NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

25 October 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 last Thursday of each month commencing at 5.30 pm AND and a full day meeting commencing at 8.30am on the Wednesday two weeks and one day before the Thursday meeting. 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 - 25 October 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.

 

AMENDED AGENDA????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER ? Pastor Robbie Ventham (C3)

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

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

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM/DELEGATIONS

10.6.. DA2012/069 Development Application For Designated Development - Precast Concrete Works - Increase Production To 200,000 Tonnes Per Year.......................................................................... 112

????????? ???????? i)?? Mr Phil Noakes?to update Council on the future of Australian Precast Solutions and to answer ??????????????????? ????????? any questions

 

9.4?? Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park................................................ 35

??????? i)?? Mr Jim Bolger, General Manager, North Coast Holiday Parks ? Support

??? ???ii)?? Mr Neville Green, Planning & Design Officer, North Coast Holiday Parks ? Support

 

9.5???? Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads............................... 54

??????? i)?? Ms Kelli Leckie ? Applicant

??????? ii)?? Mr Clint Leckie ? Applicant

 

9.6?? Proposal to Site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park, Nambucca Heads.......... 62

??????? i)?? Mr Steve Coleman President, Nambucca Heads Lions Club ? Against

??????? ii)?? Mr Peter O?Neill Vice President, Nambucca Heads Lions Club ? Against

 

7??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ?Cr Flack:

Councillors were recently provided with a copy of a media release from Rally Australia dated 29 September 2012 announcing that the FIA World Rally Championships will return to the Coffs Coast on 12 - 15 September next year, with reference to '..drivers of extraordinary talent in action through more than 300 kilometers of beautiful and rugged countryside in the Coffs Harbour, Nambucca, Bellingen and Clarence Valley areas.'

 

1????????????? What consultation has been undertaken with Nambucca Shire Council in terms of its participation in the event?

2????????????? When will Councillors be receiving a report regarding this matter?

3????????????? Will Rally Australia be once again expecting financial and physical assistance from Nambucca Shire Council for the Nambucca leg of the event?

4????????????? If so where will the money come from?

5????????????? Will NSC be given a choice as to its participation?

6????????????? Has NSC contacted CHCC to enquire about the planning process and notify it of the need for early involvement of NSC?

 

GENERAL MANAGER?S RESPONSE

 

1????????????? There has been no consultation with Nambucca Shire Council.  The media release referred to in the question was the first advice received.

2????????????? At this stage, other than the media release which has been circulated, there is no other information to report.  If and when further information is provided it will be reported.

3???????????? Unknown.

4???????????? Unknown.

5????????????? For the previous event, Council was advised that the Homebush Motor Racing Authority had power to provide planning approval.  Presumably this will apply to the 2013 event, although the current legal arrangements for the Homebush Motor Racing Authority are unknown.

6????????????? Whilst it is understood from the media release that CHCC is supportive of the event, they are not the organisers.  As a consequence of the question, a letter has now been sent to the Homebush Motor Racing Authority and Rally Australia requesting that the Council be provided with a briefing on the event when they have proposals for the various rally stages and particularly those within the Nambucca Valley.

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

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports....................................................................................... 6

9.2???? Schedule of Council Public Meetings................................................................................ 12

9.3???? Review of Local Government Act 1993............................................................................... 13

9.4???? Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park?DELEGATION .................... 35

9.5???? Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads - DELEGATION....... 54

9.6???? Proposal to Site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads?DELEGATION ............................................................................................................... 62

9.7???? Update on Deep Creek and Nambucca River Flood Studies................................................. 76

9.8???? Financial Report - Statement by Councillors and Management - 30 June 2012...................... 82

9.9???? Investment Report to 30 September 2012.......................................................................... 84

9.10?? Gumbaynggirr People - Continuing Involvement of Council as a Party to Native Title Claim NSD6054/1998..................................................................................................................................... 90

9.11?? Grant Application Status Report ...................................................................................... 93

10????? Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

10.1?? Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys....................................................................... 96

10.2?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 12 October 2012................................................................................................................ 101

10.3?? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report September 2012....................................................... 104

10.4?? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined Under Delegated Authority from 29 September - 12 October 2012............................................................................................................................. 105

10.5?? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports 2011-2012, And Certificates Received 2010-2012 (September 2012)............................................................................................................................ 107

10.6?? DA2012/069 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT - PRECAST CONCRETE WORKS - INCREASE PRODUCTION TO 200,000 TONNES PER YEAR?DELEGATION .................................................................................................................................... 112

11????? Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1?? Capital Works Report - 1 July 2012 to 30 September 2012................................................ 123

11.2?? Captain Cook Lookout - Cemetery................................................................................... 129 ???

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

12.1?? Further Information - Gumbaynggirr People - Continuing Involvement of Council as a Party to Native Title Claim NSD6054/1998

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (g) (h) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege; AND the report contains information concerning the nature and location of a place or an item of Aboriginal significance on community land.

??

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

 

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

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

???? TO CLOSE

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

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

13????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

??????? ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 251012???????? 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 2010

 

 

1

SF218

15/07/10

Council review investigations to extend sewer to the Lower Nambucca and investigate effluent disposal issues in Eungai.

 

GM/

AGMCCS

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 until full compliment of staff on board.

 

 

 

MARCH 2011

 

2

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

 

AGMCCS

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.

Re the delay, Council?s Strategic Planner has followed up the RMS.

Staff meeting with Consultants on Wednesday 18/10/12.

 


 

JUNE 2011

3

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.

 

AGMCCS

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.

 

To be discussed at meeting outlined in 3 above.

JULY 2011

4

SF1031

21/7/2011

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

 

GM

Policy under revision and to be reported to future meeting.? Also the State Government policy has recently changed.

OCTOBER 2011

5

SF1595

20/10/2011

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

 

AGMES

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.

Deferred until   October following the election of the new Council and to be included in Tree Register? Item No 11 below. Deferred to November 2012.

 

6

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.

 

7

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.

 

 

JANUARY 2012

8

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.

 

AGMCCS

Will be scheduled once application is ready for determination.

 

This matter progressing with license over additional land granted which rectifies encroachment.

 

Application withdrawn

9

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.

Small item in rates newsletter.? Grants Officer to prepare brochure.

 


 

FEBRUARY 2012

10

GB2/12

02/02/2012

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

AGMES

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

Nesting boxes have now been delivered and will be installed shortly.

 

MARCH 2012

 

11

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.

 

AGMES

Report will be presented to Council in August 2012,

 

To incorporate outstanding action No 5 above.

 

Deferred until October following Council elections.

Deferred until November 2012.

 

 

12

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.

 

GM

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

 

Investigations underway.

 

 

13

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.

 

GM

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

 

Investigations underway.

 

JUNE 2012

 

14

SF1747

29/06/2012

Council receive a report on the opportunities for employing and/or training its own traffic controllers and also enquiring about purchasing and utilising automatic traffic signals.

 

AGMES

Report to the August Council Meeting.

Report deferred until October following the Council elections due to the potential purchase of portable traffic lights.?

 

Deferred until November 2012

 

 

JULY 2012

 

15

PRF54

26/7/2012

Council defer a decision on the use of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve and make urgent representations to the Deputy Premier seeking his assistance in resolving the issues.

 

GM

Letter sent w/e 3 August 2012.? Also funding application under the Public Reserves Management Fund submitted on 31 July 2012.

Will report back upon determination of application.

Report in business paper 10/10/12 on camping fees

 

Awaiting advice from Manager Applications and Compliance in relation to effluent system and water tank standard..

 

16

SF399

26/7/2012

Council to consider ?loss? of $191,545 in FAG income in September quarter budget review.

 

GM

Report in November 2012

 

AUGUST 2012

 

17

SF96

15/08/2012

Council develop a policy in relation to the erection of signs on public land.

 

AGMES

A draft policy will be developed for Council in November 2012

 


 

SEPTEMBER 2012

18

SF988

27/09/2012

Council write again to Mr Stewart Dowrick and the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP reminding them that dialysis at Macksville Health Campus was part of a health strategy many years ago ? requesting when might the community expect an answer.

 

GM

Letters sent 3 October 2012

19

SF929

27/09/2012

Council write to NV Tourism and ask them to suggest a strategy for the future of the VIC taking into consideration a number of factors.

 

GM

Letter sent 3 October 2012

20

DA2012/093

27/09/2012

Council develop a Management Plan for Lions Park as soon as possible.

 

AGMES

Report in December 2012

21

SF768

27/09/2012

Further report on Weekes bridge and a further inspection.

 

AGMES

To be scheduled for Council meeting on 12 December 2012

22

SF84

27/09/2012

Council write to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services & others advising that a formal written explanation has not been forthcoming on the RFS line items ?other support? , ?insurances? and why RFS budgets are not provided to Council by 28 February in accordance with the service level agreement.?? Council also advise that it doesn?t accept paying for the GRN which is not available in the Nambucca Valley.

 

AGMES

Letter sent 5 October 2012.

OCTOBER 2012

23

SF430

10/10/2012

That the Plan of Management (for Grassy Park) be modified to reflect the fact that the buffer zone is not intended to provide flying fox roosting habitat and as such any vegetation that attracts roosting flying fox will be removed.? Subject to OEH providing written endorsement of this interpretation of the PoM, the PoM be reconsidered.

 

GM

Letter sent 17 October 2012

24

SF430

10/10/2012

That Council respond to the OEH advising their response to Council?s letter concerning the State wide management of flying fox was unacceptable and asking them to develop a policy to ensure the establishment of flying fox camps well away from people.

 

GM

Letter sent 17 October 2012

25

SF1618

10/10/2012

That Council approach the Nambucca Senior Citizens Centre with a view to arranging a meeting to discuss a possible partnership with U3A and a mutually agreeable arrangement for sharing of the facility.? Further, that the opportunity for transfer of the building from Council ownership also be discussed.

 

GM

Letter sent 17 October 2012

26

SF688

10/10/2012

That Council endorse the proposed replacement projects for the 2012/2013 EL works program and place them on exhibition for 28 days subject to a change in wording for CBD streetscape improvements.? Project list needs to be referred to Estuary Committee for comment.

 

GM

Exhibition commencing on 25 October 2012.

 

 

27

SF688

10/10/2012

Council receive a report to establish a rainwater tank rebate under its water fund and that the provisions of the existing rebate scheme be reviewed to achieve a higher take up rate.

 

AGMES

Report to February 2013 meeting.

28

SF688

10/10/2012

That Council receive a brief report and recommendation on the possibility of extending the environmental levy program to allow for more flexibility and avoidance of re-votes.

GM

Report in December when EL works program comes back to Council for adoption.

29

SF1672

10/10/2012

Water and sewerage access charges be deferred to the first meeting in November 2012 to allow the Rates Officer the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding extending the phasing in of the charges over a longer period for those most significantly affected.

 

AGMCCS

Report in November 2012

30

SF1672

10/10/2012

Council receive a report on the options for reclassifying properties such as bedsits in line with the classification of motel rooms for purposes of levying water, sewer and waste charges and the precedent that such action would create in terms of numbers of properties and revenue.

 

AGMCCS

Report in November 2012

31

PRF54

10/10/2012

That the changes to camping fees at Boulton?s Crossing be deferred pending advice on the safety of the tank stand and whether or not the onsite sewerage management system meets Council?s requirements.? Also whether Council has public liability insurance cover for the camping ground given its legal status.

 

AGMCCS

Report in November 2012

32

SF544

10/10/2012

That a draft Section 94A contributions plan be submitted to Council no later than early 2013 to enable a draft works schedule to be advertised with the draft 2013/2014 Operational Plan.

 

GM

Report in January 2013

33

SF1709

10/10/2012

Council write to the NBN to clarify whether the Federal Telecommunications Act will override the State Planning legislation Council operates under.

 

AGMCCS

Report in November 2012.

34

SF1031

10/10/2012

That the draft policy ? abandoned shopping trolleys be deferred to enable consideration of councillors? comments.

AGMCCS

Report in October 2012

35

SF1185

10/10/2012

Naming of beach area off Ferry Street be deferred due to an undertaking that there be a meeting with the various stakeholders.

AGMES

Meeting to be arranged with stakeholders.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 0.0????? SF251????????????? 251012???????? Schedule of Council Public Meetings

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The following is a schedule of dates for public meetings convened by Council.

 

The meeting dates may change from to time and this will be recorded in the next available report to Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the schedule of dates for public Council meetings be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

NO.

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

FILE NO.

1

Ordinary Council Meeting

25/10/2012

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

SF1712

2

Estuary, River, Creeks & Coastline Management Comm

2/11/2012

Council Chambers

8.30 am

SF612

3

Water Supply Steering Committee

7/11/2012

Council Chambers then Bowraville site

11.30 AM

SF844

4

Ordinary Council Meeting

14/11/2012

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

5

Ordinary Council Meeting

29/11/2012

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

SF1712

6

Water Supply Steering Committee

5/12/2012

Council Chambers then Bowraville site

11.30 AM

SF844

7

Ordinary Council Meeting

12/12/2012

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

8

Ordinary Council Meeting

16/01/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

9

Ordinary Council Meeting

31/01/2013

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

SF1712

10

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/02/2013

Council Chambers then Bowraville site

11.30 AM

SF844

11

Ordinary Council Meeting

13/02/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

12

Ordinary Council Meeting

28/02/2013

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

SF1712

13

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/03/2013

Council Chambers then Bowraville site

11.30 AM

SF844

14

Ordinary Council Meeting

13/03/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

15

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/03/2013

Council Chambers then Bowraville site

11.30 AM

SF844

16

Ordinary Council Meeting

28/03/2013

Burrapine Hall

5.30 PM

SF1712

17

Ordinary Council Meeting

10/04/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

18

Ordinary Council Meeting

25/04/2013

Valla Rural Hall

5.30 PM

SF1712

19

Ordinary Council Meeting

15/05/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

20

Ordinary Council Meeting

30/05/2013

Nambucca Entertainment Centre

5.30 PM

SF1712

21

Ordinary Council Meeting

12/06/2013

Council Chambers

8.30 AM

SF1712

22

Ordinary Council Meeting

27/06/2013

Council Chambers

5.30 PM

SF1712

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF611????????????? 251012???????? Review of Local Government Act 1993

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Division of Local Government has advised of the creation of a four member taskforce to review the Local Government Act 1993 and the City of Sydney Act 1988.? Details of the Government?s intention and the Taskforce?s operation are attached.

 

The Taskforce comprises the John Turner (Chair) Mrs Gabrielle Kibble AO, Dr Ian Tiley and Mr Stephen Blackadder.

 

The Taskforce is seeking responses to the following key questions:

 

i.??????? What top 5 Principles should underpin the content of the new Local Government Act?

 

ii.?????? What is currently working well in the Local Government Act and why.? Should it be retained in the new Act?

 

Iii?????? Are there areas in the Local Government Act that are working well but should be removed to another Act or into Regulations, Codes or Guidelines?

 

Iv?????? What is not working well in the Local Government Act (barriers or weaknesses) and should be modified or not carried forward to the new Act?

 

The report discusses the questions and suggests responses to be incorporated in a submission to the Taskforce.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a submission on the Local Government Acts Taskforce, ?Preliminary Ideas Paper?, based on the comments in this report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can make a submission on the Local Government Act Taskforce?s ?Preliminary Ideas Paper?.? Councillors and staff can also attend a workshop which is being held at Port Macquarie on Tuesday 13 November, 2012.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Division of Local Government has advised of the creation of a four member taskforce to review the Local Government Act 1993 and the City of Sydney Act 1988.? Details of the Government?s intention and the Taskforce?s operation are attached.

 

The Taskforce comprises the John Turner (Chair) Mrs Gabrielle Kibble AO, Dr Ian Tiley and Mr Stephen Blackadder.

 

The Taskforce is conducting an initial round of workshops across NSW to hear from councillors and council officials who work within the framework of the Acts on a regular basis.? The purpose of the workshops is to gather ideas about:

 

?????? What principles should underpin a new Local Government Act

?????? What in the current Local Government Act works well and what needs to be changed or removed from the Act

?????? How new legislation could enable councils to better deliver services and infrastructure efficiently

 

The closest workshop to this council is one scheduled for Port Macquarie on Tuesday 13 November with a session for councillors from 10.00am to 12 noon and a separate session for council officials from 1.00pm to 2.00pm.

 

In addition to the workshops, written submissions are invited from all interested parties in response to the questions posed in the Taskforce?s ?Preliminary Ideas Paper?, a copy of which is attached.

 

Given that attendance at the Workshop will entail the commitment of a day by attending councillors and senior staff for what is likely to a reasonably generic discussion about issues with the Act, it is proposed that Council simply make a written submission.

 

A major review of the Local Government Act 1993 is well overdue.? It would have been preferable for more substantive review/s to have been undertaken earlier to address some of the obvious examples of unnecessary ?red tape?.

 

The timing of this major review now poses challenges with it being undertaken in parallel to the work of the Independent Local Government Review Panel.? There is potential for conflict.? For example the Local Government Act (LGA) Taskforce lists one of its terms of reference as, ?recognising the diversity of local government in NSW?.? The outcome of the Independent Local Government Review Panel may be a reduction in the diversity of local government.? Both the Panel and the Taskforce would seem to be separately considering the role of local government in NSW (refer to the comments below).

 

The Local Government Act (LGA) Taskforce has developed a series of questions, to which it is inviting comment and submissions.? The questions together with suggested responses are listed below.

 

i.??????? What top 5 Principles should underpin the content of the new Local Government Act?

 

In answering this question it is relevant to consider what the community considers the role and purpose of local government should be both now and into the future.? Are the purposes of each Act clearly identified, contemporaneous or could they be better expressed?? How prescribed should this be by the legislation?

 

Local Government is often thought to be too bureaucratic and process driven, to the detriment of innovation and practicality.? The Government has a clear policy on reducing red tape.? How might a new Local Government Act reduce unnecessary red tape and reach an appropriate balance between process, accountability and council performance?

 

If we were to take a more principles based approach to drafting a new Act could you identify good examples?

 

As noted by the Allan Inquiry, the new Local Government legislation in 1993 freed up councils to embrace a ?maximalist? (people servicing) role, yet by restricting taxes to property rates and retaining rate pegging and regulated fees and charges, in reality, Local Government?s capacity has remained constrained to a minimalist (property servicing) role.

 

This contradiction has continued and even in the recently released discussion paper by the Independent Local Government Review Panel they commented that;

 

??ncreasingly communities and other spheres of government are looking to councils to have a vision for the local area and to work across public, private and community sectors to make that vision a reality.? Communities expect their councils to provide strong and stable leadership that rises above narrow interests and effectively represents their needs and aspirations.? They expect local leaders to work with other levels of government to create more liveable places.?? (page 4)

 

The Independent Local Government Review Panel discussion paper directly considers the role and purpose of local government.? Page 4 which deals with, ?What makes a good council?, tackles the question about the preferred model for local government in the future.

 

?Looking to the future, do you see councils continuing to expand their range of activities they have done over recent decades?? Or is it time to focus more on ?core business??? If so, what exactly is ?core business? for local government in the 21st century?

 

In the UK, the ?Lyons? inquiry into local government that reported a few years ago argued strongly that councils should be ?place shapers?, linking their various service delivery, planning and regulatory roles so as to make a real difference to the quality of the places and communities they govern.? That concept is also at the heart of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework in NSW: councils working with their communities to plan strategically across environmental, social and economic issues to create a better future for their areas.

 

Are these broader concepts of the role of local government sufficiently understood and accepted by citizens and ratepayers, and are they affordable?

 

The notion of a ?place shaper? requires that local government have a high level of authority and financial capacity.? This has not been the traditional model in NSW and in fact over recent years, with the erosion of planning powers, a declining share of taxation revenue and continuing cost shifting it seems more remote than ever.

 

According to the Allan Report, the official view in State Government is that local councils are legally no more than state statutory corporations and as such they are not an autonomous tier of government even though elected by citizens.? State legislation such as the council?s charter in the Local Government Act does not define Local Government?s role vis-?-vis other governments.? Nor is there an intergovernmental agreement to clarify this.

 

The three possible models discussed in the Allan Report were:

 

?????? Minimalist:? Councils are the body corporate for the local community and as such should look after the common property and regulate the usage of private properties.? This role would ensure that councils live within their meagre resources largely dictated by a single tax base (land rates) subject to a state imposed ceiling (rate pegging).

?????? Maximalist:? Councils are the governments of their areas and as such foster the welfare of the whole community even if this means duplicating the work of other tiers of government.? They should undertake such services that local communities want and are prepared to pay for.

?????? Optimalist:? Councils are champions of their areas and as such should take a leadership role in harnessing public, NGO and private resources to promote particular outcomes rather than attempt to fund and operate local initiatives on their own.? Because of funding constraints an ?optimalist? approach may allow a ?minimalist? resourced council to exercise maximum leverage.

 

The major concern with the IPR legislation and some of the suggestions by the Independent Panel is that most councils have neither the authority nor the financial capacity to be considered as a ?government? of their area, willing and able to take on any and all of the services which its community may want.? In fact they struggle with even providing their traditional property based responsibilities.? To suggest otherwise to the community will create unrealistic expectations.

 

The main reason why Local Government may be considered too bureaucratic and process driven, to the detriment of innovation and practicality, is because it is the recipient of State Government imposed regulatory requirements.? Most of the community don?t recognise how pervasive these requirements are, often extending to the minutiae of Council operations.? What information is contained on forms; what fees Council can charge; how Council advertises; how Council can use its land; how Council tenders; how a Council can enter into a public/private partnership; the process Council must follow to establish an alcohol free zone are just some of many examples.? In the Local Government Act there are even 13 sections on the process for issuing approvals for filming.? This level of regulatory control is a dead weight on innovation and productivity improvement.

 

And there are the more substantive issues like rating.? The LG Act contains 143 sections dealing with rates and charges.? There are also 33 clauses in the Regulations.? There are very few members of the public who have an understanding of the modified ad valorem rating system.? From the comments Council has received in polling and in feedback to rate increases, many regard their rates as a standard or fixed property based charge.

 

There is virtually no understanding of minimum rates or base amounts or rating categories and sub-categories; that domestic waste is separated in its funding; or that Council operates three separate funds and cannot take money from one fund and use it in another.? Again this level of regulatory control and complexity is a dead weight on potential innovations for increasing (or decreasing) revenue sources.

 

The top 5 principles which should underpin the content of the new Local Government Act are suggested to be:

 

1.?????? Increased authority, financial and otherwise, for councils to provide for the needs of their communities

2.?????? Mandate referenda for major changes in revenue or expenditure

3.?????? Retain the IPR reporting requirements

4.?????? Retain the principles in the existing charter (Section 8)

5.?????? Retain support from DLG to provide best practice leadership in Council operations

 

ii.?????? What is currently working well in the Local Government Act and why.? Should it be retained in the new Act?

 

The LGA Taskforce recognises that the current Act already contains elements that are working well and may be retained or updated.? Perhaps these elements could benefit from a restructure in the new Act linking these provisions to other sections?

 

The LGA Taskforce is interested in receiving submissions that identify sections in the current Act that are working well and should perhaps be retained or strengthened.? It is important that in any submission a well reasoned argument is provided to support the view that the section in question should be retained in the Act or why the section(s) could be improved.

 

The recent integrated planning and reporting requirements with their emphasis on longer term strategic planning and sustainability has been a welcome innovation.

 

iii?????? Are there areas in the Local Government Act that are working well but should be removed to another Act or into Regulations, Codes or Guidelines?

 

An important component of the work of the LGA Taskforce is to develop recommendations for a new Local Government Act that reduces unnecessary red tape and is easy to use.? Reflective of the roles and functions of local government, the current Act covers a wide diversity of areas including, for example, strategic planning, elections, tendering, approval of activities, street drinking and finances.

 

The LGA Taskforce is interested in receiving submissions that identify areas of the Act that should be retained but perhaps moved to another Act or guidelines, codes or regulations.? If yes, in what areas and why?

 

Most of the current Act and Regulations could be relocated to best practice codes or guidelines.

 

The Act should retain provisions concerning the functions of councils; their regulatory powers; a basic rating schema; and arrangements for elections.? Other ancillary matters such as the meeting arrangements; the management of Council land; and tendering could be relocated to best practice codes or guidelines produced by the DLG.? Again the level of prescription in the current Act and Regulations stifles innovation and productivity improvement.? It fails to take into account the significant differences between councils and their communities.

 

The level of prescription in the existing legislation has driven an emphasis on getting the process right, rather than the outcome which is desired.? For example, community engagement under the Act is often legally achieved by placing an advertisement in a prescribed form in print media, regardless of cost or dissemination.

 

Another example is the management of Council owned land being prescribed in 57 separate sections.? These mandate classifications, plans of management and public hearings regardless of the land?s usage or level of community interest.? The reclassification of the Council owned ?community? land at the Bowraville Racecourse, preparatory to the transfer to the Nambucca River Jockey Club, is just one current example.? There will be overheads in terms of the time of the General Manager of this Council, the General Manager of the Bellingen Shire Council (for the public hearing), the Strategic Planner as well as staff from the Department of Planning in processing this reclassification regardless of whether 0 people attend the public hearing or 100 people attend.? The reclassification will make no difference to the use of the Bowraville Racecourse.

 

Iv?????? What is not working well in the Local Government Act (barriers or weaknesses) and should be modified or not carried forward to the new Act?

 

It is essential that the Local Government Act provides a framework that is supportive of local government and enables it to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible.? To assist in minimising the likelihood that the new Act includes elements that are known not to work well or to act as barriers to effective local government, submissions are invited that identify weaknesses or barriers in the current Act.

 

The LGA Taskforce is interested in receiving submissions that identify functions or aspects in the current Act that are not working well and should perhaps be deleted or significantly modified.? It is important that in any submission well reasoned argument is provided to support the view that the section in question should be deleted or improved.

 

As discussed above the rating provisions in the Act are exceedingly complex and are certainly not understood by the community.? For the sake of transparency and efficiency they should be simplified.

 

The tendering provisions struggle with the inherent conflict between openness and transparency and commercial pressures for pricing to be ?commercial-in-confidence?.? As substantial public funds are at stake, the preference is there be openness and transparency in the reporting of tenders.

 

The 57 provisions concerning the management of Council owned land which mandate detailed processes regardless of the land?s usage or level of community interest create significant costs and inefficiencies.

 

Why is there such a convoluted process for the creation of alcohol free zones?

 

v??????? Is there a case for retaining the City of Sydney Act.? If so, how can it be improved?

 

This act is not relevant to the operations of this council.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in the preparation of this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no significant implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks in responding to the preliminary ideas paper.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

26051/2012 - Local Government Acts Taskforce Workshop Invitation

0 Pages

2View

26052/2012 - Local Government Acts Taskforce - Preliminary Ideas Paper - October 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Review of Local Government Act 1993

 





Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Review of Local Government Act 1993

 













Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF382????????????? 251012???????? Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 

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

 

Summary:

 

After Council participated in a 4 year process to prepare and adopt a Master Plan for the Scotts Head caravan park and its environs, the Scotts Head Reserve Trust has advised it has a number of concerns with the adopted Master Plan and has submitted 3 new options for the redevelopment of the caravan park.

 

The Trust wish to retain the existing access because they won?t have security of tenure over the adopted Master Plan access point in Adin Street adjoining the tennis courts which will remain in Council?s ownership.? They also propose to avoid reconfiguring the road through the day reserve area and removing the existing caravan sites at the eastern end of the reserve.

 

The Trust has responded to Council?s proposed rental payments for the adopted Master Plan and have instead proposed a rental payments of $20,000 per annum for option 1, $31,500 for option 2 and $26,300 for option 3.

 

It is recommended that Council proceed to advertise for public comment for 28 days the proposed Option 1 submitted by the Trust, this option being the closest to the adopted Master Plan.? In recognition of the proposed investment in the redevelopment of the caravan park; the proposed expenditure of $200,000 on a drainage upgrade; $40,000 toward the upgrade of the Adin Street Reserve as well as construction of public car spaces and footpaths, it is proposed that the Trust be advised they will accept the proposed offers of rental income subject to an independent market review being undertaken in Year 10 and Year 16.

 

In a separate request the Trust has sought Council?s approval to the use of demountable (relocatable) amenities buildings.? It is recommended that this request be supported.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council advertise for public comment for 28 days the proposed Option 1 submitted by North Coast Holiday Parks who manage the Scotts Head Reserve Trust.? Further that people who made submissions to the Master Plan be provided with a copy of the proposed revised plan and be invited to comment.

 

2??????? That the Scotts Head Reserve Trust be advised that Council will seek an independent market based review of rental income in Year 10 and Year 16 in the event that a lease for one of the options proceeds.

 

3??????? That Council advise the Scotts Head Reserve Trust that it has no objection to the use of demountable (relocatable) amenities buildings within the Scotts Head Caravan Park subject to the usual approval and certification requirements and also endorsement from the Division of Local Government or Department of Planning for the variation to the regulation.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are a number of possible options.

 

1.? Reject all options

 

The Council did participate in a lengthy process over a period of 4 years to prepare a draft Master Plan, to consult with the public and Lands Department and ultimately in February 2011, to endorse the plan as prepared and exhibited.

 

In the time this has taken the management of the Trust has changed and it no longer endorses the adopted Master Plan as the basis of future investment decisions.

 

As Council applied itself in good faith to the consideration of the Master Plan, it can refer to its previous support for the Master Plan and advise it is not interested in considering the revised options.? Notwithstanding the period of time the draft Master Plan was under consideration, the issues which have now been identified by the Trust were inherent in the adopted Master Plan.

 

If Council rejects all of the revised options, the number of sites in the caravan park will need to reduce to meet the fire separation requirements for the existing ?semi-permanent? area.? This will have negative impacts on the economy of Scotts Head.? There is also likely to be objections from caravan owners.

 

2.? Advertise all options

 

Council could elect to advertise all of the options, not just option 1.? The number of sites in options 2 and 3 significantly exceed those in the adopted Master Plan.?

 

3.? Advertise a modified option/s

 

Council could enter into a dialogue with the Trust to possibly modify one or more of the revised options prior to placing it on public exhibition.? However this process may not identify all of the issues raised by the public necessitating a process of further modifications.

 

4.? Adopt one of the revised options and invite the Trust to lodge a development application

 

Council?s involvement in any redevelopment of the Scotts Head Caravan Park is as an owner and also as a regulatory authority.? The recommendation may mean that the same plan is advertised on 2 occasions, once for community feedback (as an owner of the land) and then a second time (as a development application).? This process can create confusion and will extend the period of time required to determine the matter.? The benefit is that Council can potentially have greater input and control of the form of the development.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 17 February 2011, after four years of community consultation and negotiation, it was resolved;

 

?That Council implements the Master Plan as exhibited and accepts responsibility for the management of the balance of the Reserve (not including the caravan park) subject to adequate compensation and discussions with the Minister concerning the care and control of the Crown lands and day area.

 

For the Motion:??????????????? Councillors Hoban, South, Finlayson, Ballangarry and Court (total 5)

Against the Motion: Councillors Flack, Smyth, Ainsworth and Moran (total 4)?

 

Mainly for the benefit of new Councillors a copy of the adopted Master Plan is circularised.? This provides context to the current deliberations.

 

Following the resolution of 17 February 2011, Council wrote to the Trust via the Land and Property Management Authority on 21 February 2011 advising of Council?s position.? A copy of the letter is attached.

 

On 16 July 2012 the Mayor and myself met with the new management of the North Coast Holiday Parks, who administer the Scotts Head Reserve Trust.? North Coast Holiday Parks had requested the meeting to discuss revised proposals for the caravan park and to respond to the previous proposal put forward by Council.

 

The revised proposals for the caravan park are the three coloured drawings which are in the circularised document.

 

As indicated in the attached letter, the following matters were discussed:

 

Management of the Reserve

 

The letter confirms previous advice that the Trust wishes to retain responsibility for the management of the whole Reserve to ensure they are maintained and upgraded at a level consistent with the caravan park.? As a consequence future management by Council is not required.

 

Given the risks and costs associated with coastal erosion, particularly since Council first put the offer forward, the Trust?s continued maintenance of the Reserve is welcomed.

 

Rehabilitation of the Adin Street Reserve

 

The Trust advise they will commit $40,000 to the rehabilitation of area occupied by the current holiday (semi-permanent) vans.? This was the area referred to on the previous master plan as the Town Green.? The Trust will also offer the services of its recreational planning and design staff member to work with Council officers in developing a concept plan for the future development of the reserve.

 

The Trust has also committed to the construction of public car spaces and footpaths adjacent to the tennis courts.

 

Stormwater Drainage

 

The Trust confirms its commitment of $200,000 toward rectification of stormwater issues at Scotts Head.? They express some concern as to whether a shallow retention basin on the Adin Street land is consistent with its suggested use as a Town Green.? A plan prepared by Council?s design engineer showing the drainage proposal is circularised.

 

A shallow retention basin should not preclude other activities and landscaping

 

Revised Concept Plan/Master Plan

 

The Trust has now rejected the proposal in the Master Plan to relocate the entry to the caravan park onto that part of the Adin Street reserve leased from Council.? They are concerned about the lack of tenure for their only access and reception being on Council land.? Therefore they propose to retain the existing entry point but modify the traffic arrangements to move the reception inside the caravan park to eliminate the potential for queuing at the intersection.

 

The revised concept plan proposes that the north eastern corner of the caravan park no longer be transferred to the day reserve but be retained in the caravan park to compensate for the loss of sites arising out of the relocation of the entry and reception.

 

The revised concept plan no longer proposes the relocation of the road within the day reserve area.

 

Based on the above, the Trust has produced a number of options, the major differences being the number of sites on the Council owned reserve area adjoining the Bowling Club.? For each of these options there is a trade off between increasing revenue and increasing the required capital outlay.

 

Rental Return on Lease

 

In Council?s letter of 20 February 2011 the following rental payments were proposed for the adopted Master Plan for a 21 year lease:

 

Year 1 (2011/2012)?????????? $17,500 (+CPI)

Year 2 (2012/2013)?????????? $25,625 (+CPI)

Year 3 (2013/2014) ????????? $33,750 (+CPI)

Year 4 (2014/2015)?????????? $41,875 (+CPI)

Year 5 (2015/2016)?????????? $50,000 (+CPI)

 

The Trust is agreeable to leasing the existing holiday van area from Council for $20,000 per annum but should Council consider options 2 or 3 to be acceptable then the Trust would be willing to increase the lease fee to $31,500 for option 2 and $26,300 for option 3.? In recognition of the capital contributions which the Trust proposes to make, it requests that increases to the lease fee of $20,000 be capped at CPI for the full term of the lease (21 years).

 

The Trust is also offering to manage the day to day grounds maintenance of the Adin Street Reserve limited to mowing, edging and litter collection (excluding events).? This level of maintenance would be consistent with the Scotts Head Reserve.

 

By way of comparison in April 2012 the Trust paid Council $18,941.67 for the use of the land for the 2012 calendar year.? Also the Trust is now paying general rates for the caravan park, with $21,681 having been paid for the 2012/2013 financial year.?

 

The Trust Manager requested that I convey their perspective that because of the capital they need to commit to the project, the rental offers are firm (take it or leave it) and will not be negotiated.

 

Notwithstanding the Trust?s representations, it is not considered reasonable to have no market based assessment of the rental income of the proposed 21 year lease.? Given the capital which is proposed to be invested it is recommended that there be an independent valuation of rent in Year 10 and again in Year 16.

 

Evaluation of Options

 

At the meeting with the Trust representatives on 16 July they were advised that taking into account the caretaker period the Council could not deal with the matter before the election.

 

They were also advised that given the extensive community consultation in relation to the adopted Master Plan that the proposed changes would require further consultation with the community.

 

Compared to the endorsed Master Plan, all three of the revised options propose an increase in the number of caravan/cabin sites at the expense of the proposed town green and day reserve area.

 

The key differences to the adopted Master Plan are:

 

Option 1:

?????? Retains existing caravan sites at eastern end of park which the Master Plan had proposed be incorporated into the Day Reserve.

?????? Relocates office to the southern side of the entry, which was part of the Town Green in the adopted Master Plan.

?????? Retains cabins on southern side of access road, which was part of the Town Green in the adopted Master Plan.

?????? Proposes to include an exit to adjacent to the Bowling Club

 

Option 2:

?????? As per Option 1 but with more sites being located within the proposed Town Green and within the existing Adin Street Reserve adjacent to the Bowling Club.

 

Option 3:

?????? Appears to be a possible future extension to Option 1 with additional sites provided in the Adin Street Reserve adjacent to the Bowling Club.

 

A key point of objection in the adopted Master Plan was the proposed entry and exit to Adin Street next to the tennis courts.? With the retention of the existing access point and the proposed provision of an exit adjacent to the Bowling Club, the necessity for an access point adjacent to the tennis courts has been discussed with the North Coast Holiday Parks.? They advise that the Adin Street access points could only be used by people who had already booked into the Caravan Park and had been provided with a magnetic swipe to operate the boom gates.? They believe the access point adjacent to the tennis courts will have substantially less traffic than the original proposal when it was the only access point.

 

Option 1 most closely resembles the adopted Master Plan, albeit with an increase in the land occupied by the caravan park at the expense of the day reserve area and the proposed town green.? Options 2 and 3 further increase the area of the caravan park relative to the area previously identified as open space.

 

Balanced against the loss of open space with any of the options, is the proposed investment in the redevelopment of the holiday park and its immediate environment, including the provision of
$40,000 for the rehabilitation of the Reserve; $200,000 towards the rectification of stormwater issues; the construction of public car spaces and footpaths adjacent to the tennis courts as well as in kind assistance from recreational planning and design staff.

 

The caravan park is in need of substantial investment to improve its appeal as a holiday destination. The increased visitation the investment will bring, particularly outside school holidays, is important to the viability of the retail business in the town as well as the Scotts Head Bowling Club.? For this reason it is recommended that Council advertise for public comment for 28 days the proposed Option 1 submitted by North Coast Holiday Parks.

 

Approval of the Use of Demountable (Relocatable) Amenities Buildings

 

In a separate request, the Administrator of the Scotts Head Reserve Trust has requested Council?s approval to the use of demountable (relocatable) amenities buildings within the caravan park.? A copy of the request is attached.

 

The Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 requires that amenity blocks and laundry blocks be of brick or concrete masonry block.

 

It is agreed that since the drafting of the legislation many years ago there has been significant improvement in the quality of demountable (relocatable) structures and they are now commonly used by councils and in caravan parks and camping grounds.? They are well suited to sites where active coastal erosion may necessitate the relocation of buildings over time.

 

There is a taskforce undertaking a review of the Local Government Act and Regulations (refer to the report in this business paper) which will hopefully be considering why there have to be regulations mandating the method of construction of an amenities building.? In the interim Council cannot unilaterally ignore the provisions of the regulation.

 

The most Council can do is advise the Scotts Head Reserve Trust that it has no objection to the use of demountable (relocatable) amenities buildings within the Scotts Head Caravan Park subject to the usual approval and certification requirements and also endorsement from the Division of Local Government or Department of Planning of the variation to the regulation.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Administrator of the Scotts Head Reserve Trust.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant implications for the environment in relation to option 1.? It is very similar to the adopted Master Plan.

 

Social

 

In response to the exhibition of the draft Master Plan, 85 separate issues were identified in the public submissions.? Of these 85 separate issues, the 14 issues which received the most comment are listed in the following table together with a comment as to the extent to which Option 1 meets the expressed concern.

 

ISSUE

COMMENT

 

Support for increasing the day use area

No.? Unlike the adopted Master Plan, Option 1 proposes no increase in the day use area.

 

More car parking

Yes.? There will be more off street parking provided adjacent to the tennis courts.?? There is more potential for parking adjacent to the proposed town green.

 

Support for the village green concept

Yes.? Option 1 retains this concept, albeit with a reduced area due to the relocation of the entry.

 

Removal of long term casual occupants

No.? This concern is best resolved by terminating the lease to the Trust of the Council owned land and returning it to parkland.

 

Support for new entry into the caravan park

No.? The existing entry is retained although other access points are provided which will reduce traffic volumes at the existing intersection.

 

Keeping the open space on the Adin Street oval

No.? The concern is best addressed by rejecting all of the proposed options.

 

Preference for camping sites to extra cabins

No.? The Trust Administrator will allocate sites based on market requirements.

 

Losing sites will impact on other businesses

Yes.? Option 1 will result in a substantial investment to improve the caravan parks appeal as a holiday destination.? Should attract more custom and be good for business.

 

Don?t change zoning

Yes.? Option 1 will not require a zoning change.

 

Council to retain ownership of land

Yes.? Option 1 allows Council to retain ownership of its land.

 

Upgrade stormwater

Yes.? $200,000 is allocated to upgrading stormwater.

 

Allocate land for extra tennis courts

Yes.? Provision is made for additional tennis courts.

 

Retain trees and increase plantings

Yes.? There is and available for tree planting in the town green area and also in the residue of the reserve beside the bowling club.

 

 

Economic

 

The proposed options incorporating significant investment in the existing caravan park and its environs provide a superior economic outcome to the status quo.? The status quo will in fact require a reduction in the size of the caravan park to meet fire separation requirements for the ?semi-permanent? caravans on Council?s land.

 

Risk

 

A considerable amount of risk has been removed with the Trust?s decision to retain responsibility for the management of the rest of the reserve.? There has been active coastal erosion in the reserve for the past two years which has required the relocation and replacement of beach access points, the removal of fallen vegetation and which may yet require the relocation of amenities and caravan sites.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budgetary impact is discussed in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

4637/2011 - Scotts Head Master Plan and MOU - letter to Dept of Lands

0 Pages

2View

26608/2012 - Trust offer to Council re changes to proposed concept plan and lease of Adin St Reserve

0 Pages

3View

26830/2012 - Request for Council to authorise use of relocateable amenities

0 Pages

4View

?- Circularised Document - adopted Master Plan

0 Pages

5View

?- Circularised Document - revised proposals for caravan park are three coloured drawings

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 

Enquiries to:? Michael Coulter

Phone No:????? 6568 0200

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

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

Our Ref:??????? SF382

Your Ref:????? TE79R24doc11/004485

 

21 February 2011

 

 

 

Mr Bob Birse

Group Leader

Natural Resources & Property Services MNC

Land & Property Management Authority

PO Box 440

TAREE?? NSW?? 2430

 

 

Dear Bob

 

SCOTTS HEAD MASTER PLAN AND MOU

 

Thank you for your letter of 19 January 2011.

 

Council considered your comments and the Master Plan at its meeting on 17 February 2011 and has now resolved to implement the Master Plan as exhibited and accept responsibility for the management of the balance of the Reserve (not including the caravan park) subject to adequate compensation.? It would also appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the Minister arrangements for the care and control of the Crown land and day area.

 

The compensation arrangements which were put to Council for their consideration are as follows:

 

1????????? Compensation for the management of the Scotts Head Reserve (excluding the caravan park) of $103,637 per annum CPI indexed plus

 

2??????? Rental for use of Council land for the caravan park for a 21 year lease being:

???????????

?????????????????? Year 1????????? (2011/12)????? $17,500 (+CPI)

?????????????????? Year 2????????? (2012/13)????? $25,625 (+CPI)

?????????????????? Year 3????????? (2013/14)????? $33,750 (+CPI)

?????????????????? Year 4????????? (2014/15)????? $41,875 (+CPI)

?????????????????? Year 5????????? (2015/16)????? $50,000 (+CPI) plus

 

3????????? Payment of general rates and charges.? In 2010/11 general rates on the caravan park were $15,535.83.

 

Now that Council has resolved to implement the Master Plan as exhibited and accept responsibility for the management of the day area and foreshore Reserve (subject to adequate compensation) I would appreciate your advice as to how the Land and Property Management Authority would like to progress the matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Michael Coulter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

MAC:ms


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 







Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 4

 

 

 

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 

 

 

Circularised Document - adopted Master Plan

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 5

 

 

 

Proposed Revised Options for the Scotts Head Caravan Park

 

 

 

Circularised Document - revised proposals for caravan park are three coloured drawings

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF734????????????? 251012???????? Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council has received a request from Mrs Kelli Leckie to acquire a small section of Gordon Park which adjoins her property at 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

It is in the public interest that the land be retained by the Crown and not be sold.? This should be communicated to Mrs Leckie and the Crown Lands office.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council thank Mrs Kelli Leckie for her enquiry but advise that it does not endorse her request to acquire a small section of Gordon Park adjoining 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose to advertise Mrs Leckie?s request to acquire a small section of Gordon Park for public comment.

 

If Council chooses this option it should require an agreement on the payment of fees.? This initial request has been considered, inspected and reported on without the payment of any fee.? Depending upon the level of public interest, there may be considerable staff resources required to deal with the proposal through to its finality.

 

In the absence of a Property Officer and other administrative staff, it is difficult to justify the allocation of scarce staff resources to processing such requests.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a request from Mrs Kelli Leckie to acquire a small section of Gordon Park which adjoins her property at 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads.? A copy of the request is attached.? A colour copy of the aerial photograph showing the land is a circularised document.? Also circularised are some photographs showing the vegetation on the land.

 

Gordon Park is Crown land for which Council is trustee.

 

The land proposed to be acquired adjoins 2 Nelson Street and is approximately 290 square metres taking in the steep vegetated bank immediately to the east of the house.

 

Mrs Kelli Leckie has received advice from the Crown Lands office in Grafton that the first step in the acquisition process is to obtain a letter from Council confirming that it endorses the acquisition.

 

The land has been inspected and as the circularised photographs show, it contains a number of trees which provide a backdrop to Gordon Park and provide effective screening of the development in Nelson Street.

 

If the land were to be transferred to private ownership, the Council will have no control over the vegetation.? Without a tree preservation order the vegetation could be removed without notice, but even with a tree preservation order the vegetation could be removed in conjunction with a development application to extend the building or undertake other work.

 

Reference is made to the stability of the land and the potential risk to Council should it retain its trusteeship.? In the report prepared by Douglas Partners in October 2003 on slope stability hazard identification, there is the following reference to this steep slope:

 

Site Reference

Location

Observed Features

Observed Instability

Comments

NH44

Cliff at east end Nelson St

Nelson St terminates at crest of 10m cliff.? To south motel car park at crest with 1m high retaining wall.? To north house, deck and retaining wall at crest.? Cracking at SE corner of house consistent with creep.? Retaining wall leans downslope at 20 degrees to vertical.

Minor movement

Large trees at crest and batter and vegetation critical to stability.

 

The slope assessment suggests that the retention of the vegetation on the batter is important for its stability.

 

There is no indication as to how the proposed transfer of the land will lessen the risk of slope instability.? Whilst it is indicated that the owner will bear the risk and cost of the identified geotechnical issues, there is no indication as to what work would be done.? Further, most home insurance policies have a standard exclusion for damage caused by landslides/slips.

 

For the reasons discussed above, it is considered there is a public interest in continuing with the Crown ownership of the land with Council acting as Trustee.? Unfortunately this is in conflict with Mrs Leckie?s request, but in the instance of a conflict the public interest should prevail.

 

Should Council choose to further consider Mrs Leckie?s request to acquire the land, it is recommended that the proposal be advertised for public comment for 28 days.? The Council should also consider a fee for undertaking this process and as trustee require an undertaking for the payment of Council?s costs prior to the commencement of further work.? In the 2012/2013 fees and charges the closest/most appropriate charge is the professional charge for corporate services which is $79 for the 1st hour and $73 per half hour thereafter.? In addition to this would be expenses for advertising, valuations, legal services etc which would need to be billed at cost.

 

If Council and the Lands Department were to support the excision and sale of the land it would also need to be rezoned.? This would be a further cost.? There may be debate about the appropriate zoning and building height which would need to be dealt with as part of this process.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Business Development.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The implications for the environment are discussed in the report.? The land contains a number of trees which provide a backdrop to Gordon Park and provide effective screening of the development in Nelson Street.

 

Social

 

Notwithstanding the land is steep and vegetated, there is likely to be some community objection to the conversion of public open space to private housing.

 


Economic

 

There are no significant economic issues.

 

Risk

 

The risks concerning the stability of the land are discussed in the report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proceeds of the sale of the land would go to the State Government, not Council.? In financial terms the best outcome for Council would be to cover the administrative and other costs of dealing with the matter.? This comes about through the Local Government Act mandating Council?s status as trustee of the land.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

23056/2012 - Request Council's endorsement in relation to the purchase of Part Lot 701 DP 1055530 being Crown Land adjacent to 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads

0 Pages

2View

23992/2012 - Acquisition plan for Crown land behind 2 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads

0 Pages

3View

?- Circularised document - aerial photograph

0 Pages

4View

?- Circularised document - photos of vegetation on the land

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 3

 

 

 

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

Circularised document - aerial photograph

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 4

 

 

 

Request to Acquire a Small Section of Gordon Park, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

Circularised document - photos of vegetation on the land

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6????? PRF20????????????? 251012???????? Proposal to Site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report is short.? A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Council advise the Nambucca Heads Lions Club that it does not support the siting of an M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) in Anzac Park, Nambucca Heads.

 

2.?????? That Council advise the NSW Police Force that it has received a quote for the replacement of the fence around the War Memorial in High Street, Bowraville for $4,900 and request that it act on any evidence it may have in relation to the incident.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

A.????? That Council support the proposal without seeking public comment.

 

B.????? That Council place on public exhibition for 28 days the proposal by the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads to site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park on Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads and seek the views of other stakeholders such as the Nambucca Heads Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc., the Nambucca Heads Community Action Group, and Ganly?s Gardeners.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received a request from the Lions Club of Nambucca Heads Incorporated to site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) in Anzac Park at Nambucca Heads.? A copy of the request is attached.

 

Photographs of Anzac Park are circularised for the information of Councillors.

 

The Lions Club propose to meet the costs associated with its installation and maintenance.

 

Council staff have discussed with Lions Club representatives Council?s inability to fund the cost of repairing any vandalism or undertaking any maintenance of the proposed exhibit.

 

By way of example, Council has recently been asked by the Bowraville RSL Sub Branch to fund the replacement of the fence around the War Memorial in High Street, Bowraville.? The fence was demolished by a vehicle.? It is understood that Police have been provided with its number plate, but it is unknown what, if any, action has been taken.? Council has just received a quote of $4,900 for the replacement of the fence which is not covered by Council?s property insurance, being less than our excess.

 

It is appreciated that the Lions Club have undertaken to meet all such costs, however as the Trustee of the Reserve, Council will accept ultimate responsibility if, for whatever reason, those undertakings cannot be met.

 

There is also concern in relation to people who might climb on the vehicle which is over 2 metres in height and fall off, resulting in legal action against Council for negligence.? If the vehicle is placed in the Park it is recommended that it be surrounded with aluminium pool fencing to discourage access and vandalism.

 

There may be differing views as to whether an APC as an inaccessible, static exhibit is a feature which will contribute to foreshore recreation and tourism.? If it is accepted that its relevance is as a memorial only, it is some distance from the Memorial in front of the Boatshed and Caf? and may not be perceived as being an integral part of that display.

 

Council should be aware that attractive foreshore locations can be prone to accumulating different features and landscape treatments, which although having individual intrinsic value, can collectively devalue the landscape importance of the edge between the natural and the urban environment.? There is evidence of this concern in the Nambucca River Master Plan which comments that there should be some ?rationalisation? of the existing paths as well as the provision of shade trees in Anzac Park.

 

The relevant recommendations were:

 

Anzac Park:? Retain existing memorials and community shelter, rationalise paths and provide shade trees

 

Beer Creek and War Memorial:? Instigate weed removal and revegetation programme to Beer Creek, provide new wide crossing to link memorial parks, install low riparian planting north of the crossing to maintain views, provide planted buffer between Anzac Memorial and Riverside Drive, install new seats to Anzac Memorial.

 

The circularised photographs also illustrate the different features and structures which can accumulate in a relatively small space which is predominantly used by tourists and locals for passive activities.? There is a large bike path as well as Memorial paths, a Memorial rock, a Memorial propeller (with vandalised identity plaque), a large retained flower bed, signs, seats, garbage bins, BBQ and shelter are all dispersed across the space.

 

For the reasons discussed above it is not considered that Anzac Park is an appropriate space for the siting of an M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council?s Manager Business Development has consulted with representatives of the Lions Club and Council?s Safety and Risk Officer.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The implications for the environment are discussed in the report.

 

Social

 

The submission from the Lions Club refers to the importance of the APC to veterans.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The risks are discussed in the report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

If Council decides to place the proposal on public exhibition there will be advertising costs and overheads associated with recording and reporting any submissions.? The potential for Council to be liable for costs in the future in the event that the Lions Club, for whatever reason, is unable to meet its undertakings, is discussed in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

26026/2012 - Proposal to site Armoured Personnel Carrier for display at Anzac Park

0 Pages

2View

?- Circularised documents - photographs

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposal to Site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads

 











Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Proposal to Site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

 

Proposal to Site a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier in Anzac Park, Riverside Drive, Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

Circularised documents - photographs

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7????? SF1496??????????? 251012???????? Update on Deep Creek and Nambucca River Flood Studies

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Purpose of this report is to provide Council with a progress report on the update of the Deep Creek Flood Study (Nambucca Shire Council) and the Nambucca River Flood Study (RMS).

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council engage WMA water to complete the flood study for the Nambucca River.

 

2??????? That Council note the progress on the Deep Creek Flood Study.

 

3??????? That note a copy of final draft Deep Creek Flood Study is to be presented to the Rivers, Creeks, Estuary and Coastline Management Committee with a recommendation it be exhibited.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may make alternative resolutions.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

LiDAR Acquisition

 

Although this study commenced in late 2009 significant delays were experienced with the acquisition of LiDAR for the area which was required to provide an accurate base for the flood modelling.

 

To speed up the LiDAR acquisition process Council contributed funds to the data acquisition in partnership with the RMS and LiDAR was finally received in November 2011. Once the LiDAR was received the flood study process was reignited and a draft study for Deep Creek and the RMS have completed their flood study review for the Nambucca River

 

Deep Creek

 

WMA Water have completed the Draft Flood Study for Deep Creek. The matter has been report to the Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee with a recommendation that the study be exhibited in accordance with the floodplain management guidelines. Upon consideration by the committee a separate report will be provided to Council.

 

Additional Information to Note Deep Creek and the Pacific Highway Upgrade

 

Based on the results of the draft modelling for the Deep Creek Flood Study the RMS engaged WMA water to review the effect of flooding impacts the proposed highway would have on flooding up stream at Kalang and Deep Creek.

 

The approved concept design provides for new twin bridges over Deep Creek, adjacent to and west of the existing Pacific Highway bridge crossing. The assessment undertaken by WMAwater found that the modelled impacts of the approved concept design would substantially exceed the impact of the crossing as reported in the original Environmental Assessment Report. Refinement of the approved concept design would mitigate this to a maximum predicted increase in the 1% AEP flood level of 60 millimetres as shown in the table below. The refinements would involve construction of the new twin bridges at Deep Creek to the existing bridge levels and refining the alignment slightly.

 

 

 

Environmental Assessment

WMA Water

Change

Approved Concept Design

10mm

130mm

+120mm

Refined Concept Design

10mm

60mm

+50mm

 

For the Deep Creek crossing, the affected area comprises dense vegetation and agricultural land. As noted above, the revised flood modelling predicts a maximum upstream flood level of 130 millimetres this would occur over largely cleared land. The proposed design refinements to the Deep Creek crossing would reduce the maximum upstream flood level to 60 millimetres. According to the report no dwellings will be impacted just rural/ environmental land.

 

Council has examined the impact this may have on existing infrastructure within the affected area (Deep Creek road) and it appears Deep Creek Road would already be affected by a 1%AEP event. The report identifies inundation times of less than 10min in this area.

 

Staff are generally satisfied with the design refinements. The RMS has undertaken consultation with each of the affected landholders, OEH and DPI (fisheries) and no concerns have been raised to date. As consultation continues a separate report will be provided to Council with any concerns raised by residents or government agencies.

 

Nambucca River

 

WMA water the consultants engaged by the RMS to prepare the flood study for the Nambucca River and Warrell Creek have completed their investigation to satisfy the requirements of the RMS.? A copy of the report prepared by WMA Water on behalf on the RMS is circulated in confidence as additional components are required to be completed by Council as detailed in this report.? It is noted the Flood Study was funded by the RMS and made available to Council for use as input into Council?s Floodplain Management process.

 

As with local government investigations undertaken for the Kalang River, the information provided to the RMS does not meet the full requirements of a flood study in accordance with the Floodplain Management Guidelines and requirements.?

 

For that reason Council has received a quote from the WMA water to utilise the completed modelling to augment the study for the Nambucca River (attachment 1).? It is noted OEH officers have endorsed the proposed methodology provided in the quote. As much of modelling is completed the study can be prepared a substantially reduced cost $18,900 exc GST.

 

Council staff are presently negotiating with the OEH in regards to using left over funding from the Deep Creek ($16,654.33) investigations to assist in funding the additional work. Justification for this relates to some information that could be shared between the 2 areas including regional hydrology investigations and LiDAR acquisition. At the time of writing this report Council has not received confirmation that this request.

 

Delays with LiDAR acquisition have set this project back some time and therefore it is recommended Council engage WMA water to complete the Nambucca River study. This is in anticipation that OEH will provide a positive response in relation to the $16654.33, in which case the levy would make up the difference or if grants funds are not available the levy would fund the full amount required to complete the study.

 

Procurement Procedures

 

Councils procurement procedures generally requires 2 quotes to be prepared for work under $20,000.? However, tenders/quotes may be exempt from this process due to extenuating circumstances. In this instance it is considered that competitive quotes may be difficult to achieve from other consultancies due to the involvement WMA Water has had in the process to date. It would also require additional resources from Council staff to make all relevant information available to other consultants which would contribute to the overall cost of the project.

 

As stated above it is recommended WMA water be engaged to prepare the flood Study for the Nambucca River in accordance with the OEH endorsed quote.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

OEH Officers

General Manager

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The preparation of flood studies for the Nambucca Valley, will provide an valuable resource for environmental management and land use planning.

 

Social

 

The preparation of flood studies for the Nambucca Valley, will provide an valuable resource for community.

 

Economic

 

The preparation of flood studies for the Nambucca Valley, will provide an valuable resource economic decision making.

 

Risk

 

At this point the program is progressing, however should the program be further delayed, funding opportunities through other agencies may be placed at risk.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Both Flood Studies have been funded through a combination of the OEH Coast and Estuary Grants Program as well as the Environmental Levy.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Any variation to the Flood Studies will be sourced through OEH Coast and Estuary Grants Program (as available) as well as the Environmental Levy.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

26617/2012 - Quote to Complete Nambucca River Flood Study

0 Pages

2View

?- Confidential Circularised document

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Update on Deep Creek and Nambucca River Flood Studies

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Update on Deep Creek and Nambucca River Flood Studies

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

 

Update on Deep Creek and Nambucca River Flood Studies

 

 

 

Confidential Circularised document

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8????? SF1723??????????? 251012???????? Financial Report - Statement by Councillors and Management - 30 June 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council is required to make declarations under Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act, Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial reporting as per the following recommendations and detailed in the discussion.

 

Council?s financial reports must include a statement in approved form as set out in Sect. 215 of the Local Government (General) Regulation as to its opinion on the general purpose special purpose financial reports. The declarations are required under the Local Government Act and Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and therefore needed in order for the audit to be commenced.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer be authorised to sign the Statement on the General Purpose Financial Reports by Councillors and Management made pursuant to Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act.

 

2??????? That the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer be authorised to sign the Statement on the Special Purpose Financial Reports by Councillors and Management made pursuant to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option to form another opinion on the Financial Reports bearing in mind that audit will need to be deferred until Council agrees to make a statement on the Financial Reports in the approved form.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The audit is scheduled to occur 17 ? 19 October and it is expected it will be completed to allow the audited Statements to be provided to the Department before the 31 October 2012 and presented to the Public prior to the end of November 2012.

 

A further report of the results for 2011/2012 will be presented to Council prior to presentation to the public.

 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting, Council is required to prepare statements in the approved form as to its opinion on the general purpose and special purpose financial reports.

 

The General Purpose Reports Statement by Councillors and Management declares:

 

1????????? That the Financial Reports to be submitted to the Auditor have been drawn up in accordance with:

 

???????? The Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and the Regulations made there under

???????? The Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements, and

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

 

2????????? That the Financial Reports also:

 

?????????????? Present fairly the Council?s financial position and operating position for the year

?????????????? Accords with Council?s accounting and other records.

 

3????????? That we are not aware of any matters that would render the reports false or misleading in any way.

 

The Statement must be made by resolution of Council and be signed by the Mayor, at least one other Councillor, the Responsible Accounting Officer and the General Manager.  The Statement has to be completed and attached to the relevant annual financial reports to the audit process can continue.

 

The Special Purpose Reports Statement must also be signed by the Mayor, at least one other Councillor, the Responsible Accounting Officer and the General Manager.

 

The Statement declares:

 

1????????? That the Special Purpose Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial reporting and the:

 

???????? NSW Government Policy Statement ?Application of National Competition Policy to Local Government?

???????? The Division of Local Government Guidelines ?Pricing & Costing for Council Businesses -  A Guide to Competitive Neutrality?.

???????? The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

???????? The NSW Office of Water (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) Guidelines ? ?Best Practice Management of Water and Sewerage?.

 

2??????? These reports, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

 

???????? Present fairly the Operating Result and Financial Position for each of Council?s declared Business Activities for the year, and

???????? Accords with Council?s accounting and other records

 

3????????? That we are not aware of any matter that would render the reports false or misleading in any way.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Local Government Act 1993

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

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

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Not applicable 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Refer to discussion.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9????? SF1672??????????? 251012???????? Investment Report to 30 September 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The total return on investments from 1 July 2012 to 30 September 2012 is $341,567.

 

The budget allocation for ?2012/13? is $966,000.

 

Council currently has $31.538 Million invested:

?????? $5.354 Million with Managed Funds,

?????? $25.689 Million on term deposits,

?????? $0.495 M in a Floating Rate Note.

 

This report details all the investments placed during September and Council funds invested as at 30 September 2012.

 

The following investment report has been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended), the Regulations and Council Policy 1.9 ? Investment of Surplus Funds

 

 

C P Doolan

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Accountants? Report on Investments placed to 30 September 2012 be noted.

 

 

INVESTMENTS MATURED & INTEREST & RETURNS 1 TO 30 SEPTEMBER? 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Term Deposits/Bank Bills

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

?Amount

Period (Days)

Rate

?Interest

 

 

 

 

 

IMB

?$1,021,024.93

217

5.57%

?$33,811.03

 

 

 

 

 

Bank of Qld

?$1,000,000.00

153

5.90%

?$24,731.51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Managed Funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

Amount

Period (Days)

Performance for Month

Returns This Month

Annualised Performance FYTD

Returns FYTD

 

 

 

UBS Wealth M'ment Aust Ltd

?$200,069.10

31

0.67%

?$755.28

100.11%

?$200,069.10

Interest Paid

Daily

each Quarter

 

ANZ (On call)

?$65,503.68

31

0.31%

?$2,044.91

3.32%

?$7,002.94

 

 

 

Macquarie Global Income Opportunity

?$3,625,711.83

31

1.08%

?$38,748.26

2.92%

?$105,423.24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long Term Funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

Amount

Period (Days)

Performance for Month

Monthly change in net asset value

Change in net asset value LTD

Coupons Paid to Date

Annualised Performance FYTD

 

 

 

NSW Treasury Corp

?$1,007,073.56

31

1.89%

?$18,637.51

-$4,142.43

N/A

5.77%

 

 

 

Averon II*

?$455,850.00

31

6.01%

?$25,850.00

-$44,150.00

?$28,396.10

7.35%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Floating Rate Term Deposits/Notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

Amount

Period (Days)

Performance for Month

Monthly change in net asset value

Change in net asset value LTD

Coupons Paid to Date

Annualised Performance FYTD

 

 

ING

?$495,240.00

31

0.00%

-$7,355.00

?$? -??

$? -??

0.00%

Coupons

paid

Quarterly

 

Investec Bank

?$1,000,000.00

31

6.40%

?$16,657.53

?$16,657.53

?$? -??

0.00%

 

 

 


 

INVESTMENTS HELD AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

 

?Amount

?Date Invested

Period (Days)

Maturity Date

Interest for month

Interest

?Interest Due at maturity

BCCU - No 1

A2

$580,497.92

09/08/12

273

09/05/13

2,442.86

5.12%

?$22,230.05

BCCU - No 2

A2

$723,112.14

27/05/12

365

27/05/13

3,922.64

6.60%

?$47,725.40

BCCU - No 3

A2

$1,135,848.19

02/06/12

292

21/03/13

4,901.26

5.25%

?$47,705.62

IMB - No 1

A2

$1,054,835.96

06/09/12

154

07/02/13

4,248.24

4.90%

?$21,807.65

IMB - No 3

A2

$800,000.00

14/06/12

217

17/01/13

3,235.07

4.92%

?$23,400.33

Bank of Qld - No 1

BBB+

$611,526.80

23/02/12

273

22/11/12

2,864.96

5.70%

?$26,071.15

Bank of Qld - No 2

BBB+

$1,024,731.51

20/09/12

140

07/02/13

4,295.45

5.10%

?$20,045.43

Bank of Qld - No 3

BBB+

$700,000.00

14/06/12

301

11/04/13

2,905.48

5.05%

?$29,151.64

ME Bank

BBB

$1,024,049.32

08/03/12

224

18/10/12

4,965.94

5.90%

?$37,079.00

NAB - No 3

AA-

$1,072,443.58

05/07/11

731

05/07/13

5,694.23

6.46%

?$138,749.52

NAB - No 4

AA-

$1,209,197.57

15/08/12

204

07/03/13

5,048.81

5.08%

?$34,331.93

NAB - No 5

AA-

$837,485.59

17/05/12

215

18/12/12

3,696.41

5.37%

?$26,490.93

NAB - No 6

AA-

$1,173,486.09

09/12/11

370

13/12/12

5,275.86

5.47%

?$65,069.00

NAB - No 7

AA-

$1,065,431.09

19/07/12

273

18/04/13

4,483.57

5.12%

?$40,800.46

NAB - No 8

AA-

$800,000.00

30/06/12

173

20/12/12

4,201.64

6.39%

?$24,229.48

Suncorp - No 1

A+

$936,292.15

03/05/12

189

08/11/12

4,232.55

5.50%

?$26,665.09

Westpac - No 1

AA-

$940,250.53

12/07/12

153

12/12/12

3,956.78

5.12%

?$20,179.58

AMP(CPG) - No 3

A

$500,000.00

09/09/12

366

09/09/13

2,465.75

6.00%

?$30,082.19

AMP(CPG) - No 4

A

$500,000.00

09/09/12

366

09/09/13

2,465.75

6.00%

?$30,082.19

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd -No.1

A

$500,000.00

26/03/12

213

25/10/12

2,523.29

6.14%

?$17,915.34

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd -No.4

A

$1,000,000.00

26/07/12

210

21/02/13

4,142.47

5.04%

?$28,997.26

Rabobank(Aust)-No.1

AA

$500,000.00

23/04/12

1827

24/04/17

2,630.14

6.40%

?$160,175.34

Rabobank(Aust)-No.2

AA

$1,000,000.00

30/03/12

365

30/03/13

5,876.71

7.15%

?$71,500.00

Rabobank(Aust)-No.3

AA

$500,000.00

25/11/11

1827

25/11/16

2,547.95

6.20%

?$155,169.86

Rabobank(Aust)-No.4

AA

$1,000,000.00

07/09/12

286

20/06/13

4,109.59

5.00%

?$39,178.08

Rural Bank

A-

$1,000,000.00

06/09/12

140

24/01/13

4,150.68

5.05%

?$19,369.86

ANZ

AA

$1,000,000.00

20/06/12

372

27/06/13

3,569.43

5.00%

?$50,958.90

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd No 2

A

$1,500,000.00

13/12/11

1829

15/12/16

7,779.45

6.31%

?$474,287.26

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd No 3

A

$495,240.00

26/04/12

1426

22/03/16

2,706.86

6.65%

?$128,666.07

Investec Bank Australia

BBB-

$1,000,000.00

26/08/12

92

26/11/12

4,627.40

5.63%

?$14,190.68

ANZ (On Call)

At call

$65,503.68

31/08/12

30

30/09/12

2,044.91

3.75%

?$201.89

Macquarie Income

A

$3,625,711.83

31/08/12

30

30/09/12

38,748.26

5.21%

?$15,525.99

UBS Wealth? Aust Ltd

At Call

$200,069.10

31/08/12

30

30/09/12

755.28

4.50%

?$739.98

NSW Treasury Corp

A

$1,007,073.56

31/08/12

30

30/09/12

18,637.51

0.00%

?$? -??

Averon II

A

$455,850.00

31/08/12

30

30/09/12

25,850.00

0.00%

?$? -??

TOTAL

 

?$31,538,636.61

 

 

 

?$206,003.18

 

?$1,888,773.15

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

This report is for information only.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report details all the investments placed during September 2012 and Council funds invested as at 30 September 2012.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Grove Research and Advisory

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

That Council may not meet its budget returns for 2012/2013 based on current performance.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

A review of budgeted interest returns for 2012/2013 will be completed with the September 2012 Budget Review and GPG Research & Advisory will provide Council with the updated interest rates.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Interest on investments will be assessed with the September 2012 Budget Review.? Variances will be distributed between the Water, Sewerage and General Funds for the first quarter of the financial year.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10??? SF621????????????? 251012???????? Gumbaynggirr People - Continuing Involvement of Council as a Party to Native Title Claim NSD6054/1998

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The report is short and a summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Council advise NTSCorp and the Federal Court that it no longer wishes to be a respondent to the Native Title Claim NSD6054/1998 but that it would be pleased to participate in any mediation process if requested by the Native Title Claimants or any other parties.

 

2.?????? That Council notify the National Parks and Wildlife Service that Council?s representatives on the Board for the Gaagal Wanggaan (South Beach) National Park will continue to be Cr Ainsworth with Cr Ballangarry OAM as alternate delegate.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can remain a party to the Native Title Claim NSD6054/1998.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In July 1997 Nambucca Shire Council resolved that it advise the National Native Title Tribunal that it wished to participate in the mediation process concerning a Native Title claim for land which included the land now proclaimed as the Gaagal Wanggann National Park.? The claim also included other Crown land in Gumma and adjoining the Nambucca River.

 

At the time Council advised that its interest in the area related to the:

 

?Scotts Head Sewerage Treatment Plant and adjoining buffer, beach access for recreational purposes including issuing of beach access permits, future river foreshore construction works, Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995 statutory requirements, beach access from Boulton?s Crossing Reserve, future maintenance dredging works, public access to the waterways and existing roadways, pathways and access points and any other relevant information that comes to hand.?

 

Council nominated its representatives in the mediation process as the Mayor, Max Graham and Director Environmental Services, Phil Gibbons.

 

NTSCorp who provide legal support to the Native Title claim in the Federal Court has requested a meeting with Council and the State Government (through the Crown Solicitor?s Office) to discuss Council?s ongoing interest in the Native Title Claim.

 

There was a case management conference conducted in the Federal Court of Australia on 4 July 2012.? Council has been provided with a copy of the outcomes of that conference.? The section of discussion relevant to Nambucca Shire Council is as follows:

 

?Nambucca Shire Council

 

Nambucca Shire Council is the only other respondent to the native title claim.? Both the Applicant and State are unclear of the issues/interests of the Shire that may impact on the resolution of the claim.

 

ASAP State/Applicant to consider meeting with the Council to ascertain their interests in the proposed settlement area.? State/Applicant to consider whether this meeting should occur within case management facilitated by the Court.

 

The Registrar of the Federal Court has asked that the parties report back to the Court about this, at the upcoming 22 November 2012 Case Management Conference.

 

Notwithstanding Council?s resolution of July 1997, it has not taken any recent active role in the Federal Court proceedings. ?Generally Council has no financial interest in the success or otherwise of the Native Title Claim.

 

The negotiated outcome which has delivered the Gaagal Wanggann National Park and its on-going funding demonstrates the overriding intent of the Native Title Claimants to be effective custodians of their land for the benefit of the whole community.? There is no reason to suggest this approach will not continue in future negotiations in relation to other Crown land which is included in the claim.

 

Council should be supportive of the negotiations and be available to participate in any mediation if requested by any party.? However it is not considered that Council?s role should extend to being a formal party to the proceedings and any land use agreement which would settle the claim.

 

In a separate, but related matter the National Parks and Wildlife Service have asked that following the recent council elections, Council confirm its nominated board members for the Gaagal Wangaan (South Beach) National Park.? On 16 December 2010, Council resolved that its representatives on the Board of Management be Cr Ainsworth with Cr Ballangarry OAM as the alternate delegate.? This resolution was made following a ballot.? For reasons of continuity it is recommended that Council confirm its existing representation on the Board of Management.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Mayor and NTSCorp.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The resolution of the Native Title Claim has important social implications for Aborginal people, and in particular the Native Title claimants.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no particular risks to Council in withdrawing as a party to the proceedings.? Council can always provide advice and participate in mediation if requested.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There may be a minor impact on Council?s budget from the loss of rental income of certain Crown Land.? This will be balanced against avoiding the liabilities which arise out of being Trustee for that Crown Land.? In any event Council can only spend income derived from being Trustee of Crown Land on that Crown Land.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.11??? SF1120??????????? 251012???????? Grant Application Status Report

 

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

 

Summary:

 

This report provides an overview of grant applications and their status.

 

 

RecommendationS:

 

That the list of grant applications and their status to 18 October 2012 be received.

 

 

Successful grant applications (not yet acquitted):

Grant and date of approval

Funding Amount

Amount Council

Description

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water etc

 

$1 million

NA

Detailed design for off river water storage

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

November 2011

$37,000

NA

Weed control from Swimming Creak to Deep Creek. Installation of geo-textile for dune stabilisation, working with Nambucca Dunecare Group.

Transport for NSW

Better Boating Program

Closed 29 July 2011

$47,734

$47,734****

 

Scotts Head Boat Ramp ? all-season facility

Department of Health and Ageing

Closed 19 August 2011

$566,430

NA

Healthy Communities Initiative Phase 3

?Live Healthy Nambucca?

Department of Sport and Recreation Facilities Grant

Closed 15 April 2011

1. $480

2. $4761

 

 

NA

1. Table Tennis Tables for Nambucca Heads Table Tennis Club (NHTTC), under the auspice of Nambucca Shire Council

2. Bowraville Cricket Club Nets and Pitch

Community Arts Support Program

Closed 10 February 2012

$1,000

NA

Unkya CoM to contribute some funds

Creation of mosaic artwork ?The Harmony Tree? for Unkya Reserve

Office of Communities

Community Building Partnership Program

Closed 31 October 2011

$19,745

$19,745****

Creation of a sand lagoon and other playground equipment, and installation of a composting toilet at Unkya Reserve.

Clean Energy Future ? Biodiversity Fund

 

Closed January 2012

$455,000 over six years

$30,000 over six years

?(From existing budget)

Invasive species control on Cliffs and High Conservation areas on the Coastal Fringe of the Nambucca Valley ? Funds will be used to manage invasive species including Bitou Bush and Lantana within the Coastal Reserve System, along 8.2km of coastline. The project will enhance the biodiversity of a large tract of connected coastal habitat and build capacity of the local community to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Your Community Heritage Grant

Telling the Tale of Talarm ? 150 years of settlement

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Closed November 2011

$9,000

NA

In-kind contribution from Talarm CoM

Collection of oral histories encompassing the descendants of pioneers and newcomers. Future grant application will be made to publish a book written from the information and photos and other documents collected.

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal ? Flood Fund

Closed 24 February 2012

$5,000

NA

?

Storage shed for storing VBCA equipment.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

No closing date

 

$10 million

TBC

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

Indigenous Sport and Active Recreation Program Prime Minister and Cabinet

Closed 9 March 2012

$338,478 requested but only

$226,059 received

NA

Three-year program contracting Ritchie Donovan to continue to deliver Sport and Well-Being/Sports Facilitation program at Buz Brazel Oval. The full amount was not received, however it is sufficient to contract Mr Donovan over three years

 

NSW Govt ? Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS)

Closed 26 March 2012

 

4% interest rate subsidy

Loan repayment

Council will receive an interest rate subsidy of 4% for the construction of three bridges (Touts, Lavertys & Eungai Creek) which have combined value of $1.314 million.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority -

NRM Implementation projects

Closed 15 June 2012

$70,000

$22,500 in-kind

Nambucca Shire Beaches Access Ways ? Prioritisation and construction of at least three beach access ways as part of the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

 

SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS IN THIS PERIOD:

 

Grant and Date of Notice

Amount

Amount - Council

Description

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$60,000

$40,000*

 

Nambucca Shire Beaches Access Ways ? Prioritisation and construction of beach access ways as part of the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Total year to date

$13,502,209.00

 

 


Applications made but not yet determined:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$80,000

$40,000**

Gumma Reserve Water Management Regime

Wetlandcare to contribute $40,000

Royal Australian Historical Society

Closed 20 July 2012

$10,000

NA

Publication of Telling the Tale of Talarm, drawing on oral histories, photographs and other historical data currently being collected.

Families, Housing, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs

Closed 25 July 2012

Various

NA

Unkya bush regeneration kit

Shelly Beach Dunecare equipment and trailer

EJ Biffin ? kitchen/cleaning/shades

Coronation Park ? as above

Crown Lands ? Public Reserves Management Fund

Closed 31 July 2012

$146,000

$10,000***

Boulton?s Crossing Reserve:

Consultancy to identify best waste management system and implementation of report recommendations

Office of Communities NSW ? Youth Opportunities

Closed 6 August 2012

$38,600

In kind

Tools to Turn Dreams to Reality ? Creating a community sk8 park. (Youth development activities focused on re-designing Macksville Skate Park)

Office of Communities ? Sport and Recreation Participation and Facility Grant

Closed 3 September 2012

$50,000

$50,000****

Rebuilding/renewal of Macksville Skate Park.

 

*??????? The Draft Environmental Levy Fund, which Council considered in October 2011, identifies $40,000 for the implementation of actions from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan.

**?????? From the Environmental Levy Fund.

***????? From the Committee of Management?s account; income from camping fees

****???? From s.94 funds

 

 

Unsuccessful applications in this period:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

None to report.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

Corporate and Community Services

ITEM 10.1??? SF1031??????????? 251012???????? Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

 

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

 

Summary:

 

This item was deferred from Council?s meeting on 10 October 2012 to enable consideration of Councillors? comments.

 

The only comments received were from Cr Flack and they are circularised for Council?s consideration.

 

A large number of shopping trolleys from various supermarkets in the towns of the Nambucca Valley are being abandoned in streets, near main roads and in parks and reserves.

 

Council?s Ranger has prepared a draft policy so that the return of these abandoned trolleys to their rightful supermarket can be carried out efficiently and effectively.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Draft Abandoned Shopping Trolleys Policy be placed on public exhibition for 21 days.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may determine a new policy to deal with abandoned shopping trolleys.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Abandoned shopping trolleys, vandalised or otherwise, are unsightly to residents and visitors to the Valley.

 

If they are not returned to their appropriate supermarket, there is the added cost to the supermarket to replace them or in the case of some vandalised trolleys being returned there is the cost of either replacing them of repairing them.

 

The abandoned trolleys may also pose a hazard to vehicles and may be responsible for accidents.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Applications and Compliance

Ranger

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

This report has no implications for the environment.

 

Social

This report has no impact on social aspects.

 

Economic

There are no significant economic implications.

 


Risk

There may be a risk of injury to vehicles if trolleys are left on roads or kerbsides.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on direct or indirect budgets as this will be part of the Ranger?s duties.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

24702/2012 - Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

0 Pages

2View

?- Circularised Document - Cr Flack's comments (Trim 26491/2012)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DRAFT POLICY

ABANDONED SHOPPING TROLLEYS

 

 

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

 

??????????? To facilitate the removal of abandoned shopping trolleys from the CBD?s and surrounding streets thus reducing the potential risk to public safety and possible litigation.

 

 

2.0?????? Procedures/Practice????????

 

??????????? A contact list for use by Council will be made available and updated on a regular basis by each retailer.

 

??????????? Councils? Ranger will be responsible for liaising with Supermarkets regarding abandoned trolley/s. The duty Manager of the supermarket will be responsible for liaising with Council regarding abandoned trolley/s.

 

??????????? Liaison between supermarkets and Council should be on a regular or as necessary basis to determine the number of trolleys either located or impounded and have arrangements for collection of abandoned trolleys.

 

??????????? Supermarkets are to ensure the ownership of all trolleys for customer use are easily identifiable.

 

??????????? Council personnel who become aware of the location of abandoned trolleys are to notify Ranger of the relevant information as soon as practicable, eg number, location and ownership.

 

??????????? The ranger will notify the supermarket as soon as possible by facsimile or otherwise.

 

??????????? The relevant store will collect the trolley/s within one full working day of notification from Council.

 

??????????? If the abandoned trolley/s have not been collected within one working day of the relevant store being notified, Council may impound the trolley/s. If the trolley/s pose a direct danger to any member of the public or traffic, the trolley/s will be impounded immediately.

??? Impounding fees are payable as per Councils? Fees and charges schedule.

 


 

2?????????

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DRAFT POLICY

ABANDONED SHOPPING TROLLEYS

 

 

3.0?????? References

 

??????????? This Policy was considered by Council at its meeting on?????. This Policy was created on 20 September 2012.

 

 

 

3.1?????? Review Date

 

??????????? September 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department:

Applications and Compliance

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Jeff Cutts

 

 

Document No.

 

 

 

First Adopted:

 

 

 

Resolution No:

 

 

 

Review Due:

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 25 October 2012

Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

 

Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

 

 

 

Circularised Document - Cr Flack's comments (Trim 26491/2012)

 

??Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF1709??????????? 251012???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 12 October 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

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:

 

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

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note that there are no unresolved Development Applications in Excess of 12 months old.

 

 


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

2012/069

06/06/2012

Increase in Production Capacity to 200,000 tonnes per annum

Lot 16 DP 1140719, 2 Centra Park Street, Macksville

? Greater noise reduction qualities be given to all structures

? Permanent noise monitoring station

As this is designated development it has now been sent to the Director-General to determine whether they will make the final determination.

The Director-General has not called DA2012/069 in so Council staff are preparing a report to Council 25.10.2012

2012/011

03/02/2012

Nambucca Gardens Estate 346 Lot Residential Subdivision with Residue, Associated Works ? Staged

Lot 2 DP 1119830, Alexandra Drive, Bellwood

? Submissions outlined in previous report to Council 27 September 2012 ? Item 10.1

 

????? Consultants are preparing assessment report for JRPP

 

2012/111

10/09/2012

Telecommunications facility

Lot 1 DP 805735, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

???? No objection to establishment of tower

???? Concern of potential health side effects

???? Close proximity to School

???? Visual impact creating eye sore

???? Minimal consultation with residents

???? Timing coincided with School holidays thus not allowing sufficient time for responses

???? Incorrect zoning listed

???? Plan showed fields not actual homes, offices and school

???? Regulatory Body standards from 1997 ? lot has changed in meantime

???? Where is latest EMF research

 

Submissions closed: 12 October 2012

Total submissions received:? 5

2012/108

07/09/2012

Residential Flat Building and Serviced Apartments (22)

Lot 1 DP 1016126, 4 Frazer Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Daylight Access ? shadowing

????? Visual privacy

????? Set backs

????? Building separation

????? Energy efficiency

 

Submissions close: 19 October 2012

Total submissions received:? 1

Still being processed by Manager


 

2012/109

07/09/2012

2 Lot Subdivision for School Site and Residue

Lots 102 & 104 DP 1164163, Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

????? Lack of information provided to Council and lack of supervision by Council

????? Not complied with Acceptable Environmental Standards

????? Lack of soil and sediment control may have pollutant discharge into waterways

????? Land cut and filled not corresponding to information supplied

????? More than 1m above natural land formation and neighbours property

????? Change of existing marshlands

????? Concerns of what developer has done and potential environmental damage

????? Unstable landfill

????? No retaining walls or adequate drainage

????? Inadequate drainage and no prevention of run-off of contaminated water

????? Natural watercourse will be changed

 

Submissions closed: 8 October 2012

Total submissions received to date:? 2

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF1148??????????? 251012???????? Contract Regulatory Officer's Report September 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Contract Regulatory Officer?s Report for September 2012.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report from the Contract Regulatory Officer for September 2012 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

Dogs

Cats

ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Animals In Council's Facility (Start of Month)

3

0

Council?s Seizure Activity

0

0

Seized (doesn?t include those animals dumped or surrendered)

5

0

Returned to Owner

2

0

Abandoned or Stray

5

1

Surrendered

1

0

Transferred to Council's Facility from Seizure Activities

3

0

Total Incoming Animals

12

1

ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Released to Owners

1

0

Sold

0

0

Released to Organisations for Rehoming

0

0

Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)

0

0

Stolen from Council's Facility

0

0

Escaped from Council's Facility

0

0

Other

0

0

Euthanased

 

 

Restricted Dogs

0

0

Dangerous Dogs

0

0

Owner?s Request

1

0

Due to Illness, Disease or Injury

0

0

Feral/infant animal

1

0

Unsuitable for rehoming

3

1

Unable to be rehomed

4

0

Total Euthanased

9

1

 

Total Outgoing Animals

10

1

TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY (END OF MONTH)

2

0

 

CSR?s (Customer Service Requests) Actioned ? Not including Merit

26

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF1709??????????? 251012???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined Under Delegated Authority from 29 September - 12 October 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

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 FROM 29 SEPTEMBER ? 12 October 2012

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

2012/122

05/10/2012

Mick Brooks Building Design/B O McCormack & C B McKay

Dwelling

Lot 18 DP 755546, Simpsons Ridge Road, South Arm

150,000

2012/123

08/10/2012

Macksville Scotts Head Surf Life Saving Club

Storeroom Extension

Lot 1 DP 1126093, Short Street, Scotts Head

25,000

2012/124

10/10/2012

Mr Kerry Daley

Awning

Lot 822 DP 730817, 1009 Valla Road, Valla

3,000

2012/125

12.10.2012

Seren Building Services/I F & S L Maxworth

Dwelling-House

Lot 12 DP 1175453, 1a Regatta Drive, Valla Beach

270,000

 

 

COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM 29 SEPTEMBER ? 12 October 2012

Including those issued by Private Certifiers

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM 29 SEPTEMBER ? 12 October 2012

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE

$

2012/107

Lot 22 DP 816018, Kimberley Grove, Nambucca Heads

Dwelling-House

251,000

2012/095/01

Lot 20 DP 1049360, 32 Charles Place, Nambucca Heads

Dwelling-House - Modification

182,000

2012/087

Lot 3 DP 1147417, Scotts Head Road, Scotts Head

Dwelling-House and Shed

280,000

2012/112

Lot 5 DP 220439, 206 Wallace Street, Macksville

Golf Cart Storage Shed

17,000

2010/019/01

Lot 1 DP 1033788, 105 Bald Hill Road, Macksville

Subdivision to create three (3) rural-residential lots Modification

0

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.5??? SF1709??????????? 251012???????? DEP Applications and Statistical Reports 2011-2012, And Certificates Received 2010-2012 (September 2012)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

Environment and Planning Department Development Application statistics for the calendar year 2012 compared with 2011 and Certificate Applications/Drainage Diagrams/Outstanding Notice Applications received and determined are provided in the body of the report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for 2012 compared with 2011.

 

2????????? That Council note the statistical information for Applications and Certificates received and released by Council for 2010-2012.

 

 

Development Application Statistics

 

The figures show a -3.80% decrease in the number of DA?s received to September 2012 with construction costs increasing by 21.33% compared to the same period in 2011. The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of August was 6 plus 2 modifications.

 

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

Jan-September 2011

29,032,300

164

158

Jan-September 2012

30,723,880

151

118

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The above comparisons will be considered in the next quarterly budget review to identify what impact the development application numbers will have on our projected income.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

An average income is estimated at the start of each budget year and is reviewed at each quarterly review.


 

TURNAROUND TIMES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 2012

Month

Mean Time

Median

#Average age of DA?s (Days)

Average

Highest

Lowest

January

41.20

42

79.20

202

42

February

51.53

29

86.00

189**

15

March

39.21

31

39.88

112

15

April

42.45

41

53.00

115

21

May

38.79

30

42.5

97

2

June

41.06

29

49.5

244

7

July

37.16

23

86.90

677

3

August

24.7

28

36.4

65

21

September

70.92

29

90.36

242

5

October

 

 

 

 

 

November

 

 

 

 

 

December

 

 

 

 

 

 

#Average age of DA?s

 

The average age of all DA?s for the month is derived from the total number of days from when the applications were lodged with Council until determined. This average is provided for information as many applications required additional information by Council and/or other Government Agencies to enable them to be processed (ie Stop Clock applied).

 

** The clock was not ?stopped? on this application as Council was waiting for referrals from the RTA.

 


COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS RECEIVED

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

2010 Private Cert

3

6

6

3

4

0

12

1

2

1

1

0

39

2010 Council

3

6

2

1

2

1

9

3

1

2

2

0

32

2011 Private Cert

1

0

3

7

4

4

3

1

7

6

3

1

40

2011 Council

2

2

0

1

0

1

1

0

2

0

2

1

12

2012 Private Cert

2

4

6

3

5

2

0

5

1

 

 

 

28

2012 Council

0

1

1

0

2

0

0

1

2

 

 

 

7

 

 

CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES RELEASED

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

2011 Private Cert

2

9

6

4

6

5

2

4

8

5

6

6

63

2011 Council

8

8

8

7

14

9

6

8

8

4

5

5

90

2012 Private Cert

3

3

3

1

8

1

5

5

2

 

 

 

31

2012 Council

3

3

3

4

9

5

6

9

4

 

 

 

46

 

 

 

CONVEYANCING CERTIFICATES ISSUED

 

YTD (September)

Drainage Diagrams

Section 149 Certs

Outstanding Notices

2010

167

511

106

2011

224

482

83

2012

196

424

90

 

 

 

OCCUPATION CERTIFICATES RELEASED (including Interim Occupation Certificates)

 

YEAR

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL

Average/
Month

Private
2010

4

4

12

2

7

2

4

5

7

1

3

4

55

4.58

Council
2010

10

14

9

12

11

7

11

7

6

3

2

7

99

8.25

Private
2011

9

6

11

0

5

12

3

10

9

7

4

10

86

7.16

Council
2011

6

22

15

5

10

11

12

15

6

9

8

9

128

10.66

Private
2012

4

7

7

4

5

5

2

5

10

 

 

 

49

5.44

Council
2012

18

14

10

10

29

4

7

9

11

 

 

 

112

12.44



Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 25 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.6??? DA2012/069????? 251012???????? DA2012/069 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT - PRECAST CONCRETE WORKS - INCREASE PRODUCTION TO 200,000 TONNES PER YEAR

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Selina McNally, Senior Town Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

In 2008 Council received a development application for a precast concrete facility on Macksville?s Industrial Estate? and a conditional consent was subsequently issued on 11 August 2008. Condition 3 of this consent related to the maximum production capacity of 25,000 tonnes per annum (TPA).

 

In 2011 a modification was approved to allow a temporary increase in production from 25,000 to 65,000 TPA for 9 months and then a further Modification to extend this 9 month temporary approval to 12 months was also issued as per Council resolution 3472/2012.. This application now applies for a permanent increase in production from the 65,000 TPA, which is the maximum permitted the through the current temporary consent, to a maximum output capacity of 200,000 TPA.

 

Due to the scale of the production rate requested, the development is deemed to be ?Designated Development? as defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. All administrative duties required for Designated Development have been undertaken by Council staff and the designated development application has not been called in by the NSW Department of Planning for determination.

 

As part of the assessment process, the application was required to be referred to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) as a traffic generating development, as per Schedule 3 of the State Environment Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. RMS have responded and advised the Intersection with Upper Warrell Creek Road and Pacific Highway requires upgrading to support the traffic generated through the proposed development. Council?s Engineering staff support this advice.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council conditionally approve the designated development in two stages: Stage 1 to increase production up to 90,000 TPA and Stage 2 for an increase production past 90,000 TPA to 200,00 TPA to be deferred pending an independent traffic Engineer?s report of the serviceability of the Pacific Highway and Upper Warrell Creek Road, including details of any intersection improvements required.

 

2??????? That Council seek funding and commission the independent traffic engineer?s report.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????? Option 2 is that Council may resolve to require the Intersection works at any increase past the production rate approved by the recent temporary consent of 65,000 TPA, as per the recommended amount by RMS, with any increase over this amount to require upgrade works to the Intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway.

 

?????? Option 3 is that Council may resolve to require the Intersection works immediately at any increase in production i.e. any increase to the 25,000 TPA previously approved by the original DA 2008/139.

 

?????? Option 4 is that Council consent to the development, without the introduction of stages, i.e. up to the requested 200,000 TPA and without any requirement to upgrade the Intersection of Upper Warrell

 

?????? Option 5 is that Council could consent to the increase in production up to 65,00 TPA until the highway upgrade works are completed, and then, when the existing Pacific Highway becomes a local road, allow the applicant to increase to the full 200,00 TPA production as requested.

 

?????? Option 6 is that Council refuse the designated development application, as the impact of traffic disruption to the Pacific Highway and particularly the Intersection with Upper Warrell Creek Road, will cause harm to area and the greater surrounding region.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The applicant has been providing monthly output figures to Council in accordance with the conditions of its original consent. At its busiest period, during production of precast products for the Kempsey Bypass, output reached nearly 7,500 a month which, if monthly production was at this rate all year, would equate to 90,000 TPA. Council nor RMS received any complaints during these busy months which indicates that output can be increased to this rate, without significant impacts on traffic on the Pacific Highway. It is noted that this was the month of May and, as such, not a peak holiday period when the Nambucca Shire does experience a lot more through traffic. It is still considered, however, that the applicant has previously managed up to this rate and this is why the staging of the proposal has been recommended with Stage 1 recommended to extend to 90,000 TPA being considered appropriate.

 

It is likely that this already busy intersection will get busier in the near future and there is no section 94 plan which exists for any upgrade works. Further major contributions to traffic at this Intersection will be South Macksville urban release area, the proposed new school site (currently being assed DA2012/119) and the forthcoming Boral Designated Development Application. In particular, concentrated school traffic competing with precast concrete products could cause conflict in the future if this intersection is not adequate to support such volumes of traffic. Ultimately, if all developments are approved and problems arise, it will be Council and RMS who receive complaints and will need to resolve any issues that have arisen.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????? External

 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

 

RMS were consulted as part of the designated development application process as per Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. They immediately raised concerns with regards to the increase in traffic movement at the intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway. They have explained that their concerns do not just relate to the movement of the constructed beams and other precast concrete products, but also the delivery of raw materials in to the site. They were also concerned that the figures in the Traffic Impact Assessment concentrated on output delivery and had little details concerning the incoming delivery of raw materials.

 

As the Pacific Highway will soon be by-passed due to the Nambucca Heads to Warrell Creek upgrade works, the existing Intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway will become an Intersection of two local roads. RMS have advised they require an upgrade of this Intersection to avoid significant interruptions and delays and prevent traffic accidents at this Intersection. However, they have acknowledged that this road will only remain the Pacific Highway for a limited number of years in to the future due to the current ongoing Pacific Highway upgrade work.

 

They have therefore agreed that they will accept a staged development, with an increase up to 60,000 permitted, but that it be conditioned so that any increase over this amount will require upgrade works to the intersection; unless the highway upgrade works for the Nambucca Heads to Warrell Creek have been completed, in which case the road will become a local road and RMS will not burden any impact and as such will not require the upgrades.

 

RMS also advise that several figures, mathematics and statistics contained within the Traffic Impact Assessment submitted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) do not appear to be, in their opinion, realistic, and therefore they can not be relied upon.

 

Their advice has been included at Attachment 1.

 

?????? Internal

 

Engineering Department

 

As detailed above, RMS advise the Intersection should be upgraded at an increase in production capacity beyond 60,000 TPA. RMS have further advised, that if the Highway Upgrade has been completed, by the time the applicant wishes to increase beyond 60,000 TPA, then they will not required upgrade works, as it will be come a local intersection of two local road.

 

At this time, traffic at this location should decrease compared to the volume of traffic on the current Pacific Highway, however, Council?s Manager of Technical Services (MTS) has advised that there will still be an impact on this Intersection and it will then be Council ? with no assistance from RMS - who will be responsible to upgrade the Intersection, if no requirements have been included as part of this development application.

 

MTS also agrees with Council?s town planning staff that an independent traffic engineer should be engaged? to carry out a traffic impact assessment, with the view of determining what upgrade works will need to be undertaken and with the view to implement a developers contribution plan when this become a local road intersection.

 

Council?s MTS also advises that the ?Traffic Report suggests - HV movements will utilize the existing slip lane, (left onto Upper Warrell creek Road from Pacific Hwy) concluding the existing Intersections are considered adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in traffic; Without knowing the existing number of turn movements Austroads Intersections at grade recommends a deceleration length of 140m, the existing treatment is a basic left turn treatment 50m in length. Note: Supplies, reinforcement and strands are sourced from Sydney and Newcastle?.

 

Should the proposal be consented to and the resolution be different to the recordation, the following additional condition is recommended for the conditional consent:

 

?Where production is proposed to increase to exceed 90,000t/a the Pacific Highway/Upper Warrell Creek Road Intersection shall be upgraded to incorporate AUL type acceleration and AUL type deceleration lanes prior to the commencement of the increased production limit at the applicants expense and Roads and Maritime Services/Council approval.?

 

 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION ? SECTION 79C(1) EP&A ACT

 

In its assessment of a development application, Council is required to take into consideration the following matters:

 

(a)??????? the provisions of

 

(i)???????? any environmental planning instruments

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010

 

This site is Zoned IN1 ? General Industry and as such the use is permissible in the Zoning.

 

(ii)??????? any draft environmental planning instrument

 

None directly applicable to the development application.

 

(iii)?????? any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

Notification and Advertising

 

The application was advertised and the exhibition period ended on 26 July.

 

After this date submissions had to be forwarded to the Department of Planning and they be given at least 30 days to consider the submissions and give them opportunity to call in the application for them to determine should they wish to do so. No response has been received by the Department to call in the application and so it is being reported to Council for determination.

 

Environmental Context and Site Analysis

 

The proposal relates to an established precast concrete works which largely produce precast concrete products to assist with the Pacific Highway bypass works.

 

b????????? the likely impacts of the development

 

Context and Setting

 

The proposal could bring further employment opportunities for the area and this should be encouraged. However, the consent should be appropriately conditioned to ensure the protection of the amenity of the area in relation to traffic generation and potential for delays or accidents, particularly on the Pacific Highway, or Council may need to rectify issues created in the future.

 

c????????? the suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is already developed for the purpose of producing precast concrete products and this application is to increase production capacity only. However, RMS have raised concerns in relation to the capability of the intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway and have recommended upgrade works be undertaken to support the increase in traffic generated by allowing the development.

 

d????????? any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations

 

The application was advertised and nearby residents notified, and 2 (two) submissions were received.

 

One submission was received from RMS and has previously been discussed in this report.

 

One submission was received from Mr S Colahan and raised concerns in relation to the noise vibrations caused by certain equipment used on the site which affect his property on Wallace Street including vibrating of his shed and windows. He invites the applicant to site a noise monitoring station on his property if it would assist them in providing further noise assessments and reduction measures.

 

It should be noted that the regulations relating to designated development applications permit a third party right of appeal where a submission has been lodged with the LGA and as such any of the above parties may appeal Council?s decision.

 

e????????? the public interest

 

The proposal would boost the local economy and hopefully see further employment opportunities in Nambucca Shire. However, to negatively affect traffic flow at this intersection, particularly in busy holiday period, could see a negative impact on the local economy particular in relation to attracting visitors to Macksville.

 

All other issues of noise, hours of operation and visual impact can be controlled by conditions.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Environmental concerns have been addressed through the EIS and continue to be monitored.

 

It is noted that the watercourse which was redirect as part of the original DA still needs attention and council staff have actioned this after discovering this to be the case for the site inspection for this development application.

 

Social

 

None identified.

 

Economic

 

Job opportunities will add a positive to the local economy, however, any significant impact on traffic flows at this location could negatively impact on tourism and the local economy generally.

 

The applicant is a key employer in the area and positively adds to the local economy.

 

Risk

 

There are many risks associated with determining this development application.

 

With Options 4 and 5 there is substantial risk that upgrade works could be required for the Intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific highway in the future and, once these both become local road, it would be council who would have to bare the considerable cost associated with such upgrade works.

 

With Options 1, 2, 3 and 6 there is risk that the applicant will not be happy with the restricted output capacity and chose to locate another site outside of the Shire, loosing employment and economic stimulation for Nambucca shire.

 

With Options 1 and 4 there is risk that RMS may as an interested third part, appeal the decision made by Council and Council would have to defend their decision in the Land and Environment Court.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

As previously discussed in this report, by not requiring the applicant to conduct, or contribute to, upgrade works to the Intersection of Upper Warrell Creek Road and the Pacific Highway, then Council could ultimately bare costs for such works in the future.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Potentially a new Section 94A contribution plan fund could provide some funds, but would not likely contribute any significant percentage of what will be required to fund the future intersection upgrade works.

 

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

Deferred Commencement Consent

 

1??????? Stage 2 of the Consent does not operate until Council is satisfied that:

 

a??????? The serviceability of the Pacific Highway and Upper Warrell Creek road Intersection is capable of supporting the increase in output from 90,000 TO 200,000 TPA and any upgrade works required to ensure a free traffic flow at this location are undertaken, in response to this report. It will need to be an Independent Traffic Engineering report that will need to be prepared to provide Council with the appropriate advice.

 

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

2??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 26 October 2012 and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Site Plan

 

Environmental Resources Management

20/12/2011

Environmental Impact Statement

 

Environmental Resource Management

May 2012

 

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

 

Consent Granted For Works within the Road Reserve

 

3??????? This development consent includes the works within the road reserve set out in the table below. The work must be carried out in accordance with the standard specified in the column opposite the work. All works are to include the adjustment and/or relocation of services as necessary to the requirements of the appropriate service authorities.

 

Work

Standard to be provided

Linemarked right turning lane into Centre Park Street? when production? is proposed to surpass 65,000t/a

To cater for the largest anticipated vehicle entering the site, design to comply with Austroads Intersections at Grade

 

 

Operation Hours

 

4??????? Operation Hours are not extended as part of this Consent and continue to be as of conditions 3a of previous consent DA2008/139/04 and are as follows:

 

Operational hours for this Pre-cast Concrete plant are as identified in the original Statement of Environmental Effects which are 7.00 am?6.00 pm Monday?Saturday. In exceptional circumstances operations may be extended outside of these hours, provided residents and Council are notified (as soon as practicable) of the out of hours work and the exceptional circumstances for this occuring. Notification to Council shall be via email. No work shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

 

Monthly Production

 

5??????? The proponent shall submit a confidential monthly production statement ?in production tonnes?? for all concrete products produced at the plant, irrespective of the product being accepted or rejected, stored on site or exported offsite. This statement shall be submitted within 21 days of the end of the preseeding month.

 

Section 138 Approvals

 

9??????? A separate application and consent under The Roads Act 1993 is required for any proposed construction work taking place within a Public Road Reserve (this includes construction involving machinery working on the development from an adjacent Public Road Reserve). This consent is to be obtained prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

????????? A copy of the form enclosed with the Development Application Determination is to be completed and returned to Council along with the application and inspection fee of $91.

 

Section 68 Approvals

 

10????? Approvals under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the relevant activities to be applied for by the applicant and issued by Council:

 

11????? Any approved vehicle wash bay to service the proposed development must be approved and all water used in the car wash bay must drain to Council?s sewer following treatment in an oil plate separator or other system as approved by Council. Full details of the proposal must be submitted to Council for approval prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

 

12????? The aboveground fuel and LPG tank(s) must meet the requirements of the Work Cover Authority and comply with the relevant Australian Standards. Full details of how these requirements are met, must be included on the Construction Certificate application and plans.

 

Erosion and Sediment Control

 

13????? Effective erosion and sediment control measures must be installed within the boundaries of the site prior to and during construction and be maintained until the site has been efficiently rehabilitated, turfed or landscaped.

 

????????? Should Council be the Principal Certifying Authority, details as to the method of complying with the above must be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. These measures may consist of sediment fences, hay bales and/or sandbags. Care should be taken in locating material stockpiles ie sand, soil, etc, and the number of vehicular movements should be restricted during inclement weather.

 

????????? Reason:? To ensure erosion and sediment control.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

14????? Consent from Council must be obtained for all works within the road reserve pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans must accompany the application for consent for works within the road reserve. Such plans are to be in accordance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

.TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Erosion and Sediment Control

 

15????? All erosion and sediment control measures/works, other pollution control and rehabilitation measures undertaken on the site shall conform to or exceed the specifications and standards contained in the current versions of:

 

????????? Managing Urban Stormwater, Soil and Construction Guidelines (Landcom 2004)

????????? Nambucca Shire Council Code of Practice for Erosion and Sediment Control Works

 

Disabled Access

 

16????? Provision must be made for access to the commercial floor space for people with disabilities in accordance with AS1428.1 2001 "Design for Access and Mobility Part 1: General Requirements for Access - Buildings".

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

Dust Prevention Measures

 

17????? Adequate and on going dust suppression measures must be implemented and maintained for all areas of the site which are unsealed. Wash bay locations will need to be approved by Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued and maintained at all times.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES