarian in addition to the existing staff who would also be required to pick up the cataloguing duties currently provided through the Regional Library.

 

This would cost Council approximately $98,000 per annum which includes on-costs of 25% for the qualified librarian and then additional costs for extra hours for existing staff or additional part time staff of approximately $73,000 including 25% on-costs.

 

Other capital purchases of a cataloguer and computers/software ($200,000 est) would be required along with other ancillary costs such as travel costs ($8,000pa), book subscriptions, handling, catalogue subscriptions etc ($30,000 pa) and staff training ($4,000 pa) would need to be provided.

 

Table 7 below estimates the additional costs that Council is likely to incur if it was to withdraw from the CRL in the first year and the second year. The total 7 year accumulative increase over the current $177,000 pa contribution that it makes to the Regional Library is $1,390,311.24, as identified in Table 8.

 

Table 7

ITEM

INITIAL INVESTMENT

ANNUAL COST WITH 3%pa staff costs added

Employment of a Librarian

$? 98,000.00

$? 100,940.00

Travel costs

$?? 8,000.00

$?? 8,000.00

Librarian support costs

$? 10,000.00

$?? 10,000.00

Purchase of Cataloguer and consumables, maintenance and support

$? 200,000.00

$?? 50,000.00

Additional Staff hours (75% of State average EFT) 1 EFT @ $73,000

$? 73,000.00

$?? 75,190.00

Annual book Subscriptions

$? 30,000.00

$?? 30,000.00

Book/item acquisition (current per capita 34441 / 19186 =

1.8 items/capita) to achieve state average of 2.44 items/capita in 10 years (.06% or 21 items) plus replacement rate of 3% (1033 items pa) total 1054 items pa @ $38 each

$? 40,052.00

$?? 40,052.00

Additional Library staff training

$?? 4,000.00

$?? 4,000.00

 

$ 463,052.00

$? 318,182.00

 

Based on the 2010/2011 CRL contribution of $177,086.78, the equivalent accumulated 7 year additional cost over the current contribution rate for the previously outlined scenarios (without closing the Nambucca Library) are outlined in the following table.

 

Table 8

OPERATION

PER CAPITA CONTRIBUTION RATE

7 YEAR ACCUMULATED COST

SAVINGS ON CLOSURE OF LIBRARY OVER 7 YEARS

SAT / TUES

Clarence Regional Library

10%

$608,579.92

$49,000

$126,000

Clarence Regional Library

7%

$400,181.16

Clarence Regional Library

5%

$274,326.70

Clarence Regional Library

3%

$158,020.92

Stand Alone NSC

 

$1,390,311.24

 

 


Preferred Proposal

 

Notwithstanding that Council has previously resolved to confirm its commitment to the Clarence Regional Library model, it can withdraw from the Regional Library by not renewing the agreement when it lapses on 1 November 2011. This will have significant implications to the cost and level of service not only for our two libraries, but also the libraries operated by the other member Councils.

 

The figures in the report support Council?s previous resolution that the CRL is the most cost effective option for the future delivery of library services. It would be even more cost effective if Coffs Harbour City Council also participated.

 

However the CRL Strategic Plan does propose a rate of funding increase which well exceeds any other Council service. Whilst the attitudes of the partner Councils to the relative importance of library services will vary, there does need to be a mechanism to resolve disagreements over increases in real funding.

 

There is also an opportunity to reduce library operating costs by closing the Nambucca Heads library on one day per week. This will reduce the level of service but will provide more flexibility in providing funding for the improvements in book stock identified in the strategic plan.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

A copy of this report has been forwarded to the General Managers of Bellingen and Clarence Valley Councils for their information and comment.

Regional Librarian

Kempsey Shire Librarian

Nambucca Heads Library Assistant

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There will likely be concerns in the community about a reduction in the level of service provided by our libraries.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

The major risk is that the CRL partner Councils will not resolve to enter into a new agreement. This will have significant implications for the cost and level of library service provided by the 3 Councils.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendation will reduce the contribution to the CRL from that recommended in the Strategic Plan. Assuming a rate peg of 3% in 2011/2012, the recommendation would result in this Council?s contribution to the CRL being reduced by $8,796 in 2011/2012.

 

The closure of the Nambucca Heads library on one day per week would provide further savings of $18,000 per annum.


Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

A written response dated 7 April 2010 was received from the General Manager of Clarence Valley Council which is attached.

 

Agreement if the Regional Library Service does not continue (see attachments).

 


Attachments:

1

8797/2010 - Advice regarding Clarence Regional Library Budget 2010 - 2011

 

2

24894/2008 - Service Agreement

 

3

27425/2010 - Response in regard to CRL Contribution

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7????? SF1619??????????? 070411???????? Integrated Planning and Reporting - Discussion Paper on Civic Leadership

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager; Peter Baynes, Manager Assets ????????

 

Summary:

 

A discussion paper on governance issues has been prepared under the title of a Best Value Council.

 

It is estimated that $76.3m is required to bring all existing assets up to an acceptable condition.? Required annual maintenance expenditure across all asset classes to maintain an acceptable condition is $9.3m compared to actual annual maintenance expenditure of only $5.3m.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the amended information in the discussion paper ?A Best Value Council? be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The preparation of a number of discussion papers was resolved as part of Council?s Community Engagement Strategy for the new integrated planning and reporting requirements.? Council can receive or accept the information, refuse to receive or accept the information, or seek changes to the information submitted.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The adopted Community Engagement Strategy for the implementation of the integrated planning and reporting legislation provides for the preparation of a number of discussion papers on key environmental, social, economic and civic leadership issues.? This is the ?quadruple? bottom line consideration required in the legislation.

 

A discussion paper on governance issues prepared under the title of a Best Value Council was reported to Council?s meeting on 17 March and attracted some comment.? Council resolved that the information in the discussion paper be received and a more comprehensive explanation of what is meant by governance be included.

 

There has been investigation of the definition of governance as well as further consideration of the discussion paper?s content.

 

In the Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual produced by the Division of Local Government to guide Councils? implementation of the new integrated planning and reporting requirements, the term ?Civic Leadership? has been chosen instead of ?Governance? as it, ?relates not only to the way that Council will interact with the Community Strategic Plan, but the way that members of the community might become involved in delivering some of the Plan?s objectives.?

 

There is however no definition of ?Civic Leadership?, but an example is provided of the considerations which, ?a large council might draw up (in) a table ??.

 

The Manual lists considerations under Civic Leadership as:

 

?????? Policy framework

?????? Decision making principles and allocation of priorities

?????? Leadership and representation

?????? Levels of service

?????? Council?s role as a responsible employer

?????? Business efficiency and probity expectations of Council

?????? Ethical practices

?????? Consultation and community participation in decision making

?????? Community ownership and implementation of the strategic plan

 

This list of considerations has been used to expand the previously submitted discussion paper.

 

However arguably the most important and obvious consideration, being the financial management of a Council is not listed.? The reference to, ?levels of service?, includes some of the considerations inherent in financial management.

 

The discussion paper has now been amended to provide a fuller explanation of this Council?s financial sustainability and to include the other matters recommended by the Division of Local Government, not previously mentioned.? The amended discussion paper is a circularised document.

 

The table in the discussion paper which summarises the status of Council?s assets provides a snapshot of the financial significance of asset management.? The table indicates that $76.3m is required to bring all existing assets up to an acceptable condition.? It is also estimated that required annual maintenance expenditure across all asset classes to maintain an acceptable condition is $9.3m compared to actual annual maintenance expenditure of only $5.3m.

 

This means that not only has Council got a ?backlog? of $76.3m to bring its existing assets up to an acceptable condition, but that it?s also falling further behind with that ?backlog?.? And this doesn?t take into account financing the acquisition of new assets to provide for population growth.

 

In the key asset classes of roads, bridges and kerb and gutter where customer satisfaction is low, the ?backlog? is $22.5m and the gap between required annual maintenance and actual annual maintenance is a negative $2.9m.

 

The discussion paper is meant to be an overview of the major civic leadership challenges facing Council.? Its content will be used in reports, media releases and advertisements so as to elicit feedback from the community in the development of the new plans required under the legislation.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Assets.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report concerns a discussion paper.? There are no direct implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The report concerns a discussion paper.? There are no direct social implications.

 

Economic

 

The report concerns a discussion paper.? There are no direct economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The discussion paper concerns major strategic risks to the sustainability of the Council.


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The discussion paper itself has no impact on current and future budgets.? However it does identify significant issues which will affect future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The discussion paper has no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Discussion Paper

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Integrated Planning and Reporting - Discussion Paper on Civic Leadership

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Integrated Planning and Reporting - Discussion Paper on Civic Leadership

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Discussion Paper

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8????? SF1415??????????? 070411???????? Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council has established an internal audit function to provide an independent and objective assurance designed to improve Council?s operations.

 

Council?s Internal Auditor, Forsyths, have produced an Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan for 2011 to 2013.? The Internal Audit Plan proposes to review many critical aspects of Council?s operations over a 3 year period.

 

The Internal Auditor will report to Council?s Internal Audit Committee whose first meeting will be scheduled to coincide with their first investigations scheduled for this month.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the information concerning the Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan be received.

 

2??????? That Councillors provide any comments in relation to the Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan to the Mayor so they may be considered at a meeting of the Internal Audit Committee to be scheduled in April 2011.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? The report is for information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has established an internal audit function to provide an independent and objective assurance designed to improve Council?s operations.? Internal audit helps Council to accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the Council?s governance, risk management, control and compliance environments.? Forsyths have produced an internal audit charter which is a circularised document (trim no. 6645/2011).

 

Forsyths have also produced a Strategic Internal Audit Plan which is also a circularised document (trim no. 6645/2011).? As part of that plan they have identified the following internal audit program for 2011 to 2013:

 

Review Timing

Internal Audit Review

Internal audit review objective

April 2011

Website management review

To review the management and operation of Council?s website to ensure that it is up to date and contains correct information.

April 2011

Review of fees and charges

Review the fees and charges of Council and benchmark these against other regional Councils.

July 2011

Review of purchasing, procurements and payments

To review the processes and procedures of purchasing and payments to ensure that they are adequate for the prevention of fraud.

November 2011

Project management review

To review the Nambucca sewerage treatment works project and ensure that the project has been adequately managed and to identify issues that will provide continual improvement for future Council projects.

November 2011

IT Control environment

To review the controls over IT security.

November 2011

Review of asset management

To review the completeness and accuracy of data collected on Council?s infrastructure and the effective utilisation of GIS and the asset management system.

January 2012

Review of records management

Review of Council?s records management processes to ensure that they are adequate to comply with relevant legislation.

January 2012

Review of receipting processes

To review the processes and procedures of receipting to ensure that they are adequate for the prevention of fraud.

March 2012

Civica post implementation review

Review the implementation of Civica to assess how well the system has been implemented.

March 2012

Review of plant management and utilisation

Review the management and utilisation of Council?s plant.

July 2012

IT DRP and BCP review

Review the adequacy of IT disaster recovery and business continuity plans and arrangements to ensure that Council?s operations are minimally interrupted as a result of an event.

July 2012

Review of the work order system

Review of the efficiency of the work order system.

November 2012

Grant management review

To review the administration of grants and related expenditure to ensure that Council complies with the grant terms and conditions in the grant agreements.

November 2012

Review of section 64 and 94 contributions

Review the processes and procedures over the charging of section 64 and section 94 fees and the subsequent recovery of these fees.

January 2013

Risk Management Systems

Review of the effectiveness of Council?s risk management processes.

January 2013

Development Application Process

Review of the development application processes and procedures to ensure that these align with Council?s guidelines.

March 2013

Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)

Review of the compliance with Council?s OH&S policies and procedures for outdoor staff.

March 2013

Review of complaints handling procedures

Review the processes and procedures for recording and managing complaints within Council.

July 2013

Review of taxation compliance ? GST and FBT in particular

Review of Council?s compliance with the GST and FBT legislation.

July 2013

Review of payroll processes and procedures

To review the processes and procedures over payroll to ensure that they are adequate for the prevention of fraud.

November 2013

Store processing and physical control

Review of the controls and procedures over Council?s stores.

November 2013

Volunteer support control

To review the process and procedures surrounding volunteers to ensure that the induction and support for volunteers is adequate to mitigate Council?s risk.

 

On 19 August 2010, Council engaged Forsyths to provide internal audit services for a 3 year period subject to the availability of funding.? Council also established an Internal Audit Committee comprising the Mayor (with the Deputy Mayor as alternate), Mr Don Keighran (a retired local government auditor from Macksville) and a staff member of Bellingen Shire Council (to be nominated by that Council), with the General Manager and Manager Financial Services to have observer status.

 

?The Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan will need to be considered and endorsed by the Internal Audit Committee.? A meeting of the Committee will be scheduled in April when Forsyths return to undertake the two planned projects being a website management review and secondly a review of Council?s fees and charges.

 

In the preliminary investigations as part of their Internal Audit services, Forsyths identified an opportunity for Council to increase its diesel fuel tax credit.? The investigation in relation to Council?s credit has been completed and is the subject of a separate report in the business paper.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Forsyths.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

At this stage there are no risk implications.? The Internal Audit process is about proactively responding to risk.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council has made provision in its budget in 2010/2011 for $35,000 for the conduct of internal audit.? This level of funding would need to be maintained for the following two years to complete the identified program.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Document: Internal Audit Charter (Trim 6645/2011)

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Internal Audit Charter and Strategic Internal Audit Plan

 

 

 

Circularised Document: Internal Audit Charter (Trim 6645/2011)

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9????? SF402????????????? 070411???????? Fuel Tax Credit Additional Claim

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Faye Hawthorne, Accountant ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has recently conducted a Fuel Tax Credit review to ensure that Council was adhering to the Fuel Tax Credit legislation.? This was completed as part of Council?s internal audit by Forsyth?s Chartered Accountants from Armidale.? The review showed that Council is able to complete an additional claim for $42,446.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report on Fuel Tax Credit additional claim be received and contents noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.? This Report is for the information of Councillors.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Background

 

?Fuel tax credits provide Council with a credit for the fuel tax (excise or customs duty) included in the price of fuel that Council uses in:

 

??????????? business activities

??????????? machinery

??????????? plant

??????????? equipment

??????????? heavy vehicles

 

Fuel tax credits were introduced on 1 July 2006 for fuel used in heavy vehicles and in a range of other business activities. Eligibility was expanded on 1 July 2008 as part of a gradual implementation, up to 1 July 2012, to cover taxable fuels used in other business activities, machinery, plant and equipment.

 

This means most businesses can access fuel tax credits ? it is just the rate that varies, depending on your business activity.?

 

Council has been completing a claim since 2006.? Currently the claim each month is between $1,000 and $2,500, depending on work completed per month.?

 

 

Fuel Tax Credit Review

 

The Fuel Tax Credit review showed:

 

??????????? On road vehicles greater than 4.5 GVM (Gross Vehicle mass) are correctly being claimed.

 

??????????? From 1st July 2008 legislation in relation to FTC changed and construction/landscaping etc were eligible to claim at a new rate of 19.0715c. This included both diesel and petrol. Council have not made this claim which they are entitled to;

 

??????????? From the summary Forsyth?s believe Council are entitled to claim 79,359 litres for 2009, 92,197 for 2010 and 51,004 for 2011 to date. Total litres 222,560 at 19.0715 gives an additional claim of $42,446;

 

??????????? Council are also able to make a claim for the RFS vehicles (over 4.5GVM) in which Council pays for the fuel.

 

??????????? Another issue that Council can consider going forward is the use of Dry Hire Plant.? Council needs to determine a way to monitor such use.

 

Forsyth?s Chartered Accountants conducted the review on the basis that there would be no cost to Council unless they identified savings for Council.? Once the savings are received from either State or Federal bodies then Forsyth?s will be able to charge 25% (GST exclusive).? Therefore after Council receives the $42,446, Forsyth?s claim will be $10,612.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council will claim the $42,446 with the March Fuel Tax Credit Claim and commence claiming at the new rate of 19.0715c each month.? The engineering department are looking into the Dry Hire Plant, how to account for a claim on RFS vehicles and the best way to make sure that fuel is going to the correct plant so that Council can claim credits.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Consultation was undertaken with Andrew Kirk from Forsyth?s Chartered Accountants.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Not Applicable.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

This fuel tax credit represents a small income stream for Council each month averaging about $1,500. The additional claim of $42,446 less charges of $10,612 is a windfall for Council in this financial year.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager

ITEM 9.10??? SF1389??????????? 070411???????? Grant Application Status Report - 7 February 2011

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Colleen Henry, Grants Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 7 December 2006 it was resolved that there be a quarterly return submitted to Council on grant programs.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the list of grant applications and their status to 31 March 2011 be received.

 

 

 

APPROVED GRANTS Financial Year 2010 to date ? SECURED BY GRANTS OFFICER AND COUNCIL STAFF

 

Grant and date of approval

Funding Amount

Description

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program

November 2010

$165,000

Macksville Park ? Storage Building $45,000

Macksville Pool ? Additional Lane $20,000

E J Biffin Fields ? carpark rehabilitation $68,000

Bowraville Public amenities ? upgrade $32,000

International Women?s Day, Office of Women?s Policy

December 2010

$1,000

 

 

 

Women?s Way Forum to celebrate efforts of women in Nambucca Shire, on International Women?s Day 8 March 2011.

Office of the Premier

Community Building Partnership Program

December 2010

$70,938

Amenities Anderson Park, Valla Beach - $34,000

Playground Anderson Park, Valla Beach - $15,000

2NVR Assistance for relocation - $10,000

History in Print Project (Microfilm Reader) $11938

 

Sport and Recreation Participation Program

December 2010

 

$9,888

Staying Strong exercise program to be delivered as part of Safe and Savvy Seniors (SASS), at Macksville Senior Citizens? Centre

Federal government election commitment?

(confirmed)

 

Better Boating program

 

Better Boating program

 

Seniors Week

$120,000

 

 

 

$40,750

 

$14,290

 

???? $500

Relocation of 2NVR radio station to Tewinga Hall.

 

 

 

Public pump-out facility at Nambucca Heads jetty

 

Lions Park Boat Ramp widening Macksville

 

A Celebration in Dance

There have been no additions since the last report.

 

TOTAL GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED

$422,366

 

 


GRANTS APPLIED FOR BUT NOT YET DETERMINED

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

No closing date

 

$10 million

TBC

Off-river water storage (subject to a number of conditions including detailed plans, relevant approvals, Council funding, confirmation of final project costs.

Coastline Cycleway Grant 2010-2011

Closed November 2011

$50,000

$50,000

Completion of 350m section of cycleway between Nambucca Heads and Macksville.

Cancer Council Alive and Well

Closed 18 February 2011

$4,000

$4,000

Trees and works associated with Macksville Foreshore and Bellwood Park.

Department of Health and Ageing

Closed 18 February 2011

$703,607

NA

Healthy Communities Initiative

Indigenous Sport and Recreation Program

Closed 25 February 2011

$168,000

NA

Nambucca Valley Sports Facilitation Program (Ritchie Donovan)

Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Closed 25 March 2011

 

$14,000

 

$6,310

Matching dollar and in kind (from 2011/2012 budget)

Bowraville Folk Museum internal and external access upgrades

Nambucca Senior Citizens Centre external access upgrade

Department of Sport and Recreation Facilities Grant

Closes 15 April 2011

$960

NA (matching funds to come from NHTTC)

Table Tennis Tables for NH Table Tennis Club (NHTTC)

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 April 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11??? DA2010/234????? 070411???????? Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel is meeting in the Council Chambers at 11.30am next Tuesday 12 April 2011 to determine the development application for the proposed new primary school (St Patricks) ? 21 Dudley Street, Macksville.

 

Council?s Manager Planning and Assessment has submitted his assessment report and recommendation to the JRPP that the application be refused.

 

Councillors have the option of addressing the JRPP but need to register by 4.00pm tomorrow Friday 8 April 2011.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the report by Council?s Manager Planning & Assessment to the Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel as well as the meeting arrangements to determine DA2010/234 be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Councillors have the option of addressing the Joint Regional Planning Panel.? Persons wishing to address must register by 4.00pm Friday 8 April 2011.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council?s Manager Planning & Assessment has submitted his assessment report and recommendation on this application to the Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel.? The Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) is scheduled to meet to determine the application in the Council Chambers at 11.30am next Tuesday 12 April 2011.? A copy of the report and recommendation is attached.

 

The operational procedures for Joint Regional Planning Panels (April 2010) reinforce the separation of roles between Councillors and Council staff under section 352 of the Local Government Act.? This section provides as follows:

352   Independence of staff for certain purposes

(1)? A member of staff of a council is not subject to direction by the council or by a councillor as to the content of any advice or recommendation made by the member.

(2)? This section does not prevent the council or the mayor from directing the general manager of the council to provide advice or a recommendation.

 

In this instance the Manager Planning & Assessment is providing a report and recommendation direct to the Joint Regional Planning Panel who are determining the development application.

 

The guidelines provide that the Council may lodge a submission to the JRPP on the application.? This submission has been lodged and is attached.? The Council submission is not a matter that must be specifically addressed in the assessment report or recommendation prepared by the Manager Planning and Assessment.

 

As Council has made a submission it may also register to address the JRPP to express its view before the Panel makes a determination on the application.? Individual councillors can also register to speak to the Panel at its meeting.? Persons, including Councillors, who wish to address the JRPP must register with the Panel Secretariat before 4.00pm tomorrow, Friday 8 April by contacting the Panel Secretariat on 02 9383 2121 or by email to Emily.Dickson@planning.nsw.gov.au

 

It was previously queried who would be responsible for costs associated with appeals against a determination by the JRPP.? Section 6.3 of the operational procedures provides that appeals against the determination of a JRPP are, ?to be defended and managed by the council that received the DA as though the determination was made by the council.?

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the JRPP Secretariat.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report is for information.

 

Social

 

The report is for information.

 

Economic

 

The report is for information.

 

Risk

 

The report is for information.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

8304/2011 - Assessment Report to JRPP dated 29 March 2011

 

2View

7331/2011 - Council submission to JRPP

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

 

JRPP No:

2010NTH027

DA No:

DA Number 2010/234

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

Proposed new primary school.

Lot 11 DP 805157, 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

APPLICANT:

Simon Waterworth, GeoLINK Pty Ltd.

REPORT BY:

Arthur Tsembis, Manager Planning & Assessment, Nambucca Shire Council

 

Assessment Report and Recommendation

 

 

1.0???? SUMMARY:

 

The proposed development is to erect a new 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, letter dated 25 January 2011. A copy of this letter is attached to this report as Appendix A.

 

There are some concerns about the likely impacts of the proposed development on traffic, stormwater management and to a lesser extent, noise impacts and fragmentation of rural lands. However, the major impediment to the proposed development is the potential flood impacts, particularly relating to evacuation and safety of children during an extreme flood event.

 

Having particular regard to the flooding advice from WMAwater, it is not considered that the proposed school should be allowed in a flood prone area which has an unacceptably high level of flood risk.

 

2.0???? RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the development application 2010/234 be refused for the following reasons:

 

1????????? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), the proposed development will likely result in unacceptable flooding impacts.

 

2????????? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), it is not considered that the site is a suitable location for the proposed school due to the likely difficulties in implementing a flood evacuation plan and the likely additional pressure put on existing emergency services during an extreme flood event.

 

3????????? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), it is considered that the proposed development is not in the public interest due to the potential flooding impacts.

 


 

3.0???? OPTIONS:

 

In accordance with Section 80(1) of the EP&A Act, the JRPP has the option to grant consent to the application, either unconditionally or subject to conditions.

 

Should the JRPP consider that approval is warranted it is suggested that appropriate conditions should be included in the development consent, including a 'Grampian' condition (see section 6.0 of this report) that requires the 5 tonne load limit to be amended or removed before the development is carried out.

 

A copy of the suggested conditions is attached to this report as Appendix H.

 

4.0???? BACKGROUND:

 

The application was lodged on 27 September 2010. The application states that the existing school site at 78 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 segregates/divided by Wallace Street severely reducing its functionality as a school and increasing safety risk to students and teachers.

 

4.1???? The site and locality:

 

The subject property is located at the eastern end of Dudley Street and is described as Lot 11 DP 805157. The proposed school site comprises an area of approximately 3ha (150m x 200m). It is situated within a rural property located on the fringe of Macksville, approximately 730m east of the Pacific Highway, which runs through the centre of town.

 

Figure 1 is a site locality plan which identifies the subject land.

 

Figure 2 is an aerial photo of the subject land and surrounding area.

 

4.2???? Proposal:

 

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 subject land is zoned RU1 ? Primary Production under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2010 (see Figure 3). The proposed school is defined as an 'educational establishment, which is not a prohibited land use in the RU1 zone.

 

The application includes a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) dated September 2010 prepared by GeoLINK (planning and environmental consultants). The SEE includes the following appendices which address the various environmental aspects of the proposed development:

 

?????????????? Acoustic Assessment dated 22 July 2010, prepared by Wilkinson Murray (Sydney) Pty Ltd (Appendix B).

?????????????? Flood Assessment dated 15 February 2010, prepared by de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd (Appendix C).

?????????????? Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Northrop Engineers, Drawing Number CO2DA & CO3DA, dated 26.08.10 (Appendix D).

?????????????? Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by Northrop Engineers, Drawing Number CO1DA, dated 26.08.10 (Appendix E).

?????????????? Geotechnical Assessment dated 14 September 2007, prepared by Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd and review of the geotechnical report by de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd, 18 October 2007, and by Northrop Engineers, 20 April 2010 (Appendix F).

?????????????? Acid Sulfate Soil Supporting Documents submitted by GeoLink Pty Ltd (Appendix G).

?????????????? Traffic Assessment dated August 2010, prepared by de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd (Appendix H).

 

A copy of the SEE, including the Appendices, has been circulated to all the members of the JRPP.

 

Figure 3 is an extract from the NLEP 2010 zoning map.

 

4.3??????? Advertising and Notification:

 

The application was advertised and notified for a period of 28 days from 7 October 2010 to 5 November 2010. As a result of such action one submission via e-mail was received from the Planning and Infrastructure Officer of Busways Group Pty Ltd. A copy of the submission is attached to this report as Appendix B.

 

4.4??????? Consultation:

 

Internal Referrals

 

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

 

The Manager Technical Services (MTS) raised concerns about traffic and stormwater drainage issues. However, following consideration of additional information it was his opinion that if the application was recommended for approval, the engineering aspects of the proposal relating to upgrading roads/intersections and stormwater drainage could be addressed by including appropriate conditions to any development consent granted by the JRPP.

 

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 Councils 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.

 

The Manager Health & Building (MH&B) raised concerns about the noise impacts and the potential for large shallow ponding to occur, which can attract mosquito breeding. However, in the event that the application is recommended for approval the MH&B has provided conditions for inclusion in any development consent that may be granted by the JRPP.

 

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 letters is attached to this report as Appendix C.

 

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.'

 

Details of the concerns raised by the Committee are included in the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which is attached to this report as Appendix D. It should be noted that the Local Development (Traffic) Committee is not a committee of Council, nor have the recommendations been endorsed by Council.

 

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.'

 

It should be noted that there is no statutory obligation to refer the application to the regional or State office of the SES. The purpose of the consultation with the LEMC was to obtain local input from representatives of local emergency services, rather than seek approval from another government agency.

 


4.5???? Preliminary Assessment:

 

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 traffic assessment report (Appendix H of the SEE) dated August 2010 was prepared by de Groot & Benson, Consulting Engineers & Planners.

 

As noted above, traffic aspects of the proposed development were considered by the Local Development (Traffic) Committee and referred to the RTA for comment. The Planning and Infrastructure Officer of Busways Group Pty Ltd also lodged a submission and raised several traffic related concerns.

 

Following a review of all the traffic related matters the applicant was requested to address the concerns raised by the Local Development (Traffic) Committee, the RTA and Busways Group Pty Ltd.

 

A response to the traffic issues was provided by de Groot & Benson, letter dated 23 December 2010. A copy of the additional traffic information has been circulated to members of the JRPP

 

Flooding:

 

The subject site is located in a flood prone area. It is considered that any assessment of flooding, particularly relating to a school should ensure that a 'precautionary' approach is adopted.

 

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. A copy of the additional flooding information has been circulated to members of the JRPP

 

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. A copy of the additional stormwater drainage information has been circulated to members of the JRPP.

 


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 adequately 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. A copy of the additional acoustic information has been circulated to members of the JRPP.

 

4.6??????? Peer review of flooding:

 

Notwithstanding the additional flooding information provided by the applicant, there still remained doubts about the likely impacts of flooding. Due to the lack of flooding expertise within Council it was decided to seek advice from a suitably qualified independent consultant. WMAwater (Water & Environmental Engineers) were engaged to undertake a peer review of the flooding information prepared by de Groot & Benson.

 

WMAwater provided its written response by letter dated 11 February 2011. The details of this advice are further discussed in the following section of this report. A copy of this advice has been circulated to members of the JRPP. However, a copy is also attached to the report as Appendix E.

 

The applicant was provided with a copy of the independent consultant's advice and having regard to such advice the applicant was advised that it is likely the development application will be recommended for refusal. The applicant was requested to advise his clients accordingly and provide them an opportunity to withdraw the application and receive a 50% refund on the application fees (this is in keeping with Council's normal policy).

 

4.7???? Further consideration of the application:

 

Meeting held with the proponents on 21 February 2011

 

Following the advice provided to the applicant that the application was likely to be recommended for refusal, a meeting was convened with the applicant, representatives of the school, Council's General Manager and the Manager Planning and Assessment (author of this report).

 

At the meeting the applicant and his clients were advised that in addition to the concerns raised in the independent consultant's advice, the Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) had expressed some significant concerns about this proposed development within a flood plain and the evacuation procedures. However, the LEMC advised that it had no statutory powers to comment on or assess the application. The LEMC therefore recommended that the application should 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.

 

As noted above, there is no statutory obligation to refer the application to the regional or State office of the SES. Having regard to the concerns already raised about flooding it was not considered necessary to further delay the process and make formal representation to the regional or State Office of the SES.

 

The proponents advised that they had already looked at 23 other sites and only proceeded with the proposed development on the basis of previous advice from Council that the subject site was in a flood plain and the application could be considered on its merits. Council's advice also stated that the proposal would need to 'demonstrate that flood risks have been considered and mitigated by the design, siting and construction of the development'.

 

At the meeting the proponents requested that they be given a further opportunity to address the concerns raised by WMAwater. They also advised that they would prepare a comprehensive flood evacuation plan. It was agreed that an extension of time would be sought to allow the submission of further additional information. Having regard to the advice from the LEMC, the proponents were also requested to consult with the regional and/or State office of the SES, and if possible, submit a copy of the flood evacuation plan to the SEE for their comments.

 


Submission of further additional information

 

The applicant by letter dated 14 March 2011 provided further additional information in support of the proposed development. The submission included the following documentation:

 

??????????????? 'Review of Flood Issues' prepared by ADW Johnson Pty Ltd dated 14 March 2011.

??????????????? Letters from de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd dated 14 March 2011 and 14 January 2011 (should have been dated 14 March 2011).

??????????????? 'Flood Emergency Management Overview' prepared by de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd dated February 2011.

 

All of the above documents, including Appendices, have been circulated to members of the JRPP.

 

The report prepared by ADW Johnson recommended the following changes to the proposed development:

 

?????????????? The floor level of the hall to be raised to 4.35m AHD so that it can act as a flood refuge to accommodate students in times of emergency if needed;

?????????????? Provision of a small platform at or above 6.3 AHD so that the School has an area above the PMF;

?????????????? Raise the height of Dudley Street at the lowest point which is currently 2.2m to 2.5m AHD (an increase of 0.3m) to significantly reduce School closures; and

?????????????? Raise the access from the School to the evacuation route (Dudley Street) so that it is at or above 2.5m AHD.

 

The applicant advised that 'These recommendations have been considered by the proponent who has agreed to adopt them in their entirety and amend the Development Application accordingly.'

 

Further Engineering comments

 

With respect to the proposal to raise the height of Dudley Street, Council's Manager Technical Services provided the following advice:

 

'The implications of raising the low point of Dudley Street at the entry to the proposed school site would be interference with the overland flow path from the Christian School, Thistle Park and possibly houses fronting River Street, as such creating a mini dam.

 

I have no issues with if lifting the low point of Dudley Street if this solution provides for a greater chance of flood free access to the proposed school site and that caters for a greater storm/flooding events, subject to the installation of appropriate drainage infrastructure that discharges flows from all stormwater events from the the lots north of Dudley Street.'

 

Council's Manager Civil Works provided the following additional advice:

 

'Any proposal to lift the road should be accompanied by a flood study to identify the impacts on flow paths and surrounding properties.

 

Consideration also needs to be given to the impact of raising the road and the additional width required for fill batters to determine if there is sufficient space in the existing road reserve.'

 

Further peer review of flooding

 

The additional information submitted by the applicant was referred to Mr Mark Babister of WMAwater. Mr Babister was requested to review the additional flooding information and provide 'some clear direction to determine if the applicant has fully addressed and overcome the concerns raised in you previous advice'.

 

In conclusion WMAwater states:

 

'The proposed school site presents an unacceptably high flood risk, which will get worse with time due to climate change. While our earlier raised concerns regarding floor level have been addressed, we do not believe the risk profile concerns and evacuation route issues have been fully addressed. We would not recommend the development be approved unless:

 

???????????
a detailed two dimensional model is established to evaluate the flood evacuation risk and long term sustainability of the school

??????????? The proponent using 2D hydraulic modelling demonstrates that the evacuation route in a 100 yr flood is below the Project 10 hazard curve for children.

??????????? The development and any improvement to access results in no increased flood risk for existing properties in a 100yr event using a 2D model.'

 

A copy of the advice from WMAwater dated 21 March 2011 is attached to this report as Appendix F.

 

 

5.0??????? 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. A copy of this submission is attached to this report (Appendix B).

 

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 may result in conflicts between the respective land uses. However, it is considered that any likely impacts would only be minor and therefore not sufficient justification to refuse the development application.

 

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:

 

Traffic

 

Council's MTS has advised that whilst it may come at a considerable cost, the required works to upgrade Dudley Street and the intersections of Dudley Street/East Street and East Street/Partridge Street could be a condition of consent and specific details submitted for approval before a Construction Certificate is issued.

 

As noted above, a 5 tonne load limit currently applies to Dudley Street and other adjoining local roads. This matter would need to be resolved before any development is carried out (see section 6.0 of this report). Without pre-empting the outcome of any consultation process or Council's determination of this matter, it is considered that there is a high probability that Council would amend the load limit and support the use the local road network by buses if development consent was granted for the proposed school. An amendment would also be required to allow heavy vehicles to use the affected local roads during construction of the proposed school. Any such approval would be subject to a condition to reinstate and upgrade the affected roads to Council's satisfaction.

 

Stormwater

 

Council's MTS has advised that the required works to upgrade stormwater drainage infrastructure to an acceptable standard could be a condition of consent and specific details submitted for approval before a Construction Certificate is issued.

 

Noise

 

Council's MH&B has advised that whilst traffic noise at the intersection of Dudley Street and East Street and noise levels associated with the school operation may be exceeded, the impacts are expected to be for short periods and they will not exceed acceptable standards. The MH&B has also advised if development consent is granted, the noise measures recommended by the consultant should be adopted to reduce construction noise impacts.

 

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.

 

Flooding

 

By far the major impediment to the proposed development is the potential flood impacts, particularly relating to evacuation and safety of children during an extreme flood event.

 

Council has an adopted Flood Risk Management Plan (February 2001) which is based on the Lower Nambucca Floodplain Management Study (November 1999) undertaken by Resource Design & Management (RDM) Pty Ltd. In accordance with the Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) the subject land is identified as being 'High Hazard ? Flood Fringe'.

 


In accordance with the Lower Nambucca Floodplain Management Study (LNFPMS) the subject site is located in East Macksville ? Area B. With respect to this area the LNFPMS states:

 

'East Macksville, from east of the Town Drain along the natural levee on the bank of the Nambucca River, is considered to be Flood Fringe. For the 1% AEP flood event, the river bank area would not be flooded but would be surrounded by low velocity floodwaters of up to 1.0 metre depth.

 

In extreme events, the entire area could be covered by up to 2.5 metres of medium velocity floodwaters creating a high risk situation. There is no high ground to retreat to in these circumstances, and there would be difficulty in evacuating people from the area across the Town Drain. Because of the problems of evacuation during rising floodwaters, East Macksville has been defined as High Hazard.'

 

In accordance with the FRMP the subject land is described as being in a 'Medium Risk Area'. Certain developments are either unsuitable or required to implement appropriate controls relating to; floor level, building materials, structural soundness, flood affection, evacuation/access, flood awareness, and, management and design.

 

The FRMP has a definition for 'critical facilities' which includes SES HQ, Police Stations, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc, but does not include schools. Schools are included in the definition for 'special purpose facilities'. There is no definition in the FRMP for 'essential community facilities'. However, this term is used in the Flood Risk Planning Matrix.

 

Before the DA was lodged the applicant was provided with the following preliminary advice:

 

'For the purpose of defining the use and considering its (the proposed school) suitability against the Flood Risk Planning Matrix we would apply the same controls listed under New Commercial or Industrial.'

 

This advice is somewhat qualified by also advising the applicant that this category (New Commercial or Industrial) 'allows for a merit based assessment' and 'we would be relying on the information submitted in your application to demonstrate that flood risks have been considered and mitigated by the design, siting and construction of the development'.

 

A copy of the e-mail advice dated February 2010 is attached to this report as Appendix G.

 

With respect to determining the appropriate controls based on development type and the flood risk category, WMAwater provided the following advice:

 

'The proposed development is located in a Medium Risk area. A school does not fit easily in the development type categories.? The school cannot be considered an essential community facility (which is not permitted in a medium risk area) as this applies to services needed during a flood such as a hospital. de Groot and Benson (15 Feb 2010) have 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. However, a commercial or industrial development would be occupied by adults, generally only from 9 to 5, who can make informed decision about flood risks and take appropriate action if water is rising. Commercial and industrial developments are often located in flood prone areas as some uses are flood compatible or willing to accept the risk. In contrast a school will be occupied by young children (before, after and during school hours) who are less able to negotiate flood waters, self evacuate or make decisions about risk.'

 

WMAwater has advised that 'Given the proposed development is a school which is likely to remain on site till 2100 it is necessary to include the estimated impact of climate change in the calculated floor level'. Therefore WMAwater has recommended that the floor level should be 3.4m AHD, which is the 1% AEP, plus 0.50m freeboard and 0.55m to account for the predicted raise in sea levels by 2070. That would result in a finished floor level of 4.45m AHD.

 

The major concern relating to the proposed development is the evacuation and/or isolation of school children during a flood event. This aspect has been addressed by WMAwater and in conclusion WMAwater states:

 

'The proposed school site presents an unacceptably high flood risk, which will get worse with time due to climate change. Elevating the floor levels of the school will address much of the flood risk but it will not remove the evacuation risk. We would not recommend the development be approved unless the flood evacuation risk and long term sustainability are addressed.'

 

Notwithstanding the above the applicant was given an opportunity to review and provide further additional information in support of the application and address the concerns raised by WMAwater.

 

The additional information submitted by the applicant made several recommendations to amend the design of the proposed building and implement certain measures to limit the impacts of flooding and improve evacuation from the school. However, these additional measures have not been modelled to determine the effects of such measures, including any likely impacts on existing properties in the locality.

 

WMAwater acknowledges that their previous concerns regarding floor levels have been addressed. However, they also state:

 

'we do not believe the risk profile concerns and evacuation route issues have been fully addressed.'

 

Having particular regard to the previous and most recent flooding advice from WMAwater, it is not considered that the proposed school should be allowed in a flood prone area which, in accordance with their independent advice, has an unacceptably high level of flood risk.

 

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. However, it is considered that it would be more difficult to mitigate the potential flooding impacts due to the location of the subject site. In this regard WMAwater has provided the following advice:

 

'While there is likely to be considerable warning time to evacuate this assumes that the warning gets through and that they act quickly and efficiently to evacuate the children. No details of the proposed evacuation route have been provided. The most likely evacuation route appears to be via Dudley and Partridge Streets to Macksville High School (approximately 1.8km) which crosses the Town Drain. The lowest point on the most likely evacuation route based on the drawings provided is 2.23mAHD. Approximately 1.2km of the 1.8km evacuation route is flooded in a 20 year event. Approximately 1.35km evacuation route is below the 1% AEP flood level.

 

If the road were to be raised to provide flood free access in a 1% AEP event it would have an unacceptable impact on existing development. Low sections of the road could be raised with a bank of culverts installed underneath however it is likely the cost of this would be prohibitive.'

 

With respect to evacuation the additional advice from WMAwater states:

 

'No consideration has been given to flash flooding which occurs with little to no warning and has no significant effect on the Nambucca River levels. This can cause flooding on minor creeks and surcharging of drainage systems.?

 

Floods are generally of short duration but water can pond in low lying areas and roads can be cut for several days. Water could potentially pond on the low lying areas of the site for days.

 

The Flood Emergency Management Overview by DGB states that if people are caught at the site they could be rescued by boat. However, the Nambucca Shire Local Flood Plan notes that there is no high ground in the area to retreat to and in an extreme event it would be difficult to evacuate people from the area across the town drain.'

 

Having regard to the likely difficulties in implementing a flood evacuation plan and the likely additional pressure put on existing emergency services during an extreme flood event, it is not considered that the site is a suitable location for the proposed school.

 


 

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

 

Whilst there was a lack of response to the notification process, it is not considered that the proposed development is in the public interest due to the potential flood impacts.

 

 

6.0???? CONDITIONS:

 

As noted above, the JRPP has the option to grant consent to the application. However, any such approval should be subject to Council lifting or amending the 5 tonne load limit that applies to Dudley Street and adjoining local roads.

 

It is not considered that a 'deferred commencement' consent would be appropriate as the condition to amend the 5 tonne load limit relies on a process/action undertaken by another party which is beyond the control of the applicant.

 

In accordance with previous legal advice (not related to this application) there appears to be an option to include a 'Grampion' condition to require an amendment to the 5 tonne load limit prior to the development being carried out. Without attempting to provide a legal analysis, it is understood that this type of condition would satisfy the 'Newbury' test, ie 'for a planning purpose' and 'fairly and reasonably relate to the development'.

 

 

7.0???? CONCLUSION:

 

It was considered that the initial and subsequent flooding information provided by the applicant was deficient and did not adequately demonstrate the proposed school was an appropriate development in a flood prone area. As such, it was decided to obtain independent expert advice from a suitably qualified consultant to comment on the information submitted by the applicant and assess the potential flood impacts of the proposed development.

 

There are many positive aspects to the proposed school locating to the subject site, such as; proximity to the town centre and adjoining playing fields, flat level land; and, availability of services. However, based on the information and advice provided by WMAwater, it is not considered that a favourable recommendation could be made for the proposed development.

 

In addition to the conclusion that the 'proposed school presents an unacceptable high flood risk', WMAwater also states:

 

'We would not recommend the development be approved unless:

 

?????? a detailed two dimensional model is established to evaluate the flood evacuation risk and long term sustainability of the school

?????? The proponent using 2D hydraulic modelling demonstrates that the evacuation route in a 100 yr flood is below the Project 10 hazard curve for children.

?????? The development and any improvement to access results in no increased flood risk for existing properties in a 100yr event using a 2D model'

 

It is considered that the applicant has been given every opportunity to fully address the flooding issues but has failed to overcome all the concerns raised by the independent expert consultant. It is therefore not considered good planning practice to allow a new school to be developed in a flood prone area where there is likely to be difficulty with evacuation and potential safety issues during an extreme flood event.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

APPENDIX A



APPENDIX B


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

Hi Keith,

 

Thank you for sending the details of the proposed development of the new St Patrick?s School. The CD arrived and I have had time to review it.

 

Unfortunately I cannot attend the Development Committee next Tuesday and would like to submit a number of questions/issues that need to be addressed about bus operations to the school. I have also attached a number of photos which show some of our concerns, particularly at the Dudley St/East St intersection.

 

Currently Busways operates 11 buses to the school, AM and PM. There are also some buses operated by other operators. As the school expands the number of buses could increase.

 

Matters of concern are as follows:

 

1.?? The narrowness of East Street and Dudley Street, given that there will be 15 buses coming and going, passing each other and negotiating the intersection. It is inevitable that as buses pass each other in Dudley Street their wheels will move off the pavement resulting in badly broken and boggy shoulders along the roadway, which in turn could increase the possibility of collisions between passing vehicles. Buses exiting Dudley Street will require the full width of East Street for both left and right turns. With the increase in traffic during the peak times at this corner there is the potential for blockages and the possibility of vehicles needing to reverse to allow a bus to complete its turn. There could also be the need for some No Stopping regulatory signage to keep this intersection clear. The difficulty of buses negotiating this intersection can be seen in the accompanying photos. The traffic modelling studies show reasonable levels of traffic movement at this intersection but don?t adequately allow for the tight nature of the intersection and the large size of buses negotiating this corner.

 

2.?? The dip in the road at the intersection of East and Dudley Streets requires buses to straddle this intersection at an angle. While at the moment one bus to the SDA school operates across this dip, the long term operation of 11 buses through this intersection could impact on our capacity to maintain a service to this school. At a minimum, for the most effective operation of this intersection this dip should be removed

 

3.?? Can you confirm that the swept path of a 12.5 metre bus will be able to access the bus bay from the roadway without reversing? It would seem almost certainly that from the details shown on the plans, that a bus will not be able to access bus bay No.6.

 

4.?? The centre island between the bus bay and Dudley Street should be much narrower and shorter. If the inside edge of the island was close to the boundary line as shown on the plans, it would allow better manoeuvrability of buses. Buses don?t always depart in the same order that they arrive. There should be capacity for buses to pull out around the bus parked in front of it. A shorter island will also allow better turning into and out of the facility. It should not be forgotten that all buses will need to perform a U turn manoeuvre to access the bus bay.

 

5.?? No Stopping provisions should be made opposite the bus bay to allow for buses to turn into the bay.

 

6.?? I note that cars, exiting the general car park and drop off and pick up zone, will be turning onto the road only a short distance from where buses are turning. Adequate signage should be provided to cater for this potential conflict.

 

7.?? Some aspects of the traffic study are general in nature and lacking some accuracy. Eg in the Traffic Study, section 2.1.2 states ?the intersection grade is level, and the approach from both East St and Dudley St is level as well.? Attached photos clearly show the significant dip at this intersection. The report also stated that there are only cars transporting students to the SDA school. Enclosed photos are of the bus that services this school.

 

8.?? It should also be noted that the bus servicing the SDA school often needs to make a three point turn at the bay at the entrance to that property. Whilst this can be accommodated at the moment, with increase of traffic passing this location, adequate facilities would need to be provided to eliminate this three point turn.

 

Busways believe these access issues are important and would need to be adequately addressed before we could support this application.

 

Whilst I am unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday 2nd November, I remain ready to work with council in any way possible to achieve a workable outcome in regard to this school. Please don?t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

 

Kind regards,

 

Greg.

 

Greg Miers

Planning & Infrastructure Officer

Busways Group Pty Ltd

P (02) 43926666

F (02) 43925831

M 0438537902

www.busways.com.au

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

APPENDIX C




APPENDIX D


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

PRESENT

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

 

DA 2010/234 - New School

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Issues from the Statement of Environmental Effects

 

Traffic Assessment by de Groot Benson

 

Section 3.1 ? Traffic Generation from development

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


Section 5 ? Road Upgradings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


Note:

 

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

 

 

CLOSURE

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Arthur Tsembis

Manager Planning and Assessment

(CHAIRPERSON)

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

APPENDIX E

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

 

Arthur Tsembis

L110204_ DA2010_234

Nambucca Shire Council

 

PO BOX 177

MACKSVILLE NSW 2447

11 February 2011

 

 

 

 

 

Attention:? Mr A Tsembis

 

Dear Arthur,

 

Re: Advice re DA 2010 /234 Dudley St

 

INTRODUCTION
WMAwater has been engaged by Nambucca Shire Council to provide advice on flooding relating to DA 2010/234 ? St Patrick?s Primary School Macksville. In particular to provide advice on

Is the information, in your opinion, sufficient to make a reasonable assessment of the potential flood impacts on the proposed development and on adjoining and nearby properties.

Are you satisfied that the information demonstrates the conclusions reached. 

Having regard to the available information, is the location of the proposed school acceptable from a flood safety point of view.

Having regard to Council's FRMP and current best flood management practice, what is, in your opinion, an acceptable finished flood level to ensure the school building will not be unduly affected by a 1% flood event.

 

BACKGROUND

 

It is proposed to build St Patrick?s Primary School Macksville on a flood prone site in Dudley Street. The proposed? school will contain 14 classrooms, a library, administration building, hall, canteen and out of school care facility. The school is designed to cater for 400 students and 30 staff.

 

A flooding assessment on the impact of the school on flood behaviour was conducted by de Groot and Benson Pty Ltd (dated 15 Feb 2010).

 

Ground levels across the site vary from 1.3 to 1.7m AHD at the southern end of the property to 2.3 to 2.6 m AHD at the northern end. The average ground level at the site according to de Groot and Benson is 2m AHD. The proposed floor level for the school is 3.85mAHD. The rationale for this level is that it is (DRA Architects, 2011):

60mm higher than the RTA 100yr flood level plus 20mm increase due to the highway construction

450mm higher than current Council Flood level

 

An estimated 20, 000 m3 of fill will be used to construct mounds for the school buildings to be constructed on.

 

 

KEY ASPECTS

 

Key issues for consideration are with regard to development 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

 


AVAILABLE DATA

The following data was considered as part of this advice:

 

Lower Nambucca Flood Study ? PWD 1994

Warrell Creek to Urunga Environmental Assessment

Nambucca Shire Council Floodplain Risk Management Plan

de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd ? Flood Assessment (dated 15 Feb 2010)

de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd ? Response to Flooding Issues (dated 16 Dec 2010)

DRA Architects ? St Patrick?s Primary School Macksville (Dated 18 Jan 2011)

Detail and Contour Survey ?Donnelly Welsh Park Macksville (provided by Council)

2m contour plot provided by Council.

Statement of environmental effects, St Patrick?s school Macksville ?Geolink 2010

 

 

FLOOD LEVEL

 

Council currently uses the 100 year ARI Flood levels from the Lower Nambucca Flood Study (PWD, 1994) for planning purposes. The recently completed Environmental Assessment and Hydrology technical studies for the Warrell Creek to Urunga Bypass (carried out by SKM) has caused some confusion with regards to the flood level.  The Lower Nambucca Flood Study 100 year flood level at the site of the proposed new highway bridge is 3.4mAHD whereas the SKM study determined the level to be 3.77mAHD (under existing conditions). The aim of the SKM study was not to set 100 year flood levels for planning purposes. A detailed process is outlined in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual for setting flood levels in NSW.

 

The Lower Nambucca Flood Study 100 year flood levels are Council?s best estimate of flood risk but the SKM study raises a number of questions. It is a prudent exercise to consider the impact the SKM higher flood level would have on the decision to approve development and whether it results in a substantial change in risk.?

 

OBSTRUCTION OF FLOW

 

An assessment of the flooding impacts for the proposed development was conducted by de Groot and Benson Pty Ltd. The assessment is simplistic in nature and contains a number of inconsistencies.

 

The 1% AEP flood level used in the calculations is inconsistent with the level quoted in the accompanying letter.

 

 

1% AEP Flood Level (m)

Flood level at site within letter, and used to set proposed floor level of school

3.4-3.45

Flood level used in conveyance calculations:

Floodplain

Channel

 

3.55

4.25

 

The average elevation of the main channel is also inconsistent (-3m (in text) and -4m (in calculations)). The levels used in the calculations would increase the conveyance compared to the levels in the text.

 

The assessment would normally be considered insufficient for assessing the impact of the school. However it is unlikely the school would have a significant impact on flooding.

 


FLOOR LEVEL AND PLANNING CONTROLS

 

Council?s Floodplain Risk Management Plan includes a Flood Risk Planning Matrix (Table A1) where development controls are placed on proposed developments based on the development type and the Flood risk categories. The proposed development is located in a Medium Risk area. A school does not fit easily in the development type categories.? The school cannot be considered an essential community facility (which is not permitted in a medium risk area) as this applies to services needed during a flood such as a hospital. de Groot and Benson (15 Feb 2010) have 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. However, a commercial or industrial development would be occupied by adults, generally only from 9 to 5, who can make informed decision about flood risks and take appropriate action if water is rising. Commercial and industrial developments are often located in flood prone areas as some uses are flood compatible or willing to accept the risk. In contrast a school will be occupied by young children (before, after and during school hours) who are less able to negotiate flood waters, self evacuate or make decisions about risk.

 

It is well documented that young children are unable to negotiate flood waters to as great a depth or velocity as adults. Australian Rainfall and Runoff revision project 10 (Engineers Australia, 2010) has looked at the appropriate safety criteria for people in flood waters. The study found that young children of the same size cannot necessarily negotiate the same floodwaters due to differences in muscle development and how safe they perceive the situation.? Hazard (velocity times depth) values of 0.6 are considered to present significant hazard to most children with a height mass product of between 25 and 50 (for a primary school child 1.27m tall with a mass of 25kg would have a height mass ratio of 32), with a limiting depth of 0.5m and velocity of 3m/s (at shallow depths). Infants and young children with a height mass product less than 25 are considered unsafe in any flow without adult assistance.

 

Given the risk profile of a school it would be more appropriately considered as a ?new residential? of about 100 houses with 4 children per house. In which case the floor level required would be the 1% AEP plus 0.5m (Freeboard).

 

The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (NSW Government, 2005) recommended floor level is the 1% AEP flood? level plus a free board of 0.5m. Freeboard is used to account for uncertainty in the estimate, wind waves etc.

?

Climate change will result in an increase in rainfall and sea level rise and therefore an impact on flood levels. When making land use planning decisions consideration of the length of time the approved development will remain on site is essential. Given the proposed development is a school which is likely to remain on the site till 2100 it is necessary to include the estimated impact of climate change in the calculated floor level.

 

If a school was to be built then key classrooms and buildings (such as the library) will need to be elevated with enough space for the 400 children plus 30 staff should they be stranded at the school during a 1% AEP flood. The recommended floor level should therefore be the 1% AEP flood level 3.4mAHD 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.? The long term viability of the school with climate change should be considered given some parts of the site are at 1.3mAHD.

 


EVACUATION

 

While there is likely to be considerable warning time to evacuate this assumes that the warning gets through and that they act quickly and efficiently to evacuate the children. No details of the proposed evacuation route have been provided. The most likely evacuation route appears to be via Dudley and Partridge Streets to Macksville High School (approximately 1.8km) which crosses the Town Drain. The lowest point on the most likely evacuation route based on the drawings provided is 2.23mAHD. Approximately 1.2km of the 1.8km evacuation route is flooded in a 20 year event. Approximately? 1.35km evacuation route is below the 1% AEP flood level.

 

If the road were to be raised to provide flood free access in a 1% AEP event it would have an unacceptable impact on existing development. Low sections of the road could be raised with a bank of culverts installed underneath however it is likely the cost of this would be prohibitive.

 

Insufficient information is available to calculate the hazard at the site however it would easily exceed 0.6 making self evacuation impossible for much of the school population. The SKM flood levels and flood levels with climate change would result in a higher hazard value.

 

CLIMATE CHANGE

 

Climate change will cause long term sustainability issues with the site. Climate change is predicted to raise sea levels by 0.9m by 2100. This would mean king tides will come close to cutting off evacuation routes and small freshes would easily cut off access to the site.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The proposed school site presents an unacceptably high flood risk, which will get worse with time due to climate change. Elevating the floor levels of the school will address much of the flood risk but it will not remove the evacuation risk. We would not recommend the development be approved unless the flood evacuation risk and long term sustainability are addressed.

 

Yours faithfully,

WMAwater

 

 

 

Mark Babister

Director

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

APPENDIX F

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

 

WMA.Logo.100.RGB.jpg

 

 

Memorandum

 

 

 

TO: ?? Arthur Tsembis ??????????????

FROM:????????????????? Mark Babister

DATE: ????????????????? 21 March 2011

SUBJECT:??? Advice re DA 2010 /234 Dudley St

PROJECT NUMBER:???????????????? 111006

 

 

INTRODUCTION

WMAwater has been engaged by Nambucca Shire Council to provide advice on flooding relating to DA 2010/234 ? St Patrick?s Primary School Macksville.

 

This memorandum is in response to the provision of additional information in relation to flooding provided by Geolink (dated 14 March 2011) which includes A review of flood issues by ADW Johnson and Estimation of realistic Flood warning times for Macksville and Flood Emergency Management Overview by de Groot and Benson (DGB). Comment has been restricted to the key issues where the respondent?s comments or responses on our initial review is in error or in my opinion has minimal information, or where the proponent has questioned the reasoning for statements in my earlier review.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

This review is based on my 25 years experience in hydraulic modelling and conducting ?Flood studies?. I am the managing director of WMAwater which specialises in Flood studies and has over 20 staff. My credentials and suitability to review the flooding aspects of the proposed development is detailed in Attachment A.

 

 

ISSUES

 

Flood warning

 

DGB have undertaken an assessment of flood warning times at Macksville, comparing the time between the flood level reaching moderate at Bowraville or Utungun and reaching moderate at Macksville. This method is flawed. The minor, moderate and major levels for each gauge are set depending on a number of local considerations including whether the gauge is in a rural (Bowraville) or urban (Macksville) location. Therefore moderate level at Bowraville and Macksville are unlikely to have the same size event. Only recent events have been considered all of which are less than 10 yrs ARI and no large floods have been considered. It is worthwhile noting that access to the school would have been cut 3 times during 2009 (based on recorded peak levels). Events appear to have been carefully selected by DGB to match their proposed plan. A brief investigation of events post 2001 (ie. not considering large events such as the 1974) by our firm found 7 events where Bowraville or Utungun exceeded moderate but Macksville did not exceed moderate. Following this formula the school would have been evacuated 6 times in 2009 (of which only 3 would have exceeded moderate at Macksville).

 


Table 1. Recent events (post 2001) that exceed moderate at Bowraville and Utungun but not Macksville

Event Date

Recorded Level (m)

Moderate Exceeded

Bowraville

Utungun

Macksville

Jan 01

8.94

3.08

1.9

B and U

Jan 04

6.74

1.53

1.17

B and U

Feb 06

7.63

1.43

1.23

only exceeded at Bowraville

Jun 09

5.29

1.89

1.73

only exceeded at Utungun

Oct 09

9.39

2.93

1.67

B and U

Nov 09

7.14

2.66

1.54

B and U

Jan 11

7.71

2.75

1.29

B and U

 

No consideration has been given to the spatial pattern of rainfall across the catchment which may lead to variations in the hydrograph including a faster rate of rise.

 

There is considerable variation in the shape of the hydrograph even in the small events considered which affects flood response differently at locations down the river. It is also possible that the rate of rise of larger events may differ significantly from smaller events. A good nearby example is at Urunga during the 2009 event when people were caught out because the flood rose faster than expected. This incorrect expectation of how fast a flood event rises was based on experience of minor floods.

 

No consideration has been given to flash flooding which occurs with little to no warning and has no significant effect on the Nambucca River levels. This can cause flooding on minor creeks and surcharging of drainage systems.?

 

Floods are generally of short duration but water can pond in low lying areas and roads can be cut for several days. Water could potentially pond on the low lying areas of the site for days.

 

The Flood Emergency Management Overview by DGB states that if people are caught at the site they could be rescued by boat. However, the Nambucca Shire Local Flood Plan notes that there is no high ground in the area to retreat to and in an extreme event it would be difficult to evacuate people from the area across the town drain.

 

Evacuation of East Macksville in the Local flood plan is linked to the Macksville gauge. It is recommended the school adopt the Macksville gauge and that they evacuate the school during any flood watch/flood warning or on advice from the SES.?

 

Velocities and Road Raising

 

ADW Johnson states that:

?

?No evidence? has been presented by WMA Water to support the view that raising the road to a

minimum 100 yr ARI (1% AEP) level would have an unacceptable impact on the existing

development.?

 

I have carried out numerous Flood Studies and Floodplain Risk Management Studies under the NSW floodplain management process that have involved assessing the impact of options to providing better flood access and am the editor of national guidelines in Hydraulic modelling.  Fundamental hydraulics indicates that raising the road will either obstruct and divert flow raising flood levels upstream or will result in higher velocities that would increase the hazard downstream.  The proponent should be required using a 2D hydraulic model to show that raising the road will not impact on other properties.

 

ADW Johnson indicates that the average velocity using a very simple approach is 0.38m/s and uses this for hazard calculations yet never explains that being an average the velocity will be higher in some locations and lower in others and that the higher velocities will occur in the main flow conveying sections which includes the area it is proposed to raise.  On this basis the average velocity using a simplified method is not good practice and will lead to an underestimation of hazard.

 

?Average? velocities as calculated by simple hand calculations are not sufficient to assess the risk for the situation. It is recommended (which is standard practice) that a detailed two dimensional (2D) hydraulic model of the situation be established to properly assess the impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties, the velocities at the site, the impact of raising the road on flood levels, velocities and surrounding properties.

 

Hazard

 

ADW Johnson have misunderstood the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR) Project 10 hazard categories. Figure 1 below shows the hazard as calculated by ADW Johnson using ?average? velocities before and after the road is raised. Table 2 is the ARR Project 10 hazards as a table. Note that 0.5m is a limiting depth for children. This would place the before raising case as extreme hazard for adults and the after raised case as Low hazard for adults (and therefore significant hazard to children, dangerous to most).

 

 

 

Figure 1. ARR Project 10 Hazard with hazard values for St Patricks as calculated by ADW Johnson

 

Table 2. ARR Project 10 Hazard Table

 

Climate Change

 

ADW Johnson claims that ?climate change impacts are by no means certain and to provide a 0.9m on top of 100 yr ARI flood level for all school buildings is considered overly conservative?.? I currently chair a national working group including CSIRO, BOM, Engineers Australia and many universities that is looking at how climate change will affect flood levels and current research suggests that predicted increases in sea level are not conservative.? Many Councils have adopted the NSW Government 2100 ocean level (0.9m) on top of a standard freeboard (0.5m) which results in a total of 1.4m for low lying coast area.? An example Council is Pittwater.? Similarly the NSW RTA has enforced that no part of the Pacific highway upgrade should be below 4m AHD to address elevated ocean levels from climate change.

 

King tides

 

ADW Johnson states that  

 

?There is no evidence to provided in the WMA Water Report to support the contention regarding

?king tides and small freshes.?

 

and has misunderstood the climate change impact  from the RTA reports which they have not read even though the reports are publicly available on the RTA website.  The 0.35-0.43m impact of climate change referred to relates to how:

 

?????? A 10 yr ARI Flood with a 100yr ARI Ocean level (peak 2.6mAHD) and sea level rise of 0.55m, and

?????? A 100yr ARI Flood with a 10% increase in rainfall with a normal tide (peak of 0.55mAHD),

 

respectively, will increase flood levels at the site and not how tides will change. Therefore the average of these can not just be added to the tidal level.

 

ADW Johnson correctly shows that tidal levels are lower (attenuated) away from  the ocean, with a king tide of 1.2m AHD at the ocean resulting in an 1.0m AHD king tide at the site (0.979m AHD in the? DPWS (1995). However then tries to add the flood impact to the tidal analysis.  Elevated ocean levels will increase the conveyance of the incoming tide and therefore reduce the amount of attenuation this is discussed in McLuckie et al (2011) and McLuckie et al (2010) both of which I am a co-author.   King tides in 2100 will reach a level of approximately 2.0-2.1m AHD if sea level increases by 0.9m.

 

Classification of the School as Commercial

 

The proponent?s advisers suggest that the school should be considered as ?new commercial or industrial? based on Council correspondence, yet the correspondence only states for a school to be allowed in this area of the floodplain it would need to be considered under this category as the alternative is it to be an unsuitable use in this location. Council correspondence then puts the onus on the proponent to demonstrate that it has suitably addressed the flood risk. It is wrong to argue that the development is simply ?new commercial or industrial? and that the specific flood risk that comes from a primary school can simply be ignored.  The NSW Floodplain Development Manual is based on a merits approach that considers risk for which that land is used.  The flood risk to peoples lives from a school is much greater than from ?new commercial or industrial? use and arguably more than residential.  

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The proposed school site presents an unacceptably high flood risk, which will get worse with time due to climate change. While our earlier raised concerns regarding floor level have been addressed, we do not believe the risk profile concerns and evacuation route issues have been fully addressed. We would not recommend the development be approved unless:

 

?????? a detailed two dimensional model is established to evaluate the flood evacuation risk and long term sustainability of the school

?????? The proponent using 2D hydraulic modelling demonstrates that the evacuation route in a 100 yr flood is below the Project 10 hazard curve for children.

?????? The development and any improvement to access results in no increased flood risk for existing properties in a 100yr event using a 2D model

 

 

Yours faithfully,

WMAwater

 

 

 

Mark Babister

Director

 

 


References

 

de Groot and Benson, Dated Feb 2011, Flood Emergency Management Overview

 

de Groot and Benson, Dated 14 January 2011, Estimation of realistic Flood warning times for Macksville

 

DPWS, 1995, The Harmonic Analysis of NSW Tide Gauge Network Volume 1- Tidal Planes

 

Engineers Australia, 2010, Australian Rainfall and Runoff revision Project 10- Appropriate safety criteria for people.

 

Geolink, (dated 14 March 2011), Provision of additional information in relation to flooding

ADW Johnson, (dated 14 March 2011), Proposed Development of St Patricks Primary School at Dudley Street Macksville, Review of flood issues

 

McLuckie D, Babister M and Dewar R, 2010, Considering the impacts of Climate Change on flood risk, Practical Responses to Climate Change National Conference, 2010

 

McLuckie D, Watson P and Babister M., 2011, Consideration of Sea Level Rise in Flood and Coastal Risk Assessments, 51st Annual Floodplain Management Authorities Conference

 

NSC, July 2007, Nambucca Shire Local Flood Plan

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT A:

 

Mark Babister

 

?????? Completed over 40 flood studies,

?????? Managing director of WMAwater (a firm specialising in flood studies and floodplain management, with over 20 staff),

?????? Over 16 journal and conference papers on hydraulic modelling, Climate Change, hazard and flood estimation?

?????? Deputy Chair of the Technical Committee overseeing the revision of Australian Rainfall and Runoff

?????? Member of the Steering Committee overseeing the revision of Australian Rainfall and Runoff

?????? Chair of Engineers Australia?s National Committee on Water Engineering

?????? Member of the Sydney Water Panel (and past chair)

?????? Project Manager and Editor of Australian Rainfall and Runoff Project 15: Two dimensional Modelling (National guidelines on two dimensional hydraulic modelling)

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

APPENDIX G

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

 


APPENDIX H

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2011

Proposed New Primary School (St Patricks) - 21 Dudley Street, Macksville

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

5 Tonne load limit

 

1??????? The approved school shall not be erected unless and until satisfactory arrangements have been put in place by Nambucca Shire Council to amend or lift the 5 tonne load limit that applies to Dudley Street and adjoining local roads to enable buses, service vehicles and construction vehicles to access the subject site.

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

2??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents set out in the following table, except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Reference

Prepared by

Dated

Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE)

1535804

GeoLINK Pty Ltd

20/09/2010

Architectural Drawings (Appendix A): DA01, DA02A, DA02B, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA08, DA09, DA10, DA11, DA12.

Job No 07009

DRA architects Pty Ltd

13/09/2010

Acoustic Assessment (Appendix B)

DRA220710 NG eltr ? traffic noise

Wilkinson Murray (Sydney) Pty Ltd

22 July 2010

Flood Assessment Appendix C)

Job No: 09105

de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd

15 February 2010

Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix D)

Drawing No: C02DA, C09DA

Job No: NL 100116

Northrop

26.08.10

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Appendix E). Drawing No C01DA

Job No: NL 100116

Northrop

26.08.10

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix F)

GEOTCOFH0223AA-AB

Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd

14 September 2007

Traffic Assessment (Appendix H)

Job No: 09105

de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd

12 August 2010

Additional information relating to: traffic; flooding; stormwater management; and, acoustic assessment.

07009

DRA architects Pty Ltd

18 January 2011

Flood Emergency Management Overview

Job No: 09105

de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd

27 February 2011

Review of flood issues

140003 GM/KP

ADW Johnson Pty Ltd

14 March 2011

 

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plans/ supporting documents referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

 

Compliance with Building Code of Australia

 

3??????? All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made. This condition does not apply:

 

a??????? to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or

b??????? to the erection of a temporary building.

 

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING WORKS

 

Engineering Construction Plans

 

4??????? Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans and specifications must accompany the construction certificate application. Such plans are to provide for the works in the following table in accordance with Council?s current Design and Construction Manuals and Specifications.

 

Required work

Specification of work

Kerb & Gutter, Road Shoulder Construction

 

(Kerb and gutter, road shoulder and associated piped drainage construction, footpath formation and turfing including any necessary relocation of services across the frontage of the road and any property acquisition)

 

 

 

 

Kerb and gutter for East Street Intersections of? Dudley Street and Partridge Street shall be constructed in such a way that buses can carry out turning manoeuvres while staying within their own traffic lane, this will require pavement widening and kerb returns of a minimum 12m radius where buses turn into the adjacent roads:

 

Turning paths are required at the proposed school bus bay to demonstrate buses can safely overtake the bus parked in front in a single manoeuvre.

 

Applicants are to provide a stormwater drainage system in accordance with the major/minor system set out in Chapter 14 of Australian Rainfall & Runoff. Dudley Street stormwater drainage shall be in the form of a piped underground drainage system to transfer and control flows from frequent events beyond the adjacent playing field and towards the southern wetland. The major drainage system shall provide safe well defined overland flow paths for rare and extreme storm run off events.

Full Width Road Construction

Full width road and drainage construction for all proposed roads on the approved plan.

 

Prior to removal of the 5 tonne load limit on East Street, the following details should be submitted for Council's approval-

 

1.   A qualified practicing Civil Engineer to carry out a structural analysis of the existing road pavement and provide a detailed report recommending a design for reconstruction, as required, to current standards for use by heavy vehicles and for the recommended construction works to be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

East Street, at Dudley Street shall be reconstructed to provide sufficient under body clearance for a fully laden bus and shall be constructed in accordance the recommendations of the structural analysis report required for the removal of the 5 tonne load limit.

 

The design for Dudley Street to incorporate drainage to ensure no adverse impact on adjoining sports fields.

 

Dudley Street pavement design shall be based on a minimum 50 year design life, incorporate kerb and gutter both sides of the road with a minimum 8m carriageway width.

 

An upgrade of the adjacent roads damaged during construction will be required prior to release of the Occupation Certificate.

 

A single manoeuvre turning area for buses shall be provided at the entry to the Christian school on Dudley Street and a cul-de-sac turning circle shall be provided at the eastern end.

Footpath Construction

A 2.5 metre wide concrete footpath/cycleway along one side of Dudley Street.

Service Conduits

Service conduits to the proposed school site shall be laid in strict accordance with the service authorities? requirements.

Street Lighting

Street lighting being provided to the requirements of Country Energy.

Piping of Watercourse Where health or other hazard

The watercourse traversing the school site shall be piped to suit a 1 in 5 year storm event beyond the adjoining sports field. An overland flow path is to be provided above the constructed pipeline to accommodate the pipe exceedance for all storm events, up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm event.

Stormwater Outlets

An energy dissipating pit with a suitably installed locked grated outlet to all pipes or any other drainage structures. Grates must be of galvanised weldlock construction.

 

 

Stormwater Quality

Stormwater quality must be suitable for discharge in accordance with Department of Land and Water Conservation NSW (1998) The Constructed Wetlands Manual and NSW Department of Housing Manual (2004), Managing Urban Stormwater, - Soils and Construction Vol. 1, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom.

 

Stormwater discharge from the car park shall be treated for the removal of oil and sediments by a method approved by Council.

Road signage

A plan showing proposed signage within the road reserve shall be designed to up to date standards and submitted for council approval.

 

Construction of mound and imported fill material

 

The application for a Construction Certificate shall include plans and specifications for the proposed mound. The mound is to be designed in accordance with Council's Flood Plain Management Policy.

 

Information shall be submitted to Council with the engineering plans detailing the location/source of imported fill material, together with documentary evidence that confirms the extraction of the fill material will be lawfully obtained and suitable under the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

 

The only waste-derived fill material that may be received at the development site is:

 

(a) virgin excavated natural material (within the meaning of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997)

(b) any other waste-derived material the subject of a resource recovery exemption under cl.51A of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 that is permitted to be used as fill material.

 

Any waste-derived material the subject of a resource recovery exemption received at the development site must be accompanied by documentation as to the material's compliance with the exceptions conditions and must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority before the material is deposited on the development site.

Flood planning level for road construction and evacuation route

Details shall be submitted with the engineering plans for any proposal to raise the height of Dudley Street and/or any part of the flood evacuation route, including the installation of appropriate drainage infrastructure that discharges flows from all storm water events. Such details shall include a flood study to identify the impacts of flow paths and surrounding properties.

 

 


Sediment and erosion measures required

 

5??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate the measures to be employed to control erosion and loss of sediment from the site. Control over discharge of stormwater and containment of run-off and pollutants leaving the site/premises must be undertaken through the installation of erosion control devices such as catch drains, energy dissipaters, level spreaders and sediment control devices such as hay bale barriers, filter fences, filter dams, and sedimentation basins. The sediment and erosion control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Housing Manual, ?Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction?.

 

The sediment and erosion control plan is to be prepared by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. The Civil Engineer is to be a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Australia or is to be eligible to become a corporate member and have appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

Water and Sewerage Section 68 approval required

 

6??????? An approval is to be obtained under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water supply and sewerage works. Sewerage and water mains are to be extended to service the school.

 

 

Trade Waste Section 68 approval required

 

7??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to discharge trade waste into Council?s sewer must be obtained.

 

Backflow prevention devices shall be installed appropriate to the hazard rating for the approved landuse, in accordance with the current edition of AS/NZS 3500.1 and the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing & Drainage.

 

Details of the proposed backflow prevention devices shall be provided to Council for approval with a Section 68 Application and prior to connecting to the water supply.

 

On-site stormwater detention approval required

 

8??????? Stormwater drainage is to be designed to direct all water to a Council approved drainage system to prevent discharge runoff onto adjoining land. The drainage system is to be designed for 1 in 20 year storm event. On-site stormwater detention is required, restricting stormwater discharge to the pre-development runoff rate, for a 1 in 5 year storm event. This system must be designed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage. All piped drainage lines over adjoining land are to be located within drainage easements. All costs are the responsibility of the proponent.

 

The design needs to demonstrate how the tanks can be sufficiently drained to provide the required capacity for detention.

 

Note: During weekends and school holidays the tanks are less likely to be drained for the purpose of flushing toilets etc.

 

An approval is to be obtained under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out stormwater drainage work.

 

The engineering plans and specifications are to be designed by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. The Civil Engineer is to be a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Australia or is to be eligible to become a corporate member and have appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

 


Engineering plans and specifications are to be submitted in triplicate and must include details in accordance with Appendix C of AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

Construction Traffic Management Plan

 

9??????? Consent from Council must be obtained for a traffic management plan pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. The plans and specifications are to include the measures to be employed to control traffic (inclusive of construction vehicles) during construction of the development. The traffic control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority?s Manual, Traffic Control at Work Sites Version 2, and Australian Standard 1742.3 - 1985, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 3, ?Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads?.

 

The plan must incorporate measures to ensure that motorists using roads adjacent to the development, residents and pedestrians in the vicinity of the development are subjected to minimal time delays due to construction on the site or adjacent to the site.

 

The traffic control plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and RTA accredited Work Site Traffic Controller.

 

Access and facilities for disabled

 

10????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate access and facilities for persons with access disabilities to and within the development in accordance with AS 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility and Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

Car parking plans required

 

11????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate access, parking and manoeuvring details in accordance with the plans approved by this consent. The access, parking and manoeuvring for the site is to comply with the requirements of Council?s Development Control Plan for Car Parking. Plans are to include, but not be limited to, the following items:

 

a??????? pavement description;

b??????? site conditions affecting the access;

c??????? existing and design levels;

d??????? longitudinal section from the road centreline to the car space(s);

e??????? cross sections every 15 metres;

f???????? drainage (pipes, pits, on-site detention, etc.);

g??????? a physical barrier across the full road frontage of the property suitable to prevent vehicular access at locations other than the approved driveways;

h??????? a clearance height 2.2m for all internal car parking areas. Where disabled parking is to be provided a minimum clearance height of 2.5m is required. Building elements such as pipes, ducts, conduits and beams are not to encroach below the specified clearance height;

i???????? turning paths; and

j???????? linemarking and signs.

 

The engineering plans and specifications are to be designed by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. The Civil Engineer is to be a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Australia or is to be eligible to become a corporate member and have appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 


Bond required to guarantee against damage to public land

 

12????? A bond of $100,000 or 10% of the road construction and storm water drainage works, which ever is the greater, shall be paid to Council as guarantee against damage to surrounding public land and infrastructure during construction of the proposed development. Evidence is to be provided to Council indicating the pre development condition of the surrounding public land and infrastructure. Such evidence must include photographs and an engineers report. The proponent will be held responsible for the repair of any damage to roads, kerb and gutters, footpaths, driveway crossovers or other assets caused as a result of construction works under this consent.

 

This bond will be held for at least 12 months or until Council is satisfied that the infrastructure is maintained/repaired to pre development conditions and that no further work is to be carried out that may result in damage to Council?s roads, footpaths etc. The maintenance period will commence from the date of issue of the final Compliance Certificate. The security may be provided by way of cash bond or a satisfactory bank guarantee. An application in writing for the release of the bond must be made at the satisfactory completion of the maintenance period.

 

Contributions for Water and Sewer Services

 

13????? Contributions set out in the following table are to be paid to Council. The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.

 

The Certificate of Compliance under Section 306 of the Water Management Act 2000, identifying payment of the contributions, is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Public service

No of Equivalent Tenements

Contribution Rate (Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Water

12.9

(0.03 x 430)

$4398.00/ET

$56,734.20

30 June 2011

Sewer

21.5

(0.05 x 430)

$4077.00/ET

$87,655.50

30 June 2011

TOTAL

 

 

$144,389.70

 

 

Long Service Levy to be paid

 

14????? A Long Service Levy must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. This amount payable is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is a State Government Levy and is subject to change.

 

These payments may be made at Council?s Administration Office. Cheques are to be made payable Council.

 

Flood Planning Level for new buildings

 

15????? The flood planning level for this development is RL 3.4m AHD which is the estimated 1% AEP in accordance with Council's adopted Flood Risk Management Plan. The plans and specifications to accompany the construction certificate application are to indicate a minimum floor level of 3.95m AHD for all buildings except for a floor level of 4.45m AHD for the communal hall (including toilets), with enough space for 400 children and 30 staff. This floor level includes 500mm freeboard to account for uncertainty in the 1% AEP estimate, plus an allowance for climate change of 550mm.

 

The plans and specifications to accompany the construction certificate application are to indicate the use of flood compatible materials, fixtures and power outlets where used in the building below the flood planning level. The flood compatible materials, fixtures and power outlets must be those components listed in the Australian Department of Housing and Construction ?Housing in Flood Prone Areas 1975?.

 


Flood evacuation plan required

 

16????? A comprehensive flood evacuation plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council. Such a plan is to include the following components:

 

a??????? Flood Characteristics - A description of how a flood event occurs in the area and its impact on the proposed development.

b??????? Flood Warnings - Provide detail as to the warnings the school can expect in relation to flooding and how they are received. These warnings include expected flood peak, road closures, long term weather forecasts and emergency advice.

c??????? Preparations ? All staff of the school must have clear direction on the various activities that need to be undertaken when preparing for an expected flood event. Such activities include switching off electrical equipment, storing water and moving goods, machinery, etc above flood level.

d??????? Evacuation - Programming the evacuation process must ensure all activities are undertaken in a safe and timely manner providing safe unassisted evacuation for all children from the school to a safe flood fee location.

e??????? Responsible persons - Nominate by position title, those persons responsible for implementation actions for individual plan elements. Identify a hierarchy of alternate controllers with the persons potentially responsible identified by position title, not their individual names. Useful contact numbers for flood advice must be included in any flood contingency plan.

 

Waste Management Plan required

 

17????? A waste management plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council to ensure all waste is collected, stored and disposed of to the satisfaction of Council. The plan must incorporate measures to separate recyclable materials and describe the methods for collection of waste containers from the site.

 

Garbage storage area required

 

18????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include details indicating the construction of a garbage storage area on-site. The garbage storage area is to be designed and constructed so as to conceal its contents from view from public places and adjacent properties and is to be blended into the landscaping layout. The storage area is to be located so as to be readily accessible from within the site and serviceable by the waste collector from the adjoining road.

 

Specifically the garbage storage area is to contain the following design elements:

 

a??????? Bunded with a minimum volume of the bund being capable of containing 110% of the capacity of the largest container stored, or 25% of the total storage volume, whichever is the greatest;

b??????? Provided with a hose tape connected to the water supply;

c??????? Paved with impervious material;

d??????? Graded and drained to the sewer system; and

e??????? Roofed to prevent the entry rainwater.

 

Such plans must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

Acid sulfate soil assessment

 

19????? A geotechnical report identifying any acid sulfate soils shall be submitted with the construction certificate. Works involving excavations beyond the determined level of acid sulfate soils below the natural ground surface must not commence until the assessment has been submitted to Council for approval and Council has approved any measures needed for the management of those soils. This assessment must be in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soil Manual (NSW ASSMAC 1998).

 

 


THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Traffic Management Plan

 

20????? The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan is to be implemented.

 

Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

 

21????? Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

 

Additionally a sign, to promote the awareness of the importance of maintenance of sediment and erosion controls, is to be clearly displayed on the most prominent sediment fence or erosion control device for the duration of the project.

 

Note: Council may impose on-the-spot fines of up to $600 for non-compliance with this condition.

 

Toilet facilities

 

22????? Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer.

 

Site construction sign required

 

23????? A sign or signs must be erected before the commencement of the work in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:

 

a??????? showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b??????? showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c??????? stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in excess of one (1) m2.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Construction times

 

24????? Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise, when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:

 

a??????? Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

b??????? Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

No construction work is to take place on Saturdays and Sundays adjacent to Public Holidays and Public Holidays and the Construction Industry Awarded Rostered Days Off (RDO) adjacent to Public Holidays.

 

Limiting construction noise

 

25????? Construction noise is to be limited as follows:

 

a??????? For construction periods of four (4) weeks and under, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background level by more than 20 dB(A).

b??????? For construction periods greater than four (4) weeks and not exceeding twenty‑six (26) weeks, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background level by more than 10 dB(A).

 

Construction dust suppression

 

26????? All necessary works are to be undertaken to control dust pollution from the site.

 

These works must include, but not limited to:

 

a??????? restricting topsoil removal;

b??????? regularly and lightly watering dust prone areas (note: prevent excess watering as it can cause damage and erosion;

c??????? alter or cease construction work during periods of high wind;

d??????? erect green or black shadecloth mesh or similar products 1.8m high around the perimeter of the site and around every level of the building under construction.

 

Maintenance of fencing to protect trees

 

27????? All existing trees within Donnelly Welsh Park shall be retained. Fencing to protect these trees shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the site clearing, preparation and construction works. During site works and construction (including road construction) all measures are to be taken to prevent damage to trees and other vegetation (including root systems) to be retained. Where any damage is caused to trees to be retained, remedial action must be carried out to the specifications of a tree surgeon.

 

No building materials or other items are to be placed or stored within the fenced off areas.

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

28????? All builders rubbish is to be contained on the site in a ?Builders Skips? or an enclosure. Building materials are to be delivered directly onto the property. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other items.

 

Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

29????? Sediment and erosion control measures must be maintained at all times until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation cover or hard surface.

 

Survey of building floor height required

 

30????? A survey certificate prepared by a registered surveyor is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier upon completion of the floor formwork to ensure all building, except the communal hall, will be constructed above 3.95 metres AHD. The floor level of the communal hall shall be constructed above 4.45 metre AHD In accordance with the development consent.

 

Food premises fit-out

 

31????? The food premises (canteen area) is to be fitted out to comply with the National Code for the Construction and Fitout of Food Premises.

 

Wiring in flood prone buildings

 

32????? All wiring, power outlets, switches, etc., must to the maximum extent possible, be located above the flood planning level. All electrical wiring installed below the flood planning level must be suitable for continuous submergence in water and must contain no fibrous components. Only submersible-type splices are to be used below flood planning level. All conduits located below flood planning level are to be so installed that they will be self-draining if subjected to flooding.


 

Sewers on flood prone land

 

33????? Sewer gullies must terminate at:

 

a??????? a level not less than the general flood planning level; or

b??????? are to be sealed with a removable watertight cover with a vent of the same size as the gully, terminating at a level not less than the general flood planning level and must have a minimum height of 150mm maintained between the top of the overflow gully riser and the lowest fixture connected to the drain.

 

Responsibilities under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

 

34????? All earthmoving contractors and operators must be instructed that, in the event of any bone, or stone artefacts, or discrete distributions of shell, being unearthed during earthmoving, work must cease immediately in the affected area, and the Local Aboriginal Land Council and officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, informed of the discovery. Work must not recommence until the material has been inspected by those officials and permission has been given to proceed. Those failing to report a discovery and those responsible for the damage or destruction occasioned by unauthorised removal or alteration to a site or to archaeological material may be prosecuted under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, as amended.

 

Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

35????? Consent from Council must be obtained for all works within the road reserve pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans must accompany the application for consent for works within the road reserve. Such plans are to be in accordance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

Sewer and water to be connected

 

36????? Sewer and water supply is to be connected to the school in accordance with an approval granted under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Filling to be compacted

 

37??????? The development site subject to filling must be compacted to the recommendations of the applicant?s Geotechnical Engineer. The applicant?s Geotechnical Engineer must supervise the placing of fill material and certify the work has been carried out to level 1 responsibility in accordance with Appendix B of AS 3798-1990.

 

Filling must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and in such a manner that the drainage pattern on the site and on adjoining properties is not altered.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING