NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

30 May 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 - 30 May 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.

 

AGENDA????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 15 May 2013

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION

6??????? Notices of Rescission

6.1???? Notice of Rescission - Review of Council's Organisation Structure (SF1851)............................................................ 6 ?

7??????? PUBLIC FORUM

i)            Mike Griffin - Nambucca Entertainment Centre

ii)           Marlene Griffin - Nambucca Valley Arts Council

iii)          Trevor Keast - Sale of Tennis Courts at Biffin Fields

 

DELEGATION

10.10 DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads............................................................................. 89

????????? i)??????? Scott Riley/Mark Peterson

 

8??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ??

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

10????? General Manager Report

10.1?? Review of Council's Organisation Structure.......................... 7

10.2?? Outstanding Actions and Reports...................................... 26

10.3?? Weekes Bridge Replacement............................................ 32

10.4?? Minutes of the Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuary and Coastline Management committee meeting held on 10 May 2012................................................................................ 48

10.5?? Planning Proposal Housekeeping Amendment to the Nambucca LEP 2010........................................................ 55

10.6?? Planning Proposal Nambucca LEP amendment Subdivision of undersized allotments....................................................... 78

10.7?? Floor Level Survey Macksville - further Report................... 81

10.8?? Grant Application Status Report ....................................... 83

10.9?? Section 94 Status Report - May 2013................................ 86

10.10 DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads--DELEGATION..................................................... 89

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

11.1?? March 2013 Budget Review............................................ 123

11.2?? Re-reporting Modification to 2012/010 to remove Lot 14 from the development............................................................ 127

11.3?? Applications and Statistical Reports 2012-2013 - April 2013????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 128

11.4?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 6-17 May 2013... 129

11.5?? Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 8 May 2013...... 133


 

12????? Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

12.1?? Water and Sewerage? Fees and Charges........................ 143

12.2?? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting ? 1 May 2013................................................................. 145

12.3?? Waste Management Quarterly Report January - March 2013????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 152 ????

 

 

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

????


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Notice of Rescission

ITEM 6.1???? SF794????????????? 300513??????? Notice of Rescission - Review of Council's Organisation Structure (SF1851)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Bob Morrison, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

That the motion for Item 9.3 (resolved at the Council meeting on 15 May 2013) namely Option 3 re the organisation that:

 

?Three Assistant General Managers, the additional one being Development, Environment and Community Services transfer Strategic Planner to the Development, Environment and Community Services Department and transfer Grants and Contribution Officer to the Finance Section? be rescinded.

 

Propose Motion 1 for the next meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council rescind the following resolutions:

 

1??????? That Council adopt Option3: Three Assistant General Managers, the additional one being Development, Environment and Community Services, transfer Strategic Planner to the Development, Environment and Community Services Department and transfer Grants and Contributions Officer to the Finance Section.

 

2??????? That Council receive a report on the progress of the Business Services Unit in eight (8) weeks time.

 

3??????? That Council note the work which has been undertaken in reviewing its organisation structure as meeting the requirement to review the structure within twelve (12) months of the election.

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Michael Coulter, General Manager

 

 

SIGNED:

 

Cr Bob Morrison????????????? Signed and dated by Cr Morrison on 15 May 2013

 

 

Cr Brian Finlayson?????????? Signed and dated by Cr Finlayson on 15 May 2013

 

 

Cr Ainsworth?????????????????? Signed and dated by Cr Ainsworth on 15 May 2013??????????

 

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager

ITEM 10.1?? SF1851??????????? 300513??????? Review of Council's Organisation Structure

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Michael Coulter, General Manager; Joanne Hudson, Manager Human Resources ????????

 

Summary:

 

With the Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services position now vacant comes an opportunity to review the organisation structure.

 

There are six options contemplated in this report. Options 1 and 2 are based on a two Assistant General Manager model and both options yield a nett saving of $35,000 per annum. Options 3 and 4 are based on a three Assistant General Manager model and both options would come at a nett cost of $11,000 per annum. Options 5 (minor adjustments to the current structure) and 6 (retain the current structure) are cost neutral but do not yield any savings either.

 

The preferred option is Option 1.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council adopt the Organisation Structure outlined in Option 1.

 

2??????? That the Business Services Unit continues on a trial basis for a further 12 months.

 

3??????? That Council note the work which has been undertaken in reviewing its organisation structure as meeting the requirement to review the structure within 12 months of the election.

 

 

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:

 

Option 1: Retain two Assistant General Managers, transfer Development and Environment (previously called Applications and Compliance) under General Manager, transfer Strategic Planner to Development and Environment and transfer Grants and Contributions Officer to Financial Services.?

 

Nett saving: $35,000 per annum.

 

This is the preferred option. The option is based on the new Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services having a Bachelor of Business Degree or equivalent with significant experience in local government finance including statutory reporting.? This position could then undertake the duties of the Manager Financial Services during periods of leave and provide additional capacity when the Accountant took leave.? This would obviate the need for a Revenue Accountant and provide a saving of $35,000 per annum being the difference in salary between a Cadet Accountant/Finance Assistant ($44,000) and the Revenue Accountant ($79,000).

 

If it is accepted that the new Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services should have a focus on finance to improve the capacity of the Finance Section, consideration should be given to rebalancing the responsibilities of the existing position to reflect that focus.

 

Accordingly it is proposed to reduce the General Manager?s span of control by removing the Grants and Contributions Officer as well as the Strategic Planner as direct reports and in place of that the Manager Development and Environment would report to the General Manager.

 

The Business Services Co-ordinator would continue to report to the new Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services. The Unit does require management input to identify cost savings through process improvement or through a reduction in service levels. There is generally resistance to any reduction in service levels (both internal and external) and it is apparent that where there is conflict it will not be addressed and resolved without active management.? Various options for the management of the section have been considered.? Given the number of staff involved and the importance of driving process improvement and changes in service levels the unit should report to the new Assistant General Manager.

 

Whilst not a reason in itself to continue with a model of two Assistant General Managers, the model is now almost as common as three Assistant General Managers in rural councils of similar size to the Nambucca.?

 

In applying the two AGM?s model, which is directed at reducing management overheads, one question is whether the General Manager should be ?pitching in? by taking some functional responsibility or whether functional responsibility for the whole organisation should instead be split between the two Assistant General Manager positions.? The proposal in Option 1 that the General Manager have some functional responsibility is not dependent upon the particular qualifications or experience of the incumbent.? It would be open to a new General Manager to reshuffle those responsibilities or indeed to have no functional responsibility.

 

It is also proposed to rename the Applications and Compliance section the ?Development and Environment? section to better reflect the functions of the section.

 

Option 1 is attached as an organisation chart.

 

 

Option 2: Retain two Assistant General Managers, transfer Development and Environment (previously called Applications and Compliance) under Engineering Services, transfer Strategic Planner to Development and Environment and transfer Grants and Contributions Officer to Financial Services.

 

Nett saving: $35,000 per annum.

 

The advantages of this arrangement are that it would allow the General Manager to focus on strategic leadership and direction. It also provides the same savings outlined under Option 1 ie $35,000 per annum. However the significant disadvantage is that the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services will have a very large portfolio and perhaps more importantly a reduced focus on asset renewal and service levels which are this Council?s core areas of financial weakness.

 

 

Option 3: Three Assistant General Managers, the additional one being Development, Environment and Community Services, transfer Strategic Planner to the Development, Environment and Community Services Department and transfer Grants and Contributions Officer to the Finance Section. ?

 

Nett cost: $11,000 per annum.

 

This was the option most preferred by Council?s Consultative Committee and staff.? This option also provides the closest fit to the range of professional disciplines which are required to operate the Council.? This is an issue in a smaller Council where, due to resourcing, a large amount of senior management time is spent undertaking an operational (not management) workload.? However an additional Assistant General Manager does come at a cost being a remuneration package of $163,000 per annum.? If Council wished to return to this three Assistant General Manager structure it could replace the existing position of Manager Applications and Compliance with an Assistant General Manager position and undertake recruitment.

 

The difference in remuneration between the existing Manager?s position (which is a temporary appointment concluding 25 June 2013) and an Assistant General Manager would be $46,000 per annum.? The additional expenditure will not change the number of staff available to do work.? It will provide more accountability by moving another staff member onto a fixed term performance based contract, but at the cost mentioned. The additional $46,000 would be partially offset by replacing the Revenue Accountant with a Finance Assistant (saving of $35,000), resulting in a nett cost of $11,000 per annum.

 

In essence the cost differential between Option 1 (the recommendation) and Option 3 is $46,000 per annum and for this there will be no additional staff.

 

Option 3 is attached as an organisation chart.

 

 

Option 4: Three Assistant General Managers, the additional one being AGM Development and Environment Services; retain Community Services with Corporate Services, transfer Strategic Planner to the Development and Environment Services Department and transfer Grants and Contributions Officer to the Finance Section.

 

Nett cost: $11,000 per annum.

 

See discussion under Option 3. This option is not preferred as the portfolio is relatively small compared to Corporate and Community Services and Engineering Services and does not justify the additional expenditure associated with the higher remuneration. Nett cost to Council $11,000 per annum.

 

 

Option 5: Change ?Applications and Compliance? to ?Development and Environment?, transfer Strategic Planner to Development and Environment and transfer Grants and Contributions Officer to the Finance Section.

 

Nett saving/cost: $nil

 

This option is essentially the status quo with three relatively minor changes ? a title change, and two changes in reporting lines. It retains Development and Environment under Corporate and Community Services but reduces the number of direct reports to the General Manager. This option is cost neutral but does not yield any savings either.

 

The key disadvantage of this option is that it is very unlikely that the head of the Corporate and Community Services Department would be adequately qualified across such a broad range of functions.?

 

With an already lean structure and with significant financial issues, the Council does need to utilise the recent resignation of the Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services as an opportunity to evaluate its service delivery and organisation structure. If Council?s financial outlook does not improve or deteriorates, less frequent review and change will increase the risk of forced redundancies which is neither in the interests of Council or its employees.

 

 

Option 6: No change to the current structure

 

Nett saving/cost: $nil

 

This option is cost neutral but does not yield any savings either.

 

As discussed under Option 5, the key disadvantage of this option is that it is very unlikely that the head of the Corporate and Community Services Department would be adequately qualified across such a broad range of functions.?

 

With an already lean structure and with significant financial issues, the Council does need to utilise the recent resignation of the Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services as an opportunity to evaluate its service delivery and organisation structure. If Council?s financial outlook does not improve or deteriorates, less frequent review and change will increase the risk of forced redundancies which is neither in the interests of Council or its employees.

 

Option 6 is attached as an organisation chart.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

Employees, unions and the Consultative Committee were consulted on the proposed changes.

 

Four submissions were received and are attached together with the General Manager?s comments.

 

The Consultative Committee met on 6 May 2013 to consider the report and resolved as follows:

 

The Consultative Committee recommends that Council adopt Option 3 in the General Manager?s report, being a three Assistant General Manager structure for the following reasons:

 

1?????? Improved effectiveness of Council?s three functional areas of responsibility;

2?????? Leaves the General Manager to undertake the higher level strategic functions of Council;

3?????? The additional $11,000 cost compared with the current budget is minimal and offset by the improved effectiveness;

4?????? It is considered inappropriate for the General Manager to represent a functional area at Council meetings. A change of General Manager would potentially change the particular skills held and may make continuing this representation a challenge; and

5?????? Any future appointment of a General Manager would be restricted and only a narrow field of applicants would be equipped to replace the current General Manager?s planning skills. Option 3 removes this limitation.

 

Comment from General Manager

 

As indicated in the report it is agreed that this option provides the closest fit to the range of professional disciplines which are required to operate the Council.? With a model of two Assistant General Managers, if the General Manager has no functional responsibility (regardless of the function) then there will be increased responsibility for the two Assistant General Managers.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The report essentially concerns balancing the Council?s very limited staff resources to focus on the greatest risks to the governance of the organisation.? Given the available resources there is no solution which will ever provide optimal management and staffing.? Compromises do have to be made.

 

In terms of risk management, it is recommended that the organisation structure be changed to better manage the limited capacity in Council?s Finance Section to meet its statutory reporting obligations.? This is a core obligation for Council?s governance.

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proposed structure outlined in Option 1 (the preferred option) will provide a saving on the existing adopted structure of approximately $35,000 per annum.? This will result in a saving of $35,000 in Council?s operational plan (budget) for 2013/14.

?

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The report discusses changes to reporting arrangements and resourcing.

 

Attachments:

1View

10049/2013 - Draft Organisation Structure Chart - Option 1

0 Pages

2View

10058/2013 - Draft Organisation Structure Chart - Option 3

0 Pages

3View

10089/2013 - Current Organisation Structure Chart - Option 6

0 Pages

4View

10751/2013 - Submissions to the Consultative Committee meeting 6 May following consultation on proposed changes to the organisation structure

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Review of Council's Organisation Structure

 

 

EXECUTIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Organization Chart 

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Review of Council's Organisation Structure

 

 

CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Organization Chart 

 


 


ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

 

Organization Chart
 

 

 

 

 



?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Review of Council's Organisation Structure

 

 

EXECUTIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Review of Council's Organisation Structure

 

CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Organization Chart 

 



ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

 

Organization Chart
 

 

 

 

 



DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Organization Chart 

 


 


EXECUTIVE

 

 

CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

Organization Chart
 

 

 

 

 



?


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Review of Council's Organisation Structure

 

Submission by Strategic Planner (Grant Nelson)

 

As discussed there is a proposal to place the position of Strategic Planner back into the Planning Department reporting to the Manager of Applications and Compliance with an additional supervisory responsibility of senior town planner and technical officer planning.

 

I have no objection to my placement in the planning department of the organisation where I would be more accessible to planning/building staff as required. However, in relation to the supervisory role there would be an expectation that the position will take on supervisory responsibilities of other staff and formal involvement with their respective duties and processes. The Strategic Planner position has already received increased level of responsibility and duties through the original restructure, including the environmental levy, associated projects/activities and coordination and management. Placing further additional demands on the position by formal (written into the structure) involvement in the other processes, such as development assessment may create unrealistic expectations of the position and lead to reduced service levels.  

 

Further as you are aware the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has recently released the planning white paper proposing significant changes to the NSW planning system.  A cursory look at the changes identify  that is has a largely strategic focus, it is unknown at this stage type/ nature or quantity of work that will be required to fulfil state government requirements however it is anticipated this will have a further direct impact on current workload of the strategic planner position as the changes role out.

 

For the above reasons I request the Strategic Planner be positioned under the Manager of Applications and Compliance as proposed, but with no additional supervisory responsibilities  that would encompass a greater range of duties outside of the day to day activities of the strategic planner position as it exists at present.  

 

Thankyou for your consideration of this matter.

 

General Manager?s Comment

 

In relation to Grant's email and discussions with Grant I understand that Grant will make himself available to report on major development applications if required.  However he is keen to ensure that this does not overtake the service level required in strategic planning, including his management of the environmental levy program and other strategic planning work such as planning proposals (LEP's) and community land reclassifications.

 

Given the existing workload/staffing, I accept his argument and concur with his request that he report to the Manager of Applications and Compliance (as proposed) but with no supervisory responsibilities.

 

This concurrence should not be considered as a permanent or indefinite agreement, because as with all positions in the Organisation Structure a change in circumstances (eg workload or staffing) may necessitate a review of service levels and a change in responsibilities.

 

Submission by Grants and Contributions Officer (Colleen Henry)

 

I accept that reporting to a Manager makes sense from an organisational point of view, however I would like to propose that my position returns to the Economic Development Unit, with reporting to the Business Development Manager. This is where the position had been reporting to before the previous reorganisation. The primary reason for the first change in which I reported to the General Manager were to do with the need for support in my position as Contributions Officer. I don?t believe that I will get this support from either the Manager Financial Services or the Manager Business Development and therefore this rationale no longer exists, and the position should return to where it came from. This will also save me having to once more change into a different part of the organisation which I am not all that familiar with or comfortable in ? having come from Community Services (a previous position), into Business Development, into Executive Services, on to Financial Services ? I feel like I?m being passed around in an effort to meet some undefined needs of the organisation.

 

I have discussed this with Wayne Lowe and he has acknowledged that I am a low-maintenance report and doesn?t feel as though having an additional report will be a burden.

 

General Manager?s Comment

 

I note the previous reporting arrangements to the Business Development Manager.  Colleen does have to work closely with the Finance Section in grant acquittals and also with contribution plan income and expenditure.  Notwithstanding Colleen's concern about being passed around the building, the role is a closer fit to Finance than Business/Economic development.

 

Consequently I don't support her recommendation.

 


?

Submission by Technical Officer Planning (Lisa Hall), Business Services Officers (Teresa Boorer & Emma Shaw) and Senior Town Planner (Selina McNally)

 

Replacement of AGM Corporate & Community Services

 

Whilst being of the opinion that a three director/AGM structure would better enable Council to perform its functions, if a two director/AGM structure is all that can be funded, then we believe this position should be recruited for and filled as a matter of urgency. We agree with the recommendation by the AGMs and MHR that until recruitment is finalised that a temporary external appointment be made.

 

We believe that qualifications in finance or a related discipline should be an essential requirement for this position if they are to be responsible for Council?s financial reporting. Whilst working knowledge and local government experience in finance is also essential, evidence of having completed a qualification (degree or diploma) shows other qualities that are important for this position. The successful candidate should also be a current member of an organisation such as the Institute of Public Accountants. This ensures that they are undergoing regular and current continuous improvement rather than relying on potentially outdated knowledge and practices.

 

Applications and Compliance

 

We agree with the proposed name change for Applications and Compliance to become Environment and Planning. We are the ones who answer the phone every day with ?Applications and Compliance? and have the inevitable question ?What?s that??. A title with any or all of the words environment, health, building and planning gives the general public a much better idea of what we do.

 

We agree that this Unit should not be under Corporate and Community Services, however we also believe that it should not be under Engineering Services. These three functions of Council are separate and require different knowledge and qualifications. Building, environmental health and planning are specific disciplines in and of themselves, which is why a three director/AGM structure would work best for Council. Having this section under either of the two AGMs would make their portfolios too large and unwieldy.

 

We acknowledge that having this section report directly to the GM may add to his workload, however this issue could be alleviated the next time recruitment is carried out for the Manager Development and Environment position by making it a Senior Manager position ? somewhere between a Manager and AGM position ? to enable more responsibility to be undertaken by that person. When next advertised we believe it is important that this position be filled by someone with extensive experience and preferably qualifications in planning to replace the knowledge and expertise being lost by the outgoing AGMCCS.

 

We agree with the proposal to return the Strategic Planner to the Planning, building and health section (to be renamed Environmental and Planning) and this position should never have been removed as it provides the basis for our application processing, among other things. In particular with the forthcoming changes through the Planning White Paper it is even more fundamental that the Strategic Planner can work closely with assessment staff and have support from colleagues within this section.

 

Structure of the Business Services Unit

 

Our main issue relates to the operation of the Business Services Unit. In our section, we now have a Technical Officer Planning and two full-time Business Services Officers (Emma and Teresa), as well as two part-time BSOs (Candi and Pauline).

 

Having worked within this structure for some time and doing our best to make this structure work, we are of the opinion that Emma and Teresa need to be removed from the BSU and be appointed as Technical Officer Building and Technical Officer Health respectively. The example of removing Terri Brown from the BSU to be a Support Officer for Assets is one that could be followed in our section. We believe that our positions require similar levels of specialist and technical knowledge as do the Finance Officers, Creditors Clerk, GIS officers and the like.

 

We believe that the Development and Environment Unit would be better served by having three specialist technical officers who will be able to fill in for each other when leave occurs rather than having one technical officer and two BSOs. As we work closely together we are able to understand each other?s responsibilities better than anyone else in the BSU. Whilst we are able to fill in for other BSU officers when it comes to counter and phone duties, other BSU officers are generally unable to fill in for Emma, Teresa or Lisa when they are on leave. When Emma recently had a few days? leave, no replacement was provided by the BSU so Lisa did her work instead. The same case would exist if Teresa was on leave, Emma is able to deal with a lot of Teresa?s tasks, however other BSU officers would not be able to take on these tasks. The reverse is the case if Lisa is on leave, Emma can step in and do the 149 certificates and other planning duties also. All duties undertaken by Emma, Teresa and Lisa are technical in nature and the experience of all 3 staff members should be taken in to consideration.

 

The Business Services Unit would operate better as a unit which provides front line customer service to Council?s customers on the phone and at the counter. Once queries require specialist, technical and area-specific knowledge, then other officers can be called upon to take over the enquiry. The current Executive Assistants could remain part of the BSU if required to provide specialist administrative services to Council as a whole. This would also provide a career path for the other BSU officers to follow.

 

Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on the organisational structure. Having worked for Council for many years now and as those who are at the coalface dealing with customers in the often changing structure of Council, we feel well qualified to make the above suggestions and look forward to Council implementing them.

 

General Manager?s Comment

 

Replacement of AGM Corporate & Community Services

 

The preference for 3 Directors/AGM's is noted and is discussed as an option in the report going to Council.

 

Applications and Compliance

 

A name change from "Applications and Compliance" has been incorporated in the revised Organisation Structure with a new name, "Development and Environment".

 

Structure of the Business Services Unit

 

In relation to the Business Services Unit I acknowledge the many requests I have received from management and operations staff that the Unit be effectively dismantled and that Business Services staff return to their former departmental administration.  There is sometimes an acknowledgement that it may be a worthwhile initiative but that it should apply to other staff.  The only problem is that the number of people seeking a return to their former departments means that the "other staff" are likely to be zero in number.

 

The idea behind the Business Services Unit was that it would be better able to allocate limited support staff based on the needs of the whole organisation rather than the three separate ?competing? departments.? It was anticipated that the Unit would also encourage the adoption of processes which would be in the interests of the whole organisation rather than an individual department.? The Unit has had difficulty in progressing as a number of its staff have been backfilling vacant positions in Finance (being the Finance Officer ? Water & Cadet Accountant).

 

As indicated in the report to Council, the Unit does require management input to identify cost savings through process improvement or through a reduction in service levels.? This is because there is generally resistance to any reduction in service levels (both internal and external) and often inertia in tackling process improvement.  I acknowledge that our staffing levels make it difficult to attend to both daily operational tasks as well as process improvement/service level reduction, however our staffing levels also mean it is more important than ever to tackle these issues. I can't perceive any "down side" in continuing with the initiative as a trial and at least for this period don't support any further migration of staff out of the Unit.

 

I am open to alternative suggestions as to how to tackle stretching our limited staff resources.  The Business Services Unit was one idea suggested by Local Government Management Solutions.  I also note a similar suggestion from Stephen Blackadder is being implemented at Bellingen Council.  We have also discussed different approaches to process improvement whereby it is a requirement in the performance agreement of management staff (top down) -v- change initiated by operational staff through continuous improvement (bottom up).

 


 

Submission by Finance Staff (Craig Doolan, Faye Hawthorne, Chris Wills, Jeneen Fuller, Helen Searle, Kylie Johnson and Lanice Milgate)

 

With respect to the request for information on the proposed Organisation Restructure by the MHR on 26th April, Council?s Finance Team would like to make the following comments and requests.

 

We do not want to cover old ground or be accused of cynicism and therefore we only wish that reflection be given to the points in our previous submissions to the many organisation structure changes since the original decision to omit the Director of Corporate Services (DCS).

 

With respect to the latest report by the General Manager the Finance Team would like the following points to be considered:

 

?????? As you would expect the inclusion of sound local government financial experience/knowledge in the ?Assistant General Manager? PD to our section is welcomed by us and believed urgent in dealing with outstanding sustainability issues at the strategic level. This role is now critical moving forward in dealing with the massive external changes proposed for the industry, to ensure the rightful future for this organisation and the community.

?????? The latest structure shows the Finance Officer ? Expenditure remaining on 30hrs/wk. This contradicts the report by the Assistant General Manager Corporate Services (AGMCCS) and subsequent resolution by Council that increased the hours of the position to 35/wk as a result of the review of the finance restructure. These additional hours have been in place for over 12 months and are currently included in the draft 13/14 budget, they are critical to the functioning of the finance section. Also, the decision of Council to appoint a Revenue Accountant was based on lengthy research and discussion by the finance staff and the former AGMCCS to relieve operational workload, deal with leave issues and improve the efficiency of the finance section. It is important that this position be retained.

?????? The Cadet/Finance Assistant position should retain the duties previously undertaken and, importantly, include aspects within the competencies that promote development and future progression within the finance structure. Also, when duties of a higher grade are required the incumbent should be remunerated to ensure satisfaction in the position and therefore the hope of long term tenure. The previous AGMCCS advised that the position if realistically valued should be at least equivalent to the current Finance Officer positions.

?????? A 3 Director model is preferred by the Finance Staff primarily in relation to the experience we have endured since the non replacement of the DCS and that we would not like to see our issues arise in the Town Planning/Environmental Services/Health & Building Department.

 

In summary the finance team see the full-time positions below as paramount for the section to function efficiently:

 

?????? Assistant General Manager Corporate Services (AGMCS)

?????? Finance Officer ? Expenditure

?????? Revenue Accountant

?????? Cadet Accountant/Finance Assistant

 

General Manager?s comment

 

I've read the submission and with the exception of the additional hours for the Finance Officer - Expenditure, I think the issues raised are covered in the report which has been drafted.

 

The proposals constitute a fairly significant increase in specialist finance staff (and staff costs generally) at a time when we have been assessed as having a weak financial sustainability rating and a negative outlook.? The Council has also resolved to seek a special rate variation next year and IPART has previously been concerned to ensure that staffing costs are not going to consume funding earmarked for asset renewal.

 

The report does provide Council with the option of putting a third Director (Assistant General Manager) back and provides the costing for that.? There is also discussion about the Revenue Accountant and the role of the proposed new Assistant General Manager.

 

In relation to the additional 5 hours per week for the Finance Officer Expenditure, I don't have any objection to this proposal.? However my concern was that an approved temporary change seems to have been overlooked and assumed to have become a permanent arrangement.? I would have expected that arrangements to extend or terminate the temporary change would have been at the end of September 2012 which was the conclusion of the approved period.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager

ITEM 10.2?? SF959????????????? 300513??????? 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

Further letter sent 17 April 2013 with copy to Mr Stoner.


 

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 finalisation 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 week ending 31 May 2013 with Policy procedures for comment (resolution considered within the draft policy and operational guidelines)

 

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

Transport issues experienced with the nursery supplying the trees, anticipated delivery now end of May

 

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

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors week ending 31 May 2013 with Policy procedures for comment (tree registered considered within the draft policy and operational guidelines)

 

 


 

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.

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors week ending 31 May 2013 with Policy procedures for comment

?

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.? Response received and being discussed with Manager Community and Cultural Services.

JANUARY 2013

 

11

RF275

16/01/2013

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

 

AGMCCS

On-going

 

12??????????

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 April 2013.

 

 

Memo to be provided to Councillors week ending 31 May 2013 with Policy procedures for comment )resolution considered within the draft policy and operational guidelines)

 

 

13

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 allow for consultation with the RMS and Kempsey Shire Council.

 

 

14

SF848

16/01/2013

1.? Council review all public facilities managed by CoM where Council pays the water account and determine reasonable water usage.

2.? Write to CoM that manage public facilities where Council pays the water account and advise the CoM will have to pay for all water usage above a fixed volume commencing in 2013/14.

GM

Letters sent to Committees of Management specifying their fixed volume.

 

15

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.

 

Response received from Minister 20 March 2013 ? TRIM 7076/2013 attached.

 

16

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.

 

Application received 22 March 2013 and referred to DI&I (Fisheries) 15 April 2013

 

 

FEBRUARY 2013

 

17

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.

-???? To be reported to Council mid June

 

 

18

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 sent on 6 March 2013.? Response received 28 March 2013 indicating the RMS is in the process of conducting a speed zone review at this location.

 

MARCH 2013

 

19

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.

Meeting arranged for 6 June 2013.

 

 

 

20

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

 

21

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

 

22

SF1760

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.

 

GM

To be reported with draft budget.? Anticipate June 2013.? Opportunity to provide a form of rural waste service with funding through the waste levy grant.? Approval being sought from the EPA to use waste levy funding to trial a twice per year rural service whereby a mixed waste truck and a recycling truck would be stationed at Burrapine, South Arm, North Arm and Missabotti for 4 hours on a Saturday morning to receive? source separated waste and recyclables.? The service would be available to any person paying the tip availability charge but not receiving a waste service.? If the EPA endorses the proposal, it will be reported to Council for endorsement and then extensively advertised by direct mail and in the rates newsletter.

 

 

23

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.

 

DA to come back to Council?s meeting on 30 May 2013.

 

24

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

 

Verbal advice has been provided to Council that a Ministerial request for information was forwarded to the Rail Authority seeking information on the bridges.

 

25

SF1687

28/3/2013

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

 

AGMES

May 2013

Confirmation provided to meeting on 15 May 2013 by Technical Officer

?Assets that cisterns had been replaced.

 

 

 

APRIL 2013

 

26

SF601

10/4/2013

Council request RMS to urgently prepare for On and Off ramps for the Pacific Highway in the vicinity in North Macksville as to facilitate a discussion

 

GM

Letter sent to RMS on 12 April 2013

Mayor and Ms Janine Reed attended Community Cabinet meeting in Taree on 20 May 2013 in relation to this.

 

27

DA2012/010

10/4/2013

That this application be deferred to enable further discussion with the applicant

 

MAC

Will be scheduled for further consideration following discussions

Strata subdivision, Princess Street Macksville

 

 

28

SF669

10/4/2013

That Council respond to draft SEPP Coal Seam Gas exclusion zones

 

GM

Submission sent on 12 April 2013

 

MAY 2013

 

29

SF894

15/5/2013

A further report come to Council on the Independent Local Government Review Panel ?Twenty Essential Steps? report on the outcome of discussions with other Councils prior to making a final submission.

 

GM

Report mid June 2013

 

30

SF729

15/5/2013

Council produce a comparison of water rates, sewer usage and trade waste charges for Bellingen, Kempsey, Coffs Harbour and Waverly before Council sets its fees for 2013/14.

 

AGMES

 

 

31

SF1618

15/5/2013

Draft Community Strategic Plan ? Council note the submissions and recommendations associated with antimony mining and consider ways to address these submissions outside the process of the adopted the CSP.

 

GM

Report in June

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.3?? BR-BV-2????????? 300513??????? Weekes Bridge Replacement

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council arrange for a peer review of its decision to replace Weekes Bridge with a single lane structure by an independent, qualified and experienced engineer.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council has the option of not undertaking an independent review of the decision to replace Weekes Bridge with a single lane structure.? Notwithstanding the many reports and inspections of the bridge by two elected Councils (pre and post the September 2012 election), providing the opportunity for independent scrutiny of Council?s decision is the best means to respond to on-going complaints about the reports submitted to and the decisions made by Council.

 

Manex Comment

 

There was discussion in Manex in relation to this matter with agreement being reached that Council should also consider the arguments for not undertaking a peer review.? These include the fact that the decision has been reviewed by two different councils; that Council has experienced and qualified engineers who have reported to Council; that Council staff best understand risk in the context of all of Council functions; the cost of the review given that Council doesn?t have enough funds to maintain its assets; and finally the precedent which may be created whereby persistent lobbying by some disgruntled people is ?rewarded? via a review of the decision.

 

Manex also noted that at the Independent Local Government Review Panel workshop in Urunga on 10 May, the Panel member, Ms Jude Munro indicated that Mid North Coast Councils generally have been assessed as ?weak? in terms of their financial sustainability and reductions in service levels (along with rate increases) have to be pursued.? It can be expected there will generally be opposition to any reduction in service levels just as there is opposition to any increase in rates.?

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached correspondence from Mr Sean Davis concerning the replacement of Weekes Bridge.

 

There have been many letters, petitions and complaints in relation to the replacement of Weekes Bridge with a single lane structure.

 

The tenor of some complaints, including the attached, make it increasingly difficult for Council staff to be dispassionate in objectively considering the issue and responding to correspondence.? In particular, this involves the use of judgement in relation to the application of standards where there seem to be inherent inconsistencies.

 

The continuing opposition to the decision also suggests that further work is required to either demonstrate the soundness of the decision or to provide evidence to review the decision.

 

Consequently it is agreed with Mr Davis? proposition that the proposed replacement of Weekes Bridge with a single lane structure be reviewed by an independent and experienced engineer.

 

This review would consider the issue both in the narrow context of the risk pertaining to the users of Weekes Bridge and also the broader context being the opportunity cost to the remainder of the bridge program and the resultant risk to the community generally.? A recent bridge inspection program indicated that out of 170 bridges, Council has 40 bridges in a poor (condition rating 4) or very poor condition (condition rating 5).

 

The outcome of the review will be reported to an open meeting of Council.

 

A response to Mr Davis?s letter was issued on 21 May and is attached.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services; Council?s Engineering Designer; and the office of the NSW Ombudsman.

 

There was also discussion in Manex in relation to the matter.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

With continuing opposition, the sustainability of Council?s decision is an issue.? It suggests that further work is required to either demonstrate the soundness of the decision or to provide evidence to review the decision.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The purpose of the report and recommendation is to address concerns about risk in the replacement of Weekes Bridge.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Whilst Council has resolved to construct a single lane bridge, work has not commenced.? Consequently the budget impact is limited to the cost of the report.? Should the independent engineer recommend the bridge be replaced with a two lane structure or require additional approach works such as to render a single lane structure with an equivalent cost to a two lane structure, then Council will need to accept that recommendation and commit additional funds to the bridge.

 

Advice on the cost of a report should be available by the date of this meeting.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Depending upon the cost of the work, it may be able to be met from funds remaining in road or bridge budgets.? A source of funds will be verbally reported on to this meeting.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There has been considerable staff resources devoted to responding to many letters, emails and petitions in relation to the replacement of Weekes bridge.? There have also been many reports to Council and two inspections of the bridge, one by the previous Council and the other by the current Council.

 

Attachments:

1View

7559/2013 - Letter from Sean Davis

0 Pages

2View

12199/2013 - Response to Sean Davis and the Ombudsman

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Weekes Bridge Replacement

 








Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Weekes Bridge Replacement

 

Enquiries to:??? Michael Coulter

Phone No:????? 02 6568 0200

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

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

Our Ref:???????? BR-BV-2 & SF768

 

 

 

 

20 May 2013

 

 

 

Sean Davis

PO Box 620

MACKSVILLE 2447

 

 

Dear Mr Davis

 

 

Weekes Bridge Replacement

 

 

Reference is made to your letter of 26 March 2013 alleging that reports by council staff in relation to this matter are, ?misleading and incompetent, and appear overwhelmingly biased towards supporting previous poor decisions by council.?

 

Council has also been contacted by the NSW Ombudsman in relation to expediting a response and a copy of this letter has been sent to the Ombudsman.

 

The letter has thirty (30) numbered paragraphs which are referred to in this response.

 

Introductory paragraph and paragraph 1

 

In relation to your ?observations of concern?, in the first paragraph it is agreed that the calculation of 1.5 seconds for approaching vehicles is correct.

 

Council has acknowledged the less than adequate sight distance and agrees that signage and transverse markings or possibly a rumble strip is required to ensure vehicle speed is controlled for west bound vehicles approaching the give way sign for the single lane bridge.

 

AS 1742.2 is the appropriate standard for using signage to alert drivers approaching a hazard. It has been referenced in this context, not to support the financial decision to construct a single lane bridge.

 

The NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines Clause 2.3.4.1 & 2.3.6 generally support reduced speed limits at critical locations such as bridge approaches, with some qualifications.? The information in your letter has not specified how the sight distance analysis contravenes or ignores the relevant standards.

 

Paragraph 2

 

The initial statement is correct. The decision for a single lane bridge was based on financial issues. The report on safety implications dated 18 Sept 2012 was not prepared for the purpose of supporting the previous decision. It does identify the increased risks of a single lane bridge.

 

It is true that the initial sight distance analysis used criteria from the 2003 Rural Road Design Guide. The current guidelines however are not necessarily more stringent and the results obtained are similar. Over barrier sight distances have not been assessed and are not relevant in this location.

 

Paragraph 3

 

Your letter makes assertions but does not provide any examples for comment.

 

Paragraph 4

 

Your letter makes assertions but does not provide any examples for comment.

 

Paragraph 5

 

The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) commented on the need for safety to be addressed with signage and line marking. The low traffic volumes where also noted as a mitigating factor.

 

Paragraph 6

 

The original decision was financial, as publicly stated. AS5100 Clause 9.4 was not considered.

 

Paragraph 7

 

AS1742.2 Clause 1.7.1 is outlining reasons why a particular device succeeds or fails its designed purpose. These factors do need to be considered in the selection and installation of devices (signs) appropriate to the situation.

 

Paragraph 8

 

Refer to the comments made in relation to paragraph 2.

 

Paragraph 9

 

Two separate Issues are being confused here. The Austroads Road Design guidelines are just that, guidelines. The use of criteria from the superseded guide in the sight distance calculations was corrected.

 

Paragraph 10

 

Refer to comments made in relation to paragraph 1.

 

Paragraph 11

 

To build a bridge the same width as the existing (approx 6.0m deck) could be more expensive than a 7.2m wide deck as special deck units would need to be sourced.

 

Paragraph 12

 

As noted and both of these bridges proved expensive.

 

Paragraph 13

 

AS5100.1 Clause 9.4(i) provides for single lane bridges to have deck widths between 4.2m and 4.5m

 

Paragraph 14

 

Refer to the comments made in relation to Item 11.? Also it should be noted that after you have continually criticise Council?s decision for not being compliant with the applicable standards, you propose we not comply with AS5100 for a dual lane bridge.

 

Paragraph 15

 

Not having read the report referred to I am unable to comment.? It may be referring to bridges similar to the existing Weekes Bridge used normally as a single lane bridge but just wide enough for two cars to pass.? This is evidenced in the wear marks on the existing bridge which indicate that it is normally used by single vehicles travelling along its centre.

 

Paragraph 16

 

Over barrier sight distances have not been assessed and are not relevant in this location. The correct object heights have been used for stopping sight distance calculations.

 

Paragraph 17

 

Traffic counters were placed approximately 230 metres to the west of the bridge and 350 metres to the east of the bridge. The selected locations were appropriate to the geometry of the road.

 

Paragraph 18

 

Your comments are noted but not agreed with.

 

Paragraph 19

 

Your letter has not given any specifics of contradictions.

 

Paragraph 20

 

Many of your statements are contested, eg council has not applied any established procedures for bridge design, review, assessment and approval or that bridges are being built without any formal review processes.? Or that decisions on road safety are, ?rendered into uninformed ad-hoc decisions of the elected council?.? It is disagreed that Council, ?lacks competency in the assessment, design and costing of bridge works?.

 

Notwithstanding Council staff are keen to improve their approach to asset management and are addressing the need for a policy on the forward delivery of the capital works program.

 

Paragraph 21

 

As discussed in paragraph 20 above.

 

Paragraph 22

 

The ?1 to 5? rating is a standard emanating from level 1 bridge inspections. Unanticipated catastrophic failure is always a possibility with aging timber structures and uncontrolled heavy vehicle movements. Generally Council has tried to replace the bridges before they collapse. Council is training staff within level 2 bridge inspections.

 

Whilst Council is endeavouring to improve its asset management in terms of using preventative maintenance to increase asset life; in considering whole of life asset costs (eg timber ?v- concrete); scrutinizing the required service level as well as being better forecasting the timing of bridge replacements, there will always be some uncertainty.? The many natural disasters (floods) the local government area has experienced in the last 6 years is just one example of events which impact on bridges which cannot be accurately planned for.

 

None of your commentary references the financial context wherein a community with a population of 19,000 is responsible for 170 bridges, of which 41 are classified as being in poor or worse than poor condition.? Council?s expectation is that anyone of these 41 bridges has a high risk of failure.

 

Similarly in the time that Weeke?s bridge has been scheduled for replacement Council has imposed a 15 tonne load limit on the existing bridge.

 

Paragraph 23

 

This is presumably a reference to the ?economic impact? on the community of a single lane bridge or no bridge.? This has been reported on.? Council staff, as well as its Auditor and the NSW Treasury Corporation have also extensively reported on Council?s failure to adequately fund the renewal of its assets and the need to increase rates and reduce costs.

 

Paragraph 24

 

There has been extensive discussion about both safety and cost in the various reports to Council.? It is not agreed that the discussion has ?rejected the safety concern of residents?.

 

Paragraph 25

 

Likelihood and severity of consequences are the basic criteria for risk assessment and the traffic counts in the area were considered with respect to this assessment.

 

Paragraph 26

 

Council has never concealed the fact that a reduction in vehicle speed would be required with the introduction of a single lane bridge. Council has acknowledged the reduction in speed and noted the advice within the reports.

 

Paragraph 27

 

Signage is a recognised response for an identified hazard.

 

Paragraph 28

 

Lack of compliance with speed regulations is a major safety problem on the road network in general. Additions to the normal signage regime will be required as indicated in the RMS Guidelines.

 

Paragraph 29

 

Agreed.? That duty of care also extends to ensuring the safety of the users of the other 40 Council bridges which have a condition rating of poor or worse.? It also extends more broadly to ensuring we are addressing all risks on our risk register.

 

Paragraph 30 - Conclusion

 

You state;

 

?It appears that council has engaged in considerable bias to the detriment of transparent and appropriate decisions on behalf of the community.? Such outcomes are not only inappropriate but unsustainable both socially and economically.? It might be determined that council has engaged in malfeasance applying considerable resources to conceal the negligence of the original decisions.? The result being potential serious consequences for individuals in the event of a traffic accident?.

 

Your statement is not agreed with.? There have now been inspections and reports in relation to the replacement of the bridge involving two different elected councils, pre and post the September 2012 election.? The community has had a number of opportunities to address the Council and to ask questions of the Council and its staff.? The Council staff have responded to many emails and letters objecting to the replacement of the bridge with a single lane structure.? This process has been open and transparent and not what you describe as ?malfeasance applying considerable resources to conceal the negligence of the original decisions?.

 

Your continuing allegations of bias, malfeasance and negligence do not holistically consider Council?s obligations across the community to attend to asset renewal and manage risk generally.? Contrary to the impression created in your correspondence, there is an opportunity cost for the expenditure in terms of the risks posed by Council?s other assets in poor condition and particularly the other 40 bridges which have a condition rating of poor or worse.

 

Weekes? bridge is at the upstream end of a valley serving about 48 separate properties, not all of which contain a dwelling.? Traffic counts taken in September 2012 indicate it has about 124 vehicle movements a day.? The existing bridge does not meet the current standards for a dual lane bridge and this is evidenced by the wear marks on the bridge indicating its use by single vehicles travelling along its centre.

 

The Australian Standard for Traffic Control Devices (AS1742.2-2009) Clause 4.6.2.2(b) states that for bridges less than 60 metres long, GIVE WAY signs are not required for single lane bridges with an AADT less than 200.? The low AADT means that conflict with oncoming vehicles at the bridge would be rare and drivers would be required to concede right of way to vehicles already on the bridge.

 

Notwithstanding, your continuing accusations in relation to incompetence, misleading reporting, bias, negligence, malfeasance, poor decision making and lack of transparency mean that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Council staff to remain dispassionate in considering the issue and responding to correspondence.

 

As a consequence I will be recommending to Council?s meeting on 30 May 2013 that Council employ an independent and experienced engineer to review Council?s decision to install a single lane bridge.? If the review is agreed to by Council, its outcome will be reported in the open to a future Council meeting before Council commits to the construction of either a single or two lane bridge.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Coulter

General Manager

 

MC

 

cc The NSW Ombudsman


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.4?? SF1496??????????? 300513??????? Minutes of the Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuary and Coastline Management committee meeting held on 10 May 2012

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Attached for Council endorsement is a copy of the Minutes of the Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuary and Coastline Management Committee Meeting Held on Friday 10 May 2013.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council note the support from the committee to exhibit the Nambucca River Flood Study with associated materials and endorse the study for exhibition;

 

2??????? That Council note the committees support to exhibit the Deep Creek Flood Study and associated entrance management strategy with an amended water level trigger of 1.4m AHD and endorse the study for exhibition;

 

3??????? That Council note the resolution of the committee requesting Council to consider environmental levy funds in the 2013/14 budget for the Gumma Wetland project. Council consider a further report on the environmental levy once grant funding has been announced. This report will detail funds required and/or available for additional projects in the 2013/14 budget including any additional funding that may be available for actions in the Gumma Healthy Wetlands project.

 

4??????? That the remaining minutes from the Nambucca River Creeks, estuary and coastline management committee meeting held on Friday 10 May 2013 be endorsed and as necessary the appropriate action be taken.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1 ?????? Endorse the minutes

2 ?????? Note endorse the minutes

3 ?????? Endorse the minutes with amendments

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The flood study for the Nambucca River and Deep Creek are now both complete in draft form. Further the Deep Creek Entrance Management Policy is also complete in draft form.

 

The committee resolved the following:

 

1 ?????? That the Nambucca River Flood Study and associated documents be exhibited for a minimum of 28 days.

 

2 ?????? That the Deep Creek Flood Study and Entrance Management Policy as recently amended be exhibited for a minimum of 28 Days. Staff ensure the entrance management policy is exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

3??????? That during the exhibition period a minimum of three (3) community workshops be held.? One (1) in Macksville; one (1) in Nambucca Heads and one (1) in either Hyland Park or Valla Beach.? The Hyland Park/ Valla Beach workshop shall be focused on the Deep Creek Entrance Management Policy, and those persons who made representations to Council when the system was closed in November 2012 be invited to attend along with representatives of NSW Fisheries and the Office of Environment and Heritage.

 

4??????? A summary document be provided with exhibition materials highlighting differences between the existing flood studies and the newly drafted studies.

 

Deep Creek Flood Study and Entrance Management Policy

 

In November 2012 the Committee resolved to exhibit the Deep Creek Flood Study and draft Entrance Management Policy which proposed an opening level of 1.5m AHD.

 

In November 2012 Deep Creek entrance closed for a period of approximately 4 weeks. During this time staff monitored the entrance and the water levels. Given this closure followed an extended dry period the water levels remained relatively low (1m AHD). A rainfall event in mid-November (approximately 50mm) caused a significant increase in levels to approximately 1.3-1.41 metres AHD. At this time residents became most concerned and an application was made to DPI for Council to mechanically open the entrance at a level of 1.4 metres AHD. Noting the draft flood study recommended an opening level of 1.5m AHD.

 

As the application was being processed the entrance opened at a peak height of 1.41 metres AHD. The entrance opened at approximately 10:45pm on a low tide after no additional rainfall, therefore it is being assumed that it was mechanically opened without authorisation.

 

This highlights the complexities of the issue and if the management policy is not accepted by the community directly affected by inundation, then inappropriate opening regimes may result.? This includes an increased probability that the entrance will be opened at random by members of the local community decreasing sand flushing through the entrance and increasing the risk of a shallow ICOLL with reduced fish habitat and recreational qualities, and detrimental impacts associated with altered hydrological regimes to SEPP 14 wetlands and Endangered Ecological Communities.

 

Post opening discussions were held with Councils consultants, NSW Fisheries and OEH and the entrance opening trigger has been amended to 1.4m AHD. Given the complexities of this issue and that the acceptance of an opening level by the local community being integral to sustainability of the policy it has been recommended each of the land holders who made representations to Council be invited to a forum during the exhibition period. Other agencies with approval/ permit responsibilities related to the opening of the entrance be invited to attend the meeting.

 

Nambucca River Flood Study Extension

 

WMA water the consultants engaged by the RMS to prepare the flood review for the Nambucca River and Warrell Creek have completed their investigation to satisfy the requirements of the RMS. However, as with investigations undertaken at Kalang River, the information provided to the RMS does not meet the requirements of a flood study for the purposes of the floodplain management manual and local government requirements.

 

For that reason Council has received a quote from the WMA water to utilise the completed modelling to prepare a flood study for the Nambucca River. As the majority modelling was completed the study has been prepared at a substantially reduced cost.

 

A draft Flood Study has now been prepared [attachment 1]. It includes the relevant background modelling reports as an appendix.? It is recommended these studies proceed to exhibition.

 

A summary document is to be provided with the exhibition materials to highlight differences between the existing studies and the draft documents to be placed on exhibition.

 

Gumma Swamp Healthy Wetland Project

 

Mr Josh Keating Wetland Care Australia presented a progress report on the Gumma Wetland project and advised that the hydrological investigation presently being prepared by Water Research Laboratory (University of NSW). This will provide recommendations for the future management of the Wetland.

In regards to this project the committee recommended Council consider additional funds from the Environmental Levy be targeted to the Gumma Healthy Wetland Project within the 2013/14 Budget.


Comment:

 

The Gumma healthy wetlands project is funded by $40,000 of Environmental Levy Funding, $40,000 (wetland care Australia/ caring for our country) and $80,000 of matching OEH Estuary Funding in the 2012/13 financial year. Given the late allocation of the funds the project did not formally commence until Dec 2012, and the project will be carried over into the 2013/14 financial year.

 

The proposed levy budget for the 2013/14 year, at this point in time does not include any additional funds for this project. In addition to this during the budget deliberations a number of levy projects for which matching grant funds were removed from the budget. This means should Council be successful with the grant funds, matching funds will need to be sourced from elsewhere or levy revotes. These projects included finalisation of the Beach Access Improvements and the Flood Risk Management Study/ Plan.

 

Should additional funds be available in the environmental levy through revotes and after associated grant funding is announced, a worthwhile action would be allocation to the Gumma Healthy Wetland project.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

NIL

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

The committee makes recommendations to Council on various environmental, social and economic matters.

 

Social

The committee makes recommendations to Council on various environmental, social and economic matters.

 

Economic

The committee makes recommendations to Council on various environmental, social and economic matters.

 

Risk

NIL

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

The matters discussed at the committee meeting have generally already been budget for and are underway or alternatively may require future budget decisions to be made by Council.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Environmental Levy

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Nil

 

Attachments:

1View

11329/2013 - Minutes - Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee - 10 May 2013

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Minutes of the Nambucca River, Creeks, Estuary and Coastline Management committee meeting held on 10 May 2012

 

PRESENT

 

Cr John Ainsworth (Chairperson)

Mr Peter McNally (Nambucca Valley River Users Group)

Ms June Finlayson (NSW Farmers)

Mr Tim Ryan (Landcare)

Ms Theresa Spens-Black (Oyster Farmers)

Ms Fay Lawson (Flood Affected Landowner)

Ms Eleonora Snart (Nambucca Valley Tourism)

Cr Paula Flack

Cr Bob Morrison

 

 

Note: Councillors Ainsworth, Morrison and Flack left the meeting at 9.00 am due to attend another meeting.

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Grant Nelson (Strategic Planner)

Josh Keating (Wetland Care)

Peter Shales (SES)

John Schmidt (OEH)

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Mr James Hallum

Mr Marcus Riches

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

Cr John Ainsworth declared a non-pecuniary significant conflict of interest in Item 5.3 Gumma Wetland Project and Item 5.4 Gumma and Watt Creek Water Quality as Cr Ainsworth is a landowner in the Gumma area.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

1/13 Resolved:? (McNally/Lawson)

 

That the Committee note the adoption and endorsement of the recommendations of the Minutes of the Meeting held 2 November 2012, by Council at its meeting of 14 November 2012.

 

 

?

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

There were no Questions With Notice.

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

 

ITEM 5.1???? SF1496????????????? 100513???? Report on outstanding items

2/13Resolved:?? (Lawson/Morrison)

 

The list of outstanding actions be noted and received by the Committee.

 

 

 

ITEM 5.2???? SF1496????????????? 100513???? Nambucca River Flood Study, Deep Creek Flood Study and Entrance Management Policy

3/13RESOLVED:?? (McNally/Spens-Black)

 

1 ?????? That the Nambucca River Flood Study and associated documents be exhibited for a minimum of 28 days.

 

2 ?????? That the Deep Creek Flood Study and Entrance Management Policy as recently amended be exhibited for a minimum of 28 Days.? Staff ensure the entrance management policy is exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

3??????? That during the exhibition period a minimum of three (3) community workshops be held.? One (1) in Macksville; one (1) in Nambucca Heads and one (1) in either Hyland Park or Valla Beach.? The Hyland Park/ Valla Beach workshop shall be focused on the Deep Creek Entrance Management Policy, and those persons who made representations to Council when the system was closed in November 2012 be invited to attend along with representatives of NSW Fisheries and the Office of Environment and Heritage.

 

4??????? A summary document be provided with exhibition materials highlighting differences between the existing flood studies and the newly drafted studies.

 

 

 

ITEM 5.3???? SF1496????????????? 100513???? Gumma and Watt Creek Water Quality Project

4/13RESOLVED:?? (Shales/Lawson)

 

1.?????? That the existing monitoring stations (data loggers) and security fences associated with these monitoring stations be removed.

 

2.?????? That the Committee await further recommendations from the consultant presently reviewing the data.

 

 

 

ITEM 5.4???? SF1809????????????? 100513???? Gumma Wetlands Project

5/13 RESOLVED:? (Ryan/McNally)

 

That the Committee note the progress of the Gumma Wetlands Project and that further updates and recommendations will be provided as the project progresses.

 

6/13 Resolved:? (Flack/Ryan)?????????

 

That the Committee recommend Council consider an environmental levy contribution to the Gumma Wetland Project in the 2013/14 budget.

 

 

 

ITEM 5.5???? SF1799????????????? 100513???? Coastal Zone Management Plan Implementation/Progress

7/13RESOLVED:?? (Spens-Black/Ryan)

 

That the Committee note the progress of projects being undertaken in the Coastal Areas.

 

 


 

ITEM 5.6???? SF1496????????????? 100513???? Information on Derelict and substandard oyster leases

8/13RESOLVED:?? (Shales/Ryan)

 

That the information regarding derelict and substandard oyster leases be noted

 

???

 

?

ITEM 5.7???? SF1496????????????? 021112???? Reports from Committee Members and Attendees as required 10 May 2013

9/13Resolved:??

 

That the verbal reports as given, be noted.

 

MEMBER

ORGANISATION

CONTENT OF REPORTS

ACTION/
RESPONSE

Anna Sadlak

Maritime Services

Advised of the upcoming Better Boating Program.

Noted

Peter Shales

State Emergency Services

Flood gauges at Factory Bridge has been removed.?

Flood gates at end of East Street removed.

Noted and Strategic Planner to investigate

Teresa Spens-Black

Oyster

Advised the Estuary Management System has been drafted for local oyster growers

Noted

Tim Ryan

Landcare

Advised major works in the bore fields area to start in the next few weeks.? Other projects in Taylors Arm (six bed control projects to commence soon)

The future of Nambucca Valley Landcare is uncertain due to funding cuts.

Noted

Peter McNally

Nambucca River User Group?

Advised the boat ramp at Scotts Head is extremely slippery and potentially hazardous.

Noted advised that Council is aware of the matter.

June Finlayson

NSW Farmers

Question skiing restrictions in Nambucca River.? Anna Sadlak advised there are no restrictions.

Noted

John Schmidt

OEH

Advised that he was approached by River User Group to query the resurrection of a derelict boat ramp in a road reserve north of the Showground, Macksville.

Questioned whether Better Boating grants program would be suitable.

Advised that Council has been approached by the RMS in regard to the Better Boating Program and a number of sites will be considered including Stuart Island.

 

 

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held on August 2013 commencing at 8.30 am.

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being? 9.40 am.?

 

 

 

 

GRANT NELSON

STRATEGIC PLANNER

(CHAIRPERSON)

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.5?? SF1541??????????? 300513??????? Planning Proposal Housekeeping Amendment to the Nambucca LEP 2010

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an opportunity to the amend the Nambucca LEP 2010 to correct a number of anomalies. The land in question includes the following:

 

-???? Thistle Park Reserve Macksville

-???? Nambucca Veterinary Clinic

-???? Macksville Post Office

-???? Nambucca Bridge Club (2 Fred Brain Avenue)

-???? Ocean View Drive Valla Beach

 

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????????? Pursuant to the Clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council prepare a Planning Proposal to support the following amendment as proposed in this report.

 

a.?? amend Thistle Park (Lot 12 Sec A DP11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP122896; Lot 1 DP122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP11590; Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP729696) from R1 General Residential to RE1 Public Recreation and remove any other development standards that are inconsistent with other open space areas.

 

b.?? zone the land occupied by the Nambucca Veterinary Clinic (Lot 1 DP541043 & Lot 9 Sec 27 DP758749) from R3 Medium Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and remove the floor space ratio (FSR) to reflect the adjoining land and other commercial land in the shire.

 

c.?? the Macksville Post Office be listed as an Environmental Heritage Item in Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

d.?? Land occupied by the Nambucca Bridge Club 2 Fred Brain Avenue Nambucca Heads (Lot 21 DP1161807) be zoned from RE1 Public Recreation to RE2 Private Recreation.

 

e.?? The minimum lot size map at 125 Ocean View Drive Valla Beach (Lot 8 DP1031509) be amended from 450sqm to 40Ha a minimum lot size.

 

2??????? The Planning Proposal and associated material be submitted to the Minister for Planning for ????????? consideration under Clause 56 of the Act.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Council may choose not to support one or all of the proposed amendments

 

2??????? Should Council not support the proposed LEP amendment at 125 Ocean View Drive Valla Beach then the Manager of Applications and Compliance or Senior Town Planner is to advise the landowner of requirements associated with the lodgement of a DA for the concept subdivision presented in this report.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

a.???????? Thistle Park

 

Thistle Park Reserve Macksville is presently zoned R1 General Residential. This land was acquired from the Department of Education in 2009 during the development of the Nambucca LEP 2010. Part of the terms of to a contract of sale were that Council agreed not dispose of the land and the land would be zoned for open space purposes.

 

To that affect this amendment proposes to zone Thistle Park (Lot 12 Sec A DP11590; Lot 1 DP 122896; Lot 1 DP122896; Lot 1 DP122898; Lot 7 Sec D DP11590; Lot 6 Sec D DP11590; Lot 5 Sec D DP11590; Lot 4 Sec D DP11590; Lot 12 Sec A DP 11590; Lot 1 DP729696) to RE1 Public Recreation and remove any other development standards that are inconsistent with other open space areas.

 

 

 

b.???????? Nambucca Veterinary Clinic 5 Beer Parade (Lot 1 DP541043 & Lot 9 Sec 27 DP758749)

 

Examination of the zoning relating to the above property through a counter enquiry, confirmed that this land was incorrectly zoned within the Nambucca LEP 2010. The landowner was requested to provide Council with a letter confirming their request to correct the anomaly. This has been provided and is attached [attachment 1].

 

The Nambucca LEP 1995 zoned the above land as 3(a) Commercial. In preparing the Nambucca LEP 2010 the intention was to prepare a best fit transfer from the existing zones to the new template requirements unless otherwise specified. However an error has occurred and the land has been zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

 

It is recommended that Council correct the anomaly and zone the land B1 Neighbourhood Centre and remove the floor space ratio (FSR) to reflect the adjoining land and other commercial land in the shire.

 

c.?????? Macksville Post Office Cooper Street, Corner River Street, Macksville, (Lot 1 DP816339)

 

On the 9th November 2011 the Macksville Post office was gazetted in Commonwealth Heritage List under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Macksville posted office was one of 43 post offices listed throughout Australia at this time.

 

Macksville was identified for the following reasons:

 

Macksville Post Office, constructed in 1917, is of historical significance as one of the first two NSW Post offices, along with Botany, credited to Commonwealth architects. Although extended and modified, the building is legible as a 1917 era structure. The free standing timber clad telephone exchange is extant, although in poor condition and no longer used for its original function. The significant components of Macksville Post Office include the main building dating from 1917.

 

To complement the commonwealth listing of this item it is recommended the post office be listed in Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Nambucca LEP 2010. This will allow for the appropriate consideration of heritage matters related to the building should the future development occur.

 

d.???????? Nambucca Bridge Club 2 Fred Brain Avenue Nambucca Heads (Lot 21 DP1161807)

 

The Nambucca bridge club acquired a portion of land at Fred Brain Avenue in 2012. The land is presently zoned RE1 Public Recreation. As the land is no longer owned by Council it considered to be more appropriately zoned RE2 Private Recreation.

 

 

e.???????? 125 Ocean View Drive Valla Beach (Lot 8 DP1031509)

 

The land owners (Mr IB and Mrs DM Rogan) of 125 Ocean View Drive Valla Beach made enquiries to Council in regards to the subdivision potential of their land which comprises approximately 2351sqm and is zoned E3 Environmental Management. In response to this property enquiry, a letter was provided to the land owners in 2011 [Attachment 1].

 

The letter explains that the intent of the Nambucca LEP 2010 was to transfer provisions of the Nambucca LEP 1995 into the standard instrument LEP format and the investigations revealed that:

 

-? approval for the existing dwelling on the land (DA1997/02) was subject to State Government concurrence (a SEPP 1 Variation to development standards), the consolidation of former lots 90-93 into a single allotment (Lot 8) and the dedication of proposed Lot 9 to Council as public reserve;

 

-? in the Nambucca LEP 1995 the land was zoned 7b Environmental Protection (Vegetation Conservation) and as such held a 40Ha minimum lot size.

 

-? an error in the Nambucca LEP 2010 has occurred and rather than transferring the 1995 LEP 40Ha minimum lot size into the new LEP, the Lot size on this land is presently 450sqm similar to adjoining residentially zoned land.

 

The letter acknowledges that as the LEP stands at present the owner could lodge an application for subdivision on the land with such an application being forwarded to Council for consideration due to the error referred to above.

 

More recently the land owner has made additional enquiries to Council in regards to the subdivision potential of the land through Amos and Mcdonald Surveyors. This correspondence is provided as [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 3].

 

Amos and Mcdonald acting on behalf of the land owner have indicated preliminary advice has been provided in regards to threatened species and bushfire, however the suitability of the site for future development is yet to be fully investigated in relation to these and other such legislative requirements. Therefore the basis for the recommendation of this report is restricted to correcting an unjustified anomaly in the Nambucca LEP 2010. The intention of this report is to bring the matter to Councils attention prior to the land owner dedicating significant funds to specialist studies and like application fees required to support a development application for subdivision on the land.

 

As the land has been given subdivision potential through the error it is recommended Council support a planning proposal to revert the land back to a 40HA minimum lot size. Should Council resolve not to support the planning proposal an alternative recommendation is provide in this report, being that Councils Manager of Applications and Compliance or Senior Town Planner provide the land owner detailing requirements of any future subdivision application.

 

 

Comment from General Manager

 

Notwithstanding the apparent error in the ?like to like? conversion of Nambucca LEP 1995 to the Nambucca LEP 2010, the land may be suitable for further subdivision.? It has adequate area and has been maintained as a landscaped garden.? From discussion with the applicant surveyor, the identifiable and potential constraints are its bushfire prone status and the removal of 3 large trees for the dwelling site.? The applicant surveyor is confident that an Asset Protection Zone can be provided without the removal of any trees, but this would need to be confirmed.? Similarly a threatened species assessment of the three large trees which would need to be removed for a dwelling is needed to determine if there would be any impact on threatened species.? It is suggested that the applicant surveyor be advised that Council will withhold the proposed amendment to increase the minimum lot size from 450 sq m to 40 hectares for six months to allow a development application to be submitted and determined.

 

To be clear if Council proceeds with the draft local environmental plan to increase the minimum area for subdivision it will be making an ?in principle? decision that further subdivision is inappropriate because of the error made in transposing the minimum lot size provision from the Nambucca LEP 1995.

 

The alternative is to defer the draft local environmental plan to allow a development application to be lodged for the proposed subdivision and for it to be determined on its merits.? Given the E3 zoning, if Council decides to consider a development application on its merits, the applicant should be advised that Council will expect the objectives of the zone to be met.? The objectives of the E3 zone are to protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values and to provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on those values.? The permissible uses with consent include dwelling houses.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Senior Town Planner

General Manager

Former Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed amendments are aimed at correcting anomalies with the Nambucca LEP 2010. There are no associated adverse environmental impacts.

 

Social

 

The proposed amendments are aimed at correcting anomalies with the Nambucca LEP 2010. There are no associated adverse social impacts.

 

Economic

 

The proposed amendments are aimed at correcting anomalies with the Nambucca LEP 2010. There are no associated adverse economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

There is limited risk associated with any of the proposed amendments at this stage in the process

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

Nil

Attachments:

1View

16593/2011 - Attachment 1 Letter Response Property search request 125 Ocean View Drive, Valla Beach

0 Pages

2View

9011/2013 - Attachment 2 Request for information relating to proposed subdivision of Lot 8 DP 1031509, 125 Ocean View Drive, Valla Beach

0 Pages

3View

14064/2012 - Request to have Zoning of 5 Beer Parade returned to a Commercial Zoning - Nambucca Heads Vet Clinic

0 Pages

4View

12470/2013 - Additional information in relation to proposed 2 Lot Subdivision, Lot 8 DP 1031509 Ocean View Drive, Valla Beach

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Planning Proposal Housekeeping Amendment to the Nambucca LEP 2010

 

Enquiries to:??? Mr Grant Nelson

Our Ref:???????? LF5156

 

 

 

21 June 2011

 

 

 

Mr I Rogan

125 Ocean View Drive

Valla Beach NSW 2448

 

 

Dear Mr Rogan

 

PROPERTY ENQUIRY: LOT 8 DP1031509, 125 OCEAN VIEW DRIVE VALLA BEACH

 

I refer to your recent property enquiry in relation to the zoning of the land and other potential uses, including subdivision and/or dual occupancy development. I have reviewed the available information and can provide the following advice.

 

The recently gazetted Nambucca LEP 2010 was intended to transfer provisions of the Nambucca LEP 1995 into the standard instrument LEP format in this way not requiring justification for LEP changes or rezonings unless previous justification was available.

 

Under the Nambucca LEP 1995 the land was zone 7(b) Environmental Protection (Vegetation Conservation). The land is presently zoned E3 Environmental Management under the Nambucca LEP 2011 which generally reflects the previous zone.

 

Under the Nambucca LEP 1995 the subject land had a minimum lot size of 40Ha, however under the LEP 2010 the subject land has a minimum lot size of 450sqm. This is considered an error or anomaly under the LEP 2010, as the new lot size should have been 40HA reflecting the 1995 LEP provisions.

 

A subdivision on the land would not have been permissible under the Nambucca LEP 1995, however the error described above makes a subdivision permissible subject to a development application. Any development application lodged for a subdivision on the land would be required to be accompanied by a statement of environmental effects which among other things addresses the objectives of the E3 Zone. As the E3 zone is typically restricted to 40Ha in size to protect the environmental attributes of a site, subdivision of the land may be inappropriate.

 

It is noted the modified consent issued for a dwelling on the land (DA1997/02) was subject to State Government concurrence, the consolidation of former Lots 90-93 into a single allotment (Lot 8), and the dedication of proposed Lot 9 to Council as a public reserve, further reason to consider subdivision as inappropriate.

 


2

 

Mr I Rogan

21 June 2011

LF5156

 

 

 

An attached dual occupancy development was previously permissible within the 7B zone and is also permissible in the E3 Zone subject to certain provisions. Given a dwelling is already erected on the subject land and an attached dual occupancy is also permissible.

 

Given the error in the LEP mapping any application made for further subdivision on the land would be forwarded to Council for consideration.

 

Should you have any queries in regards to the advice provided in this letter please do not hesitate to contact Councils Strategic Planner Mr Grant Nelson on 65680248.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Grant Nelson

STRATEGIC PLANNER

 

GN:lh


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Planning Proposal Housekeeping Amendment to the Nambucca LEP 2010

 














Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Planning Proposal Housekeeping Amendment to the Nambucca LEP 2010

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Planning Proposal Housekeeping Amendment to the Nambucca LEP 2010

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.6?? SF1541??????????? 300513??????? Planning Proposal Nambucca LEP amendment Subdivision of undersized allotments

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to gain Council support to undertake a planning proposal to allow for boundary adjustments to occur between 1 or more existing undersized allotments. It will contribute to the ongoing improvements to Councils local planning provisions as they relate to rural land and provide additional opportunities for rural landholders.

 

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??????? Pursuant to the Clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council prepare a Planning Proposal to support an amendment to allow for the Boundary adjustments of land in certain rural and environmental protection zones.

 

2??????? The Planning Proposal and associated material be submitted to the Minister for Planning for ????????? consideration under Clause 56 of the Act.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to proceed with the amendment.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

As local Councils produced their Local Environmental Plans (LEP?s) in accordance with the state governments standard instrument requirements, each of these subsequent LEP?s repealed the State Environmental Planning Policy no. 1 Variations to Development Standards for that area.

 

Clause 4.6 of standard Instrument LEP replaced the functions of this repealed SEPP and this clause allows for variations to development standards such as lot size, height and floor space ratio. To be considered, a variation must satisfy the provisions of this clause.

 

A feature lacking from clause 4.6 which was previously available to Council through Department of Planning issued assumed concurrences under the SEPP is the ability to undertake boundary adjustments associated with lots that are already under the minimum lot size.

 

Discussions with the Department of Planning previously indicated that the issue was being examined and it appears that an agreement has now been made on the wording of provisions to address the issue. Coffs Harbour, Upper Hunter and Ballina LEP?s have drafted or contain provisions which allow boundary adjustments between existing undersized allotments.

 

The following is adapted from the draft Coffs Harbour LEP 2012 presently on exhibition:

 

4.1B Boundary adjustments of land in certain rural and environmental protection

zones [local]

(1) The objective of this clause is to facilitate boundary adjustments

between lots where one or more resultant lots do not meet the

minimum lot size and the objectives of the relevant zone can be

achieved.

(2) This clause applies to land in the following zones:

Zone RU1 Primary Production

Zone RU2 Rural landscape

Zone R5 Large Lot Residential; and

Zone E3 Environmental Management.

(3) Despite Clause 4.1, development consent may be granted to

subdivide land by way of a boundary adjustment between adjoining

allotments where one or more resultant lots do not meet the

minimum lot size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that

land, if the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the subdivision will not create additional lots or the opportunity

for additional dwellings, and

(b) the number of dwellings or opportunities for dwellings on each

lot after subdivision must be the same as before the subdivision,

and

(c) the potential for land use conflict will not be increased as a

result of the subdivision, and

(4) Before granting consent to development to which this clause

applies the consent authority must be satisfied that the subdivision

will result in the continued protection and long term maintenance of

any land zoned E3 Environmental Management or E2 Environmental Protection.

 

These provisions allow a landowner/s to adjust boundaries on undersized allotments where no adverse effects will be encountered. In many cases these types of boundary adjustments allow for logical and practical rural land management practices.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Planning Staff

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed amendment includes provisions that ensure appropriate consideration is provided to Environmental zoned land. Similar provisions apply to the minimisation of rural land use conflicts.

 

Social

 

The proposed amendment will provide for opportunities for rural landholders to consider alternative lot arrangements which may provide improved land management practices and greater rural productivity.

 

Economic

 

The amendment will allow for alternative land management arrangements and potential economic advantages for landholders.

 

Risk

 

Nil. Historically the provisions were available to Council under SEPP 1 concurrences and were commonly applied with few negative implications.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Nil

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.7?? SF1687??????????? 300513??????? Floor Level Survey Macksville - further Report

 

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

 

Summary:

 

This report has been prepared to address previous Council resolutions regarding a floor level survey of Macksville being undertaken by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in collaboration with Council. The survey will inform flood risk, by providing the habitable floor levels of dwellings likely to be impacted by a 1 in 100 year flood event.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council make available the floor level survey information by request in writing. Noting that it requires the property owners written consent.

 

2????????? That a flood enquiry fee of $64 is recommended.

 

3??????? That Council note that the proposed survey will address all areas located upstream of the proposed Highway bypass that are likely to be impacted by a 1 in 100 year flood event. This area includes Kings Point area.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.?? Council may make additional recommendations in regards to the management of the floor level information.

 

2? Council may choose to make the survey information freely available to landowners given the survey will assist Council in meeting is statutory flood investigation responsibilities.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

As previously reported the RMS is progressing with investigations of the Warrell Creek to Nambucca section of the Pacific Highway upgrade. Part of the investigation includes the method of construction to be used when building through the flood plain and across the Nambucca River.

 

In order to model flood impacts associated with alternative methods of construction the RMS has proposed to engage surveyors to collect the floor levels of dwellings in Macksville. The data collected can later be used by Council to estimate damages as part of a Flood Risk Management Plan. As previously advised the survey will focus on areas likely to be impacted in flood events and it is estimated floor levels of approximately 500 dwellings will be collected.

 

The RMS has agreed to complete the survey at their cost and provide the data to Council. The RMS has been provided with a letter of introduction from Council to be given out to residents as required.

 

On the 28 March 2013 Council resolved the following in regards to a floor level survey being undertaken in Macksville.

 

1??????? That Council note that a floor level survey is to be undertaken of approximately 500 properties in the Macksville area.

 

2??????? That Council provide the consultant surveyors with a letter of introduction to be given out as required.

 

3??????? That Council receive a report on how this information can be managed once received.

 

4??????? That Council ask the Roads and Maritime Services whether they would include homes in the Kings Point area.

 

 

In reference to item 3 above it is recommended that the results of the floor level survey be retained in either Council GIS or property system. Consultation with Council?s senior GIS Officer indicated that both these systems can be linked.

 

In terms of accessing the information it is recommended that the information can be made available via request in writing to Council with property owners consent.

 

As Council prepares its flood risk management study and plan in the coming years the information will be used to establish damages and other impacts associated with floods.

 

In relation to item 4 above homes in the Kings Point area will be included in the survey. Essentially the survey will include all dwellings in an area likely to be impacted in a 1 in 100 year event that are upstream from the proposed future highway.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Senior GIS Officer

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

NIL. This report is an update to a previous report.

 

Social

 

NIL. This report is an update to a previous report.

 

Economic

 

NIL. This report is an update to a previous report.

 

 

Risk

As Council is only making the information available with owners consent, legal risk associated the provision of this information is limited.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

NIL

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

NIL

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The data will need to be imported into Councils property system and should any requests for the information be received it will need to be retrieved by staff. A typical flood enquiry fee is recommended ($64 2012/13).

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager

ITEM 10.8?? SF1120??????????? 300513??????? Grant Application Status Report

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

RecommendationS:

 

That the list of grant applications and their status to 20 May 2013 be received.

 

 

Successful grant applications (PREVIOUS AND CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR):

Grant and date of approval

Funding Amount

Amount Council

Description

NSW Govt ? Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS)

Closed 26 March 2012

 

$262,542

Loan repayment

Council will receive an interest rate subsidy of 4% for bridge projects totalling $1.206 million.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority -

NRM Implementation projects

Closed 15 June 2012

$70,000

$22,500

in-kind

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

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$60,000

$40,000*

 

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

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

Closed 28 February 2012

$80,000

$40,000*

Gumma wetland Water Management Regime assessment, planning and implementation of water management regime at Gumma to meet wetland improvement and water quality management objectives.

Royal Australian Heritage Society Historical Grant

Closed 20 July 2012

$1,500

(partial grant only)

NA

Publication of the history of Talarm from the oral histories which are being collected through a Commonwealth grant.

Revitalising Regional Libraries

Closed 19 November 2012

$16,000

NA

Funding to address some of the gaps in the Library collection.

 

SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS IN THIS QUARTER:

 

Grant and Date of Notice

Amount

Amount - Council

Description

State Library NSW

Country Libraries Grant

Closed 23 November 2012

$66,650

NA

Purchase of large print books and Playaway audio books

Total year to date

?$556,692

 

 

(Please note that I have removed from the list above the long-term, multi-year grants which had been awarded more than one year ago to make this list more reflective of the current grant situation.)

 

The Coronation Park Committee of Management was assisted in making a successful application to ETC Employment for grounds keeping equipment.


Applications made but not yet determined:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

NSW State Government Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS) Round 2

Closed 31 December 2012

3% interest rate

Loan repayment

Council would receive an interest rate subsidy of 3% for bridge projects and road reconstruction.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage ? Coastal Management Grant

Closed 20 February 2013

$55,000

$55,000*

Stage 2 of current Beach Access Ways project, to continue implementation of high priority pedestrian access ways on Shire beaches.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage ? Estuary Management Grant

Closed 20 February 2013

$64,625

$64,625*

Nambucca River Estuary Water Quality: Implement Nambucca River Master Plan actions for Stuart Island, and replace Boulton?s Crossing sewage system.

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure - Planning Reform Fund

Closed 22 February 2013

$78,000

$20,000*

Macksville CBD development ? economic strategy post-bypass.

Department of Sport and Recreation ? Facility Grant Program

Closed 26 February 2013

$6,669.00

NA ? matching funding to be provided by Valla Beach Community Association

Cricket net and pitch at Anderson Park, Valla Beach.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage ? Flood Plain Management Grant

Closed 21 March 2013

$90,000

$45,000*

Develop Flood Plain Management Study and Plan for Nambucca River and Deep Creek, building on recently completed flood studies.

Clean Energy Future Biodiversity Fund ? EOI only

Closed 18 March

$3.5m

N/A

Some in-kind

Weed management and rehabilitation of wide range of areas (coastal, river and range) throughout the Shire to increase biodiversity. Employment of coordinator.

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal ? Small Grants for Small Communities

Closed 2 April 2013

Various amounts under $5,000

NA

355 Committees:

Missabotti Hall

Utungun Hall

Talarm Hall

Families, Housing, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs Volunteers Grant

Closed 24 April 2013

Various amounts under $5,000

NA

EJ Biffin

Coronation Park

Mary Boulton Cottage

District Band

Utungun Hall

Public Reserves Management Fund Crown Land

Closed 3 May 2013

$120,000

$10,00 from collection of campground fees

New amenities building and two barbeques to improve Boulton?s Crossing campground

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

 

The following community groups were assisted in making applications in this period:

????? Scotts Head Primary School Food Garden ? NSW Environmental Trust

????? Nambucca Heads Chamber of Commerce mosaics project ? FRRR Culture Arts Tourism and Community Heritage grant

????? Scotts Head Biodiversity Education project ? Environmental Trust

????? Scotts Head Community Events 355 Committee ? FRRR CATCH grant

????? Country Women?s Association ? FaHCSIA volunteers grant

????? Nambucca Heads Little Athletics ? FaHCSIA volunteers grant

????? Coronation Park Football Club ? FaHCSIA volunteers grant

 

 

Unsuccessful applications in this period:

 

Funding Body

Amount

Amount - Council

Project Name

Office of Communities

Community Building Partnership Program

Closed 30 October 2012

$26,000

$26,000 (From Healthy Communities Initiative)

Build an outdoor exercise hub in Macksville, as part of revitalisation activities

Regional Development Australia Fund

$450,000

N/A

Some in-kind.

Bowraville Arts Council to contribute $10,000

Construction of backstage facilities, including toilets and disabled access; purchase of digital cinema equipment.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.9?? SF544????????????? 300513??????? Section 94 Status Report - May 2013

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The following report identifies key activities and issues associated with Section 94 in the regular quarterly report to Council.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the Section 94 Status Report ? May 2013 be received.

 

2??????? That Section 94 activities as outlined in the report be endorsed.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no other options.

 

REPORT:

 

A number of developer contribution plans have been reviewed and submitted to Council for consideration in the early part of this financial year. This report itemises future work required on the remaining plans, and recommends the adoption of a new works schedule for the existing Surf Lifesaving Clubs plan.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

An overview of the operative CPs is provided:

 

Community Facilities and Public Open Space 2008

The five-year review will be undertaken in the latter half of 2013, and will primarily comprise the development of a new works schedule. The projects on the current works schedule have been completed apart from the Macksville Skate Park. The works schedule will be developed in consultation with Council staff and 355 Committees responsible for facilities to identify future demands on infrastructure.

 

Surf Life Saving Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2007 - 2012

As the works schedule for this plan is now out of date, both surf clubs have been asked to nominate a list of equipment which they require in the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. This will enable the plan to remain operative through that time.

 

The Nambucca Heads Surf Lifesaving Club has nominated the purchase of an ATV vehicle as its required equipment for the current FY and the two forward years, at a cost of approximately $17,000. This is in line with the amount currently available in their fund and with contributions to be received over that period. The club has demonstrated the importance of a new ATV to providing surf lifesaving services. This item would be the sole request from the NHSLC.

 

The Macksville Scotts Head Surf Lifesaving Club has nominated the following:

2012-2013 ? partial payment for purchase of ATV - $8800

2013-2014 ? 1 IRB Motor $3200; 1 Rescue SUP board $1500; 1 lockable fuel cabinet $1500

2014-2015 ? 1 IRB $6500; 1 first aid kit $1200.

 

The Grants and Contributions Officer is considering whether this plan should ultimately be repealed and support for surf lifesaving clubs rolled up into the Community Facilities and Public Open Space Plan when it is reviewed. If so, this recommendation would be made to Council for its consideration at a later date. This three-year extension of the current plan will enable the surf clubs to forward plan for reduced resources and keep the current plan operative.

 

Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2009

No action required at this time. A Voluntary Planning Agreement is being negotiated for the construction of the link road which is a requirement of the development.

 

Smiths Lane Local roads and Traffic Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2010

Current ? no need to review until 2015.

 

Mining and Extractive Industries 1999

No review required. There are two companies being charged contributions and this is unlikely to change in the near future. Contribution rates are updated in relation to increases in road costs and in line with indexation.

 

Local Roads Contributions Plan

The development of this plan, which will be quite extensive, will be delayed until the review of NSW Planning Legislation is complete, as it is likely from indications in the White Paper, that the development contributions system will change significantly. It would be a waste of resources to progress this plan until the future system is clear. The following plans would be repealed and funds pooled following the adoption of a Local Roads Plan, so no review activity will be undertaken at this time:

-???? Bald Hill Road Works

-???? Hyland Park Road

-???? Scotts Head/Grassy Head Intersection

-???? Valla Beach Road Overbridge

-???? Upper Warrell Creek Overbridge

 

General issues

As mentioned above, the current review of NSW planning legislation is likely to see significant changes in the development contributions system. Until the time when future direction is more clear, only minor work required on the Council?s contributions plans will be undertaken and no new plans developed.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Accountant

Nambucca Heads Surf Lifesaving Club

Macksville Scotts Head Surf Lifesaving Club

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental issues as a result of this report.

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

Section 94 developer contributions represent a significant income stream for Council and provide for upgrading essential infrastructure to meet demands of a growing population. The review of plans will help ensure project costs are accurate and contribution rates justifiable.

 

Risk

There are no risks associated with this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No impact on the current budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No variance to works funds required.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level changes or resourcing/staff implications as a result of this report.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 10.10? DA2012/108???? 300513??????? DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Paul Guy, Manager Applications and Compliance Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

This application for a ?mixed use? development containing Residential Units and Serviced Apartments lodged on the 7 September 2012 and after resolution of accumulative impacts was referred to Council 28 February 2013 for approval. The matter was deferred to allow for further address and justification of variations to the DCP (Note that the DCP is a policy not a planning instrument and actions are not provided for in the Land and Environment Court in relation to their assessment as long as Council can demonstrate that they have been assessed).? Meeting 28 February 2013 - Deferred

 

Following a site inspection on the 13th March 2013 Council resolved to approve the above development however a rescission motion was moved following submission by an adjoining owner of a conflicting shadow diagram requiring further evaluation of the proposal to determine the accuracy of information submitted.??? Meeting 13 March 2013 - Approved

?????????????????? Meeting 28 March 2013 - Rescinded approval

 

The matter was referred to the proponent and discussion with the proponents architect revealed that the shadow diagrams submitted with and in support of the development were mistakenly produced from magnetic north not true north (difference of 12 degrees declination to the west). Apologies were proffered.

 

A further submission has been received from the proponents Architect and Planning consultants in response to the impact of overshadowing and other controls within NLEP and DCP 2010

 

All matters are considered to have been properly assessed.

 

A copy of the plans for the proposal will be re-circularised to Councillors.

 

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 approve the DA 2012/108 application subject to the attached conditions of consent and the following:

 

2??????? That Council permit a variation of Development Standards for:

 

???????? a??????? the Height plane of 14m on a small portion of the building by 0.5m due to the lift over run; and

???????? b??????? a 2.6% increase in the floor space ratio.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? approve the application subject to additional or alternative conditions

2??????? refuse the application

 

 

DISCUSSION SINCE RESCISSION MOTION:

 

The new submission from the proponents Planning Consultant has 3 main points for consideration, a pr?cis of which appears in italics (full submission attached).

 

a)?????? The proposed development will, in mid-winter, provide limited sunlight to parts of the dwelling on 2 Nelson St, principally along its northern elevation which contains a limited number of windows. As pointed out at the on-site meeting it is largely the close proximity to the boundary and limited height of the dwelling (1-2 storeys) which exacerbate the loss of sunlight.

 

Most of the window orientation is in the eastern elevation to capitalise on the views to the ocean. Previous comments have been aligned to the fact that the dwelling in its present form and location contributes to the impact of overshadowing?

 

b)?????? The previously approved development (DA 2004/137/01) which has been substantially commenced and could still be constructed without further address to council, has overshadowing impacts not dissimilar to the present proposal. The architect has prepared and presented shadow diagrams for the previous development in a similar manner as the adjoining neighbours submission for consistency and comparative purposes

 

Whilst the above is a previous development and not duly considered in the assessment of this development, there is merit in the fact that council has considered similar overshadowing in a previous proposal as not being impactive.? (Note that this would be supporting information in any appeal to the Land and Environment Court by the proponent)

 

c)?????? The controls within NLEP 2010 and included in the DCP provide that the mixed use zone is intended to cater for relatively large buildings (up to 14m height) which provide support to the Nambucca Town Centre (including by permitting increased densities) and which provide a transition from outlying residential areas to the town centre.

?????????

The dwelling on 2 Nelson St is inconsistent with this vision and is likely to be redeveloped sooner????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? rather than later

 

Previous reports have identified that the existing dwelling is dated in its present location and is not consistent with the future objectives of this zone. It is quite apparent in the review of Council?s LEP from a State Planning context and point of view that the higher density is more desirable in this location and this is further supported by the raising in height controls from 12m to 14m and the removal of coastal impact triggers from SEPP 71

 

Note also that in the redevelopment of this site up to its full potential councils DCP 2010 general controls for daylight access provides in developments of 3 storeys or more that at least 75% of the dwellings be provided with at least 2 hours of sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00 pm in mid-winter which would be achievable?

 

DISCUSSION PRIOR TO RESCISSION (HISTORY)

COUNCIL MEETING 28 FEBRUARY 2013

 

August 2012 ? Architect Phillip Perrie e-mailed a set of drawings seeking a preliminary appraisal of the proposal (then described as a Residential Flat Building) which was carried out with a list of matters to be addressed referred back to the architect

 

The application was then lodged on the 9th September 2012 as a Residential Flat Building & Serviced Apartments) which, due to the property being affected by bush-fire, Serviced Apartments triggered the development as Integrated requiring referral to the Rural Fire Service (RFS). The applicant?s consultant produced a court decision which showed that the owner could pursue the matter with the RFS outside of council so the appraisal continued without concurrence being sought. (Note that the RFS later (by Policy) advised the applicant that the matter must be referred through council and this was done on 20 November 2012 with a response received 8 February 2013).

 

Notification of affected properties was carried out with 5 submissions received. A more extensive assessment of the proposal was carried out including consideration of submissions. It was decided that the accumulative impacts of several variations to Council?s Development Control Plan as well as justified concerns required further design considerations. In particular were potential impacts from height (as referenced to existing ground levels), bulk and scale and window placement on privacy and overshadowing. Elevational shadow diagrams and a rear montage were also required. Letter sent 6 November 2012.

 

Amended plans were submitted 21 December 2012, incorporating amongst other matters the reduction in size of the top floor and height reduction to prevent overshadowing, raising south facing windows to 1.6m above floor level to prevent overlooking and amendment of reception and entry layout for accessibility. Elevational shadow diagrams were also presented which show the adjoining properties to have at least 2 hours of sunlight between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm midwinter.

 

A small part of the roof structure (lift overrun) exceeded the height by more than 10% which would have required Council support and concurrence from the Director General, however, the architect has advised that a minor re-shaping of the roof will ensure compliance.

 

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.

 

The development is permissible in the Zoning.

 

Clause 4.3 ? Main portion of Building is within 14m height plane with the lift overrun being reshaped so as? not to exceed > 10% variation. The amended plan shows a maximum height of 14.5 metres.

 

Clause 4.4 ?The floor space ratio is varied by 2.6%

 

Clause 5.5 with respect to Development within Coastal Zone has been addressed

 

SEPP 71 and Coastal Policy 1997

 

As per clause 5.5 above

 

SEPP 65

 

The architect appears to have adhered to the primary development controls in the Residential Flat design code and has submitted a Design Verification statement in accordance with SEPP65.

 

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

 

In the initial proposal a number of variations were sought (with supporting documentation) to Development Control Plan 2010 - Part H Residential Development as follows:

 

H3.3?Residential Plan Depth (18.0m)

 

In this instance, levels 3-5 exceed this depth. These levels are almost totally composed of units which have limited depths (less than 8.0m from window to ?back of kitchen?), with the majority enjoying dual aspects, the exception being units 15 and 20 having good northern aspects.

 

Accordingly the layout allows for adequate natural ventilation and daylight which is the intent of the standard.???

?

H4.1.3?Setbacks

 

Side boundaries 1.5m ? The lower level of the car park extends to the southern side boundary with the entire area except for a minor portion in the SE corner below ground level - considered minimal impact.

 

Rear boundaries 6m ? The proposal varies in setback from zero setback to > 6.0

 

a??????? 3 levels of screened balconies 2.5m wide attached to 3 units on the southern side at zero set back

b??????? an open terrace on Level 4 - 4.0m to 5m wide with the nearest wall of the units being setback 6.6m to 9.0m from the boundary

c??????? 3 levels of screened balconies 2.5m wide 3 ? 4m off the rear boundary.

?

Whilst imposing on the adjoining allotment it has been shown that due to the levels of the proposed units as compared to adjoining, overshadowing is within the prescriptive requirements, ie., Living rooms and ground level private open spaces to have a minimum of 2 hours of sunlight 9.00 am to 3.00 pm midwinter.

 

It is considered however that the screened balconies to 3 levels of the three most southern units should be open above 1.6m measured from floor level of each unit to improve daylight access to the adjoining.

 

H4.1.4?Building Footprint

 

Variation no longer applicable as the initially proposed footprint was considered excessive especially when assessing accumulative impacts of this and other variations. The floors concerned were reduced in size.

This was done to reduce bulk, scale and potential overshadowing.

 

H4.1.5?Building Separation

 

The DCP requires separation distances of 3m to 16m which could effectively sterilise a site and is considered a shared requirement (external balcony to external balcony or wall to wall) so the objectives have been considered in context.

 

The proposed building has boundary setbacks varying from zero underground level, minor at 3.6m, main body at 4.2m to 5.5m.

 

The main Objectives are shown to be achieved as follows:

 

a??????? Development scaled to support the desired character of the area ? designed in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat design Code (see front and rear montage)

b??????? Maximise visual and acoustic privacy ? Windows in the southern face have their sill levels at 1.6m above floor level and southern facing balconies have screen or solid balustrades 1.6m above floor level. Also Ocean View apartments have their glazing orientation to the Eastern ocean view which would be anticipated for any adjoining redevelopment

c??????? Control overshadowing ? see previous comments

d??????? Appropriate open space ? compliant on site but also adjoins Gordon Park

e??????? Deep soil zones ? compliant on site

 

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

 

Context and Setting

 

See body of the report especially Section 79c(1) considerations Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

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

 

A similar development with previous lower height restrictions was approved on the site

 

The development is permissible with consent and conducive with existing buildings and potential redevelopment in the immediate area.

.

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

 

5 submissions have been received with respect to the proposal ? a pr?cis of each follows with the full documents being circulated separately

 

1??????? i???????? Overshadowing of public park and tennis courts ? considerably less than 50% of the adjacent Public Domain is overshadowed between 10 am and 2.0 pm between 21 April and 21 August

????????? ii??????? Busy road access ? access considered by engineering to be satisfactory

????????? iii??????? Overshadowing of southern buildings ? see? previous

????????? iv?????? Visual detraction viewing from reserve ? Clause 5.5 of the LEP pertaining to SEPP 71 and ?????? Coastal Policy have been satisfactorily addressed

????????? v??????? Too big for land area ? A 2.6% variation to the Floor space ratio has been recommended

????????? vi?????? Overload on Council?s Water and sewer ? infrastructure in place to support

????????? vii????? Loss of views to north and east ? views are not necessarily shared across adjoining ??? properties with eastern view to ocean preserved

 

2??????? i???????? Too large ? addressed

????????? ii??????? Busy access ? addressed

????????? iii??????? noise issue from Rolla-Doors ? Setback within cartilage of building and quiet operating

????????? iv?????? Duration of build ? Site Development expected condition re working hours and other impacts during build

????????? v??????? Overlooked balconies ?the view is to the east, to overlook the balconies which are solid on the northern side you would have to look back to the south and west ? any balconies directly overlooking have had their solid balustrades raised to 1.6m or screened

????????? vi?????? Overshadowing buildings and park ? addressed

????????? vii?????? Montage inaccurate ?appears satisfactory

????????? viii????? Garbage truck traffic due to amount of bins ? Larger garbage receptacles and condition re ???? collection to minimise impact on traffic

 

3??????? i???????? Overshadowing ? addressed

????????? ii??????? Reduction in desirability of rental of units ? economic consideration

????????? iii??????? Traffic visibility from Woolworths turn ? addressed by engineers

????????? iv?????? Compound traffic problems Back street ? addressed

 

4??????? i???????? Not in keeping with vision for Nambucca ? assessed suitable

????????? ii??????? Floor space ratio ? addressed

????????? iii??????? Height ?addressed

????????? iv?????? Rear boundary setback ? addressed

????????? v??????? Building footprints ?addressed

????????? vi?????? Depth of building ? addressed

????????? vii????? Shadow diagrams not in accordance with DCP (private open spaces not shown) ? This references an internal courtyard on an adjoining development which has been considered ???? with some difficulty being a period design and on a site which is potentially redevelopable with ???????? modern coastal design

????????? viii????? Units 13 & 18 no sunlight mid-winter ? Requirement is for 75% of dwellings to comply - ????? addressed

????????? ix?????? 24m metre length exceeded ? 24m frontage to street not exceeded

????????? x??????? Floor Space Ratio non ?compliant ? plans revised to comply

????????? xi?????? Objective for building footprint to be in line with current and future character ? concern that their development single storey therefore not in keeping ? site potentially developable in ?????? keeping with future character

????????? xii?????? Building separation ? addressed

????????? xiii????? Windows overlooking living areas separated by 6 ? 8m not 12 ? 16m ? shared responsibility ?????? and addressed

????????? xiv????? 25% Communal area not apparent ? clarified compliant with architect

????????? xv????? Excavation unstable, too deep ?separate issue addressed by notice from Council and ? Structural Engineer response

????????? xvi????? Further excavation ? condition re right of support and to Structural Engineer?s detail

????????? xvii???? Objective of visual privacy ? addressed

????????? xviii??? Overlooking of property from south windows and balconies ? addressed

????????? xix????? Significant number of south facing windows - addressed by sill height

????????? xx????? Loss of natural light ? addressed

????????? xxi????? Acoustic privacy ? addressed

????????? xxii???? Site access ? addressed

????????? xxiii??? Architect?s statement doesn?t mention single storey dwelling when discussing scale ?later ??? addressed

 

5??????? i???????? Size of building ? addressed

????????? ii??????? Overshadowing ? addressed

????????? iii??????? Insufficient car parking ? sufficient provided

????????? iv?????? Waste management - addressed

 

e??????? the public interest

 

In the public interest to have this site developed ? many comments have been received over the years with respect to the open excavated site remaining an eyesore from the reserve and surrounding land

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposal is within the coastal zone adjoining public domain and communal open space requiring matters to be considered in implementing the NSW Coastal Policy provided in Cl 5.5 (Development within the Coastal Zone) under NLEP 2010. These are similar to Clause 8 (Matters for Consideration) under SEPP 71 and have been carefully considered.

 

The development does not preclude access to the coastal zone, no longer triggers SEPP 71 integration by virtue of its height, reduces its impact on the amenity of the area by stepping down the site and shields what has been seen as less desirable development.

 

Social

 

The proposed development provides for both short term and long term accommodation in a location that incorporates minimisation of impacts on public and private transport with easy walking distances to shops and services

 

Short term accommodation is seen as a need considering potential infrastructure development to take place in the future and the additional long term accommodation (residential units) will provide the opportunity for a more diverse population and community.

 

With most of the units overlooking Gordon Park the visibility provides an opportunity for crime prevention and public safety.

 

The proposal incorporates 2 accessible units with accessibility from the street and carpark.

 

Economic

 

There are short term gains for the construction and affiliated industries

 

Future gains for service industries and local businesses from tourism and permanent population. Tourists more likely to sample local restaurants and products.

 

A diverse population enriches a community.

 

Risk

 

Should Council resolve to refuse the proposal then the proponent may choose to appeal Council?s decision in the Land and Environment Court.

 

COUNCIL MEETING 13 MARCH 2013

 

At its General Meeting on 28 February 2013 Council resolved:

 

?That the matter be deferred to allow Councillors to consider floor plans, shadow diagrams and elevations, and also to facilitate an onsite inspection; with further information about the provisions of an existing lease of Gordon Park and whether it has any relevance to the development application.? Also, that the applicant be provided with the opportunity to address the variations from the DCP or provide justification for same.? Further, that Council?s Manager Applications and Compliance be requested to respond to the allegation of departures from the DCP as mentioned in Mrs Leckie?s letter.?

 

????? In relation to point 1 ? plans are circulated document.

????? In relation to point 2 ? site inspection has been undertaken.

????? In relation to point 3 ? the applicant?s response is Attachment B/Circulated.

????? In relation to point 4, the matters raised in the late submission to Council are further addressed in turn below.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The original submission assessment revealed a floor space ratio increase of 4% whereas the applicant declared no variation.? My calculation incorporated patios which were deemed to be enclosed due to partial enclosure by walls over 1.4m high.

 

When considering overall accumulative impact the exceedance was reduced to 2.6% to which the applicant has sought a variation.?

 

Council has delegated authority from the Director General NSW Planning to approve a variation to a legal instrument, in this case, Council?s LEP of up to 10%.

 

Height

 

Earliest concerns related to height of building and the height plane footprint which was shown above previous natural ground contours.? The building had to be within 14m above existing ground levels.

 

Following a more comprehensive assessment and once again balancing accumulative impacts, the top story was reduced with the lift overrun penetrating the 14m height plane.

 

The matter was referred to the architect who gave an assurance that the lift overrun could be redesigned/reshaped to encroach 0.5m.? This being considered a minor redesign it was covered by a condition of consent in the recommendation.

 

As previously mentioned this also is a request variation from the applicant to Council?s LEP and the reasons for the variation were assessed allowing this minor consideration only which did not increase overshadowing.

 

Amended elevations have been received showing no projection of the lift overrun but a small projection of 450mm over a length of 1.0m to the balustrading on the northern side of the building reducing to nil along its eastern edge and 250mm of the open pergola to the deck on the northern side reducing to 100mm along its eastern edge and 100mm over 600mm to the open pergola on the southern side which also does not increase overshadowing.

 

Due Process

 

Each matter raised in the submissions were individually (except where repeated) dealt with in the report to Council after comprehensive assessment and amendment to design as necessary.

 

Shadowing?Single storey dwelling (and ocean view apartment).

 

Generally living rooms and principal ground level private open spaces shall have at least? 2 hours sunlight between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm midwinter.

 

In the original submission the shadow diagrams were drawn on the horizontal plane which does not truly demonstrate in this particular case the impact on adjoining windows.? Accordingly, shadow diagrams were required to demonstrate shadowing in the vertical plane which, when presented, showed no impact on north facing windows for at least 2 hours.

 

Assessment of the impact on the property concerned (single story dwelling) did not require floor plans of the dwelling as:

 

a??????? Northern aspect is for best passive solar infiltration especially winter.?

b??????? Eastern aspect gains morning light and view and in other months is preferably screened in the mornings due to heat load.? The building is oriented East for views.

c??????? Western aspect affected by cold winds in winter and significantly overshadowed by existing ocean view apartments for afternoon winter sun.

d??????? Southern impact or aspect does not benefit from solar infiltration..

 

Accordingly, the northern and eastern aspects were assessed by horizontal and vertical shadow lines to ensure compliance with the policy.

 

With respect to the internal courtyard, the area is significantly overshadowed by its own roof line (Ridge approximately 4 ? 4.5 metres above finished ground level.)

 

Social and Economic Considerations

 

Have been well considered in the report without denigrating any specific demographic of population.

 

Consultation Process

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council?s policy.? Submissions received were considered and following a comprehensive assessment of the proposal, a further meeting with the Applicant, his Architect and Planning Consultant was held to purvey issues resolving resolution.?

 

The proposal was amended to address the issues and further amended as I believed all matters had not been addressed sufficiently.

 

With respect to the further submission being currently addressed I advise that there has been phone and email interaction with the concerned party and the amended proposal was related to Mr Leckie with a welcome to attend Council?s offices to view the amended plans prior to the last meeting.

 

Access to Shadow Plans

 

During his deputation to Council, Mr Leckie questioned why Mr Graham was provided with a copy of the revised shadow diagram and not them. Whilst Mr Graham did come into the Council Office and obtained a copy, the Leckie?s through telephone conversations sought a number of things including further meetings to discuss the amended plans and a request to mail the plans off to them. They were advised that the plans are available at the Council chambers should they require a copy.

 

 

Licence over Gordon Park

 

The development proposal has been submitted for Lot 1 DP 1128126 and does not include the licensed area.

 

Council?s LEP does not permit the factoring in of the licensed area.? Accordingly, the licensed are has no bearing on this proposal and has not been included in any calculations.

 

Access to Gordon Park as proposed

 

As identified in the circularised documents relating to the licensed area, Council previously resolved not to permit access onto Gordon Park for the previous development.

 

The applicants have submitted plans which show access onto Gordon Park for residents and owners of the proposed units. The applicants consider that this is a safe and feasible approach and the concerns of Council?s ?exposure to public liability? is not exacerbated with this access..

 

The applicants respectfully request Council to permit the access to be maintained.

 

Council should consider Clause 14 of SEPP71 repeated below:

14 Public access

A consent authority must not consent to an application to carry out development on land to which this Policy applies if, in the opinion of the consent authority, the development will, or is likely to, result in the impeding or diminishing, to any extent, of the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore.

 

In conclusion, I would attest that the process of appraisal has been carried out lawfully.

 

 

FURTHER CONSULTATION:

 

Meeting with Architect to discuss status of the proposal.

 

Phone conversation with Planning Consultant with respect to the previously approved development and status of the assessment process.

 

E-mail response to adjoining concerned neighbour in relation to status of process.?

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Section 64 and 94 contributions have been applied to the development. Note that contributions have been paid for a previous development that did not go ahead and will be offset against the new fees.

 

Should the previous development proceed in lieu of proposed there will be a significant reduction in Section 64 contributions (600%).

 

Additional rate base from 22 units.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

As above.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Council has not been nominated as the Prescribed Certifying Authority at this stage.

 

 

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 28 February 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

Landscape Plan LSP 01

A

Susan Miles Landscape Architect

Dec 2009

Drawing Number 100

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 101

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 102

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 103

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 104

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 105

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 106

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 107

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 108

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Drawing Number 109

 

Philip Perrie Architect

27.08.2012

Statement of Environmental Effects

 

Peterson Consulting

21.09.212

Addendum - Statement of Environmental Effects

 

Peterson Consulting

17.12.2012

Safety Authority Certificate D12/2447 DA12112285600

 

NSW Rural Fire Service

06.02.2013

 

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

 

 

Consent Granted For Works within the Road Reserve

 

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

 

Work

Standard to be provided

Driveway

The driveway shall be a minimum 9 metres wide. Paving to be 125mm thick reinforced with construction joints to suit service trenches. The footpath crossing must be designed to provide a cross-fall of 1 % or 1:100 (maximum 2.5% or 1 in 40) for a width of at least 2.4 metres to provide for pedestrians with access disabilities.

A sheltered right turn lane line marked on Fraser Street

in accordance with AustRoads? Intersections at Grade. The design is to address siting, signs, linemarking, parking restrictions and night-time visibility.

Waste Collection Services

A suitable concrete hard stand area at the frontage of the property shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of councils Waste Management Officer for compliance with work place health and safety for the servicing of the bins.

 

 

Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under Home Building Act 1989

 

3??????? All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made.

 

????????? In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

 

This condition does not apply:

 

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

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

 

Integrated Approvals

 

4??????? The following approvals are granted under Section 78A of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as part of this development consent:

 

Integrated Approvals under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993

Install a manufactured home, moveable dwelling or associated structure on land

Install a temporary structure on land

 

Water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage work

B1???? Install, alter, disconnect or remove a meter connected to a service pipe

B2???? Carry out sewerage work

B3???? Carry out stormwater drainage work

B4???? Connect a private drain or sewer with a public drain or sewer under the control of a council or with a drain or sewer which connects with such a public drain or sewer

 

Integrated Approvals from other Authorities

C?????? Rural Fires Act

 

Safety Authority Certificate D12/2447 DA12112285600 NP issued by NSW RFS subject to the following conditions:

 

C1??? The development proposal is to comply with the drawing prepared by Philip Perrie Architect, titled ?Site Analysis/Site Management Plan?, numbered Sheet No.100 and dated 27.08.2012.

 

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 


C2??? At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

 

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the risk of fire to a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

C3??? Water, electricity and gas are to comply with sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.7 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 

Evacuation and Emergency Management

The intent of measures is to provide suitable emergency and evacuation (and relocation) arrangements for occupants of special fire protection purpose developments. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

C4??? Arrangements for emergency and evacuation are to comply with section 4.2.7 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 

An Emergency /Evacuation Plan is to be prepared consistent with the NSW Rural Fire Service document 'Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency/Evacuation plan'.

 

Design and Construction

The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

C5??? Windows and doors on the Ground Floor and Level 1 for the northern, eastern and southern elevations shall be fitted with ember-protecting screens that comply with the provisions for BAL 12.5 construction of AS3959-2009 and ?Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas?.

 

C6??? Any gaps in the external facade that are greater than 3mm on the Ground Floor and Level 1 for the northern, eastern and southern elevations shall be sealed or screened with ember-protecting screens that comply with the provisions for BAL 12.5 construction of AS3959-2009 ?Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas?.

 

 

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

 

Water and Sewerage Section 68 approval required

 

5??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water supply work and sewerage work must be obtained.

 


Driveway details required

 

6??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate vehicular access from the public road to the proposed car space(s). Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1. Plans are to include the following items:

 

a??????? 2m transition grades where changes of grade exceed 12.5%;

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 20 metres;

f??????? drainage (open drains, pipes, etc), including calculations and catchment details.

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

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

i??????? turning paths; and

j??????? linemarking and signs.

 

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

 

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

 

Public Safety Management Plan required

 

7??????? Consent from Council must be obtained for a public safety management plan for those works within the road reserve pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. This public safety management plan is to include provision for (but not be limited to):

 

a??????? a pedestrian barrier, alternative footpaths and ramps as necessary;

b??????? an awning sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the road reserve;

c??????? lighting of the alternative footpath between sunset and sunrise;

d??????? the loading and unloading of building materials;

e??????? parking space for tradesman?s vehicles, where such vehicles must be located near the site due to tools and equipment contain within the vehicle.

 

Removal of any such hoarding, fence or awning must be undertaken as soon as the particular work has been completed.

 

Construction Traffic Management Plan

 

8??????? Consent from Council must be obtained for a traffic management plan pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. The plans and specifications are to include the measures to be employed to control traffic (inclusive of construction vehicles) during construction of the development. The traffic control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority?s Manual, Traffic Control at Work Sites Version 2, and Australian Standard 1742.3 - 1985, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 3, ?Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads?.

 

The plan must incorporate measures to ensure that motorists using roads adjacent to the development and residents and pedestrians in the vicinity of the development are subjected to minimal time delays due to construction on the site or adjacent to the site.

 

The traffic control plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and RTA accredited Work Site Traffic Controller.

 

 

On-site stormwater detention approval required

 

9??????? Stormwater drainage is to be designed to direct all water to a Council approved drainage system to prevent discharge runoff onto adjoining land. The drainage system is to be designed for 1 in 20 year storm events. On-site stormwater detention is required, restricting stormwater discharge to the pre-development runoff rate, for a 1 in 5 year storm event. This system must be designed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage. All piped drainage lines over adjoining land are to be located within drainage easements. All costs are the responsibility of the proponent.

 

An approval is to be obtained under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out stormwater drainage work.

 

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

 

Engineering plans and specifications are to be submitted in triplicate and must include details in accordance with Appendix C of AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 - Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standards.

 

Backflow Prevention

 

10????? Backflow prevention devices shall be installed appropriate to the hazard rating for the approved land use, in accordance with the current edition of AS/NZS 3500.1 and the NSW Code of Practice for Plumbing & Drainage.

 

Details of the proposed backflow prevention devices shall be provided to Council for approval with a Section 68 Application and prior to connecting to the water supply.

 

Sediment and erosion measures required

 

11????? 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 Landcom Manual 2004, ?Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction?.? Vol 2.

 

The sediment and erosion control plan is to be prepared by a qualified practising Civil Engineer. Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 


Access and facilities for persons with access disabilities

 

12????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate access and facilities for persons with access disabilities to and within the development in accordance with Disability (Access to Premises and Buildings) Standards 2010 AS 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility and Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

Details of pool fence required

 

13????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate the details of the fence around the swimming pool in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and AS1926.1.

 

Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

Contributions and Certificate of Compliance (Water, Sewer and Drainage)

 

14????? Contributions set out in the following table are to be paid to Council.

 

The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.

 

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

 

Public service

No of Equivalent Tenements

Contribution Rate (Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Water

20 x 0.75 and 2

$11,774

$200,158

JUNE 2013

Sewer

20 x 0.75 and 2

$8,894

$151,198

JUNE 2013

TOTAL

 

 

$355,356

JUNE 2013

 

 

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

 

15????? 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 Principal 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

Community Facilities and Open Space

2 Bed

20

$1,166

$23, 320

JUNE 2013

Community Facilities and Open Space

3 bed

2

$1,555

$3,100

JUNE 2013

Surf Life Saving Equipment

2 bed

20

$75

$1,500

JUNE 2013

Surf Life Saving Equipment

3 bed

2

$105

$210

JUNE 2013

Section 94 Administration Charge

 

 

6%

$1,687.80

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

$29, 819.80

JUNE 2013

 

Compliance with BASIX Certificate

 

16????? The Principal Certifying Authority is to ensure that the proposed development is constructed in accordance with the requirements of the issued BASIX Certificate and any updates/modifications to the BASIX Certificate. The Plans submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate must include all of the BASIX Certificate commitments indicated in this certificate.

 

Where changes to the development are proposed that may affect the water, thermal comfort or energy commitments, a new BASIX Certificate may be required.

 

With respect to the Class 3 portion of the building Part J requirements from the National Construction Code 2012 shall apply.

 

Geotechnical Report required ? Engineering Works

 

17????? A certificate from a professional Engineer experienced in soil mechanics is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, certifying that:

 

a??????? the design of the civil engineering works, including retaining walls and/or cut & fill batters, has been assessed as structurally adequate;

b??????? the civil engineering works will not be affected by landslip or subsidence at, above or below the works;

c??????? adequate drainage has been provided.

 

Plans of retaining walls and drainage

 

18????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate retaining walls or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil, where any excavation or filled area has been approved via this development consent to exceed 600mm in height. Adequate provision must be made for drainage in the design of the structures.

 

Such plans and specifications must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

 


Waste Management Plan required

?

19????? A waste management plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council to ensure all waste is collected, stored and disposed of to the satisfaction of Council. The plan must incorporate measures to separate recyclable materials and describe the methods for collection of waste containers from the site.

 

Garbage storage area required

 

20????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include details indicating the construction of a garbage storage area on-site. The garbage storage area is to be designed and constructed so as to conceal its contents from view from public places and adjacent properties and is to be blended into the landscaping layout. The storage area is to be located so as to be readily accessible from within the site and serviceable by the waste collector from the adjoining road.

 

Specifically, the garbage storage area is to contain the following design elements:

 

a??????? Bunded, with a minimum volume of the bund being capable of containing 110% of the capacity of the largest container stored, or 25% of the total storage volume, whichever is the greatest;

b??????? Provided with a hose tape connected to the water supply;

c??????? Paved with impervious material;

d??????? Graded and drained to the sewer system; and

e??????? Roofed to prevent the entry of rainwater.

 

Such plans must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Erosion & sediment measures

 

21????? Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol 2, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom and Development Control Plan (Erosion and Sediment Control) 2009.

 

Note: Council may impose on-the-spot fines for non-compliance with this condition.

 

Plumbing Standards and requirements

 

22????? All Plumbing, Water Supply and Sewerage Works are to be installed and operated in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 and AS/NZS 3500 Parts 0-5, the approved plans (any notations on those plans) and the approved specifications.

 

????????? The Plumber shall provide 48 hours Notice of Works to Council for all plumbing and drainage works to be carried out.

 

Residential building work

 

23????? Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

????????? a?????? in the case of work to be done by a licensee under that Act:

i???????? has been informed in writing of the licensee?s name and contractor licence number, and

ii??????? is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the requirements of Part 6 of that Act, or

b??????? in the case of work to be done by any other person:

i???????? has been informed in writing of the licensee?s name and contractor licence number, and

ii??????? has been informed in writing of the person?s name and owner-builder permit number, or

iii??????? has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of owner-builder work in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of the work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

 

Note:? The amount referred to in paragraph (b) (iii) is prescribed by regulations under the Home Building Act 1989. As at the date on which this Regulation was Gazetted that amount was $5,000. As those regulations are amended from time to time, so that amount may vary.

 

A certificate purporting to be issued by an approved insurer under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purposes of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

 

Toilet facilities

 

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

 

Site construction sign required

 

25????? 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.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

26????? 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.

 

Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

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

 


Construction times

 

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

 

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

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

 

No construction work is to take place on Saturdays and Sundays adjacent to Public Holidays and Public Holidays and the Construction Industry Awarded Rostered Days Off (RDO) adjacent to Public Holidays.

 

Limiting construction noise

 

29????? Construction noise is to be limited as follows:

 

a??????? For construction periods of four (4) weeks and under, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background level by more than 20 dB(A).

b??????? For construction periods greater than four (4) weeks and not exceeding twenty‑six (26) weeks, the L10 noise level measured over a period of not less than fifteen (15) minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background level by more than 10 dB(A).

 

Construction dust suppression

 

30????? 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;

d??????? erect green or black shadecloth mesh or similar products 1.8m high around the perimeter of the site and around every level of the building under construction.

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

31????? 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.

 

Temporary pool fencing required

 

32????? Temporary fencing is to be installed around the pool site during its construction to prevent entry by children. Such temporary fencing is to remain in place until permanent fencing is erected.

 

Measures to control stormwater runoff

 

33????? Measures must be put in place to control stormwater runoff. These control measures must be in place prior to the commencement of works so as to prevent soil erosion and the transport of sediment from the site into either:

 

a??????? adjoining land,

b??????? natural drainage courses,

c??????? constructed drainage systems, or

d??????? waterways.

 

All disturbed areas must be stabilised and revegetated. Turfing or another approved seeding method must be undertaken in each part of the development within 7 days of completion of earthworks. Topsoil must be preserved for site revegetation. Details of sediment control measures and revegetation works must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

 

Support for neighbouring buildings

 

34????? If an excavation extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

 

a??????? must preserve and protect the adjoining building from damage;

b??????? if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved manner;

c??????? must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.

 

The owner of the adjoining allotment of land, public road or any other public place is not to be held liable for any part of the cost of work carried out, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on the public road, any other public place or the adjoining allotment of land.

 

Survey of building location required

 

35????? A survey certificate prepared by a registered surveyor is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier upon completion of the floor slab formwork, before concrete is poured, to ensure the siting of the building in relation to adjacent boundaries is in accordance with the development consent.

 

Survey of building height required

 

36????? A survey certificate prepared by a registered surveyor is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier upon completion of the roof framing to ensure that the height is in accordance with the development consent.

 

????????? The main body of the building must be contained within the 14.0m height plane with the lift over run only exceeding the height plane by 0.5m.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

Sewer and water to be connected

 

37????? Sewer and water supply is to be connected to the premises in accordance with an approval granted under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

If an upgrade to the size of the water service is required all work to provide the service to the property boundary shall be carried out by Council at the applicants cost.  A quote shall be requested from Council and payment made prior to the work being undertaken.

 

Site to be landscaped

 

38????? The site must be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

 


Underground electricity to be provided

 

39????? Written evidence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority that satisfactory arrangements have been made with an electricity supply authority for the provision of underground electricity supply from the existing electricity supply.

 

Car parking areas to be completed and signs to be provided

 

40????? The car parking areas are to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Signs are to be erected clearly indicating the availability of off-street parking and the location of entry/exit points, visible from both the street and the subject site.

 

Damage to Council?s Infrastructure

 

41????? Where any damage occurs to Council?s infrastructure during construction, such as kerb and gutter, footpaths, inlet pipes, etc, fronting the development site, the principal contractor shall replace or make good the damaged infrastructure before the occupation certificate is issued.

 

Survey Certificate of complete building required

 

42????? Survey certificates, from a registered surveyor, are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority upon completion of the building.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES

 

Car parking spaces are to be available for the approved use

 

43????? Tenants and customers of the development must have unrestricted access to the car parking spaces on a daily basis during business hours of the development.

 

No car parking spaces are to be reserved (generally or specifically) for any tenant or customer. .

 

Pool safety

 

44????? The occupier of the premises must ensure that there is at all times a sign in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool bearing the words ?Young children must be supervised when using this swimming pool?. The sign is to be in a prominent position and be otherwise in accordance with Clause 10 of the Swimming Pools Regulation. Fences, gates, walls, etc. enclosing the general swimming pool area are to be maintained in good repair and condition at all times. Depth markers are to be installed 150 mm above the water line of the proposed swimming pool.

 

Swimming pool discharge

 

45????? The discharge of waste water from the swimming pool is to be in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.2.2, Section 10.9 and Figure 10.2.

 

Swimming pool pump location

 

46????? The swimming pool filter pump is to be located such that noise from the operation of the pump is not more than 5dB(A) above the background noise level at the boundary. If necessary an acoustic enclosure must be provided around the pump to achieve the required noise attenuation. The pump is not to be used between the hours of 8.00 pm - 8.00 am on any day if the noise of the pump is audible inside neighbouring houses.

 


Swimming pool health requirements

 

47????? The swimming pool water is to be re-circulated, filtered and disinfected in accordance with the requirements of Public Swimming Pools & Spa Pool Guidelines ? June 1996 and Public Health (Swimming Pools & Spa Pools) Regulation 2000. The swimming pool water is to be maintained at satisfactory levels of purity for bathing at all times.

 

 

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

 

1??????? To comply with the provisions of Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

2??????? To ensure access for people with access disabilities

 

3??????? To provide adequate off street parking space for the anticipated traffic that will be generated by the development.

 

4??????? To preserve the environment and existing or likely future amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

5??????? To provide funds for the provision of services and facilities as required by the increased population or activity.

 

 

NOTES

 

Construction Certificate required

 

This development consent is issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and does not relate to structural aspects or specifications of the building under the Building Code of Australia. All buildings and alterations require the issue of a Construction Certificate prior to works commencing.

 

Occupation Certificate required

 

The building must not be occupied until the Principal Certifying Authority has issued an Occupation Certificate.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

 

It is an offence under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to act in a manner causing, or likely to cause, harm to the environment. Anyone allowing material to enter a waterway or leaving material where it can be washed off-site may be subject to a penalty infringement notice (?on-the-spot fine?) or prosecution.

 

Penalties apply for failure to comply with development consents

 

Failure to comply with conditions of this development consent may lead to an on the spot fine (generally $600) being issued pursuant to Section 127A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 or prosecution pursuant to Section 125 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

Location and size of mail boxes

 

Australia Post has requirements in respect to the location and size of mail boxes. For example, for single residences the mail box must be placed at the junction of the footpath and driveway, and have the opening slot between 0.9 metres and 1.2 metres above ground. The local Postal Manager has information about mail boxes and advice must be sought in relation to the size and location of mail boxes.


 

Attachments:

1View

8032/2013 - DA2012/108 - Shadow Diagrams - 4 Fraser Street, Nambucca Heads - C and K Leckie

0 Pages

2View

12156/2013 - DA2012/108 - more information concerning the issue of overshadowing by proposed development from the proponent's planning consultant and architect

0 Pages

3View

12504/2013 - Scott Riley - Submission to Councillors

0 Pages

4View

?- Circularised - plans for the proposal

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads

 

From:North Sydney Bus Charter[SMTP:nthsydbuscharter@ozemail.com.au]

To:Michael Coulter[SMTP:Michael.Coulter@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Received-Date:20130521

Received-Time:11:36:42 PM

Sent-Date:20130521

Sent-Time:11:37:17 PM

Subject:Scott Riley - 4 Fraser St

 

Dear Michael,

 

 

 

Thank you for your time and assistance. Please forward the attached email to councillors.

 

 

 

Dear Councillors,

 

 

 

4 FRASER STREET, NAMBUCCA HEADS ? DA2012/108 ? 4.5 STAR SERVICED APARTMENT MOTEL

 

 

 

Key benefits of the development are as follows:

 

 

 

1.       The proposed development has a construction cost of $6M which will provide a significant boost to the local construction industry. Local consultants are already benefitting from this stage of the development process.

 

 

 

2.       The proposed development will create 15 (full time) employment positions.

 

 

 

3.       The Nambucca Shire has lost over 50 x motel rooms over the past 10 years. This is an opportunity to create an upmarket accommodation facility in close proximity to the services available in the Nambucca Town Centre, and which showcases the stunning local coastal views. We have a current track record of providing excellent tourist facilities, with these including the Riverview Boutique Motel (Nambucca Heads) and Oceanside (Hawks Nest).

 

 

 

4.        The proposed development is 99% compliant with Council?s planning controls, and enjoys the support of Council?s staff.

 

 

 

5.       The shadowing effect from the proposed development is little different to the shadowing effect of the current approved development on the site - which has commenced, and which was approved before the present owners (Leckie?s) bought the neighbouring property.

 

 

 

6.       We see the proposed development as being a significant tourist development within Nambucca Heads, and one which will act as a catalyst for further development not only in and around the Nambucca Town Centre but throughout the Shire.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Scott Riley (property owner).

 

 

 

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

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

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 4

 

 

 

DA 2012/108 Residential Flat Building 4 Fraser St Nambucca Heads

 

 

 

Circularised - plans for the proposal

 

??Pages

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 11.1?? SF1831??????????? 300513??????? March 2013 Budget Review

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Craig Doolan, Manager Financial Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

General Fund:?????????????? This review revises the net operating result for 2012/13 to a deficit of $83,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $2,456,681, a decline of $84,200 since the Original Budget.

 

Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity position (available working capital at year end) is healthy at approximately $982,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

Water Supplies:???????????? This review revises the net operating result for 2012/13 to a surplus of $300 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,872,876, a decline of $1,200 since the Original Budget.

 

Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity position (available working capital at year end) is strong at approximately $1,063,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

Sewerage Services:?????? This review revises the net operating result for 2012/13 to a surplus of $65,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $747,356, an improvement of $65,200 since the Original Budget.

 

Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity position (available working capital at year end) remains marginally satisfactory at approximately $95,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

The circularised budget review document includes, as variances, amounts required to match unexpected income/expenditure items plus resolved inclusions to the budget. Items varying $5,000 or more are briefly discussed commencing page 2 and referenced to the page no. in the budget review document. Significant variations influencing the result are discussed further in this report. On page 4 of the document is a summary Council?s Cash and Investments (cash reserves). Restricted reserves and unrestricted cash are presented with the movements of these reserves for the 2012/13 year as at the 30 March 2013. Also on page 4 is a statement of the YTD expenditure associated with consultancies and legal expenses. It should be noted that these expenses are incorporated in the budget. The contracts register as per Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 is presented on pages 5-8 of the budget review document

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the budget review for the quarter ended 30 March, 2013 be received.

 

2??????? That the recommended increases and decreases in votes be included as subsequent votes for the financial year 2012/2013.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Not Applicable

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

GENERAL ACTIVITIES

 

The summary of current liquid equity is on page 1 of the Budget Review document. The estimated current liquid equity surplus is $2,456,681 inclusive of internal loans.

 

The original 2012/13 budget forecast a net operating surplus of $600. Items revoted from 2011/12 amounted to $720,600. The balance of internal loans borrowed from current liquid equity was $541,238.

 

The September review revised the result for 2012/13 to a net operating deficit of $109,500 a decline of $110,100.

 

The December review revised the result for 2012/13 to a net operating deficit of $52,100 an improvement of $57,400.

 

This review revises the net operating result for 2012/13 to a deficit of $83,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $2,456,681, a decline of $84,200 since the Original Budget. Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity position (available working capital at year end) is healthy at approximately $982,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

At its meeting 15 May 2013, Council resolved to formally accept grant funds of $289,000 for a storm event in January 2011. Expenditure of $250,000 had been incurred by Council to date. A further $50,000 is required for the removal and disposal of stockpiled chippings. The benefit to working funds will be $239,000.

 

As advised in Council?s latest investment report, favourable returns were expected for the remainder of the year. It is forecast that additional unrestricted investment interest will be approximately $30,000 and has been included in this review. Also, as a member of Statewide Property Mutual, Council has been fortunate enough to receive an interim dividend of $23,000 following finalisation of claims incurred during the 2010-2011 fund year.

 

The above favourable budget variations have been swallowed up by a number of adverse expenditure variations. The major variances include; a revision of the organisational structure resulting in $137,000 required to cover the costs of three employee redundancy payments; a review of parking income received and expenditure to date has resulted in a combined variation to the budget of $62,000; the first annual donation to the Nambucca River Agricultural Association and plant hire agreement totalling $40,000; also, a $28,000 rate income variation shown at the September Budget Review was incorrect and this coupled with valuation objection write offs of around $5,000 has required an adjustment to rate income of $33,000.?

 

Variances emanating from the March quarter Capital Works report including the additional $47,000 for plant replacement and net variance of $33,000 for road capital works are also shown in this budget review.

 

Without the positive windfall associated with the 2011 storm damage grant, Council?s working funds would have taken a hit. The result reminds Council of the irregularities of a budget year and the importance of minimising them. Council need to only look back at the challenge of meeting commitments and service levels evident during the draft 2013/2014 workshops where the above grant windfall was considered an option for balancing the following year?s budget.

 

The above issues and those presented in the Water Supplies and Sewerage Services sections of the report confirm past advice in that Council needs to remain steadfast and diligent with regard to its original budget and its future delivery program. Unresolved issues such as land slips at Riverside Drive, 2013/2014 Rural Fire Service contribution and importantly renewal works associated with an ageing road and bridge network need to remain high on the agenda of decision making impacting the budget. The greater uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment reinforces all aspects of budget and forward financial planning being critical for the community of this shire.???

 

WATER SUPPLIES

 

Water Supplies estimated current liquid equity surplus is $1,872,876.

 

The original 2012/13 budget forecast a net operating surplus of $1,500. There were no 2011/12 net revotes.

 

The September review revised the result for 2012/13 to deficit of $8,900, a decline of $10,400.

 

The December review revised the result for 2012/13 to deficit of $8,800, an improvement of $100.

 

This review revises the net operating result for 2012/13 to a surplus of $300 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $1,872,876, a decline of $1,200 since the Original Budget. Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity position (available working capital at year end) is strong at approximately $1,063,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

As per Assistant General Manager Engineering Services report on capital works to 31 March the $7m variation to the Off River Storage Project has been included with this review. $11m in loan funds for the project were drawn down on 11 April 2013 and therefore as a result of the project delay, part requires restricting to a reserve. Also adjustments to subsidy and reserve income budgets have been required as $5m of the loan funds was deferred from 2011/2012.

?

Other variances emanating from the March quarter Capital Works report are also shown in this budget review.

 

SEWERAGE SERVICES

 

Sewerage Services estimated current liquid equity surplus is $747,356.

 

The original 2012/13 budget forecast a net operating surplus of $400. Items revoted from 2011/12 amounted to $160,000.

 

The September review revised the result for 2012/13 to surplus of $29,100, an improvement of $28,700.

 

The December review revised the result for 2012/13 to surplus of $62,600, an improvement of $33,500.

 

This review revises the net operating result for 2012/13 to a surplus of $65,600 and varies Current Liquid Equity to $747,356, an improvement of $65,200 since the Original Budget. Council?s estimated Current Liquid Equity position (available working capital at year end) remains marginally satisfactory at approximately $95,000 above the minimum level as per Council?s policy.

 

Income associated with the Sewerage Usage Charge has required a significant adjustment. As Council is now charging on the current actual usage consumption figures, the estimates used for the 2012/2013 budget were out dated. Ongoing conversion issues with the Authority corporate information software created difficulty in extracting appropriate estimate data in relation to distinguishing usage between residential and non-residential properties. 2012/2013 budget was based on 2010/2011 usage data. Also, the onset of the sewerage usage charge appears to have altered past consumption habits for non-residential properties and has reduced substantially. A variance of $273,000 has been required and is offset by a variance from the Augmentation Revenue Reserve. Council?s draft 2013/2014 budget reflects the updated estimates.

 

Council resolved on 13 February, a settlement figure of $391,000 for claims regarding the augmentation Nambucca Heads sewerage treatment plant as well as $84,000 negotiation costs to NSW Public Works. These variances have been included with this review. Additionally in relation to the project, $90,000 has been required for repairs to the Nambucca inlet works. A transfer from reserves has also been included to offset the above expenditure.

 

Other variances emanating shown in the March quarter Capital Works report including the emergency repair work on the Nambucca Heads STP trunk main and $31,000 saving in relation to the tender for the Macksville PS2 emergency storage are also shown in this budget review.

 

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

AGM?s

Responsible Officers

Accountant

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Not applicable.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Refer to discussion.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 11.2?? DA2012/010???? 300513??????? Re-reporting Modification to 2012/010 to remove Lot 14 from the development

 

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

 

Summary:

 

On 10 April 2013 Council resolved to defer this matter and requested council staff ensure the applicant understands his options.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

<Enter recommendation(s)>

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

 

Social

 

 

Economic

 

 

Risk

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 11.3?? SF1709??????????? 300513??????? Applications and Statistical Reports 2012-2013 - April 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 13.92% Increase in the number of DA?s received to end April 2013 with construction costs increasing by 81.72% compared to the same period in 2012. The total number of DA?s/CD?s approved for the month of April 2013 was 15 plus 3 modifications.

 

DA?S AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

Construction Costs

No Applications Received

Applications Approved (DA & CD)

January-April 2012

$4,698,804

68

44

January-April 2013

$25,700,062

79

61

 

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

March

41.8

40

58.2

162

17

April

34.92

30

37

49

23

 

#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).

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 11.4?? SF1709??????????? 300513??????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 6-17 May 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.

????? Additional information still being provided

 

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 too 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.

Awaiting response from Architect

Re: Shadow diagrams

 

Still awaiting amended submission by applicants Architects

On Agenda for 30 May 2013

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 quiet area

????? Devalue properties

 

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

Site inspection arranged

 

Still trying to arrange site inspection

Final Notice for site inspection or application will be returned

2013/029

11/03/2013

32 Lot Large Lot Residential Subdivision plus 1 Rural Residue Lot

Lot 2 DP 773170, 166 Bald Hill Road, Macksville

????? Road design to provide flood free access to eastern end of the proposed subdivision

????? Intersection is extremely dangerous for existing residents as already many accidents

????? Dangerous blind spots on Bald Hill road and grass shoulders

????? Existing wildlife corridor which has been there for more than 50 years ? will this be preserved or destroyed?

????? The Road, Power and Phone lines are in constant disrepair

????? Not clear on effluent disposal

????? Enquiring if Council are going to notify all property owners on Bald Hill Road

 

Reviewing DA and submissions

Town Planning Staff and RFS concerns have been reported to applicant

Applicant is preparing amended plans

2013/033

18/03/2013

Patio Cover

Lot 2 DP 568088, 32 Nelson Street, Nambucca Heads

????? Current use of property and regularity of degree to frequent movement of large and medium commercial vehicles (buses and taxis) 24 hrs a day to conduct? industrial scale operation

 

Submission does not relate to proposal and is to be investigated separately.

Consent issued

2013/036

20/03/2013

Dual Occupancy

Lot 2 DP 1038947, Scotts Head Road,, Way Way

????? On registration of DP Clearing of 20m strip along Grassy Head Road was registered a restriction to user

????? On DP it is stated that access to Grassy Head Road is prohibited from this property ? 3 properties use one access

????? Only one dwelling should be allowed on each lot and not two

 

Assessment being conducted

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 11.5?? SF332????????????? 300513??????? Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 8 May 2013

 

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

 

Summary:

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management?s minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 8 May 2013 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options. Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Annual General Meeting of the Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management was held on Wednesday 8 May 2013.

 

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

 

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

????????? Vice President???????????????? Rob Luff

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

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

????????? Committee????????????????????? Peter Ross, Heather Hawkes, Dot Clow, Barry Clow

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

None

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risks to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications to the working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no implications related to levels of service and resourcing.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

11710/2013 - Minutes of AGM 8 May 2013

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Scotts Head Tennis Club Committee of Management - Minutes of the Annual General Meeting - 8 May 2013

 








?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.1?? SF729????????????? 300513??????? Water and Sewerage? Fees and Charges

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage ????????

 

Summary:

 

At the ordinary meeting on 15 May 2013 Council resolved the following

 

That Council produce a comparison of water rates, sewer usage and trade waste for Bellingen, Kempsey, Coffs Harbour and an affluent Council in Sydney such as Waverly Council so that Council is fully aware of the situation with surrounding councils and a Sydney council before they set our fees.

 

The requested data for the 2012/13 financial year has been compiled in tabular form and discussed below.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the information provided showing a comparison of water, sewerage and trade waste charges for neighbouring Council?s and Sydney Water.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

No options

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A comparison of the water, sewerage and trade waste charges imposed by neighbouring Council?s and Sydney Water for the 2012/13 financial year is shown in the table below

 

 

 

Nambucca

Coffs Harbour

Kempsey

Bellingen

Sydney Water

Residential

 

 

 

 

 

Water acces

$100

$135

$230

$127

$135

Water Usage

$2.46 / kL

$2.48 / kL

$3.72 > 1 kL / day in billing period

1.87 / kL

$2.52 > 1 kL / day in billing period

$1.68 / kL

$2.52 > 1 kL / day in billing period

$2.13/ kL

Sewer

$448

$760

$680

$677

$555

Non ? Residential

 

 

 

 

 

Water Access

$400

$540

$920

$508

$560

Water Usage

$2.46 / kL

$2.48 / kL

$1.87 / kL

$1.68 / kL

$2.13 / kL

Sewer Access

$812

$2,976x SDF*

$2,225

$2,708

$2,532 x SDF**

Sewer Usage

$3.43 / kL

$1.94 / kL

$1.70 / kL

$0.88 / kL

$1.40>450 kL

Trade Waste

 

 

 

 

 

Application Fee

$85 - $124

$130 - $700

 

$239.50

NIL

Annual Charge

$142

$180

$101

$185.10

$132.60

Treated discharge

$1.61 / kL

$1.53 / kL

$1.70 / kL

$1.32 / kL

$0.138 - $2.49 / kL

Untreated discharge

$14.43 / kL

$14.10 / kL

$15.48 / kL

$12.90 / kL

$10.22 / kL

 

* Non residential charges vary with respect to size of the water service. Prices have been based on a 40mm water service which is a common size.

** SDF = Sewerage Discharge Factor which is commonly 0.9 for commercial properties.

The table indicates that Council?s water and sewerage charges are not out of keeping with its neighbours and in many cases are significantly lower.? The exceptions would be the water and sewerage usage charges.

The high water usage charge is a consequence of the off river storage project and the lower than expected revenue gained through development contributions and the high sewer usage charge is offset by lower sewer access charges

 

Whilst a parity of water and sewerage charges with neighbouring Councils may seem desirable it is neither a practical or realistic goal.?? The water supply and sewerage infrastructure requirements of each Council vary markedly and the operation and maintenance costs and scheduled capital works have no commonality.

 

Each Council is responsible for ensuring that its water utilities operate with full cost recovery in accordance with State Government Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines.? Compliance with the guidelines goes a long way to ensuring the long term financial sustainability of the water utilities.

 

Council?s fees and charges are calculated in compliance with these guidelines and utilise two part tariffs that are based on actual consumption and the principle of user pays.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nil

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental issues associated with this report

 

Social

All fees and charges levied by Council have an impact on the general community. Levying the charges in accordance with Best Practice Management Guidelines ensures that they are as equitable as possible.

 

Economic

The water and sewerage fees and charges are set to ensure that Council can met its budgetary commitments.

 

Risk

Council must levy charges that ensure full cost re levied covery otherwise the financial viability of the water utilities will be placed at risk

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no impact on the current budget however the fees and charges that Council resolve to adopt will impact on future budgets.

 

Source of funds and any variance to working funds

There are no funding issues associated with this report.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no implications related to levels of service and resourcing.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.2?? SF844????????????? 300513??????? Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting ? 1 May 2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Richard Spain, Manager Water and Sewerage ????????

 

Summary:

 

Water and Sewerage Steering Committee (WSSC) meetings relating to the Nambucca District Water Supply Bowraville Off-River Storage Project are scheduled to be held monthly at the construction site office

 

The minutes relating to the meeting held on 1 May 2013 are attached for information and adoption by Council.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopt the minutes of the Water and Sewerage Steering Committee Meeting held on 1 May 2013.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Adopt the minutes

2??????? Seek further clarification on particular items

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Contracts have been awarded and construction works have commenced on the Bowraville Off River Storage Project.? As this is a very significant project Council has resolved to hold monthly meetings of the WSSC at the site office of the Principal Dam Contractor with a view to keeping regularly informed of the progress, risks, variations and expenditure on the project.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

NSW Public Works

NSW Office of Water

GHD

Haslin Constructions Pty Ltd

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The environment impacts of the project are detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was prepared by GHD.? The contractors are required to prepare and work to Environmental Management Plans that conform to the requirements of the EIS.

 

Social

 

The project aims to provide a social benefit through security of water supply.

 

Economic

 

The project will have a significant economic impact on the community as increases in both the typical residential bill and developer charges will be required to service Council?s financial commitment to the project.

 

The construction works should also provide an economic stimulus to the Shire.

 

Risk

 

This is a major project for the Shire and there are significant risks associated with construction contracts of this size.? An updated project risk register is kept by the Project Managers and the risks are discussed during the meetings.

 

 

FINANCIAL:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Council has committed funding for construction works on the Off River Storage Project in the 2012/13 budget and funds will also be allocated for inclusion in the 2013/14 budget.

 

Source of funds and any variance to working funds

 

Funding for the project will be sourced from reserves, grants and loans.

 

The Office of Water has confirmed a $14.8 million subsidy as part of the existing Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage program.? $4.9 million of the funding has been claimed to date of which $3.27 million has been received by Council.

 

Council has also signed a Stage 2 funding deed for the remaining $9 million of a $10 million grant offered by the Federal Government.? $8 million of this Stage 2 funding has been claimed and paid to date with the remaining $1 million to be paid on completion of the works.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no implications related to levels of service and resourcing.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

11683/2013 - Minutes of Meeting on 1 May 2013

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May 2013

Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting ? 1 May 2013

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 30 May 2013

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 12.3?? SF453????????????? 300513??????? Waste Management Quarterly Report January - March 2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Simon Chapman, Waste Management Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council resolved to receive quarterly report on the status of waste management issues for the Nambucca Shire and this report covers the period 1 January ? 31 March 2013.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the information provided in the Waste Management Quarterly Report for the period January ? March 2013.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

For information only

Support the development of a Midwaste Regional Waste Strategy

 

DISCUSSION:

 

CCWS Kerbside Waste Collection Services

 

Kerbside collections for the last quarter being 1 January to 31 March 2013 across the Coffs Coast region indicated the hotline received a total of 3572 calls during the period for the whole regional area.

 

Nambucca Shire had a total of 8118 properties receiving a waste collection service, 9 new services were implemented with repairs/damaged or stolen bins totalling 33. A total of 2,502.02 tonnes of kerbside and transfer station materials were collected and transported for reprocessing at the Coffs Coast Resource Recovery Park from the Nambucca Shire.

 

Bulky goods collections were not undertaken throughout the Nambucca Shire during the quarter. Next collections will commence June 2013 with all materials collected being received at Nambucca Landfill for disposal.

 

The table below reflects Nambucca Shire?s waste streams and tonnages over the last quarter:

 

Waste Stream

Source

Tonnes

Destination

Co-mingled recycling

Kerbside

531.18

CCWS Recycling Facility

Greenwaste organics

Kerbside

871.62

CCWS Biomass Facility

Mixed waste

Kerbside

819.32

CCWS Biomass Facility

Bulky goods

Kerbside

1.20

Nambucca Landfill

Reject & residual

Kerbside

302.97

Coffs Harbour Landfill

Co-mingled recycling

Transfer station

81.46

?CCWS Recycling Facility

Greenwaste organics

Transfer station

92.52

?CCWS Biomass Facility

Mixed waste

Transfer station

105.92

CCWS Biomass Facility

Batteries

Transfer station

2.79

Matthews Metal Management

Scrap metal

Transfer station

130.78

Matthews Metal Management

Gas bottles (kg?s)

Transfer station

0

Transpacific Industries

Hazardous chemicals (kg?s)

Transfer station

0

Transpacific Industries

Motor oil (lts)

Transfer station

3500

Australian Waste Oil

Chemical containers (farm drums)

Transfer station

148

Drum Muster

Concrete & masonry

Transfer station

91.60

Reprocessing at Nambucca Landfill

E-waste

Landfill

N/A

Nambucca Landfill

Asbestos

Landfill

2.34

Nambucca Landfill

Biosolids (grit)

Landfill

15.58

Nambucca Landfill

Building demolition

Landfill

308.97

Nambucca Landfill

Clean fill

Landfill

91.80

Nambucca Landfill (daily cover)

Commercial domestic waste

Landfill

86.74

CCWS Biomass Facility

Commercial building waste

Landfill

48.98

Nambucca Landfill

Charity groups

Landfill

20.44

Nambucca Landfill

Dead animals (small)

Landfill

0.28

Nambucca Landfill

 

 

 

 

 

The kerbside contamination program continued throughout the quarter with some properties in the following areas identified in the table below having contamination warnings issued:

 

Date

Address

Suburb

Bin

Offence No

Comment

03/01/2013

Loyd Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

04/02/2013

Star Street

Macksville

Organics

?1st

Contaminated

04/02/2013

Wall Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

28/03/2013

Johnston Close

Macksville

Organics

?1st

Contaminated

28/03/2013

Wall Street

Macksville

Organics

1st

Contaminated

 

 

CCWS Materials Recovery Facility

 

The table below reflects the Coffs Coast regional recycling tonnages processed through the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) during the quarter at Coffs Coast Resource Recovery Park. Contamination levels range seasonally between 4% and 9% with ongoing current markets for recovered glass fines still developing:

 

Tonnes Processed

Usable Product

Total Waste

Glass Waste

Days of Operation

4,311.78

3,981.30

330.48

75.32

68

 

 

CCWS Educational Activities

 

The tables below reflect the Coffs Coast Waste Services educational activities carried out during the last quarter:

 

Onsite Education Visits

 

Month

School or Group

No?s Attending

January 2013

Nil (school holidays)

Nil

February 2013

Nil requests

Nil

March 2013

Coffs Harbour Christian Community High School (Year 10)

90

 

 

Offsite Education Visits

 

Month

School or Group

No?s Attending

January 2013

Nil (school holidays)

Nil

February 2013

Nil requests

Nil

March 2013

Nil requests

Nil

 

 

Media Releases

 

Month

Source

Method

January 2013

CCWS Education Recycling

Focus Magazine

February 2013

CCWS Education Recycling

Focus Magazine

March 2013

CCWS Education ?Bin Busters?

Focus Magazine

 

 

Website

 

Month

Visits

Duration of Page Views

January 2013

2850

Figures not available

February 2013

2758

Figures not available

March 2013

3170

Figures not available

 

 

NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy

 

The NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy (WARR) was developed by State Government to provide direction for local councils to reduce waste generated, optimise the recovery of usable resources from waste and manage the disposal of residual waste in an environmentally responsible way in the following waste streams:

 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ? the solid component of the waste stream arising from household waste placed at the kerbside for Council collection and waste collected by Council from municipal parks and gardens, street sweepings, Council engineering works and public Council bins.

 

Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&I) ? Inert, solid or industrial generated by business and industries (shopping centres, restaurants, office warehousing, manufacturing, repair workshops retail outlets, hotels and clubs) along with institutions (schools, hospitals, universities, nursing homes and government offices).

 

Construction and Demolition (C&D) ? materials in the waste stream which arise from construction, refurbishment, demolition and excavation activities.

 

The table below identifies the NSW ambitious targets set in 2003 for each of the waste streams identified above and the status of Nambucca?s compliance during the last quarter:

 

Waste Stream

NSW Target

Landfilled

Tonnes

Diverted

Tonnes

Diversion

%

Municipal (MSW)

66% recovery by 2014

319.75

2355.69

88

Commercial? Industrial (C&I)

63% recovery by 2014

156.44

279.90

64

Construction Demolition (C&D)

76% recovery by 2014

311.93

183.40

36

 

 

CCWS Regional Integration of Waste Management & Resource Recovery Operations

 

No further action has taken place to date in establishing a regional working group with representatives made up of the three member councils to pursue the options in providing regional integration of waste management and resource recovery services for the Coffs Coast region.?

 

Midwaste

 

As part of the National Packaging Covenant and the Product Stewardship Legislation being introduced Midwaste (representatives from 8 member Councils from Great Lakes in the south to Coffs Harbour in the north) have received a proposal from a collection contractor offering e-waste collection services to the member Councils at their waste facilities. The Product Stewardship Legislation is in the early stages of implementation and working out the finer points are still under negotiations, however the collection contractor has entered into an agreement under the product stewardship legislation to become a ?collector? and ?transporter? of e-waste, in particular TV?s and computer monitors.

 

Table below: Indicates acceptable and non acceptable e-waste materials for collection under the Product Stewardship Legislation.

 

Products Accepted

Products NOT Accepted

All televisions (CRT?s & Flat Screens)

Broken televisions/screens

Computer Monitors

Products contaminated with harardous materials or foreign objects such as dirt/mud

Towers (hard drives)

VCRs, DVD players, gaming consoles, HiFi equipment (this will be a few for service)

Key boards

 

Mice

 

Faxes, Multi functions, printers

 

 

Waste Levy Review

 

The NSW Government commenced its review of the Section 88 Waste Levy in January 2012. According to the Government the NSW Waste and Environment levy is one of the key policy tools in driving waste avoidance and resource recovery. The levy was first introduced in Sydney Metropolitan Area (SMA) in 1971 with the levy currently at $82.20, then extended into the Extended Regulated Area (ERA) in 1996 with the levy currently at $78.60 and the Regional Regulated Area (RRA) in 2009 with the levy currently at $31.10. The levy now covers 72 Local Government areas.

 

KPMG Consultants were engaged by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to consider stakeholder views and to provide recommendations to the Government on the operation of the Waste Levy. Submissions were received by KPMG Consultants by 13 April 2012 including local submissions from Coffs Coast Waste Services and Midwaste on behalf of their respective Councils. KPMG Consultants was scheduled to report to the EPA by May 2012. However the 2012/13 waste to landfill levy was increased by State Government to $42.20 per tonne.

 

The NSW Government announced the findings of the waste levy review on 25 February 2013. This included an announcement of a $465.7 million Waste Less, Recycle More initiative that sets out a progressive waste and recycling agenda over the next five years for NSW that will deliver economic, employment and environmental benefits for local communities.

 

The key areas of the $465.7 million package over 5 years include:

????? Waste and recycling infrastructure package - $250 million

????? Supporting local communities - $137.7 million

????? Combating illegal dumping - $58 million

????? Tackling litter - $20 million

The Waste Less, Recycle More initiative is primarily about funding arrangements as a result of the WaSIP program being scrapped. All feasible opportunities will need to be pursued to ensure Councils have the best opportunity to gain its fair share of the grant funding on offer.

 

Midwaste recently applied for $50,000 grant funding to commence a Midwaste Regional Waste Strategy. The proposed strategy will be prepared under each of the key focus areas of the Waste Less, Recycle More initiative and include sub regional initiatives (eg Coffs Coast Waste Services) and individual Council projects.

 

The release of the findings also presents the case that the Coffs Coast Waste Services Councils are being effectively penalised for the implementation of waste management strategies to date that have already been funded by the Coffs Coast Councils and their communities which would have become eligible for funding under the Waste Less, Recycle More package. It has also become apparent that this grant funding cannot be applied retrospectively to waste and recycling infrastructure projects.

 

Strategy for Leachate Overflow Events on the Old Landfill Site

 

No further information has been received from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) as a result of Council requesting a copy of the independent review undertaken of the monitoring data for both surface and groundwater of the old landfill site. The status is as follows:

 

Correspondence received from the EPA on the 29 August 2012 indicates that following a recent EPA independent technical review of the ground water monitoring data for the Old Nambucca Landfill, the EPA now considers that any licence variations to reflect changes to the monitoring program for leachate overflow events may be premature at this stage. According to the EPA?s independent review, the results of the monitoring data for both surface and groundwater over time suggest that concentrations of the various analytes are continuously fluctuating, leaving little confidence that these analytes have achieved a stable decline and are therefore not at risk of polluting waters. In view of this the EPA has decided to delay any licence variation to the monitoring regime until sufficient and valid data is available showing a stable decline in leachate concentrations.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Handybin Waste Services

Midwaste

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

All kerbside waste materials are collected and reprocessed through the materials recycling facility and the biomass plant with only the reject and residual materials being landfilled. Self hauled wastes are sourced separated and recycled or landfilled accordingly.

 

Social

Potential increased costs.

 

Economic

Potential increases in the domestic waste management charge and landfill gate fees.

 

Risk

No identifiable risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Potential increases in the garbage service and landfill gate fees per year.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Additional income will need to be sourced from the annual domestic waste management charge.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

No identifiable changes or implications at this point.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ???