NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

28 June 2012

 

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 - 28 June 2012

 

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 - 13 June 2012

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION ?

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM

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....................................................................................... 5

9.2???? Making of Rates and Charges 2012/2013........................................................................... 11

9.3???? Budget Estimates for the Council Election on 8 September 2012......................................... 17

9.4???? Donations Policy............................................................................................................. 22

9.5???? Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy.................................................. 28

9.6???? Review of New Council Meeting Arrangements................................................................... 53

9.7???? Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program............................ 55

10????? Director Environment and Planning Report

10.1?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 15 June 2012....................................................................................................................... 73

10.2?? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 15 June 2012.......... 76

10.3?? NAIDOC Week - 1 July to 8 July 2012............................................................................... 78

10.4?? Attendance at the CBD Town Centre Development and Design Conference........................... 80

10.5?? Consistent Flood Level Reference and Definitions............................................................... 85

10.6?? Nambucca DCP 2010 Amendment No 1 - Housekeeping Changes and Waste Management.. 90

10.7?? Planning Proposal Report on Exhibition of LEP 2010 Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings. 97

11????? Director Engineering Services Report

11.1?? Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 7 February 2012.............................. 137

11.2?? Nambucca Waste Management Facility Future Extension - Acquisition of Additional Land from Forests NSW............................................................................................................................ 143

11.3?? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee - Approval? of Tender for Construction of Off River Storage........................................................................................................................ 147

11.4?? Tender for the Provision of Traffic Control Services............................................................ 152 ????


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???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 280612???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

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

 

 

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.

 

RO/IT

Hardware has been installed being:

1. ESXi host server in the library. This server runs VMware ESX which is then capable of hosting our servers in a virtual environment if required.

2. Platespin Protect. Installed on the ESX host is a virtual server dedicated to handling replications from our physical servers. Each physical server has a Platespin agent installed to facilitate this replication.

3. Fibre link between admin office and library DR site.

Initial testing has been done of virtual server in library. Power points and wireless connection being provided in Senior Citizens Centre for a full test of disaster recovery.

Full testing to occur at Senior Citizens Centre on Sunday 11 March. Issues with testing on 11 March 2012. Further testing to be scheduled.

 

Further testing undertaken early June.? All servers were brought up successfully.? Most applications ran.? There remains an issue with email which should be easily resolved.? However the major issue is that there is still a dependency on the servers in the Administration building to prepare the back up server.? A quote has been obtained from contractors CSA who supplied the back up server to rectify the problem.


 

JULY 2010

2

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.

 

Pre-School advised to proceed with preparation of easements for bush fire hazard reduction. Response expected end of May 2012.

 

3

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.

Staff workloads have not permitted to proceed in May. June now targeted.

Now deferred to August.

Costing being prepared on a pressurised system so facts and figures will be discussed.

 

Further deferred.

 

MARCH 2011

4

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.

RTA has now engaged Consultants to prepare a new full and comprehensive flood study which will be provided to Council upon completion. At this time Council will be able to proceed to complete a new Flood Plain Risk Management Plan incorporates a revised matrix.

DEP advised meeting arranged with RTA.

 

Draft flood study likely to be presented to Council May/June 2012.

 

MAY 2011

5

SF1031

19/5/2011

That a new policy covering donations to charities be prepared to cover all existing policies and to better ration the limited donations budget.

 

GM

In progress ? report to October Council meeting. Agenda for Oct GPC too large.

Deferred to November.

Deferred to December 2011.

Deferred to January 2012.

Further deferral due to workload.

 

JUNE 2011

6

SF841

2/06/2011

Council write to the RTA requesting they design the new Nambucca River bridge at Macksville to provide 62m between the main channel piers and ensure the bridge is tall enough to allow yachts to pass under at maximum high tide.

 

DEP

Letter sent 8 June 2011.

No response as at 6 December 2011.

Further letter sent 10 January 2012.

 

No formal response, however RMS have verbally advised that a formal response will be with Council prior to the end of May 2012

DEP to follow up with RMS.

JULY 2011

7

SF1031

21/7/2011

That the policy for Climate Change Adaption be deferred to allow amendments to be made to the draft policy

 

DEP

Policy under revision and to be reported to future General Purpose Committee Meeting.

OCTOBER 2011

8

SF1595

20/10/2011

Council review its Tree Maintenance and Removal Application Policy asap, to provide greater clarity with regard to application assessments

 

DES

January GPC

Draft policy to be provided to Councillors at the end of January for comment and report to March GPC.

 

Further work being undertaken on the policy emanating from the resolutions of Council?s meeting 2/2/12. Draft policy will now be provided to Councillors for comment at end of February.

Due to natural disasters deferred to May 2012.

To be included in Tree Register Report in August ? Item No 30 below.

 

9

SF29

20/10/2011

The Library Working Group meet with the Manager Community & Cultural Services asap to arrange discussions with the State Library, meetings with Kempsey, Port Macquarie-Hastings and Coffs Harbour councils so that a recommendation can be made to Council in February 2012 on the future of the library service.

 

DEP

Reporting on establishing a stand alone library service now the priority. Arrangements with other Councils to be the subject of on-going investigation.

Establishment of a stand alone library now taken priority over arrangements with other Councils.

Order has been placed for Spydus software.

Librarian position advertised closing 23 April.

Interviews being scheduled for 25 May 2012.

Interviews held, offer made.

10

SF688

20/10/2011

Council consider and prioritise the unfunded items in the Environmental Levy in a future report to Council.

 

DEP

Report to follow IPR Exhibition.

Decision made to defer pending determination by IPART re special variation.

Report to July Meeting.

 

11

 

SF938

3/11/2011

Council receive from the Property Officer a draft policy on future licensing for water reservoir space

 

GM

Report in December 2011. Deferred due to resignation of Property Officer.

 

12

SF1595

17/11/2011

DES consider the unsealed section of South Arm Road or McHughs Creek Road as a site for expenditure of the $25,000 allocated for unsealed pavement management testing.

 

DES

To be considered in 2012.

 

Sections identified on South Arm Rd and scheduled for June 2012 ? due to inclement weather.

 

13

SF1460

17/11/2011

Structure of the Farmland (rate) Category be changed to incorporate the statutory minimum with ad valorem maintaining yield. Council undertake a review of the farmland criteria to better reflect high intensity pursuits.

 

GM

Farmland criteria to be revised prior to the issuing of the 2012/13 rates.

 

Change in Rates staff meant that there has not been the opportunity to review the criteria.? To be reported in 2012/2013.

 

 

DECEMBER 2011

14

SF1496

1/12/2011

Council receive a report on consistent terminology for reporting forecast flood frequency, for example 1 in 100 ARI floods.

 

DEP

To January Council meeting.

Deferred to February Council meeting.

Further deferred to 31 May 2012.

Further deferred to June 2012.

See report in business paper.

15

SF84

1/12/2011

Council write to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services requesting a detailed itemised budget for the line item ?other support? and the line item ?insurances?. Also that an explanation be provided as to why the RFS budgets are not provided to Council by no later than 28 February each year in accordance with the Service Level Agreement

.

DES

Letters Sent 6 December 2011

 

Response received from the Premier (provided to Councilors week ending 13 Jan 2012) advising the Premier has referred the matter to the Minister  

 

No response as at 20 June 2012.

 

16

SF674

15/12/2011

That Council investigate the possibility of acquiring additional land from NSW Forests to expand Council?s current waste management depot.

 

DES

Letter sent to NSW Forests 6 February 2012

No response as at 6 March 2012.

DES will forward a further letter to Forestry NSW.

Advice received from Forests that they would be prepared to enter into negotiations with Council. A feasibility study will be required to determine costs and issues and address legislative matter ? it is proposed to provide a report to Council in May.

 

Report deferred to June 2012.

 

JANUARY 2012

17

SF1714

19/01/2012

That an on-site inspection at the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park be conducted by Councillors at a GPC to resolve DA2011/142 and the proposal be pegged out for that site inspection.

 

DEP

Will be scheduled once application is ready for determination.

18

SF85

19/01/2012

Council write to the Minister for Police & Emergency Services and Deputy Premier seeking clarification on the GRN component of the RFS budget.

 

DES

Letter sent 25 January to the Minister for Police & Emergency Services and Deputy Premier

 

Acknowledgement letters have been received advising that matter is being investigated.

19

SF84

19/01/2012

Council write to the Premier requesting a complete audit of the RFS focussing on financial accountability and efficiency of service delivery.

 

DES

Letter sent 25 January to the Premier seeking an audit of the RFS

 

Response received from the Dept Local Government regarding Council?s December resolution (provided to Councillors 20 Jan 2012)

 

Acknowledgement letters have been received, advising that matter is being investigated.

 

20

SF742

19/01/2012

Council prepare a draft brochure to demonstrate land slip risk and tips for minimising risk.

 

GM

Aim to have completed by June 2012.

Existing information brochures have been sourced.

 

FEBRUARY 2012

21

GB2/12

02/02/2012

Appropriate sized nesting boxes be place in trees in close proximity to the Cabbage Gum site (Link Road)

DES

20 nesting boxes organised and will be installed once they have been received; two advanced trees ordered and will be planted.?

 

22

SF741

16/02/2012

That a further report be prepared (on the Paveline) for the year July 2011 to June 2012 for comparison with the same period in the previous year.

 

DES

August 2012


 

MARCH 2012

23

SF959

1/03/2012

Council write to the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson requesting clarification as to the Native Title Tribunal claim involving the Gumma (Boultons Crossing) Reserve.

 

GM

Letter sent 6 March 2012.

 

Letter of support being sought from Gaagal Wangan that the Boultons Crossing become a nature reserve managed by NPWS.

24

SF341

15/03/2012

Council incorporate a question in its 2013 Resident Satisfaction Survey on community attitudes to vehicles on beaches.

 

GM

Survey to be arranged to be conducted in 2013.

Funds will be required 2012/13 budget.

 

Submission to 2012/2013 budget.

25

SF1743

15/03/2012

The tree register be referred back to the DES so that he may prepare a further report and recommendation to Council on a proposal which addresses historic, senescent or publicly significant trees on public land in urban areas.

 

DES

Report will be presented to Council in August 2012,

 

To incorporate outstanding action No 9 above.

26

SF1653

4/04/2012

Senior management establish and lead a continuous improvement program across the organisation to achieve productivity savings, efficiency gains and revenue enhancement.

 

GM

Report in May 2012 on proposed program.

 

Deferred to June 2012.

 

Training organised for senior management July/August.

27

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council write to Minister Hodgkinson seeking an assurance of the continuation of the Business Advisory Service.

 

GM

Letter sent 16 April 2012.

28

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council receive a report setting out the number of rural blocks which front sealed roads but do not have a building entitlement.

 

DEP

Deferred to June 2012.

29

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council review the availability of industrial (employment) land at Nambucca Heads and Macksville and if necessary take steps to rezone further land.

 

DEP

Deferred to June 2012.

305

DA2012/004

11/04/2012

Council review its Car Parking Code

 

DEP

Deferred to June 2012

31

SF544

11/04/2012

Clarification be sought on the mining and/or extractive industries contribution plan and information also be provided on coal seam gas extraction exploration and its implications for contribution planning.

 

GM

Report in May 2012

 

Deferred to June 2012.

 

Deferred to July 2012 due to workload.

32

SF452

11/04/2012

Council receive a quarterly waste management report including infringements issued, progress with the Biomass, community education, landfill construction etc

DES

Report in July 2012

33

SF959

26/04/2012

Council resubmit previous requests to the RMS for reconsideration of the speed limit to 80 kph for all Shire roads and the Pacific Highway except those already signposted with a lower speed limit.

DES

Letter sent to RMS 2 May 2012.

 

Memo provided to Councillors on the progress of speed restrictions 19 June, (included response from RMS)

 

34

SF959

26/04/2012

Council request the Local Traffic Committee to consider a limit of 40kph for Seaview Street and Bent Street, Nambucca Heads.

DES

Placed on the Traffic Committee agenda for June Meeting.

 

Minutes of T/C reported to June Council meeting with recommendation that Council

NB: The speed limit on Bent Street and Seaview Street Nambucca Heads meets NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines for 50 km/h urban default.

 

35

SF843

26/04/2012

Council include information on its website and in the next rate payers? newsletter about the costs to and impacts on the environment of detergents and urging the use of lower impact environmental products.

GM

Information to go out in July rates newsletter

MAY 2012

36

SF430

31/05/2012

That the Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville be deferred for 3 months to provide affected residents with the opportunity to establish a Committee and put forward an alternative Plan of Management for Council?s consideration.

DEP

Letter sent to Ms Glennon regarding resolution.

JUNE 2012

37

SF732

13/06/2012

River Ecohealth Project be deferred until consideration has been given to reviewing the environmental levy works program and after consideration has been given to reviewing hot spots like Newee Creek which may require further sampling.

GM

Review of Environmental Levy Works underway.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2????? SF1672??????????? 280612???????? Making of Rates and Charges 2012/2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Chris Wills, Rates Officer ????????

 

?Summary:

 

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) confirmed special variation of 10.04% under Section 508 (2) of The Local Government Act 1993 for 2012/2013 financial year.

 

Council is now required to make the rates and charges in accordance with Section 535 of The Local Government Act 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act, the annual standing charge for water supply services to all properties connected or able to be connected to Council?s water supply in accordance with Section 552(1) of the Act for 2012/2013 is made at one hundred and four dollars ($104.00) per occupancy for each assessment, for a 20mm or 25mm connection; four hundred and fifteen dollars ($415.00) for a 40mm connection, six hundred and forty nine dollars ($649.00) for a 50mm connection, one thousand six hundred and sixty one dollars ($1,661.00) for a 80mm connection and two thousand five hundred and ninety six dollars ($2,596.00) for a 100mm connection, to be charged per connection for each assessment; with a consumption charge of two dollars and twenty eight cents ($2.28) per kilolitre to apply to all water consumption and such charges to have a short title of ?Water Charge?.

 

2????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act the annual access charge for sewerage services to all properties connected or able to be connected to Council's sewer in accordance with Section 552(3) of the Act for 2012/2013 is made at four hundred and eighty seven dollars ($487.00) per occupancy for each assessment for residential connections; one hundred and ninety eighty dollars ($198.00)? per assessment for 20mm non residential connection, seven hundred and ninety dollars ($790.00) per assessment for 40mm non residential connection, one thousand two hundred and thirty four dollars ($1,234.00) per assessment for 50mm non residential connection, three thousand one hundred and thirty dollars ($3,130.00) per assessment for 80mm non residential connection, four thousand nine hundred and thirty eight dollars ($4,938.00) per assessment for 100mm non residential connection and one hundred and ninety eight dollars ($198.00) for vacant land/non connection per assessment; with a sewer usage charge of three dollars and forty six cents ($3.46) per kilolitre to be calculated on the estimated volume discharged from all properties excluding residential connections using the total water consumption based on Land and Water Conservation's formula and Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability's best practice pricing guidelines and such charge to have a short title of "Sewerage Charge".

 

3????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act, the waste management tip provision charge for 2012/2013 is made at one hundred and thirty one dollars ($131.00) per assessment for properties which do not receive a domestic waste service or are not on a waste collection route, or vacant land where the service is available; such charge to have the short title of ?Waste Management Tip Provision?.


 

4????????? That in accordance with Section 496 of the Act, the annual charge for 2012/2013 for domestic waste service on all occupied rateable land in the Shire, categorised Farmland or Residential under Section 515 or 516 of the Act to which a domestic waste service is provided, is made at four hundred and eighty four dollars ($484.00) per occupancy for each assessment, such charge to have a short title of ?Domestic Waste Management? ?? Occupied?, the amount of the annual charge will be the amount derived by applying the formula A = B x $484.00, where ?A? equals the annual charge, ?B? equals the number of occupancies and $484..00 is the unit price. A waste management tip provision annual charge of one hundred and thirty one dollars ($131.00) for the year 2012/2013 is made for properties categorised Farmland or Residential that are not vacant, but do not receive a domestic waste service or are not on a waste collection route, or are vacant land where the service is available

 

5????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 496 of the Act the annual charge for 2012/2013 for domestic waste on all vacant rateable land in the Shire, categorised Residential (under Section 516 of the Local Government Act 1993) and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head and the villages of Taylors Arm Upper, Taylors Arm Lower, Eungai Rail, Eungai Creek, Warrell Creek and Donnellyville and all land within the rural sector with a residential building entitlement, including land categorised as Farmland, where the domestic waste collection service is available, is made at one hundred and thirty one dollars ($131.00) per assessment, such charge to have short title of ?Domestic Waste Management ? Vacant?.

 

6????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act, the annual charge for 2012/2013 for waste service on all occupied rateable land in the Shire, categorised Business (under Section 518 of the Act) to which a waste service is provided, is made at four hundred and eighty four dollars ($484.00) per occupancy per land parcel/assessment, such charge to have a short title of ?Waste Management? ?? Occupied?, the amount of the annual charge will be the amount derived by applying the formula A = B x $484.00, where ?A? equals the annual charge, ?B? equals the number of separate occupancies and $484.00 is the unit price.

 

7????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 502 of the Act the waste service charge for 2012/2013 for actual use of accessing weekly waste service by non rateable properties is made at nine dollars and thirty one cents ($9.31) per week per service per occupancy per land parcel/assessment, such charge to have the short title ?Waste Management? ?? Non Rateable?, and the amount of the charge will be the amount derived by applying the formula A = B x C X $9.31, where ?A? equals the charge, ?B? equals the number of separate occupied sites, "C" equals the number of weekly services and $9.31 is the unit price per service per week.

 

8????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 501 of the Act the annual charge for waste for 2012/2013 on all vacant rateable land in the Shire, categorised business (under Section 518 of the Act) and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head and the villages of Taylors Arm Upper, Taylors Arm Lower, Eungai Rail, Eungai Creek, Warrell Creek and Donnellyville, is made at one hundred and thirty one dollars ($131.00) per assessment, such charge to have a short title of ?Waste Management? ?? Vacant?.


 

9????????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2012/2013 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed non strata residential land located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at twenty five dollars ($25.00) per land parcel/assessment, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Management?Residential Charge".

 

10???????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2012/2013 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed strata residential land located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) per lot/assessment, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Management?Residential Strata Charge".

 

11???????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2012/2013 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed urban business land and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at twenty five dollars ($25.00) per land parcel/assessment plus an additional twenty five dollars ($25.00) for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of the parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Management Business Charge" and be capped at $100.00 per assessment.

 

12???????? That it be confirmed that in accordance with Section 496A & 510A of the Act the annual charge for 2012/2013 for stormwater management services on all rateable privately owned developed urban business strata lots/land and located within the confines of the towns of Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head is made at an amount equal to twenty five dollars ($25.00) per strata plan land parcel (parent parcel) plus an additional twenty five dollars ($25.00) for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of the parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres and capped at $100.00 then divisible on a pro rata basis between the strata lots, such charge to have a short title "Stormwater Management-Business Strata Charge".

 

13???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero four eight dollars ($0.0048) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category of ?Farmland?, is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of four hundred and fifty eight dollars ($458.00) per assessment, in accordance with Section 458 of the Act, such rate to apply to all properties categorised as ?Farmland?, pursuant to Section 515 of the Act, such rate to have a separate short title of ?Farmland? in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

14???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero four three five dollars ($0.00435) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category ?Residential? is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all properties categorised as ?Residential?, pursuant to Section 516 of the Act, excluding all properties in the sub categories ?Residential-Town? and ?Residential-Village/Estates?, such rate to have a separate short title of ?Residential-Non-Urban? in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.


 

15???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero four three five dollars ($0.00435) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category ?Residential?, sub category ?Town? is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable land located in centres of population described as comprising all properties zoned residential, and land not otherwise categorised, located in the towns of Nambucca Heads, Hyland Park, Macksville, Bowraville, Scotts Head and Valla Beach and serviced with water supply, sewerage, or septic tank, such rate to have a separate short title of ?Residential-Town?, in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

16???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero four three five dollars ($0.00435) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category ?Residential?, sub-category ?Village/Estates? is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable land located in the villages of Eungai Rail, Eungai Creek, Warrell Creek, Donnellyville, Taylors Arm ? Upper and Lower, and all Estates comprising all residential land within the rural sector with a residential building entitlement and within a subdivision both past and present which results in the concentration of holdings to create an estate of two or more lots, all ribbon development residential lots along rural roads contiguous to developed estates and villages and all ribbon development residential lots along rural roads immediately opposite to developed estates, such rate to have a separate short title ?Residential ? Village/Estates?, in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

17???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero six one dollars ($0.0061) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category ?Business? is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all properties? categorised as ?Business?, pursuant to Section 518 of the Act, excluding all properties in the sub categories ?Business-Caravan Park?, ?Business-Commercial? and ?Business-Industrial?, such rate to have a separate short title of ?Business-Ordinary? in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

18???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero six one dollars ($0.0061) on the land value of all rateable land in the previous rating category ?Business?, sub category ?Manufactured Home Community?, is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, with such properties now being incorporated into the sub category ?Ordinary?

 

19????? That a rate of zero point zero zero nine eight five dollars ($0.00985) on the land value of all ????????? ?rateable land in the rating category ?Business?, sub category ?Caravan Park?, is made for ????????? ?the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) ????????? ?per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable properties categorised as Business sub ?category ?Caravan Park? and have a short title of ?Business-Caravan Park?, in accordance ??????? ?with Section 543 of the Act.

 

20???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero nine eight five dollars ($0.00985) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category ?Business?, sub category ?CBD? is made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable properties categorised as ?Business?, sub category ?CBD? in the towns of Nambucca Heads, Bowraville, Macksville, Valla Beach, and Scotts Head and such rate to have a separate short title of ?Business-CBD? in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

21???????? That a rate of zero point zero zero six one dollars ($0.0061) on the land value of all rateable land in the rating category ?Business?, sub category ?Industrial Estate? be now made for the year 2012/2013, subject to a minimum rate of seven hundred and five dollars ($705.00) per assessment, such rate to apply to all rateable properties categorised as ?Business?, sub category ?Industrial Estate? in the towns of Nambucca Heads and Macksville, and such rate to have a separate short title of ?Business-Industrial Estate? in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

22??????? That a special rate, pursuant to Section 495 of the Act, of zero point zero zero zero one one six eight six dollars ($0.00011686) on the land value of all rateable land in Council?s area (refer Section 538 of the Act) is made for the year 2012/2013, additional to a base amount of eighteen dollars and ten cents ($18.10) per assessment (refer Section 499 of the Act) so that the levying of the base amount will produce not more than fifty percent (50%) of the total amount payable by the levying of the special rate so as to comply with Section 500 of the Act, as provided by Section 537 of the Act and determined by Section 536 of the Act. Such special rate to have a separate short title of ?Environmental? in accordance with Section 543 of the Act.

 

23??????? That a charge of eighty five dollars ($85.00) be the annual fee for Category 1 (Low Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title Trade Waste Fee?Cat 1.

 

24??????? That a charge of eighty five dollars ($85.00) be the annual fee for Category 1A (Low Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title Trade Waste Fee?Cat 1A.

 

25??????? That a charge of one hundred and forty two dollars ($142.00) be the annual fee for Category 2 (Medium Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title Trade Waste Fee?Cat 2 with an additional charge of one dollar and sixty one cents ($1.61) for the Usage Charge per kilolitre or fourteen dollars and forty three cents ($14.43) per kilolitre for Non-Conforming Usage Charge, is made for the 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 502 of the Act.

 

26??????? That a charge of one hundred and forty two dollars ($142.00) be the annual fee for Category 3 (High Risk) Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title Trade Waste Fee?Cat 3, with an additional charge of one dollar per kilogram for Excess Mass Charge, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 502 of the Act.

 

27??????? That a charge of eighty five dollars ($85.00) be the annual fee for Category 4 Septic tank Effluent Disposal Sewer Trade Waste, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title Trade Waste Fee?Cat 4.

 

28??????? That a charge of eighty five dollars ($85.00) be the annual fee for Category 4 Caravan Dump Effluent Disposal, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act and have a short title Trade Waste Fee?Cat 4, with a charge of one hundred and twenty five dollars ($125.00) for Disposal at Treatment Works with a maximum of 2,500L. Disposals over 2,500L will have an additional charge of forty six dollars ($46.00) per 1000L, is made for the year 2012/2013 pursuant to Section 501 of the Act.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may resolve to adopt the Rates and Charges without applying the 3.6% rate peg or to adopt the Rates and Charges with a percentage between 0 and 10.4%.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

IPART has approved a Special Variation increase in general income of 10.04% (inclusive of the 3.6% rate peg increase).

 

Council's minimum rate for Residential and Business categories has also been increased to $705.00.

Council has also introduced a minimum rate for Farmland of $458.00 and deleted the Base Rate for Farmland, commencing 1/7/2012

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Manager Financial Services

Rates Officer

Department of Local Government

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report has no environmental impact.

 

Social

 

This report has no social impact.

 

Economic

 

There is no economic impact.

 


Risk

 

There is no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

There are no additional financial implications to the adopted budget.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF1668??????????? 280612???????? Budget Estimates for the Council Election on 8 September 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the information from the NSW Electoral Commissioner in relation to the budget estimate of $114,856 plus GST for conducting the 8 September 2012 Council election be received.

 

2??????? That Council note the appointment of Ms Susan Mowle as the Returning Officer and Mr Todd Vercoe as the Office Manager.

 

3??????? That the 2012/2013 Operational Plan be varied to provide an additional $8,000 for the cost of conducting the election.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

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

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Electoral Commission has now supplied budget estimates for the Council election on 8 September 2012.? A copy of the letter from the Electoral Commission budget estimate is provided at the end of this report.

 

The budget estimate for Nambucca Shire Council is $114,856 plus GST or $126,341 including GST.? The estimate is based on all positions being contested.? This cost does not include staffing costs for any pre-poll location other than the Returning Officer?s office.

 

The NSW Electoral Commission has also appointed Ms Susan Mowle as the Returning Officer for this Council and Mr Todd Vercoe as the Office Manager.? Office Managers are expected to be the substitute Returning Officer should the need arise and will work alongside their Returning Officer throughout the election as the 2nd in charge.? For these reasons, Office Managers have completed the same training as Returning Officers.? The Returning Officer will be meeting with the General Manager in the near future.

 

The Electoral Commissioner advises that invoices are expected to be issued when they are in receipt of all supplier invoices.? This is not expected before the end of January 2013.? Payment will be required within 30 days.

 

The invoice indicates that the major cost components of conducting the election are:

 

Election staffing??????????????????????????????????????????? $69,527

Administration fee?? (head office overhead)?????? $9,079

Venue procurement????????????????????????????????????? $6,758

Logistics????????????????????????????????????????????????????? $6,429

Advertising and media?????????????????????????????????? $5,188

Ballot paper production & distribution???????????? $5,044

IT infrastructure & application support???????????? $3,138

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing the report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

Part of the reason Council has appointed the Electoral Commission of NSW to undertake its election is to reduce financial and other risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council has a cash reserve to fund the cost of the election.? The reserve has a balance of $108,000.? This compares with the Electoral Commissioner?s cost estimate of $114,856.? It is proposed that the Operational Plan for 2012/2013 include additional expenditure of $8,000 to cover the difference and make a small allowance for staff time in assisting with the pre-poll.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The Operational Plan for 2012/2013 will need to be amended to provide an additional expenditure of $8,000.? This will affect the deficit.

 



 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF1031??????????? 280612???????? Donations Policy

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

It is proposed that all of Council?s policies and practices in relation to donations be incorporated in a single policy and as far as possible ?ad hoc? discretionary allocations be avoided in favour of programmed financial support which is listed in the policy and where there is an obligation on beneficiaries to account for its expenditure.?

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Councillors consider the draft Donations Policy and provide any comments to the General Manager so that it can be reported to the next meeting of Council.? It is proposed that the adopted draft policy then be placed on public exhibition for comment before being finalised.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can determine a new donations policy as it sees fit.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 19 May 2011 it was resolved that a new policy covering donations to charities be prepared to cover all existing policies and to better ration the limited donations budget.

 

It will be recalled that in 2011 Council received two requests from Nambucca Valley Care for the reimbursement of DA fees.? These were firstly for a sunroom addition to Autumn Lodge ($2,078) and secondly for 16 new villas at Riverside Gardens ($6,824).

 

Nambucca Valley Care sought the waiving and refund of the DA fees as a charitable entity.

 

Notwithstanding a policy to provide for discounts on development application, construction certificate and similar fees, Nambucca Valley Care was advised that Council had no funds remaining in its donations budget to provide the requested refund.

 

A check of Council?s files indicates that similar issues have been encountered in the past.? These include requests from a community playgroup, the Salvation Army, the Anglican Church as well as from service clubs like Lions and Rotary.

 

The Council has also had a practice of making annual donations to the:

 

?????? Nambucca Valley Rescue Squad ($3,000 but haven?t been paid since 2008/2009)

?????? Nambucca River Marine Rescue ($3,000 but overpaid in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010)

?????? Nambucca Heads Surf Life Saving Club ($3,600 plus Section 94 contributions)

?????? Macksville-Scotts Head Surf Life Saving Club ($3,600 plus Section 94 contributions)

?????? Nambucca District Band ($4,000 in 2011/2012 but no allocation in 2012/2013)

?????? North Coast Academy of Sport ($2,300 requested)

?????? Local schools ($50 prizes for annual presentation nights)

?????? Rural Counselling Service ($3,800)

?????? Life Education Van ($3,000 being the cost of moving the van between schools)

?????? Arts Mid North Coast ($5,481.62)

?????? Acquisitive Arts Prize ($500)

 

There have been problems with the practice of ?annual? donations through;

 

1.?? Claims for the funds not always being submitted

2.?? Claims not always being supported by any written program for the expenditure of the funds

3.?? Information not always being provided regarding the acquittal of the expenditure

4.?? Confusion between the marine and road rescue squads

5.?? Lack of a ?process? to deal with all of the donations resulting in numerous ?ad hoc? enquiries and greater staff time than would otherwise be necessary

 

Besides discounted application fees and annual donations, Council has a number of other policies relevant to donations.? These are:

 

Policy ? Charitable Photocopying

 

This policy was adopted in 1996 and last reviewed in 2004.? It provides that photocopying will be carried out for such non profit and community based service organisations within the Shire on the basis of a cost per ream of paper or part thereof.? The policy also provides that, ?photocopying is to be confined to reasonable quantities, that copying will be back to back and requests are to be approved by the General Manager (as per Council meeting 190804).?

 

In recent years the demand for this service has increased significantly.? There is no definition as to what a ?reasonable? quantity is and some community groups are publishing regular newsletters which can run to thousands of copies.? The maintenance agreement for Council?s large canon printer sets a printing cost (excluding paper) at 1.01 cents per page or 2.02 cents per page of double sided printing.? Therefore a newsletter of say 2 x double side A4 sheets x 1,000 copies costs Council $40.40 with the paper supplied.? It is proposed that this service be capped at 1,000 double side A4 sheets.

 

Policy ? Charitable Donations & Locally Based Charities

 

This policy was adopted in 1997 and last reviewed in 2004.? The policy provides as follows:

 

?Subject to annual budget provisions the following standard donations shall apply:

 

1.?? Three festivals, one in each town????????????????????????? $200 each

2.?? Senior Citizens Week????????????????????????????????????????? $500

3.?? Up to three Senior Citizens Xmas parties????????????? $100 each

 

Balance of allocation being available for occasional donations as the need arises by delegation to the Mayor and the General Manager.

 

Donations the equivalent of development application fees shall be made in respect of applications for projects on Council owned land.?

 

The standard donations listed have not been indexed and the nominated festivals have not always been conducted nor funded.

 

Again, donations of development application fees can be a significant cost to Council.

 

Policy ? Charitable Waste Bins

 

This policy was adopted in 1996 and last reviewed in 2004.? The policy states that Council will provide two 92) bulk waste bins for major community events held on public reserves or public land in the Shire.

 

It is now more likely that Council would provide mobile garbage bins for a major community event, including recycling bins rather than bulk (skip) bins which have to be centrally located and which do not provide for any recycling.

 

Policy ? Request from Sportspersons

 

This policy provides that Council support local athletes by making an annual donation to the North Coast Academy of Sport, with particular emphasis on local athletes representing NSW or Australia.? The policy was adopted in 1996 and last reviewed in 2004.

 

Council does make a donation to the North Coast Academy of Sport but the level of financial support has been reduced in recent years.? Council has no control over how the donated funds are applied, the extent to which they support ?local? athletes or the extent to which they support ?local? athletes representing NSW or Australia.

 

Proposed Policy

 

It is proposed that all of Council?s policies and practices in relation to donations be incorporated in a single policy and as far as possible ?ad hoc? discretionary allocations be avoided in favour of programmed financial support which is listed in the policy and where there is an obligation on beneficiaries to account for its expenditure.? The advantages of such an approach are that it makes Council?s donations arrangements more transparent with reduced administrative costs.? The disadvantage is that it will remove flexibility to respond to meritorious ad hoc requests.

 

A copy of the proposed policy is attached.? The proposed policy would replace all existing policies relating to donations and other forms of assistance to community based ?not for profit? groups and charities.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with finance staff.? There has been consultation with Council?s Grants Officer.

Once the draft policy has been adopted by Council it is proposed that it be placed on public exhibition for three weeks.? This is because the policy will potentially affect a number of ?not for profit? community organisations who are used to the existing practice.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

Some community groups may be disappointed with the reduction of photocopying support.

 

Economic

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

Because the funding involved with donations is relatively modest, the risk profile is fairly low.? However the existing policies and procedures are fairly ad hoc and if funding was to increase Council?s risks would also increase.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proposed policy will have no impact on Council?s current or future budgets.? It is proposed that the same funding and support be provided but that it be less discretionary with enhanced accountability for the expenditure of funds.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

Attachments:

1View

6416/2011 - DRAFT POLICY - Donations

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Donations Policy

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

?POLICY

DONATIONS

(CHARITABLE AND OTHER)

 

 

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 provide clear guidelines for the management of financial donations made by Council.

 

1.2???? To allocate financial assistance funds in an equitable and appropriate manner

 

1.3???? To provide in-kind assistance to local not for profit organisations and events.

 

 

2.0?????? Related legislation

 

????????? Section 356 Local Government Act 1993

????????? Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008

 

3.0?????? Definitions

 

3.1?????? Council may, in accordance with a resolution of Council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons or organisations for the purpose of exercising its functions.

 

3.2?????? A proposed recipient who acts for private gain is not ineligible to be granted financial assistance but must not receive any benefit under this Section until at least 28 days? public notice of Council?s proposal to pass the necessary resolution has been given.

 

3.3?????? Public notice is not required if:

 

??????????? a)?????? the financial assistance is part of a specific program, and

??????????? b)?????? the program?s details have been included in Council?s draft management plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

??????????? c)?????? the program?s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5% of Council?s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

??????????? d)?????? the program applies uniformly to all persons within Council?s area or to a significant group of persons within the areas.

 


4.0?????? Strategies

 

4.1?????? During the management planning process each year Council allocates funds for Section 356 Financial assistance.? To optimise the benefit of these funds in the community, funds are allocated in accordance with the strategies, eligibility and selection criteria outlined in this Policy.

 

4,2?????? Each year Council will allocate an amount in its annual budget for Section 356 Financial Assistance.

 

4.3?????? In August/September each year Council will advertise and call for applications from individuals/groups/organisations for financial assistance from Council in accordance with the requirements of Section 356 of the Local Government Act.? The advertisement will advise the deadline for applications, which will be no less than 28 days from the first date of publication.

 

4.4?????? All applicants will be made aware that there are limited funds available in Council?s Operational Plan.

 

4.5?????? All applicants will be required to complete an application in the approved form, which will include a brief description of the organisation, the organisation?s viability, the purpose of the funding request and the need to be accountable for any funds provided.

 

4.6?????? The above process will occur only once in each financial year and allocation of funds is at Council?s discretion.? The funds allocated as part of this process will be 80% of the total allocation for the respective year.

 

4.7?????? Councillors will receive copies of each application prior to the Meeting at which the annual allocation of Section 356 Financial Assistance is considered.

 

4.8?????? Each Councillor is to rank applications which they consider deserve funding in order of merit, and indicate the amount of financial assistance they consider should be allocated to each application.? Councillors may indicate that particular applicants should receive an amount of funding from 100% of the amount requested, to nil, based on their assessment of the application, in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the selection criteria outlined in this Policy.

 

4.9?????? Staff will then collate the results, average the rankings and recommended allocations, and prepare a report to Council advising of the collective recommendations.? Applications will be funded in accordance with the collective recommendations of Councillors, and the funds allocated from the top of the order of merit/ranking downwards, until the budget allocation is fully committed.

 

4.10???? Section 356 Financial Assistance allocations are to be approved by resolution of Council.

 

4.11???? Funds are to be made available to groups at the commencement of the new financial year (July).

 

4.12???? Financial assistance is available to non-profit organisations which provide a community service or the like within the Nambucca Valley; that service should assist Council exercising its functions.

 

4.13???? Financial assistance will only be provided to applicants who act for private gain, in exceptional circumstances, and then only strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Act, including 28 days public notice.

 

 

4.14???? Assistance with funding for events is subject to another process; accordingly, funding relating to the conduct of events will only be funded under Section 356 contributions if they are one off community based events that provide a social benefit to the community.

4.15???? Groups who receive funding will be required to show proof of expenditure for the purpose nominated within twelve (12) months by completion the Evaluation of Grant and Financial Report form.? Groups who fail to comply will not be considered for further funding.

 

5.0?????? Selection Criteria

 

In ranking applications and making recommendations of the amount of financial assistance that should be allocated to applications, Council should:

 

i? Consider how each project will assist Council exercise its functions.

 

ii? Consider the impact each project will have on the community or on disadvantaged groups within the community.

 

iii Consider the number of potential beneficiaries from the proposed project or service.

 

iv Where the project has a smaller number of potential beneficiaries from the proposed project or service, consider the relative disadvantage of that group of people (eg low income, youth, Aboriginality, rural or social isolation, disability, etc).

 

v Consider the availability of other funding sources.

 

vi Consider resources/projects availability to the general community.

 

vii????????? Consider the equity of support to groups across the area.

 

viii???????? Consider whether or not the applicant has received Section 356 Financial Assistance in previous years.

 

ix Include consideration of whether requirements for previous funding have been met.

 

6.0?????? Process for the Balance of Funding (20%)

 

The allocation of the remaining balance of the Section 356 allocation each year will be determined by the Mayor and General Manager in response to requests and applying the criteria set down in this policy.

 

7.0?????? Photocopying

 

Council provides a photocopying service for not for profit and community based service organisations with the Nambucca local government area.? Council will undertake copying of up to 1,000 double side A4 pages at no cost provided the organisation gives Council the necessary photocopy paper at a specification which meets the requirements of Council?s copier.

 

Department:

 

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Monika Schuhmacher

 

 

Document No.

6416/2011

 

 

First Adopted:

 

 

 

Resolution No:

 

 

 

Review Due:

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF394????????????? 280612???????? Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A review of Council?s Investment Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy has been undertaken to ensure that Council's surplus funds are invested in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, in a secure and prudent manner to generate the optimum return on investments.

 

Copies of both the policy and strategy effective from 1 July 2012 are attached.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Councillors consider the draft Investment of Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy and provide any comments to the General Manager so that it can be reported to the next meeting of Council.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could adopt the recommendations as provided, or, with changes, or reject the recommendations.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council?s existing Surplus Funds Policy and Strategy is about five years old and needs to be updated to the current investment market. The new Policy and Strategy is based on Council?s financial advisor?s (CPG) updated policy and strategy which they have been revising for other Councils.

 

Council has a substantial amount of surplus funds to invest and the interest earned represents a significant proportion of the yearly budget.? To ensure the secure and prudent management of the investment portfolio, it is essential that Council review its strategy in its investment of surplus funds. An investment strategy has been reviewed to compliment Council?s policy.

 

The Local Government Act is explicit as to the types of institutions with which Council can invest, however the institutions have developed a variety of products to invest in and new types of investments are being promoted regularly. Council?s investment strategy seeks to utilise the competitiveness of these investment instruments in maximising returns for Council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Finance Manager and CPG Research & Advisory Pty Ltd

 

 

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 particular risks, other than those associated with managing an investment portfolio of about $31m.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary impacts

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

14892/2012 - DRAFT POLICY - Investment Policy - July 2012

 

2View

14895/2012 - Draft Investment Strategy - July 2012

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

 

 

Draft Investment Policy

Adopted: 19 April 2001 (006)

Last Reviewed by Council: 18 January 2007

July

2012

 


 

Contents

Contents 2

General 3

Purpose of Document 3

Related Documents? 3

Effective Date? 3

Definitions? 4

Investment Policy? 6

Investment Objectives? 6

Legislative and Regulatory References? 6

Delegation of Authority? 7

Prudent Person Standard? 7

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest 7

Authorised Investments? 7

Prohibited Investments? 8

Risk Management Guidelines? 8

Investment Advisor 9

Accounting? 9

Safe Custody Arrangements? 9

Credit Quality Target & Limits? 10

Counterparty Limits? 10

Term to Maturity Limits? 11

Performance Benchmarks? 12

Reporting? 13

Review of Policy? 13

Appendix? 14

 


 

General

Purpose of Document

The purpose of this document is to establish the framework within which investment principles are to apply to the investment of Council funds.? It details:

?? Council Funds covered by this Investment Policy Statement;

?? Council?s objectives for its investment portfolio/s;

?? how investments are to be undertaken;

?? the applicable risks to be managed;

?? any constraints and other prudential requirements to apply to the investments of Funds having regard to the applicable legislation and regulations governing Council investment;

?? the manner in which compliance with the Policy & Strategy will be monitored and reported;

?? appropriate benchmarks for each category of investments.

Related Documents

This policy statement has been prepared to recognise the legislative requirements and obligations for the investment of Council?s funds.? The legislative requirements are detailed within this Investment Policy.

Council?s will comply with investment regulations and directions of the Division of Local Government ? which will prevail in the event of inconsistencies with published Policy and Strategy.

Effective Date

This document replaces any previous Investment Policy document approved by Council.

The effective date of this Investment Policy Statement is 1 July 2012 and will be reviewed at regular twelve monthly intervals, or when either changes in regulation or market conditions necessitate a review.

 

 


 

Definitions

Act???????????????????????? Local Government Act, 1993.

ADI??????????????????? Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs) are corporations that are authorised under the Banking Act 1959 (C?wlth) to take deposits from customers.

Bill of

Exchange???????????? A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

BBSW??????????????????? The Bank Bill Swap reference rate (BBSW) is the average of mid-rate bank-bill quote from brokers on the BBSW Panel. The BBSW is calculated daily. Floating rate securities are most commonly reset quarterly to the 90-day BBSW.

Council Funds?????? Surplus monies that are invested by Council in accordance with section 625 of the Act

Debenture????????? A debenture is a document evidencing an acknowledgement of a debt, which a company has created for the purposes of raising capital.? Debentures are issued by companies in return for medium and long-term investment of funds by lenders.

DLG????????????????? NSW Division of Local Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet.

FRN?????????????????????? A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a medium to long term fixed interest investment where the coupon is a fixed margin (?coupon margin?) over a benchmark, also described as a ?floating rate?. The benchmark is usually the BBSW and is reset at regular intervals ? most commonly quarterly.

Grandfathered??? Investments held by Council that were previously allowed under the Minister?s Order but were Grandfathered (i.e. eligible to retain but not add to or restructure existing investments) when the NSW State Government changed the list of Approved Investments as a result of the Cole enquiry reflected in the Ministerial Order dated 31/7/2008.

LGGR???????????????? Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW).

NCD???????????????????? Is a short term investment in an underlying security being a negotiable certificate of deposit (NCD) where the term of the security is usually for a period of 185 days or less (sometimes up to 2 years). NCDs are generally discount securities, meaning they are issued and on-sold to investors at a discount to their face value.

RAO?????????????????? Responsible Accounting Officer of a council means a member of the staff of the council designated by the General Manager, or if no such member has been designated, the General Manager. (LGGR, clause 196)

T-Corp??????????????? New South Wales Treasury Corporation.

UBSA BBI???????????? UBS Australia calculates a daily Bank Bill Index representing the performance of a notional rolling parcel of bills averaging 45 days.

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


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

Investment Policy

Investment Objectives

The purpose of this Policy is to provide a framework for the optimum investment of Nambucca Shire Council?s Funds at the most favourable rate of interest available to it at the time to maximise returns, whilst having due consideration of risk, liquidity and security for its investments.

While exercising the power to invest, consideration is to be given to the preservation of capital, liquidity and the return of investment. Council therefore has several primary objectives for its investment portfolio:

?? Compliance with legislation, regulations, the prudent person tests of the Trustee Act and best practice guidelines;

?? The preservation of the amount invested;

?? To ensure there is sufficient liquid funds to meet all reasonably anticipated cash flow requirements; and

?? To generate income from the investment that exceeds the performance benchmarks mentioned later in this document.

Council?s Investment Strategy will run in conjunction with its Investment Policy and will outline:

?? Councils current cash flow expectations and the implications for deviations from a long-term liquidity profile;

?? Diversification: Target allocation of investment type, credit quality, counterparty exposure and term to maturity profile;

?? Market conditions and the appropriate responses ? particularly relative positioning within the limits outlined in this policy;

?? Relative return outlook, risk-reward considerations, assessment of the market cycle and hence constraints on risk; and

?? Appropriateness of overall investment types for Council?s portfolio.

Legislative and Regulatory References

All investments are to comply with the following:

?? Local Government Act (1993);

?? Local Government (General) Regulation (2005);

?? Ministerial Investment Order;

?? The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act (1997) ? Section 14;

?? Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

?? Australian Accounting Standards;

?? Division of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines; and

?? Division of Local Government Circulars

Delegation of Authority

Authority for implementation of the Investment Policy is delegated by Council to the General Manager in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993).

The General Manager has in turn delegated the day-to-day management of Councils investments to the Manager of Financial Services (RAO) and his/her delegates who must ensure adequate skill, support and oversight is exercised in the investment of Council funds.

Officers? delegated authority to manage Council?s investments shall be recorded and they are required to acknowledge they have received a copy of this policy and understand their obligations in this role.

Prudent Person Standard

The investments will be managed with the care, diligence and skill that a prudent person would exercise.? As trustees of public monies, officers are to manage Council?s investment portfolios to safeguard the portfolio in accordance with the spirit of this Investment Policy and not for speculative purposes.

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest

Officers shall refrain from personal activities that would conflict with the proper execution and management of Council?s investment portfolio.? This policy requires officers to disclose any conflict of interest to the General Manager.

Independent advisors are also to declare that they have no actual or perceived conflicts of interest and receive no inducements in relation to Council?s investments.

Authorised Investments

All investments must be denominated in Australian Dollars.? Authorised Investments are limited to those allowed by the Ministerial Investment Order and include:

?? Commonwealth / State / Territory Government securities e.g. bonds;

?? Interest bearing deposits / senior securities issued by an eligible ADI;

?? Bills of Exchange (< 200 days duration) guaranteed by an ADI;

?? Debentures issued by a NSW Council under Local Government Act (1993);

?? Deposits with T-Corp &/or Investments in T-Corp Hour-Glass Facility; and

?? Existing investments grandfathered under the Ministerial Investment Order.

Prohibited Investments

This investment policy prohibits the following types of investment[1]:

?? Derivative based instruments;

?? Principal only investments or securities that provide potentially nil or negative cash flow; and

?? Stand alone securities issued that have underlying futures, options, forwards contracts and swaps of any kind.

This policy also prohibits the use of leveraging (borrowing to invest) of an investment. However, nothing in the policy shall prohibit the short-term investment of loan proceeds where the loan is raised for non-investment purposes and there is a delay prior to the expenditure of loan funds.

Risk Management Guidelines

Investments obtained are to be considered in light of the following key criteria:

?? Preservation of Capital ? the requirement for preventing losses in an investment portfolio?s total value.

?? Credit Risk ? The risk that a party or guarantor to a transaction will fail to fulfil its obligations.? In the context of this document it relates to the risk of loss due to the failure of an institution/entity with which an investment is held to pay the interest and/or repay the principal of an investment;

?? Diversification ? the requirement to place investments in a broad range of products so as not to be over exposed to a particular sector of the investment market;

?? Liquidity Risk ? the risk an institution runs out of cash, is unable to redeem investments at a fair price within a timely period, and thereby Council incurs additional costs (or in the worst case is unable to execute its spending plans);

?? Market Risk ? the risk that fair value or future cash flows will fluctuate due to changes in market prices, or benchmark returns will unexpectedly overtake the investment?s return;

?? Maturity Risk ? the risk relating to the length of term to maturity of the investment.? The longer the term, the greater the length of exposure and risk to market volatilities; and

?? Rollover Risk ? the risk that income will not meet expectations or budgeted requirement because interest rates are lower than expected in future.

Investment Advisor

The Council?s investment advisor is appointed by the General Manager and must be licensed by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The advisor must be independent and must confirm in writing that they have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to investment products being recommended and is free to choose the most appropriate product within the terms and conditions of investment policy. This includes receiving no commissions or other benefits in relation to the investments being recommended or reviewed.

Accounting

Council will comply with appropriate accounting standards in valuing its investments and quantifying its investment returns.

In addition to recording investment income according to accounting standards, published reports may show a break-down of its duly calculated investment returns into realised and unrealised capital gains and losses, and interest.

Other relevant issues will be considered in line with relevant Australian Accounting Standards, such as discount or premium, designation as held-to-maturity or on a fair value basis and impairment.

Safe Custody Arrangements

Where necessary, investments may be held in safe custody on Council?s behalf, as long as the following criteria are met:

?? Council must retain beneficial ownership of all investments;

?? Adequate documentation is provided, verifying the existence of the investments at inception, in regular statements and for audit;

?? The Custodian conducts regular reconciliation of records with relevant registries and/or clearing systems; and

?? The Institution or Custodian recording and holding the assets will be:

8?? The Custodian nominated by TCorp for Hour-Glass facilities;

8?? Austraclear;

8?? An institution with an investment grade Standard and Poor?s, Moody?s or Fitch rating; or

8?? An institution with adequate insurance, including professional indemnity insurance and other insurances considered prudent and appropriate to cover its liabilities under any agreement.


 

Credit Quality Target & Limits

The portfolio credit guidelines to be adopted will reference the Standard & Poor?s (S&P) ratings system criteria and format - however, references to the Minister?s Order also recognises Moody?s and Fitch Ratings and any of the three ratings may be used where available.?

However, the primary control of credit quality is the prudential supervision and government support and explicit guarantees of the ADI sector, not ratings.

The maximum holding limit in each rating category and the target credit quality weighting for Council?s portfolio shall be:

Long Term Rating Range
(or Moody?s equivalent)

Maximum Holding

AAA Category

100%

AA Category or Tier 1 bank

80%

A Category

60%

BBB Category & unrated ADIs

40%

Counterparty Limits

Exposure to individual counterparties/financial institutions will be restricted by their rating so that single entity exposure is limited, as detailed in the table below. It excludes any government guaranteed investments.

Individual Institution or Counterparty Limits

Long Term Rating Range
(or Moody?s equivalent)

 

Limit

AAA Category[2]

 

40%

AA Category or Tier 1 bank

 

30%

A Category

 

15%

BBB Category

 

10%

Unrated Category[3]

 

5%

Term to Maturity Limits

Council?s investment portfolio shall be structured around the time horizon of investment to ensure that liquidity and income requirements are met.

Once the primary aim of liquidity is met, Council will ordinarily diversify its maturity profile as this will ordinarily be a low-risk method of obtaining additional return as well as reducing the risks to Council?s income. However, Council always retains the flexibility to invest as short as required by internal requirements or the economic outlook.

The factors and/or information used by Council to determine minimum allocations to the shorter durations include:

8?? Council?s liquidity requirements to cover both regular payments as well as sufficient buffer to cover reasonably foreseeable contingencies;

8?? Medium term financial plans and major capex forecasts;

8?? Known grants, asset sales or similar one-off inflows;

8?? Seasonal patterns to Council?s investment balances.

Investment Horizon Description

Investment Horizon - Maturity Date

Minimum Allocation

Maximum Allocation

Working capital funds

0-3 months

10.0%

100.0%

Short term funds

3-12 months

20.0%

100.0%

Short-Medium term funds

1-2 years

0%

70.0%

Medium term funds

2-5 years

0%

50.0%

Long term funds

5-10 years

0%

25.0%

Within these broad ranges, Council relies upon assumptions of expected investment returns and market conditions that have been examined with its investment advisor.

Performance Benchmarks

The performance of each investment will be assessed against the benchmarks listed in the table below.?

It is Council?s expectation that the performance of each investment will be greater than or equal to the applicable benchmark by sufficient margin to justify the investment taking into account its risks, liquidity and other benefits of the investment.

It is also expected that Council will take due steps to ensure that any investment is executed at the best pricing reasonably possible.

Investment

Performance Benchmark

Time Horizon

11 am Account, short dated bills, deposits issued by financial institutions of appropriate term.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

3 months or less

Term Deposits of appropriate remaining term, FRN?s nearing maturity.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

3 months to 12 months

Term Deposits with a maturity date between 1 and 2 Years, FRN?s.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

1 to 2 years

FRN?s, Bonds, Term deposits with a maturity date between 2 and 5 Years. Grandfathered Income Funds.

UBSA Bank Bill Index (BBI)

2 to 5 Years

T-Corp Hour Glass Managed Funds

Fund?s Internal Benchmark

3 Years (M/T Growth)
5+ Years (L/T Growth)

 

Grandfathered investments (i.e. managed funds and securities) are allocated to the appropriate horizon based on expected or average maturity date and should be taken into account when allocating the rest of the portfolio.

The decision on when to exit such investments are based on a range of criteria specific to the investments ? including but not limited to factors such as:

? Returns expected over the remaining term

? Fair values

? Competing investment opportunities

? Costs of holding

? Liquidity and transaction costs

? Outlook for future investment values

In general, it is expected that professional advice will be sought before transacting in ?grandfathered? investments.

Reporting

Documentary evidence must be held for each investment and details thereof maintained in an investment register.? The documentary evidence must provide Council legal title to the investment.

For audit purposes, certificates must be obtained from the banks/fund managers/custodian confirming the amounts of investment held on Council?s behalf at 30th June each year.

All investments are to be appropriately recorded in Council?s financial records and reconciled at least on a monthly basis.

A monthly report will be provided to Council.? The report will detail the investment portfolio in terms of holdings and impact of changes in market value since the previous report.? The monthly report will also detail the investment performance against the applicable benchmark, investment income earned versus budget year to date and confirm compliance of Council?s investments within legislative and policy limits. Council may nominate additional content for reporting.

Review of Policy

The Investment Policy will be reviewed every 12 months and as required in the event of legislative change or as a result of significantly changed economic/market conditions.?

Any proposed amendment to the Investment Policy must be approved by the General Manager and Manager of Financial Services.


 

Appendix

For the purpose of this Policy, ?Tier 1 banks? are currently defined as:

The ADI deposits or senior guaranteed principal and interest ADI securities issued by the major Australian banking groups:

? Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

? Commonwealth Bank of Australia

? National Australia Bank Limited

? Westpac Banking Corporation

including ADI subsidiaries (such as Bank of Western Australia Ltd) whether or not explicitly guaranteed, and brands (such as St George).

Council may ratify an alternative definition from time to time.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

 

Draft Investment Strategy

Adopted: 19 April 2001 (006)

Last Reviewed by Council: 18 January 2007

 

July

2012


 

Contents

Contents 2

General 3

Purpose of Document 3

Related Documents? 3

Effective Date? 3

Investment Strategy? 4

Investment Strategy? 4

Existing Portfolio Status? 5

Proposed Actions? 6

Risk Management Guidelines? 7

Performance Benchmarks? 8

Delegations/Responsibilities? 9

Review of Strategy? 9

 


 

General

Purpose of Document

Having outlined the framework for investment in the Investment Policy, this document sets out:

? current market conditions;

? how Council is responding to structure its investment portfolio;

? realistic objectives for the investment portfolio;

? risk management

Related Documents

This Strategy relates to implementation of the portfolio within the constraints set out in the Policy Statement. It has been prepared to recognise the legislative requirements and obligations for the investment of Council?s funds.? The legislative requirements are listed in the Investment Policy.?

Council will comply with investment regulations and directions of the Division of Local Government, which will prevail in the event of any inconsistencies with published Policy and Strategy.

Effective Date

This document replaces any previous Strategy or combined Policy/ Strategy document approved by Council.

The effective date of this Strategy is 1 July 2012 and will be reviewed on a six monthly basis or when either changes in regulation or market conditions necessitate a review.

?????????


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Review Of Investment Of Surplus Funds Policy & Strategy

 

Investment Strategy

Investment Strategy

Council?s Investment Strategy is set in relation to the following parameters:

Cash flow expectations

Council anticipates the following major capital expenditure events in 2012 - 2013:

? Plant Purchases - $535,000

? Water storage construction - $10m

? Sewerage capital works - $956,000

? Rural Roads construction and reconstruction $1.6m

? Urban Roads construction and reconstruction $740,000

? Bridge Construction $935,000

? Cycleways/Footpaths construction $390,000

? Recreational facilities $177,000

?(This strategy will be revisited if necessary when the 2012-13 capex budget is completed should there be material implications on long-term investments.)

These projects are being funded from either loan funds, grants or restricted assets, and will have minimal impact on the overall cash available for investment.

Council currently holds Term Deposits totalling $12.3M, over and above the at-call investments. Sufficient liquid cash is available to meet short term cash flow requirements during these projects should this be required.

Diversification

Council?s investments are diversified only within the fixed interest sector: Cash, term deposits, FRNs and Fund Managers. It is not Council?s current intention to diversify further across other asset classes.

Return Outlook

The previous strategy review was undertaken in an environment where the RBA was guiding higher interest rates well above market forecasts.

Following the severe deterioration of European economic conditions and fears of a broad-based global slowdown, the RBA in fact cut rates and the market is pricing another ?-1% in rate cuts (and extended low interest rates for many years):

 

While economic conditions remain strained, the outlook for credit investments is much stronger after one of their worst ever years in 2011.

Credit margins have almost doubled from 2011 lows. Major bank FRNs have been issued as wide as cash+1.85% p.a., and even secured (covered) bond near these levels.

Issuance conditions have been very difficult; while existing credit investments have performed well in 2012 there is not a lot of new money available.

The European Central Bank?s Long Term Refinancing Operation has set the scene for a potential recovery in the sector.

Existing Portfolio Status

Council?s previous strategy proposed:

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proposed Strategy

???? Working Capital funds????????????????????????????? ? 0%

???? Short Term funds?????????????????????????????? 13%

???? Short-Medium term funds??????????????????? 21%

???? Medium term funds??????????????????????????? 31%

???? Long Term funds????????????????????????????????????? 36%

The aim was to minimise income risks, with the higher yields available from long-dated deposits an added benefit. Through the year, deposit yields averaged around 6% (an outstanding result) despite two rate increases.

 

Investment Portfolio Breakup ? 31 March 2012

Proposed Actions

A return of 6% is no longer achievable in complying products (other than potentially from the high-risk Long-Term Growth Facility at TCorp). Therefore, inevitably, Council?s income will fall over the balance of 2012 Financial Year and into 2013 Financial Year.

To maximise performance, the intention is to pursue the following actions during this strategy period (subject to conditions broadly outlined in this document):

New Investments

? To the extent longer-term bank deposits remain around between 5% and 6%, Council will continue to invest in this sector.

? FRNs are likely to be the most favourable medium-term investments in the near future.

? New issues are the preferred source of FRNs, due to cost and availability criteria, with Council likely to restrict purchases to the higher-rated banks unless secured (covered).

? Other funds will continue to be held within the Short-Medium section to manage near-term cash requirements.

? There is some scope to expand the medium term fund investments on an opportunistic basis to take advantage of exceptional margin FRN or Fixed Deposit investments. The level of medium term holdings now exceeds 63% of total portfolio, and to maintain sufficient cash in the short term, investment in the medium term will be limited to exceptional offerings.

Given limited availability and the cost of brokerage, secondary market purchases of FRNs are likely to be less attractive. Conversely, 2012?s FRN issues have tended to price as much as 0.1% p.a. wider than the first day close, implying an initial profit of ?% to initial investors.

The downside of this extra reward is that issues tend to open and close very quickly ? in as little as half a day. The ability to respond rapidly is paramount.

To support this, Council intends to utilise existing at-call reserves (to be replenished from subsequent deposit maturities), or sell shorter-dated securities.

There is no intention at this time to investment in the long term (greater than 5 years) investments.

Disposals

? Council will utilise funds in the ANZ On Call account when required for working funds.

? Council will monitor NSW TCorp, Averon II and Macquarie Income Global Funds and if they can be disposed of at a profit, and additional return gained from an alternate investment, otherwise they will be held to maturity and then reinvested at that time.

Risk Management Guidelines

The strategy addresses risk management? as outlined below:

Preservation of Capital

Council has already enacted major strategies to manage capital risk, by redeeming from the Blackrock and Longreach Funds.? Council will consider selling FRNs prior to maturity where this would be consistent with investment objectives.

Credit Risk

Credit rating profile is currently extremely strong, with 69% of all investments being at least A rated or better. New investments can still be directed to high-grade institutions while the interest rates of these institutions remain at historically high levels.

Diversification

Investments are currently diversified within the fixed interest sector ? fixed and floating, at-call, funds and FRNs; liquid, and non-tradeable. There is no current intention to diversify outside the fixed interest sector.

Liquidity Risk

Council?s portfolio is highly liquid, from at-call accounts, near-term maturities and tradeable FRNs. Approximately 60% matures in the short - medium term or earlier.

Council has been in a position to extend the duration of some investments in recent months.

Market Risk

Council has only three Fund Manager investments, having redeemed Blackrock and Longreach Funds, which should see Council inevitably reduce its exposure risk.

The purchase of FRNs will incur a small amount of market risk, but this is now very well rewarded and can be minimised by restricting FRN investments to AA or AAA category bank-guaranteed securities.

Maturity Risk

Council?s long-term investments are primarily in a mix of term deposits and floating rate investments, minimising the effect of maturity risk as there is a regular maturity pattern.

Rollover Risk

Council has effectively mitigated this risk through a varied portfolio duration, having one to two investments due each month, some at 1 year, considerably longer than the 45 day benchmark (and includes deposits maturing as long as 2017). This is considered a strong level of protection against rollover risk, and is continuing to anchor 2012 Financial Year income budgets despite a reduction in interest rate expectations.?

While economic weakness can see official cash rates fall for a longer period, the current duration provides Council with time to adjust budgets to plan for income shortfalls.

Council is well within its required limits for working capital and short-term funds, which together account for 65% of the portfolio at time of writing.

Longer term holdings are conservative relative to portfolio limits, and there is some capacity for further investments if economic conditions provide the opportunity to do so.

Performance Benchmarks

Council?s portfolio is currently yielding approximately 2% above the benchmark return.

This is considered exceptionally strong given the very high credit ratings targeted. It is almost certain to fall over time, as official interest rates reduce.

Delegations/Responsibilities

Within the constraints of the Policy, strategic or execution decisions are delegated to the Assistant General Manager ?Corporate & Community Services and the Manager Financial Services.

Review of Strategy

The Strategy will be reviewed at least six monthly, or as required in the event of legislative change or as a result of significantly changed economic/market conditions.?

Council is in regular contact with its advisors and is able to adjust strategy as market conditions dictate.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6????? SF251????????????? 280612???????? Review of New Council Meeting Arrangements

 

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

 

Summary:

 

It is proposed that the new meeting arrangements continue, but with the new elected Council post 8 September 2012 having the opportunity to review the day and time of the first meeting of the month.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the trial meeting arrangements continue on a permanent basis subject to a review by the newly elected Council post the 8 September 2012 Local Government Elections.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are many potential meeting arrangements.? It is recommended that Council has two meetings per month.? This enables business to be dealt with expeditiously.? Councillors are also briefed in a more timely manner.? In addition, the potential for unscheduled special meetings is largely avoided.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 1 March 2012 it was resolved to trial new meeting arrangements for Council.? The trial came about following criticism in the organisation review report about the number of Council meetings.? The suggested trail also moved one Council meeting to the last Thursday of the month to make it easier for Council to comply with statutory financial reporting which requires quarterly operational plan reviews to be undertaken no later than two months after the end of the quarter.? There is also a reduction in cost (meals, overtime, Councillor expenses, printing etc) in changing from two Council meetings and a General Purpose Committee meeting per month to just two Council meetings per month.

 

Council resolved to trial for three (3) months having one Council meeting on the last Thursday of each month ? an evening meeting commencing at 5.30 pm - and a full day meeting commencing at 8.30 am on the Wednesday two weeks and one day before, with the meeting schedule for the trial to be as follows:

 

????????? Wednesday? 11 April??????? Thursday????? 26 April

????????? Wednesday? 16 May??????? Thursday????? 31 May

????????? Wednesday? 13 June??????? Thursday????? 28 June

 

There have been some issues in scheduling particularly for the Wednesday meeting when inspections have to be scheduled in addition to normal business.? In addition, the Wednesday morning meeting has not suited some members of the public who wish to attend but have work commitments.

 

Other than that, the trial has not presented any issues.? It is impossible to provide a system which will satisfy the many different stakeholders in a cost effective way.

 

From a staff perspective, the second monthly meeting being on the last Thursday of the month is ideal for meeting Council?s statutory reporting obligations.

 

The first meeting of the month could be on a different day and/or start in the afternoon to allow for inspections before the normal scheduled 5.30 pm meeting in the Council Chambers.? An evening meeting is likely to be preferred by residents.? In relation to the first meeting of the month, different arrangements were previously discussed with the trial dates and times being agreed upon by Councillors.?? Councillors have to be generally available and therefore, a consideration is their business commitments.? With the election of a new Council in September the timing of the day meeting may need to be reconsidered, again depending on Councillors? commitments.

 

It is proposed that the new meeting arrangements continue, but with the new elected Council post 8 September 2012 having the opportunity to review the day and time of the first meeting of the month.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been discussion with the General Manager?s Executive Assistant.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

Where ever possible it is proffered that Council meeting be held outside normal business hours so as to make it easier for the public to attend.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There is no discernable risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The revised meeting arrangements significantly reduce direct and indirect costs.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7????? SF1620??????????? 280612???????? Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report concerns the adoption of the 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program subject to a number of changes.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Council adopt the minutes of the Workshop on the Operational Plan and Draft Delivery Program held on 14 June 2012

 

2.?????? That Council adopt the 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program as advertised subject to the following changes:

 

????????? a.?????? The changes listed in the second attachment to this report being those referred to the ????????? Workshop on 14 June 2012

 

????????? b.?????? The changes to the wording of the Delivery Program to reflect Council?s financial ????????? position as indicated in the fourth attachment to this report.

 

????????? c.?????? The following changes to the Delivery Program and Fees and Charges:

 

Delivery Program

 

?????????????????? $1,500 - Invoice received from Local Government and Shires Associations on 8 June for 2012/2013 financial year.? Shortfall of $1,500 on budget amount

 

?????????????????? $8,000 - Estimate received from Electoral Commissioner for cost of September 2012 election.? Shortfall of $8,000 on budget amount

 

New Fees and Charges

 

Rechecking of Engineering Plans after the issue of a construction certificate - $100 minimum plus $80/additional hour

 

Driveway Risers

 

Installation of single 4m width including steel pipes - $880 (includes GST)

Installation of new risers for driveways - $572 (includes GST)

Repair/Replacement of driveway risers ? at cost (includes GST).

 

Interest on Rates and Charges

 

10% p.a. on daily rests (was 11% in 2011/2012)

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can accept the recommendations or make other changes to its Operational Plan and Delivery Program.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 31 May it was resolved as follows:

 

1??????? That Council adopt the 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program for the purposes of public exhibition including, if approved, a rate variation of 10.04% which is comprised of the following:

 

?????? 3.6% rate pegging

?????? 5.04% being a continuation of Council?s expiring environmental levy and loan program financing for the replacement of Deep Creek Bridge and the stabilisation of Riverside Drive and

?????? 1.4% to fund a loan to finance renewal works identified in Council?s Asset Management Plans

 

2??????? That Council provide a copy of the resolution to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) as required under the Division of Local Government Special Rate Variation Guidelines.

 

3??????? That a further workshop be conducted at 9.00 am on Thursday 14 June 2012 in relation to reviewing the Delivery Program and the strategies in the Operational Plan and Delivery Program.

 

Council has since been advised that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has approved its application for a special rate variation in full.

 

The Operational Plan and Delivery Program were placed on public exhibition on 31 May with submissions closing on or before Thursday 28 June 2012.? As at the date of preparing this report, Council had received no public submissions.? However if any submissions are received they will be the subject of a late report to this meeting.

 

The workshop to review the Delivery Program, including the strategies in both the Operational Plan and Delivery Program was held on Thursday 14 June.? The report to the workshop is the first and second attachment to this report.? The minutes are the third attachment to this report.? The report indicates that the draft delivery program will be unable to fund scheduled works over the 4 year period.? Even in 2013/14 Council will have used up all available working funds to fulfil the program.? Based on the Delivery Program and Asset Management Plan summary, Council is not financially sustainable in the medium to long term.

 

It is recommended that the section in the Operational Plan and Delivery Program dealing with funding be amended to reflect the discussion at the Workshop.? The proposed new wording is the fourth attachment.

 

Other proposed changes to the Operational Plan and Delivery Program are:

 

Delivery Program

 

$1,500???????? Invoice received from Local Government and Shires Associations on 8 June for 2012/2013 financial year.? Shortfall of $1,500 on budget amount

 

$8,000???????? Estimate received from Electoral Commissioner for cost of September 2012 election.? Shortfall of $8,000 on budget amount

 

New Fees and Charges

 

Rechecking of Engineering Plans after the issue of a construction certificate - $100 minimum plus $80/additional hour

 

Driveway Risers

 

Installation of single 4m width including steel pipes - $880 (includes GST)

Installation of new risers for driveways - $572 (includes GST)

Repair/Replacement of driveway risers ? at cost (includes GST).

 

Interest on Rates and Charges

 

10% p.a. on daily rests (was 11% in 2011/2012)

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with finance staff.

 

At the date of preparing the report there had been no public submissions.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment which have not previously been reported on.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no new risks in relation to Council?s Operational Plan and Delivery Program.? The significant medium to long term financial risk for Council?s General Fund is discussed in the first attachment.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The report will finalise Council?s Operational Plan and Delivery Program.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The Operational Plan establishes Council?s available working funds for the ensuing year.

 

Attachments:

1View

15130/2012 - Report to Council Workshop on 14 June 2012

0 Pages

2View

15132/2012 - Changes to Forward Plan after exhibition & prior to Council Workshop 14 June 2012 - Part of Report to Workshop on 14 June.

0 Pages

3View

15125/2012 - Minutes of the workshop held on Thursday 14 June 2012

0 Pages

4View

15133/2012 - Amended wording for Delivery Program reported to Council on 28 June

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 

council workshop 14 June 2012

ITEM xx????? SF1672???????????????? Draft delivery program ? 2012/17

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services; Peter Baynes, Manager Assets; Michael Coulter, General Manager????????

 

 


 

Summary:

 

The current Draft Delivery Program indicates that Council?s General Fund is unable to support all of its scheduled works over this period. The General Fund figures have been included on ?a business as usual? scenario for the majority of Council?s activities with the exception for infrastructure expenditure, which is based on Council?s newly formed asset management plans that entail an expansion of renewal work to improve the condition of assets. Although Council?s short and medium term financial position is sound, its long term financial position is questionable. Council needs to make, sooner rather than later, significant sustainability decisions. Prior to adoption of the Community Strategic Plan Council will need to address as a matter of priority the Draft Delivery Program in terms of imminent financial sustainability issues. This Council workshop has been organised for this purpose.

 

 


 

recommendation:

 

1. That Council note and endorse the attached adjustments prior to dealing with the Draft Delivery Program 2012/17.

 

2. That amendments to the Draft Delivery Program 2012/17 emanating from this workshop be included as a submission to the exhibited Draft Community Strategic Plan.

 

3. That Council prioritise the options to improve its Asset Renewal Ratio and list any additional options.

 

4. That the discussion in Council?s Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan incorporate the outcomes of the consideration in 3. above.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can leave the Draft Delivery Program as exhibited, and deal with each year's forecast works program through its annual budget process. This however could compromise Council?s long term financial position as well as depart form a long term strategic focus that is associated with the DLG?s Integrated Financial Reporting framework.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Depending on the context, sustainability can take on several meanings. In local government it has made its way to the forefront of enquiries, forums, media statements and local government processes. Sustainability is certainly one of the current buzz words of the industry. Over the past few years it has been narrowed to a financial context after the Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of NSW Local Government (?Allan? Report, 2006). A central finding of the inquiry was that ?significant changes had occurred in the composition of NSW local government expenditure? (Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government 2011, p. 15), similar to that found in the previous year?s inquiry of Local Government in South Australia where ?councils were putting community needs and demands for services ahead of their own financial sustainability and that this could not continue? (Local Government Association of South Australia). Following the ?Allan Report?, the Division of Local Government in NSW (DLG) introduced legislation to encourage councils to integrate their plans in an effort to plan holistically for the future (DLG, Planning & Reporting Guidelines 2010). Further, the DLG has introduced Destination 2036 as a process and forum for a new way of planning and ?managing change to create a preferred future? (DLG, Destination 2036, 2011).

 

A lot of what has come from the above enquiries and forums is not new to this particular Council. The Nambucca Shire Council has been aware of the challenges facing it for many years, particularly the infrastructure issues of our general fund. Council has dealt with the issues as promptly and as effectively as possible. But without an accurate assessment of adequate future expenditure, the restrictions on its revenue base and the obscurities associated with continuous cost shifting, setting a consistent strategic path has been difficult. As a result Council has only primarily been able to deal with its financial future on a short term basis, chiefly focusing on setting a balanced annual budget. Gaining approval for the recent rate variation is therefore welcomed but cannot be underestimated nor the benefits devalued through lack of planning. With the income permanently retained in Council?s revenue base, environmental sustainability has taken an enormous step via the environmental levy and, although the funds associated with the general rate variations will fund the liability associated with the short term consumption of loan funds, this revenue should continue to be utilised in a similar strategic fashion once the loan liability is met. Council has embarked on a borrowing strategy since 2006/07 applying special rate variation increases to the funding of loans for the renewal of general fund infrastructure. The relevant rate income that has been applied to these loans will be in place to continue this renewal strategy. The only diversion will be in 2019/20 when the rate variation approval of 2009/10 will expire and an anticipated application for the continuation of the variation will be required.?

 

The recent development of a number of asset management plans now allows Council to select data to set a systematic asset renewal path in line with revenue capabilities. It is reasonable to expect that the data contained in the asset management plans is sufficient to draw informed financial assumptions given the fact they follow Council?s revaluation of roads, bridges, footpaths, drainage and bulk earthworks in 2010. These asset management plans have been rolled into a ten (10) year program of works, the first five (5) years of which has been incorporated into Council?s Draft Delivery Program previously called the Forward Financial Plan. Importantly the delivery program timeframe coincides with the asset revaluation schedule under the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.?

 

Due to the restrictions on its revenue base and the burden of cost shifting, Council?s general fund is the critical area relating to financial sustainability. This should not however detract the importance of long term financial planning associated with Council?s Water and Sewerage funds as the same social, economic and environmental principles apply, i.e. the current and intergenerational financial burden on the residents of the community.

 

Regarding the exhibited Draft Delivery Program, apart from infrastructure expenditure being based on Council?s newly formed asset management plans that entail an expansion of renewal work to improve the condition of assets, Council?s General Fund financial data has been included on ?a business as usual scenario? for the majority of Council?s activities. Despite this, the Draft Delivery Program indicates that Council is unable to fund all of its scheduled works over this period. Even in 2013/14 Council will have used up all available working funds to fulfill the program. Clearly this is financially unacceptable.

 

It was pointed out in the ?Allen Report?? ?unsustainable finances in the long term only refer to the unsustainability of current (revenue raising and spending) policies. Councils? finances can almost always be corrected with substantial rating increases and/or expenditure cutbacks? (Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines, IPWEA 2009, p. 2.2). Council can continue to apply for special rate variations each year to fund loan programs, this will enable council to deal with its financial issues similar to the past. This approach though is not guaranteed over the long term, particularly now Council?s average residential rates are close to par with neighbouring councils (IPART 2012, p. 10) and that Council is noted as disadvantaged in socio-economic terms (IPART 2012, p.6). Further the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal suggest that Council ?consider its longer term financial position and to pursue a range of funding options? (IPART 2012, p. 14). If? Council?s financial capacity, i.e its financial resources both operating (rates & charges) and capital (grants & loans) is limited and constrained, the only other alternative is to review expenditure. It is critical though that by taking this approach, it is undertaken strategically and practicable, based on sound, well informed community based decisions. As the Institute Public Works Engineering Australia point out, ?a local council is sustainable if its infrastructure capital and financial capital is able to be maintained over the long term. Financial sustainability for local governments is being able to manage likely developments and unexpected financial shocks in future periods without having, at some time, to introduce economically significant or socially destabilising income or expenditure adjustments? (Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines, IPWEA 2009, p. 2.2).

 

Council?s available working funds, a key short term financial indicator, is provided at each quarterly budget review. Council?s general financial position is reported upon completion of the audited financial reports for the year ended 30th June each year. A suite of financial indicators are provided to guide Council on its ongoing short and long term financial performance.? Council?s Auditors, Forsyths, also provide commentary on Council?s financial position. Part of that commentary for the financial year ended 30 June 2011 is notable. Although Forsyth?s (2011, p. 8) report Council?s financial standing is sound in the short to medium term, ?infrastructure management will need to be a continued focus for Council in the long term?. Through the information in the financial reports, it appears Council is expending less on asset renewals compared to the deterioration in condition. Forsyth?s also believe that ?Council should aim to ensure infrastructure spending keeps pace with ?wear and tear? and Council should seek to improve asset condition? (Forsyths 2011. p. 8).

 

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in their recent assessment of Council?s application for a special rate variation advised as follows:

 

?The General Fund operating balance ratio trends down over the medium term in both the baseline and special variation scenarios.? This is outside the industry benchmarks of between -10% and 10% and indicates that the special variation will not address the underlying issue of the council?s longer term recurrent sustainability?

 

Over the longer term, councils should aim to achieve an asset renewal ratio close to 100%.? We note that Nambucca Council?s General Fund asset renewal ratio will fall from 71% to 68% in 2014/2015.? While the special variation will improve road infrastructure, the ratio suggests that it will have limited effect on the council?s capital sustainability.

 

Based on the evidence provided, we assessed that the council has demonstrated the need to increase rates in line with its application.? However, it is appropriate for the council to consider its longer term financial position and to pursue a range of funding options.?

 

With the introduction of the new Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) framework Council must produce reports that are strategically focused over the long term. For example the IPR framework directs councils to have a Resourcing Strategy that includes long term financial planning, asset management planning and workforce management planning (Planning & Reporting Manual, DLG 2010). It is imperative that this is more than just a compliance exercise. Importantly, for the information that has already been gathered through community consultation and asset management data, that meaningful and realistic service levels (activity expenditure thresholds) are developed to ensure financial sustainability can occur through a measured adjustment to these levels of service.? The long term financial plan should then evolve into a reliable document that balances recurrent and one off expenditure relevant to the financial capacity of Council and community expectations.

 

Prior to adoption of the Community Strategic Plan Council will need to address as a matter of priority the exhibited Draft Delivery Program in terms of the imminent financial sustainability issues. This Council workshop has been organised for this purpose.

 

To assist with the workshop discussion, the following asset management information has been provided by Council?s Manager Assets:

 

A number of items and corrections have been found with the current exhibited Draft Delivery Program and are listed in the attached for Council?s information as well as the adjusted Net Change in Working Capital for each year.?

 

Additional leverage in the form of borrowings and over the next five (5) years has already been taken into account. Council can draw down an additional $0.5m in loans per year and expect to remain under Council?s 10% debt service ratio threshold. This loan scenario has been incorporated in the draft delivery program for road renewal works.

 

What is Asset Management?

 

Asset Management is the management of assets to ensure the provision of agreed levels of service in the most cost effective manner and within a tolerable risk profile.

An essential factor in formulating an effective asset management strategy is establishing an agreed level of service to be delivered from the infrastructure assets.? Levels of service can be expressed in terms of ?deliverables? such as safety, function and quality and also in terms of technical aspects such as condition, cost and risk.? To determine an agreed level of service consultation with the community is essential in order to gauge expectations in terms of safety, function and quality.

Council is in the early stages of implementing an asset management strategy and, like many local government bodies in NSW, is coming to grips with the reality of managing an ageing asset portfolio within the constraints of available funding.

 

Asset Management Plans

 

Asset management plans are prepared to demonstrate responsible management of infrastructure assets and services provided from those assets, compliance with regulatory requirements and communicate funding required to provide the required levels of service.? These plans are to be read in conjunction with Council's 20 Year Community Strategic Plan, Infrastructure Management Plan and Annual Budget.

 

Issues

 

Asset management plans developed to date are showing a need to increase planned expenditure for several classes of asset to offset previous under expenditure and reduce backlog.? In effect, these plans establish the required expenditure for maintaining infrastructure assets in a condition that will ensure ongoing service provision at an acceptable level of service.? An overall pattern is that planned expenditure levels generally are higher than historical levels of expenditure.? This is a challenge for Council? on the one hand more expenditure is required to ensure ongoing provision of services, but on the other hand funding to carry out this work is limited.

 

As an example for the sealed road network the optimal program of rehabilitation and resealing equates to approximately $1.48M and $640K per annum respectively.? Historically expenditure has averaged $830K on rehabilitation and $400K on reseals.

The planned expenditure of approximately $1M for rehabilitation and $550K for resealing is set at a level to partially bridge the gap between the two.? The planned expenditure programs do not attempt to fully bridge the gap in recognition that Council?s ability to fund a comprehensive program is limited and also that in reality some of the road network will remain in serviceable condition beyond the nominal design life.

 

Another measure of how Council is managing its assets is the Asset Renewal Ratio (ARR) which is Asset Renewal expenditure divided by Depreciation expense.? This ratio compares the money being invested in renewing assets with depreciation expense which is a measure of asset consumption, or in other words, a measure of the asset ?wearing out?

 

Ideally the ARR should be around 100%, that is Council should be replacing assets at the same rate at which they are wearing out.? Currently Council?s ARR is 71% and is forecast to fall to 68% in 2014/15.

 

This figure is for Council?s overall position.? It is worth considering the ARR for asset categories to gain a better understanding of overall asset management practices.

 

For sealed rural roads the ARR has typically been around 75%.? Adaption of a higher rate of expenditure based on initial asset management plans has seen the ratio improve to 79% and future plans incorporating the special rate variation will see the ratio increase to 96%.? Likewise the ARR for urban streets has increased from 60% to 76% and will go to 85% with the special rate variation.

 

Targeted expenditure on bridges in recent years sees the ARR for bridges at just over 100%.? The average ARR over the 10 years of the long term plan is 120%.

 

Conversely the ARR for other classes of assets is well below the 71% for Council as a whole.? For example the ARR for public halls is at around 10 to 15%, for libraries it is approximately 20% and for the aquatic centre it has been about 10% on average.

 

These low figures indicate that generally very little expenditure has been put into capital works for these assets.? Whilst this has not necessarily been a specific strategic approach it is probably not unreasonable for these longer life assets as long as routine maintenance regime is in place. ?In reality it may not be possible to spend the equivalent on renewals as depreciation each year.? In this case allocation of an equivalent amount to a dedicated reserve fund is an alternate means of ensuring adequate funds are available for when the asset reaches the end of its life.

 

For our public halls as an example targeted maintenance over recent years has seen them return to a generally acceptable standard and as long as annual maintenance is carried out these halls should remain serviceable for the foreseeable future.? The real issue will be that when any of these assets reaches the end of life (for example, should a hall destroyed by bushfire) then we will most likely not have the funds to rebuild it and forced closure is a real possibility.

 

The following table documents the gap in the asset renewal ratio (ARR) by asset category.? The table demonstrates the effort which Council has applied to maintaining expenditure in sealed roads and also bridges.? Whilst the ARR is being maintained at 0.85 for sealed rural roads, the depreciation expense is very large which means there is still a shortfall in renewal funding of $380,00 per annum.? The shortfall would be significantly greater without the recently approved special rate variation.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSET CLASS

Asset Category

Depreciation Expense

Planned Renewals

ARR

Notes

Buildings

Council Offices

????????? 77,000

????????????????? -??

0.00

In many cases no renewals expenditure is planned for building assets, hence the ARR is zero.?

In past years, and again in future years, some works have been undertaken.? In general though the rate of renewal expenditure on these assets probably falls well short of that required.

 

Council Works Depot

????????? 22,000

??????????? 50,000

2.27

 

Council Halls

??????? 113,000

????????????????? -??

0.00

 

Museum

????????? 60,000

????????????????? -??

0.00

 

Libraries

????????? 97,000

????????????????? -??

0.00

 

Amenities/Toilets

??????? 198,000

??????????? 50,000

0.25

 

Swimming Pool

??????? 127,000

??????? ??????????-??

0.00

 

Showground/Saleyards

????????? 37,000

??????????? 10,000

0.27

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Roads

Urban Streets

???? 1,320,000

?????? 1,100,000

0.83

Without Special Rate Variation ARR drops to ~ 0.76

 

Sealed Rural Roads

???? 2,575,000

????? ?2,195,000

0.85

Without Special Rate Variation ARR drops to ~ 0.68

 

Unsealed Roads

??????? 122,000

????????????????? -??

0.00

 

 

Bridges

??????? 550,000

????????? 935,000

1.70

 

 

Footpaths

??????? 111,000

??????????? 65,000

0.59

 

 

Kerb and Gutter

??????? 194,000

????????? 100,000

0.52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water

Headworks/Bores

??????? 122,000

 

 

 

 

Reservoirs

????????? 85,000

 

 

 

 

Pump Station

????????? 32,000

 

 

 

 

Water Mains

??????? 707,000

????????? 198,000

0.28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sewer

Pump Stations

??????? 191,000

????????? 100,000

0.52

 

 

Treatment Works

??????? 450,000

 

0.00

 

 

Mains

??????? 217,000

????????? 100,000

0.46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Works

Stormwater Conduits

??????? 276,000

????????? 100,000

0.36

 

 

Inlet and Junction Pits

????????? 28,000

 

 

 

 

Culverts

????????? 86,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plant

 

??????? 326,000

????????? 535,000

1.64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 

 

 

Options

 

From the table, the general fund asset categories with significant unfunded depreciation are:

 

Sealed rural roads? -???????? $380,000

Urban streets?????????????????? -???????? $220,000

Stormwater conduits??????? -???????? $176,000

Amenities/toilets??? -???????? $148,000

Aquatic Centre???????????????? -???????? $127,000

Halls???????????????????? -???????? $113,000

Libraries??????????????? -???????? $97,000

Kerb and gutter??????????????? -???????? $94,000

Culverts???????????????? -???????? $86,000

Council office?????????????????? -???????? $77,000

Museums????????????? -???????? $60,000

 

The options to improve this position are to either increase renewals or decrease depreciation levels, or a combination of both.

 

Increased levels of renewal expenditure will rely on increased revenue being available to fund the renewals, or alternatively, expenditure being diverted from other activities.

 

Realistic options to increase revenue are limited.? Council has been fortunate in recent years to receive special rate variations above the rate pegging amount, but this is not a long term solution.

 

Diverting funds from other activities to infrastructure asset renewals will in all likelihood require Council to withdraw from some ?non-core? functions and/or put to the community a reduced level of service in other areas.? This could result in poorer roads through replacing sealed roads with unsealed roads, closing or load limiting bridges, longer grass in parks, less toilet cleaning, more stormwater drainage issues and the like.

 

The following table represents a range of options which may be more acceptable to the community.? They will not rectify Council?s financial position, but they will improve it.

 

The other option which is currently being considered by the State Government through its Independent Local Government Review Panel is structural reform of the sector.? This may occur through achieving economies of scale through alliances between Councils in the provision of services or through amalgamation of Councils.? Of course structural reform will only represent an improvement to this community if it can deliver services more efficiently and effectively than is currently the case.


Options to Redirect Operational Expenditure to Unfunded Depreciation and to Reduce Depreciating Assets

 

Option

Comment

1.? Increase life of sealed roads

DES is currently implementing a range of options including improved drainage, improved pavement material, and improved construction techniques.? Increasing the quality of pavements to increase their life may come at an increased cost.? Need to weigh life cycle cost.? Not an option which will realise tangible gains in the short/medium term.

2.? Increase life of bridges

The RMS and many local councils have changed to concrete bridges (ie all concrete rather than timber piers and girders).? Whilst there is an increase in cost, their assessment is that all concrete has a cheaper life cycle cost.? Again, this is not an option which will realise tangible gains in the short/medium term.

3.? Reduce service level of bridges

Reduction in width of bridges from 2 lane to single lane implemented wherever possible.? Also not replace bridges where there is a reasonable alternative access.

4.? Reduce the number of amenities and also their size

There should be a report on the opportunities to reduce the number of amenities.? Also if the amenities need to be maintained, whether there is an opportunity to reduce their size from two or more pans to a single unisex facility.? A reduction in the size of amenities will also reduce cleaning and other operational costs.

5.? Council halls to be transferred to incorporated committees

Whilst Council?s halls are currently in a reasonable condition, it will not be in a financial position to undertake major refurbishments or to replace them.? Existing Committees of Management should be encouraged to become Incorporated Associations and to accept ownership or trusteeship for their hall.

6.? Senior Citizens Centres to be transferred to their incorporated committees

The Senior Citizens Centres are already well managed by committees with little of no involvement from Council.? The transfer of ownership should be achievable.

7.? Sell the Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre

At the end of the current lease, consideration could be given to seeking expressions of interest in purchasing the Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre.

8.? Transfer the Macksville Showground and Saleyards to the Nambucca River District Agricultural Association

Negotiations for this transfer are progressing.

9.? Sell or lease the Visitor Information Centre and undertake tourism marketing from Council?s office

In 2011/2012 Council committed $103,300 to tourism and area promotion.? A further $46,000 is spent on economic development initiatives.? This cost could be substantially reduced by running tourism marketing from Council?s office.

10.? Transfer the Pre-Schools at Valla Beach and Eungai to their respective management committees

As per the comment in relation to Senior Citizens Centres, the existing Committees of Management should accept ownership of these facilities.? Unlike halls, they do have a significant and on-going source of funding.

11.? Defer the replacement of 2 vacant outdoor staff positions.

Council has already resolved not to fund 2 vacant positions in its indoor staff.? The Assistant GM ? Engineering Services is undertaking a resourcing investigation to align labour and materials with a ?normal? works program post natural disaster funding.? The replacement of the 2 vacant outdoor staff positions would be subject to the outcome of this study.? The Internal Auditor is also about to conduct a review of plant utilisation.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Director Engineering Services

Manager Assets

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There will be implications for the environment if Council cannot properly fund asset renewals which affect the environment.

 

Social

 

There are significant social implications in relation to Council?s financial sustainability.

 

Economic

 

There are significant economic implications if Council cannot renew its infrastructure in a timely way.

 

Risk

 

There are significant risks to the future of the organisation if Council cannot meet its asset renewal obligations.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

This is the purpose of the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

If the issues discussed are not addressed, Council?s working funds will be affected.


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 

MINUTES OF WORKSHOP ON OPERATIONAL PLAN AND DRAFT 2012-2016 DELIVERY PROGRAM HELD ON THURSDAY 14 JUNE 2012 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

Present:? Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor), Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM, Cr Paula Flack, Cr Anne Smyth, Cr John Ainsworth, Cr Janet Court.

 

Also Present:? Michael Coulter (General Manager), Paul Gallagher (Assistant General Manager ? Engineering Services), Greg Meyers (Assistant General Manager ? Corporate and Community Services), Peter Baynes (Manager Assets), Craig Doolan (Manager Financial Services), Joanne Hudson (Manager Human Resources)

 

Apologies:? Cr Elaine South, Cr Brian Finlayson

 

 

 

MOTION:? (Flack/Court)

 

A. That Council note and endorse the attached adjustments prior to dealing with the Draft Delivery Program 2012/17.

 

B. That amendments to the Draft Delivery Program 2012/17 emanating from this workshop be included as a submission to the exhibited Draft Community Strategic Plan.

 

C. That the options for Council to improve its Asset Renewal Ratio be the following:

 

1.?? Increase the life of sealed roads

2.?? Increase the life of bridges

3.?? Reduce the service level of bridges

4.?? Reduce the number of amenities and also their size

5.?? Council halls to be transferred to incorporated committees

6.?? Senior Citizens Centres to be transferred to their incorporated committees

7.?? Sell the Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre

8.?? Transfer the Macksville Showground and Saleyards to the Nambucca River District Agricultural Association

9.?? Sell or lease the Visitor Information Centre and undertake tourism marketing from Council?s office

10.? Transfer the Pre-Schools at Valla Beach and Eungai to their respective management committees

11.? Defer the replacement of two (2) vacant outdoor staff posltions

12.? Transfer tennis courts and other single purpose sporting venues to their respective committees of management

13.? Review all parks and gardens and particularly those with no current usage, eg Donnelly Welsh, Farringdon Fields

14.? Libraries ? whether we need two (2) and the operating hours of each

 

D. That the discussion in Council?s Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan incorporate the outcomes of the consideration in C. above.

 

E.? That once the Delivery Program is adopted that Council consider options for raising public awareness regarding the Delivery Program and the financial challenges facing Council and the community.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Adoption of 2012/2013 Operational Plan and 2012/2016 Delivery Program

 

Funding the Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

Council?s main sources of revenue are rates, government grants, investments, fees and other charges. This is the income we use to provide a range of services. The budget is comprised of the operating budget and the capital budget. The operating budget provides resources for the day-to-day service delivery of Council while the capital budget funds infrastructure works as well as equipment such as plant, vehicles and computer equipment.

 

In developing the budget for the current financial year, 2012 ? 2013, Council has been forced to reduce its operating costs and borrow more money so as to maintain expenditure on essential infrastructure such as roads and bridges.? Council cannot continue to do this.? Therefore difficult decisions will need to be made in 2012/2013 to reduce the services provided by Council so that it can operate within its means.? The strategies which are adopted will need to be reflected in Council?s Delivery Program.

 

The main features of the Operational Plan for 2012/2013 are:

 

?????????? In 2012/2013, general rates will increase by 5.0% following approval for a special rate variation by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

?????????? It is forecast that the property market will remain subdued and as a consequence a decline in fees and charges associated with construction and conveyancing has been incorporated in the budget.

?????????? In 2012/2013 provision is made for the replacement of Eungai Bridge ($410,000) and Laverty?s Bridge at Taylor?s Arm ($525,000)

?????????? In 2012/2013, $740,000 is provided for the rehabilitation of urban streets

?????????? In 2012/2013, $1,015,000 is provided for the rehabilitation of sealed rural roads

?????????? In 2012/2013, $570,000 is provided for the resealing of rural roads

?????????? The domestic waste charge, which has been held at $438 for a standard residential service for the past two years, will need to increase to $484 in 2012/2013.? The most significant factor in this increase is increased processing costs for the contents of the red bin.? These processing costs will increase by $167,000 per annum as a consequence of higher EPA standards for the use of the processed (biomass) material.? Another factor contributing to the increase is the State Government?s landfill levy which is increasing to $42.20 per tonne and adding about $25,000 to operating costs for domestic waste.

?????????? In 2012/2013, water usage charges will be increasing from $1.93 per kilolitre to $2.28 per kilolitre.? This significant increase is required to fund Council?s 30 year capital works program and importantly to provide necessary drought security through the construction of the $54m, 4,500 megalitre Bowraville Off River Water Storage.? The residential access charge for water will also increase from $88 to $104.

?????????? In relation to the proposed Bowraville Off River Water Storage, the four-year Delivery Program provides for substantial grant funding from the State and Federal Governments.? The State Government, through its Country Towns Water and Sewerage Supply Program is providing Council with a 39.8% subsidy for the cost of the water storage.? Council is also receiving $9m from the Federal Government under their National Water Security Program.? Therefore over 50% of the cost of the proposed water storage is coming from other levels of government, which is a very good outcome for residents.

?????????? The residential access charge for sewer will increase from $452 to $487.

?????????? A balanced budget for 2012/2013.

 

A balanced budget for 2012/2013 has only been achieved through the non-replacement of staff, additional borrowings and the deferral of required capital expenditure.? This is an unsustainable financial strategy.

 

The problem exists because Council?s General Fund is being ?squeezed? on the revenue side by rate pegging and on the cost side by depreciating infrastructure which has to be renewed and replaced in a timely way.? This infrastructure includes 170 bridges, 247km of sealed rural roads, 105km of urban streets and 345km of unsealed rural roads.? Inadequate funding of the depreciation of this infrastructure is the challenge for Council.? If the problem is left unattended, Council will fail in its core function of providing physical access to properties.

 

Cost shifting from the State Government such as through reduced regional road funding and increased contributions to the Rural Fire Service adds to the problem.? Council has to determine how it will reduce its services to a level which is financially sustainable. In the latter part of 2012, Council will explore a number of measures that in may help reduce its expenditure on infrastructure, including:

?????????? Reduce the service level of bridges, with bridges going from two-lane to single lane where possible.

?????????? Reduce the number of public amenities managed by Council, and reduce the size of new amenities.

?????????? Transfer Council halls to incorporated committees, which would have ownership or trusteeship for their halls.

?????????? Transfer Senior Citizens Centres to incorporated committees.

?????????? Seek expressions of interest for the purchase of the Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre at the end of the current lease.

?????????? Sell or lease the Visitor Information Centre and provide visitor information from Council?s office.

?????????? Transfer pre-school buildings at Valla Beach and Eungai to their management committees.

?????????? Transfer parks and gardens to community groups where possible.

?????????? Transfer tennis clubs and other sporting clubs to their relevant committees.

?????????? Examine Council libraries operations and see if costs can be minimised through reduced hours or maintaining only one library.

 

In all these decisions, the Council recognises the importance of community expectations in determining the level of services and expenditure. There will be ongoing consultation with the general community as well as the people who are most closely involved with the assets listed above.?

 

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF1709??????????? 280612???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 15 June 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the list of outstanding development applications (in excess of 12 months old) be noted and received for information by Council

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS ON APPLICATION

2010/221

03/09/2010

Additions to existing pre-school

Part Lot 8 DP 821952, Valla Beach Road, Valla Beach

This application was placed on hold pending further discussions regarding a Bushfire Hazard easement over the adjoining land. Whilst the applicants were requested to withdraw the application, they requested that the matter remain live as external funding is tied to this proposal and progress has been made with the adjoining landowners regarding the easement with a finalisation considered imminent.

Council has resolved outstanding matters in relation to the easement.

Application referred to RFS on 27 March 2012

Reply received 25 May 2012

Application being processed for presentation to Council at a future meeting

See Report on Council?s Agenda

 


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

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2011/142

25/08/2011

Consolidation of 3 existing short term sites to create 1 long term site within the existing Nambucca Beach Holiday Park

Lot 162 DP 755560, 26 Swimming Creek Road, Nambucca Heads

? DA was not publicly advertised

? The proposed site adjoins a public reserve for public recreation and setback variances are greater than 80%

? nine (9) trees will need to be removed to facilitate the DA, including 3 melaleuca trees that provide homes for nesting tawny frogmouth owls;

? Why is Nambucca Shire Council also providing greater variances than 10% to accommodate the park owner's structures

? Dwelling and associated structures will not fit on proposed site;

? Service issues & non-compliance with Regulations;

? Fire risk and issues as to placement of hose reels;

? Submitted plan is not accurate;

? Proposed building 3 times larger than buildings already in the park;

Currently being assessed

Rec'd letter from RFS on 3/01/2012 requesting further information is required to enable them to assess the application

Information received and forwarded to RFS - awaiting reply

Matter to be presented to GPC meeting for final determination once assessment completed

 

 


 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2011/182

2011/183

2011/184

14/11/11

Alterations & Additions to unit

Lots 2, 3, 4 SP 36372, 2/3/4 40 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

? Potential overshadowing in the winter months;

? Design is poor, and will undervalue the potential of this prime site;

? Height of proposed buildings 8.5m;

? The proposed pitched roof line with hinder views and be detrimental to the amenity of Scotts Head;

? Overlooking? and noise from the proposed balconies;

? Plans appear to be more in line of a new construction and do not resemble alterations;

? Does not fit with the future character of the locality;

? Development will reduce amount of sea breeze hence affecting cross-ventilation;

? Encroachment on privacy;

Referred to engineers and H&B. Applicant has been advised of additional information required. Clock stopped.

Substantial additional information required

Works impact on community common space (Body Corporate).

Assessing application - Application on hold because of dispute with Body Corporate and resolution to permit the application to be lodged

Strata Management Meeting 2/4/2012

Application will be presented to Council for determination at a later meeting

Strata considering recision motion to withdraw owners consent for DA

7 Day letter issued 17/04/2012 to applicant requesting that applications be withdraw or the matter will be presented to Council for determination based on the information in front of Council - this letter was extended to 14 days and is being followed up

Legal advice has been sought due to threat of legal action from both parties

A report will be presented to Council following assessment of the applications and receipt of the legal advice

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF1709??????????? 280612???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined under Delegated Authority to 15 June 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED TO 15 JUNE 2012

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

2012/068

15/06/2012

Mr R Henderson

Continued Use of Additions and Garage as a Habitable Room

Lot 31 Section 3 DP 250518, 10 Henderson Street, Valla Beach

0

2012/069

06/06/2012

Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited

Increase in Production Capacity to 200,000 tonnes per annum

Lot 16 DP 1140719, 2 Centra Park Street, Macksville

4,000,000

2012/070

15/06/2012

Mr P Ireland

Additions to Existing Shed

Lot 782 DP 700585, 222 Upper Warrell Creek Road, Congarinni

35,000

 

 

COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 15 JUNE 2012

Including those issued by Private Certifiers

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

2012/623

14/06/2012

Anthony & Barbara Skinner

Residential Additions

Lot 103 DP 776168, 774 Grassy Head Road, Grassy Head

150,000

 

 


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO 15 JUNE 2012

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE

$

2012/036

Lot 62 DP 755548, Lot 76 DP 755548, 2938 North Arm Road, Girralong

Dwelling House ? Rural

40,000

2012/059

Lot 102 DP 776168, 706 Grassy Head Road, Way Way

Continued Use of Shed

4,200

2012/049

Lot 33 DP 32372, 35 East Street, Macksville

Shed ? Residential

20,683

2012/054

Lot 852 DP 1149952, 132a Ocean View Drive, Valla Beach

Dwelling-House

218,429

2012/051

Lot 47 DP 228703, 95 Ocean View Drive, Valla Beach

Dwelling Additions

12,430

2012/055

Lot 4 DP 1136727, 24 Robert Hughes Road, Gumma

Dwelling-House

350,000

2012/064

Lot 1051 DP 706354, 459 Boat Harbour Road, Yarranbella

Earthworks (Placement of Fill)

0

2012/030

Lot 2 DP 630662 & Lot 1 DP 1137186, 1111 & 1167 Taylors Arm Road, Utungun

3 Lot Rural Subdivision

0

2012/047

Lot 14 Section F DP 20823, 5 Adin Street, Scotts Head

Change of Use to Pharmacy

15,000

2012/058

Lot 1 DP 1161108, 13 Boundary Street, Macksville

Change of Use to Hairdressing Salon

30,000

2012/001/01

Lot 3 DP 1170669, Wurinda Drive, Macksville

Dwelling-House MODIFICATION

180,000

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF812????????????? 280612???????? NAIDOC Week - 1 July to 8 July 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Patricia Walker, Aboriginal Community Development Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report is to advise Council that the National and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) week will be held Sunday 1 July ? Sunday 8 July 2012 and to seek endorsement for the 7 Movies In 7 Hours and the Town of Origin ? Battle of the Postcodes events being held during NAIDOC Week.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note NAIDOC Week is scheduled for Sunday 1 July to Sunday 8 July 2012 with the theme "Spirit of the Tent Embassy: 40 years on'

 

2????????? That Council hold a short Indigenous film screening titled "7 Movies In 7 Hours" at the Bowraville Theatre.

 

3????????? That Council hold a 'Town of Origin ? Battle of the Postcodes' touch football series at Hennessey/Tape Oval, Bowraville.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option of not conducting a NAIDOC Week activity on and/or within Council premises.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council's Aboriginal Community Development Officer has since April held a series of painting workshops for Elders named 'Canvas On The River'. These workshops ran for a period of 6 weeks from April to May. The Elders were enabled to paint their version of Country. What do they see when they look at Country?. Do they paint from a special memory? An instance? From the past, present or future? These were the questions the Elders had to consider when painting and documenting their work.

 

Coinciding with the painting workshops, Beyond Empathy was engaged to film and document the Elders artwork.

 

The completed artworks and explanations of those artworks will be displayed for the week in selected Bowraville shop-fronts.

 

On Wednesday 4 July 2012, commencing at 10:00am, the Bowraville Theatre will screen the documentary alongside seven (7) short Indigenous films from the National Film & Sound Archive.

 

During the intermission, there will be a Lions Club barbeque lunch set on the footpath outside the Bowraville Theatre for all participants.

 

From Thursday 5 July to Friday 6 July there will be a 'Town Of Origin? ? Battle of the Postcodes' series. This event involves residents and/or ex-residents of 2447, 2448 & 2449 participating in a round robin touch football games. There will be trophies given to junior girls, junior boys, senior men and senior women. The Battle of the Postcodes main trophy was donated by Ngambaga Bindarray Girrwaa Community Services Inc. and will be presented to the winning postcode on Friday 6 July 2012.

 

Also on Thursday 5 July local organisations, including Council's Youth Development Officer and the Healthy Communities Coordinator, will be holding information stalls. To entertain the smaller children Macksville Vacation Care and Beyond Empathy have a range of activities from play dough to sack races.

In 2012 Bowraville is the host town and there is an extensive and a very engaging program for the 2012 NAIDOC Week and programs can be found at various organisations in the Nambucca Valley.

 

A memo to attend the short screenings and/or any other event will be extended to the Mayor and Councillors.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Nil impact on the environment.

 

Social

 

With the support and acknowledgement of Council, the local Aboriginal community will observe a positive relationship.

 

Economic

 

Nil

 

Risk

 

This is identified as a low risk activity.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct impact on Council's current budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Council's allocation of $500 towards Aboriginal programs will finance the event.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF807????????????? 280612???????? Attendance at the CBD Town Centre Development and Design Conference.

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the ?CBD Town Centre Development and Design? conference attended by Councils Strategic Planner and Manager Business Development Recently. The report also provides an update on the Macksville Revitalisation Strategy.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Council note the information presented in this report and support staff in the preparation of a Macksville Revitalisation Strategy. As with other plans and strategies Council will be given an opportunity to comment on the plan prior to exhibition which would also be subject to resolution.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council to note the report

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The CBD Town Centre Development and Design Conference was attended by Councils Strategic Planner and Manager Business Development on the 23 and 24 May 2012. The objective of the conference was to:

Provide comprehensive analysis and advice on how to optimise the infrastructure, design and management of key community hubs.

 

With local governments, developers and businesses seeking to enhance the amenity and economic activity of CBDs and town centres, this conference will provide comprehensive analysis of how these spaces can be sculpted to achieve optimum results for the community and local business.

 

Leading case studies of successful urban CBD and regional town centre design and revitalisation will be featured along with analysis of supporting economic development strategies.

 

Attendance complimented Councils on going economic development strategies and strategic planning projects presently underway or identified for future development, including:

 

?????????????? The Valla Urban Growth Area; and

?????????????? The Macksville Revitalisation Strategy (identified as bypass strategy action in the Local Growth Management Strategy ? Employment Lands);

 

At the conference it was encouraging to see how Council and community representatives have implemented physical and policy changes to older towns, unused or poorly used community and private spaces. Although many of the speakers and presentations were from localities with much larger populations than Nambucca Shire, the plans, strategies and concepts presented had value that could be reflected in the Nambucca Shire particularly in relation to the above projects.

 

Macksville Revitalisation Strategy

Councils Employment Lands Strategy recommended a Macksville Revitalisation strategy be prepared for the Macksville CBD as part of a broader suite of actions to capture opportunities which alleviate impacts associated with the Pacific Highway Bypass of Macksville. On the 7th October 2010 Council resolved to apply for funding to prepare a revitalisation Strategy for Macksville.

 

The purpose of the plan would be to assist Council and the community to maintain and improve the viability of the Macksville CBD as place of employment and living for the residents and visitors to the Nambucca Shire.

 

Council was unsuccessful in its application to obtain funding from the Department of Planning to prepare a Revitalisation Strategy for the Macksville CBD.? Given the funding was unsuccessful the matter has not been pursed further.

 

As the Highway bypass approaches Council has an opportunity to pre-empt and plan for this major change to the Macksville CBD. In this regard Council will be able to identify specific works or actions to be implemented in Macksville as funding opportunities arise.

 

Staff have commenced preparing a plan. The plan will complement recent work including the Nambucca Shire Structure Plan and DCP Review, recommendations of the Local Growth Management Strategy ? Employments Lands, recent design work completed for the Nambucca River Open Space Area and Councils Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan Plan and Street Furniture Audit (PAMP). It will also refer to other guidelines and strategies that specifically address Macksville such as the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and the North Coast Urban Design Guidelines. In comparison to these broad documents, it is intended that the plan provide specific outcomes.

 

It is noted that not all expertise is available in house to prepare the plan but the cost of such a plan could be considerably less if a plan is prepared in house using existing information and gaps where external advice is required are noted for later completion.

 

It is proposed to structure the plan in a number of parts which aim to be concise and interpretable by the community and professionals alike. A list of some of the concepts to be reviewed in the plan is provided below:

 

Introduction and Analysis

?????????????? Historical context and Previous Studies (Structure Plan, DCP Review, heritage study, river improvements, urban design guidelines, PAMP)

?????????????? Land Use Planning (examine existing zoning)

?????????????? Existing Features (identify existing features such as historical landmarks, administrative or public places etc)

?????????????? Urban Analysis (review the existing urban area, streetscape, furniture, facades, mobility etc)

?????????????? Highway Bypass (identify opportunities that may arise when the highway bypasses the CB, land that may require rezoning or similar to provide for more suitable uses).

 

Land Use Planning Actions

?????????????? Zones Extent and Type (review the extent of the CBD zone examine implications of alternative zones in areas presently used for residential development but zoned B3 Commercial Core)

?????????????? Shop Top Housing (publicise the incorporation of shop top housing into the LEP 2010, website, fact sheet, rates notice news letter, are there incentives we can provide?);

?????????????? Examine land uses that may need to be amended with the Highway bypass (zones on business lands that rely on highway traffic for large proportion of business ? petrol stations and Motels eg);

?????????????? Examine DCP controls that may need to be amended to compliment the strategy.

 

Public Domain Actions

?????????????? Street Clean Up (prior to completing any improvements ensure the existing infrastructure is clean ? start fresh)

?????????????? Street Furniture (incorporate recommendations and actions from the PAMP, and examine in relation to the highway bypass);

?????????????? Footpath Consistency (ensure consistent footpath treatments ? ensure these are applied with other utility providers)

?????????????? Street Trees (identify suitable locations and species to add green to the CBD)

?????????????? Wallace Lane (investigation opportunities to activate Wallace Lane ? Art, Heritage, Traffic, Boundary Fence Improvements, Sight lines to Nambucca River from Wallace/Princess Streets)

?????????????? Power and lighting (investigation opportunities for underground power; in total or in part e.g. River Street. Review lighting furniture and location to ensure it is attractive, provides for safe and active public spaces after dark)

?????????????? Mobility (incorporate recommendations and actions from the PAMP and review traffic for post highway locality, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular traffic, parking etc)

?????????????? Open Space Availability and Green Space (review unused open space and other Council land ? activate the land by improvements/ activities; protect improve green space)

?????????????? Identify Site Lines (e.g. maximise/improve views to River)

?????????????? Heritage Value (identify areas with heritage value and heritage themes to maintain)

?????????????? War Memorial (are there alternative locations ? is it appropriate to relocate)

?????????????? A Public Facility to help activate the CBD (community arts/ entertainment facility or the like)

 

Private Domain Actions

?????????????? Fa?ade Treatments (develop themes and investigate grant opportunities for dollar for dollar improvements)

?????????????? ?Free Wifii Town? (investigate feasibility of providing a free WiFii town its already available at library, what about the river front? Service businesses such as cafes etc)

?????????????? Empty spaces (investigate opportunities for empty shop fronts, community notices, art displays, awards, education material etc in preference to hoarding)

?????????????? Awnings (identify awning standards, provide incentives for awning replacement, maintenance etc)

?????????????? Heritage Landmark other Heritage Principles (investigate grant opportunities for dollar for dollar improvements, community involvement etc)

?????????????? Signage (signage standards and themes; entrance signage)

?????????????? Urban Design Controls (provide development controls for certain areas or precincts)

 

The strength of any plan prepared would be in its acceptance by the local businesses and community as well as the ability to fund actions identified in the plan. Both these aspects of the plan are discussed below.

 

Community Involvement

 

After the analysis part of the plan is prepared it proposed to engage the community in a range of ways to gain their input into the plan. The following actions are proposed:

 

?????????????? Online survey using our Website;

?????????????? Community forum/workshop with the Chamber of Commerce;

?????????????? Engage Schools in the process;

?????????????? Engage the Local Aboriginal Community in the process; and

?????????????? Other strategies to maximize participation.

 

Plan Preparation, Implementation and Funding

As stated above a large amount of the plan could be prepared in house, however specialist advice may be required to address issues such as street trees. Using the street trees as an example, the public are very judicious in relation to species used in public spaces as demonstrated at River Street Design and notably commented on at the recent conference. A professional Arborist would be better placed to identify trees that would suit the Macksville climate, spaces, and character of the town. Funding for these specialist components would need to be acquired as needed, whether it be through Council or appropriate grant funding.

It is anticipated the implementation of the plan would be primarily in three (3) phases aligning with the Highway upgrade:

 

?????????????? Prior to the Highway Bypass;

?????????????? During the bypass construction;

?????????????? Post Highway construction

 

Funding to implement actions in plan will come from various sources for example:

 

?????????????? Council recently committed $200,000 to works in the River Street open space area over a two (2) year period.

?????????????? The Roads and Maritime Service have provided funds to assist town centre improvements other localities such as Taree. Council will be better placed to negotiate with the RMS when works are identified in a plan.

?????????????? Other funding may be available through sustainability, economic development grants or other relevant grants. For example WASiP funds may be directed to alternative bin furniture in the CBD if they facilitate recycling. An example of alternative street furniture is provided below.

 

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

Example of Street Furniture ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Existing Street Furniture

 

It is recommended that Council support the preparation of the plan in house at this stage and identify any gaps where additional specialist advice may be required. Further reports will be prepared for Council as the plan progresses.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director of Environment and Planning

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The plan will look at open space areas and sustainability programs that may apply within the CBD.

 

Social

 

The plan take into consideration the views and needs expressed by the community and the opportunities that the bypass of the CBD will create for the community and businesses.

 

Economic

 

The bypass of the Macksville CBD is expected to have an impact on a number of businesses within Macksville. By planning for this change, business can be better prepared for the change and take advantage of the opportunities that may arise with the change.

 


Risk

 

Should Council not commence the preparation of the plan, there will be less chance of successfully obtaining grant or other funding as it arises.

 

Given there is no funding committed to this project in the budget, the project will take some time to complete as resources are made available to complete specialist sections of the plan.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil at this stage, further reports will be directed to Council as the need arises to source funds.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.5??? SF776????????????? 280612???????? Consistent Flood Level Reference and Definitions

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council has sought a report on the definitions applied to the varying flood level references to ensure that Council?s Floodplain Management Plans and Maps maintains a consistent reference and definition to flood levels and frequencies which is clearly understood by the general public.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council apply the definition of Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) when identifying the chance of a flood of a given or larger size occurring in the one year, expressed as a percentage, with the 1% AEP flood being used to establish the respective Flood Planning Levels.

 

2????????? That Council, when establishing Flood Planning Level (FPLs) for a locality or area, utilise the 1% AEP level plus the relevant freeboard as required or recommended based on the type and form of development or infrastructure which will be specified in Australian Height Datum (AHD) level.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose not to adopt the recommendation and rely upon the information provided by expert consultants. This option is not supported.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has several Flood Studies and documents which identify the probability and frequency of flooding along with differing flood level references such as the 1% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability), 100 year ARI (Annual Return Intervals), 1:100 Year Flood Level and the FPLs (Flood Planning Levels). Similarly, the respective technical documents and guidelines relating to Flooding and Floodplain Management also refer to all of the above.

 

Definitions out of the Glossary of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual April 2005 are:

Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) ? the chance of a flood of a given or larger size occurring in the one year, usually expressed as a percentage, eg if a peak flood discharge of 500m3/s has an AEP of 5%, it means that there is a 5% chance (that is one-in 20 chance) of a 500m3/s or larger events occurring in any one year

 

Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) ? the long term average number of years between the occurrence of a flood as big as or larger than the selected event. For example, floods with a discharge as great as or greater than the 20 year ARI flood event will occur on average once every 20 years. ARI is another way of expressing the likelihood of occurrence of a flood event.

 

Flood Planning Levels (FPLs) ? are the combinations of flood levels derived from significant historical flood events or floods of specific AEPs and freeboards selected for floodplain risk management purposes, as determined in management studies and incorporated in management plans. FPLs supersede the ?standard flood event? in the 1986 manual.

 

The critical definition for Council is the FPL?s (Flood Planning Levels) which provide the guidance for all development and establish floor levels for new buildings, invert and overt levels for drainage infrastructure and capping levels for other critical infrastructure. Generally this has been identified as the 1:100 year flood level plus the appropriate freeboard.

 

Under Clause 1.1.2 Policy Provisions (NSW Floodplain Development Manual April 2005) it states

The policy (manual) provides for:

 

A merit based approach to selection of appropriate flood planning levels (FPLs). This recognises the need to consider the full range of flood sizes, up to and including the probable maximum flood (PMF) and the corresponding risks associated with each flood, whilst noting that with few exceptions, it is neither feasible nor socially or economically justifiable to adopt the PMF as the basis for FPLs. FPLs for typical residential development would generally be based around the 1% AEP flood event plus an appropriate freeboard (typically 0.5m).

 

Establishing flood levels is derived from a range of modelling and scenarios using historical data, a range of single and two dimensional models and automated modelling. One of the inputs into flood modelling is the data obtained from the Australian Rainfall and Runoff guide, which identifies issues associated with Terminology as outlined below.

 

Australian Rainfall and Runoff ? A Guide to Flood Estimation

 

1.3???? Probability Concepts and Terminology

 

1.3.1? Problems of Terminology

 

Probability concepts and terminology are fundamental to design flood estimation. In specifying probabilities, the terms in common use in the past have included ?recurrence interval?, ?return period? and various terms involving ?probability?. These have often been used in a loose manner, and sometimes quite incorrectly and in a misleading fashion. In considering the terminology that should be used in this edition of ARR, the National Committee on Hydrology and Water Resources of the Institution had three major concerns.

 

1.3.2? Adopted Terminology

 

Two probability terms have been adopted for use in this document. They are ?average recurrence interval? (ARI) and ?annual exceedance probability? (AEP). ?Average? has been added to the commonly-used term ?recurrence interval? to help minimise the misconception of a fixed interval to the next exceedance. It is recommended that the full term ARI should always be used and that the shortened version be discontinued. It is incumbent on professional designers to understand that the periods between exceedances are generally random, and that they convey and explain this to those who make decisions on the basis of their designs, and to members of the public who are affected.

 

This is further emphasised in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual April 2005 which states in Appendix A Background to Floodplain Risk Management in NSW Clause A2.1 Annual Exceedance Probability states:

 

When floods do sporadically occur they vary greatly in likelihood of occurrence, as measured by Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP). The AEP of a particular flood discharge at a particular point in a particular catchment is the probability that the discharge will be equalled or exceeded in any one year. Typically, AEP?s are quoted in terms of percentages, for example a flood with a 10% AEP has a 10% or one-in-ten chance, of occurring in any year.

 

One advantage of AEP as a measure of the likelihood of flooding is that it is consistent between catchments. Thus, the 5% AEP flood on a catchment of 100km2 extent has the same likelihood of occurrence as the 5% AEP event on a catchment of only 1km2 extent, even though the magnitude and consequences of flood dischargers of the two catchments will be very different. AEP?s can be estimated by several methods. They are briefly described in Appendix F and in more detail in the current edition of Australian Rainfall and Runoff.

 

Key flood risk Management events include the 1% AEP or 100 year ARI event and the probable maximum flood (PMF) as discussed below. More than one significant event at a location in a short time period is statistically possible and has occurred. This is discussed in Section K3.

 

Appendix K Flood Planning Levels (NSW Floodplain Development Manual April 2005) states:

 

K1????? Introduction

 

Flood planning levels (FPLs) are an important tool in the management of flood risk. They are derived from a combination of a flood event, an historic flood or flood of certain EEP (discussed in Section K4) and a freeboard (see Section K5).

 

FPLs do not however, ensure that development is located in areas where it will not have significant adverse impacts on flooding nor do they address personal danger issues. These issues need to be considered strategically in land use restrictions in EPIs, and emergency response planning, as discussed in Section G6. Figure K1 illustrates an interactive process for considering flood behaviour and land use attributes in determining areas and conditions for development, including selecting FPLs.

 

This appendix discusses the purpose of FPLs (Section K2) , FPL selection and factors that influence this (Sections K3 to K5), and the duty of care of decision makers (Section K6).

 

K2????? Purpose of FPLs

 

Historical practice in NSW has generally seen the adoption of a single FPL for development control. This tended to focus on the 1% AEP event and resulted in the popular perception that this event defined the limit of flooding. This perception precluded assessment of risk levels associated with rarer floods that may be more critical for a particular location.

 

This is one reason the Government?s policy requires consideration of the full range of flood risk in setting FPLs for purposes including:

 

o??? development control measures to aid in managing future flood risk; and

o??? design levels for mitigation works to manage existing flood risk.

 

K3????? Selecting FPLs

 

A floodplain risk management study involves determining appropriate land uses and densities and selecting both the flood events and freeboards upon which FPLs for different purposes are based.

 

Therefore decisions on FPLs are based upon a detailed understanding of flood behaviour across the full range of floods, their likelihood of occurrence and the associated consequences in terms of danger to personal safety and social, economic, environmental and cultural issues.

 

FPLs for new residential development will generally be based upon the 1% AEP flood. While there is potential to vary this, it should only occur where it can be clearly demonstrated that the situation is exceptional. The factors contributing to such an assessment are illustrated in Figure K2 and discussed in Section K4.

 

As decisions on FPLs are generally based around floods of a certain AEP, Figure K3 showing the relationship between AEP and the chance that an event occurring in a given period of years and Table K1 showing probabilities of experiencing various AEP floods over 70 years, provide valuable background information.

 

Table K1 highlights that a 2% AEP flood has a 75% chance of occurring once and a 41% chance of occurring twice in 70 years. The possibility of getting two large floods in a relatively short period is highlighted by around 1% AEP floods in Kempsey in 1949 and 1950 and in Lismore in 1954 and 1974.


Table K1 - Probabilities of experiencing a given size flood once or more in a lifetime

Size of Flood (Chance of occurrence in any year) ARI/(AEP)

Probability of Experiencing the Given Flood in a Period of 70 Years

 

At least once (%)

At least twice (%)

1 in?? 10 (10%)

99.9

99.3

1 in?? 20 (5%)

97.0

86.4

1 in?? 50 (2%)

75.3

40.8

1 in 100 (1%)

50.3

15.6

1 in 200 (0.5%)

29.5

4.9

 

Based on the above information it is recommended that Council applies two consistent references to Flooding and Flooding Levels.

 

For Flooding it is proposed that Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) be used identifying the chance of a flood of a given or larger size occurring in the one year, expressed as a percentage. The 1%AEP flood will be used to establish the Flood Planning Levels.

 

To establish the Flood Planning Level (FPLs) for a locality or area, the level identified as the 1%AEP level plus the relevant freeboard as required or recommended based on the type and form of development or infrastructure as outlined (in K3 above) which will be specified in Australian Height Datum (AHD) level.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Consultants undertaking Council flood studies.

Manager Technical Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There is no environmental impact with this report

 

Social

 

Consistent and standardised definitions minimise community confusion.

 

Economic

 

There is no economic impact with this report

 

Risk

 

Similar to the social impact consistent definition which relate to the level of risk or in the case the chance of a flood event occurring in any one year will assist with a better understanding.

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No budget impact

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No budget impact

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.6??? SF1498??????????? 280612???????? Nambucca DCP 2010 Amendment No 1 - Housekeeping Changes and Waste Management

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council place a draft amendment to the Nambucca DCP 2010 on exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The proposed amendment to the draft includes housekeeping changes to rectify issues identified by staff since the commencement of operation of the Plan in July 2010.

 

The draft DCP also includes a new Part that deals with Waste Management. This Part is based on the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Waste Not DCP chapter template with modifications to reduce the size and complexity of the template. It is a requirement of Council?s Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) grant agreement with OEH to include waste management controls within its DCP. It is likely these grant funds would be discontinued should Council resolve not to proceed.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? Council exhibit the draft DCP amendment with the recommended changes in the report for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

2????????? Council inform the Office of Environment and Heritage of the exhibition of the draft plan and request any comments they may have in relation to the Waste Management Part of the draft DCP.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1????????? Council may choose not to exhibit the draft plan or remove any part of the recommended amendments.

 

2????????? Council may choose to make additional amendments to the draft DCP.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Nambucca DCP 2010 was adopted by Council on the 15 July 2010 and commenced operation on the 30 July 2010 to coincide with the making of the Nambucca LEP 2010. The DCP has now been in operation for approximately 24 months and during this time a number of minor anomalies have been identified. A register of these issues has been maintained and it is now proposed to amend the DCP where necessary, to rectify these issues.

 

Each of the major changes are summarised below and a copy of the draft DCP with Track Changes identified is provided as a separate circularised document.

 

General grammatical and referencing corrections

 

The DCP was prepared at the same time as the Draft Nambucca LEP 2010. The LEP was constantly changing up until it was made, and as such some changes made to the Nambucca LEP have not been referenced accurately in the DCP. For example prior to being made the LEP was identified as the Nambucca LEP 2009. This proposed amendment correctly references the Nambucca LEP 2010 instead of the Nambucca LEP 2009. Other minor grammatical corrections and references have been made that have little consequence on actual development controls or where legislation has been amended since the plan became operational. Although not identified in this report they have been highlighted through track changes in circularised DCP.

 

Advertising of Integrated Development

 

The present schedule of development to be advertised (Part A ?schedule 1) includes integrated development. It is considered unnecessary to advertise all integrated development and thus the draft DCP excludes integrated development from Part A schedule 1. Staff will rely on the other identified uses to determine if advertising is required.

 

Access Handle Widths for Subdivision

 

There is an identified anomaly in the figures associated with the access handle widths for subdivision of land. Table B4 Access Corridor Dimensions requires a 5.0m minimum access handle width to support 2 Lots where as figure B9 Battleaxe Lots indicates 4.5m for a shared access way.

 

Figure B9 has been amended to 5m as per engineering standards.

 

Sewer Easements

 

At present Council requests all urban subdivisions provide sewer easements of 2m in width where sewer is required to traverse proposed allotments. Council has been encountering a number of maintenance issues with easements of this size.

 

For this reason Section B2.7 of the Draft DCP incorporates a requirement for a 3m easement to be provided where necessary. The DCP also highlights that lot design/layout should take into consideration the easement width so adequately sized building envelopes can be provided.

 

Road Sealing Requirements Rural Subdivision

 

At present Section B3.5.2 Road Sealing Requirements for rural subdivisions requires a dedicated public road or access handle to be bitumen sealed for 100m distance from outside the nearest building envelope. The purpose of this requirement is to act as a dust suppressant.

 

Council?s engineering department is encountering maintenance problems with sections of road sealed in accordance with these requirements.

 

Consideration of the Matter at MANEX

 

After consideration at MANEX it is recommended this Clause be removed from the DCP. This will also require any buffer requirements between unsealed rural roads and dwellings to be examined and amended as appropriate.

 

Vehicular Access to Rural and Large Lot Residential Properties

 

Councils engineering standards require access to rural properties on sealed roads to provide sealed access to 3m within the property boundary.

 

The following requirement has been added to Section B3.3.2 vehicular Access and Road Frontage.

 

?Where the road frontage is sealed bitumen, the driveway access shall be sealed from the edge of the bitumen to 3m within the property boundary.?

 

This is in accordance with standard conditions of consent presently applied to development applications for subdivision.

 

Fragmentation of Rural and Environmental Protection zones

 

The Nambucca DCP 2010 presently states the following under section B3.4.3 Fragmentation of Rural and Environmental Protection Zones:

 

?Clause 4.2 of the Nambucca LEP 2009 provides lot size flexibility in the subdivision of some rural land. Under this clause residue allotments of rural land can be undersized and still maintain a dwelling entitlement as long as it contains a minimum 1ha of Large Lot Residential Zoned Land.?

 

The above statement is incorrect and has been amended in the draft to reflect changes to the Nambucca LEP 2010 presently being pursued via a planning proposal for certain split zoned land. The amendment is provided below:

 

?The Nambucca LEP 2010 provides lot size flexibility in the subdivision of some split zoned land. Provisions? of this plan allow residue allotments of land to be undersized and still maintain a dwelling entitlement as long as it contains a minimum area of land specified in the other zone.?

 

Parking Requirements Part C

 

An additional note has been added to Section C2.7.16 to advise potential applicants that variations to parking standards will not be permitted where compliance with the BCA is required.

 

Also parking requirements for community facilities presently contain no standard provisions. The following has been added to the parking requirements for community facilities:

 

?Car parking requirements will be assessed on its merits and in accordance RMS Guidelines?

 

Ecotourist Development was removed from the parking standard requirements as it is not a form of development adopted by the Nambucca LEP 2010. Rural Tourist Facilities was added in place of ecotourist development in line with Council recent endorsement of Nambucca LEP 2010 amendment no. 7 allowing rural tourist facilities in rural zones.

 

Dual Occupancy Development Permitted on Battleaxe Allotments

 

When the DCP was originally made it incorporated a provision which prevented dual occupancies from occurring on battleaxe allotments. The original intention of this provision was to prevent dual occupancy development from occurring on small lots with poor access arrangements.

 

However, it is now considered that some larger lots with battleaxe handles may be able to undertake a dual occupancy development and the actual restriction should be on the size of the lot. The Nambucca LEP 2010, contains a provision (Clause 7.2) to restrict dual occupancy development to lots greater the 600m2 on land zoned R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential and R4 High Density Residential. This is considered to be an adequate control for dual occupancy development and for this reason the draft DCP has removed the provision prohibiting dual occupancies from battleaxe allotments.

 

Alterations and Additions to existing Structures that do not comply with present standards

 

Issues have been identified in the processing of development applications for alterations and additions to existing structures which do not comply with standards in the DCP. For instance Council receives an application for a second storey addition to a garage that has an existing building line of 2.5m.

 

This is not simple matter to address as some developments will be set on land that has a specific local context or character. Given the present DCP allows for variations to standards to occur subject to sufficient justification it is considered best consider each application of this type on its merits and only accept variations where justification is provided.

 

As this is considered the best approach there is no change to operation of the DCP to address this issue, but a note has been added to clarify the matter. The additional information is provided in italics below has been added to Section H4.0:

 


??????????? ?Where an applicant proposes to vary controls under this Section they will be required to demonstrate to Council in writing and with appropriate supporting information that the variation is reasonable. Also, where a person proposes alterations or additions to an existing structure that does not comply with development controls within this Part. The applicant will need to provide justification in support of any new part of the building that does not comply with standard. Refer to Part A Section 2.3 for further details.?

 

Adaptable Housing Provisions

 

Part H for Residential Development, section H4.2.6 Internal Layout and Internal Circulation provides controls to ensure that adaptable housing units are provided to large Residential Flat Developments. It has been recommended that this section also refer to AS1428.1 Design for Access and Mobility to ensure that any access to adaptable housing meets appropriate requirements.

 

Waste Management Provisions

 

The Local Council WaSIP commenced in 2009-10 to assist councils invest in additional actions and programs that improve resource recovery and sustainability outcomes across their local government areas. The program is governed by the Office of Environment and Heritage and Nambucca Council has benefited from the program in the following ways:

 

?????????????? Purchase and installation of energy efficient lighting in Council?s Administration building.

?????????????? Purchase and installation of energy efficient lighting in Council?s Nambucca Library, Macksville Library and Senior Citizens building.

?????????????? Purchase and installation of a Heat Pump to augment the existing gas system. This will reduce the amount of energy required to heat and maintain the pool temperature.

?????????????? Purchase and installation of appropriate pool covers for deployment when the pool is not being used to reduce the 5,000 litres of water lost each day to evaporation and spillage.

?????????????? Increase and enhance solar systems capacity to provide hot water service to amenities. Modelling indicates that if we modify the manifold of the balance tank the capacity of the system to deliver is increased by 65%.

?????????????? Purchase and instillation of "green" pumps to improve power efficiency/consumption with the pool reticulation system.

?????????????? Commence a program in assisting in the development and promotion of sustainable energy in the Nambucca Shire. This stage of the program will involve Council purchasing Green Energy from a provider, and supporting it with media releases and education/information pamphlets to encourage wider participation/uptake by the community

 

The Waste and Sustainability Improvement Scheme is described in Part 5A of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. In October 2011, regulatory amendments streamlined the funding arrangements for councils so that a single pool of funds is allocated annually to eligible councils in proportion to their population. For the five years from 2009 to 2012 inclusive, the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment program has provided $212,000 to Council. Should Council continue to meet the requirements of the funding program an additional $117,210 is expected to be provided to the end of 2015 ? and the program has been identified to continue beyond this period.

 

As part of Councils agreement to receive the benefit from this program Council is required to achieve the following:

 

2009 - 2010 Standards

?????????????? All residential dwellings (other than multi-unit buildings) within the local government area are to have access to a dry recycling collection service.

?????????????? Provide the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) with the information required under the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure by 31 August each year.

?????????????? Collect and provide DECCW with baseline data (where known) on tonnages of dry recyclables and garden organics collected for recycling (including contamination levels) and residual domestic waste (garbage) by 31 August each year.

 

2010 - 2011 Standards

?????????????? A baseline household residual waste composition audit is to be completed by each Council using the DECCW Kerbside Audit Guidelines and WaSIP Guidelines.

?????????????? Any new collection and/or Mobile Garbage Bins (MGB) replacement contracts to require bin bodies and bin lids to conform to Australian Standard 4123 Mobile Waste Containers.

?????????????? The replacement of damaged or lost non-conforming MGBs and/or lids with MGBs and/or lids that conform to AS4123.7-2006.

2011 - 2012  Standards

?????????????? Have in place a 'Waste Not" Development Control Plan (DCP) or a policy of similar nature by 31 May 2012

?????????????? Develop and adopt a Strategic Waste Action Plan that contains performance milestones that will contribute to Council reaching the 2014 municipal waste target by 30 April 2012

?????????????? Submit the Audit report and raw data sheets from the household residual waste composition audit (conducted between November 2010 and November 2011) by 31 May 2012

 

To meet the requirements of the first dot point for the 2011-2012 period (highlighted above), this DCP amendment includes a draft Waste Management Chapter for consideration by Council and the community. To meet the requirements of the WaSIP agreement the Waste Management DCP has specifically addressed the following elements:

 

?????????????? the management of demolition and construction waste;

?????????????? a requirement for applicants to submit a waste management plan detailing the amount of demolition and construction waste and its management;

?????????????? a requirement for the on site retention of demolition and construction waste dockets to confirm which facility received the material for recycling or disposal; and

?????????????? consideration of the facilities required for the ongoing operation of recycling and waste management services within developments

 

The draft DCP has also formalised a number of waste management controls already placed on multi-dwelling housing, Industrial and business developments.

 

Council staff will need to ensure proposed developments comply with the requirements of the Wast Management Chapter or provide justification for any variation to its requirement. It is intended to support the implementation of this DCP with conditions of consent and information on consents and DA forms advising applicants/ developers of incentives to recycle materials (such as reduced waste disposal fees).

 

To ensure Council is not disadvantaged in comparison to private certifies the Waste Management requirements will not apply to complying development unless the SEPP (exempt and complying development codes) 2008 incorporates such changes.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Councillors have been provided with a copy of the draft DCP prior to this report be presented. The following comments were provided and responses provided where necessary:


 

Page

Number

Proposed Changes/Comments/Questions

Staff Response

53

C2.7.16 Contributions

Please clarify the first sentence. Are we saying that under Section 94 of the EP&A Act, if car parking is unable to be provided on site for commercial or industrial land use, Council may accept a monetary contribution in lieu of car parking provided that Council has adopted a development contributions plan etc?

 

In the last sentence, BCA is used ? where is BCA defined?

That is generally correct. The wording will be reviewed prior to exhibition to ensure it meets the intent of the clause.

 

Prior to exhibition the document will be reviewed and checked to ensure ?BCA? is previously defined.

72

In Table F1, does the , say, 300 metres apply to all the land Use items listed in the white area? Do we need more buffers given our recent piggery problem?

No change is proposed to be buffers at this stage. Council has previously resolved to review buffers when the resources become available. This is likely to be included as part of a brief for a ?local growth management strategy ? Rural Lands?.

74

Change ?Acmena Smithii? to ?Acmena smithii?.

Will be corrected prior to exhibition.

81

Why is Secondary in upper case and with question marks?

Will be corrected prior to exhibition.

110

Para 11 ? do you need to do something about the bit in brackets?

This text will be amended and Prior to exhibition Maps will be prepared to identify the CBD areas (B3 Commercial Core Area) for Nambucca and Macksville.

165

etc

Will the maps be printed in colour? It is difficult to determine the legend in black and white!

The Coastal Hazard maps are available in colour on Council?s website or for purchase at applicable copying charges.

 

 

Director of Environment and Planning

Waste Management Officer

Office of Environment and Heritage

Department of Environment and Planning Staff

Councils Manager of Technical Services

Councils Manager of Water and Sewer

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The general changes to the DCP will not create any adverse environmental impacts. The additional development controls for waste management will encourage improvements to waste management within the shire.

 

Social

 

The general changes to the DCP will create any adverse social impacts. The additional development controls for waste management will assist in improving waste management practices.

 

Economic

 

The general changes to the DCP will not create any adverse economic impacts. The additional development controls for waste management and other incentives to encourage recycling of materials may result long term cost savings for construction industries as work practices changes and recycling is encouraged. It may also create employment opportunities in other sectors such as recycling and waste management.

 

Risk

 

Should Council resolve not to proceed with the Waste Management Chapter of the DCP, we may risk the funding presently received from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

 

As the document is to go through an exhibition period, there will be an additional opportunity to amend the draft prior to it being adopted.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Should Council resolve not to support the waste management chapter of the DCP, funding through the Office of Environment and Heritage may be retracted.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.7??? SF1699??????????? 280612???????? Planning Proposal Report on Exhibition of LEP 2010 Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the results of the exhibition of LEP Amendment no.8 for secondary dwellings (granny flats). The objective of this planning proposal is to correct anomalies relating to the proposed size of secondary dwellings and also allow secondary dwellings in rural zoned land.

 

The planning proposal was exhibited and Council is required to determine if it would like the amendment to proceed.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That pursuant to Clause 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Planning Proposal, associated documents and submissions be forwarded to Department of Planning and Infrastructure requesting that they seek the making of the Plan by the Minister.

 

2????????? That those persons/agencies who made submissions be advised of Council's decision.

 

3????????? That a fact sheet be prepared and advertised on Council?s website.

 

4????????? Staff identify any issues in the implementation of secondary dwellings in the rural zones over a 6-12 month period. At the end of this period or as deemed necessary a report be prepared to Council that identifies any recommended changes to the DCP 2010 to ensure secondary dwellings in rural zones do not adverse impact on the rural landscape/ industry or the environment.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1????????? Council may resolve to make changes to the LEP Amendment, it is noted that significant changes may require re-exhibition.

 

2????????? Council may resolve not proceed with the LEP Amendment.

 

3????????? Council may resolve for staff to prepare formal secondary dwelling development controls for incorporation into the DCP 2010 immediately, in order for them to become effective when the LEP amendment is made.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Secondary Dwellings were introduced into the NSW Planning System as a way of promoting alternative forms of affordable housing (Granny Flats).? To achieve this, secondary dwelling provisions were written into the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing and the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan.?

 

This amendment addresses two (2) matters that relate specifically to secondary dwellings. The first part relates to the size of the secondary dwelling, the second part will allow secondary dwellings to be constructed in Rural Zones.

 

Part 1 size of secondary Dwellings

 

When initially made the Nambucca LEP 2010 contained provisions which allowed secondary dwellings to be constructed to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling.

 

Recent amendments to the Standard Instrument Order included grammatical corrections to clause 5.4 (9) Secondary Dwellings.? Despite recommendations made to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Office the final plan, as made on the 13 July 2011 has resulted in secondary dwelling being permissible to 100% of the size of the primary dwelling.

 

This most recent amendment allows secondary dwellings to be the same size as a primary dwelling and therefore a person may make an application for a dual occupancy type development as a secondary dwelling. This has the following implications:

 

?????????????? The objectives of the secondary dwelling provisions to provide alternative forms of affordable housing would not be achieved. The intent of the provisions to provide granny flats would become redundant.

?????????????? In R5 Large Lot Residential areas a person may undertake a detached dual occupancy type development which was not previously permissible.

?????????????? A person may undertake a dual occupancy type development within the R1, R2 R3, R4 zones as Complying Development under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

?????????????? A person may undertake a dual occupancy type development which is not consistent with the minimum Lot Size Clause for Dual Occupancies (presently 600m2).

?????????????? These changes would also make it difficult for Council to consider other policies which may encourage affordable housing types in the Shire. For example Council could consider a reduced section 94 contribution rate for secondary dwellings, but if the secondary dwelling is the same size as a primary dwelling contribution reductions would be meaningless.

 

Proposed Amendment

 

To achieve the intent of the secondary dwelling provisions, (to allow granny flat type developments) and to provide an alternative low cost accommodation within the Shire. The planning proposal amends clause 5.4(9) to:

 

(9)??? Secondary dwellings

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Plan, the total floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater:

(a)??? 60 square metres,

(b)??? 50% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

 

 

Part 2 Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

In preparing the Nambucca LEP 2010, Council resolved to allow secondary dwellings in Rural Areas. Prior to exhibition of the Draft Nambucca LEP 2010 the Department of Planning requested Council make the following change:

 

?secondary dwellings are to be listed as prohibited development in the land use table for zones RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and E3 Environmental Management?

 

The Departments justification to prohibit secondary dwellings in rural areas was to ensure consistency with the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan.

 

To progress the Nambucca LEP 2010 in a timely manner Council agreed to this change. Now that the Nambucca LEP 2010 has been made, Council resolved to re-examine the issue.

 

Gateway Determination and exhibition

 

A planning proposal [attachment 1] was prepared for both parts of the amendment and planning proposal was forwarded to the Gateway Panel for determination.

 

A gateway determination was made on the 25 January 2012. The gateway determination provided Council with permission to progress the planning proposal subject to a number of conditions.

 

The original planning proposal highlighted the advantages of allowing granny flats in rural areas with a focus on affordable housing opportunities and ageing in place. One of the conditions required by the gateway determination was to provide additional justification in order to allow Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones. The additional justification was provided in Appendix 3 under the relevant 117 Directions. The additional justification centred on the following:

 

?????????????? The planning proposal would not increase densities in rural areas, rather it would only increase development choice. To explain this in more detail a person can already develop an attached dual occupancy, an option or choice to provide a smaller secondary dwelling could not be undertaken in addition to a dual occupancy as it would become multi dwelling housing which is prohibited in these zones. Further, as the secondary dwelling is restricted in size it is likely to have a reduced household size in comparison to an attached dual occupancy.

?????????????? Secondary Dwellings in rural areas support the growing trend of small scale local produce production which is identified as an action in Councils Climate Change Adaption Strategy. A secondary dwelling may supplement income on small scale farms. It may also provide accommodation for persons able to assist in small scale agricultural pursuits, where the type, size or nature of the agricultural activity would not be substantial enough to warrant a ?rural workers dwelling?.

?????????????? The suitability of a secondary dwelling on a particular site would be subject to development assessment and relevant controls within the Nambucca LEP 2010 and Nambucca DCP 2010. It is anticipated that sites or locations unsuitable for secondary dwellings can be managed through pre DA lodgement advice and the DA process. Where a suitable location can not be found for a secondary dwelling on a rural property DA refusal may be necessary as with any other land use which is permissible on a site where the development is not suitable.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Pursuant with the Gateway Determination the planning proposal was forwarded to the following agencies for comment:

 

?????????????? The NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS)

 

The NSW RFS provided general advice and did not object to the planning proposal as presented. A copy of the advice is provided as [Attachment 2].

 

Pursuant with the Gateway Determination the planning proposal was exhibited from 10 May 2012 to 8 June 2012 (a period not less than 28 days). During this period the planning proposal was forwarded to the following Rural Groups for comment.

 

?????????????? Nambucca Macadamia Growers Association

?????????????? Nambucca Macnuts

?????????????? NSW Farmers Association

?????????????? NSW Banana Industry Committee

?????????????? Banana Growers? Association

?????????????? Nambucca River Oyster Growers? Association

?????????????? Avocado Growers

?????????????? Dairy Farmers Association of NSW

?????????????? NCAGB of NSW Farmers? Association

 

At completion of the exhibition period Council has received one (1) submission which is related to the proposal but not necessarily relevant in this instance. The submission requests a specific land parcel be considered for a secondary dwelling, however this would be subject to a Development Application should the LEP amendment be made. A copy of the submission is attached for Council?s information (attachment 3) and a response letter has been provided to the person.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The environmental social and economic impacts of the LEP amendment have been addressed in detail within the planning proposal and will not be reiterated in this part of the report.

 

Social

 

The environmental social and economic impacts of the LEP amendment have been addressed in detail within the planning proposal and will not be reiterated in this part of the report.

 

Economic

 

The environmental social and economic impacts of the LEP amendment have been addressed in detail within the planning proposal and will not be reiterated in this part of the report.

 

Risk

 

Should the LEP amendment be made by the Minister it is recommended Council review how the LEP amendment is being implemented after a 6-12 month period. If it is deemed necessary at the end of this period Council may implement changes to DCP 2010 to further control this type of development. Such controls may include the following as highlighted in the Planning Proposal:

 

?????????????? A separate access for secondary dwelling is not permitted;

?????????????? A Secondary Dwelling must be located no greater than X distance from the primary dwelling;

?????????????? A secondary Dwelling may only be provided on land that meets the minimum lot size requirements, despite existing dwelling entitlements.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Attachments:

1View

141/2012 - Planning Proposal Secondary Dwellings

 

2View

5531/2012 - RFS response

 

3View

14014/2012 - Request for second dwelling entitlement on property

 

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Planning Proposal Report on Exhibition of LEP 2010 Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings

 

 
 


Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Proposal

Nambucca LEP Amendment No 8

Secondary Dwellings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Department of Environment and Planning

Nambucca Shire Council

 

Dated: 23 December 2011

 

File: SF1699


Table of Contents

 

 

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

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

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

1.3????????? Current Zoning and Use. 1

1.4????????? Background.. 1

Part 1?????? Objectives or Intended outcomes.. 5

Part 2?????? Explanation of Provisions.. 5

Part 3?????? Justification.. 6

Section A ? Need for the Planning Proposal. 6

Section B ?Relationship to strategic planning framework.. 8

Section C ? Environmental, social and economic impact.. 11

Section D ? State and Commonwealth Interests. 11

Part 4?????? Community Consultation.. 12

Part 5?????? Agency Consultation.. 12

Appendix 1 ? Proposed Land Use Tables.. 13

Appendix 2 - State Environmental Planning Policies.. 15

Appendix 3 - Section 117 Directions.. 18

Appendix 4 ? Gateway Determination.. 29

Appendix 5 ? NSW RFS Consultation.. 30

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Planning Proposal Report on Exhibition of LEP 2010 Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings

 

1.0??? Preliminary

 

1.1????? Context

 

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

 

 

1.2????? Subject Land

 

The first part of this Planning Proposal applies to provisions relating to secondary dwellings and the land to which secondary dwellings are permissible. The second part applies to land zoned RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape.

 

 

1.3????? Current Zoning and Use

 

This Planning Proposal does not propose to rezone land. Rather, it will modify provisions which relate to Secondary Dwellings.

 

 

1.4????? Background

 

1.4.1????? Size of Secondary Dwellings

 

Secondary Dwellings were introduced into the NSW Planning System as a way of promoting alternative forms of affordable housing or granny flats. To achieve this, secondary dwelling provisions were written into the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing and the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan.

 

Under the SEPP and the Nambucca LEP 2010, secondary dwellings are permissible in the following zones:

 

??????????? R1 General Residential

??????????? R2 Low Density Residential

??????????? R3 Medium Density Residential

??????????? R4 High Density Residential

??????????? R5 Large Lot Residential; and

??????????? RU5 Rural Village.

 

When initially made, the Nambucca LEP 2010 contained provisions which had the intent of allowing secondary dwellings to be constructed to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling.

 

Recent amendments to the Standard Instrument Order included grammatical corrections to clause 5.4 (9) Secondary Dwellings. The changes affect the way in which the percentage size of the second dwelling is calculated. Recommendations were made to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Office requesting secondary dwellings only be permissible to 50% of size of the primary dwelling. The Northern Office agreed to these provisions in principle.

 

Despite these recommendations, the final plan as made on the 13 July 2011 has resulted in secondary dwellings being permissible to 100% of the size of the primary dwelling. The DoP indicated that due to the interpretation of the original LEP clause the recommended 50% would have been a fundamental change requiring public consultation. The actual clause as it is at present is shown below:

 

9??????? Secondary dwellings

 

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Plan, the total floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater:

 

a??????? 60m2;

b??????? 100% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

 

This most recent amendment allows secondary dwellings to be the same size as a primary dwelling and therefore a person may make an application for a dual occupancy type development as a secondary dwelling. This has the following implications:

 

??????????? The objectives of the secondary dwelling provisions to provide alternative forms of affordable housing would not be achieved and the intent of the provisions to provide granny flats would become redundant.

??????????? In R5 Large Lot Residential areas a person may undertake a detached dual occupancy type development which was not previously permissible. Only granny flat type developments and attached dual occupancy developments were permissible.

??????????? A person may undertake a dual occupancy type development within the R1, R2 R3 and R4 zones as Complying Development under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

??????????? A person may undertake a dual occupancy type development which is not consistent with the minimum Lot Size Clause for Dual Occupancies in the Nambucca LEP 2010 (presently 600m2).

??????????? These changes would also make it difficult for Council to consider other policies which may encourage affordable housing types in the Shire. For example, Council could consider a reduced Section 94 contribution rate for secondary dwellings, but if the secondary dwelling is the same size as a primary dwelling contribution reductions would be meaningless.

 

Proposed Amendment

 

To achieve the intent of the secondary dwelling provisions, (to allow granny flat type developments) and to provide an alternative low cost accommodation within the Shire, it is proposed that clause 5.4(9) be amended to:

 

9??????? Secondary dwellings

 

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Plan, the total floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater:

 

????????? a??????? 60m2

????????? b??????? 50% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

 

 

Supporting Affordable Rental Housing ? Granny Flats (NSW Department of Planning 2009)


1.4.2 ???? Permissibility of Secondary dwellings in Rural Zones

 

In preparing the Nambucca LEP 2010, Council resolved to allow secondary dwellings in rural areas. Prior to exhibition of the Draft Nambucca LEP 2010 the Department of Planning requested Council make the following change:

 

?secondary dwellings are to be listed as prohibited development in the land use table for zones RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and E3 Environmental Management?

 

The Department?s justification to prohibit secondary dwellings in rural areas was to ensure consistency with the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan.

 

To progress the Nambucca LEP 2010 in a timely manner Council agreed to this change. Now that the Nambucca LEP 2010 has been made, further justification for secondary dwellings in rural areas is provided within this Planning Proposal.

 

Advantages and disadvantages of secondary dwellings in rural areas

 

The advantages and disadvantages of allowing secondary dwellings in Rural zones are listed below.

 

Disadvantages

Advantages

It is likely secondary dwellings would be seen as an attractive option for rural land holders due to the number of advantages. Due to this, secondary dwellings in rural areas may contribute to dispersed rural settlement.

 

The impact on rural settlement patterns is expected to be minor as the majority of secondary dwellings would be of a size that limits occupancy to 1 or 2 persons. In addition to this, for convenience of servicing secondary dwellings are likely to be in the vicinity of the primary dwelling.

 

With one of the coast?s fastest growing ageing populations it will provide affordable alternative accommodation for ageing rural property owners who need assistance to manage properties, but wish to retain rural lifestyle.

 

It will also provide an affordable retirement solution where rural property owners may be priced out of the coastal village market.

 

It will allow older community members to ?age in place?.

Increasing loads on existing effluent disposal systems or requiring multiple systems to manage waste. This issue would require individual merit assessment with development applications. To accommodate the increased capacity upgrades/ modification to existing systems may be required.

Secondary dwellings provide space for additional family members or provide additional low cost accommodation for other persons.

 

It will allow for generational farm transition.

Over time Council may receive enquiries from persons who would like to subdivide secondary dwellings onto a separate torrens title. The LEP 2010 and SEPP (Rural Lands) contain adequate provisions to prohibit this.

 

With an identified ageing population it is important to create as many opportunities as possible for young persons to reside in the area and contribute to the service needs of older generations. The rural secondary dwelling provides an attractive option for young persons attempting to find low cost rental accommodation.

Adverse impacts on agricultural productivity due to land use conflicts. Council?s DCP 2010 provides controls to reduce land use conflicts, through buffer requirements and Council often refers to the Living and Working in Rural Areas Handbook (DPI 2007).

Provides an opportunity to supplement income by renting out the second dwelling.

 

Provides an opportunity for seasonal accommodation for farm workers. Particularly where the scale of the agricultural pursuit does not warrant a rural workers dwelling.

 

The provision of secondary dwellings as an additional form of residential accommodation within a single title may assist in preventing widespread and unnecessary subdivision on larger allotments.

 

 

Second dwellings are likely to encourage legitimate occupation of granny flats in rural areas and decrease the number of illegal occupations of rural structures which present resource draining regulatory issues.

 

Council will gain contributions from structures which may otherwise be occupied illegally without Council knowledge.

 

Provides an alternative option to attached dual occupancies on rural land. Rural land holders may find one development type is more suited to their needs.

 

In conclusion it is expected that the impact of a secondary dwelling in a rural areas could be adequately managed through the development application process and the proposed size restrictions on secondary dwellings. It is expected that this option would be used by landowners wishing to accommodate family members such as grandparents or children who are yet to leave home, or those looking at farm succession planning which would cater for the retiring parents/family to continue to reside on the land. It will provide for housing diversity and choice in the shire which needs to maximise housing options to support the changing demographics.

 

Clause 2.6 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 does not allow the subdivision of land that would result in the secondary dwelling being positioned on a second lot if the lots are under the minimum lots size ? see below:

 

????????? 2??????? Development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land on which a secondary dwelling is situated if the subdivision would result in the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling being situated on separate lots, unless the resulting lots are not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

?

????????? Note.? The definition of secondary dwelling in the Dictionary requires the dwelling to be on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling.?

 

Proposed Amendment

 

It is proposed to amend Zone RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape to allow secondary dwellings as a use that is permitted with consent.


Part 1?? Objectives or Intended outcomes

 

The primary objective of this LEP Amendment is:

 

1??????? To ensure secondary dwellings provide an alternative form of housing for persons within the Nambucca Local Government Area.

 

2??????? To provide an alternative form of low cost housing in rural areas within the Nambucca Local Government Area.

 

 

Part 2?? Explanation of Provisions

 

The objectives of the LEP amendment will be achieved by:

 

1??????? Secondary Dwellings

 

It is proposed that clause 5.4(9) be amended to:

 

9??????? Secondary dwellings

 

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Plan, the total floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater:

 

a??????? 60m2,

b??????? 50% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

 

2??????? Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

It is proposed to amend the land use table (for Zone RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape) to allow secondary dwellings as a use that is permitted with consent. Refer to Appendix 1.

 


 

Part 3?? Justification

 

Section A ? Need for the Planning Proposal

 

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

 

????????? Size of Secondary Dwellings ? There are no strategic Studies or Reports that have been completed to address the size of the secondary dwellings permissible in the Nambucca LEP 2010. However the aims of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing (2009) are:

 

a?????? to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

b?????? to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

c?????? to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

d?????? to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

e?????? to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

f??????? to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

g?????? to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

????????? In its current form clause 5.4(9) allows secondary dwellings to be constructed up to 100% of the size of the primary dwelling. Because of this the secondary dwelling clause does not provide an alternative option for development. Rather it provides another option which is very similar to dual occupancies and as such a number of the aims of the SEPP will not be achieved.

 

????????? Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones ?? There are a number of studies and reports that have been completed which highlight the need to provide alternative housing options within the north and mid north coast as well as rural and regional areas in general. The following comments are taken from studies which are relevant to this discussion.

 

The Australian Local Government Association Submission to the Productivity Commission Research Study into Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia states - The availability of affordable, accessible and suitable housing options is particularly important for older people, and will be a priority as the Australian population ages. The changing age profile, along with lifestyle and work pattern changes, will impact on future housing arrangements. It will therefore be important to provide flexible models of accommodation, encompassing a wide range of settings, while at the same time fostering supportive environments and independence.

 

Dr Helen Feist, Senior Research Associate, University of Adelaide states that the majority of today?s older rural Australians want to age where they are living now. Dr Feist also states the following in relation to the Provision of suitable housing at the very local level. More appropriate housing choices are needed at the very local level; there are some good examples of this in communities with populations as small as a few hundred people. In addition to this, we need to consider affordable housing solutions in regional and urban areas for those rural older people, who do need to move closer to more complex services, or loved ones in nursing homes or other family members, but are currently priced out of the housing market. ?Towards a NSW whole of Government Ageing Strategy ? ageing round table discussion papers - (DEC 2011) further discusses these matters of ageing in rural areas.

 

????????? Mid North Coast Regional Strategy states Council will consider a range of affordable housing strategies, including low cost housing, suitable zonings and development controls to improve housing affordability and choice. These strategies must be consistent with relevant state policies. In relation to rural dwellings it also states:

 

????????? ?Local Environmental Plans will include provisions to limit dwellings in rural and environmental zones.?

 

????????? The Nambucca LEP 2010 is consistent with this provision in that it limits dwellings in rural zones to Dwelling Houses; Dual Occupancies (attached) and Rural Workers Dwellings. Permitting secondary dwellings restricted to 60m2 or 50% of the size of the primary dwelling is only considered a minor addition to those dwellings already permissible and the benefits appear to outweigh the issues.

 

????????? Further to this the second dwelling only provides an alternative option to the other dwelling types such as attached dual occupancy or rural workers dwellings.

 

????????? Nambucca Shire Council Social Plan 2009-2014 has the following as one of a number of targets for 2029:

 

 

????????? Council?s Draft 2022 Community Strategic Plan states the following in relation to Housing in the Nambucca Shire.

 

????????? Objective: Housing across the Nambucca Valley provides for choice and is affordable

 

????????? Strategy Measure Benchmarks Progress:

 

??????????? Provide diverse, sustainable, adaptable and affordable housing options through effective land use planning; and

??????????? Provide a mixture of housing types that allow residents to meet their housing needs at different stages of their lifecycle within the Nambucca Valley;

 

????????? SEPP Affordable Rental Housing

 

????????? A recent review of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing considered a recommendation to include secondary dwellings as permissible in rural areas as proposed by this amendment. Although not directly included within the provisions of the SEPP the review concluded that where warranted a Local Environmental Plan may allow secondary dwellings in Rural Areas. At present the SEPP only allows secondary dwellings in Residential Zones.

 

????????? Conclusion

 

????????? There is a large amount of information contained within studies and strategies that support the provision of alternative forms of affordable housing such as granny flats. By extending the permissibility of secondary dwellings to rural areas Council is increasing the scope for affordable housing in the shire.

 

????????? Such an amendment would provide a number of social, wellbeing and financial opportunities for rural land owners. Among other things the LEP amendment is likely to provide opportunities:

 

??????????? to assist in maintaining an affordable rental market for young adults aiming to save for home ownership;

??????????? to allow grandparents to maintain independence while sharing child raising duties for young families in rural areas or provide another low cost option for families;

??????????? for elderly property owners to have a viable option to hand over their house to their children but not be forced to leave their property, community or established community networks.

 

????????? The key to the success of the proposed second dwelling provisions will be to ensure no adverse impacts on agricultural productivity of the shire. This will be determined through the appropriate application of Council?s relevant development controls.

 

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

 

Size of Secondary Dwellings

 

To reduce the potential size of secondary dwellings and ensure that the objective of the clause is achieved Clause 5.4(9) must be amended.

 

Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

To achieve the intent of this amendment the land use tables must be amended to allow secondary dwellings as permissible with consent.

 

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

 

Size of Secondary Dwellings

 

Amending the LEP to reduce the size of the secondary dwellings effectively creates an alternative form of low cost housing. Retaining the existing size provisions effectively limits developer choice and may also limit other affordable housing policies which Council may consider adopting.

 

Secondary Dwellings in Rural zones

 

Allowing secondary dwellings within the Rural Zones provides another form of low cost accommodation for residents within the shire. The proposal is specifically relevant to rural communities, the benefits of which are highlighted throughout this planning proposal.

 

Implications of not proceeding at this time

 

Size of Secondary Dwellings

 

Should the Nambucca LEP 2010 remain in its current form then a secondary dwellings the same size as a primary dwelling may be undertaken on land as complying development.

 

Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

Should this amendment not proceed at this time there are not likely to be any immediate adverse impacts. Nevertheless if the proposal does not proceed accommodation opportunities for rural land holders would be limited to the existing uses.

 

 

Section B ?Relationship to strategic planning framework

 

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

 

Size of Secondary dwellings

 

The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

Secondary Dwellings in Rural Areas

 

The reasons given by the DoP to justify requiring secondary dwellings to be prohibited in rural zones included references to the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan and Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

It is noted that when the Nambucca LEP 2010 was made the North Coast REP ceased to apply to the Nambucca LGA, therefore its provisions are no longer applicable to LEP Amendments in Nambucca.

 

The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy continues to apply to the Nambucca LGA and it states the following in relation to rural dwellings:

 

????????? ?Local Environmental Plans will include provisions to limit dwellings in rural and environmental zones.?

 

It is noted that this requirement is also an action in the Illawarra Regional Strategy, Sydney-Canberra Regional Strategy and draft lower hunter regional strategy and the Department of Planning appears to be inconsistent in the enforcement of this requirement because the following LEPs have been approved by the Minister with land use tables which permit secondary dwellings within the rural zones:

 

??????????? Wollongong LEP 2009

??????????? Wollongong (West Dapto) 2010

??????????? Wingercarribee LEP 2010

??????????? Goulburn Mulwarree LEP 2009

??????????? Upper Lachlan LEP 2010

??????????? Cessnock LEP 2011 (allows dual occupancies, attached or detached).

 

Of the twenty seven (27) other LEPs made under the standard instrument provisions that contain rural zones, sixteen (16) or 59% allow Secondary dwellings in rural zones. A number of Draft LEPs also allow secondary dwellings in Rural Zones including Gosford City Council Draft LEP and the Hills Shire LEP. The following table shows the LEPs that allow secondary dwellings in rural areas.

 

Local Environment Plan

Permissible with Consent

Secondary Dwellings

 

RU1

RU2

Albury LEP 2010

Yes

yes

Camden LEP 2010

Yes

yes

Coolamon LEP 2011

Yes

 

Goulburn Mulwaree LEP 2009

Yes

yes

Gundagai LEP 2011

Yes

 

Harden LEP 2011

Yes

 

Muswellbrook LEP 2009

Yes

 

Penrith LEP 2010

Yes

yes

Tumbarumba LEP 2010

Yes

 

Upper Lachlan LEP 2010

Yes

yes

Urana LEP 2010

Yes

 

Wagga Wagga LEP 2010

Yes

yes

Wingercarribee LEP 2010

Yes

yes

Wollondilly LEP 2011

Yes

yes

Wollongong LEP 2009

 

yes

Wollongong (west Dapto) LEP 2010

 

yes

 

Based on the Standard Instrument LEP?s made to date there does not appear to be any conformity to permissibility of secondary dwellings in rural areas. Rather it is determined on a case by case basis by individual Council?s regardless of provisions contained within Regional Strategies.

 

Removing the option for secondary dwellings to be permissible in rural areas at a regional scale is eliminating an affordable and viable housing choice in an area with a known ageing demographic presently susceptible to an out-migrating service population (18-35 year olds). With such a demographic it is important to ensure a range of housing options are made available to all generations of the community. Rural property owners should have the option of providing a granny flat/ secondary dwelling on their property should their circumstances require such a dwelling. The approval of dwellings in these areas would be subject to a merit based Development Assessment.

 

Council has an option of incorporating additional controls for secondary dwellings within the Nambucca DCP 2010. Such controls could require a proposed secondary dwelling to be:


located in a specific area in relation to the primary dwelling, for example within a certain distance (50m-70m) or behind the building line; or

??????????? located on the same access as the primary dwelling (to reduce access points to rural roads);

??????????? If secondary dwellings could be permitted on Lots that meet the minimum Lot Size only, thus resulting in an 'overcrowding' of smaller Lots ; or

??????????? Be limited to no laundry facilities. (thus being Subordinate to the primary dwelling)

 

This controls could be implemented as part of a DCP amendment immediately following the making of the LEP amendment. Alternatively a trial period could be implemented to determine what if any controls are required to accompany the LEP amendment.

 

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

 

Secondary Dwelling Sizes and Secondary Dwellings in Rural Zones

 

The proposed amendment will ensure that Council?s planning provisions are consistent with recommendations included in Council?s Social Plan. Council?s social plan includes the following strategy:

 

 

The proposed amendment will assist in addressing these strategies, providing a legitimate form of alternative housing, not a meaningless term for development presently available through other forms of residential accommodation.

 

The Planning Proposal will also be consistent with Council?s Draft 20 Year Community Strategic Plan which states the following.

 

????????? Objective: Housing across the Nambucca Valley provides for choice and is affordable

 

????????? Strategy Measure Benchmarks Progress:

 

??????????? Provide diverse, sustainable, adaptable and affordable housing options through effective land use planning; and

??????????? Provide a mixture of housing types that allow residents to meet their housing needs at different stages of their lifecycle within the Nambucca Valley;

 

 

6??????? Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)?

 

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

 

7??????? Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?

 

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


Section C ? Environmental, social and economic impact

 

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

 

????????? The Planning Proposal itself is not likely to directly result in a significant impact to any threatened, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

 

????????? The proposal will permit alternative forms of development to occur in rural and semi rural areas. A development application would be required for any proposal to undertake such an activity on the land.

 

????????? A development application would be subject to the section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the provisions of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Should the proposal be likely to result in a significant impact to any threatened species, community or population then the matter would be subject to additional assessment in the form of a species impact statement.

 

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

 

????????? There are no direct environmental effects resulting from the proposed amendment. Other common issues that would need to be addressed for these types of dwellings in rural and semi rural environments include but are not limited to:

 

??????????? Effluent/ Waste Management;

??????????? Bushfire Management;

??????????? Access; and

??????????? Flora and Fauna

 

10????? How has the Planning Proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

????????? As with the environment impacts, there are unlikely to be any negative social or economical impacts that are a direct result of this Planning Proposal. These matters will be examined for each development application for a proposed activity pursuant to Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

????????? Further discussion in relation to these matters is provided in relation to the SEPP?s and 117 directions within the Appendices of this report.

 

Section D ? State and Commonwealth Interests

 

11????? Is there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal?

 

????????? The proposal is unlikely to place a demand on public infrastructure that could not be managed. All developments that are approved would be charged applicable Section 94 contributions rates for Roads, Open Space and Surf Life Saving Equipment and any other relevant infrastructure or services.?????????

 

????????? As discussed later in this report the option to provide secondary dwelling on a rural landscape is likely to have less impact on services compared to an attached dual occupancy or rural workers dwelling. This is because of the size restriction on the secondary dwelling.

 

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

 

????????? Refer to Part 5 of this in relation to consultation undertaken with other government agencies..


 

Part 4?? Community Consultation

 

The Gateway Determination found this proposal is not considered to be a low impact proposal in accordance with Section 4.5 of ?A guide to preparing local environmental plans?. As such it is intended that the exhibition period for the Planning Proposal will be a minimum of 28 days and the exhibition will be undertaken in accordance with Section 4.5 of ?A guide to preparing local environmental plans?.

 

Part 5?? Agency Consultation

 

Gateway Determination

 

Pursuant to Council?s resolution to proceed with the LEP amendment, Council forward a copy of the planning proposal to the Department of Planning for consideration through a gateway determination. Council received a gateway determination on the 2 February 2012. A copy of the determination is provided in Appendix 4.

 

In summary the Gateway Panel determined Council could proceed with LEP amendment subject to a number of conditions, which included:

 

??????????? Community Consultation be undertaken in accordance with Guidelines for a period no less than 28 days;

??????????? Council consult with the NSW Rural Fire Service regarding the proposal;

??????????? Council provide additional justification for a number of 117 directions; and

??????????? The planning proposal be finalised within 9 months following the gateway determination.

 

 

Other Referrals

 

The gateway determination require Council to consult with the following public authorities under section 56(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

??????????? NSW Rural Fire Service

 

Council provided the NSW Rural Fire Service with a copy of the Planning Proposal on the 13 February 2012. Council received a response to this matter on the 27 February 2012 which indicated the NSW Rural Fire Service had no objection to the Planning Proposal proceeding and further to this suggested a number bushfire protection measures that would be applied to future development of this type. A copy of the correspondence from the NSW Rural Fire Service is provided as Appendix 5.

 


Appendix 1 ? Proposed Land Use Tables

 

Zone RU1 Primary Production

1 Objectives of zone

? ?????? To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

? ?????? To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

? ?????? To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

? ?????? To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

2 Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home-based child care; Home occupations; Horticulture

3 Permitted with consent

Bed and breakfast accommodation; Cellar door premises; Dual occupancies (attached); Dwelling houses; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Heavy industries; Home industries; Intensive livestock agriculture; Intensive plant agriculture; Landscaping material supplies; Open cut mining; Neighbourhood shops; Plant nurseries; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural supplies; Rural workers? dwellings; Secondary dwellings; Shop top housing; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Amusement centres; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Child care centres; Commercial premises; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Entertainment facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Function centres; Health services facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Heliports; Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Mortuaries; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Service stations; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Warehouse or distribution centres; Wharf or boating facilities; Wholesale supplies


Zone RU2 Rural Landscape

1 Objectives of zone

? To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

? To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

? To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

? To control development which could have an adverse impact on the Council?s urban water supply.

2 Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home-based child care; Home occupations; Horticulture

3 Permitted with consent

Bed and breakfast accommodation; Cellar door premises; Dwelling houses; Dual occupancies (attached); Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Group homes; Heavy industries; Home industries; Landscape material supplies; Neighbourhood shops; Plant nurseries; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural supplies; Secondary Dwellings; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Amusement centres; Child care centres; Commercial premises; Eco-tourist facilities; Entertainment facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Health services facilities; Heliports; Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Service stations; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Warehouse or distribution centres; Wharf or boating facilities; Wholesale supplies


 

Appendix 2 - State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) have been considered in the preparation of this Planning Proposal:

 

??????????? State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 ? Coastal Wetlands

 

Ensures coastal wetlands are preserved and protected for environmental and economic reasons. The policy applies to local government areas outside the Sydney metropolitan area that front the Pacific Ocean. The policy identifies over 1300 wetlands of high natural value from Tweed Heads to Broken Bay and from Wollongong to Cape Howe. Land clearing, levee construction, drainage work or filling may only be carried out within these wetlands with the consent of the local council and the agreement of the Director General of the Department and Planning. Such development also requires an environmental impact statement to be lodged with a development application. The policy is continually reviewed. It has, for example, been amended to omit or include areas, clarify the definition of the land to which the policy applies and to allow minimal clearing along boundaries for fencing and surveying.

 

All lands identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands or SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests have been zoned E2 Environmental Protection. This Planning Proposal does not propose to amend the land use tables of this zone to allow secondary dwellings.

 

??????????? State Environmental Planning Policy No 26 ? Littoral Rainforests

 

Protects littoral rainforests, a distinct type of rainforest well suited to harsh salt-laden and drying coastal winds. The policy requires that the likely effects of proposed development be thoroughly considered in an environmental impact statement. The policy applies to 'core' areas of littoral rainforest as well as a 100 metre wide 'buffer' area surrounding these core areas, except for residential land and areas to which SEPP No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands applies. Eighteen local government areas with direct frontage to the Pacific Ocean are affected, from Tweed in the north to Eurobodalla in the south.

 

All lands identified as SEPP 14 Wetlands or SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests have been zoned E2 Environmental Protection. This Planning Proposal does not propose to amend the land use tables of this zone to allow secondary dwellings.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Threatened species investigations may be required to be undertaken as part of any future development application. Typically a SEPP 44 Assessment would be undertaken in conjunction with a Threatened Species Assessment.

 

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

 

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

 

This Planning Proposal would not be considered inconsistent with the provisions of this SEPP. If necessary, appropriate consideration of the matters referred to in this SEPP will be undertaken as part of any future development application.


State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

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

 

Typically this SEPP would have no association with a proposal to undertake a second dwelling.

 

??????????? State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 ? Remediation of Land

 

Introduces state-wide planning controls for the remediation of contaminated land. The policy states that land must not be developed if it is unsuitable for a proposed use because it is contaminated. If the land is unsuitable, remediation must take place before the land is developed.

 

Should land with potential contamination be identified through a Development Assessment process; the applicant would be required to address the provisions of this SEPP and associated guidelines. Council staff would need to be satisfied that a proposed development would be suitable in relation to any contamination on site or if further investigation or remediation would be required.

 

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

 

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes. The policy applies to local government areas that are not listed in clause 4.

 

The principles contained within the policy are required to be addressed through related s117 Directions. They would also be required to be addressed as part of any future development application for a site.

 

The Rural Planning Principles are as follows:

 

a??????? the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas.

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this principle. Applications for uses would also need to be assessed on their merits. Council?s DCP 2010 has controls in place which determine buffer distances required to certain rural activities. Given the Planning Proposal would allow second dwellings in rural areas, these provisions would be applied. The location of second dwellings on rural land may be restricted due to adjoining land uses.

 

b??????? recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State.

 

Although the Planning Proposal will allow for an alternative form of development to occur in rural areas, legislation and Council development controls would prevent adverse impacts to rural activities in the area. As an example the Nambucca LEP 2010 prevents subdivision of land containing secondary dwellings where the size of the lots will be below the minimum lot size. Also Council would apply buffers between rural and other areas of the Shire.

 

c??????? recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development.

 

Although the Planning Proposal will allow for an alternative form of development to occur in rural areas, legislation and Council development controls would prevent adverse impacts to rural activities in the area. As an example Council would apply buffers between rural and other areas of the shire. It is anticipated that secondary dwellings would have limited impact on rural activities but may assist rural landowners to supplement income from their property and also assist in property management.

 

d??????? in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community,

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this principle. The proposal may assist in meeting this balance by providing land owners with additional options or choice in relation to the future of their land.

 

e??????? the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land,

 

As stated previously these requirements would be subject to a merit based assessment through the development application process.

 

f???????? the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities,

 

For the reasons discussed in the core of this report the Planning Proposal is likely to provide a number of benefits to rural lifestyle, social and economic welfare of the rural communities.

 

g??????? the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing.

 

This Planning Proposal will not adversely impact on the services and infrastructure, the majority of rural residential and rural areas are not serviced (other than by roads), and contributions are collected as appropriate.

 

h??????? ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General.

 

This Planning Proposal is consistent with the principles and actions contained within the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. The proposal presents a minor variation to the permissible housing types in the rural areas that would have a number of positive effects for the rural community which are outlined in the core of this report.

 

??????????? State Environmental Planning Policy No 15 Rural Land Sharing Communities

 

Makes multiple occupancy permissible, with council consent, in rural and non-urban zones, subject to a list of criteria in clause 9(1) of the policy. Multiple occupancy is defined as the collective management and sharing of unsubdivided land, facilities and resources. The policy encourages a community-based environmentally-sensitive approach to rural settlement, and enables the pooling of resources to develop opportunities for communal rural living. SEPP 15 Guide provides guidance to intending applicants.

 

This Planning Proposal is generally unrelated to this SEPP.

 


Appendix 3 - Section 117 Directions

 

 

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

 

1??????? Employment and Resources

 

1.1???? Business and Industrial Zones

 

This Planning Proposal does not intend to amend business or industrial zones in any manner.

 

1.2???? Rural Zones

 

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

 

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

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

This Planning Proposal does not require the rezoning of rural land. The proposed amendment is unlikely to directly result in an increase in density. Additional justification for this is provided below. The provision of secondary dwellings in rural areas is likely to result in a number of positive outcomes for the rural communities as detailed in the body of this proposal.

 

Further Justification

 

The gateway determination requires Council to provide additional justification in relation to the proposals consistency with this direction.

 

It is believed that the permissibility of secondary dwellings in rural zones is of minor significance as already indicated. It is also perceived that this amendment will not result in increases to rural densities because the Nambucca LEP 2010 will continue to prohibit multiple dwelling housing on rural land.

 

To further explain this at present an attached dual occupancy is a permissible land use which may occur on any rural land parcel with a dwelling entitlement. This amendment will provide a choice for the land owner to provide either an attached dual occupancy (of any size) or a secondary dwelling (restricted in size but not necessarily attached). Both activities would not be permissible on the same parcel of land.

 

Should a landowner choose to provide a secondary dwelling in preference to an attached dual occupancy it is expected that impact on services and infrastructure would be less because the secondary dwelling is limited in size which would be reflected in occupancy.

 

In summary the option to provide a secondary dwelling in rural areas may actually minimise increases in rural densities by allowing a viable alternative option to attached dual occupancies that has a restriction on size.

 

1.3???? Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries

 

This direction has no impact on the Planning Proposal as proposed.

 

1.4???? Oyster Aquaculture

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a??????? to ensure that Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas and oyster aquaculture outside such an area are adequately considered when preparing a draft LEP,

b??????? to protect Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas and oyster aquaculture outside such an area from land uses that may result in adverse impacts on water quality and consequently, on the health of oysters and oyster consumers.

 

In the preparation of a draft LEP affected by this direction, the council shall:

 

a??????? identify any Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas and oyster aquaculture leases outside such an area, as shown on the maps to the Strategy, to which the draft LEP would apply,

b??????? identify any proposed land uses which could result in any adverse impact on a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area or oyster aquaculture leases outside such an area,

c??????? identify and take into consideration any issues likely to lead to an incompatible use of land between oyster aquaculture and other land uses and identify and evaluate measures to avoid or minimise such land use incompatibility,

d??????? consult with the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) of the proposed changes in the preparation of the draft LEP, and

e??????? ensure the draft LEP is consistent with the Strategy.

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction. Where a development application is proposed in an area that may impact on oyster leases ? the provisions of SEPP 62 Aquaculture are likely to apply.

 

1.5???? Rural Lands

 

The objectives of this direction are to:

 

a??????? protect the agricultural production value of rural land,

b??????? facilitate the orderly and economic development of rural lands for rural and related purposes.

 

This direction applies when:

 

a??????? a council prepares a draft LEP that affects land within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary) or

b??????? a council prepares a draft LEP that changes the existing minimum lot size on land within a rural or environment protection zone.

 

What a council must do if this direction applies

 

a??????? A draft LEP to which clauses 3(a) or 3(b) apply must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

b??????? A draft LEP to which clause 3(b) applies must be consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

 

Consistency

 

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

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

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

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

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

b??????? is of minor significance.

 

The principles of the SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 were addressed previously. Any inconsistencies are considered to be of minor significance.

 

Further Justification

 

The gateway determination requires Council to provide additional justification in relation to the proposals consistency with this direction. As the planning proposal does not affect the subdivision sizes of rural lots it is only Section 3a of this direction which applies.

 

Part 3a indicates a draft LEP must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008. Although listed previously in appendix 2 these matters are re-addressed below: In reviewing this justification it is important to note that the proposed amendment is not increasing the potential for dwellings in rural zones, rather it is providing an alternative option to an attached dual occupancy.

 

a??????? the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable activities in rural areas.

 

As stated previously there are a number of mechanisms available to protect agriculture resources from land use conflicts including Council?s DCP 2010 and the living and working in rural areas handbook (DPI, 2008) which provides buffer/ setback requirements to certain activities. These will be applied to DA?s for both attached dual occupancies and secondary dwellings.

 

b??????? recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or state.

 

In the Nambucca LGA the gross regional product delivered by the agricultural sector was the only economic sector to decrease during the 2004-2008 period. It declined by approximately 6.9% per annum over this period and this trend is reflected with employment in the agriculture sectors decreasing over the last 20 years (LGMS Employment Lands, NSC 2010).

 

The decrease in employment may be partially representative of higher individual productivity per employee and technical advancement of agricultural industries and machinery. However the negative trend in gross regional product within the agricultural sector demonstrates a downsizing of the industry in the LGA.

 

Factors which may have contributed to this include:

 

??????????? large scale local productivity being less competitive with overseas markets; and

??????????? other sectors being more attractive and profitable ? for the example the growth in Nambucca LGA?s manufacturing sectors; and

??????????? Attractive rural development opportunities and property market for ?sea? and tree? changers.

 

In the last decade there has been an emerging trend and demand for locally grown/made produce within the local and regional community including Bellingen and Kempsey. Within the area multiple local produce markets have been established including the Nambucca Valley Farmers Markets (weekly); The Bellingen Growers Market (fortnightly); Kempsey Growers Markets (monthly) which are supplemented by a regular local network of markets in the area providing fresh local produce. These markets are supported by a number of community groups such as the Nambucca Valley Local Food Network; the Coffs Harbour Local Food Futures Alliance; Northern Rivers Food Resilience.

 

In many cases a major aim of participates is to increase the resilence of their local area to climate change by supplying local, fresh and naturally grown produce. The promoting of these activities was recognised as an adaptation action within Council?s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy which indicated:

 

?Ensure Development Controls enhance the potential local food production on rural land? ? discussion during the preparation of the adaptation strategy identified the intent of these controls was to encourage small scale niche produce markets to establish and serve the local communities, and to develop a label for region as resilient and sustainable in relation to food security.

 

This Planning Proposal may provide an opportunity for this trending direction of agriculture to supplement income by providing secondary dwellings. It may also provide accommodation for persons able to assist in small scale agricultural pursuits, where the type, size or nature of the agricultural activity would not be substantial enough to warrant a ?rural workers dwelling?.

 

The suitability of a secondary dwelling on a particular site would be subject to development assessment and relevant controls within the Nambucca LEP 2010 and Nambucca DCP 2010. It is anticipated that sites or locations unsuitable for secondary dwellings can be managed through pre DA lodgement advice and the DA process. Where a suitable location can not be found for a secondary dwelling on a rural property DA refusal may be necessary as with any other land use which is permissible on a site where the development is not suitable.

 

c??????? recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the state and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits or rural land use development;

 

One of the primary concerns with this proposal are essentially the potential for the secondary dwellings to affect the productivity of the Rural Landscape.

 

Given the framework secondary dwelling clause, it will only permit small scale independent living arrangements or as typically referred to by SEPP affordable housing ?granny flats?. These types of developments are unlikely to place additional burden on services or infrastructure in rural areas, or the productivity of an area. Particularly when compared to other permissible land uses, such as attached dual occupancies. The planning proposal will provide rural land owners additional options to suit their particular circumstances.

 

Concerns regarding impacts on rural productivity, social and infrastructure requirements of rural areas are noted, however as stated previously it is expected that issues can be managed effectively through Planning controls in local planning instruments.

 

d??????? in planning for rural lands to balance the social economic and environmental interests of the community

 

The proposal will provide an alternative housing option for the agricultural community, it is expected that interests of the community can be appropriately managed through development application process.

 

e??????? the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land;

 

Site selection on a particular allotment is important for a dwelling, dual occupancy or as proposed a secondary dwelling. To accompany this planning proposal Council has prepared a fact sheet detailing typical issues/constraints relating to development in the rural areas. Should the planning proposal be endorsed this fact sheet will be modified and made available to the public.

 

DA?s lodged for secondary dwellings/ dual occupancies or single dwellings are required to address relevant environmental matters and where necessary specialist reporting may be required to support a DA.

 

f???????? the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities;

 

The permissibility of a Secondary Dwelling in the rural zones will provide rural land owners with a choice between attached dual occupancy, secondary dwelling and in some instances rural workers dwellings. All these housing types contain their advantages and disadvantages depending on the needs of the land owner.

 


g??????? the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing;

 

As stated previously additional accommodation in form of attached dual occupancies are already permissible in rural zones. The permissibility of secondary dwellings provides a housing alternative to the attached dual occupancy and is not expected to greatly impact on densities in rural areas. Unlike the attached dual occupancy or rural workers dwellings, the size restrictions of the secondary dwellings are expected reflect low household size. Therefore a landholder investigating options for additional accommodation who decides to opt for a secondary dwelling in preference to other dwelling types is also expected to have less impact on the services and infrastructure. The legal occupation of a secondary dwelling will require the payment of S94 contributions to Council for services and infrastructure.

 

h??????? ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the department of planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the director general.

 

The planning proposal is not considered a departure from the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. This matter is addressed in further detail within Direction 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies.

 

 

2??????? Environment and Heritage

 

2.1???? Environment Protection Zones

 

The Planning Proposal does not proposed to amend environmental zones in any manner.

 

2.2???? Coastal Protection

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

This Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction. Various state policies may apply to any future development proposed within the Coastal Zone.

 

2.3???? Heritage Conservation

 

The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP.

 

A draft LEP shall contain provisions that facilitate the conservation of:

 

a??????? items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance to an area, in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or place, identified in a study of the environmental heritage of the area,

b??????? Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and

c??????? Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places or landscapes identified by an Aboriginal heritage survey prepared by or on behalf of an Aboriginal Land Council, Aboriginal body or public authority and provided to the council, which identifies the area, object, place or landscape as being of heritage significance to Aboriginal culture and people.

 

The Planning Proposal is unlikely to result in impacts to heritage matters. Development applications proposed will be required to address the various state government and local policies in relation to heritage matters.

 

2.4???? Recreation Vehicle Areas

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

 

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

 

3.1???? Residential Zones

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The draft LEP Amendment will reduce the size permissibility of secondary dwellings in Residential areas. As outlined in the body of this proposal this is expected to have a number of positive outcomes.

 

3.4???? Integrated Land Use and Transport

 

The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

 

a??????? improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, and

b??????? increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars, and

c??????? reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car, and

d??????? supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services, and

e??????? providing for the efficient movement of freight.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that creates, alters or removes a zone or a provision relating to urban land, including land zoned for residential, business, industrial, village or tourist purposes.

 

A draft LEP shall locate zones for urban purposes and include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of:

 

a??????? Improving Transport Choice ? Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001), and

b??????? The Right Place for Business and Services ? Planning Policy (DUAP 2001).

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

3.5???? Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

 

This Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction. At present there are no known licensed aerodromes in the Nambucca Local Government Area.

 

3.6 ??? Shooting Ranges

 

As previously stated the Planning Proposal does not relate to specific land. Should a development application be lodged with Council as a result of the Planning Proposal, then it would need to be determined on its merits and in accordance with relevant legislation and development controls.

 

 

4??????? Hazard and Risk

 

4.1???? Acid Sulfate Soils

 

The objective of this direction is to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts from the use of land that has a probability of containing acid sulfate soils.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that will apply to land having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils as shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps.

 

Council shall consider the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines adopted by the Director-General of the Department of Planning when preparing a draft LEP that applies to any land identified on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps as having a probability of acid sulfate soils being present.

 

When a council is preparing a draft LEP to introduce provisions to regulate works in acid sulfate soils, those provisions shall be consistent with:

 

a??????? the Acid Sulfate Soils Model LEP in the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines adopted by the Director-General, or

b??????? such other provisions provided by the Director-General of the Department of Planning that are consistent with the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Guidelines.

 

A council shall not prepare a draft LEP that proposes an intensification of land uses on land identified as having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps unless the council has considered an acid sulfate soils study assessing the appropriateness of the change of land use given the presence of acid sulfate soils. Council shall provide a copy of any such study with its statement to the Director-General of the Department of Planning under section 64 of the EP&A Act.

 

Where provisions referred to under paragraph (5) of this direction have not been introduced and council is preparing a draft LEP that proposes an intensification of land uses on land identified as having a probability of acid sulfate soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps, the draft LEP must contain provisions consistent with paragraph (5).

 

As this Planning Proposal applies to all land in rural and residential zones it is not practical to undertake specific Acid Sulphate Soil investigations over such a broad area. However a development application proposed in an area potentially subject to PASS or ASS would be required to address the matter through provisions in the Nambucca LEP 2010.


4.3???? Flood Prone Land

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

a??????? to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government?s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, and

b??????? to ensure that the provisions of an LEP on flood prone land is commensurate with flood hazard and includes consideration of the potential flood impacts both on and off the subject land.

 

This direction applies when a council prepares a draft LEP that creates, removes or alters a zone or a provision that affects flood prone land.

 

A draft LEP shall include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas).

 

A draft LEP shall not rezone land within the flood planning areas from Special Use, Special Purpose, Recreation, Rural or Environmental Protection Zones to a Residential, Business, Industrial, Special Use or Special Purpose Zone.

 

A draft LEP shall not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

 

a??????? permit development in floodway areas,

b??????? permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties,

c??????? permit a significant increase in the development of that land,

d??????? are likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or

e??????? permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development.

 

A draft LEP must not impose flood related development controls above the residential flood planning level for residential development on land, unless a council provides adequate justification for those controls to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

 

For the purposes of a draft LEP, a council must not determine a flood planning level that is inconsistent with the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas) unless a council provides adequate justification for the proposed departure from that Manual to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

 

As this Planning Proposal applies to all land in rural and residential areas it is not practical to undertake specific flood investigations over such a broad area. However a development application proposed in an area potentially impacted by flooding would be required to address the matter through provisions in the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

4.4???? Planning for Bushfire Protection

 

The objectives of this direction are:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

As this Planning Proposal applies to all land in rural and large lot residential zones it is not practical to undertake specific Bushfire investigations over such a broad area. However a development application proposed on Bushfire Prone Land would require integrated referral to the NSW RFS as a special purpose development. The appropriate assessment and requirements of the development would be addressed at this time.

 

 

5??????? Regional Planning

 

5.1???? Implementation of Regional Strategies

 

Objective

 

1??????? The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes and actions contained in regional strategies.

 

Where this direction applies

 

2??????? This direction applies to land to which the following regional strategies apply:

a??????? Far North Coast Regional Strategy

b??????? Lower Hunter Regional Strategy

c??????? Illawarra Regional Strategy

d??????? South Coast Regional Strategy

e??????? Sydney?Canberra Corridor Regional Strategy

f???????? Central Coast Regional Strategy, and

g??????? Mid North Coast Regional Strategy.

 

When this direction applies

 

3??????? This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a Planning Proposal.

 

What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies

 

4??????? Planning Proposals must be consistent with a regional strategy released by the Minister for Planning.

 

Consistency

 

5??????? A Planning Proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), that the extent of inconsistency with the regional strategy:

a??????? is of minor significance, and

b??????? the Planning Proposal achieves the overall intent of the regional strategy and does not undermine the achievement of its vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes or actions.

 

Matters relating to the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy were discussed within the body of this report, and as discussed previously this Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and is only considered to be of minor significance. The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

Further Justification

 

The gateway determination requires Council provide additional justification in relation to proposals consistency with this direction. Pursuant to this the determination the following additional justification is provided:

 

The mid North Coast Regional Strategy applies to the Nambucca LGA and is therefore relevant to this proposal. The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy states the following in relation to urban areas:

 

????????? ?Councils will consider a range of affordable housing strategies, including forms of low cost housing, suitable zonings and development controls to improve housing affordability and choice. These strategies must be consistent with relevant State policies.?

 

In relation to rural areas the MNCRS states the following within Part 4 Settlement and Housing:

 

????????? ?Local environmental plans will include provisions to limit dwellings in rural and environmental zones.?

 

The planning proposal relating to secondary dwellings in rural zones is not expected to increase the potential number of dwellings which can be erected in rural zones. Rather it will provide rural land owners with a choice of a secondary dwelling in addition to their existing right to erect an attached dual occupancy. More than two dwellings are not permitted on rural properties, as this would constitute multi-dwelling housing which is prohibited in the zone. The proposed amendment is unlikely to result in any greater number of dwellings being erected in rural zones than the potential which already exists.

 

Further it is identified in the MNCRS that the region?s population is aging. Secondary dwellings provide an opportunity for land owners to provide accommodation for elderly relatives on their rural allotment, or in many instances, elderly relatives to age in place by erecting a secondary dwelling for themselves and allowing relatives with families to accommodate the primary dwelling. In addition to this, secondary dwellings provide semi independent accommodation with adequate privacy but for persons to live on site so they can assist in the managing of the land, but not to the extent to which it would qualify as a rural workers dwelling and may also provide interim accommodation for young adults unable to enter the property market.

 

A proposal may be inconsistent with this direction only if it is of minor significance and meets the overall intent of the strategy. In this regard, the overall intent of the Regional Strategy in terms of housing, focuses on addressing the aging demographic and providing appropriate housing forms in appropriate locations. Extending secondary dwellings or granny flat availability to rural zones is expected to assist with meeting the overall intent without being a significant departure from individual actions of the strategy.

 

In conclusion any inconsistency with the MNCRS is considered to be of minor significance and in accordance with the overall intent of the strategy.

 

5.2???? Sydney Drinking Water Catchment

 

This direction does not apply to land in the Nambucca LGA

 

5.3???? Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast

 

This direction does not apply to land in the Nambucca LGA.

 

5.4???? Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast

 

The Planning Proposal is not proposing any amendments that would be inconsistent with this direction.

 

 

6??????? Local Plan Making

 

6.1???? Approval and Referral Requirements

 

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

 

A draft LEP shall:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

It is intended to ensure the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

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

 

This Planning Proposal is not relevant to this direction.

 

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

 

This Planning Proposal is not relevant to this direction.


Appendix 4 ? Gateway Determination


Appendix 5 ? NSW RFS Consultation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Planning Proposal Report on Exhibition of LEP 2010 Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 June 2012

Planning Proposal Report on Exhibition of LEP 2010 Amendment No 8 Secondary Dwellings

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28 June 2012

Engineering Services

ITEM 11.1??? SF90??????????????? 280612???????? Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 7 February 2012

 

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

 

Summary: