NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

10 April 2013

 

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 - 10 April 2013

 

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 - Capt Nicole Viles from the Salvation Army

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 March 2013

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1???? Notice of Motion - General Manager's Performance Review (SF839).................................... 6 ?

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

9.6???? Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc - Request that Council support on and off ramps to the new highway at North Macksville?LATE REPORT

????????? i)???????? Ms Janine Reed ?Representing the Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce

11.1?? Fire Services ? Jurisdictional Boundary Review and Mutual Aid Agreement ....................... 99

????????? i)??????? Mr Tony Lenthal on behalf of Superintendant FRNSW

????????? ii)?????? Mr Lachlann Ison on behalf of Zone Manager Lower North Coast

9.4???? Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve........................................ 21

????????? i)??????? Mr Jim Bolger ? North Coast Holiday Parks

????????? ii)?????? Mr Neville Green ? North Coast Holiday Parks

 

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

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

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports...................................................................................... 7

9.2???? Camping Fees - Gumma (Boulton's Crossing) Reserve..................................................... 12

9.3???? Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) 2013........................................................ 16

9.4???? Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve........................................ 21

9.5???? Museum Advisor - Final Report....................................................................................... 33

9.6???? Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc - Request that Council support on and off ramps to the new highway at North Macksville?LATE REPORT

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

10.1?? DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway 35

10.2?? S96 Modification Application to remove Lot 14 from the original consent DA2012/010 and losing on site car parking..................................................................................................................... 82

10.3?? Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................... 90

10.4?? Applications and Statistical Reports 2012-2013 - February 2013........................................ 91

10.5?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 18-28 March 2013........................................................................................................... 92

10.6?? Reforming Public Libraries Funding Correspondence........................................................ 96

10.7?? Investment Report to 31 March 2013?LATE REPORT

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

11.1?? Fire Services ? Jurisdictional Boundary Review and Mutual Aid Agreement ....................... 99

11.2?? Progress Report on Tree Vandalism - Parkes Street Nambucca Heads............................ 102

11.3?? Assessing the impact of off street parking and access when resubdividing land? ............ 105

11.4?? Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 2 April 2013.................................. 107 ???

 


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

12.1?? Debt Write Off

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) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer.

12.2?? Museum Adviser - Final Report attachment

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) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

12.3?? New Loan

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) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

??

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

 

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

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

???? TO CLOSE

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

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

13????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

TIME

DESCRIPTION

WHERE

OFFICER

8.30 am

Introduction of New Staff: Anthony Brandy and

???????????????????????????????????????? Nigel Petersen

BUSINESS PAPER

9.6???? Macksville & District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc - Request that Council support on and off ramps to the new highway at North Macksville

DELEGATION:

Ms Janine Reed ? Supporting Recommendation

Council Chambers

 

9.00 am

Item 11.1 - Fire Services ?Jurisdictional Boundary Review and Mutual Aid Agreement

DELEGATIONS:

Mr Tony Lenthal Superintendant FRNSW

Mr Lachlann Ison Zone Manager Lower North Coast

Council Chambers

AGMES

9.30 am

Item 9.4 - Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

DELEGATIONS:

Mr Jim Bolger?????? )? North Coast Holiday Parks

Mr Neville Green? )

Council Chambers

GM

10.00 am

Morning Tea

 

 

10.45 am

Item 10.1 - DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

Onsite

AGMCCS

11.45 am

Item 10.2 - S96 Modification Application to remove Lot 14 from the original consent DA2012/010 & losing on site car parking

Onsite

(Cnr Princess & Mckay Streets)

AGMCCS

12.00 noon

Lunch

Council Chambers

 

12.30 pm

Business paper followed by Budget Workshop

Council Chambers

 

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??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1????? SF1817??????????? 100413???????? Notice of Motion - General Manager's Performance Review (SF839)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Rhonda Hoban, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

Councillors are all familiar with the process for reviewing the performance of the General Manager. Previously an independent facilitator has been engaged at a cost of $2673.92 for the April 2012 review and $2739.32 for the October 2012 review. There is a potential saving of approximately $5,500 per annum should council choose not to engage a facilitator. The recommendation ensures that if ever there is a breakdown in communication between the council and the General Manager, either party has the right to request that one be engaged.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council undertake future reviews of the performance of the General Manager without the use of a facilitator, on the understanding that if at any point either the General Manager or the Council feel that one is required, one will be engaged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 100413???????? 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

 

MARCH 2011

1

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

 

GM

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.

Funding for a Flood Risk Management Plan which would consider filling is included in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy program.

 

JUNE 2011

2

SF841

2/06/2011

Council write to the RMS 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 further with RMS.

Further letter sent 4 January 2013.

No response as at 4 March 2013


 

JULY 2011

3

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.

 

Awaiting finilasation of Nambucca River Flood Studies

 

OCTOBER 2011

4

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.

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction ? March 2013

 

5

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.

 

AGMCCS

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.

Once Finance Structure resolved this matter should progress.

FEBRUARY 2012

6

GB2/12

02/02/2012

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

AGMES

Nesting boxes were installed in December 2012, advanced trees still awaiting delivery.

 

Advanced trees have been sourced and are scheduled for delivery to Council after Easter.

MARCH 2012

 

7

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.

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction ? March 2013

 


 

AUGUST 2012

8

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

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction - March 2013

 

Awaiting TASIC guidelines for tourist signage to complete policy and guidelines.? In accordance with Council procedures a memo will be provided to Council with the new policy ? April 2013.

 

OCTOBER 2012

9

DA2012/069

25/10/2012

Council to seek full external funding for independent traffic study for Pacific Highway Upper Warrell Creek Road Intersection

MBD/

G&CO

Investigations underway

Discussed at meeting on 18 March 2013.? Agreed that Boral and APS would prepare a traffic study.

NOVEMBER 2012

10

SF29

29/11/2012

Representatives of Clarence Valley Council be requested to meet with representatives of this Council to discuss the distribution of the assets and liabilities of the CRL.

 

GM

Letter sent 5 December 2012.? Discussion with CVC General Manager who requested the matters of contention be listed in an email.? Points of contention emailed 28 February 2013.

DECEMBER 2012

11

SF382

12/12/2012

Scotts Head Caravan Park ? new concept plan ? to be exhibited and reported to Council.

 

GM

Anticipate reporting 28 February 2013.? Awaiting North Coast Holiday Parks submitting a revised plan.

North Coast Holiday Parks telephoned on 15 March advising that new concept plan would be submitted shortly.

12

SF688

12/12/2012

Council to consider a position of Natural Resources Officer in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy Program

 

GM

To be reported with draft Delivery Program (budget) for 2013/14

Included in draft budget.

JANUARY 2013

 

13

RF275

16/01/2013

Councillors to be notified of DA?s with a value or cost > $1m.

 

AGMCCS

On-going

 

14????????????

SF1817

16/01/2013

Council review its tree removal policy and incorporate suggestions contained in NoM ? the 6D principles.

 

AGMES

Report February 2013

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors with Policy procedures for comment in accordance with Policy direction in March 2013.

 

15

SF734

16/01/2013

Council undertake a seminar on the implications of the upgrade of the Pacific Highway for the Nambucca Valley and a further report come to Council on proposed speakers, a budget and the availability or otherwise of funding from Industry & Investment.

 

GM

Report March 2013.? Deferred to April to allow for consultation with the RMS and Kempsey Shire Council.

 

16

SF643

16/01/2013

There be a brief report on the ability to re-subdivide lots without addressing the potential for street parking and egress issues.

 

AGMES

Report to be presented to Council in April 2013.

 

Due to processing DA?s and review of highway documentation Manager Technical Services will provide a report to Council in April.

 

17

SF1817

31/01/2013

Council write to the Min. for the Arts, through the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP calling upon the Government to implement the submission from the Library Council of NSW for the reform of the funding system for NSW Public Libraries.

 

AGMCCS

Letter to Mr Stoner sent 18 February 2013, Letter of acknowledgement and advice of his representations to the Minister for Arts received 26 February 2013.

 

18

LF167

31/01/2013

Mayor and AGMCCS visit the owner of 5625 Pacific Highway, North Macksville and explain the seriousness of Council?s orders and discuss options for rectifying the problem.

 

AGMCCS

Arrangements being made.

On site meeting held. Positive steps for progress.

Plumber engaged by landowners. Recent wet weather has restricted any progress.

 

FEBRUARY 2013

 

19

SF84

13/02/2013

Council advise the RFS that it is only prepared to accept the RFS Bid for 2013/14 indexed as per the rate pegging levy of 3.4%.

 

AGMES

Letter sent.? Awaiting response.

 

Letter sent to the RFS Commissioner, Minister and RFS Zone Manager.

-???? NIL response from State Government

-???? Amended Bid from the Zone Manager provided ? to be reported at the April Council meeting.

 

 

20

SF1817

28/2/2013

Council write as a matter of urgency to the RMS to place a 60km/hr speed zone on the Pacific Highway at the Link Road, Nambucca Heads intersection.

Also that the RMS be asked to install advising signs on the Highway alerting motorists to the intersection.

 

GM

Letter issued on 6 March 2013

 

21

SF453

28/2/2013

Council write to CHCC and EPA requesting a review of the outcomes of the upgraded Biomass plant.

GM

Letter sent 5 March 2013

 

 

MARCH 2013

 

22

PRF54

13/3/2013

A further meeting of stakeholders be arranged to discuss options for the on-going management of the Gumma Reserve.

GM

Meeting to be arranged in April 2013.? This meeting was postponed (3/4) to a future date.

 

APRIL 2013

 

23

SF1687

28/3/2013

Council receive a report on how the information obtained from the floor level survey of Macksville will be managed once it is received.? Also that Council ask the RMS whether they will include some homes in the Kings Point area.

 

GM

Report in May 2013

 

24

SF1031

28/3/2013

That there be a review in 6 months time of the policy on rainwater tank rebates to determine whether or not there should be an increase in funding.

 

AGMES

Report due October 2013

 

25

 

28/3/0213

That Council be provided with a report on Waste Depot fees for non-service residents, including the possibility of a voucher system.? The report is to provide feedback on how other councils are handling this matter.

 

AGMES

To be reported with draft budget.? Anticipate May 2013.

 

 

26

DA2012/108

28/3/2013

That Council rescind the motion to approve DA2012/108, to enable Mrs Leckie?s delegation to be heard including the new information regarding impacts to her property from the proposed development prior to re-determining DA 2012/108.

 

AGMCCS

DA to come back to Council on 24 April 2012.

 

27

RF284

28/3/2013

Council write to the Minister for Transport to expedite the upgrade and replacement of load limited railway bridges (overpasses) on Browns Crossing Road

 

AGMES

Letter written w/e 5/4/2013.

 

28

SF1687

28/3/2013

Council be provided with confirmation that cisterns in the Macksville Park amenities building have been rectified.

 

AGMES

May 2013

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2????? PRF54????????????? 100413???????? Camping Fees - Gumma (Boulton's Crossing) Reserve

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council considered reports on camping fees for the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Reserve at its meetings on 10 October 2012 and 29 November 2012.? The issue was deferred at the meeting on 10 October 2012 and at the meeting on 29 November 2012 it was resolved:

 

?That the fees remain at $12 per night per site until after the festive season (and after a meeting with various interested parties on 6 January 2013) and further, that a sign be erected outlining the fees and rules of the camping facility.?

 

At Council?s meeting on 13 March 2013 it was resolved that Council consider the appropriate fees for the Gumma (Boultons Crossing) Reserve when developing its 2013/14 budget.? As the budget is currently being developed it is appropriate that Council not consider the matter.

 

It was previously recommended that camping fees at the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve be maintained at $12 per site per night, except for designated NSW school holidays when the camping fee be $20 per site per night.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council determine the camping fees for the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Reserve.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can set the fees as it sees fit.

 

The table in the report provides a comparison of fees in other primitive camping grounds.? The camping fees at the Gumma Reserve are per site with no restriction on the number of people on the site.? Given the facilities which are available, the existing camping fee would seem to be amongst the cheapest, if not the cheapest, of any coastal camping ground on the North Coast.

 

Traditionally the Reserve has been used by local residents for camping in school holidays.? It now seems to be becoming increasingly popular with tourists throughout the year, possibly because of its low fees.

 

Council could structure the camping fee to reflect costs which are higher in school holidays or to reduce the impact on local residents by keeping the fee lower in school holidays and higher across the year as a whole.? The preferred approach depends upon resolving competing priorities as to what Council?s primary goal is.? Is it to increase tourist use for overall economic gain?? Is it to provide a camping ground primarily for use by local residents?? Is it to achieve cost recovery or a financial return?? A draft plan of management would seek direction on the primary goal.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 13 March 2013 it was resolved that Council consider the appropriate fees for the Gumma (Boultons Crossing) Reserve when developing its 2013/14 budget.? As the budget is currently being developed it is appropriate that Council now consider the matter.

 

The following comparative information concerning camping fees was provided to Council?s meeting on 10 October 2012.


 

Comparison of Fees for Primitive Camping Grounds

 

Camping Ground

Facilities

Fees

Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve - NSC

Toilets, drinking water, rubbish removal

$12 per site.? No limit on persons per site.? Fees usually collected twice per week.

Farquhar Inlet (Manning River) ? Dept. of Lands

Toilets, BBQs, no drinking water, no rubbish removal

Site defined as 4 persons.? $11 per night during low season and $20 per night during school holidays.? Additional person $2.50.

Diamond Head campground in Crowdy Bay National Park - NPWS

Toilets, no drinking water, cold showers, BBQ?s, picnic tables

$10 per adult per night, $5 per child per night, plus a daily vehicle fee of $7 or annual pass.

Apsley Falls campground in Oxley Wild Rivers National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, no drinking water

$5 per adult per night.? $3 per child per night.

Dangars Gorge campground in Oxley Wild Rivers National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQs, drinking water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Melaleuca camping ground ? Limeburners Creek National Park

Toilets only.

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Point Plomer camping ground ? Limeburners Creek National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, cold showers, no drinking water.

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.? Plus an annual pass or daily vehicle entry fee of $7.

Illaroo campground ? Yuraygir National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, drinking water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Lake Arragan and Red Cliff campgrounds ? Yuraygir National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, drinking water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Hungry Gate campground ? Hat Head National Park

No facilities

$5 per adult per night.? $3 per child per night.? Plus an annual pass or daily vehicle fee of $7.

Smoky Cape campground ? Hat Head National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, no water

$5 per adult per night.? $3 per child per night. Plus an annual pass or daily vehicle fee of $7.

Black Rocks campground ? Bundjalung National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQs, no water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.? Annual pass or daily vehicle entry fee of $7 also required.

Woody Head campground ? Bundjalung National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, drinking water, cold showers

Minimum site fee of $28 applies covering 2 adults.? Additional adults are $14, additional children are $7.? Off peak rates also apply.

Bald Rock campground ? Bald Rock National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, no drinking water

$7 per adult per night.? $3.50 per child per night.

 

In terms of fixing camping fees for the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve, the following factors should be considered:

 

?????? There are increased costs in managing peak school holiday periods, through call outs by Council staff and contractors.

?????? If the camping ground remains open, there needs to be considerable expenditure on replacing the amenities and septic system.? The current camping fees do not cover the cost of this depreciation.

?????? The difficulty of counting ?heads? at camping sites

 

The report recommended as follows:

 

1.?????? Camping fees at the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve be maintained at $12 per site per night, except for designated NSW school holidays when the camping fee will be $20 per site per night.

 

2.?????? That a suitable sign be erected at the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve indicating the camping fees and other rules for use of the Reserve (eg, no dogs, maximum stay of 1 month, no unoccupied vans or campsites etc.)

 

3.?????? That the changes to camping fees be advertised in Council?s block in the Nambucca Guardian News and also on Council?s website.

 

In relation to the recommendation Council resolved:

 

?That the matter 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.?

 

Camping fees and the other issues mentioned in the resolution were then reported to Council?s meeting on 29 November 2012.? The Council resolved:

 

?That the fees remain at $12 per night per site until after the festive season (and after a meeting with various interested parties on 6 January 2013) and further, that a sign be erected outlining the fees and rules of the camping facility.?

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The matter of camping fees was discussed at the stakeholder meeting.? At that meeting, Mr Ken Robinson a member of the former Committee of Management expressed the view that the $12 per night camping fee should be increased to $20 or $25 per night.? Further that the community was concerned that it remain an affordable camping ground and expressed concern about the cost of National Park camp sites.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The risk mainly concerns the implications to Council?s budget which is discussed below.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Without knowing what, if any, conditions may be imposed under a Section 68 approval to operate the camping ground it is difficult to determine the revenue stream which will be required to operate the camping ground with little or no impact on Council?s General Fund.? However given that the reserves accumulated by the Committee of Management have not met actual depreciation, the existing camping fees will almost certainly mean there will be an impact on Council?s future budgets.? Further, with the management of the Reserve reverting to Council rather than a voluntary Section 355 Committee, the costs of operating the Reserve will certainly increase.? The extent to which this will be balanced against increased revenue is unknown at this stage.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.? The anticipated revenue from any increase in camping fees will be incorporated into the budget for 2013/2014.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The resignation of the Committee of Management has meant that the day to day management of the Reserve has to be undertaken by Council staff.? Whilst the time of staff is being costed to the Reserve, it does affect the availability of particularly Council?s Ranger to attend to other duties.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3????? SF669????????????? 100413???????? Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) 2013

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A draft State Environmental Planning Policy has been released to give effect to the NSW Government?s recent announcement of a prohibition on new coal seam gas exploration and production activity on or under land in and within 2km of a residential zone or future identified growth area and on or under land in a so called Critical Industry Cluster (CIC) of which to date only two have been identified being the Upper Hunter equine and viticulture.

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has invited Councils to nominate particular areas zoned R5 within their LGAs for listing in the Mining SEPP as an area to which the prohibitions apply.

 

This Council has extensive areas of R5 Large Lot Residential land including around Newee Creek, Bowraville, Valla, Nambucca Heads, South Macksville (Upper Warrell Creek Road), North Macksville (Old Coast Road), Allgomera, Bald Hill, Gumma, Kingsworth Estate, and Scotts Head.

 

It is proposed that Council nominate all R5 Large Lot Residential land for prohibition from coal seam gas exploration and production activity.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council respond to the Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) 2013 and nominate all R5 Large Lot Residential land for prohibition from coal seam gas exploration and production activity.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The draft Mining SEPP amendment is on public exhibition until 12 April 2013.? If Council is to make a submission it will need to be determined at this meeting.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the notice of this draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) which is copied at the end of this report.

 

The draft SEPP gives effect to a recent announcement by the State Government concerning the prohibition of new coal seam gas exploration and production activity on our under land in and within 2km of a residential zone or future identified residential growth area and on or under land in a Critical Industry Cluster (CIC) of which two have been identified being the Upper Hunter equine and viticulture.

 

The prohibition will apply to residential zones.? Of interest is that it is also proposed to apply to areas zoned R5 Large Lot Residential that meet, ?defined village criteria?.

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has invited Councils to nominate particular areas zoned R5 within their LGAs for listing in the Mining SEPP as an area to which the prohibitions apply.

 

The criteria are as qualitative as they are quantitative being:

 

?????? the area must contain a mix of land uses

?????? the zone must apply to a settlement that is long established and that has some historic association within the district, region and/or rural hinterland

?????? the area must contain a mix of lot sizes, including an average lot size up to 4,000m2.

 

It would seem that the intention is to try and distinguish between a ?village? and a ?rural residential subdivision?.? For this to be an issue it must be assumed that the RU5 village zone in the standard LEP template has not always been applied across the State to those localities which are a village.

 

This Council has extensive areas of R5 Large Lot Residential land including around Newee Creek, Bowraville, Valla, Nambucca Heads, South Macksville (Upper Warrell Creek Road), North Macksville (Old Coast Road), Allgomera, Bald Hill, Gumma, Kingsworth Estate, and Scotts Head.

 

In the R5 zones, particularly those which adjoin urban areas, it is impossible to determine the boundary of the ?settlement?.? Most R5 zones have some diversity of land use including agriculture and home occupations.? Those R5 zones which do not adjoin urban areas are often ?long established?.? This includes some of the housing at Gumma and around Macksville.

 

And then there are the even more qualitative criteria such as, ?some historic association?.

 

Notwithstanding the entreaties from the Department for Council to plot a boundary line to a settlement when in fact the change in land use is often more of a gradation and to discern with absolute clarity the meaning of ?long established? and ?some historic association?, for the sake of consistency it is proposed that Council nominate all R5 Large Lot Residential land for prohibition from coal seam gas exploration and production activity.

 

In support of the recommendation that all R5 Large Lot Residential be excluded from coal seam gas exploration and production activity, the Department will be supplied with the information which Council has readily available.? The Council does not have the staff resources to undertake detailed investigations about the dates settlements were established; their historic associations with the surrounding area; and all of the land uses within the particular zoning.

 

If Council?s submission is accepted then there would be a prohibition of new coal seam gas exploration and production activity on or under the R5 Large Lot Residential zoned land and within 2km of its zone boundary.

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure will evaluate Council?s submission and will make a recommendation to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure as part of making the Mining SEPP amendment.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with MANEX B and Council?s Strategic Planner.? The relatively short exhibition period, less than 3 weeks including the Easter public holidays, means that broader consultation with other Mid North Coast Councils has not been possible.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The draft SEPP does not reference any environmental investigations or findings which has caused the amendment.? There is no explanation as to how the criteria were established.? It would seem to be based on the widespread community concern and apprehension about the impacts of CSG activities.

 


Social

 

The proposed exclusion of R5 Large Lot Residential from CSG exploration and production activity is likely to ease similar concerns in the Nambucca Valley if CSG production were to ever be proposed.? It is unknown whether or not this may occur in the future.

 

Economic

 

The economic implications are unknown.? There is no information provided to Council about the extent of recoverable CSG in the Nambucca Valley, its economic value, the potential jobs it may provide and the extent to which it may underlie the R5 Large Lot Residential zone.? There is as little information on the economic implications as there is on the environmental implications.

 

Risk

 

There is no information available in the draft SEPP to provide an evaluation of risk.? The media has reported what seems to be widespread community concern and apprehension about the impacts of CSG activities.? The NSW Government seems to have accepted that there is widespread concern as evidenced by their announcement and the introduction of the draft SEPP.? There is no reason to believe the same concerns will not exist in the Nambucca Valley if CSG activities are proposed.

 

If CSG activities are ever proposed, many residents will not understand how the criteria were derived or applied.? If the recommendation to exclude R5 land is not accepted by Council, residents will not understand how the Council could forward a submission without consulting with them.? Unfortunately Council has received notice of the draft SEPP less than 3 weeks before the closure of the public exhibition so it is impossible to undertake effective community consultation.? The absence of this opportunity means that Council should adopt a more risk averse position.? This is reflected in the recommendation.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Without any information as to the economic potential of CSG in the Nambucca Valley it is impossible to determine any direct or indirect impact on current and future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The draft SEPP is not well drafted and seems to be rushed.? Without any reasonable notice it places a large onus on Council?s limited town planning resources to provide a detailed response to criteria which are as qualitative as they are quantitative.? The Council simply does not have the staff resources to undertake detailed investigations about the dates settlements were established; their historic associations with the surrounding area; and all of the land uses within the particular zoning and to tabulate and supply that information in less than 3 weeks.


NOTICE OF THIS DRAFT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SEPP).

 

To: All council general managers and planning directors in NSW

From: NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure

Date: Friday 22 March 2013

 

Subject: Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones) 2013

On 19 February 2013, the NSW Government announced several significant initiatives around the regulation of coal seam gas (CSG) activities in addition to the measures already announced as part of the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy.

 

These new initiatives include the prohibition of new coal seam gas exploration and production activity in the following areas:

?????? on or under land in and within 2km of a residential zone or future identified residential growth area; and

?????? on or under land in a Critical Industry Cluster (CIC). Currently, two CICs have been identified ? the Upper Hunter equine and viticulture CICs.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is seeking feedback on a draft amendment to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum and Extractive Industries) (the Mining SEPP) to implement these prohibitions.

 

Under the draft amendment, the prohibitions will apply to the following zones (or their equivalent):

?????? R1 General Residential

?????? R2 Low Density Residential

?????? R3 Medium Density Residential

?????? R4 High Density Residential

?????? RU5 Village

The prohibition is also proposed to apply to areas zoned R5 Large Lot Residential that meet defined village criteria. To achieve this, councils are being invited ? as part of their submission on the draft amendment ? to nominate particular areas zoned R5 within their LGAs for listing in the Mining SEPP as an area to which the prohibitions apply. This could include an entire or part area zoned R5. Only that part of areas zoned R5 that meet these criteria will be listed in the SEPP as an exclusion zone.


Nominations for areas zoned R5 to be listed in the SEPP as an exclusion zone must address the criteria and information requirements outlined below:

 

Criteria:

Comment:

Information to be considered in evaluation:

The area must contain a mix of land uses

 

A mix of land uses (such as retail, business, industrial, educational or recreation) that service the local rural community is a key point of differentiation between a village and a rural residential subdivision.

Description of current land uses in the area and any information on projected changes to these land uses.

The zone must apply to a settlement that is long established and that has some historic association within the district, region and/or rural hinterland

Villages are generally long established population centres that historically served a particular economic function in a district or regional context. This is a key point of differentiation to rural residential subdivisions that are typically more recently established and, by the nature of their predominantly residential land use, do not provide a regional economic function.

Information on when the settlement was established and its historic association with the surrounding region.

The area must contain a mix of lot sizes, including an average lot size up to 4,000 m2

Villages are characterised by a range of residential lot sizes, including smaller lots than would typically comprise a rural residential subdivision.

Information on range of residential lot sizes, including number and proportion of lots up to 4,000 m2 in area.

 

Nominations should also clearly describe and map (including GIS data) the subject areas.

Nominated areas will be evaluated by the department, with recommendations made to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure as part of the making of the Mining SEPP amendment. The department is currently consulting with Local Government NSW about involving local councils in the evaluation process.


The draft SEPP amendment also includes provision for councils to nominate areas where they wish to opt out of exclusion zones, following community consultation, to enable CSG development to occur, subject to relevant approvals. These areas will be identified in a Schedule to the SEPP.


The draft Mining SEPP amendment is on public exhibition until 12 April 2013. To find out more, go to www.planning.nsw.gov.au/proposals or telephone the department on 1300 305 695. Submissions can also be lodged online at this website.

 

Daniel Keary

Director Strategic Regional Policy

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF382????????????? 100413???????? Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The North Coast Accommodation Trust has submitted a revised concept plan 3B for the redevelopment of the Scotts Head Caravan Park and day reserve.? The revised concept plan has been prepared in consultation with Council staff and of the many revised concept plans considered since July 2012 is the one which most closely resembles the adopted Master Plan.? In order to give effect to the plan it is necessary for Council to transfer ownership of an area of land off Adin Street sufficient to include the proposed access and Manager?s residence and office.

 

It is proposed that Council support the redevelopment of the Scotts Head caravan park and adjoining reserve in accordance with the revised concept plan described as Option 3B and dated March 2013.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council support the redevelopment of the Scotts Head caravan park and adjoining reserve in accordance with the revised concept plan described as Option 3B and dated March 2013.

 

2??????? That Council transfer the land shown edged yellow on Option 3B to the North Coast Accommodation Trust for nil consideration subject to the Trust agreeing to accept all costs associated with the subdivision and the transfer of ownership.? Further that Council?s seal be attached as required to documents associated with the transfer of ownership.

 

3??????? That Council and the North Coast Accommodation Trust enter into Heads of Agreement in relation to the implementation of the revised concept plan Option 3B covering, but not limited to, the following matters:

?????? ?????? the undertakings by the Trust in relation to expenditure on stormwater, roads, off street parking, and maintenance

?????? the agreed rental payments

?????? a schedule showing the anticipated timing of the redevelopment

?????? the transfer of the land required for the access and caretakers residence and office by Council

?????? Council?s responsibility to obtain approval for the lease of its community land for a 21 year period

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The options are discussed in the report.? If Council does not accept the recommendation it can either seek to negotiate a new lease of the existing holiday van area with the North Coast Accommodation Trust or to provide the holiday van owners with notice to vacate the site.

 

There was previous consideration given to Council operating the holiday van area as a ?stand alone? caravan park but this was dismissed because of predicted revenue being less than the anticipated capital and operating costs.

 

Doing nothing is not an option as the lease for the holiday van site expired many years ago.? Council may be subject to censure for continuing to deal with community land without having an approved lease in place and by acting contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Act and Regulations.

 

Council could also undertake further public consultation in relation to Option 3B.? As Option 3B is more similar to the adopted Master Plan than the previous Option 1, and both have previously been advertised for public comment, it is not anticipated that any new issues would be identified.? The most likely scenario is that Council would be considering the same issues raised by the community over the past 5 years.? There is also a risk with further consultation in that the Trust, having received funding approval for the redevelopment of the caravan park, may proceed with a redevelopment of its own land and not in accordance with Option 3B.

 

 

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.

 

In July 2012 the new Trust Manager advised that they had a number of concerns with the adopted Master Plan and submitted three design proposals for Council?s consideration ? Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3.? The key differences between each of these options and the adopted Master Plan were:

 

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 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

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

 

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

 

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

 

A copy of the adopted Master Plan adopted on 17 February 2011 and the three revised proposals considered by Council on 25 October 2012 are attached and circularised for the information of Councillors.

 

At Council?s meeting on 25 October 2012 it was resolved:

 

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, 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.

 

4??????? That whilst option 1 is on exhibition, Council undertake an onsite inspection with the North Coast Holiday Parks representatives.

 

An onsite inspection was subsequently undertaken on 14 November 2012.

 

The proposed Option 1 was placed on public exhibition over November 2012.? In response to the public exhibition Council received 63 submissions.

 

There were a number of recurring themes in the submissions, the most common being:

 

?????? The section of the caravan park to the east of the existing office should revert to the day area as per the adopted master plan

 

?????? The road should be relocated through the day reserve as recommended in the master plan

 

?????? Loss of some of the ?Town Green? to the office and cabins, especially the narrow section along Short Street

 

?????? The existing access point to the day reserve should be separated from the access to the caravan park

 

?????? There should be improved access to the section of patrolled beach through the caravan park.

 

In response to the submissions, the North Coast Holiday Parks then submitted a further option, Option 3A, for consideration.? A copy of this option is attached and circularised.

 

At Council?s meeting on 12 December 2012 it was resolved:

 

1??????? That the Trust be asked to supply as a matter of urgency copies of the original adopted Master Plan, Option 1 and Option 3A for the purpose of exhibition that meet the following requirements:

 

a)?????? All diagrams are to be the same scale and with the same legend and colours.

 

b)?????? All extraneous lines and marks relating to some other plans are to be removed from the exhibited plans.

 

c)?????? Areas enclosed by the existing caravan park, the proposed lease area and the community land (village green) are to be clearly marked.

 

d)?????? All coloured areas are to be explained in the attached legend.

 

e)?????? The proposed use for all vehicular exits and entries to the caravan park are to be provided.

 

2??????? That the Adopted Master Plan, Option 1 and Option 3a be placed on public exhibition for the remainder of December 2012 and all of January 2013 and in the interim Council staff assess its parking and traffic implications in consultation with the Trust in an endeavour to put an agreed concept plan to Council?s meeting on 28 February 2013.

 

3??????? That Council note that the Scotts Head Reserve is now part of the North Coast Accommodation Trust and that the Scotts Reserve Trust has been dissolved.

 

The ?cleaned up? plans were supplied, but the plans were not placed on exhibition mainly because in the interim Council staff met with the North Coast Holiday Parks to discuss parking and traffic implications and agreement was reached on a further revision which more closely met the objectives of the adopted Master Plan, being to relocate the access to Adin Street.? Besides not being consistent with the adopted Master Plan proposal for the caravan park entrance to be in Adin Street, the proposed off-set access shown on Option 3A would have removed nearly all of the on-street parking in Short Street opposite the existing shops.

 

A copy of the March 2013 revision (option 3B) showing the relocation of the access to Adin Street is attached and circularised.

 

In order to achieve the relocation of the access to Adin Street, the North Coast Accommodation Trust (which includes the Scotts Head Reserve) has previously advised that they require permanent tenure of any entrance off Adin Street and would not accept a 21 year lease.? This requirement can be achieved via Section 45 of the Local Government Act which provides as follows:

45????? What dealings can a council have in community land?

(1)????? A council has no power to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of community land.

(2)????? A council may grant a lease or licence of community land, but only in accordance with this Division.

(3)????? A council may grant any other estate in community land to the extent permitted by this Division or under the provisions of another Act.

Note. The word estate has a wide meaning. See the Interpretation Act 1987, section 21 (1).

(4)????? This section does not prevent a council from selling, exchanging or otherwise disposing of community land for the purpose of enabling that land to become, or be added to, a Crown reserve or to become, or be added to, land that is reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

 

In accordance with Section 45(4) above it is proposed to transfer the community land shown edged in yellow to become part of the Crown reserve.? The land will contain the access road as well as the Manager?s residence and office which is also required for the permanent operation of the caravan park.

 

Of all of the revised concept plans submitted by the new Trust Manager, North Coast Holiday Parks, the March 2013 (option 3B) revision is the closest to the adopted Master Plan.? In terms of changes to the footprint of the caravan park, the major differences are the addition of 7 sites on the Adin Street Reserve, the retention of 4 cabin sites on the ocean side of the main drain beside the proposed village green and the retention of 3 cabin sites in the north east corner.

 

Further, whilst the agreement upon which the Master Plan was based sought for Council to be responsible for the maintenance of the Reserve, the revised approach by the new Trust Manager is that the Trust continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the Reserve.? This removes substantial risk from Council.

 

In addition with the March 2013 revision (as with the previous concept plans) the Trust has undertaken to provide the following:

 

?????? $40,000 towards the rehabilitation of the Town Green area after the removal or relocation of the current holiday vans

?????? The services of its recreational planning and design staff member to work with Council staff in developing a concept plan for the future of the Reserve

?????? $200,000 towards rectification of stormwater issues

?????? Day to day grounds maintenance of the proposed Town Green and balance of the Adin Street reserve (excluding events)

?????? Construction of public car spaces and footpaths adjacent to the tennis club

?????? Construction of a new access and car parking in the day reserve

 

In July 2012 the Trust offered $20,000 per annum rental for Option 1 capped at the CPI for the full term of the lease (21 years).? The Trust indicated that this was in recognition of the contributions listed above.

 

Should Council consider options 2 or 3 acceptable, the Trust would be willing to increase the lease fee to $31,500 for option 2 and $26,300 for option 3.

 

There has been no negotiation or offer on the March 2013 version.? Given the yield is similar to Option 1 it is proposed that Council agree to the $20,000 per annum rental, CPI indexed for the full term of the lease (21 years) subject to the Trust paying all of the expenses associated with the subdivision to create the Adin Street access.

 

The alternative for Council is not to lease the Adin Street land and either accept responsibility for the holiday vans located on Council land or attempt to negotiate a new lease of the existing holiday van area with the North Coast Holiday Parks.? In submitting the March 2013 revision, the Trust Manager has advised the General Manager as follows:

 

?As previously discussed with yourself and the Mayor, the leasing of the land at the oval for holiday vans is not a commercial decision of the Trust.? The Trust has agreed to this proposal to enable holiday van owners, which have been located on Council land for many years, the opportunity to relocate.? Should the community and Council prefer that the land is not used for this purpose; the Trust will not oppose this view.

 

However, as this will leave a substantially greater amount of Council land (Adin Street Reserve) to be maintained, the offer of the Trust to perform this function will lapse.

 

The objective of the Council to have the entry to the park relocated to this area is not compromised if the lease does not continue.? The Trust will still agree to the entrance, office and residence continuing as planned by Council resolving to add that portion of land to the Crown Reserve under Section 45(4) of the Local Government Act.? By doing this, the preference of the entrance being relocated is achieved and the community land is increased.?

 

In relation to these alternative options, it has been previously recommended and resolved (May 2010) that Council not separately manage the ?semi-permanent? holiday vans located on Council?s land as it is not financially viable.? Separate management would require Council to undertake capital works on its site upgrading roads and constructing an amenities building as well as operational and maintenance costs in the employment of a part time caretaker, cleaning, mowing, consumables etc.? At the time, Council?s Director Engineering Services estimated the capital costs at $600,000 and the operational costs at $150,000 per annum.? At the time the income from the holiday vans was indicated as $116,000 per annum.

 

The remaining alternatives are either to seek to enter a new lease of the existing ?semi-permanent? holiday vans with North Coast Holiday Parks (ie the status quo) or not continue to lease the land and provide the holiday van owners (approximately 40) with notice to vacate the site.? The latter will result in some economic loss, particularly to Scotts Head, as the capacity of the caravan park will reduce by approximately 40 sites.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the North Coast Holiday Parks and Council?s Manager Technical Services.

 

Given that the revised Option 3B is more similar to the adopted Master Plan than the previous Option 1 and that both have previously been advertised for public comment, it is not proposed that there be further public consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed expenditure on stormwater management should provide some environmental improvement.

 


Social

 

There has been considerable community interest in the preparation of the Master Plan and the more recent proposals by the new Trust manager.? It has been evident throughout the process that there will never be an outcome which satisfies all members of the community.? The revised Option 3B is the option which most closely reflects the adopted Master Plan and which incorporates its key principles, being the relocation of the caravan park access to Adin Street; increasing the area available in the day reserve for use by local residents and tourists alike; and by creating a usable village green.

 

Economic

 

The proposed investment in the redevelopment of the caravan park and day use area will have a positive economic impact on Scotts Head.

 

Risk

 

It is proposed that the details associated with the implementation of the revised Option 3B be subject to a Deed of Agreement to ensure there is clarity as to the required actions and responsibilities of each of the parties.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The Trust proposes to spend $200,000 on the rectification of stormwater issues.? This would otherwise be funding that Council may incur.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There will be a reduction in mowing and maintenance requirements as the Trust will accept responsibility for the mowing and maintenance of the balance of the Adin Street reserve as well as the Town Green.? This is in addition to their existing responsibilities in maintaining the day reserve area.

 

Attachments:

1View

30970/2012 - Adopted Scotts Head Master Plan

0 Pages

2View

26600/2012 - Option 1 - Scotts Head Holiday Park concept plan

0 Pages

3View

26603/2012 - Option 2 - Scotts Head Holiday Park concept plan

0 Pages

4View

26604/2012 - Option 3 - Scotts Head Holiday Park extended lease area option

0 Pages

5View

32419/2012 - Scotts Head Holiday Park concept plan option 3A

0 Pages

6View

7532/2013 - Revised master plan - March 2013

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Revised Option for the Scotts Head Caravan Park and Reserve

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF1077??????????? 100413???????? Museum Advisor - Final Report

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the Museum Advisor?s Report and formally express its thanks to Ms Joan Kelly for her work over the past 4 years in guiding and mentoring our local museums.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The report is for information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

It will be recalled that 2012 was the fourth and final year of the Museum Advisor program.

 

A copy of the Museum Advisor?s Report is in the confidential business paper.

 

For the fourth year of the program the Museum Advisor concentrated on working through the final stages of strategic plans developed for each of the museums.

 

The program has provided each of the Valley?s four museums with new skill areas in collection management, such as developing and maintaining catalogues, storage and planning skills.? All of the museum groups have gained a good understanding of significance assessment, niche collecting (of their own local themes) and how to develop exhibitions from their collections.

 

Council?s Museum Advisor, Ms Joan Kelly expresses her appreciation to Council and Museums and Galleries NSW for providing her with the opportunity to work within the Museum Advisor programme with the Valley?s four local museums.

 

The program has been valuable in offering our local museums an insight into professional museum management and the grant opportunities which are available through Museums and Galleries and others.? Whilst Ms Kelly believes that a continuation of the program would be of benefit to new volunteers and new Committees, the intention with Council?s participation was to provide a reasonable period within which to allow the Committees of Management to develop and implement their strategic plans.? It was not intended that it permanently support the work of the volunteers.

 

Notwithstanding in say five years time it may be worth renewing the program so as to capture new Committees of Management and new volunteers.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The four local museums are a repository for much of the history of the Nambucca Valley, particularly post European settlement.? Accordingly they have significant cultural value.

 

Economic

 

The local museums all contribute to the Valley being a desirable tourist destination.

 

Risk

 

There are no significant risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary implications.

 

For the information of Council, the Museum Advisor Program was based on a payment to Council of $7,000 (excluding GST) being a contribution of 50% of the Museum Advisor?s fee for 12 months.? Beside the $7,000, Museums and Galleries NSW also provided $3,000 towards the Advisor?s travel costs and coordinated and funded costs for two Museum Advisor network meetings.? The net cost to Council has been $7,000 per annum for the 4 years it has run.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no staffing or resourcing implications.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.1??? DA2010/004????? 100413???????? DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 

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

 

Summary:

 

In 2010 a subdivision was approved for a 13 (thirteen) Lot Residential subdivision which will form part of the Ocean Waves Estate in Valla Beach. Consent DA2010/004 was issued on 3 May 2010 and part of condition 4 of this consent requires the provision of a footpath and cycleway to link Seaforth Drive to Ocean View Drive.? The requirement was placed on the consent by Council?s town planning staff at the time and was in direct response to the relocation of the public open space to the far end of the residential estate, so that it could be more efficiently accessed by all residents of the estate.

 

A modification application has now been lodged under Section 96 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act to remove this requirement for the construction of a foot/cycle path.? Council?s town planning and engineering staff do not support the request and are of the view the linkage is fundamental to building a sustainable community for the Ocean Waves Estate and this matter is being reported to council accordingly.

 

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:

 

That Council refuse the application to Modify Consent DA2010/004, in accordance with the following draft refusal notice:

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered the proposal? is inconsistent with the intention of the residential zoning to provide new residential development and adequate infrastructure to support it as it proposes to remove infrastructure fundamental to sustainable development.

 

Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Part B of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 and in particular clause B2.4.2 ?Pedestrian and Cycle Networks? which requires pedestrian and cycle ways to public reserves to be provided at the cost of the applicant.

 

Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistence with the intentions and objectives of Policy B2.4.1 of the NDCP to provide interconnected urban environments, efficient and safe access to open spaces areas and reduce vehicle dependency.

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 it is considered there is high potential for severe negative impact of allowing the proposal to remove this requirements, due to the resultant lack of connectively for a growing community, which is fundamental to provide access to the near by public recreation areas and could result in a unappealing and subsequently non-sustainable residential subdivision.

 

Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 it is considered highly likely the removal of this linkage will discourage physical activity and alternatives to car use, which will subsequently increase the traffic entering and exists the development via Swordfish Drive and negatively impact on properties there.

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c), it is considered that the site is not considered suitable for any alternate use, such as a further residential allotment, and hence would become vacant, unmaintained surplus land of no community value should the requirement not be enforced.

 

 

o ?? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered the submissions received raised relevant concerns in their objections and they reflect the community as a whole rejection of the proposed Modification to remove the footpath and cycleway.

 

o? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered that the proposal is not in the public interest as the views of the community have been expressed through their submissions, the 147 signature petition and through their voice in the Valla Beach Community Organisation.

 

Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is not considered in the public interest to remove a vital linkage from a new residential area to public recreation areas and subsequently discourage physical activities, enjoyment of these areas and social interaction within the community.

 

o? Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979, it is considered the proposal to remove this linkage is against the public interest as a linkage to provide a safe route to recreation areas is in the public interest.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????? Option 2

 

Option 2 is that Council consent to the modification in accordance with the draft conditions of consent at the end of this report.

 

?????? Option 3

 

Option 3 if the Council

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report relates to a Modification received under Section 96 of the EP & A Act to remove part of condition 4 of Consent DA2010/004. The requirement proposed to be deleted relates to the construction of a footpath and cycle way link to be provided on Ocean Waves Estate in Valla Beach. Draft condition 4 shows the condition will be modified by deleting this requirement, should Council resolve to approve it, in the draft conditions at the end of this report.

 

 

Figure 1: Showing the location of foot/cycle path proposed to be removed in context with surrounding area

 

 

In 2010 an application was lodged for a 13 (thirteen) residential subdivision to extend the Ocean Waves Estate in Valla Beach to Stage 5.? The 13 Lot subdivision was based largely on a conceptual draft Masterplan for these stages of the Ocean Waves Estate.

 

However, one difference in-between the subdivision layout proposed by the development application DA2010/004 and the original Masterplan, was the location of the land to be reserved as public open space and dedicated as public reserve. The original location was central to the overall residential estate of Ocean Waves (once completed). The proposed new location was at the very end of the Ocean Waves Estate at the end of Ocean View Drive, before Valla Beach Resort (Tourist Park and Manufactured Homes Estate) and is now known as Lot 35.

 

This proposed relocation for the public open space was questioned during the assessment process of the original development application due to it being at the far end of the Ocean Waves Estate and the town planner indicated that good town planning practise and urban design, supports a more central location. Indeed the previous location of the public open space on the masterplan was near to the centre of the estate.

 

The applicant argued the Lot identified in the masterplan was too steep and as such not suitable for public open space. The new location for the public open space would only be accessed by Ocean View Drive and any future residents of Seaforth Drive, or the further expanding residential subdivision of Ocean Waves Estate, would have to also use Ocean View drive via Swordfish Drive to access it. Subsequently, as a compromise, the town planner consented to the relocation of the public open space but conditioned the consent that a footpath and cycleway be constructed by the developer to link Seaforth Drive and the rest of the development to the public open space, thus avoiding the need for these residents to access the nearby recreation areas via Swordfish Drive and Seaforth Drive.

 

Future stages of Ocean Waves Estate will see the extension of Swordfish Drive and further residential allotments created west of it, which means there will already be an increase in traffic at this location.

 

 

Figure 2: Shows the relocation of the public open space as part of original Development Application 2010/004

 

 

In November 2012 the applicant submitted an application for a Construction Certificate and associated Engineering drawings. These drawings did not include the footpath and cycle-way required by condition 4 of Consent DA2010/004 and Council staff bought this to the applicant?s attention. The applicant advised that he did not wish to construct the linkage. Council staff advised the applicant, as per Section 96 of the EP&A Act, that a formal Modification application must be submitted should they propose to amend or remove any conditions of Consent and that such a proposal would unlikely be supported by council staff.

 

The applicant proceeded with submitting the formal S96 Modification application which is what is being reported to Council for discussion and determination. As Council staff do not support the proposal, it is being reported to Council with a recommendation for refusal accordingly. The applicant was formally informed in writing of this report and that it would carry a recommendation of refusal on 5 March 2013 and was also given the option to withdraw the Modification application. No response, verbal or written, has been received.

 

The applicants supporting information has been attached at Attachment 1 and details an argument that there had been no requirement for a footpath/cycleway at this location on any of the previous Consents, that the location is not suitable due to it being on a brow of a hill, that there are no other cycle ways at Valla Beach and that VPR Development constructed a footpath link from Swordfish Drive to Valla Beach Road.

 

The linkage is considered fundamental to increase the already limited permeability within this new residential area which is consistent with many structure plans and strategies, including the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy and compliments the Government?s ongoing ?Healthy Communities? initiatives.

 

Other strategic planning documents and regional guidelines support linkages such as this, for example, NSW Planning Guidelines for Walking and Cycling encourage the construction of cycleway/footpaths as they are considered to be in the public interest, and enable positive social, physical and environmental impact on communities

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????? Internal

 

Manager of Technical Services (MTS)

 

Councils MTS advises that he does not concur with the developers view that the cycleway would not bring any advantage to local residents, and indeed has the opposite view that it would be a great advantage for local residents as the only way out of the entire subdivision at present is on the northern end and the cycleway would provide a link to the beaches and Valla Beach reserve.

 

MTS further advises that additional road linkages were supposed to be provided onto Ocean View drive (detailed on the original concept master plan) but were detailed due to steep grades and these roads were then instead sold as development Lots. Thus the developer has already received additional Lots, creating additional profit, and saved money on these road constructions.

 

MTS concludes that the request to modify the Consent, by deleting the requirement for a footpath and cycleway, be refused.

 

Council?s Healthy Communities Project Officer (HCO)

 

HCO was consulted as part of the Assessment process as the proposal is considered contrary to the ethos of Healthy Communities.

 

HCO does not support the proposal and advises There are a number of very good reasons why the cycleway should be constructed as part of DA 2010/004.? A cycleway/footpath at Valla Beach is significant to the community because it offers a practical route, a pleasant outdoor public space, links the whole neighbourhood to the beach and recreational facilities, and enables healthy and active living.

 

HCO also raises the following comments in relation to the proposal:

?????? The proposal will connect residents to the beach and park;

?????? The path will create a safe and accessible staff for everyone, regardless of ages, ability etc

?????? Important to Increase opportunity for physical activity;

?????? Encourage social interaction;

?????? Add attractiveness to the area.

 

Manager of Applications and Compliance (MAC)

 

Council?s MAC completed the preliminary assessment and determined who would be notified of the modification application on the basis that these are the properties near the footpath/ cycleway link.

 

?????? External

 

New South Wales Rural Fire Services (NSW RFS)

 

The NSW RFS have issued a Bushfire Safety Authority Certificate for the proposal, as per the requirements of section 100B of the Rural Fires Act.

 

 

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.

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii) any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (NDCP)

 

The application relates to the removal of a condition on a previously approved residential subdivision and so Part B of the NDCP is applicable and certain parts of Part A are applicable.

 

?????? Notification Part A

 

The application was notified to owners of properties in close proximity to the location of the footpath and cycleway link, as determined by council?s Manager of Applications and Compliance and was also Advertised, in accordance with Council?s Advertising paper, to inform interested parties in the wider surrounding area.

 

4 (four) individual submissions have been received, as well as a letter from the Valla Beach Community Association, which included their unanimous decision to object to the proposal and also a petition with 147 signatures on it.

 

?????? Environmental Context Part A

 

Bushfire

 

There is currently one formal way out of the Oceans Waves Estate from Seaforth Drive which is suitable for vehicular traffic i.e. Swordfish Drive. There is an unofficial and unformed track, suitable only for pedestrian traffic only at the moment, which is the location subject to this proposal as the proposed location required previously by condition to provide a formal linkage.

 

Although council?s town planning staff have concerns of the practicability and safety of one entry/exit point for a residential development such as this should evacuation be required, NSW RFS have not objected to the proposal.

 

?????? Subdivision Part B

 

Policy B2.4 of the NDCP advises that pedestrian and cycle ways shall be provided to connect roads and to potential public routes, public reserves, education facilities and community facilities. The policy goes on to require such linkages to be provided by applicant?s expense and as part of any development consent. The town planner responsible for the original consent was following the guidance in Clause B2.4.2 when applying the condition to provide the foot/cycle path, which the applicant now seeks to remove.

 

Even though the modification is a clear contradiction to this DCP policy, the developer has provided no justification to vary this requirements of NDCP

 

The objectives of B2.4 are to provide highly interconnected urban environments that encourage pedestrian and cycle usage, to provide efficient and safe routes to public areas and reduce the dependency of vehicle use. It is considered the deletion of this requirement for a footpath at this location is contrary to all the objectives of clause B2.4.

 

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

 

Context and Setting

 

The site relates to an urban release area, now known as Ocean Waves Estate, which is currently growing and being developed by releasing multiple residential allotments in stages.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

 

The requirement for this linkage was imposed previously be town planning staff as a condition of Consent and was discussed thoroughly in the officer?s report and considered it to be necessary to provide a vital link at this location. The primary reason behind the town planner?s decision at the time was the proposed location for the public open space which was to be provided by the developer and to ensure the developer fullfill?s their responsibility to ensure this is accessible by residents. However, since this original decision was made, it has become apparent by the fact an informal bush track which has been established, that this location requires a linkage for multiple more reasons than just this. It therefore remains the view of council?s town planning staff that this link is vital to provide existing and future residents of Ocean Waves estate with a route to the nearby public reserve and also the beaches and other recreational areas.

 

Natural Hazards

 

Although NSW RFS have not objected to the proposed, it is considered common sense that having alternate routes in and out of a development could be important should any type of natural disaster occur (not exclusively but including Bush Fire) and where evacuation may ne necessary.

 

Cumulative Impacts

 

Previously linkages from Ocean View Drive have been removed and the area to be public open space

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the footpath/cycleway development and already provides an existing informal access track utilised by residents to access the nearby recreation areas. It is considered that the site is not suitable for alternate uses and as such the construction of the formal footpath and cycleway should be enforced.

 

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

 

The application was notified and 4 (four) independent submissions were received, along with a petition with 137 (one hundred and thirty seven) signatures and also a letter from the Valla Beach Community Association confirming their unanimous objection to the proposal One submission was also received in support of the proposal. The points raised in all for submissions received that object to the proposal are summarised bellow and also are attached at Attachment 2 of this report. The Submission received in support? is at Attachment 3 and the petition, with covering letter, at Attachment 4.

 

Submissions received objecting to the proposal (4):

 

Kevin and Judy Organ:

?????? the pathway/bikeway will keep Valla Beach residents connected;

?????? contributing to a healthy community atmosphere benefits council and the developer by encouraging people to move to the area;

?????? lack of access in-between the areas of the community limits diversity and general community;

?????? The developer?s argument that this location is to steep in not justified;

?????? The proposal would be against the health and well being of residents;

?????? The footpath is the minimal requirements for this location.

 

????????? Eric Whittaker:

?????? Did not received adjoining owner notification of the modification;

?????? Already increased to 15 Lots from the 13 as originally approved;

?????? Would lead to difficulty for future Lot owners to design a suitable dwelling;

?????? The rough track access is already utilised by existing residents to access Deep Creek, Valla Reserve and the beach;

?????? If this access is not formalised, the only link from Seaforth to Swordfish Drive is to the north of the subdivision.

 

Rosie and Darren Squibb:

?????? The proposed cycleway is important to all who currently live within Ocean Waves and future residents of the proposed Stage 5;

?????? The current talk is already used by existing residents;

?????? The path which will allow residents to cycle or walk promotes a healthier lifestyle, opposed to forced car use;

?????? The gradient of the bush track is more acceptable than the steep gradient of Swordfish Drive;

?????? The track?s location makes the beach and estuary easily accessible for residents including children;

?????? It would provide another exit from the estate apart from Swordfish Drive with respect to potential Bushfire Hazards and only having one way out of the estate.

 

Anne and Graeme Baker:

?????? The cycleway is essential for safety and lifestyle;

?????? Part of the sales pitch by Estate Agent acting for the developer included this cycleway being constructed;

?????? Needed for residents to access beach, creek, park, resort and other facilities within Valla Beach;

?????? Without this, Ocean Waves Estate is ringed by Nature Reserve and has only one entrance/exit down Swordfish Drive, which would be the only way out if there was afire;

?????? More blocks are on the market, placing even more traffic burden on the only road (Swordfish Drive);

?????? Swordfish Drive is also steep for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Submission received in support of the proposal (1):

 

Anthony Fuge, Dudley Development Group:

?????? The proposed bike and skateboard track will run the entire length of his property?s southern boundary;

?????? The path would ruin the quiet enjoyment of any future occupiers of any future residence;

?????? Given the steepness of the land would result in accident or injury;

?????? Was never informed of this requirement during purchase of the land.

 

Petition ? 147 Signatures and Covering Letter

 

Covering letter covers

?????? The Valla Beach Community Association gave unanimous support for the cycleway to go ahead.

?????? There are safety concerns, particularly bushfire hazard, with the only exit from Seaforth Drive being Swordfish Drive.;

?????? Many residents purchased their properties? with the expectation of some form of pathway at this location;

?????? Community Infrastructure should encourage cycling and walking for health and community benefits;

?????? There are numerous references to promotion of cycleway in Nambucca Shire and Mid North Coast Region strategic planning documents including the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy, the Nambucca Shire Structure Plan and Nambucca Shire Council Cycleway Plan.

 

 

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

 

A later submission was also received raising a further objection to the proposal and is at Attachment 5. Although not received in accordance with the Act, is considered to reiterate previous submissions and strengthen the community?s objection to the proposal to remove the footpath. Given the high number of signatures on the petition from residents in the surrounding community, it is not considered granting the proposed modification would be in the local community or public interest.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed location of the footpath and cycleway is already an informal bush track adjacent to the Valla Beach Tourist Park boundary, so will not require clearing of vegetation.

 

The linkage will provide a connection to the nearby recreation areas and facilitate enjoyment of our existing beautiful natural environment.

 

Social

 

There are many social benefits to providing good connectivity though new residential subdivision, including encouragement of physical activity, facilitating safe route for families and older residents to enjoy the nearby recreation areas and socialise interaction within the community as a whole.

 

Economic

 

The provision of attractive and viable connection ways brings economic benefits to a locality by making it more attractive, which is particularly important to an area such as Valla Beach which is a popular tourist and visitor destination.

 

Risk

 

The risk associated with refusing the Modification is that the applicant could utilise their right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Refusal of the application could potentially cost the Council money if the applicant appeals the decision and Council need to make representation to uphold the decision.

 

Approval of the Modification could potentially cost the Council money if, in the future, it becomes apparent that a connection is needed at, or near to, this location, at which time there would be no opportunity to require the developer a provide a link in the form of footpath and/or cycle-way, and Council would have to bare the cost to provide one. The amount of submissions and signatures on the petition objecting to the proposal to remove the foot/cycle path requirement is evidence there is already a community demand for such a linkage.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

None identified.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The risk associated with not requiring the developer to provide this footpath and cycleway could result in Council having to provide it at a later stage, and this could potentially take funds and/or resources away from other projects and services.

 

 

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

1??????? Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents, endorsed with Council stamp dated April 2010 and authorised signature, set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Subdivision Plan

 

Amos and McDonald Surveyors?

13/05/09

 

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.

 

 

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

 

2??????? Sediment and erosion measures required

 

The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate the measures to be employed to control erosion and loss of sediment from the site. Control over discharge of stormwater and containment of run-off and pollutants leaving the site/premises must be undertaken through the installation of erosion control devices such as catch drains, energy dissipaters, level spreaders and sediment control devices such as hay bale barriers, filter fences, filter dams, and sedimentation basins. The sediment and erosion control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Housing Manual, ?Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction?.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's current Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

3??????? Long Service Levy to be paid

 

A Long Service Levy must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation. This amount payable is currently based on 0.35% of the cost of the work. This is a State Government Levy and is subject to change. These payments may be made at Council?s Administration Office. Cheques are to be made payable Council.

 

4??????? Engineering Construction Plans

 

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

 

Required work

Specification of work

Kerb & Gutter, Road Shoulder Construction

Kerb and gutter, road shoulder and associated drainage construction, footpath formation and turfing including any necessary relocation of services across the frontage of the subdivision.

Full Width Road Construction

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

Footpath/Cycleway?

A 2.5 metre wide reinforced concrete pathway linking Seaforth Drive to Ocean View Drive in the south eastern corner of the site, including installation of gates or bollards at each end to restrict vehicle entry.

Service Conduits

Service conduits to each of the proposed new allotments laid in strict accordance with the service authorities? requirements.

Street Lighting

Street lighting being provided to the requirements of Country Energy.

Stripping and Stockpiling

Stripping and stockpiling of existing topsoil on site, prior to commencement of earthworks, and the subsequent re-spreading of this material together with a sufficient quantity of imported topsoil so as to provide a minimum thickness of 80mm over the allotments and footpaths and public reserves, upon completion of the development works.

Inter-allotment Drainage

Inter-allotment drainage to an approved public drainage system for each of the proposed new allotments where it is not possible to provide a gravity connection of future roof water to the kerb and gutter.

Stormwater Outlets

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

Stormwater Quality

Stormwater quality must be suitable for discharge in accordance with Department of Land and Water Conservation NSW (1998) The Constructed Wetlands Manual and NSW Department of Housing Manual (1989), Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction.

Water

 

Reticulated water supply to serve the development including installation of water mains and services to all lots.

 

Sewer

Sewer mains to serve the development including sewer main extension to the site, mains, sidelines and junctions to all lots.

 

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF SUBDIVISION WORKS

 

5??????? Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

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.

 

6??????? Water and Sewerage Section 68 approval required

 

An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water supply work and sewerage work must be obtained. Sewerage and water mains are to be extended to service all residential allotments in the subdivision.

 

7??????? Erosion & sediment measures

 

Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with the Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol. 1, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom. Particular attention is to be given to the provision of the following sediment and erosion control measures:

 

a??????? Temporary driveway from the edge of road to the building site

b??????? Temporary downpipes immediately that the roof has been erected

c??????? Silt fence or sediment barrier

 

Additionally the enclosed sign, to promote the awareness of the importance of maintenance of sediment and erosion controls, is to be clearly displayed on the most prominent sediment fence or erosion control device for the duration of the project.

 

Note: Council may impose on-the-spot fines of up to $600 for non-compliance with this condition.

 

8??? Toilet facilities

 

Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer.

 

9??? Site construction sign required

 

A sign or signs must be erected before the commencement of the work in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:

 

a??????? showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b??????? showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c???????????????? stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in excess of one (1) m2.

 

10????? Written Notification

 

Written notification of intention to commence works must be forwarded to the Council seven (7) days prior to work commencing. Notification is to include contact details of the supervising engineer and site contractor.

 

11????? Public Liability Insurance

 

The developer and/or contractor must produce evidence to the Principal Certifying Authority of public liability insurance cover for a minimum of $10 million. Council is to be nominated as an interested party on the policy. The public liability insurance cover is to be maintained for the duration of the period of the works and during any maintenance period.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

12????? No works on environmentally sensitive land

 

No works are to take place on that part of the land within Zone No 7(a) Environmental Protection (Wetlands). In particular no trees are to be damaged, removed or stockpiled in the area, and no buildings or structures are to be erected.

 

13????? Construction times

 

Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise, when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:

 

a??????? Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

b??????? Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

No construction work is to take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

 

14????? Construction dust suppression

 

All necessary works are to be undertaken to control dust pollution from the site.

 

These works must include, but not are limited to:

 

a??????? restricting topsoil removal;

b??????? regularly and lightly watering dust prone areas (note: prevent excess watering as it can cause damage and erosion;

c??????? alter or cease construction work during periods of high wind;

 

15?? Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

All builders rubbish is to be contained on the site in a ?Builders Skips? or an enclosure. Building materials are to be delivered directly onto the property. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other items.

 

16?? Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

Sediment and erosion control measures must be maintained at all times until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation cover or hard surface.

 

17?? Burning of felled trees prohibited

 

The burning of trees and associated vegetation felled during clearing operations is not permitted. Where possible, vegetation is to be mulched and reused on the site.

 

18????? Public safety requirements

 

All care is to be taken to ensure the safety of the public in general, road users, pedestrians and adjoining property. Council is not held responsible for any negligence caused by the undertaking of the works.

 

19????? Responsibilities under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

 

All earthmoving contractors and operators must be instructed that, in the event of any bone, or stone artefacts, or discrete distributions of shell, being unearthed during earthmoving, work must cease immediately in the affected area, and the Local Aboriginal Land Council and officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, informed of the discovery. Work must not recommence until the material has been inspected by those officials and permission has been given to proceed. Those failing to report a discovery and those responsible for the damage or destruction occasioned by unauthorised removal or alteration to a site or to archaeological material may be prosecuted under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, as amended.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

20????? Certificate of Compliance (Water & Sewer)

 

Contributions set out in the following table are to be paid to Council. The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment. Payments will only be accepted by cash or bank cheque.

 

The Certificate of Compliance under Section 306 of the Water Management Act 2000, identifying payment of the contributions, is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Public service

No of Equivalent Tenements

Contribution Rate (Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Water

13 additional

$4,398

$57,174

30 June 2010

Sewer

13 additional

$4,077

$53,001

30 June 2010

TOTAL

 

 

$110,175

 

 

21????? Contribution to be paid towards provision or improvement of amenities or services

 

Contributions set out in the following Schedule are to be paid to Council. The following contributions are current at the date of this consent. The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with the relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment. The contribution rates for specific dates are available from Council offices during office hours. Payments will only be accepted by cash or bank cheque.

 

Schedule of Contributions pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Public amenity or service

Unit type

No of Units

Contribution Rate (Amount per Unit)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Open Space and Community Facilities

Lot

13 additional

$1,724.45

$22,418

30 June 2010

Surf Lifesaving

Lot

13 additional

$96

$1,248

30 June 2010

Valla Beach Road Overpass

Lot

13 additional

$488

$6,344

TOTAL $30,010

30 June 2010

Administration Charge

 

 

6% of total

$1,800

30 June 2010

TOTAL

 

 

 

$31,811

 

 

22????? Plan of Subdivision

 

An application for a Subdivision Certificate must be made on the approved form. The Subdivision Certificate fees, in accordance with Council's adopted schedule of fees and charges, must accompany such application. Seven (7) copies of the plan of subdivision are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. The location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements including fences and internal access driveways/roads must be indicated on 1 of the copies.

 

23????? Plan of Subdivision and Section 88B Instrument requirements

 

A Section 88B Instrument and 1 copy are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. The final plan of subdivision and accompanying Section 88B Instrument are to provide for the items listed in the following table:

 

Item for inclusion in Plan of Subdivision and/or Section 88B Instrument

Details of Item

Drainage Easements

The creation of easements for drainage of water over all drainage pipelines and structures located within the proposed allotments in accordance with Council?s policy.

Sewer Easements

The creation of easements for drainage of sewage over all sewage pipelines and structures located within the proposed allotments in accordance with Council?s policy.

Dedicate land as Public Reserve

Dedication at no cost to Council part of Lot 95 DP 1099538 comprising land connecting Seaforth Drive and Ocean View Drive located in the south eastern corner of the subdivision site.

 

 

24????? Electricity Supply Certificate

 

Written evidence from an electricity supply authority is to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate stating that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of underground electricity supply throughout the subdivision.

 

25????? Telephone Supply Certificate

 

Written evidence from Telstra is to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate stating that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of underground telephone supply throughout the subdivision.

 

26????? Completion of All Works

 

All roads, drainage and civil works, required by this development consent and associated Construction Certificate, are to be completed.

 

27????? Works-As-Executed Plans

 

Works-as-executed plans, certified by a suitably qualified engineer or a registered surveyor, are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. Where the design is carried out utilising computer aided design CAD, all cad computer files are required to be provided on CD (Compact Disc) with the final drawings. The CAD files must include all lot and road boundaries, lot numbers and easements. The data is to be supplied in accordance with the requirements of Council?s GIS Officer.

In the case where development involves filling of flood prone land, an additional copy of the works-as-executed plan relating to earthworks and final plan of subdivision must be submitted detailing the 1% flooding contour.

 

28????? Certificates for Engineering Works

 

The submission of all test certificates, owners manuals, warranties and operating instructions for civil works, mechanical and/or electrical plant, together with a certificate from a suitably qualified engineer certifying that all works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and Council?s Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

 

29????? Certificate for Pipes, Access Driveways, etc. within Easements

 

A certificate from a registered surveyor is to be submitted to Council certifying that all pipelines, structures, access driveways and/or services are located wholly within the relevant easements.

 

30????? Maintenance Bond

 

A maintenance bond of 10% of the value of the works constructed is to be lodged with Council. A copy of the contract construction cost of the subdivision works is to be submitted with the bond. The maintenance period is 12 months and will commence from the date of issue of the final Compliance Certificate. The security may be provided, at the applicant's choice, by way of cash bond or a satisfactory bank guarantee. An application in writing for the release of the bond must be made at the satisfactory completion of the maintenance period.

31????? Record of Infrastructure

 

A record of infrastructure coming into Council ownership, upon registration of the final plan of subdivision, is to be submitted to Council.

 

32????? NSW Rural Fire Service Conditions

 

The following bushfire mitigation requirements are to be incorporated into the completed development:

 

a????? At the issue of the subdivision certificate and in perpetuity proposed Lots 151 ? 163 inclusive shall be managed as an inner protection area as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ?Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006? and the NSW Rural Fire Service?s document ?Standards for Asset Protection Zones?.

 

b????? The residue lot to the west of proposed Lot 151 ? 163 inclusive, to a distance of 52 metres shall be managed as an inner protection area as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ?Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006? and the NSW Rural Fire Service?s document ?Standards for Asset Protection Zones?.

 

c????? Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of? ?Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006?.

 

d????? Access for fire fighting vehicles should be supplied to the rear of proposed lots 151 to 163 until such time as the remainder of the stage is developed.

 

 

ADVISORY CONDITION

 

33????? Earthworks

 

Separate development consent will be required to modify the natural contour levels through cutting, filling or benching of individual or multiple allotment sites, unless the works are exempt under Council?s Development Control Plan No.10 or State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

Attachments:

1View

6744/2013 - SEE for Modification Foot/cycle path in Word

0 Pages

2View

6792/2013 - All 4 objections

0 Pages

3View

6794/2013 - Support submission for TRIM

0 Pages

4View

6802/2013 - Petition in Word

0 Pages

5View

7657/2013 - Late Objection DA2010/04/01

0 Pages

6View

5665/2013 - Letter advising Modification going to Council with recommendation for refusal

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 

Owners of 60 Seaforth Dr,

?Valla Beach.Ph,M- 0414180746.

e-mail kojo211@gmail.com

05/02/2013

Nambucca Shire Council.

 

Dear Sir/madam,

??????????????????????????????????? In regards to Section 96 application to modify development consent: 2010/4 by VPR Developments Pty Ltd lot: 95 DP: 1099538, Seaforth Drive Valla Beach. Firstly I would like to make this written representation objecting to this proposal on the following grounds contained in this submission.

?I would like to start off by thanking VPR developments, for its commitment towards providing infrastructure around its developments. This is something that everywhere you go is a requirement of developers and councils to help contribute towards a healthy community atmosphere and environment. This is not only a great benefit for the developer and council by encouraging people to move to the area, which would have a sustainable affect on the community as a whole. I would hope this would be a commitment the Nambucca Shire Council and VPR Developments would not take lightly. So when I received this amendment I was quite shocked that a simple pathway/ bikeway that can help keep Valla beach residents connected was under threat. As a small diverse community having access restricted between the different groups and limit general diversity among the community would be a detriment to the local community at large. In the developers reasons for this amendment the justification he makes like ?cycleway was never any part any DA ?, well in my option maybe it should be? The bikeway/ pathway to my understanding was part of DA 2003/901 and was to be constructed prior to release of the 13 lots, which is not an unreasonable request for the Developer to commit towards the betterment of the environment around his developments. In regards to his comment ?of the considerable distance away from stage 5 ? I?m not sure what relevance this has got to do with anything, considering there is still more land to be developed in future. Also with regards to the comment about ? hazardous exit and entry points? at either end, especially at Ocean View Dr. I fail to see how this is the case especially if done properly and for someone to be doing any great speed uphill at this point I don?t think so. At Seaforth Dr end the path has a considerable distance where it levels out off the road to slow down. In regards to this is the?only? cycleway at Valla beach, maybe there should be more which people could take advantage of. I see this amendment as an attack on the health and well being, of the residence of the Valla Beach. To be able to move around their community in a happy healthy way, with a communal spirit to mix and have easy access around the area, one would think this to be advantageous for all. I would be very disappointed with the Council and VPR developments if at least a pathway was not carried out at this location and at this point of time not clearly committed to doing.

Yours Sincerely

Kevin & Judy Organ??

 

 

 

 

Attention: Paul Guy

 

Re: Lot: 95 DP: 1099538, Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach

 

It has been brought to my attention that an application to modify development consent: 2010/4 has lodged with Nambucca Shire Council.

Unfortunately I, along with many other residents, did not receive notification of this proposed modification. However, I am putting forward this submission for the consideration of Council.

 

Submission objecting to proposed modification

Name:?????????? Eric Whittaker

Address:?????? 86 Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach, NSW 2448

Telephone:?? 65695542

 

Objection 1

The original DP was for thirteen lots and this has been altered to fifteen lots. The developer, Geoff Douglas, indicated to me that government wanted smaller blocks.

 

It is my opinion that the proposed changes will be detrimental to the character of the subdivision and would also make it difficult to build a suitable dwelling that will comply with Council Regulations.

The lots I am referring to are as follows:

Lot 162, 6 Swordfish Drive, area of 646 square metres Lot 163, 4 Swordfish Drive, area of 602 square metres Lot 164, 2 Swordfish Drive, area of 612 square metres My block is directly across the road from these lots and it is 1030 square metres.

 

When I built my house I had to comply with building alignments of 6 metres to Swordfish Drive boundary and 10 metres to Seaforth Drive boundary. Assuming these same conditions apply, it would be difficult to design houses similar to those in the subdivision for lots 162, 163 and 164.

 

There is some confusion as to the actual sizes of lots 162, 163, and

164 as the boundary pegs have changed and the size on the For Sale signs for Lot 164 currently indicates it is 972 square metres in size.

Signage on lots 161, 162 and 163 has been removed.

 

Objection 2

Access to Ocean View Drive from the southern end of Seaforth Drive is essential to residents who use the current rough track across private and Council property.

 

Local residents use this track on a regular basis to walk to Deep Creek, Valla Reserve and the beach.

 

It is my opinion that the construction of a suitable pedestrian/cycle access way should be carried out to give safe and formal linkage between the two streets. The only formal access to Seaforth Drive is from Swordfish Drive to the north of the subdivision.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.

 

Eric Whittaker

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

 

Dear Ms Mcnally,

 

Reference DA 2010/4

We refer to your correspondence dated 30 January 2013 advising that there has been application to modify DA 2010/4 and remove a planned cycleway from Seaforth Drive to Ocean View Drive and would like to make an objection to the proposed amendment and support the retention of a cycleway or pathway at the location shown as ?B? on the attachment to your letter.

 

We understand from our telephone enquiry to council that if the cycleway does not go ahead the land will be part of private land and there will be no thoroughfare between Seaforth Drive and Ocean View Drive.

 

We strongly disagree with points raised by the developer in an attempt to support their position of not providing a cycleway.

 

The proposed cycleway is of importance to all who currently live at Ocean Waves and will most definitely be of value to future residents of stage 5. Currently residents walk through a track linking Ocean View and Seaforth Drive at the proposed location. We have door knocked everybody in Seaforth Drive, Swordfish Drive and Ocean View Drive and the response was an overhwhelming demand for the cycleway/pathway. This demand is from people who live in the area and use the track daily so they would be directly impacted every day if the cycleway does not go ahead. So to say that there is no advanatge to local residents is clearly not true and shows how out of touch the developer is with the local residents. The benefits are obvious:

???? A right of way that allows residents to walk or cycle around the neighbourhood and promotes a healthier lifestyle as opposed to an environment that would force more people to drive motor vehicles for travelling a short distance.

???? There are many residents who would be unable to walk up the steep gradient of Swordfish Drive but find the gradient of the bush track quite acceptable.

???? Young children living in Seaforth Drive are able to easily walk to the beach and estuary to enjoy the lifestyle that their parents wanted for them when they decided to make their home in Ocean Waves estate.

???? It provides another exit from the estate apart from Swordfish Drive. Many residents raised their concern about bush fire hazard if Swordfish Drive is the only way out of the estate.

 

 

In response to the developers opinion that the cycleway would be steep and hazardous we would strongly disagree. There is very little traffic around Seaforth Drive but this would increase if there is no cycleway. Cyclist coming onto Seaforth Drive would be able to clearly see any traffic which would be expected to be going very slowly due to the residential nature of the street and the bend in the road. The entry/exit at Ocean View Drive would similarly expect to meet only slow moving traffic that has either emerged from or slowing to enter the lower speed limit at the tourist park or traffic coming aorund the bend in Ocean View Drive. They are low volume, low speed roads that would not be considered as hazardous for entry/exit. Safety measures can be implemented at the entry and exit as they have been at other pathways if deemed necessary.

 

In response to the developers point about the cyclway not linking to any other cycleways and therefore being of no use we would again disagree. This is a very short term view and does not appreciate how the infrastructure at Valla Beach might change over time to incorporate more cycleways. As a nation facing escalating problems of obesity and inactivity we need to ensure that communities are designed and built to encourage healthy and active lifestyles.

 

There are many tracks and pathways linking streets in the older part of Valla Beach and we feel that these are clearly beneficial to the local residents and visitors. Keeping the cycleway between Oceanview and Seaforth Drives will similarly be of great benefit.

 

We have a petition signed by more than 100 people who oppose the removal of the cycelway and we will submit this to Council after a meeting of the Valla Beach Community Association this evening in which the matter will also be raised.

 

We sincerely hope that Council will reject the proposed amendment and require the cycleway to go ahead for all the reasons stated above.

 

Would you kindly keep us informed of the progress of this matter as we believe it is of key importance to us, our neighbours and our visitors.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Rosie & Darren Squibb

 

74 Seaforth Drive,

Valla Beach

Tel: 6569 6745

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.B & A.J. BAKER

Ocean Waves Estate

15 Seaforth Drive

Valla Beach NSW 2448

Telephone: (02)6569 6871

Graeme: 0488 285 119

Anne: 0448 213 993

Email oakeydog1@bigpond.com

 

 

20 February 2013

 

 

Selina Mcnally

SENIOR TOWN PLANER

Nambucca Shire Council

44 Princess Street

Macksville NSW 2447

 

You?re Reference: DA 2010/4

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

SECTION 96 APPLICATION TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT CONSENT: 2010/4

APPLICANT: VPR DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD

PROPOSAL:? SUBDIVISION ? RESIDENTIAL

PROPERTY: LOT: 95 DP: 1099538, SEAFOERTH DRIVE VALLA BEACH

 

In reply to your letter 30 January 2013, Application to modify Development Consent issued by Council on May 2010 for a Thirteen (13) Lot Residential Subdivision.

 

The applicant seeks to modify the development by removing the proposed Cycleway.? In opposition to this proposal we state that the Cycleway is not near the proposed LOT: 95 DP: 1099538, and is totally essential for Safety, Life Style and Part of Sale to us by the Estate Agent acting for the Developer VPR Developments Pty Ltd.? The residents all agree that the Walkway/Cycleway access to Ocean View Drive remain and be completed so residents can access the beach, creek, park and resort with ease from the southern end of Seaforth Drive. Therefore it is essential that the Walkway/Cycleway should remain at the southern end of Seaforth Drive at the Valla Beach Tourist Park Fence.?

 

1.???????? Ocean Waves Estate is ringed by Nature Reserved and has only one entrance/exit down Swordfish Drive.? If there is a fire, at the reserve bordered by Valla Beach Road,? Ocean View Drive and? Swordfish Drive there is no way for residence of this area to escape. If the fire came from the other direction (southern end) it has a lot of residents to use the only exit Swordfish Drive to escape any fire. The developer has now placed more blocks on the market which will place even more burden on the only road (Swordfish Drive) in and out of this area for the above reason.

 

 

2.???????? The proposed Walkway/Cycleway is very necessary and is not as steep as Swordfish Drive.? I/we walk up Swordfish Drive or Heart Break Hill as we locals call it, I am getting older and will not be able to do this for ever, We purchases our land for the Life Style and being able to walk not drive to the beach.? I have seen people trying to push prams and ride bicycles up Swordfish Drive.? Valla Beach residents use the existing goat track or walk through No 55 Seaforth Drive through No 102 Ocean View Drive (until houses are built on one of the blocks) to access Ocean View Drive so they can walk around the estate or go to Valla Beach, The Park,? Valla Beach Tourist Park for Zumba classes and the Gym.

 

3.???????? The Developer sold the Estate stating a Walkway/Cycleway at the southern end of Seaforth Drive so we would have access to Ocean View Drive and walk to the Beach or the Valla Tourist Park.? As owner occupier of 15 Seaforth Drive I use either the existing goat track or work through No55 Seaforth Drive through No 102 Ocean View Drive until they are built on, then how do I go for walks the beach and park.

 

In order to alleviate these problems we believe it is absolutely imperative for the Walkway/Cycleway to remain and finally be completed so residents and visitors have better access to the facilities that Valla Beach offers.

 

If you have any other questions in relation to this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on the above numbers.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

Graeme & Anne Baker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs Rosie Squibb
74 Seaforth Drive

Valla Beach

NSW 2448

 

?February 21, 2013

 

 

Dear Rosie

 

 

Re ? Petition to ensure pathway/cycleway between Ocean View Drive and Seaforth Drive is completed as per the approved plans

 

 

This letter is to advise that at the Valla Beach Community Association [VBCA] General Meeting

held at the Valla Beach Community Hall on Monday 18th February 2013.

 

The above was raised as a motion, seconded and approved unanimously by the community present.

That the VBCA will support the petition.
The motion etc will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting,copies of VBCA General Meetings are sent to the Nambucca Shire Council, and posted on our website.

ie www.vallabeachmarkets.org.au

 

We have also received correspondence from the NSC GM who attended the meeting and also from the NSC Senior Town Planner, who I believe has also been contact with you.

 

If you need any other information from the VBCA please let me know.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Mel

 

Melvyn Best

Secretary VBCA

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

DA2010/004/01 Proposal to Modify Consent DA2010/004 to remove footpath and cycleway

 

Enquiries to:??????? Ms McNally

Telephone no:????? 6568 0225

Our Ref:???????????? DA 2010/04/01

 

 

 

5 March 2013

 

 

 

Geoff Douglas

VPR Developments Pty Ltd

4 Linden Court

PALM BEACH? QLD? 4221

 

 

Dear Mr. Douglas

 

 

SECTION 96 APPLICATION TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2010/04

SUBDIVISION - RESIDENTIAL,

LOT: 95 DP: 1099538, SEAFORTH DRIVE VALLA BEACH

 

I refer to the above mentioned Section 96 application lodged with Council on 16 January 2013 and advise adjoining owners have been notified of the proposal and in response council has received 5 submissions along with representation made from the Valla Beach Community Association and a petition containing 147 signatures from the local community.

 

Council?s town planning and engineering staff do not support the Modification to delete the requirement for the foot/cycle path. As such, the matter will be reported to Council for consideration and determination.

 

If you wish to make any further representations at this time then please don?t hesitate to do so. If you wish to withdraw the application, then you can do so by formally requesting this is done in writing and in which case 50% of the application fees, minus any notification charges, will be refunded to you. If you wish to proceed in this way, then please do so within 14 days of the date of this letter.

 

Alternatively someone will be in touch when a date in confirmed for your application to be discussed and determined at a Council Meeting. You will then have the chance to address the elected members at this meeting, should you wish to do so. Please note, if the application is refused, there is no opportunity to have any fees refunded.

 

Should you require any further information, please contact Council?s Applications and Compliance Services Unit or myself directly on 6568 0225.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Selina McNally

SENIOR TOWN PLANNER


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.2??? DA2012/010????? 100413???????? S96 Modification Application to remove Lot 14 from the original consent DA2012/010 and losing on site car parking

 

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

 

 

Summary:

 

In 2012 development application 2012/010 was submitted to Council and assessed by Council staff. Subsequently a conditional consent was issued to grant the strata subdivision of an existing commercial property within Macksville CBD.

 

The development application related to strata subdivision only and no associated building works were proposed. The application relates to an existing building known as 10 Princess Street and was to strata subdivide the 5 (five) existing commercial properties within the one existing building which comprised of 3 (three) separate allotments, with their own titles, but in the same ownership and on them was the building to be strata subdivided and a large car parking area to be dedicated as common property within the strata subdivision.

 

A modification application has now been submitted, under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which seeks to remove one of the three allotments from the development (lot 14); the one which currently provides the majority of the car parking area for the site. This results in a significant shortfall of on-site car parking as, in accordance with the requirements of Part C of the Nambucca Development Control Plan (NDCP), a total of 29 car park spaces are required and only 21 will be provided without lot 14.

 

Although this modification results in a shortfall for on-site parking it is still considered to be substantially the same development. Given that a large number of on-site parking is being provided, it is considered acceptable on this occasion to apply Section 94 contributions in lieu of the shortfall.

 

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 consent to the Modification DA2012/010/01 for the excising of Lot 14 from the development, subject to the recommended modified conditions attached to this report.

 

2??????? That Council consent to the request to vary car parking requirements within Part C of the Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 subject to the payment of Section 94 Contributions in lieu of short fall of on-site car park spaces being 8 spaces at $8,821 per space as per the table below.

 

Public amenity or service

Unit type

No of Units

Contribution Rate (Amount per Unit)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Parking: Macksville CBD

Car park space

8

$8,821

$70, 568

2013

 

3??????? That Council apply the funds raised by this development to public car-parking improvements within or adjacent to the Macksville CBD

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????? Option 2

 

Option 2 is that Council may refuse the application to modify consent DA2012/010 on the basis that there will be an unacceptable short fall of car parking, which does not meet the requirements of Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010.

 

If this option is proceeded with, Council may also wish to modify the original Consent to include a condition requiring the consolidation of the three allotments.

 

?????? Option 3

 

Option 3 is that Council consent to the Modification, subject to alternate conditions.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In 2012 a development application for strata subdivision was submitted to and approved by Council. The application related to an existing development of 5 commercial properties within one building, on the corner of Princess and Mackay Street. The application site consists of 3 allotments ? Lots 1, 2 and 14 DP 2037.

 

Lots 1 and 2 house the 5 commercial properties, with Lot 14 providing informal car parking to serve employees and customers to the rear of the commercial properties. The applicant has now submitted a modification to remove Lot 14 from the development consent, which will remove some of the on site car parking.? 21 spaces will still remain to be provided on site, equivalent to 4 spaces for 4 of the units and 5 for the other larger one. It is considered this should be adequate car parking for employees of the commercial units so it is the visitor parking which will be sacrificed through the modification. As this is a CBD location alternate public car parking is available for customers.

 

 

Figure 1: site plan to show the 3 lots which collectively formed the original application site and identifying Lot 14 which is now proposed to be removed.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: shows the commercial building to be strata subdivided and Lot 14 which provides informal (not sealed) car parking

 

 

Figure 2 shows the commercial building to be strata subdivided (the pink building) and Lot 14 to be removed through the modification. You can see in Figure two is provides informal (not sealed or marked) car parking at present and the adjoining Lots 12 and 13 Section 2 DP 2037. Lots 12, 13 and 14 are also currently being utilised as informal car parking (grass).

 

If the modification is approved, then the allotment to be excised (Lot 14) could potentially be sold off and/or redeveloped independently of the other two. This not only impacts on car parking and the amount of common property available for the original development, but it could also be argued that there could be more merit in leaving the allotments together as one holding as it may facilitate future development opportunities. However, it is considered that excising this one allotment away from the existing development has the same potential for future development, but instead for the development of Lot independently.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????? Internal

 

Manager of Technical Services (MTS

 

MTS advises that although the plan submitted identifies 21 car park spaces will be available on site, he has measured the adequacy of them and they do not meet minimum standards. As such, MTS advises it is likely more spaces will be lost, unless a boundary adjustment is undertaken.

 

Condition 5 requires a further car parking plan to show the 21 spaces to be provided to and that they meet car parking standards to be fully accessible. Subsequently, if a boundary adjustment with Lot 14 is required then this must be done to achieve the 21 space and ensure they have adequate

 

 

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

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii) any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

?????? Notification Part A

 

The application was not notified as there is no requirement to notify applications for Strata Subdivision only.

 

?????? Car Parking Part C

 

The application relates to a reduction in car parking area and requests a significant reduction in on site

 

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

 

Context and Setting

 

The site relates to an established commercial building within Macksville CBD.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

 

The proposal includes adequate access and some car parking to serve the employees of each commercial unit, however, visitor parking is limited and does not meet the requirements as set out in the NDCP 2010.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

 

The proposal gives the building owner greater flexibility with regards to leasing out and/or selling these units individually rather than as one whole building, which could facilitate future uses of each unit and as such will have a good economic impact on units with this building and Macksville CBD as a whole.

 

Cumulative Impacts

 

To allow several development proposals such as this and to consent to their request to not provide the required car parking on site, could potentially lead to future car parking problems within Macksville CBD, should the appropriate plan not be in place to collect funds to build a new public car park, or extend an existing one(s), in the future

 

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

 

The site was considered appropriate as submitted for the original development application, where the site comprised of 3 allotments collectively. There is some cause for concern with regards to removing one of these allotments, firstly due to the insufficient car parking which can be provided to serve the development without the third allotment.

 

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

 

No submissions were received.

 

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

 

It is in the public interest to provide a good variety of commercial development within the CBD, however, sufficient car parking must also be provided to support it. The section 94 plan does allow for a variation in on site car

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Subject to the appropriate measures being employed to monitor and address any future potential car parking issues in Macksville CBD, no harm will come to the environment.

 

Social

 

Any development which could facilitate new businesses into the town of Macksville and Shire as a whole bring subsequent social benefits, however, it is also important to avoid potential social conflicts between business owners/occupiers and other community members by virtue of a shortfall of CBD parking.

 

Economic

 

The original development application for strata subdivision was applied for to allow greater flexibility to lease out and/or sell the five separate commercial units which could facilitate keeping them occupied in the long term.

 

Risk

 

The collection of contributions is considered adequate to address any risk associated with consenting to a reduction of on site parking.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The section 94 plan is in place to ensure funds are collected from developments within the CBD to provide for future needs of additional car parking.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Section 94 Plan for car parking in Macksville CBD

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Not applicable.

 

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 14 March 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

DA2012/010/01

 

Applicant

01/02/2012

DA2012/010/02

 

Applicant

01/02/2012

DA2012/010/03

 

Applicant

01/02/2012

Statement of Environmental Effects

 

Applicant

01/02/2012

 

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.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

Plan of Subdivision

 

2??????? An application for a Subdivision Certificate must be made on the approved form. The Subdivision Certificate fees, in accordance with Council's adopted schedule of fees and charges, must accompany such application. Seven (7) copies of the plan of subdivision are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. The location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements including fences and internal access driveways/roads must be indicated on 1 of the copies.

 

Plan of Subdivision and Section 88B Instrument requirements

 

3??????? A Section 88B Instrument and 1 copy are to be submitted with the application for a subdivision certificate. The final plan of subdivision and accompanying Section 88B Instrument are to provide for the items listed in the following table:

 

Item for inclusion in Plan of Subdivision and/or Section 88B Instrument

Details of Item

Sewer Easements

The creation of easements for drainage of sewage over all sewage pipelines and structures located within the proposed allotments in accordance with Council?s policy.

 

Sewer and Water

 

4??????? Separate sewer and water connections must be provided for each strata Lot. A Section 68 application will be required and the applicable fees will need to be paid, including any applicable Section 64 contributions for any changes to Equivalent Tenements (ETs).

 

 

Car parking plans required

 

5??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate access, parking and manoeuvring details in accordance with the plans approved by this consent. The access, parking and manoeuvring for the site is to comply with the requirements of Council?s Development Control Plan for Car Parking and Australian Standards. Plans are to include, but not be limited to, the following items:

 

a pavement description;

b site conditions affecting the access;

c existing and design levels;

d longitudinal section from the road centreline to the car space(s);

e cross sections every 15 metres;

f drainage (pipes, pits, on-site detention, etc.);

g a physical barrier across the full road frontage of the property suitable to prevent vehicular access at locations other than the approved driveways;

h a clearance height 2.2m for all internal car parking areas. Where disabled parking is to be provided a minimum clearance height of 2.5m is required. Building elements such as pipes, ducts, conduits and beams are not to encroach below the specified clearance height;

i turning paths; and

j line marking and signs.

 

The engineering plans and specifications are to be designed by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. The Civil Engineer is to be a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Australia or is to be eligible to become a corporate member and have appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate and by Council?s engineering staff.

 

During the assessment of the development application, it appeared some spaces would not conform to the Standard and a revised car parking plan, to show car park spaces and aisle widths comply with AS 2890 .1:2004 Part 1 Off Street Car Parking and 2890.6:2009 Part 6 Off Street parking for people with disabilities. This may require a boundary adjustment with Lot 14 to accommodate all 21 spaces, if necessary.

 

Contribution to be paid towards provision or improvement of amenities or services

 

6?????? Contributions set out in the following Schedule are to be paid to Council. The following contributions are current at the date of this consent. The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with the relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.

 

Evidence of payment of the contributions is to be provided to the Principle Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Schedule of Contributions pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Public amenity or service

Unit type

No of Units

Contribution Rate (Amount per Unit)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Parking: Macksville CBD

Car park space

8

$8,821

$70, 568

2013

Attachments:

1View

7934/2013 - Plan DA2012 010 01

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

S96 Modification Application to remove Lot 14 from the original consent DA2012/010 and losing on site car parking

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Corporate and Community Services

ITEM 10.3??? SF251????????????? 100413???????? Schedule of Council Public Meetings

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

 

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

Ordinary Council Meeting

10/04/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

24/04/2013

Valla Rural Hall

Leave Council Chambers at 4.15 pm

? 5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

01/05/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

15/05/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

30/05/2013

Nambucca Entertainment Centre

Leave Council Chambers at 4.30 pm

? 5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

05/06/2013

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am for Bowraville site

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

12/06/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

27/06/2013

Council Chambers

? 5.30 PM

 

Note:?? Departure times to Rural Halls have been added.

Note:?? Meetings at the Rural Halls will commence with tea and sandwiches at 5.00 pm.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF1709??????????? 100413???????? Applications and Statistical Reports 2012-2013 - February 2013

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Development Application statistics for the calendar year 2013 compared with 2012 are provided in the body of the report.

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council note development application statistics and processing times for 2013 compared with 2012.

 

2????????? That Council note the statistical information for Applications and Certificates received and released by Council for 2012-2013.

 

Development Application Statistics

 

The figures show a -11.43% decrease in the number of DA?s received to end February 2013 with construction costs increasing by 34.76% compared to the same period in 2012. The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of February 2013 was 18 plus 2 modifications.

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

January-February 2012

2,758,262

24

14

January-February 2013

4,228,152

21

18

 

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 2013

Month

Mean Time

Median

#Average age of DA?s (Days)

Average

Highest

Lowest

January

46.1

34.5

51.5

149

18

February

62.4

39.5

62.4

173

16

 

#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).

 

Please note that due to the Christmas closure the times were longer to approve.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.5??? SF1709??????????? 100413???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 18-28 March 2013

 

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

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

????? Further information required from applicant before matter may be processed

????? Voluntary Planning Agreement supported by Council at its 28 February 2013 meeting.

 

Please note that there is one 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

2012/108

07/09/2012

Residential Flat Building and Serviced Apartments (22)

Lot 1 DP 1016126, 4 Fraser Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Daylight Access ? shadowing

????? Visual privacy

????? Set backs

????? Building separation

????? Energy efficiency

 

Submissions close: 19 October 2012

Total submissions received:? 8

Still being processed by Manager

 

????? Access from public road

????? Shadowing on South side

????? Exit of cars ? south side

????? Building to big for land area

????? Overload on Council infrastructure eg water and sewerage

????? Loose of view of north and north east

????? Danger hazard at crest at Woolworths

????? Scale down and to be aesthetically as well as in line with the slope of the block

????? Noise issue in Nelson Street with influx of cars as they will be using this street

????? Noise from roller doors adjacent to windows

????? Length of time to build

????? Overlooked balconies/roof top terraces

????? Creation of damp problems due to shade during Winter

????? Shadows will be larger than shown on plans

????? Where will be the placement of garbage bins

????? Size of building

????? Room for car spaces

????? Waste management collection ? no room for 22 wheeled bins

????? Rear setbacks

????? Building separation

????? Building footprint

????? Visual privacy

????? Daylight access

????? Energy efficiency

????? Height

????? Streetscape and Open space

????? Acoustic Privacy

 

Update:? 5/11/2012

Matters have been discussed with proponents and Planning Consultant

Once matters have been further addressed the application maybe processed

16/11/2012 ? Met with Architect to resolve areas of impact

21/12/2012 ? Additional information and plans received for assessment

Assessment complete

Height further reduced

????????????????????????????? Awaiting response from RFS following late submission by applicant for integration

Application to be presented to Council for determination

Refer to Report in Business Paper

Matter deferred ? Additional information to this meeting which had been identified as being available last meeting by the person lodging submission.

Matter subject to Rescission Motion 28/3/13.

2012/157

18/12/2012

Demolition of Existing Dwelling & Erection of Detached Dual Occupancy

Lot B DP 418330, 4 High Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Minimising overshadowing of north facing living areas

????? Reducing potential invasion of privacy

????? Providing of environmentally aesthetic retaining walls to prevent slippage

????? Provision of effective structural support of adjoining fence

????? Ensure all surface/stormwater is directed away from property

Submissions close: 14 January 2013

Total submissions received:? 1

Approved.

2010/004

06/07/2009

13 Lot Residential Subdivision

Lot 95 DP 1099538, Seaforth Drive, Valla Beach MODIFICATION

????? Amendment causing pathway/cycleway to be under threat ? requested to be there by the residents as well used and imperative to remain

????? Amendment is an attack on the health and well being of Valla Beach residents

????? No hazardous exit and entry points at either end of Ocean View Drive and at Seaforth Drive end the path levels out off the road to slow down

????? Increased number of lots ? 13 to 15 (smaller blocks)

????? Detrimental to character of blocks

????? Harder to design house to fit on block

????? Confusion of size of lots

????? Access to Ocean View Drive from southern end of Seaforth Drive is essential for residents

????? Ocean Waves Estate ringed by Nature reserve and worried about if fire in reserve no way out or lots of residents using one exit

????? Support for the removal of the bike/walk way

Petition also received ? Report being prepared to Council

Submissions close: 22 February 2013

Total submissions received: 5

Council report 10 April 2013.

2013/005

16/01/2013

Depot

Lot 53 DP 755560, 58 Cowins Road, Valla

????? Dust pollution

???? Increased number of vehicles and speed on Cowins Road

Site visited by Senior Town Planner and Manager Applications and Compliance

Submission received

Concerns from Council?s Engineers raised

These concerns have now been reported back to applicant awaiting response

2013/025

1/03/2013

Attached Dual Occupancy

Lot 2 DP 791770, 2 Brahminy Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Building on fence line with neighbours

????? Bedrooms at back of neighbours home and would be quite close to building

????? Nice and quite area

????? Devalue properties

Site inspection being arranged (delayed due to tenants in property)

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.6??? SF854????????????? 100413???????? Reforming Public Libraries Funding Correspondence

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Tracey Ross, Senior Librarian ????????

 

?Summary:

 

At its meeting of 31 January 2013 the Council made a formal resolution to take action regarding library funding as it is extremely concerned about the financial sustainability of the current NSW State Government funding arrangements. On 18 February 2013 Council wrote to the Hon Andrew Stoner MP requesting that representation be made to the Minister for the Arts, the Hon George Souris MP on this matter. We received a copy of the response from the Minister for the Arts on 20 March 2013.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Council note this report and agree that due representation has been made to the Minister for the Arts at this time in relation to public library funding given that the 2013/14 State Budget deliberations occur in the near future.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.?????? That Council note the progress report and adopt the recommendations stated above.

2.??????? That Council note the progress report and adopt different recommendations to those stated in this report.

3.??????? That Council consider further representations once the 2013/14 State Budget announcements are made.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Minister for the Arts has referred in his letter to the Revitalising Regional Libraries program which will provide $2 million over four years from 2011/12, distributed in $16,000 grants to local councils. The Nambucca Shire Council received its $16,000 in 2012/13 as part of this program, this will be used to refurbish the Nambucca Heads Library. The Minister further states that the Library Council of NSW recommendations concerning the funding of public libraries will be considered as part of the 2013/14 State Budget deliberations.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The Manager Community and Cultural Services has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

 

Social

There are no social issues associated with this report.

 

Economic

There are no economic issues associated with this report.

 


Risk

There are no risks associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no proposed change to the current budget for the Nambucca Shire Council Libraries.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

As per the above, there is no proposed change to the current budget for the Nambucca Shire Council Libraries.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

7076/2013 - Information update in relation to the Revitalising Regional Libraries program

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Reforming Public Libraries Funding Correspondence

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1??? SF81??????????????? 100413???????? Fire Services ? Jurisdictional Boundary Review and Mutual Aid Agreement

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Paul Gallagher, Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report seeks the endorsement of Council for the mutually agreed variations to the boundary areas of Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSWRFS) for the provision of fire services within the Nambucca Local Government Area

 

Mr Lachlann Ison (NSWRFS Zone Manager - Lower North Coast) and Superintendent Tony Lenthall (FRNSW) have been invited to address Council on the Mutual Aid Agreement and boundary variations and answer any questions Council may have.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the variations to the boundary areas of the Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSWRFS) as indicated on the maps (TRIM SF81: 7283/2013) for the provision of fire services within the Nambucca Local Government Area.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no other options other than to concur with the proposed variations to the boundary areas.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In line with the requirements of the fire services delivery provisions between Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSWRFS) a review of the current boundary and mutual aid agreement has been undertaken between the two agencies and variations to the service boundaries are recommended from the local agencies as per the circularised maps.

 

The object of the mutual aid agreement is to ensure that the community is provided with the best possible response to incidents. Council are required to provide endorsement only for the proposed boundary variations as the final determination will be approved at state level by the Minister?

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

NSW Rural Fire Service

Fire and Rescue NSW

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are social implications associated with the loss of infrastructure and displacement of residents in the event that the ability of fire services are hindered through political involvement with the Mutual Aid Agreement or demarcation on who attends the incident.

 


Economic

 

There are economic implications associated with the ability of Council to fund emergency service levy contributions with any potential increases being offset against the reduction of Council services to Nambucca Valley communities.

 

There are economic implications associated with the loss of infrastructure and displacement of residents in the event that the ability of fire services are hindered through political involvement with the Mutual Aid Agreement or demarcation on who attends the incident.

 

Risk

 

The object of the mutual aid agreement is to ensure that the community is provided with the best possible response to incidents.

 

The State Government determine the emergency service levy based on the operational budgets of the individual emergency services and there is a potential risk that the State Government may raise the emergency service levy which increases Council?s contribution.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The current and future budgets have a provision towards the emergency services levy contribution. The boundary changes to the services are cost neutral to Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variation anticipated to working funds

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised Document - Maps (Trim 7283/2013)

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Fire Services ? Jurisdictional Boundary Review and Mutual Aid Agreement

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Fire Services ? Jurisdictional Boundary Review and Mutual Aid Agreement

 

 

 

Circularised Document - Maps (Trim 7283/2013)

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2??? SF1807??????????? 100413???????? Progress Report on Tree Vandalism - Parkes Street Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Paul Gallagher, Assistant General Manager - Engineering Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council received a report at the Ordinary meeting of Council conducted on 14 November 2012 pertaining to the vandalism to trees along the reserve adjacent to Parkes Street Nambucca Heads and resolved the following:

 

?That Council:

1??????? monitor the condition of the trees for possible regrowth

2??????? note that a further report will be provided if information is received that will lead to legal action

3??????? that staff or a contractor arrange for the removal of trees considered dangerous forthwith

4??????? receive and note the media release and advertisement of the $5000,00 reward for information leading to a conviction

5??????? receive a report from the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services concerning rehabilitation and revegetation of the site and the cost involved.?

 

This report provides an update on the investigations and action taken to date.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the report and continue to monitor the site and undertake ongoing weed control to allow regeneration of desirable native species within the site.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

??????????? Continue to monitor the site and undertake ongoing weed control to allow regeneration of desirable native species within the site.

 

??????????? Undertake a planting program of advance native trees.? This would incur a cost for the purchase of plants and trees and labour costs if planted without the assistance of volunteers.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This report provides an update on the investigations and action taken to date. Unfortunately at this stage there is no conclusive evidence that would identify a culprit.

 

Following advice regarding tree vandalism within the reserve along Parkes Street Nambucca Heads Council staff enacted the provisions of the tree vandalism policy:

 

a??????? inspected the area and found extensive damage to in excess of 50 mature trees

b??????? reported the matter to Council

c??????? reported the matter to the Office of Environment and Heritage (C06626-2012).

d??????? reported the matter to the NSW Police

e??????? sent letters through the auspice of the Office of Environment and Heritage to adjoining landowners seeking information that may lead to a conviction.

f??????? alerted the general public about the tree vandalism and the cost through a media release which received both television and newspaper coverage

g??????? erected signage across the site.

 

Council did not consider the use of bunting/shade cloth/shipping containers to block the views appropriate and no other measures were implemented.

 

Due to the significant damage caused across the reserve, the Office of Environment and Heritage investigated the matter on Council?s behalf. Council received correspondence:

 

??????????? from residents residing in the area advising that they were not responsible nor aware of the vandalism and could not provide any information as to the perpetrators.

??????????? the Nambucca Chamber of Commerce and Industry condoning the act of vandalsim with the desecratation of an area of natural beauty and would like to see the offenders before the Courts.and recommending a plan of management.

??????????? the media coverage did not result in anybody coming forward with information.

 

Council were made aware in the November 2012 report that there was extensive damage to in excess of 50 mature trees at the site with the trees being partially cut through and left standing making them a risk particularly in high wind.

 

The vast majority of the vandalised trees were Brushbox (Lophostemon confertus) ? that are associated with Littoral Rainforest a recognised Ecological Endangered Community (suballiance 18) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (a closed forest, which contains predominantly rainforest species generally <2kms to the ocean and has a closed canopy that has 70% of the sky obscured by tree leaves and limbs).

 

Although the land is generally steep and undeveloped, the site has the potential attraction for children playing in the natural area (building cubbies) or pedestrian access, the risk analysis identified that the trees were dangerous and there was a distinct possibility of the trees falling without warning.

 

Whilst the Council?s Weeds Officer and Tree Contractor considered that some of the trees may recover with new growth and total removal may not be required. The trees that were assessed as dangerous by Langham?s Tree Services arborists were cut down to ensure the safety of any persons who may enter the tree vandalism site. Langham?s Tree Service team spent a day on the site (at a cost of approximately $3,300) felling the trees and did not remove any of the vegetation that was cut down, as it would have been far too expensive and also would have caused more damage within the site, or heighten the risk of landslip within the site.

 

Given the long term vandalism that has been performed at the site, the removal of mature tree species and the proximity to residents, it is recommended that the site is better left to naturally regenerate if allowed to without further vandalism,. The establishment of seedlings or more advanced plants could be expensive and given the damage to mature trees the party/parties responsible for the vandalism would most probably have no hesitation in removing or killing any plantings undertaken in the immediate area, or alternatively allow the new planting to grow and then vandalise once they become mature.

 

The threat of invasive plant colonisation or fire now poses the greatest threat to the site. It therefore proposed to monitor the site and undertake ongoing weed control to allow regeneration of desirable native species within the site.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council?s Noxious Weeds Officer

Langham?s Tree Services

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There has been a significant impact to a natural bush area due to the large number of trees vandalised.

 

Social

 

The loss of the trees has opened up the scenic views for adjoining properties.

 

Economic

 

There are economic benefits to residential housing with views of the coast line.

 

Risk

 

Trees have been partially cut through but left standing making them a risk particularly in high wind. There is a possibility of the trees falling without warning although the land is generally steep undeveloped Crown Land with minimal pedestrian access being available.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost of felling the trees was $3,300 funded from the tree maintenance vote.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Any further funds would need to be sourced from either the working funds or the environmental levy.

 

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There was an impact on staff resources to investigate the matter.? Further resources may be required if Council decide to replant the impacted area.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.3??? SF95??????????????? 100413???????? Assessing the impact of off street parking and access when resubdividing land?

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

At it?s meeting of 30 January 2013 Council resolved as follows:

 

?That there be a brief report to Council on how the ability to resubdivide lots without addressing the potential for street parking and egress issues can be avoided in the future.?

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may wish request additional information.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Due to a recent complaint to Council regarding on street parking preventing emergency vehicle access in a section of Sandpiper Drive (being a shareway between two cul-de-sac heads), Council requested a brief report on the ability to resubdivide lots without addressing the potential for street parking and egress issues can be avoided in the future.

 

The following measures have now been implemented to ensure that a similar occurrence will be avoided:

 

??????????? When a residential subdivision is being assessed by staff at the Development Application stage the potential for further subdivision of blocks will now be considered particularly where lots of more than 600m2 are proposed. This will ensure that the carriageway width is conditioned accordingly for the development allowing for the consideration of the potential resubdivision of a residential land parcel (battle-axe blocks).

 

??????????? An application for a resubdivision of residential land will follow the existing Council assessment process where the planners check the Development Control Plan (DCP) and refer the application to engineering to assess and ensure car parking and access requirements are met and adhere to the appropriate standards.

 

??????????? The subdivision shall not be approved in the event that there are unresolved matters with the compliance of road widths, parking restrictions or local area traffic management schemes

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Senior Town Planner

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There may be complaints emanating from developers that staff are being too severe in their assessment if there subdivision application is refused because staff believe there may be access or parking issues.

 

Economic

 

There are economic implications associated with the potential cost of adhering to subdivision conditions.

 

Risk

 

The risk of not carrying out an in depth assessment are the very issues being experienced

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct or indirect impact on current or future budgets associated with this report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are staff resource implications associated with staff time required to carry assessments for access and parking issues, due to the tight limitations of the organisation structure it is not always possible to carry out an on site inspection to evaluate the site constraints.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 April 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.4??? SF90??????????????? 100413???????? Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 2 April 2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The minutes of the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 April 2013 are attached for Council?s information and adoption.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council:

 

1????????? Receive and note the minutes of the Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee held on the 2 April 2013.

 

2??????? Endorse the road closures for the ANZAC DAY marches to be held on 25 April 2013 as follows:

 

a??????? The Returned and Services League of Australia (Macksville Branch) ? for the Dawn Service between 0515 and 0545 hours and again between 1100 and 1110 hours;

b??????? The Returned and Services League of Australia (Bowraville Branch) ? between 0930 and 1030 hours; and

c??????? The Returned and Services League of Australia (Nambucca Heads Branch) ? between 0830 and 0930 hours.

d??????? noting that the following document has been received by Council:

?????????? Certificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance

?????????? Traffic Management Plan confirming Accredited Traffic Controllers will be on site, and

?????????? Police approval for the road closure.

e??????? Advertise the road closures seven (7) days prior to Anzac Day March.

 

3??????? Request the Ranger to conduct additional patrols at the following locations during pick up and set down times to reinforce parking regulations:

 

??????????? St Patrick?s school located in Wallace Street Macksville; and

??????????? Macksville Primary School located in West Street Macksville (near Angus Lane and adjacent driveways).

 

4??????? Support the installation of ?No Parking? restrictions for a single parking bay adjacent to the fire hydrant outside 8 Short Street Nambucca Heads.

 

5 ?????? Install pedestrian signs at a distance of 100m either side of the main entry to Uniting Care Pacifica Health Care Facility, Short Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

6??????? Write to the Roads and Maritime Service requesting they consider the feasibility of a High Pedestrian 40 Area for Short Street between Kent and Lee Streets, Nambucca Heads.

 

7??????? Install a Give Way sign together with line marking at the junction of Fletcher and Rosedale Streets, Nambucca Heads.

 

8??????? Trim or replant vegetation on Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads adjacent to the intersection with Creek Street with a low growing species to improve the sight distance for Creek Street vehicles required to Give Way to Nelson Street traffic.

 

9??????? Advise Ganly?s Gardeners of current restrictions pertaining to sight distance issues at the Nelson and Creek Street intersection.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Seek clarification or refer matters back to the Traffic Committee.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

1??????? The Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee meets every two months, generally on the first Tuesday of that month.

 

2??????? The members of the Committee met on 2 April 2013 and determined a number of matters as per attached minutes.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????????????? Mr Daniel Boorman (Roads and Maritime Services)

?????????????? Sgt Jarrod Langan (NSW Police)

?????????????? Mr Barry Duffus OAM (Local State Member Representative)

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental issues involved in the approval process.

 

Social

 

There are no social issues involved in the approval process.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic issues involved in the approval process.

 

Risk

 

Decisions are based on guidelines and regulations.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The budget contains provision for actions associated with the recommendations of the Committee.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

No variance to works funds required.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

No change to service level, resourcing or staff implications.

 

Attachments:

1View

8016/2013 - Minutes - Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee - 2 April 2013

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 April 2013

Nambucca Shire Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes - 2 April 2013

 

PRESENT

 

Keith Williams?????????????????????????? Nambucca Shire Council

Barry Duffus OAM??????????????????? Local State Member Representative

Sgt Jarrod Langan??????????????????? NSW Police

Daniel Boorman??????????????????????? Roads and Maritime Services

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1/13 Resolved:?

 

That the Committee note the adoption of the Minutes of the Meeting held on the 4 December 2012.

 

 

?

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 4.1????? SF565??????????????? 020413????? Temporary Road Closures for Events on Roads - Anzac Day Marches

2/13 RESOLVED:?

 

1??????? That Council approve the road closures subject to the following being received by Council:

 

??????????? Certificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance

??????????? Traffic Management Plan confirming Accredited Traffic Controllers will be on site, and

??????????? Police approval for the road closure.

 

2??????? That Council endorse the road closures for the ANZAC DAY marches to be held on ANZAC DAY 25 April 2013, following the receipt of the appropriate documents, as follows:

 

a?? The Returned and Services League of Australia (Macksville Branch) ? for the Dawn Service between 0515 and 0545 hours and again between 1100 and 1110 hours;

 

b?? The Returned and Services League of Australia (Bowraville Branch) ? between 0930 and 1030 hours; and

 

c?? The Returned and Services League of Australia (Nambucca Heads Branch) ? between 0830 and 0930 hours.

 

3??????? That Council advertise the road closures seven (7) days prior to Anzac Day March.

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM 4.2????? SF95????????????????? 020413????? Request for parking restrictions in West Street Macksville

3/13 RESOLVED:

 

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend Council?s Ranger conduct additional patrols at the following locations during pick up and set down times to reinforce parking regulations:

 

??????????? St Patrick?s school located in Wallace Street Macksville; and

??????????? Macksville Primary School located in West Street Macksville (near Angus Lane and adjacent driveways).

 

 

ITEM 4.3????? SF95????????????????? 020413????? Request for Parking Restrictions in Short Street Nambucca Heads

4/13 RESOLVED:?

 

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend that Council support the installation of ?No Parking?

restrictions for a single parking bay adjacent to the fire hydrant outside 8 Short Street Nambucca Heads.

 

 

 

ITEM 4.4????? SF90????????????????? 020413????? Request for 40km/h speed zones in Short and Nelson Streets Nambucca Heads

5/13 RESOLVED:?

 

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend that Council install pedestrian signs at a distance of 100m either side of the main entry to Uniting Care Pacifica Health Care Facility, Short Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend that Council request Roads and Maritime Service consider the feasibility of a High Pedestrian 40 Area for Short Street between Kent and Lee Streets, Nambucca Heads.

 

 

???

GB1/13 - Cr. Keith Williams - Give Way Signage at the junction of Fletcher and Rosdale Streets Nambucca Heads (Ref SF876)

6/13 Resolved:?

 

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend that Council install a Give Way sign together with line marking at the junction of Fletcher and Rosedale Streets, Nambucca Heads.

 

 

GB2/13 - Cr. Barry Duffus - Overgrown vegetation on Nelson Street Nambucca Heads (Ref SF90)

7/13 Resolved:?

 

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend that Council replant vegetation on Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads adjacent to the intersection with Creek Street with a low growing species to improve the sight distance for Creek Street vehicles required to Give Way to Nelson Street traffic.

 

?

 

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held on 4 June 2013 commencing at 10.30 am.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson then closed the meeting the time being 12.30 pm.

 

 

 

Keith Willaims

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

? ?