NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 JUNE 2011

 

LATE AGENDA                                                                                        Page

 

         

 

 

5        Notices of Motion

5.1     Notice of Motion - Internal Audit Committee Meeting 5 July 2011 - Review of Development Application Processing

5.2     Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Anne Smyth  

 

8        General Manager Report

8.9     Proposed sale of Lot 100 Kylie Street, Macksville

8.10   Shires Association of NSW - 2011 Annual Conference

8.11   Land and Environment Court Appeal against Refusal by Joint Regional Planning Panel of Proposed Catholic Primary School, Dudley Street, Macksville   

 

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     16 June 2011

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1      SF1595            160611         Notice of Motion - Internal Audit Committee Meeting 5 July 2011 - Review of Development Application Processing

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Rhonda Hoban, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

Councillors will be aware that as part of the Division of Local Government’s Better Practice Review, it was recommended that Council conduct internal auditing (separate to the annual external audit conducted by Forsyths).  Council has already resolved to form an Internal Audit Committee and adopted a proposed schedule of areas to be reviewed.  A review of development application processing was scheduled for 2013, but it is proposed to bring the review forward.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That at the Internal Audit meeting of 5 July 2011, Council request that the scheduled 2013 review of our development application processing be brought forward.

 

2        That Council employ an independent professional planner to assist our Internal Auditor in conducting the review.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Councillors will be aware that as part of the DLG’s Better Practice Review, we are now required to conduct internal audits (separate to the annual external audit conducted by Forsyths). Council has already resolved to form an Internal Audit Committee and adopted a proposed schedule of areas to be reviewed. A review of development application processing was scheduled for 2013, but it is proposed to bring the review forward.

 

Development application processing is an integral part of the service Council offers the community. Whether pro-development or pro-conservation our community expects Council to provide this service accurately, and efficiently.  Recently two development applications have come before Council with disputed conditions (East West Rd and Mill Lane). In order to avoid formulating conditions ‘on the run’ Council has had to defer the matters.

 

We have also seen a recent application where a local parish essentially wasted $750,000 on a site specific application which was refused because of an obvious constraint that was identified before the application was lodged.  This same application highlighted a policy shortcoming when the Joint Regional Planning Panel criticised our Flood Policy for not considering an educational establishment.

 

Any shortcoming in our development application processing procedures and policies has the potential to cost applicants money, objectors money, and Council money, especially if an application is challenged in the Land and Environment Court.  Council should be concerned about mitigating risk to our own organisation, applicants and the community. Quality communication and consultation is a means of achieving this.

 

The engagement of an independent professional planner would come at a ball park cost of $5000, but to put this cost into perspective, one single ‘missed’ condition on the Oyster Creek development which was recently identified will cost at least as much.

 

The intent of the review is to scrutinise our development application assessment policies and procedures.  The review should be conducted independently of Council and by suitably qualified people.  It is envisaged that the review would consider all factors relevant to application processing performance.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     16 June 2011

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2      SF1595            160611         Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Anne Smyth

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Anne Smyth, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

I request leave for the period 13 June 2011 – 4 July 2011 inclusive, for personal reasons.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Cr Anne Smyth be granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 13 June 2011 to 4 July 2011 inclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.      


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     16 June 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.9      SF600              160611         Proposed sale of Lot 100 Kylie Street, Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Steven Williams, Property Officer         

 

Summary:

 

Council recently resolved to offer to sell Lot 100 in DP 1041228 being 100 Kylie Street Macksville to the registered proprietors of Lot 162 in DP 614701 for a sale price not less than $60,000 (Exclusive of GST).

 

The registered proprietors of Lot 162 subsequently questioned the valuation used to arrive at the proposed sale price and requested a second valuation be considered.

 

A second valuation has been completed at the expense of the owners of lot 162. The second valuation assessed market value for the land at $50,000 exclusive of GST.

 

It is recommended that Council, in accordance with normal practice, revise the proposed sale price to the average of the two valuations.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          That Council offer to sell lot 100 in DP 1041228 to the registered proprietors of Lot 162 in DP 614701 for a sale price not less than $55,000 (Exclusive of GST) on the condition that the land will be consolidated with the industrial zoned allotment created from the subdivision of lot 162 in DP 614701.

 

2          That the offer of $55,000 for the sale of Lot 100 in DP 1041228 remain open to the owners of Lot 162 in DP 614701 for a period of three months.

 

3          That, in the event the offer is accepted Council authorise the General Manager and the Mayor to execute on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council the contract for sale, Transfer and any other documents required to give effect to the sale of lot 100 in DP 1041228.

 

4          That the council seal be affixed to the contract for sale and transfer document pursuant to the provision of section 400 of the Local government regulations 2005.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Council can retain the land or seek to sell the land on the open market.

 

2        Council can seek a higher sale price.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council is the registered proprietor of lot 100 in DP 1041228 located on Kylie Street in the Macksville Industrial Estate.

 

The land was deliberately retained by Council to ensure access to the industrial zoned land immediately behind lot 100 (being lot 162 DP 614701 hereafter referred to as the “Nash land”).

 

The registered proprietors of the Nash land have submitted a development application to excise the portion of the industrial zoned land with a view to marketing the land for sale and future development.  Legal access is proposed via the council owned land.

 

Council has issued deferred commencement consent on the conditions that;

 

 

 1        This consent does not operate until Council is satisfied that:

 

a          Satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of Public Legal Vehicular Access to proposed Lot 1.

 

Evidence of compliance with the above condition, sufficient to satisfy the Council as to this matter, must be provided within 12 months of this notice. If satisfactory evidence is produced, in accordance with this requirement, Council will give notice to the applicant of the date from which the consent operates.

 

Note: Council's preferred option is for the applicant to acquire Lot 100 DP 1041228 from Council to provide a public standard access road to proposed Lot 1 from Kylie Street.”

 

To ensure that Council’s intention that Lot 100 is used as an access to the remaining industrial zoned land it is proposed to condition any sale with a requirement that the land be consolidated into a single lot. Should the land be further developed such that public road access is required the dedication of the land as road can be considered as part of Development application for that project.

 

The sale of the land as recommended will achieve Council’s original intention and serve to facilitate the potential future development of the Macksville Industrial Estate.

 

Two independent assessments of market value have been completed by independent valuers with the average market value of the two being $55,000 exclusive of GST.

 

It is recommended that Council revise its offer to sell the land to the registered proprietors of Lot 162 in DP 614701 to a sale price not less than $55,000 (exclusive of GST). It is further recommended that the offer remain open for a period of not more than three months.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any environmental issues.

 

Social

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any social issues.

 

 

Economic

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any economic issues. It should be noted however that in selling the land for access to the balance of the industrial estate council is facilitating the potential further development and growth of the estate.

 

Risk

 

The recommendations do not give rise to any significant risks.

 

 

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Proceeds from the sale will be directed to the land development reserve and will not impact on current and future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Working funds are not required for this transaction.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     16 June 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.10    SF45                160611         Shires Association of NSW - 2011 Annual Conference

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The report includes notes of the more significant announcements made at the LGMA Forum and Shires’ Conference held in Sydney between 30 May and 1 June 2011.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the LGMA Forum and Shires’ Conference be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

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

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Mayor as well as Councillor Flack, Councillor Smyth and myself attended the Shires Association annual conference in Sydney on 31 May and 1 June.  The Mayor and myself also attended the Local Government Manager’s Forum on 30 May.

 

The major opportunity presented by both the LGMA forum and the Shire’s Conference was to hear first hand about the new state government’s plans for the strategic direction of NSW local government.

 

The Hon. Donald Page, Minister for Local Government – LGMA Forum

 

The Minister spoke at the LGMA forum and also at the Shire’s conference.  He indicated that the government had been elected to deliver real change in NSW and outlined 5 key objectives being:

 

1.         to rebuild the NSW economy

2.         to renovate infrastructure

3.         to restore quality services

4.         to restore accountability

5.         to return planning powers to local government

 

In relation to local government he said that the government was serious about fixing infrastructure.  He announced a council by council audit of the backlog in infrastructure.  He endorsed collaborate arrangements to improve efficiency whilst maintaining local democracy but also indicated that many people had put a case to him for the amalgamation of councils.  He indicated that consideration had to be given for incentives for councils to amalgamate but that a “one size fits all” approach to governance via amalgamations was not supported.  He sought more flexible governance models.

 

He spoke about the Code of Conduct and the problems General Manager’s have with being its “gate keeper”.  He flagged that a discussion paper would be issued the following Wednesday in relation to this.

 

He indicated that councils have to connect with their communities and provide local leadership.  The role of the general manager being to provide strong, clear and impartial advice. 

 

Jim Cox and Alison Milne – Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal – LGMA Forum

 

They spoke about the process to obtain special rate variations.  A council needs to demonstrate a need; community support; a reasonable impact on ratepayers and a sustainable financial strategy consistent with intergenerational equity.  They encourage that councils seeking special variations meet with IPART as early as possible.  They have observed that councils with thorough asset planning and completed IPR did better than those councils which had not achieved this.  In terms of consultation the special variation has to be added to the rate peg amount.  IPART want the affect of special variations shown year in/year out.  IPART will be refining process for 2012.  They will require councils to be clear in consultation material and clearly explain multi year increases are cumulative.  They believe the IPR process should be completed well before there is consultation on a special rate variation.  Special variation proposals for 2012 need to be developed now.  IPART intend to bring forward the date for special variation notification to January 2012.  IPART believe there is scope to use a special variation to recover extraordinary increases in RFS contributions.

 

Forum on Special Variations

 

The forum comprised the General Managers’ of North Sydney, Waverly and Wollondilly Councils, all of which had sought a special variation due to be announced on 10 June 2011.  Penny Holloway suggested councils would require 6 months of consultation for a special variation.  North Sydney Council put out cases for and against a special rate variation.  Those councillors who opposed the variation had the opportunity to list their reasons.  The Act and Regulations allow a Section 508A variation to extend over 7 years.  IPART indicated concern about a 7 year term rather than 4 years which aligns with the election cycle.

 

David Harriss, Commissioner, New South Wales Officer of Water

 

Mr Harriss spoke about the water utility reforms.  There are 106 local water utilities in NSW serving 1.8 million people.  The Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program has been around for 100 years and 462 water and sewerage projects have been completed with funding from the program since 1994.

 

Increased price for water has resulted in a 50% decrease in demand since 1999.

 

Whilst Mr Harriss believes there are inaccuracies in the Infrastructure Australia Report which calls for the amalgamation of NSW water utilities he believes that smaller utilities are not performing so well and that alliances will be an increasing focus.

 

The Hon. Donald Page, Minister for Local Government – Shire’s Conference

 

Indicated he will reverse the JRPP representation to put 3 local and 2 appointed representatives.

 

Councils will have a choice as to who runs the 2012 council elections, the NSW Electoral Office or Council itself.

 

The Minister advised of a major forum to be held in Dubbo in August concerning the future of local government.  It will provide a long term vision for councils for the next 25 years.  Options will include looking at flexible models and the use of incentives to break down existing barriers.  He indicated the Government is committed to reviewing the Local Government Act in its first term.

 

He indicated support for resource sharing and also reviewing/removing the constraint on establishing corporations under Section 358 of the Act.

 

The Government will be undertaking a Council by Council audit of infrastructure backlog.  NSW has been provided with $3.2m from the Local Government Reform fund with targeted assistance to be provided to 40 Councils in IPR Group 3.

 

The Minister flagged the Government’s wish to unlock $1billion to fund infrastructure across NSW and referred to a proposed program which would provide Councils with a 50% subsidy on borrowing costs for infrastructure.

 

The Government has flagged a decade of decentralisation .

 

Cr Smyth asked about the NSW Government’s contribution to public libraries.  The Minister indicated that he was aware that NSW libraries were relatively poorly funded compared to other states and identified an additional $2m in funding which would be forthcoming.

 

The Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson, Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Small Business

 

Portfolio includes all regional water utilities but not the Sydney or Newcastle Water Corporations.

 

Doesn’t believe in a one size fits all approach for water utilities.

 

Is looking closely at the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program.

 

The Hon. Duncan Gay, Minister for Roads and Ports

 

$1 billion being unlocked to build infrastructure.  Referred to the franchising of Sydney Ferries.  Referred to only 50% of the Pacific Highway being constructed to dual carriageway standard, about 337 km.  He wants the highway finished by 2016.

 

Referred to the Timber Bridge Partnership with local government on regional roads.  In 5th and final year and has asked the RTA to address options for the remaining bridges not reconstructed under the partnership.

 

Duncan Bremmer, NBN Co.

 

The NBN roll out will occur over 9 years with 10 million premises to be connected.  At its peak the NBN will have a peak construction workforce of more than 15,000 people connecting 5,900 premises a day.  The total spend for the NBN is $43 billion.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation preparing this report.

 

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 implications.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.  The cost of attendance was met from existing budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                     16 June 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.11    DA2010/234      160611         Land and Environment Court Appeal against Refusal by Joint Regional Planning Panel of Proposed Catholic Primary School, Dudley Street, Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Council has received advice from the Catholic Diocesan Office at Lismore that the Bishop has instructed their solicitor to proceed with an appeal against the decision of the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) to refuse the application.  They also propose to submit an application to the Land and Environment Court to expedite a hearing of the appeal.

 

Council’s involvement in the proceedings should be restricted to simply submitting the report which Council considered and advising the Court of the subsequent resolution to support the development application.  The attendance of its solicitor at the hearing should similarly be restricted to only those times necessary for this to occur.  This instruction has been provided to Council’s solicitor, Norton Rose.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the information concerning Council lodging a submitting appearance to an appeal by           the Catholic Diocesan Office against the refusal of the Joint Regional Planning Panel to           issue consent to the proposed Catholic Primary School in Dudley Street, Macksville, be           received.

 

2        That the Department of Planning be advised that Council will not be providing funding or legal support to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for any appeal in relation to their refusal to issue consent to the proposed Catholic Primary School in Dudley Street, Macksville.  However Council will meet the costs of its Manager Planning and Assessment attending the court as required.

 

3        That Council’s local member, the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP be advised of Council’s action.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option of not submitting an appearance.  However this option would seem bizarre given that Council will be the respondent in the appeal and further that it concerns a development application which by value is one of the largest submitted to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received advice from the Catholic Diocesan Office at Lismore that the Bishop has instructed their solicitor to proceed with an appeal against the decision of the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) to refuse the application.  They also propose to submit an application to the Land and Environment Court to expedite a hearing of the appeal.

 

The Diocesan Office has sought Council’s assistance in lodging a submitting appearance to the appeal and has asked that Council instruct its solicitor accordingly.

 

Legally, JRPP’s “determine” certain development applications, and are “taken to be the Council” and are to exercise certain functions “to the exclusion of the council”, but they are of course not the Council.  The council remains the consent authority, and therefore the council is the party who is appealed against where the applicant wishes to challenge the JRPP’s decision.

 

Amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which commenced in February this year (Section 97A(2) require the Council to notify the JRPP of any appeal, and provide that the JRPP is “entitled to be heard at the hearing as if it were a party to the appeal”.  The Council continues to automatically be a party to the appeal.

 

Of course given the circumstances Council will be in the bizarre situation of being nominated as the respondent in an appeal against a development application which, by majority, it supported.

 

Council’s involvement in the proceedings should be restricted to simply submitting the report which Council considered and advising the Court of the subsequent resolution to support the development application.  The attendance of its solicitor at the hearing should similarly be restricted to only those times necessary for this to occur.  This instruction has been provided to Council’s solicitor, Norton Rose.

 

Equally Council should advise the Department of Planning that in the circumstances of the JRPP exercising Council’s authority to refuse the development application when the majority of the Council believed it should be approved, that Council will be providing no funding or legal support to the JRPP in defending the appeal.  The JRPP will likely request or subpoena Council’s Manager Planning and Assessment to provide evidence, the cost of which should be borne by Council.

 

Council has also received a response from the Hon. Andrew Stoner to its representations about a review of the decision.  The response is attached.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Council’s solicitor, Norton Rose.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The major risk to Council in the legal action is in relation to incurring unanticipated costs.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage it is anticipated that there will be a relatively small (less than $10,000) impact on Council’s budget for legal costs.  Should advice from Norton Rose or the JRPP change this, then the matter will again be reported to Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

15801/2011 - Response from Andrew Stoner MP

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 16 June 2011

Land and Environment Court Appeal against Refusal by Joint Regional Planning Panel of Proposed Catholic Primary School, Dudley Street, Macksville