NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

10 July 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 a full day meeting commencing at 8.30 am 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 Council?s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au


 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

 

Acknowledgement of Country??????? ? (Mayor)

 

I would like to acknowledge the Gumbaynggirr people who are the Traditional Custodians of this Land.? I would also like to pay respect to the elders both past and present and extend that respect to any Aboriginal People present.

 

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

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 June 2013

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1???? Notice of Motion - Protocol for Site Inspections by Council (SF265- Code of Meeting Practice)..................................... 6 ?

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

David Ainsworth - Theft & Intimidation by Juveniles

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

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

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Crown Land Lease and Payment of Annual Rent for the Utungan Bush Fire Brigade................................................. 8

9.2???? Transfer of Ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum from Council to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc........................ 12

9.3???? Outstanding Actions and Reports...................................... 26

9.4???? Creation of a Title for the Visitor Information Centre and Classification as Operational Land..................................... 31

9.5???? Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads - Pacific Highway Hydrologic Mitigation Report ............................................ 37

9.6???? Mineral and Salt Concentrations in the Bowraville Off River Water Storage................................................................. 75

9.7???? Review of the Cost Effectiveness of the Mixed Waste (red bin) Recovery System - Response from Coffs Harbour City Council............................................................................ 78

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

10.1?? Review On-site Sewage Management Plan 2013............... 82

10.2?? Re-reporting Modification to DA2012/010 ........................ 112

10.3?? DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy.......................... 123

10.4?? Variation to Council Policy 'Bushfire Buffers On Public Land' as it relates to DA 2013/043............................................ 155

10.5?? Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre......................... 166

10.6?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 4-30? June 2013. 168

10.7?? Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................... 170

10.8?? Investment Report To 30 June? 2013............................... 171

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

11.1?? Final Plan of Management - Gordon Park Recreational Area - Playing Fields - Wellington Drive Nambucca Heads.......... 177

11.2?? Final Plan of Management - Gordon Park Rainforest Wellington Drive Nambucca Heads.................................. 191


11.3?? Final Plan of Management - Lions Park Ferry Street Macksville...................................................................... 202

11.4?? Final Policy - Vehicular Access To Beaches..................... 214

11.5?? Tender for Supply & Delivery of Hygienic Services............ 225

11.6?? Access to White Albatross Caravan Park and the V-Wall Tavern........................................................................... 227

11.7?? Application for Temporary Road Closure - Ford Falcon GT Show N Shine 2013........................................................ 233 ???

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

12.1?? Onsite Sewage Management Systems 5625 Pacific Highway, North Macksville

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains a discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer.

 

12.2?? Approval of Residential Flat Building, 4 Fraser Street, Nambucca Heads - DA2012/108 - Contention that Councillors have been Misled?LATE REPORT

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) (e) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals; AND the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law; AND the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.??

??

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

 

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

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

???? TO CLOSE

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

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

13????? MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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

 

TIME

DESCRIPTION

WHERE

08.30

PUBLIC FORUM: David Ainsworth (Theft & Intimidation by Youths in Stores)

Council Chambers

 

Item 10.3 - DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

Onsite

 

Item 10.4 - Boronia Street, Laneway, Nambucca Heads for purpose of Council considering variation to Bushfire Buffers on Public Land policy (Anthony Brandie)

Onsite

10.00

Item 10.5 - Youth Services Centre

Onsite

11.00

DELEGATION: Mrs Kelli Leckie

Confidential Late Item 12.2 - Approval of Residential Flat Building, 4 Fraser Street, Nambucca Heads - DA2012/108 - Contention that Councillors have been Misled

Council Chambers

1.00 noon

Lunch

Council Chambers

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

???


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1???? SF1817??????????? 100713??????? Notice of Motion - Protocol for Site Inspections by Council (SF265- Code of Meeting Practice)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Brian Finlayson, Councillor ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council should adopt the following protocol in connection with inspections offsite or projects under consideration for decision by Council, namely:

 

1??????? Council should inspect any such sites in the absence of the public or persons ?interested? in that site or project.

 

2??????? The matters relating to that site or details of the project should be explained to Councillors by a member of staff from that department of Council that has carriage of the matter under consideration.

 

3??????? All Councillors should at least give the impression that they are listening to that explanation, even if they are not.

 

4??????? The practice of Council staff or anybody else notifying members of the public or person interested in the matter that the inspection is to take place and inviting their attendance should be discontinued forthwith.

 

5??????? Any Proponents of projects or members of the public who wish to address Council on the matter should do so by making a reservation as a delegation and addressing the whole Council at a properly constituted public meeting where everyone can apprehend:

????????? a)?????? the nature of what is being said

????????? b)?????? the status of the person saying it

????????? and so have some idea of the material being considered (or ignored) by all Councillors in making a decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council inspect any such sites in the absence of the public or persons ?interested? in that site or project.

 

2??????? That the matters relating to that site or details of the project should be explained to Councillors by a member of staff from that department of Council that has carriage of the matter under consideration.

 

3??????? That all Councillors should at least give the impression that they are listening to that explanation, even if they are not.

 

4??????? That the practice of Council staff or anybody else notifying members of the public or person interested in the matter that the inspection is to take place and inviting their attendance should be discontinued forthwith.

 

5??????? That any Proponents of projects or members of the public who wish to address Council on the matter should do so by making a reservation as a delegation and addressing the whole Council at a properly constituted public meeting where everyone can apprehend:

 

????????? a)?????? the nature of what is being said

????????? b)????? the status of the person saying it

 

????????? and so have some idea of the material being considered (or ignored) by all Councillors in making a decision.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A?????? The present process of Councillors turning up for a site inspection to be met by a group, some of whom at least were apparently notified by Council staff that the inspection is to take place is totally undesirable.? It is impossible to determine how representative of a community those people might be.? Some Councillors will be tempted to play to the gallery and other Councillors will be overwhelmed and perhaps bullied into taking a course that they might otherwise not take.? There is a considerable risk that material will be pressed on Councillors (either as a group or individually) in circumstances where other people interested in the matter under consideration will not have an opportunity to hear or respond to that material.

 

B?????? On some inspections, some Councillors have absented themselves from the presentation by a proponent and gone off to talk to other people present at the inspection totally ignoring what is being said.? Councillors may be separately drawn aside by people present or may actually seek out people they know at the inspection and be provided with material in the absence of other Councillors and miss other material being sought to be presented to all Councillors.? Even if this is not happening, if it looks as if it is then, it is totally unacceptable.

 

C?????? To members of the public looking on this is a terrible presentation.? It gives an impression that some Councillors don?t want to listen to what is put to them and have made up their mind before they arrive at the inspection or are relying to make their decision on material that has been made available to them only and not to other Councillors.? It looks (and is) amateurish and unprofessional.

 

D?????? Everyone interested in a controversial matter being considered by Council is entitled to be confident that:

 

i)??????? All Councillors dealing with the matter have heard all the material that persons for and against the matter have wished to put before Councillors, and

 

ii)?????? All persons have had the opportunity of hearing what other people have had to say about the matter under consideration and have had an opportunity to respond to allegations or to correct matters that are patently untrue.? It also gives Council the opportunity to appeal to Council staff present at the meeting for assistance when there are irreconcilable allegations made by both sides.? We have to rely on someone and if a disputed matter finished up being litigated then the best presentation we can have is that we relied on our own staff in arriving at a conclusion.

 

MANEX COMMENT

 

Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of public participation at site inspections there may be some practical problems in implementing the Notice of Motion.? Occasionally Council will need to seek approval to enter private land in which case it does need to notify the applicant/owner.? Also if Council is conducting site inspections from public land it will be difficult to ?turn away? any interested members of the public who may see the congregation and wish to listen.? In relation to recommendation 3, it is not clear how this would be actionable in that it relates to individual behaviour.

 

As an alternative, Council may wish to consider ?tightening up? the arrangements for public access at onsite inspections eg to require anyone wishing to speak at site inspections to book in the same way public access is managed at Council meetings.? The intent would be to manage site inspections in the same way as Council meetings.? Any changes should be incorporated in the Community Engagement Strategy.

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.1???? SF938????????????? 100713??????? Crown Land Lease and Payment of Annual Rent for the Utungan Bush Fire Brigade

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

The Crown Lands Division be advised that in the circumstances Council has no control over the Rural Fire Service, its budget or its service levels and that it take up the matter of a replacement lease for the Utungun bush fire brigade directly with the Rural Fire Service.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can enter into a new replacement lease for the bush fire brigade station at Utungun.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The now antiquated arrangements between the NSW Government and councils for the provision of bush fire services in NSW include the retention of bush fire brigade stations in Council ownership.? In the instance of the Utungun bush fire brigade, the station is located on Crown Land.? A 20 year lease between Council and Crown Lands to allow for the occupation of the land by the bush fire brigade expired on 18 October 2012.

 

The lease provides for the payment of rent with the initial rent nominated as $1,200 per annum and with a market rent review after 5 years.? However a rebate was provided for the initial rent which meant that Council only paid $150 per annum.? Whilst the initial rent was determined at market value, the rebate was intended to reflect is use for community purposes.? This rebate has remained for the period of the lease.

 

The Crown Lands Division has now sought advice from Council as to whether it wishes to apply for a new replacement lease over the site.

 

In the circumstances that Council has no control over the RFS, its budget or its service levels, it is recommended that the Crown Lands Division be advised to take up the matter of a replacement lease directly with the Rural Fire Service.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are unlikely to be significant risks.? In theory the Crown Lands Division could decide to evict the bush fire brigade and lease the site to another user.? Presumably it would not undertake this action without consultation with the Rural Fire Service.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

At this stage there is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

At this stage there is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

As government ponders how it may improve efficiency in the public sector, this is a fine example of three government instrumentalities (Crown Lands, the Rural Fire Service and Council) with fractured responsibility in service provision leading to legal agreements, rental payments and general bureaucracy.? The obvious answer is for the Rural Fire Service to accept ownership and responsibility for its bush fire brigade stations and for crown land being used by bush fire brigades to be transferred to the Rural Fire Service.

 

Attachments:

1View

14839/2013 - Crown Lands Lease Lot 101 DP 822621 for Bush Fire Brigade Station

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Crown Land Lease and Payment of Annual Rent for the Utungan Bush Fire Brigade

 



Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2???? SF309????????????? 100713??????? Transfer of Ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum from Council to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc.

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The Bowraville Folk Museum Inc. is seeking the transfer of the Bowraville Folk Museum to its ownership.

 

The Bowraville Folk Museum Inc. is an incorporated association with an equivalent mission to Council in terms of owning and operating the museum.

 

The cash position of the Museum is such that the Incorporated Association should be able to operate the Museum and maintain the building, although in the medium to long term the capital required to renew the facility will be a financial challenge.? In this respect the problem which will be faced by the Incorporated Association will be no different to the financial challenge faced by Council.? Council can and should continue to provide assistance to the Museum where it can through Council?s Grants Officer and other programs which may provide technical or financial assistance.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? Council resolve to support in principle the transfer of the Bowraville Folk Museum to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc. in accordance with the conditions set down by the Incorporated Association and subject to Council being able to fund any work identified in the dilapidation report.

 

2??????? Council proceed to arrange for the preparation of a dilapidation report by an external consultant.

 

3??????? There be a further report to Council on the costs and funding of any work identified in the dilapidation report prior to a final decision being made on the transfer of the property.

 

4??????? In anticipation of the possible transfer of the Bowraville Folk Museum to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc., that Council proceed to reclassify the Bowraville Folk Museum from community to operational land.

 

5??????? In the event that the transfer proceeds, that the Council seal be affixed to the relevant transfer documents.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can resolve not to proceed with the reclassification and possible transfer of the Bowraville Folk Museum.

 

Council could make a similar decision not to proceed at a later date, if for example the dilapidation report indicates work which Council is unable to fund.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has received the attached letter from the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc. which is now an Incorporated Association with the same Committee as Council?s Section 355 Committee.

 

Their mission in the incorporation statement is to:

 

?collect, collate, display and preserve the folk history, the culture and relevant artefacts of the Nambucca Valley displaying them in a learning environment for the benefit of the community.?

 

The goal of the museum it to:

 

?create an institution which is interactive, progressive and comprehensive in its displays.? To faithfully endeavour, to the best of our ability, to preserve the valuable items which have been entrusted into our care.?

 

The incorporation documents are attached.

 

The Incorporated Association believes the future of the Museum is best secured by acting independently of Council.? In this regard the Frank Partridge VC Military Museum has successfully demonstrated what can be achieved by a museum which is owned and operated by a community based organisation and where the Council has provided some technical and financial assistance through the Museum Advisor Program and also through Council?s Grants Officer.

 

The Incorporated Association is seeking the transfer of the museum at nil cost and subject to a number of conditions being:

 

1????????????? Council pays all the legal costs, stamp duty, GST etc associated with the transfer of ownership

2????????????? Exemption from rates

3????????????? Council pay be way of donation fixed charges for water and sewerage

4??????? Council undertakes a dilapidation report to identify any repairs and maintenance required to the buildings and undertake any repair work as a condition of any handover of ownership

5??????? Council continue in its assistance of the Museum through its Grants Officer and other programs which may be run from time to time, an example being the recently concluded Museum Advisor Program in conjunction with Museums and Galleries

 

The Incorporated Association has already arranged a similar insurance cover to that used by the Frank Partridge VC Military Museum.? This provides the same type of cover to that provided by Council with the exception that the property insurance will not cover the reinstatement of the building.? The nature of a museum is that its contents are the reason for its existence and it is better to invest in superior smoke and fire detection and response systems than an insurance policy for building replacement.

 

An investigation has been undertaken of what it has cost Council to own the building over recent years.

 

In 2006/2007 Council spent $22,820 installing a smoke and fire alarm system and then in 2007/2008 a further $31,437 on installing a fire sprinkler system.? More generally, over the past 5 years the costs of the building have been as follows:

 

Bowraville Folk Museum Costs

 

Year

Capital ($)

Maintenance1 ($)

Depreciation ($)

Total ($)

2008/2009

Nil

8,590

45,223

53,813

2009/2010

7,178 (shutters)

12,546

45,348

57,894

2010/2011

3,471 (toilet upgrade)

22,954

45,825

68,779

2011/2012

Nil

15,338

45,890

61,228

2012/2013

12,990 (awnings)

12,458

45,426

57,884

 

1 Since 2009/2010 the maintenance figure has included insurance costs of approximately $10,200 per annum.

 

Capital expenditure which increases the life of the building will affect the depreciation expense.

 

Following a recent valuation of the building, the derivation of the depreciation expense for future years using the component parts of the building as at 30 June 2013 and based on its fair (written down) value is shown in the table below.? The reason the total depreciation expense is less than in the table above is that the valuation of the building has changed.

 

Bowraville Folk Museum Depreciation Expense

 

Component

Replacement Cost ($)

Est. Life

Remaining Life (years)

Fair Value $

Dep?n with 10% Residual Value $

Boarding House

180,000

50

20

71,000

2,650

Church

150,000

60

10

25,000

1,000

Flat

140,000

50

10

28,000

1,400

Substructure

100,000

60

15

25,000

1,000

Superstructure

460,000

60

15

120,000

4,933

Roof

180,000

40

15

68,000

3,333

Finishes

230,000

20

10

120,000

9,700

Fittings

52,000

20

10

26,000

2,080

Services

350,000

30

15

180,000

9,666

External Services

4,100

30

15

2,100

112

Total

1,846,100

 

 

665,000

35,874

 

The minutes of the October 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Section 355 Committee, the most recent AGM minutes which Council has, are attached.? They indicate for the financial year, the operating result was a surplus of $5,579 and that the Committee had good cash reserves of $34,363.? They have the benefit of rental income from a flat in the building.? The current entry fees at $2.00 per adult and a $1.00 per child have potential to be increased.

 

The cash position of the Museum is such that the Incorporated Association should be able to operate the Museum and maintain the building, although in the medium to long term the capital required to renew the facility will be a financial challenge.? In this respect the problem which will be faced by the Incorporated Association will be no different to the financial challenges faced by Council.? Council can and should continue to provide assistance to the Museum where it can through Council?s Grants Officer and other programs which may provide technical or financial assistance.

 

Given the potential costs of maintaining the building, the request from the Incorporated Association that Council undertake a dilapidation report and undertake any repair work as a condition of any handover of ownership is a reasonable one.? Council will need to satisfy itself that it can fund any identified work before proceeding with the transfer of the property.

 

The Incorporated Association will be exempt from rates as a charity.? The request for an on-going donation for fixed water and sewerage charges is also reasonable and should be supported.? The water access fee is currently $109 and the sewer charge is $218, a total of $327.

 

It is proposed that Council proceed with the reclassification of the Museum from community to operational land.? This is required to enable its transfer and does require a process involving advertising and a public hearing.? If for whatever reason a transfer does not proceed, a reclassification does not materially affect Council?s management of the building.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There have been discussions with the President of the Committee of Management and the Bowraville Museum Inc.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The Museum contains locally important cultural relics relating to mainly post European settlement.

 

There are many examples of small local museums in NSW which take pride in their ownership and control of their facility.? There is some anecdotal evidence that such museums may be more sustainable than the model of Council control due to the sense of ownership and custodial responsibility for locally important cultural artefacts.? Our Frank Partridge VC military museum has been particularly successful in its operations and has perhaps the strongest volunteer base of all of the Valley?s museums.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no significant risks.? The Bowraville Folk Museum Inc. is an incorporated association with an equivalent mission to Council in terms of owning and operating the museum.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The report details the costs of owning and maintaining the Bowraville Folk Museum.

 

It is just one small example of the reason why the Council has been provided with a weak financial sustainability rating by NSW Treasury Corporation and a negative outlook.? Whilst the depreciation cost may not reflect the cost of the capital renewal which will be required to maintain the asset, the renewal expenditure over the past 5 years has been minimal in comparison to the depreciation expense.? Council does not set aside any funded reserves to provide for this capital renewal.? One simple example is the roof which will eventually need to be replaced at an estimated cost of $180,000.

 

The transfer of the building to the incorporated association would remove the asset from Council?s balance sheet and with it the unfunded depreciation as well as maintenance expenditure.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

In the first instance there will be a cost associated with the preparation of a dilapidation report.? This can likely be met from the existing maintenance budget.? If the transfer proceeds there will be conveyancing and registration costs, but hopefully no stamp duty.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There will be staff resources required in the reclassification of the land from community to operational.? It will be necessary to conduct a public hearing.? Recently the General Manager of Bellingen Shire Council has conducted two public hearings for the reclassification of Council property at no cost.

 

Attachments:

1View

15085/2013 - Letter from Bowraville Folk Museum Inc.

0 Pages

2View

15845/2013 - Strategic Plan 1

0 Pages

3View

15846/2013 - Strategic Plan 2

0 Pages

4View

29954/2011 - Minutes Annual General Meeting - 11 October 2011

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Transfer of Ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum from Council to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Transfer of Ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum from Council to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Transfer of Ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum from Council to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Transfer of Ownership of the Bowraville Folk Museum from Council to the Bowraville Folk Museum Inc.

 








Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager

ITEM 9.3???? SF959????????????? 100713??????? 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.

JULY 2011

2

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

3

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

Change in Rates staff meant that there has not been the opportunity to review the criteria.? To be reported in 2013/2014.

 

Once Finance Structure resolved this matter should progress.

 


 

FEBRUARY 2012

4

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 October 2013

 

OCTOBER 2012

5

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

6

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.

Further letter sent to Clarence Valley Council asking for a breakdown of $206,241 paid for ?redundancies and terminations?.? Response received.? To be reported in closed in July.

 

JANUARY 2013

 

7

RF275

16/01/2013

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

 

AGMCCS

On-going

 

8

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

Report in confidential section 10 July 2013

 

 

FEBRUARY 2013

 

9

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.

0Letter 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

-???? As per council resolution it adopted a budget line item which may we

 

 

10

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.

 

Follow up letter sent 18 June 2013.

 

Notwithstanding, there has been advice to the media, Council is yet to receive formal notification.

 

MARCH 2013

 

11

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

 

12

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

Approval has now been obtained from the EPA to use waste levy funding to trial a twice per year rural service whereby a mixed waste truck, recycling truck and bulky goods 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.? There are 1,385 properties in this category.

Costs have been obtained from Handybin which indicate that the cost per site for each Saturday collection would be approximately $5,663.? This means the cost for the 4 sites per collection would be $22,654 or $45,308 for the two trial collections.?

In general terms the cost of hiring a truck and driver is $927.50 per day.? The disposal cost per truck is spproximately $1295 for mixed waste and $291 for recyclables.

Dates for collection have not as yet been determined.? They will be determined in consultation with the contractor.

The proposed trial service will be extensively advertised in the rates newsletter and by direct mail

.

 

13

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.

 

APRIL 2013

 

14

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.

 

Meeting with rms 30 May 2013.? Issue discussed.? Rms are preparing a concept with indicative costing and will supply to Council.

 

Suggested indicative costing is $10M.

 

 

15

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.

 

 

MAY 2013

 

16

SF844

30/5/2013

Cr Flack?s question concerning the concentration of salt and other minerals in BORS and how they will be managed.

AGMES

NSW Public Works to obtain advice form GHD

To be discussed at BORS meeting 5 June 2013.

Public Works requested to provide advice in writing.

Written advice received.? To be reported in July 2013.

 

 

17

SF453

30/5/2013

Council write to the GM of CHCC requesting that as the lead Council in the (waste) agreement they undertake an evaluation of the biomass processing rather than rely on the contractor who has a commercial interest.? Also request figures on how much biomass has been sold to date.

 

GM

Letter sent 6 June 2013

 

18

SF453

30/5/2013

That Council receive a report on the comparison of waste costs from a Sydney council and Mid North and North Coast councils.

 

AGMES

Report in July 2013

 

19

SF453

30/5/2013

The GM consult with Bellingen Shire Council to gauge its interest in forming a working group to review the Coffs Coast Waste Service?s strategic direction.

 

GM

Letter sent 6 June 2013.

 

JUNE 2013

 

20

SF270

12/6/2013

Council receive a report in Closed Meeting regarding the progress of the onsite sewage management system at 5625 Pacific Highway, North Macksville.

 

AGMCCS

Report in July 2013.

 

21

SF36

12/6/2013

That Council seek clarification on the question of quorums where a majority of Councillors have a conflict of interest; that statement that Councillors can only approach staff or staff organisations to discuss broad work place policies; Council staff not being able to speak to objectors outside normal hours but no similar reference to Councillors.

 

AGMCCS

Report in July 2013.

 

22

SF632

12/6/2013

Re-reporting modification to remove lot 14 from the strata subdivision ? Princess Street ? that it be deferred so as to provide confirmation via a diagram of the 21 off street parking spaces.

 

AGMCCS

Report in July 2013

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4???? SF929????????????? 100713??????? Creation of a Title for the Visitor Information Centre and Classification as Operational Land

 

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

 

Summary:

 

At Council?s meeting on 12 December 2012 it was resolved to create a title for the Visitor Information Centre.

 

Council should resolve to classify the proposed lot as operational land so as to enable Council and Nambucca Valley Tourism the flexibility to realise its capital value should this ever be required.? However Nambucca Valley Tourism has resolved that the Visitor Information Centre should remain in its current location following the relocation of the Pacific Highway and as such there are no plans for the site.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Council resolve to classify the proposed title containing Council?s Visitor Information Centre as operational land under the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect to classify the Visitor Information Centre as community land.? Council can also do nothing in which case the land will automatically be classified as community land.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 12 December 2012 it was resolved to create a title for the Visitor Information Centre generally as shown on a document circularised at the meeting.

 

Council staff are now in the process of finalising the creation of a title for the Visitor Information Centre.

 

The proposed title is shown on the attachments.

 

Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides as follows:

31 Classification of land acquired after 1 July 1993

(1) This section applies to land that is acquired by a council after the commencement of this Division, other than:

(a) land to which the Crown Lands Act 1989 applied before the acquisition and continues to apply after the acquisition, and

(b) land that is acquired for the purpose of a road.

 

(2) Before a council acquires land, or within 3 months after it acquires land, a council may resolve (in accordance with this Part) that the land be classified as community land or operational land.

 

Council should resolve to classify the proposed lot as operational land so as to enable Council and Nambucca Valley Tourism the flexibility to realise its capital value should this ever be required.? However Nambucca Valley Tourism has resolved that the Visitor Information Centre should remain in its current location following the relocation of the Pacific Highway and as such there are no plans for the site.

 

Whether the land is classified as operational or community does not affect Council?s management of the land.? If anything the operational classification will reduce Council?s management costs by obviating the requirement to prepare and update a plan of management for the site.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Councils Manager Business Development and Council?s Surveyor.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no identified risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There will be some costs associated with the creation of the title.? These can be met from existing budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There has been some staff time involved in the creation of the title.? Most of this work has been done by Council?s registered Surveyor.

 

Attachments:

1View

15975/2013 - Proposed Title for Visitor Information Centre

0 Pages

2View

15976/2013 - Proposed Title for Visitor Information Centre - Aerial

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Creation of a Title for the Visitor Information Centre and Classification as Operational Land

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Creation of a Title for the Visitor Information Centre and Classification as Operational Land

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5???? SF841????????????? 100713??????? Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads - Pacific Highway Hydrologic Mitigation Report

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a copy of Pacific Highway Hydrologic Mitigation Report, which addresses the flood impact the Pacific Highway will have after construction is complete in accordance with condition B13 of the Major Project Development consent issued by the Department of Planning. It is noted that the report does not address flooding impacts that may occur during construction. These investigations are still underway.

 

A floor level survey of properties near embankments was used to inform the study addressed in this report.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? That Council note the information presented in this report in regards to the post construction impacts of the proposed Pacific Highway Upgrade from Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads.

 

2.?????? That Council request the RMS make available reports to fulfil the requirements of condition B13 and any associated conditions of the consent that highlight any flood impacts and mitigation required during the construction phase.

 

3.?????? The Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be made aware of Council?s request for reporting on the conditions of consent.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may request a representative from the RMS address the Council on this matter. It is noted the construction phase of the Highway is still being investigated in relation to flooding impact.?

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Staff have been provided with the Draft Pacific Highway Hydrologic mitigation report for the Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads section of the upgrade. The report is provided in response to condition B13 of the Development Consent issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It is noted that consent conditions requires the Hydrologic report to be approved by the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure prior to the commencement of construction of the Pacific Highway upgrade.

 

Council may recall a similar report was provide for comment in regards to the Nambucca Heads to Urunga section of the highway upgrade in 2012. That report resulted in refinements to the proposed Deep Creek bridge to minimise impacts to adjoining landholders and has since been approved by the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

 

Background

 

The following conditions of consent were issued by the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in relation to flooding and the Pacific Highway upgrade from Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads:

 

The Hydrologic report provided to Council is in response to condition B13 above. It is noted that it only addresses the highway once it is constructed. It does not address any impacts that may arise during the construction phase. Council is expecting additional reporting to address conditions B11, B12 and B14 of the consent.

 

The report provided identifies that the level of increased impact resulting from a flood event once the highway is constructed would be minimal. Several property owners were consulted in the upper warrell creek area including 464 Browns Crossing Road which was highlighted in the report. An area of 20x 30m in size is expected to exceeds inundation criteria on this property however no mitigation is proposed as cattle could be moved to high land in a flood event (page 8 and 9 of the report) ? the landholders were consulted by the RMS in regards to this.

 

The report also identifies some minor impact on local roads Browns Crossing Road and Scotts Head Road, but state these impacts will have negligible effect on the length of time roads are cut during flood events. For a 1%AEP event, inundation times up stream of Nambucca River Warrell Creek and upper Warrell Creek Crossing are expected to increase by approx. 10min (less for smaller events).

 

CONSULTATION:

 

NSW RMS

Manager Technical Services

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There is no measure provided in the report to mitigate any environmental impacts that may arise due flooding post highway construction. However there are a number conditions of consent that address environmental issues and in most cases the office of environment and heritage is required to be consulted on these matters.

 

Social

 

No dwellings are expected to be subject to a significant increase in flood impact after the highway upgrade is complete. Flooding impacts associated with construction are still being investigated and additional reporting to Council is expected.

 

Economic

 

The damages associated increase in flood risk once the highway is complete is limited to rural land and pasture.

 

Risk

 

As stated previously the report identifies that there is limited increase in risk associated with the constructed highway. The risk associated with the proposed construction techniques are presently being investigated. Council will expect an additional report from the RMS on this the flooding impact and any proposed mitigation measures associated with the construction of the Highway.

 

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

15394/2013 - Nambucca River Pacific Highway Impacts - NH2WC B13 Report

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads - Pacific Highway Hydrologic Mitigation Report

 




































Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6???? SF844????????????? 100713??????? Mineral and Salt Concentrations in the Bowraville Off River Water Storage

 

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

 

Summary:

 

At a meeting of the Water Supply Steering Committee, Councillor Flack queried the potential for an increase of salts and other minerals in the storage as a result of evaporation over a long term, and particularly during periods when the storage is not being used.

 

Whilst a response to the question was provided by the Project Manager at a subsequent Water Supply Steering Committee meeting, it was not put in writing nor recorded in the minutes.? The purpose of this report is to provide a record of the question and response.

 

It is possible that small increases in TDS could occur in extremely dry years. However the volume of rainfall in = rainfall out for the storage, so there is no accumulation effect from this input. On the contrary, rainfall mixing in the storage would be expected to assist with reducing TDS, especially in wetter years.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning mineral and salt concentrations in the Bowraville Off River Water Storage be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

As indicated by the Office of Water, Council could commission further water quality modelling but this would likely be at a considerable expense.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At a meeting of the Water Supply Steering Committee, Councillor Flack queried the potential for an increase of salts and other minerals in the storage as a result of evaporation over a long term, and particularly during periods when the storage is not being used.? The potential concern was an increase in salt concentration would affect water quality for drinking and environmental release back into Bowra Creek.? For example the bore fields salt content is 12.9mg/L and with a storage evaporation rate of 730ML/year the concern is there may be a concentration of approximately 9400kg of salt per year.? If the dam were to not be in operation for a period of time there may be a potential for significant salt build up.

 

Whilst a response to the question was provided by the Project Manager at a subsequent Water Supply Steering Committee meeting, it was not put in writing nor recorded in the minutes.? The purpose of this report is to provide a record of the question and response.

 

The response provided by the Project Manager was as follows:

 

?The reservoir has a volume of 4,500ML and assuming it had the borefield TDS (total dissolved solids) of 12.9mg/L, and the evaporation of 730ML per year, this would increase the TDS by 2.09mg/L in one year assuming no freshwater inflows, etc.? Compared to the ANZECC guidelines trigger value of around 20mg/L TDS for lakes and reservoirs, this is not a significant increase.

 

If the reservoir was filled completely by pumping, ie no rain during filling, it would need to then have no rain for a further 4 years to exceed the trigger value.? 300mm of rainfall in the catchment per annum would effectively replace the evaporated water and given that the average annual rainfall is just under 1,500mm, in all likelihood the TDS of the reservoir is likely to remain below that of the borefield.? This of course relies on adequate mixing of the water body.?

 

At the Water Steering Committee meeting held on 3 July 2013, there was further information provided by the Project Manager from the Office of Water.? This information is as follows:

 

?There are no known issues that have arisen in NSW dams, in similar climatic conditions, related to increased salinity (total dissolved solids) due to evaporation. The trigger value of 20mg/l you referred to in your response email is actually an ANZECC guideline value for Tasmanian lakes and reservoirs, and is not really relevant in this case. The purpose of the BORS is for drinking water, and the Australian Drinking Water Guideline value for TDS is 600mg/l for ?good? quality drinking water (an aesthetic guideline value).

 

As you have noted, it is possible that small increases in TDS could occur in extremely dry years. However as you know the volume of rainfall in = rainfall out for the storage, so there is no accumulation effect from this input. On the contrary, rainfall mixing in the storage would be expected to assist with reducing TDS, especially in wetter years.

 

The Office of Water has spoken to Murray Thompson and he advised that it is a non-event for Hastings - the amount of rainfall we have in this part of the world ensures there are no issues. In fact in the Port Mac dam the salts are generally actually lower than the source water.

 

OoW further advises that similar dams in the area eg. Karangi, Steuart McIntyre, Port Mac and Cowarra have not experienced any issues with TDS that we are aware of. Bill Ho?s expectation is that these dams would eventually reach their own equilibrium for TDS, and Murray concurred with this advice. The only areas Bill could cite where it has been an issue was around Menindee near Broken Hill where there is extremely low rainfall and high evaporation rates. If Council has big enough concerns the only way to further address the issue would be to pay someone to complete an investigation (presumably via water quality modeling), however the reason this was never considered is that it has never been an issue in this part of the world.?

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Project Manager and the Office of Water.? They in turn have consulted other authorities.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report is for information.? There is no impact on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social impacts.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

The information does not indicate any concern for increasing concentrations of TDS in the Bowraville Off River Water Storage.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

It is unknown whether the Project Manager will submit a claim for the time taken to investigate and report on the question.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no impacts on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The documentation of the question as well as the research and response has involved the time of the Project Manager, the Office of Water and the General Manager.?

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7???? SF453????????????? 100713??????? Review of the Cost Effectiveness of the Mixed Waste (red bin) Recovery System - Response from Coffs Harbour City Council

 

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

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

The information from Coffs Harbour City Council in relation to a review of the cost effectiveness of the biomass processing be noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can make further representations, however this is the second representation which has been made on the issue.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 13 June 2013 it was resolved to write to the General Manager of Coffs Harbour City Council requesting that as the lead Council in the agreement they undertake an evaluation of the biomass processing rather than rely on the contractors who have a commercial interest in this and further request figures on how much biomass waste has been sold to date.

 

A letter was subsequently sent to the Coffs Harbour City Council querying why the facility contractor would be initiating the review of their service and indicating Nambucca Shire Council?s general concern as follows:

 

?Council?s interest is in obtaining a more independent and strategic review of the biomass processing which considers regulatory and commercial constraints and overall cost/benefit.? Council is particularly concerned that the biomass compost is deemed a ?waste? and its application to date seems to be limited to a small number of properties.? Council would be interested to know if the biomass waste is being sold or indeed if it has a commercial value.

 

Considering the scale of the Coffs Coast Waste Service and the regulatory issues which have been encountered, Nambucca Shire Council believes that there would be merit in a working party involving one or two elected members of each Council along with one or two staff representatives from each Council to meet on a quarterly or biannual basis to review the service and any issues as they arise.?

 

As the lead Council your thoughts on this proposal would be appreciated.?

 

The attached response has now been received from Coffs Harbour City Council.

 

The response does not specifically respond to the request for a strategic review of the overall cost/benefit of the biomass processing, particularly in comparison to what was anticipated and promised when Council entered into the contract.? This is disappointing given the system has been held out by the EPA as being ?best practice? and notwithstanding the regulatory changes by the EPA which have resulted in the organic product being labelled a ?waste?.?

 

The letter does indicate that the current organic output component from the residual mixed waste stream (red bin) has limited commercial value, if any, with no sale of product having been realised to date.? It is stated that Biomass Solutions is seeking to have the EPA remove its ?waste? classification but there is no indication if this will be successful or how long it may take.? In the interim the three Councils are contractually committed to spending funds processing a waste product to produce another waste product.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report is for information.

 

Social

 

The report is for information.

 

Economic

 

The report is for information.

 

Risk

 

The report is for information.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no budgetary impacts.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The letter does indicate that a Council staff member may be asked to participate on an ?in-house? review.

 

Attachments:

1View

16151/2013 - CHCC response

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Review of the Cost Effectiveness of the Mixed Waste (red bin) Recovery System - Response from Coffs Harbour City Council

 


?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.1?? SF1232??????????? 100713??????? Review On-site Sewage Management Plan 2013

 

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

 

Summary:

 

early in 1997 more than 400 people contracted hepatitis A after eating oysters from Wallis Lake on the Mid-North Coast, and one person died. Heavy rain had caused faecal pollution of the picture-postcard waters.

 

Legislation was introduced to control the potential for on-site sewage systems to pollute the environment and in particular our waterways and aquatic industries.

 

?Councils On-site Sewage Management Policy was prepared to provide a framework for implementation of ecologically and socially sustainable On Site Sewage Management practices and was last reviewed in June 2009.

 

New Legislation has been introduced (National Construction Code 2012 ? Plumbing Code of Australia) and Australian Standard 1547 ? 2000 (On-site Domestic Wastewater Management) has been revised and reissued 2012.

 

The policy has been revised to provide consistency in the industry in line with current legislation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That the draft Nambucca Shire Council On-site Sewage Management Plan 2013 be advertised for community consultation for 28 days.

 

2??????? That local plumbers be provided with a copy of the draft On-site Sewage Management Plan ????????? and be invited to make comment.

 

3??????? That following the exhibition period, a further report be presented to Council for adoption of the Management Plan.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? That council further revises the policy for advertising or

2??????? Take no further action

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

To protect public health, the environment and to minimise the impacts on and maintain and enhance community amenity the National Plumbing Code requires that On Site Wastewater Management Systems (OSWMS) must be designed, constructed, installed and maintained in specified ways.?

 

It goes further to provide that compliance with specific requirements is verified by calculation and certification by persons with recognised credentials in the testing of on-site domestic waste water systems.

 

The legislation has become more onerous and for years now there has been a lack of understanding and of times a reluctance in the industry to prepare suitable documentation to support the application to install OSWMS resulting in increased workload for Council staff in attempting to assist and resolve design and installation issues.

 

Accordingly 2 key issues are presented in this revised document to provide a standard and consistency in industry delivery and to facilitate compliance with legislation which has evolved in complexity but in keeping with the objectives in the opening sentence to this discussion.

 

Firstly, Council officers will create a register of persons (consultants) with recognised credentials that may submit applications for OSWMS.

 

Secondly?, the policy has an annexure at the end with a proforma for an acceptable submission to Council which allows for a consistent approach to evaluation in accordance with AS 1547 ? 2012 and the potential for a broader range of acceptable consultants?

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The document has been circulated to all Councils Health and Building Surveyors and Plumbing and Drainage Inspector who have all contributed to its revision.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Enhances the sustainability of Community and Environmental Health

 

Social

 

Provides for a consistent approach to design and installation of on-site waste management systems which enhances client, consultant and council relations

 

Economic

 

Consistent approach should see consistency in fees and charges

Consultants and Council officers should not have to revisit submissions numerous times

 

Risk

 

Improves risks associated with Council licencing of On Site Waste Management systems and the installation of same

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Status quo maintained

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Improved service level and reduction in staff hours reviewing constantly incomplete and inaccurate submissions

 

 

Attachments:

1View

15702/2013 - On-Site Sewage Management Plan 2013 DRAFT

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Review On-site Sewage Management Plan 2013

 

Nambucca Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON-SITE SEWAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2013

 

 

Prepared by: Applications & Compliance Services

Date:?? July 2013

Adopted by Council:?

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Review On-site Sewage Management Plan 2013

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1?????? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. 1

2?????? LOCAL CONTEXT.. 2

3?????? SCOPE.. 2

4?????? AIMS. 3

5?????? OBJECTIVES. 3

6?????? GOALS. 4

7?????? REVIEW PROCESS. 5

8?????? ADMINISTRATION.. 6

8.1??????????? APPROVAL. 6

8.2??????????? NON COMPLIANCE. 6

8.3??????????? LEGISLATION SCHEDULE. 6

8.4??????????? AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. 7

8.5??????????? PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 7

9?????? SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL.. 9

9.1??????????? TREATMENT. 9

Table 9.1: Treatment Levels for Land Application Systems. 9

9.2??????????? TYPES OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS. 10

9.3??????????? DISPOSAL. 11

9.4??????????? DESIGN.. 12

9.5??????????? FLOOD PRONE LANDS. 15

9.6??????????? REPORTS & CONSULTANT REGISTER.. 15

10???? MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.. 16

10.1????????? RESPONSE. 16

10.2????????? ACTION PLAN.. 17

10.3????????? FUNDING.. 17

11???? RISK ASSESSMENT.. 19

11.1????????? SITE LIMITATIONS. 19

Table 11.1:? Site Limitations. 19

11.2????????? BUFFER DISTANCES. 21

12???? RISK EVALUATION.. 22

12.1????????? EVALUATION.. 22

Table 12.1:? Risk Evaluation Classifications. 22

12.2????????? INSPECTIONS. 22

Table 12.2:? Risk Assessment Matrix. 23

13???? PLAN REVIEW AND EVALUATION.. 24

14???? DEFINITIONS. 25

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Review On-site Sewage Management Plan 2013

 

 

1?????? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

This On-Site Sewage Management Plan (strategy) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (General) Regulation, 2005.

 

The plan relates to domestic wastewater (non-commercial/industrial activities) for on-site systems treating up to 2000 litres per day.

 

The Local Government Act 1993 requires all on-site sewage management systems to be inspected by Council and have an Approval to Operate. Councils issues the Approval to Operate through a licensing/register system.

 

On-site sewage management systems (which include septics, aerated wastewater treatment systems, composting toilets, reedbeds, sand filters, biological filters, membrane reactors, greywater systems, etc) are required in all non-sewered areas.

 

These systems treat wastewater from a premise before being disposed of to an on-site land application area. Land application areas may include absorption/evaporation beds, subsurface irrigation or drip irrigation.

 

The Plan provides information to applicants and the community about On-Site Sewage Management Systems and what must be included in an application to install, modify or operate such a system.

 

On-site systems that are not performing satisfactorily may lead to significant environmental and public health issues. As such the long term viability and satisfactory performance of the system is fundamental in minimising any potential adverse impacts.

 

 


2?????? LOCAL CONTEXT

 

 

Nambucca Shire Council is a medium sized coastal/rural Shire located on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. It comprises a mix of towns, villages, rural residential and rural areas.

 

The Shire is bounded generally to the north by Bellingen Shire and on the south and west by Kempsey Shire. It is roughly triangular in shape, being 1,433km2 in area with a coastline of approximately 20km. The Shire geographically represents the catchment units for the Nambucca River and its tributaries.

 

The Shire can be divided topographically into two (2) broad areas. The western part comprises the rugged topography of the eastern edges of the New England Plateau, dominated by steep hill slopes and valleys with a significant area having slopes in excess of 33%. The eastern part of the Shire is characterized by the gentle slopes of the Nambucca River and Taylors Arm flood plains and adjacent undulating lands.

 

From the elevation of 0.0 metres at the mouth of the Nambucca River to approximately 900 metres in the western part of the Shire.

 

Much of the Shire comprises steep land (60%), with the remaining areas undulating (20%) or flat (20%). The most productive rural land is on the alluvial flats of the Nambucca River and its tributaries with some grazing on undulating slopes. Agricultural production comprises 19% of the total Nambucca area. Tourism and aquaculture make up a significant portion of the economy of the area. The principle type of aquaculture within the shire is oyster farming with leases along the Nambucca River.

 

As at 19 November 2008 there were 2897 On-Site Sewage Management Systems registered with the Nambucca Shire Council.

 

 

3?????? SCOPE

 

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation, 2005, the State Government document entitled Environment & Health Protection Guidelines ? On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (which is currently under review) and the Australian/New Zealand Standard 1547 - On-Site Domestic Wastewater Management (2012) provide a framework for implementation of ecologically and socially sustainable On-Site Sewage Management practices. It is intended that this should be achieved, as far as possible, by a process of community and user education and by implementation of appropriate operating requirements in a manner that is sensitive to the local circumstances. Strategic management of existing septic systems and attention to address sewage management issues in new release areas is an important task for Council. Sewage management strategies need to be linked with related strategies for urban sewer services, and a greater emphasis placed on storm water and pollution control.

 

Regulations were gazetted on 6 March 1998 requiring owners of relevant premises to apply to Council for approval to operate and amend a system of sewage management. The Council is required to grant an operating approval (eg, a sewer management license). The granting of any such approval allows the Council to monitor performance on a regular basis and to levy an inspection fee (frequency will depend on area sensitivity) to cover reasonable costs.

 


4?????? AIMS

 

This management plan is intended to:

 

????????? Provide a framework to manage and regulate the impact of On-Site Sewage Management Systems in the Nambucca Shire Local Government area and to ensure community accountability.

 

????????? Assist Nambucca Shire Council in prioritising resources for efficient regulation and monitoring of On-Site Sewage Management Systems within the shire area.

 

??????? Co-ordinate environmental assessment, data collection and monitoring which is related to On-Site Sewage Management.

 

??????? Allow for site assessment on risk management basis and consideration of alternate solutions on environmentally sensitive sites.

 

??????? Provide opportunity for education of system users through ongoing auditing programs.

 

 

5?????? OBJECTIVES

 

 

This plan has been designed to achieve the following objectives:

 

????????? The protection of surface water and ground water.

 

????????? The protection of land and vegetation.

 

????????? Minimise the health risk associated with On-Site Sewage Management facilities.

 

????????? Encourage the re-use of resources eg the reuse of grey water after treatment through a council approved system.

 

????????? Promote ecologically sustainable development.

 

????????? Healthy river system.

 


 

6?????? GOALS

 

????????? To continue building and maintaining a database of all On-Site Sewage Management Systems.

 

????????? To map and maintain details of soil and site conditions and suitability for On-Site Sewage Management Systems. The mapping overlay being placed on Council?s GIS and use of this information in conjunction with site specific soil reports should provide beneficial data for all new systems being installed.

 

????????? To ensure that all land application areas comply with environmental and health protection standards and Council operating requirements.

 

????????? To adopt a partnership approach with householders and service agents to support continual improvement of On-Site Sewage Management systems.

 

????????? To determine the structures and facilities needed to support On-Site Sewage Management Systems.

 

????????? To ensure that all On-Site Sewage Management Systems are inspected by qualified people at regular intervals and are maintained as required.

 

????????? In co-operation with householders, to develop a site specific Sewage Management Plan for each household using an On-Site Sewage Management System.

 

????????? To review Council?s development standards and approval criteria for subdivision, development and building works to ensure that appropriate provision is made for sustainable On-Site Sewage Management when residential development occurs in non-sewered areas.

 

????????? To consult all wastewater treatment system agents to ensure that maintenance reports certify that the system?s operation and land application of effluent is being done in compliance with the site requirements and constraints.

 

????????? To promote the use of suitably qualified service contractors and consultants that are acceptable to council. Such contractors/consultants may be recognised on a regional basis.

 

????????? To ensure appropriate land investigation and design of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems.

 


 

7?????? REVIEW PROCESS

 

A review process must be undertaken on a regular basis for the following reasons:

 

????????? To ensure that the resources, structures and facilities are in place to support On-Site Sewage Management Systems.

 

????????? To ensure that references to guidelines, standards and legislative requirements are up to date.

 

????????? Compare and review the management plan against the previous years of implementation to asses? community concerns and any improvement that can be made to the plan.

 

????????? Refine and enhance Council?s regulatory role in the management of On-Site Sewage Management Systems.

 

????????? Provide improved assessment standards and techniques.

 

This current review has the benefit of eight (8) years, of implementation and the following issues are being addressed as part of the review process:

 

????????? Upgrading of existing systems that are not performing satisfactorily.

 

????????? The phasing out of ?long drop? toilets (pit toilets).

 

????????? Upgrade of grey water systems on larger rural properties.

 

????????? Upgrade access to tanks to ensure good maintenance and operation of the entire on-site system.

 

????????? Undertake ongoing education of operators and owners of on-site sewage management systems.

 

????????? Identify properties that have unregistered systems.

 

????????? Follow up on systems installed with unauthorised land uses.

 

????????? Encourage replacement of existing surface disposal systems from AWTS with subsurface irrigation or dripper systems with suitable covering.

 

 


 

8?????? ADMINISTRATION

 

8.1?????? APPROVAL

 

Under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council approval is required for the installation, construction or alteration of a human waste treatment device or storage facility and drains connected to it.

 

Council approval is also required for the ongoing operation of an On-Site Sewage Management System. Failure to obtain an approval or to comply with the conditions of an approval are offences liable to a maximum penalty of twenty penalty units (currently $2200).

 

An Approval to Operate must be held by the property owner for any on-site sewage management system. Where a change in ownership occurs, the new owner is required to obtain an Approval to Operate from Council within three months of the change.


Clause 26 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 sets out the details that are to accompany an application for the installation of a sewerage management facility with Clause 29 specifying the matters Council must take into consideration when assessing an application to install or alter an on-site sewage management system.

 

Council has responsibility under the provisions of the Local Government Act to maintain a register of On-Site Sewage Management Systems within their local government area.

 

Local Government therefore has responsibility to ensure that each approved system is maintained and serviced correctly. Furthermore, Local Government has a legislative responsibility to ensure that approved systems are installed and operated according to approved specifications and any special conditions.

 

NOTE: A helpful fact sheet and checklist containing specific details that must accompany an application is available from the council either on-line or from the Council?s Administrative Centre

 

 

8.2?????? NON COMPLIANCE

 

The failure to operate or maintain a system in accordance with a Council approval or the requirements of NSW Health may lead to operating licenses being suspended/withdrawn, Orders issued or penalty notices being served.

 

 

8.3?????? LEGISLATION SCHEDULE

 

The following Acts and Regulations contain provisions that are applicable to on-site sewage management systems:

 

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

 

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

 

????????? Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

 

????????? SEPP 62 ? Sustainable Aquaculture

 

The commencement date of the On-Site Sewage Management Legislation was the 6 March 1998 (date of the gazettal). The legislation provides that:

 

????????? Land owners with On-Site Sewage Management facilities installed prior to the 6 April 1998 must apply to the Council to register their system and for approval to operate a System of Sewage Management.

 

????????? New performance standards for approvals to install, construct or alter an On-Site Sewage Management facility apply from the 6 March 1998.

 

????????? Land owners who install new On-Site systems after the 6 April 1998, must obtain Council approval to operate a system of sewage management prior to the intended date of occupation of the premises.

 

????????? Council?s were required to adopt an approved fee for applications for approval to operate any new system installed from 6 April 1998 by resolution and public notice under Section 612 of the Local Government Act 1993. This fee is included in Council?s Annual Management Plan.

 

 

8.4?????? AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

 

The relevant Standards and Guidelines are as follows:

 

????????? AS/NZS 1546.1:1998 - On-site Domestic Wastewater Treatment Units ? Septic Tanks

 

????????? AS/NZS 1546.2:2001 ? Waterless Composting Toilets

 

????????? AS/NZS 1546.3:2001 - Aerated Wastewater Treatment Systems

 

????????? AS/NZS 1547:2012 ? On-site Domestic Wastewater Management

 

????????? AS/NZS 3500:2003 ? Plumbing and Drainage

 

????????? NSW Department of Health - Certificates of Accreditation for Septic Tanks and Collection Wells

 

????????? NSW Department of Health ? Greywater Reuse in Sewered Single Domestic Premises, 2008

 

????????? Environmental Health Protection Guidelines ? On-site Sewage Management for Single Households, 1998

 

????????? Nambucca Shire Council On-site Sewage Management Plan, 2013

 

 

8.5?????? PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

 

Council must not approve an application which would not comply with performance standards (if any) prescribed by the Regulation? and must take into consideration, relevant guidelines and directions that have been issued by the Director General of Local Government.

 

In 1998 the Local Government Act 1993 was amended to include new regulations for On-site Sewage Management (OSSM) Systems.

 

The current regulations specify that On-Site Sewage Management Systems should be designed, installed and operated to ensure the following environmental and health performance objectives will continue to be met over the long term:

 

????????? Prevention of health risk.

 

????????? Protection of land.

 

????????? Protection of surface waters.

 

????????? Protection of ground waters.

 

????????? Conservation and re-use of resources.

 

????????? Protection of community amenity.

 

Clause 44 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, requires that a system of sewage management must be operated in a manner that achieves the following specific performance standards:

 

????????? the prevention of the spread of disease by micro-organisms,

 

????????? the prevention of the spread of foul odours,

 

????????? the prevention of the contamination of water,

 

????????? the prevention of degradation of soil and vegetation,

 

????????? the discouragement of insects and vermin,

 

????????? ensuring that persons do not come into contact with untreated sewage or effluent (whether treated or not) in their ordinary activities on the premises concerned,

 

????????? the minimisation of any adverse impacts on the amenity of the premises and surrounding lands,

 

????????? If appropriate, provision for the re-use of resources (including nutrients, organic matter and water).


9?????? SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

 

9.1?????? TREATMENT

 

Wastewater requires varying levels of treatment, depending on the method of disposal and the sensitivity of the site. Treatment is generally classified as primary, secondary or tertiary.

 

Primary treatment is the separation of suspended material from wastewater by settlement and/or flotation in septic tanks, primary settling chambers, etc prior to discharge to either a secondary treatment process or to a land application system.

 

Secondary treatment is generally an aerobic biological process involving the settling or filtering of effluent from a primary treatment system and provides an improved ?quality? effluent.

 

Tertiary treatment is the disinfection of effluent to destroy or remove pathogenic micro-organisms.

 

The following table indicates the level of wastewater treatment required for the relevant land application system:

 

Table 9.1: Treatment Levels for Land Application Systems

 

 

TREATMENT

DEVICE TYPE

TYPICAL LAND APPLICATION OR REUSE SYSTEM

Primary

???? Septic Tank

???? Greywater Tank

???? Waterless Composting Toilet

???? Wet Composting Toilet

???? Combustion Toilet

???? Soil Absorption system

???? Burial (compost)

???? Soil Mound

???? Evapotranspiration system

Secondary (without disinfection)

???? AWTS

???? Greywater Treatment

???? Primary Device and Sand Filter

???? Primary Device and Reed Bed

???? Biological Filter System

???? Membrane Reactor

???? Subsurface irrigation

???? Soil Mound

???? Evapotranspiration

Tertiary (with? disinfection)

???? AWTS

???? Greywater Treatment

???? Primary Device and Sand Filter

???? Biological Filter System

???? Membrane Reactor

???? Subsurface irrigation

???? Soil Mound

???? Evapotranspiration

Greywater Tertiary

???? Greywater Treatment Device

???? Subsurface irrigation

???? Toilet Flushing

???? Washing Machine Use

 

Source: Environment and Health Protection Guidelines (Modified)

 


 

9.2?????? TYPES OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS

 

1??????? Aerated Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS)

 

Aerated wastewater treatment systems provide tertiary treatment of effluent and are accredited by NSW Department of Health. They are essentially a compact treatment plant that processes all domestic wastewater from premises. They contain a primary settling chamber, an aeration chamber, a clarification chamber for the further settling of suspended solids and a chlorination chamber for disinfection. It is a requirement of NSW Health that the systems are inspected and serviced on a quarterly basis.

 

2??????? Biological Filter

 

A biological filter system generally treats all wastes by filtration through various layers of media. The media is inoculated with worms, beetles, mites and other soil fauna that assist with the degradation of the waste material. For tertiary treatment the effluent is disinfected (generally by UV light) prior to discharge to the disposal field.

 

3??????? Composting Toilets (Wet & Dry)

 

Composting toilets use a process of biological degradation by micro-organisms to convert waste material into humus. The compost from compost/humus toilets must be removed on a regular basis and can be disposed of on-site by burial. The design and configuration of the systems vary significantly. ( composting toilets have a restricted use in residential zone?s)

?

4??????? Grey & Black Water Split Systems

 

These systems provide primary treatment and comprise of two tanks - one receiving wastewater from the toilet, and the other receiving wastewater from the combined laundry, shower & possibly kitchen (depending on proposed method of disposal/reuse). Some systems included a 'grease-trap' in the plumbing between the kitchen and the septic tank, to limit the amount of fats and oils going to the tank.

 

5??????? Greywater Diversion/Treatment System

 

Greywater is wastewater from all fixtures excluding the kitchen, toilet or urinal. Greywater ?diversion devices? may be used for subsurface disposal within the property in conjunction with an approved on-site sewage management system. The diversion of greywater should not occur during periods of wet weather or when illness within the premises exists. Where reuse within the home for washing machine or the flushing of toilets is proposed a greywater ?treatment system? accredited by NSW Health is required to be installed. NSW Health has various publications available that outline the requirements for diversion and/or reuse.

 

6??????? Membrane Filtration

 

With membrane filtration, the membrane acts as a semi-permeable filter that allows wastewater to pass through whilst trapping bacteria, suspended particles and dissolved solids. There are four main types of membrane filtration-reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration and micro filtration. The type of filtration system used will depend on a number of factors including surface area, contaminants, pH and end use.

 

7??????? Pump out

 

Due to unsuitable site conditions for wastewater disposal, Council only allows, under extreme circumstances, the installation of pump out systems. This involves the use of a collection well which stores treated wastewater from the septic tank. The stored wastewater is then pumped out into approved tankers which transport the wastewater to Council sewage treatment works where treatment and disposal occurs

 

8??????? Reedbed Systems

 

Reedbed systems consist of a primary settling unit, secondary treatment module (sub-surface flow wetlands) and final treatment via subsurface irrigation. They treat wastewater through settling of solids within the primary chamber. Biological and physical filtering/treatment of the wastewater is then undertaken in the secondary module via gravel media and selected plants which reduces the levels of pathogens, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and suspended solids. As the wastewater flows through the media, the root system reduces the nutrient load and uptakes moisture via transpiration. Final distribution is to an irrigation area.

 

9??????? Sand Filters

 

With sand/membrane filtration, effluent that has undergone a primary treatment is collected in a sump or holding well and is pumped intermittently for distribution through a bed of coarse sand. A diversion valve is placed in the return line to the sump, and the effluent is directed to a land application system.

 

10????? Secondary/Tertiary Treatment Systems

 

After the wastewater has undergone primary treatment the effluent may be further refined to secondary or tertiary quality. By this further process pollutant levels within the wastewater can generally be reduced to a level that is readily manageable. However, effluent from some treatment systems may still be biologically active and contain high levels of pollutants. There have been many developments in the area of ancillary on-site sewage management systems. These systems can be added to the main treatment train with the objective of improving the effluent quality, and so enabling the treated wastewater to be managed in a larger number of ways. These ancillary systems are not considered to be treatment systems requiring certification by NSW Health. At this stage they are considered optional, but they are worthy of consideration.

 

11????? Septic Tank

 

Historically, septic tanks have been the most common method of on-site wastewater treatment in un-sewered areas of the Shire. A septic tank provides primary treatment of effluent and usually comprises two chambers. These chambers can be separate or within the one tank. The first or primary chamber allows some of the solids to settle to the bottom of the tank and oils and fats to rise to the surface to form a scum layer. The solids that settle to the bottom of the primary chamber undergo anaerobic decomposition forming sludge. The second chamber permits further settling of solids and creation of a scum layer before the effluent is discharged to a land application area (usually absorption trenches or Evapotranspiration areas).

 

Alternative systems to those listed above will be considered by Council where such system is accredited by NSW Dept Health.

 

 

9.3?????? DISPOSAL

 

Effluent that has been treated may be discharged to a land application area. Application areas vary in their design and method of disposal to suit a range of factors including, type of treatment system, climatic conditions, site constraints, etc.

 

Note: Conventional treatment methods of wastewater cannot remove all bacteria or viral organisms. Exposure or contact may result in adverse health effects and as such the surface disposal of effluent via spray irrigation or other method is not permitted within Nambucca Shire.

 

Common disposal systems within the Nambucca Shire are:

 

???????? Absorption Trenches and Beds

 

Absorption trenches and beds are designed to dispose of treated effluent by percolation into local soils. As absorption is the primary method of disposal this style is ideally suited to soils with a mid range percolation rate. Soils that are too dense will not permit the migration of the effluent leading to flooding of the trench. Conversely soils that drain too freely (sand, gravel, etc.) may not provide adequate filtration of the effluent and risk contamination of groundwater supplies. Absorption trenches and beds are historically the most widely used on-site disposal systems throughout the Shire. However, under current design guidelines their future use will become less common due to unsuitable soil profiles and a significant increase in the required sizing of the trench/bed to satisfactorily accommodate the wastewater loading. The increase in the required area is likely to result in other forms of treatment/disposal becoming more financially viable.

 

???????? Evapotranspiration Area

 

Evaporation/transpiration areas place effluent into the root zone of plants allowing transpiration and evaporation while sub-soil soakage is maintained. They generally have a large surface to depth ratio in order to maximise effluent infiltration of the vegetation root zone. Climatic conditions are a critical consideration in the design of these systems as wet weather may have a significant adverse affect on the efficiency of the evapotranspiration area. The sizing of the area needs to address the infiltration of rain water and due to high seasonal rainfall of the Nambucca Shire many consultants do not promote the use of these systems.

 

???? Mound Disposal System (Wisconsin Mound)

 

Although not common within Nambucca Shire a mound system can be considered where alternative methods are not suitable. An elevated mound is typically a large mound of varying height made of sand or other course media. A network of small diameter pipes with small perforations distributes the effluent uniformly over the absorption area of the mound. The effluent infiltrates into and percolates through the media before being absorbed into the natural earth. The mound system is commonly used to receive wastewater from a septic tank or secondary treatment system with its primary function as the land application component where other types of land application are not suitable.

 

???????? Subsurface Irrigation

 

Subsurface irrigation is generally employed with a pressurised system utilised in conjunction with an AWTS or other secondary treatment system. The effluent is typically disposed of via emitters in direct soil contact at depths of 150mm-350mm depending on the system design or in shallow trenches over a large area which can incorporate gardens or the like. The pressurised system permits even distribution of the hydraulic and nutrient load over the disposal area. The area can be located at a higher elevation than the treatment chamber and therefore provides more opportunities to maximise reuse.

 

Where any disposal area may be subject to vehicular traffic or stock access, fencing or other suitable barriers are to be constructed to protect the disposal area.

 

 

9.4?????? DESIGN

 

Historically, the design and selection of on-site sewage management systems only received cursory consideration which was reflective of the technical standards and requirements of the time. With the release of Australian Standard 1547-1994 (subsequently superseded in 2012) and the State Governments Environment and Health Protection Guidelines for On-Site Sewage Management (1998) the standards of design altered to reflect the need for specific site, soil and climatic assessment.

 

It is also relevant to mention that prior to the Approvals provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 the NSW Health Department had responsibility for the approval of all sewage management installations in un-sewered areas.

 

The primary reference documents for the design and installation of on-site sewage management systems within Nambucca Shire are:

 

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

2??????? AS/NZS 1547-2012? On-site Domestic Wastewater Management,

3??????? Environment and Health Protection Guidelines ? On-site Sewage Management for Single Households, and

4??????? Nambucca Shire Council On-site Sewage Management Plan.

5??????? National Construction Code Series ? Plumbing Code of Australia.

 

Special note should be made that only under extreme circumstances will an on-site sewage management system be permitted within 100 metres of a permanent waterway or environmentally sensitive area. With such a proposal, the system must include a secondary or tertiary treatment component and be sited to maximise any available buffer.

 

To assist in the preliminary investigation of suitable on-site sewage management systems, Council has information available for perusal relating to soil profiles and characteristics within the Shire. Soil Landscapes of the Macksville & Nambucca (2000) prepared by the Department of Land and Water Conservation contains useful information to assist in the preliminary assessment. The document is not to be used as a substitute for site specific soil analysis as variations from the mapping may occur resulting in an inadequate system being proposed.

 

New Systems

 

The installation and operation of any new on-site sewage management system requires the prior approval of Council.

 

An Application to Install an On-site Sewage Management System shall include a written report detailing the type of system proposed and a specific site and soil assessment for the subject property.

 

Council will assess the application for compliance with the reference documents as listed above.

 

The application to install an on-site sewage management system shall include:

 

1??????? On-site Sewage Management Report

???????? The report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or organisation with recognised credentials in the design and/or testing of on-site domestic waste water systems,

???????? The report shall provide a detailed site and soil assessment which addresses climate, topography, geology and vegetation aspects, (see Annexure ?A? for acceptable template),

???????? A recommendation for the most appropriate form of on-site sewage management system,

???????? A recommendation for the proposed configuration and location of the system along with supporting calculations.

 

2??????? Site Plan

???????? Drawn to a scale of 1:200 or larger,

???????? Showing the location of the on-site system and disposal area with distances from all buildings, property boundaries, and any drainage lines, culverts or watercourses within 100m.

???????? Showing a ?reserve? disposal area equivalent in size for duplication of the disposal area (Note: the reserve area generally applies to septic tank/absorption trench systems and may be of a lesser size or removed completely where improved treatment/land application systems can justify the reduction/removal),

???????? Indicating the position of all wastewater drainage lines,

???????? Indicating the distance to any environmentally sensitive area eg rivers, creeks, farm dams, bores, dry gullies, etc.

 

3??????? Manufacturers Specifications and Accreditation Certificates

???????? Full specifications of the proposed on-site sewage management system,

???????? Certificate of Accreditation from the NSW Department of Health.

 

Existing Systems

 

Existing systems that are failing and require modifications are to be upgraded to comply with the requirements for new systems where possible. A system is considered to have ?failed? when it does not satisfactorily address the performance standards identified within this plan.

 

Where compliance with the new requirements is not possible, Council will consider alternative proposals on a case by case basis. The protection of the environment and public health are dominant considerations in such a circumstance.

 

A preliminary assessment of the site constraints and soil condition are to be accompanied by the modified design along with supporting calculations. The preliminary assessment may be undertaken by persons with appropriate knowledge and experience (eg a design consultant or suitably trained licensed plumber).

 

New Subdivisions (Unsewered)

 

For new subdivision proposals, a land capability assessment is required to be undertaken to demonstrate that each proposed lot is capable of accepting the on-site disposal of wastewater. The assessment does not need to specify the design details of each particular system as the final design will be influenced by criteria set down by the future home builder and such information is generally not available at subdivision stage.

 

The information submitted (as a minimum) should include:

 

1??????? Land Capability Assessment

???????? The report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or organisation with recognised credentials in the design and/or testing of on-site domestic waste water systems,

???????? The report shall provide a detailed site and soil assessment in the approved format which addresses climate, topography, geology and vegetation aspects of each lot,

???????? Recommendations for appropriate systems for different landforms across the subdivision.

 

2??????? Site Plan

???????? Drawn to a scale of 1:200 or other suitable size,

???????? Showing the location of the effluent disposal envelopes in relation to the building envelopes,

???????? Showing a ?reserve? disposal area equivalent in size for duplication of the disposal area (Note: the reserve area generally applies to septic tank/absorption trench systems and may be of a lesser size or removed completely where improved treatment/land application systems can justify the reduction/removal),

???????? Indicating the distance to any environmentally sensitive area eg rivers, creeks, farm dams, bores, dry gullies, etc.

 

 

 

9.5?????? FLOOD PRONE LANDS

 

New Installations:

 

The design and installation of new on-site sewage management systems should ensure all 1% AEP (1:100 year flood level and 500mm freeboard) of the system are located above the 1:100 year flood level. Where this cannot be achieved the treatment system components are to be located above the 1:100 year flood level/or sealed to prevent access of flood waters with the disposal area to be assessed in accordance in the type of system proposed.

 

Electrical components, vents and inspection openings of wastewater treatment devices should be sited above the 1% AEP.

 

Amendments/modifications to existing systems:

 

Where existing systems are installed below the 1% AEP for a site, options to ensure the following security of the system are to be implemented:

 

????????? Tanks and collection wells are to be sealed to prevent flood water infiltrating the system,

 

????????? Overflow Relief Gullies if installed are to be terminated above the 1 in 100 year floor level, provided this level is not above the fixture flood level or floor waste level in the building connected to the system. See AS 3500 for details.

 

????????? Where flood free land is available on the site, consideration be given to pumping liquid effluent to a disposal area above the 1 in 100 years flood level.

 

For land where no established flood levels are held by Council, documented evidence is to be submitted demonstrating the site is unaffected by flooding (eg historical information, photographs, etc).

 

 

9.6?????? REPORTS & CONSULTANT REGISTER

 

 

????????? Only reports from persons or organisations with recognised experience or credentials in the design and/or testing of on-site domestic waste water systems will be accepted.

 

????????? Council will keep a register of acceptable persons or organisations.

 

????????? Prospective persons or organisations who wish to appear on Council?s register are to apply in writing with details of relevant experience and/or credentials.

 

?

10???? MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

 

10.1???? RESPONSE

 

Applications for installation of an on-site sewage management system were not required in rural areas prior to the building regulations being extended to these areas from the 1 March 1982. This has resulted in a variety of standards and type of systems for on-site sewage management being installed within the rural areas of the shire during these unregulated years.

 

It is therefore considered important that any management response to the issue of On-Site Sewage Management systems and the disposal of waste should seek to achieve a balance between:

 

a??????? Improving Council?s approach to achieving sustainable long term outcomes and;

 

b??????? Encouraging facility owners to upgrade these older systems to ensure that their systems are operating and being maintained appropriately and also acknowledging the limitation that apply to these older systems.

 

The situation that exists in un-sewered areas is such that sustainable long term outcomes should be achievable in most cases using On-Site Sewage Management Systems. In order to achieve more sustainable and long term outcomes for on-site wastewater management it is necessary to identify the fundamental principles which apply to wastewater management. For the purposes of this plan the following principles have been adopted:

 

1??????? Conservation and Re-Use of Resources

 

The resources in domestic wastewater (including nutrients, organic matter and water) should be identified and utilised as much as possible within the bounds posed by the other performance objectives and regulatory requirements. Water conservation practices should be encouraged and subsequent wastewater production minimised.

 

2??????? Appropriate Treatment And Disposal

 

The level of wastewater treatment and the methods of disposal required depend not only on the nature and sensitivity of the receiving environment, but also on the potential uses of the treated wastewater and bio-solids.

 

3??????? Reliability

 

All on-site sewage management systems require, to varying degrees, maintenance and servicing to be undertaken. It is inappropriate to install a sewage management system and to expect it to perform adequately without maintenance and performance inspections being carried out. Education of the system user is considered fundamental to the satisfactory performance of an on-site sewage management system.

 

4??????? Long Term Impacts

 

The above principles have been used to identify a range of goals and actions which are considered integral to achieving more sustainable sewage management outcomes in un-sewered areas. These goals and actions have been developed into an action plan.

 

5??????? Public Health And Health Impacts On Occupants

 

Poor maintenance of components of an on-site system can severely impact on health of the surrounding public and that of the tenant or occupier of the premises connected to the system. Both blackwater (toilet waste) and greywater (all other sources) contain high bacterial loads and can be breeding grounds for insects and a vector for disease.

 

 

10.2???? ACTION PLAN

 

The objectives and goals have been developed to reflect, in responding to the issue of sewage management in un-sewered areas, a multifaceted approach which requires:

 

????????? Education/procedural information ? NOTE: procedures may be formulated from time to time to facilitate new information or legislation.

 

????????? Service provision.

 

????????? Efficient and effective administration.

 

????????? Facility provision.

 

????????? Appropriate regulation and enforcement.

 

It is suggested that if the on-site sewage management issue is viewed in this context then regulatory and enforcement mechanisms will be minimised and generally accepted.

 

The regulatory process has been developed to ensure compliance with both stages of the approval process being Installation and Operation of the system. Aspects of Council?s Action Plan have been included in Council?s Annual Management Plan for quarterly reporting.

 

 

10.3???? FUNDING

 

Council is able to raise revenue for On-Site Sewage Management programs and services through:

 

????????? Ordinary rates for general administration and services.

 

????????? Special rates levied on particular parcels of land that have access to, benefit from or contribute to the need for particular programs and services.

 

????????? Charges for On-Site Sewage Management services.

 

????????? Approved fees for service (including regulatory services to individuals).

 

????????? Develop a charge under Section 94 and 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

In developing a revenue strategy it is considered important to develop an approach which is:

 

????????? Administratively efficient.

 

????????? Cost efficient.

 

????????? Fair, equitable and minimises financial impact.

 

????????? Guarantees implementation.

Having regard to the above it is proposed that actions which involve environmental assessment, monitoring and reporting and community education be funded through charges levied on premises using sewage management facilities.

 

Provision has been made within Council?s Management Plan for the development and ongoing monitoring of the On-site Sewage Management Plan. The legislation requires individual site management plans to be developed.

 

Accordingly provision has been made within the management plan for annual fees and charges to be adopted for the following activities:

 

????????? Approvals to install/modify/upgrade and operate an On-Site Sewage Management System fee (one-off payment).

 

????????? Renewal fees for issuing an operating approval for existing systems.

 

????????? Pre purchase inspection of on-site sewage management system.

 

????????? Registration fee for existing systems installed prior to 1999.

 

????????? Issue a copy of an operating approval.

 

????????? Application to change ownership details on operating approval.

 

Note: Council is the only authority who can issue approvals to operate an on-site sewage management system under Section 68 (6) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

11???? RISK ASSESSMENT

 

11.1???? SITE LIMITATIONS

 

Prior to the installation of any new on-site sewage management system, a site assessment report is to be undertaken to identify any site limitations. These site limitations can impinge upon the type of system installed and the location of the system. Where the assessment reveals major limitations associated with particular site features additional investigation or design adjustments will be required. This may involve a concession based on measures such as:

 

????????? Improved effluent quality through secondary/tertiary treatment.

 

????????? Increased margin of safety such as an increase in disposal area or an alternate method of disposal.

 

????????? The supplementary maintenance programs such as increased frequency of inspection.

 

????????? Landscaping and appropriate tree planting.

 

????????? Identification of a reserve area on site for replacement of on-site disposal area in case of a major failure.

 

The following table depicts both major and minor limiting site features sourced from Environment Health Protection Guidelines (modified).

 

Table 11.1:? Site Limitations

 

SITE FEATURE

MINOR LIMITATION

MODERATE LIMITATION

MAJOR LIMITATION

Flood potential (new systems)

Total system above 1:100 year flood level

Treatment System above 1:100/or fully sealed tanks. Disposal area options and locations to be assessed on an individual site basis

Treatment system below 1:100 year flood level

Flood potential (existing systems)

Total system above 1:100 year flood level

Treatment System above 1:100/or fully sealed tanks. Disposal area above 1:20 flood

Treatment system below 1:100 year flood

Signs of erosion

None

Some/Slight

Yes

Slope

0 ? 10%

10% - 20%

> 20%

Exposure water run-off

Low

Moderate

High

Site Drainage (Surface dampness)

None

Slight

Yes

Exposure to sun

High(not in shadow)

Moderate (some shadow)

Low (no direct sunlight)

Exposure to wind

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Compliance with nominated buffer distances

Yes

 

No

Filled earth

No fill

Fill present

 

Rocks and rock outcrops (% of land surface containing rocks >200mm diameter)

<10%

10-20%

>20%

Source: Environment Health Protection Guidelines (modified)

 

Each of these site features will be considered on applications to install any on-site disposal system.

 

Further information should be sourced from AS1547.2012 ? Table K1.


11.2???? BUFFER DISTANCES

 

It is necessary, when installing on-site disposal systems, to ensure that sufficient viable land is left for such practices as clothes drying and recreation within the yard as well as a reserve area for future disposal of effluent on each premise. Associated with this are buffer zones around the disposal field to minimise impacts on the surrounding environment and to reduce the potential for human contact with wastewater. The recommended buffer zones under the guidelines for all land application areas are:

 

????????? 100 metres to a permanent surface water (eg river, streams, lakes etc).

 

????????? 250 metres to domestic ground water wells, bores and spear pumps.

 

????????? 40 metres to other waters (eg dams, intermittent waterways and drainage channels, etc).

 

In addition to the above the following buffer distances apply as appropriate:

 

Subsurface or Trickle Irrigation:

 

????????? Six (6) metres down gradient to swimming pools, property boundaries, driveways and building.

 

????????? Three (3) metres to paths and walkways and up gradient to driveways and property boundaries.

 

????????? Three (3) metres from edge of disposal area to boundaries at same contour level as the disposal area.

 

Note: Surface disposal by spray irrigation of effluent within Nambucca Shire is not permitted

 

Absorption System:

 

????????? Twelve (12) metres if area up gradient of property boundary.

 

????????? Six (6) metres if area down gradient of property boundary.

 

????????? Six (6) metres if area up gradient of swimming pools, driveways and buildings.

 

????????? Three (3) metres if area down gradient of swimming pools, driveways and buildings.

 

????????? Three (3) metres from ends of trenches to boundaries at same contour level as trenches.

 

Where compliance with the above buffers is not possible, Council will consider alternative proposals on a case by case basis. The protection of the environment and public health are dominant considerations in such a circumstance. Special note should be made that only under extreme circumstances will an on-site sewage management system be permitted within 100 metres of a permanent waterway or environmentally sensitive area. With such a proposal, the system must include a secondary or tertiary treatment component and be sited to maximise any available buffer.

 

Note: All Reserve areas for effluent disposal are to be indicated on the plan and this area is to be preserved for future disposal of effluent.


12???? RISK EVALUATION

 

12.1???? EVALUATION

 

Risk assessment and evaluation of on-site disposal systems will be undertaken by Council on a site specific basis. The risk assessment for a system failure will be determined according to the proximity of the environmentally sensitive areas and potential for negative impact upon human health. History of failure will also be a contributing factor in determining risk assessment. The risk evaluation will determine the frequency of inspections undertaken by Council and will vary from one (1) to seven (7) years.

 

Table 12.1:? Risk Evaluation Classifications

 

RISK EVALUATION

INSPECTION FREQUENCY

RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE

Class 1

(High)

Every year

Considered a high risk

Has a score higher than 19

Class 2

(Medium)

Every three (3) years

Considered a medium risk

Has a score of 15-19

Class 3

(Low)

Every seven (7) years

Considered a low risk

Has a score of less than 15

 

The Risk Assessment score is determined by a matrix which provides a weighting to the issues considered in undertaking the evaluation. The matrix is represented in Table 12.2.

 

If a system fails the risk assessment inspection, a direction will be given to improve maintenance, operation or upgrade the system as required. If a system fails two (2) consecutive inspections the risk category will increase one class and further action may be necessary to provide an alternate disposal system on the property. If a particular system is increased in risk classification, an increase in the frequency of inspections will result to ensure that the system poses no adverse impacts to the environment.

 

 

12.2???? INSPECTIONS

 

Regular inspections will be undertaken by Council on all on-site sewage management systems. The frequency of the inspection will be determined according to the systems Risk Evaluation and Assessment. The risk evaluation and subsequent inspection frequency is determined from the following matrix. Special Notes at the bottom of the table are to be read in conjunction with the matrix assessment:

 

Prior to Systematic Inspections Council will notify owners prior to Council Inspectors entering the property. For ease of compliance please unsure all inspection openings are free and easy to access, trench ends are identified by a white peg 50mm x 50mm? x 200mm? and Distribution Pit lids are not buried.

 


Table 12.2:? Risk Assessment Matrix

 

FEATURES

RESPONSE

POINTS

Type of Wastewater Treatment

Primary

10 points

Secondary

5 points

Tertiary

0 points

 

Environmentally Sensitive Area (Flood prone, high water table, catchment area, etc)

Yes

10 points

Borderline?

5 points

No

0 points

 

 

Buffer Distance to Permanent Water (River, creek, etc)

<100m

10 points

101-250 m

5 points

>250m

0 points

 

Buffer Distance to Intermittent Water (Intermittent creeks, gullies, farm dams)

<20m

10 points

21-40 m

5 points

>41m

0 points

 

Buffer Distance to Any Ground Water Bore

<125m

10 points

125-250 m

5 points

>250m

0 points

 

Buffer Setbacks Between System and Property Boundaries/Buildings Comply

Yes

0 points

 

No

5 points

 

Signs of Surface Dampness at Disposal Area

Yes

5 points

 

No

0 points

 

Evidence of Erosion at Disposal Area

Yes

2 points

 

No

0 points

 

Slope

1-10%

0 points

11-20%?

?1 point

>20%

2 points

 

Exposure to Sun/Wind

Good? 0 points

Average??

1 point

Low

2 points

 

Protection From Surface Water Entry to Disposal Area (Swales, Berms)

Yes

0 points

 

No

2 points

 

Fill Present (>300mm)

Yes

2 points

 

No

0 points

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? TOTAL:

 

Class 1 Risk Category (High):????????????????? >19 points

Class 2 Risk Category (Medium): ?????????? 15-19 points

Class 3 Risk Category (Low): ???????????????? <15 points

 

Special Notes:

 

1??????? Any system not complying with the minimum buffer distances for permanent water or is located in an environmentally sensitive area (flood prone, high water table, etc) is subject to a Class 1 Risk Category.

 

2??????? An Aerated Wastewater Treatment System may be reduced one (1) risk classification where a signed service agreement is in place between the system owner and a service contractor acceptable to Council. A copy of the quarterly inspection report undertaken by the contractor is to be submitted to Council. In this circumstance the Council inspection will be undertaken on the expiry or termination of each service agreement.

 

3??????? All on-site sewage management systems within 100 metres of any permanent waterway must include a secondary or tertiary treatment component.


13???? PLAN REVIEW AND EVALUATION

 

Council maintains a commitment to the continuing improvement in the regulation and operation of On-Site Sewage Management Systems. The sewage management plan will be a ?living? document that is undergoing a process of continual improvement. Council?s resources have been stretched in areas where there are large numbers of on-site sewage treatment facilities and a permanent Plumbing & Drainage Inspector has been employed to undertake the renewal assessment inspections as there is a need to provide and improve treatment and monitoring of the program.

 

The implementation of this plan will be reviewed and evaluated every four (4) years to ensure:

 

????????? That the outcomes being achieved reflect the goals and objectives of the plan.

 

????????? That the goals and objectives are still relevant and continue to meet community, council?s and environmental & public health expectations.

 

????????? Develop best practice notes and fact sheets and make these available from the council website for property owners to assist with maintaining systems and improving there performance.

?

????????? That the plan accommodates changes to legislation and new technology.

 

 

14???? DEFINITIONS

 

Absorption: The uptake of effluent into the soil by capillary action.

 

Aerated Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS): A system which uses the process of aeration followed by clarification and disinfection to treat wastewater.

 

Biological Filter: A biological filter system generally treats all wastes by filtration through various layers of media inoculated with worms, beetles, mites and other soil fauna that assist with the degradation of the waste material.

 

Blackwater: Wastewater from a toilet or urinal

 

Composting Toilet: Composting toilets collect and treat toilet waste only. Water from the shower, sink and washing machine, etc. needs to be treated separately. The compost produced has special disposal requirements but is usually buried.

 

Disposal Area: An area of land specifically designated for the application of treated effluent.

 

Effluent: Wastewater discharging from a sewage management system.

 

Evapotranspiration: Process by which soil moisture is subject to processes of evaporation from the sun and wind and is transpired to the atmosphere by vegetation.

 

Greywater (or sullage): Domestic effluent, excluding toilet waste and depending upon method of disposal my exclude kitchen waste.

 

Guidelines: Environment and Health Protection Guidelines ? On-site sewage Management for Single Households.

 

Membrane Filtration: Membrane reactors provide filtration by allowing wastewater to pass through the membrane while trapping bacteria, suspended particles and dissolved solids.

 

On-site Sewage Management System (OSSM): Any facility that stores, treats and/or disposes of sewage and wastewater and requires an approval to operate issued under the Local government Act 1993.

 

Pump-out System: A septic system where all accumulated wastewater is removed from site by a purpose built tanker. Such systems generally incorporate both a primary septic tank and a collection well.

 

Reedbed System: A system consisting of a primary settlement unit (a traditional septic tank), secondary treatment modules (sub-surface flow wetlands) and final treatment (subsurface irrigation). Reedbeds treat wastewater through settling, biological/physical filtering and treatment through gravel media planted with selected plants. Final disposal is generally by subsurface irrigation.?

 

Run-off: The part of precipitated effluent that becomes surface flow because it is not immediately absorbed into the soil.

 

Septic Tank: A sealed vessel that treats greywater, blackwater or both bur provides only limited treatment through the settling of solids and the flotation of fats and greases.

 

Wastewater: The combined blackwater and greywater from a domestic premise.

 

 

---oo0oo---

 

 

15????? APPENDIX A?? FORMS AND TEMPLATES

 

Forms and Templates attached herewith in accordance with AS1547.2012 are designed to assist with assessment and decision making by Council and to provide a uniform process amongst Designers and Wastewater Specialists.


ANNEXURE A ? SITE ASSESSMENT FORM

 

1.0 SITE EVALUATOR(S)

 

1.1 Name (principal evaluator): .......................................... Designation: ......................................

Company/agency: ....................................................................................................................

Address:..................................................................................................................................

Phone:...................................................................Fax: ..........................................................

Email: .....................................................................................................................................

 

1.2 Additional staff involved

Name(s): ................................................................................................................................

Designation(s): ........................................................................................................................

Involvement: ............................................................................................................................

Signature of principal evaluator: ..............................................................................................

Date/s: ....................................................................................................................................

 

2.0 ON-SITE EVALUATION

2.1 Work undertaken

Details: ...................................................................................................................................

Date: ......................................................................................................................................

Weather (on day & preceding week): ......................................................................................

Photocopy of desktop study attached: YES/NO

 

2.2 Topography

Slope: ........................................... Ground cover: ..................................................................

Geology confirm: YES/NO Soil landscape confirmed: YES/NO

Drainage patterns: ...................................................................................................................

Site plan details attached: YES/NO

Clearance: ...............................................................................................................................

Boundaries: .................................. Allowable minimum: ................. Available: ....................

Site plan details attached: YES/NO

Waterways: ................................... Stands of trees/shrubs: ...................................................

Well, bores: .............................................................................................................................

Embankment: ..........................................................................................................................

Buildings: ................................................................................................................................

Other (specify): ........................................................................................................................

Site history (land use): ............................................................................................................

 

2.3 Site exposure

Site aspect: .............................................................................................................................

Predominant wind direction: ...................................................................................................

Presence of shelter belts: ........................................................................................................

Presence of topographical features or structures: ...................................................................

 

2.4 Environmental concerns (such as native plants intolerant of phosphorus load,

high water table, swamp, waterway, and so on):

 

2.5 Site Stability

Is expert assessment necessary? YES/NO (delete one)

If YES, attach stability report and give details here of:

Author: ???????????????.. Designation: ???????????????

Company/agency: ........................................... Date of report:...............................................

 

2.6 Drainage controls

Depth of seasonal water table: WINTER SUMMER EPISODIC

Need for cut-off drains/diversion banks? ..................................................................................

Need for surface water collector/cut-off drains? .......................................................................

 

2.7 Availability of reserve/setback areas (show details on sketch plan)

Reserve area available for extensions: ....................................................................................

% of design area: ....................................................................................................................

Setback distance (between site development and on-site disposal design and reserve areas): .........

 

2.8 Photographs attached YES/NO (specify details):

 

 

3.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION

 

3.1 Soil profile determination

Method: Test pit/borehole

Other (specify) .........................................................................................................................

 

3.2 Reporting (attach detailed soil/report as appropriate, see soil profile information and data

sheet, Figure B1)

 

3.3 Estimated soil category: (see E4.1 and Table E1)

Summary:

Site test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Soil category

Remarks:

 

3.4 Recommended DLR, see 5.2.3.2

Reasons for DLR recommendations:

 

4.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

 

4.1 Groundwater quality issues

Results of desktop study have been confirmed/amended on attached photocopy.

Remaining matters of concern are listed below.

 

4.2 Type of land-application system considered best suited to site and why

 

 

4.3 Overall evaluation of minimum land-application area for the site (comprising absorption

area, space between and surrounding the absorption area elements, set-backs, and the

reserve area)

 

4.4 Results of consultation with other interested parties (neighbours, environmental agencies,

local environmental groups, and so on)

 

4.5 Other comments, for example special precautions which may be needed

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.2?? DA2012/010???? 100713??????? Re-reporting Modification to DA2012/010

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Selina McNally, Senior Town Planner; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

On 10 June 2013 Council resolved to defer this matter to allow for a site plan showing the number of car parks to be provided. This has been provided and is at Attachment 1 of this report.

 

Previously, on 10 April 2013 Council resolved to defer this matter and requested council staff ensure the applicant understands his options. Council staff sent a letter which is at Attachment 2.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The dimensions on the plan submitted for the parking on the strata lot have now been checked and it is apparent that they do not comply with the minimum dimensions required for an accessible car park.? In particular the proposed aisle width for car park is only 4.6m whereas the minimum width for a car park with 90 degree angle parking is 6.5m.

 

This problem could be rectified by adjusting the boundary with Lot 14 to increase the size of the car park to be retained with the strata subdivision, but this is fundamentally different to requested modification which is to excise Lot 14 in its current form.

 

In the circumstances the applicant should be advised that the proposed car park is non-compliant and that a possible remedy would to be reduce the depth of Lot 14 by way of a boundary adjustment.? If a revised application is submitted indicating a car park with 21 accessible parking spaces then it is proposed it be determined under delegated authority in accordance with the conditions attached to this report.

 

However if, within a reasonable period, the applicant is not forthcoming with any changes to the application to make the car park compliant, it is proposed that it be refused under delegated authority.

 

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??????? The applicant be advised that the proposed car park is non-compliant and that a possible remedy would to be reduce the depth of Lot 14 by way of a boundary adjustment.? This will require the current application to be amended.

 

 

2??????? If a revised application is submitted indicating a car park with 21 accessible parking spaces ????????? then the application be determined under delegated authority with the conditions being ????????? generally those attached to this report.

 

3??????? If, within a reasonable period, the applicant is not forthcoming with any changes to the ????????? application to make the car park compliant, a determination by way of refusal be issued ????????? under delegated authority.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can approve the application but most of the designated car parking spaces would not be accessible.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

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

 

However it has now been determined that the submitted car parking plan for the 21 spaces does not meet minimum standards.? In particular the proposed aisle width for 90 degree parking is shown as 4.6m compared to the minimum standard of 6.5m.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

????????????? Internal

 

Manager of Technical Services (MTS

 

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

 

A further car parking plan is needed to show the 21 spaces meet car parking standards so as to be fully accessible. A boundary adjustment with Lot 14 may achieve this.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

a????????? the provisions of

 

(i) any environmental planning instruments

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii) any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

????? Notification Part A

 

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

 

????? Car Parking Part C

 

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

 

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

 

Context and Setting

 

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

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

 

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

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

 

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

 

Cumulative Impacts

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No submissions were received.

 

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

 

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

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

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

 

Social

 

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

 

Economic

 

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

 

Risk

 

The collection of contributions is considered adequate to address any risk associated with consenting to a reduction of onsite parking.? However this is based on the proposed plan to provide 21 off street parking spaces.? A review of the dimensions of this plan indicates that many of the proposed car spaces will not be accessible.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

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

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Section 94 Plan for car parking in Macksville CBD

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Not applicable.

 


 

POTENTIAL CONDITIONS OF A CONSENT WHERE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR 21 ACCESSIBLE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES

 

 

Car parking plans required

 

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

 

a ?pavement description;

b? site conditions affecting the access;

c ?existing and design levels;

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

e ?cross sections every 15 metres;

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

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

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

i? turning paths; and

j? line marking and signs.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

2??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp and authorised signature/

 

 

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

 

Plan of Subdivision

 

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

 

Plan of Subdivision and Section 88B Instrument requirements

 

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

 

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

Details of Item

Sewer Easements

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

 

Sewer and Water

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public amenity or service

Unit type

No of Units

Contribution Rate (Amount per Unit)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Parking: Macksville CBD

Car park space

8

$8,821

$70, 568

2013

 

 

Attachments:

1View

14876/2013 - Site Plan for Council

0 Pages

2View

9280/2013 - Letter advising of Councils resolution and options

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Re-reporting Modification to DA2012/010

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Re-reporting Modification to DA2012/010

 

Enquiries to:?????? Ms McNally

Telephone no:??? 6568 0225

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

 

 

 

17 April 2013

 

 

 

Mr J Parkes

PO BOX 823

MAIN BEACH? QLD? 4217

 

 

Dear Mr. Parkes

 

SECTION 96 APPLICATION TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2010/04

SUBDIVISION - RESIDENTIAL,

LOTS: 1, 2 & 14 SECTION 12 DP 2037

 

I refer to the above mentioned Section 96 application lodged with Council and further to my letter to you of 2 April and the Council Meeting on 10 April 2013.

 

As the letter of 2 April advised you, the officer?s report carried a recommendation for approval subject to conditions, including the payment of section 94 Contributions for car parking in Macksville CBD.

 

Your representative Greg Johnson met Council on site for their site inspection prior to the Council meeting on 10 April 2013. From some questions and discussions that took place between Council, council staff and Mr. Johnson, their was some concern as to whether all parties and most importantly you, as the applicant, fully understand the cost implications of the Section 94 contributions associated with the Modification application. Council therefore resolved to defer the proposal for future consideration and I am writing to you to reiterate and clarify a few points already discussed during the assessment process.

 

???? Section 94 Contributions for car parking in Macksville CBD are levied at $8, 821 and as a result of the modification, you will have a shortfall of 8 car park spaces, this will equate to required contributions of $70, 568;

???? This contribution will apply to the Modified Consent to remove Lot 14 from the original development;

???? The original development was approved and Consent DA2012/010 was issued on 14 March 2012 and is current and valid;

???? This Consent can be acted upon and the strata subdivision can take place to include Lot 14 and the S94 contributions for car parking will not be required as Lot 14 provides adequate car parking.

 

Please give this matter attention at your earliest opportunity and respond in writing within 21 days of the date of this letter. Failure to respond in writing to this letter within 21 days will see the matter be reported back to council and the same recommendations will be made to Council for their consideration and determination.

 

If you have any questions or queries then please contact Council?s Applications and Compliance Section or myself directly.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Selina McNally

SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.3?? DA2013/036???? 100713??????? DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 

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

 

Summary:

 

Council have received a development application for a detached dual occupancy. The proposal is contrary to three different title restrictions attached to the deposited plan for this property, which are in relation to the extent to which clearing of native vegetation is permitted on site and the provision of an access point into the property. These restrictions to user were placed on the title in response to conditions of consent for the approved subdivision DA1999/128 which created this Lot and 5 (five) others and the title restrictions apply to all 6 (six) Lots.

 

Substantial clearing has already taken place and subsequently council staff?s recommendation of approval of the development application is conditional upon the re-planting of native vegetation to offset what has been cleared. Furthermore, it is recommended this condition be placed on the Consent as a Deferred Commencement condition subject to the preparation of an Ecological Report by a suitably qualified person who can then make recommendations on the most appropriate methods to rehabilitate the site.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.???????? ?? That Council Consent to the Development Application DA2013/036 subject to the draft conditions of Consent and of particular significance is the recommended Deferred Commencement Condition, as follows:

 

a???????? A revised Flora and Fauna Assessment, from a suitably qualified person, will need to be prepared to assess the consequence(s) of the native vegetation which has already been removed from the site. The clearing has taken place despite the title deeds and associated 88b Instrument specifically prohibiting any clearing within the 20 metre wide strip adjacent to Grassy Head Road and furthermore limiting clearing to within the approved building envelopes, for ancillary driveways and for Bushfire APZs only.

 

The Ecological report will consider any impact(s) of the loss of this vegetation and consider the most appropriate remediation actions to address such impacts. The report will make recommendations on what vegetation to replant as well as for other remediation methods to be undertaken, but will allow for the proposed driveway to cross the 20 metre strip adjacent to Grassy Head Road. The report will be submitted to Council for approval and when approved will be endorsed as forming part of this Consent.

 

2.???????? ?? That Council approve the variations to user restrictions attached to the deposited plan for this property in relation to:

????? Building outside of the approved building envelope;

????? Clearing within the 20m wide vegetation strip adjacent to Grassy Head Road;

????? The new location for an access to Lot 2.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

????? Option 2

 

Option 2 is that Council Consent to the Development Application subject to alternate condition(s) and in particular an option is to remove the Deferred Commencement which requires the preparation of a revised Flora and Fauna Report and subsequently allow the land owner to landscape as they so wish.

 

????? Option 3

 

Option 3 is that Council refuse the Development Application and instruct council staff to issue a Penalty Notice for the unauthorised clearing.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In March a development application was received by council and is referenced 2013/036. The proposal is for a detached dual occupancy comprising the main primary dwelling, a smaller secondary dwelling and a carport with ancillary driveway. The assessment of the development application discovered that the proposal is contrary to three separate title restrictions on the Deposited Plan for this property DP1038947.

 

The first restriction to user that the proposal contravenes relates to the prohibition of any access to Grassy Head Road and is at Attachment 1 (the restriction relevant is highlighted).

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Deposited Plan 1038947

 

 

Attachment 1 shows the wording from the 88b instrument which prohibits any access to Grassy Head Road in-between certain points. Figure 1 shows the deposited plan and the various points (A, B, C etc.) referred to in the restriction have been highlighted with pink and subsequently where access is denied, in-between these points, is highlighted with a yellow line. This confirms it was the intention of the approved subdivision to provide a common access point for Lots 1 and 2 at the space in-between the points A and J. The smaller diagram to the right of Figure 1 shows this part of the deposited plan at a larger scale and the purple line indicates how one common access point will provide access to both Lots 1 and 2.

 

Although the deposited plan and title restriction is clear where the access for each Lot should be positioned, this development application asks that Council support the request to vary this restriction to user and allow an alternate access from Grassy Head Road.

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Extract of Lot 2 from DP 1038947

 

 

Figure 2 shows the deposited plan, enlarged, and now with a blue line added to show approximately the proposed new location for access, applied for through this development application. This runs directly through the yellow line where access from Grassy Head Road is prohibited. Council is listed as the Authority who has the Delegation to vary this requirement on the 88B Instrument.

 

Council?s town planning staff have consulted with council?s engineering staff who responded with advice that they support the new location as it is deemed to be a safer for an access for Lot 2 than the location approved through the original subdivision. It should also be noted the Intersection of Scotts Head Road and Grassy Head Road has been upgraded since the original subdivision was approved and this makes it more difficult to provide a safe access point on Scotts Head Road.

 

Therefore, council?s town planning staff also supports the variation request in this instance and as such have worded the Deferred Commencement Condition so as to allow for the access to be provided to Grassy Head Road. The condition requests that the Ecological Report and any recommendations it may make for rehabilitation works must honour this proposed new location for an access.

 

The other two proposed variations to restriction of user relate to the clearing of native vegetation on site and the relevant extract of the 88B Instrument is at Attachment 2. The 88B Instrument associated with DP 1038947 firstly states that no clearing shall take place except ?within approved building envelopes and for bush fire clearing and for driveways? and secondly, specifically prohibits any clearing of land from within the 20 metre wide strip along Grassy Head Road.

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Identifies the 20 metre wide vegetation buffer to Grassy Head Road (pink) and approved building envelopes (yellow)

 

Figure 3 identifies the 20 metre buffer for which clearing is prohibited and also the approved building envelopes, where clearing is be limited too, with ancillary for driveways and APZs, as per the wording in the user restriction on the 88B Instrument - at Attachment 2.

 

In relation to the variation to build outside the dwelling envelope which is contrary to the title restriction, it should be noted that Council approved a variation to vary the approved building envelope of another Lot within this subdivision (Lot 6) and so a precedent has already been set. It should be noted that post 1999 the term ?approved building envelopes? was replaced with that of ?indicative building envelopes? to allow future land owners some flexibility at development application stage, such as proposed in this instance.

 

The condition regarding clearing being limited to building envelopes came about largely due to a recommendation from National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) who state in their referral response:

 

?Rural-residential development is recognised as having a major impact on the natural and physical environment. Given the potential for intensified impacts, the NWPS considers any clearing of these lots, even with Consent, as inappropriate. The NWPS therefore recommends any clearing of vegetation outside the nominated building envelopes as surveyed should be prohibited unless valid safety considerations can be demonstrated. Such advice should be included as a Restriction to User should the application for subdivision be approved by Council.?

 

The requirement with regards to the 20 metre buffer to Grassy Head Road was not originally imposed by Council or council?s town planning staff when preparing the Consent but was actually included by the applicant in their Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) to form part of the original development proposal. From the SEE the applicant?s intention for the buffer appeared to be to protect visual amenity and provide privacy to the allotments more than to protect vegetation or other environmental considerations.

 

The SEE formed part of the development application and as such when the proposal was assessed by council?s town planners and various referral authorities, this buffer was taken into account. When Consent was granted council staff reinforced the retention of this vegetation buffer through a condition of consent, which then transferred to the user restriction which now exists on the Deposited Plan. It is considered the retention of this strip and the limitation of any additional clearing was a fundamental consideration when various staff, government agencies and experts were assessing the development proposal and the environmental impact (s) of the proposed subdivision.

 

In addition to the restrictions, during the assessment process for the original subdivision, much discussion was held regarding the amount of clearing required to facilitate the subdivision and building envelopes were moved to areas which had been previously cleared, or were of less dense vegetation, to minimise environmental impact. In the original assessment particular reference is made to the retention of this 20 metre strip adjacent to Grassy Head Road and this is weighed against the potential impact of clearing for building envelopes during assessment.

 

A Flora and Fauna report was also prepared by an expert during the assessment process, the expert was given the SEE which claimed no clearing would be allowed within the 20 metre wide buffer with Grassy Head Road and clearing would be limited to building envelopes. The experts report concluded:

 

?A significant number of threatened species have been recorded in the? locality and some components of the site e.g. potential forage species and dense shrub layer, are preferred habitat attributes of these species, and qualify the site as potential habitat (of varying degrees). Two threatened species, the Little and Common Bent-Wing Bats were detected on part of the site. However, owing to the moderately low-impact nature of the development, and the fact that he identified foraging habitat of these species is not directly affected, the proposal is considered unlikely to have any significant impact.

 

It is concluded that on the basis that the remnant dry sclerophyll forest is not modified and that no further clearing or modification of the vegetation post-development occurs, that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact on threatened species.?

 

The consultant who prepared this report, and made this conclusion, did so considering the original proposal, which included the SEE containing the information that the 20 metre wide vegetation buffer to Grassy Head Road would remain undisturbed and also that clearing would be limited to building envelopes. The fact that further clearing has been conducted contrary to this and the vegetation buffer significantly disturbed, means the Flora and Fauna Assessment is now null and void, hence the recommendation that a revised one be provided through the recommended Deferred Commencement condition.

 

Councils town planning staff have worded the draft deferred commencement condition to require a new Flora and Fauna Assessment, as the new proposal cannot rely on the advice of a Flora and Fauna Assessment submitted during the assessment of the original subdivision and which forms part of the Consent, as the clearing which has been conducted on this Lot has already contravened it by clearing outside of the parameters it was prepared on.

 

The applicant was contacted in writing with regards to the proposal to issue a Deferred Commencement Condition and included in the letter was proposed draft wording the deferred commencement condition. (This letter can be found at Attachment 3)

 

The applicant has verbally concurred that the condition is considered to be a fair compromise, however, does not consider the clearing to be part of the development application as it has already been undertaken. Councils staff have responded to this to advise that the clearing, whether retrospective or not, is required to facilitate the DA which contravenes two separate prohibitions of clearing so is indeed part of the development application.

 

The land owner has also written in separately to respond to the letter advising of the proposed condition with some additional information, including:

????? the property was previously cleared when she bought the property.?

????? The original location of the electricity easement has changed and now impacts on her building envelope.

????? Mainly noxious weeds have been removed with the recent clearing.

????? No trees of a substantial size were removed.

????? Many trees have been ordered to replant and landscape post development.

????? There are significant erosion problems on site.

????? Historically, there was previously an access when the ?new? one is proposed.

 

The land owner also provided some photographic and other evidence to support the additional information and the information and evidence is provided at Attachment 4 and (photos) at Attachment 5.

 

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 proposed development is a permissible use in the R5 ? Large Lot Residential Zoning.

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii) any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010 (NDCP)

 

Notification Part A

 

The application was notified to owners of properties that adjoin the application site, in accordance with Council?s Advertising policy.

 

3 (three) individual submissions have been received in objection to the proposed development and particularly with regards to the non-compliance with title restirctions.

 

Environmental Context Part A

 

A.52 Bushfire

 

The applicant has undertaken a self bushfire assessment report and council?s health and building staff have also conducted a bushfire assessment report, for which the calculations were only marginal different and the appropriate conditions have been included in the recommended draft conditions.

 

A.58 Flora and Fauna

 

In accordance with clause A.58 of the NDCP and Section 5A of the Act, Council will need to be satisfied that the proposed development will not have a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. In this instance no flora and fauna assessment was submitted as part of the application and as such a deferred commencement condition has been recommended to require one.

 

Clause A.58 also states land clearing should not be undertaken prior to development approval and details of proposed land clearing to accommodate future building should be provided with the Development Application. No information on proposed clearing, or of the clearing already undertaken, was provided as part of this development application, hence the requirement of the Deferred Commencement Condition.

 

A.60 Site Analysis

 

The application site is a vacant large lot residential allotment on the corner of Grassy Head and Scotts Head Roads. The allotment has been recently cleared and experiences some erosion with it?s boundary to Grassy Head Road.

 

It should be noted an actual survey drawing has not been provided as part of the development application and has been require by a condition of Consent.

 

Residential Developments Part H

 

Dual Occupancy Development

 

The proposal meets the minimum lot size requirement, setbacks and other design criteria specific for detached dual occupancies within the NDCP.

 

 

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

 

Context and Setting

 

The site relates to a vacant large lot residential allotment which was created through a subdivision in 1999 and is yet to be developed for residential purposes. Two of the six allotments created have been developed to date.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

 

There is a restriction to user limiting access from Grassy Head Road and ensuring a common access point is utilised for Lots 1 and 2. However, as councils engineering staff support the proposed variation

 

Soils

 

Soils are rocky in nature and it is therefore predicted longer and deeper absorption trenches will be required for the On Site Sewer Management System. No OSMS was submitted as part of the development application, however, one has since been submitted and is currently being assessed by council?s health and building staff. The appropriate condition has been included at condition 5 of the recommended draft conditions.

 

It should be noted that on sites with competing constraints e.g. bushfire and retention of vegetation, council staff prefer to have the OSMS report prior to granting Consent but has made an exception in this instance as council?s Plumbing and Drainage Inspector has confirmed a solution is achievable.

 

There is evidence of erosion on the site and in particular on the boundary with Grassy Head Road and a condition in relation to Erosion and Sediment control has been included in the recommended draft conditions.

 

Flora and Fauna

 

There has been some loss of flora on site and potentially subsequent habitat for fauna, hence the recommended deferred commencement condition requiring a new Flora and Fauna Assessment is submitted to council for approval.

 

Cumulative Impacts

 

Acceptance of the loss of protected vegetation on this Lot would set precedent for the remaining 5 allotments within this subdivision and other properties within the wider locality.

 

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

 

The site is capable of supporting the development, however, conditions are required in relation to an adequate OSMS Report and re-vegetation of the strip adjacent to Grassy Head Road.

 

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

 

There were 3 (three) individual submission received and can be found at Attachment 6.

 

The primary objections raised were:

 

????? The clearing of the 20 metre vegetation strip along Grassy Head Road;

????? The approved access is satisfactory and should not have been approved as part of the subdivision if deemed unsafe;

????? Vehicular access from Grassy Head Road is prohibited;

????? Legal caveats have not been respected;

????? Natural vegetation should be replanted;

????? The Scotts Head access has to be used by other landholders and already is utilised; safety of this should be improved rather than allowing a new access.

????? Contravention of conditions of Consent.

 

d??????? the public interest

 

It is considered important that land owners honour and respect user restrictions and covenants on title deeds, as they often relate to conditions of Consent which were included to facilitate the original subdivision. Conditions are included on Consents for subdivision to protect the public interest and disregard of them is therefore not in the public interest. To allow land owners to contravene their title restrictions, without remediation, will set a precedent for future developments which is furthermore not in the public interest.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The development proposal relates to some clearing of native vegetation and some clearing has already been undertaken. The fairest compromise appears to be that a new Ecological Study be prepared so that an expert may access the damage the clearing has resulted in since the original Ecological Study submitted with the original development application was prepared.

 

Implementing remediation measure are considered to be the most proactive result as natural and independent vegetation regrowth remediation of the site would take many years.

 

Social

 

The title restrictions relate to all 6 Lots created through the subdivision and intend to prevent social conflicts in-between adjoining land owners in the future.

 

Economic

 

There is a cost associated with

 

Risk

 

There is risk the applicant could appeal the Deferred Commencement Condition if deemed unreasonable.

 

There is risk that failure to remediate the site in some manner could see the loss of endangered species? and/or their habitats.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

None identified.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

Not applicable.

 

DRAFT CONDITIIONS OF CONSENT

 

?Deferred Commencement Consent

 

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

 

a??????? An Ecological Report, from a suitably qualified person, will need to be prepared to assess the consequence(s) of the native vegetation which has already been removed from within the 20 metre wide strip along Grassy Head road.? The clearing has taken place despite the Title Deeds and associated 88b Instrument prohibiting any clearing in this area and limiting clearing to building envelopes only.

 

The Flora and Fauna report will consider the effect(s) of the loss of this vegetation and consider the most appropriate remediation actions at this stage. The report will make recommendations on what vegetation to replant within this strip, but will allow for the proposed driveway across the strip. The report will be submitted to Council for approval and when approved will be endorsed as forming part of this Consent.

 

In satisfying Council as to the above Council must be furnished with (list reports that need to be provided and the experience and qualifications of the person preparing the report).

 

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

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

 

2??????? 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.

 

?Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

 

3??????? Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the following information:

 

a??????? in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

i???????? the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

ii??????? the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

b??????? in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

i???????? the name of the owner-builder, and

ii??????? if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

 

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the updated information.

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

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

WD-01

C

Mick Brooks

JAN 13

WD-02 ? WD-08

B

Mick Brooks

JAN 13

WD09

C

 

JAN 13

Statement of Environmental Effects

 

 

01.04.2013

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

On-site sewage management facility Section 68 approval required

 

5??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for on-site effluent disposal must be obtained from Council. The application for Section 68 approval must be accompanied by a report prepared by a suitably qualified professional with demonstrated experience in effluent disposal matters, which addresses the site specific design of sewage management in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government Act, and Approvals Regulation and Guidelines approved by the Director General.

 

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

 

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

 

Evidence of payment of the contributions is to be provided to the 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

4 bed

2 bed

1

1

$1, 865

$1, 476

$1, 865

$1, 476

JUNE 2013

Road Upgrading: Scotts Head Road/Grassy Head Road intersection

Dwelling

2

$127

$254

JUNE 2013

Surf Life Saving Equipment

4 Bed

2 Bed

1

1

$105

$75

$105

$75

JUNE 2013

Section 94 Administration Charge

 

 

6%

$226.50

JUNE 2013

TOTAL

 

 

 

$4,001.50

JUNE 2013

 

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

 

Erosion & sediment measures

 

8??????? Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol 1, 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

 

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

 

The Plumber must submit a Notice of Works (NoW) prior to any work being commenced on-site:

 

a??????? No later than 20 business days before the work concerned is carried out in the case of work that requires a proposed alternative solution; or

 

b??????? No later than 2 business days before the work is carried out in any other case.

 

Toilet facilities

 

10????? 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 toilet connected to an accredited sewage management system approved by the Council.

 

Site construction sign required

 

11????? 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

 

12????? 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.

 

Construction times

 

13????? 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:

 

Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

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

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

14????? 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.

 

?Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

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

 

 

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

 

Internal driveway in accordance approved plans

 

16????? Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1.

 

a??????? An all weather driveway is to be constructed from the edge of bitumen to the proposed car space/s in accordance with the approved plans, (grades exceeding 15% must be sealed);

 

b??????? Minimum 375 diameter piped drainage (with headwalls) is required where the driveway crosses a roadside open drain and where internal flows cross the driveway.

 

c??????? Sealed driveways, in accordance with Council?s rural driveway standards, from the edge of the bitumen to 3 metres within the property boundary.

 

 

?Rural stormwater disposal

 

17????? Stormwater must be collected and disposed of in a controlled manner such that stormwater flows are:

????? Clear of buildings and infrastructure,

????? Clear of effluent disposal areas,

????? Not concentrated so as to cause soil erosion,

????? Not directly to a watercourse, and

????? Not onto adjoining land.

 

?Bushfire mitigation requirements

 

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

 

????? ?? A minimum of 10000 litres of water is to be provided for fire mitigation purpose only in a tank marked ?fire use only?. This tank is to have a 38mm ?Storz? outlet with gate valve provided to connect a fire pump. A 3kw diesel driven pump must be provided for the distribution of this water by occupants in the event of a bushfire. The pump is to be protected from aerial ignition with a screen. The outlet is to be accessible via two wheel drive vehicle to allow fire tanker access,

????? ?? 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 Bushfire Protection 2006? and the NSW Rural Fire Service?s document ?Standards for Asset Protection Zones?.

????? ?? New construction on the Northern and Western elevations of the proposed development (Dwelling and secondary dwelling) shall comply with section 6 (BAL 19) Australian Standard AS 3959 ? 2009 ?Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas? and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of ?Planning for Bushfire Protection?.

????? ?? New construction on the Southern and Eastern elevations of the proposed development (Dwelling and secondary dwelling) shall comply with section 7 (BAL 29) Australian Standard AS 3959 ? 2009 ?Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas? and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of ?Planning for Bushfire Protection?.

????? ?? Gas cylinders kept close to the building shall have release valves directed away from the building. Connections to and from gas cylinders are to be metal.?

 

Survey Certificate of complete buildings required

 

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

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES

 

Inner radiation zone

 

19????? The entire property is to be maintained as an Inner Protection Area (IPA) in perpetuity. The inner radiation zone is to have the following characteristics:

 

????? Combustible trees must not form a continuous canopy or line between the fire source and the building,

????? There is to be no combustible undergrowth,

????? All fire suppressant rainforest trees and shrubs must be retained,

????? Only plants with fire resistance properties are to be planted,

????? All gutters and roofs are to be maintained to be free of litter and

????? Ground litter of no more than 0.5kg per square metre is permitted.

 

 

?Construction times

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

?Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

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

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

15802/2013 - 88B Instrument 1

0 Pages

2View

15803/2013 - 88B Instrument 2

0 Pages

3View

15696/2013 - Letter advising applicant of Council Meeting 10 July

0 Pages

4View

15804/2013 - Land Owners Response

0 Pages

5View

15897/2013 - Photos

0 Pages

6View

15812/2013 - Submissions DA2013/036

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 

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

Our Ref:?????????????? DA 2013/036

 

 

 

24 June 2013

 

 

 

Nambucca Valley Studio Designs

60 Station Street

EUNGAI RAIL? NSW? 2441

 

 

Dear Mick

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 2013/036

DUAL OCCUPANCY

LOT: 2 DP: 1038947, SCOTTS HEAD ROAD WAY WAY

 

Council is writing further to the lodgement of the above development application and our recent discussions.

 

As I verbally advised you, the matter is being reported to Council on 10 July 2013 and a site inspection will take place at approximately 9am prior to discussions being held here at the council chambers. If you would like to register your attendance or your wish to address Council at the meeting, then please contact Lorraine on 6568 0213 or lorraine.hemsworth@nambucca.nsw.gov.au.

 

Should you wish to attend the site inspection then you are also welcome to do so and you may wish to check the time nearer the date of the meeting, as the agenda is still open to changes being made at the time of me sending this letter.

 

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, or have any questions about the advice in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact myself directly on 6568 0225 or the Application and Compliance Unit of 6568 0280 between 11.00 am and 1.00 pm Monday to Friday.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Selina McNally

SENIOR TOWN PLANNER


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 








Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

DA2013/036 Detached Dual Occupancy

 




Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.4?? DA2013/043???? 100713??????? Variation to Council Policy 'Bushfire Buffers On Public Land' as it relates to DA 2013/043

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Anthony Brandie, Senior Health and Building Surveyor ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report puts forward a request from Mr Gary Rumble for the variation of Council Policy ?Bushfire Buffers On Public Land? (Attachment 1). The variation is required to permit an ?Asset Protection Zone? (bushfire buffer) to be created over a section of Council Road Reserve in Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads. It is required to facilitate a proposed development for the relocation of an existing dwelling, construction of a second dwelling and strata subdivision at Lot 5 Section 9 DP 758749, No. 26 Parkes Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the variation to Council?s policy Bushfire Buffers On Public Land to permit an ?Asset Protection Zone? (bushfire buffer) to be created over a section of Council Road Reserve in Boronia Street, Nambucca Heads in order to facilitate the Development Assessment process as it relates to DA 2013/043.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.?????? That Council favourably consider a variation to its policy ?Bushfire Buffers on Public Land? in this instance thus facilitating Development Application 2013/043 as it stands.

2.?????? That Council unfavourably consider a variation to its policy ?Bushfire Buffers on Public Land? in this instance.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 5 April 2013 Geoff Smyth Consulting lodged Development Application DA 2013/043 (on behalf of Gary Rumble) for the relocation of an existing dwelling, construction of a second dwelling and strata subdivision at Lot 5 Section 9 DP 758749, No. 26 Parkes Street, Nambucca Heads. The concept site plan is provided as Attachment 3.

 

The land is bushfire prone and the proposal was supported by a Bushfire Threat Assessment. In order for the proposed development to satisfy relevant bushfire requirements, use of the Boronia Street road reserve adjacent to the rear of the subject allotment is required for the purpose of establishing and maintaining an Asset Protection Zone (APZ). Boronia Street is a Council public road. The part of Boronia Street in discussion is unformed and is maintained by Council. The use of it for the purpose of an APZ requires an easement covered by a Section 88B instrument. A copy of a draft instrument setting out terms of the easement was provided in the Bushfire Threat Assessment and is attached for the information of Councillors as Attachment 2.

 

DA 2013/043 is Integrated Development (pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) for the purpose of Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 and was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for concurrence requiring the issue of a Bushfire Safety Authority. This is yet to be provided by the RFS as they have requested from Council; ?written confirmation that Council has agreed to the request for an easement over the affected part of the Boronia Street road reserve?. The answer to this question is the purpose of this report.

 

The owner of land, Gary Rumble, has expressed interest in purchasing that part of Boronia Street required for the APZ. In order for this to occur, Council would have to go through the process of closing that part of Boronia Street. This was done historically with another part of Boronia Street to facilitate development. This process however can take up to 2 years. The establishment of an easement in this instance would be an interim measure as Council pursues the road closure.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The matter has been considered in consultation with Council officers Paul Gallagher (Assistant General Manager, Engineering Services), Phillip Smith (Registered surveyor) and Keith Williams (Manager Technical Services) and with advice from Belinda Devine (Community Safety Officer) of the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The establishment of the Asset Protection Zone will involve under-scrubbing and pruning of some native vegetation. This work is considered to be of minor environmental impact. Ongoing maintenance will then essentially be mowing to maintain ground fuels to a minimal level. Some canopy control will be required over time but at intervals likely to be not less than 5 years.

 

Establishment of the APZ is essential for the relocation of the existing dwelling on site to the lower portion of the allotment. This supports a commendable recycling option.

 

Social

 

Supporting a variation to the subject policy will facilitate the increased density of development on the subject site affording additional housing stock in Nambucca.

 

Economic

 

The creation of the 88B instrument will burden the owner(s) of 26 Parkes Street to maintain the area affected as an Asset Protection Zone in perpetuity thus reducing an area of land assigned to Council for maintenance albeit minor.

 

Risk

 

Declining a variation to the ?Bushfire Buffers on Public Land? policy only reinforces established Council policy in the circumstances.

 

 

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

25165/2007 - DES - POLICY - Bushfire Buffers on Public Land

0 Pages

2View

15786/2013 -? Instrument Setting out Terms of Easement

0 Pages

3View

15788/2013 - Proposed Detached Development

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Variation to Council Policy 'Bushfire Buffers On Public Land' as it relates to DA 2013/043

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

POLICY

BUSHFIRE BUFFERS ON PUBLIC LAND

 

 

Our Vision

 

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best

 

Our Mission Statement

 

?The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.?

 

 

1.0???? Policy Objective

 

To ensure that new development contains an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) or bushfire buffer wholly within the development property and not offset to neighbouring land/reserves under the management and control of council or other State or public authority.

 

To ensure that the liability of maintaining an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) associated with the? private development on land in bush fire prone areas is the responsibility of the developer or successive owners of the land and not transferred to Council or other authority by allowing the use of public land/reserves as an APZ

 

 

2.0???? Related Legislation and Guidelines

 

???????? Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 

???????? Rural Fires Act 1997 Clause 3.3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006

???????? Australian Standard: 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas 2009 (AS3959)

???????? Building Code of Australia

 

3.0?????? Definitions

 

Asset Protection Zone (APZ) - Development on bush fire prone land will normally require the implementation of a set back distance which is referred to as an Asset Protection Zone. An Asset Protection Zone (APZ) is also known as a fire protection zone and aims to protect human life and infrastructure

 

4.0???? Policy Statement

 

a????????? New Developments (New Subdivisions)

 

That Council will not permit the inclusion of public land/reserves into Asset Protection Zones that are required to protect private property and infrastructure. The provision and maintenance of Asset Protection Zones is not the responsibility of an adjoining land management agency or land owner.

 

Where a bush fire hazard exists on or adjacent to an allotment that is to be developed, an APZ is to be established on the land to be developed between the building requiring protection and the bush fire hazard. This ensures that there is a progressive reduction of bush fire fuels between the hazard and a habitable dwelling.

 

APZs are to be located within the boundaries of the proposed development. (Note: This requirement for new subdivision developments has been consistently supported by numerous decisions of the Land and Environment Court).

 

This requirement can be modified for the most exceptional circumstances which are outlined in Clause 3.3 of Planning for bushfire Protection 2006:

 

1??????? Where a development would normally be declined due to inadequate APZs on the land to be developed but where it can be demonstrated that there is a strong likelihood of the adjoining land being developed for future residential or other compatible purposes (eg staged development).

2??????? Where an existing development was approved prior to August 2002 and the applicant is only proposing alterations and/or additions to existing buildings and the APZ does not comply with current APZ requirements. In this case the alterations or additions should meet the improved construction standards up to BAL 40 of AS 3959-2009 and not significantly increase the density of residents or as required under the Building Code of Australia.

 

Council may consent to allow the inclusion of some public areas under its control as part of bush fire buffers APZs under the following conditions:

 

1????????? The public land is a formed road whereby the existing arrangement is a footpath and road pavement requiring no extra maintenance as a bush fire buffer (APZ).

2????????? A bush fire buffer (APZ) already exists that is currently maintained by Council and that bush fire buffer (APZ) meets the required NSW Rural Fire Service standards and is recognised in a Plan of Management for the reserve.

3????????? That clear justification can be demonstrated by the developer that the public land is required to form an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for bushfire buffer.

4????????? That the clearing of natural assets on public land for the purposes of establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for private development shall be advertised for public comment including the justification from the applicant for the proposed APZ on public land.

5????????? That consent shall only be granted through Council resolution following public exhibition of the proposal.

 

6????????? Environmental assets such as threatened species, vulnerable species and locally important flora and fauna must be taken into account before any work is considered.

 

b????????? Existing Urban Vacant Lots

 

There is an expectation that vacant existing urban lots can be built upon.? Council will permit public land including reserves and roads (under its control) to be included in the Asset Protection Zone under the following conditions:

 

1????????? The Bushfire Management Plan recognises a formal bush fire buffer for public reserves.

2????????? The applicant upgrades the buffer to meet NSW Rural Fire Service standards and undertakes the first hazard reduction program.

3????????? The maximum setback on the private property is utilised to minimise the use of public land.

 

c?????????
Building Extensions/Redevelopment

 

Urban lots within bushfire prone areas that adjoin public land with substantial vegetation can only be approved if they comply with the specifications of ?Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006?.

 

The public land is not permitted to be included in the buffer or Asset Protection Zone.? Council will also not create a Bushfire Management Plan for the reserve for the specific purpose of allowing a building extension to be permitted.

 

d????????? Re-subdivision Of Large Urban Lots

 

A property with an existing house can only subdivide land that will comply with the Rural Fire Service requirements without the use of public land.

 

 

5.0???? History

 

Private developers in an effort to reduce the size of the bushfire buffer on the development site have sought to include adjacent public land in the required buffer.

 

The applicant may agree to carryout the initial clearing to meet requirements but cannot guarantee that they or successive owners will continue long term maintenance.? Council in allowing use of public land as a buffer zone will by default inherit the long term maintenance commitment to mow and keep the buffer satisfactory at a cost to the public.? In doing so, Council will also accept the liability for the standard of maintenance.

 

The Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines 2006 produced by the NSW Rural Fire Service generally requires the location of bushfire buffers (APZs) within the boundaries of the development site to ensure that the buffer is not a burden on adjoining land owners (Clause 3.3 of Planning for bushfire Protection 2006).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department:

Engineering Services

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Director Engineering Services

 

 

Document No.

25165/2007

 

 

First Adopted:

19 January 2012

 

 

Resolution No:

3364/12

 

 

Review Due:

September 2013

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Variation to Council Policy 'Bushfire Buffers On Public Land' as it relates to DA 2013/043

 






Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 July 2013

Variation to Council Policy 'Bushfire Buffers On Public Land' as it relates to DA 2013/043

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.5?? SF278????????????? 100713??????? NAMBUCCA VALLEY YOUTH SERVICES CENTRE

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:??? Vicki Fernance, Youth Development Officer ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report is to advise Council of the reason for inspection of the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc.

 

Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre was established in July 2003 and functioned as a sub-committee of Council?s Community Services Committee until 2006, at which time, Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre became incorporated and have operated under their own Management Committee since.

 

The Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc has been on the brink of closure for the last 3 years, since the loss of Headspace funding in 2009, and have not been able to secure any recurrent or long term funding.

 

In the last 2 weeks the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc have received a combination of donations, funding and a proposed partnership with Wesley Mission.

 

Mr Chris Hewgill welcomes the Nambucca Shire Councillors to visit the Centre and look at what has been achieved by this organisation and to also talk to them about the Youth Services Centre in the community.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the information

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.?? That Council endorse the recommendation

2.?? That Council endorse the recommendation with amendments

3.?? That Council not endorse the recommendation

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre was established in 2003 and functioned as a sub-committee of Council?s Community Services Committee (rent, paid to North Coast Scouts, and insurance costs were covered by Council and rates were waived on the property under this arrangement) with the aim for the organisation to become independent in the future.? This was achieved in 2006 when they became incorporated and operated under their own Management Committee.

 

In 2007 Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc received $1.6 million dollars to fund Headspace, a mental health service for young people, which ceased operation in the Nambucca Valley in 2009, as the funding that was offered was refused by Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc.? This funding was then offered (and accepted) to Women?s Health in Coffs Harbour to continue operating Headspace on the Mid North Coast.? Headspace in Coffs Harbour does not have outreach youth workers which means that young people have to travel to Coffs Harbour to access the service.

 

Since this time Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc have not been able to secure recurrent funding and has survived by receiving small to medium amounts of short term funding, which means the centre is continually on the verge of closure.

 

At the Management Committee meeting held on Tuesday 25 June 2013, it was advised that the Youth Services Centre have received the following:

 

????? An anonymous donation of $50,000 in response to an ABC Open story that aired on the ABC on 7 June 2013.? This donation will cover approximately one year of operational costs;

????? A donation from Dr Sandra Cabot who delivered a seminar on Liver Cleansing at Macksville on 28 May 2013.? All ticket sales were donated to the Youth Services Centre, totalling $2,500;?

 

????? The Guardian Pharmacy, in Macksville, then matched this with another $2,500 donation;

? The Youth Services Centre has been successful in their funding submission to Youth Opportunities and will receive $100,00 over 2 years to fund the YES (Youth Enterprise Service) Opportunities program;

????? The Youth Services Centre is in the final stages of signing a partnership with Wesley Mission, who will be delivering the Out Of Home Care (OOHC) program in the Nambucca surrounding LGA?s.? Mr Hewgill advised he will talk more about this when Council visits the Centre.

 

At this time the governance and financial sustainability is a challenge to small not-for-profit organisations such as Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre Inc and it is a continual battle to obtain funding to keep the centre open. The concept of the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre would be a loss to the community if closed.

 

The Youth Services Centre are now in an improved financial situation and look to have turned their situation around.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Mr Chris Hewgill SANDS (Support and New Directions for Students) Co-ordinator

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There is no impact to the environment

 

Social

NVYSC provides an important support service for the youth and families of the Nambucca Valley.? If the centres closes, it will leave an impact in the community.

 

Economic

Nil

 

Risk

Nil

 

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??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.6?? SF1823??????????? 100713??????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 4-30? June 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

????? Waiting on response from Consultant

 

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

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

No update to this

2013/057

02/05/2013

Dual Occupancy & Demolition of existing dwelling

Lot 10 Section C, DP 17707, 2 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

????? Amenity ? view sharing concerns ? height limits and loss of views therefore property value decrease

????? Compliance concerns ? query on complying with sq metre rule excluding access handles

????? Adjacent windows on 2nd floor overlook external area

???? Privacy concerns ? increase in noise levels due to increased housing density and location of buildings

????? Demolition concerns ? regarding the removal of asbestos

????? Could set precedent in dual occupancies and parking issues

 

Officer assessing proposal and submissions

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Corporate and Community Services

ITEM 10.7?? SF251????????????? 100713??????? Schedule of Council Public Meetings

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The following is a schedule of dates for public Council meetings.? The meeting dates may change from to time and this will be recorded in the next available report to Council.

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

 

 

MEETING

DATE

VENUE

COMMENCING

Water Supply Steering Committee

03/07/2013

Bowraville site

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

10/07/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Access Committee

23/07/2013

Council Chambers

? 2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

25/07/2013

Council Chambers

? 5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

07/08/2013

Bowraville site

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

14/08/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Access Committee

27/08/2013

Council Chambers

? 2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

29/08/2013

Missabotti Hall

Leave Council Chambers at 4.00 pm

? 5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

04/09/2013

Bowraville site

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

11/09/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Access Committee

24/09/2013

Council Chambers

? 2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

26/09/2013

Warrell Creek Hall

Leave Council Chambers at 4.30 pm

? 5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

02/10/2013

Bowraville site

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

16/10/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Access Committee

22/10/2013

Council Chambers

? 2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

31/10/2013

Taylors Arm Hall

Leave Council Chambers at 4.30 pm

? 5.30 PM

Water Supply Steering Committee

06/11/2013

Bowraville site

Leave Council Chambers at 10.15 am

10.45 AM

Ordinary Council Meeting

13/11/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

Access Committee

26/11/2013

Council Chambers

? 2.00 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

28/11/2013

South Arm Hall

Leave Council Chambers at 4.30 pm

? 5.30 PM

Ordinary Council Meeting

11/12/2013

Council Chambers

? 8.30 AM

 

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

Note:?? Meetings at the Rural Halls commence with light refreshments at 5.00 pm.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 July 2013

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.8?? SF1771??????????? 100713??????? Investment Report To 30 June? 2013

 

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

 

Summary:

 

The return on investments from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 is $1,620,005 (Cash Result)

Estimated Accrual interest up to 30 June 2013 is $506,667.

Anticipated interest return for financial year is $2,126,672.

 

The budget allocation for the financial year ?2012/13? is $1,861,400.

 

Council currently has $45.084 Million invested:

????? $5.429 Million with Managed Funds,

????? 5.280 Million with On Call Accounts

????? $33.861 Million on Term Deposits,

????? $0.514 Million in a Floating Rate Note.

 

This report details all the investments placed during June and Council funds invested as at 30 June 2013.

 

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

 

 

C P Doolan

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Accountants? Report on Investments placed to 30 June 2013 be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

INVESTMENTS MATURED & INTEREST & RETURNS 1 TO 30 JUNE 2013

 

Term Deposits/Bank Bills

 

Institution

?Amount

Period (Days)

Rate

?Interest

 

NAB

?$1,173,486.09

182

4.56%

?$26,682.19

 

Rabodirect

?$1,000,000.00

286

5.00%

?$39,178.08

 

ME Bank

?$642,978.22

145

4.30%

?$10,983.48

 

Westpac

?$1,000,000.00

70

4.05%

?$7,767.12

 

ANZ

?$1,000,000.00

372

5.00%

?$50,958.90

 

 

Managed Funds/On Call

 

Institution

Amount

Period (Days)

Performance for Month

Returns This Month

Annualised Performance FYTD

Returns FYTD

 

UBS

?$202,279.89

30

0.51%

?$1,019.83

1.33%

?$2,666.30

Interest Paid Daily each Quarter

 

ANZ (OC)

?$1,052,729.52

30

0.33%

?$3,324.93

7.40%

?$94,228.78

 

ANZ (BOS)

?$4,024,909.58

30

0.34%

?$24,909.58

3.06%

?$24,909.58

 

Macq GIO Fd

?$3,806,042.13

30

0.63%

-$24,185.89

7.74%

?$285,753.54

 

 

Long Term Funds

 

Institution

Amount

Period (Days)

Performance for Month

Monthly change in net asset value

Change in net asset value LTD

Coupons Paid to Date

Annualised Performance FYTD

 

NSW TCorp

?$1,146,131.32

30

-0.88%

-$10,138.32

?$134,915.33

N/A

18.80%

 

Averon II*

?$476,850.00

30

0.43%

?$2,050.00

-$23,150.00

?$28,396.10

11.73%

 

 

Floating Rate Term Deposits/Notes

 

Institution

Amount

Period (Days)

Performance for Month

Monthly change in net asset value

Change in net asset value LTD

Coupons Paid to Date

Annualised Performance FYTD

 

ING

?$514,290.00

30

0.00%

?$19,050.00

?$11,695.00

?$24,509.85

3.85%

 

Investec Bank

?$1,000,000.00

30

6.40%

?$12,275.26

?$70,052.15

?$? -??

5.32%

 

 

INVESTMENTS HELD AT 30 JUNE 2013

 

 

Institution

 

?Amount

?Date Invested

Period (Days)

Maturity Date

Interest for month

Interest

?Interest Due at maturity

 

 

BCCU - No 1

A2

$602,727.97

09/05/13

365

09/05/14

2,154.96

4.35%

?$26,218.67

 

 

BCCU - No 2

A2

$723,112.14

27/05/13

365

27/05/14

3,922.64

6.60%

?$47,725.40

 

 

IMB - No 1

A2

$1,076,643.61

07/02/13

147

04/07/13

3,628.14

4.10%

?$17,777.89

 

 

IMB - No 3

A2

$832,033.63

16/04/13

359

10/04/14

2,838.03

4.15%

?$33,961.79

 

 

Bank of Qld - No 1

BBB+

$1,044,776.94

07/02/13

182

08/08/13

3,778.37

4.40%

?$22,922.12

 

 

Bank of Qld - No 2

BBB+

$729,151.64

11/04/13

203

31/10/13

2,666.90

4.45%

?$18,046.00

 

 

Bank of Qld - No 3

BBB+

$1,000,000.00

16/04/13

177

10/10/13

3,698.63

4.50%

?$21,821.92

 

 

Bank of Qld - No 4

BBB+

$1,000,000.00

16/04/13

1457

12/04/17

4,027.40

4.90%

?$195,597.26

 

 

NAB - No 2

AA-

$1,009,943.84

02/05/13

140

19/09/13

3,511.28

4.23%

?$16,385.99

 

 

NAB - No 3

AA-

$1,072,443.58

05/07/11

731

05/07/13

5,694.23

6.46%

?$138,749.52

 

 

NAB - No 4

AA-

$1,243,529.51

07/03/13

728

05/03/15

4,599.36

4.50%

?$111,611.03

 

 

NAB - No 5

AA-

$863,976.53

18/12/12

366

19/12/13

3,223.93

4.54%

?$39,332.00

 

 

NAB - No 6

AA-

$1,173,486.09

13/06/13

364

12/06/14

3,925.55

4.07%

?$47,630.03

 

 

NAB - No 7

AA-

$1,106,231.56

18/04/13

182

17/10/13

3,964.25

4.36%

?$24,049.78

 

 

NAB - No 8

AA-

$800,000.00

20/12/12

203

11/07/13

2,985.21

4.54%

?$20,199.89

 

 

NAB - No 9

AA-

$1,000,000.00

16/04/13

212

14/11/13

3,575.34

4.35%

?$25,265.75

 

 

AMP(CPG) - No 2

A

$1,000,000.00

10/01/13

365

10/01/14

3,698.63

4.50%

?$45,000.00

 

 

AMP(CPG) - No 3

A

$500,000.00

09/09/12

366

09/09/13

2,465.75

6.00%

?$30,082.19

 

 

AMP(CPG) - No 3

A

$500,000.00

09/09/12

366

09/09/13

2,465.75

6.00%

?$30,082.19

 

 

AMP(CPG) - No 4

A

$1,000,000.00

07/12/12

550

10/06/14

3,698.63

4.50%

?$67,808.22

 

 

Rabobank(Aust)-No.1

AA

$500,000.00

23/04/13

1462

24/04/17

2,630.14

6.40%

?$128,175.34

 

 

Rabobank(Aust)-No.2

AA

$1,000,000.00

30/03/13

365

30/03/14

5,876.71

7.15%

?$71,500.00

 

 

Rabobank(Aust)-No.3

AA

$500,000.00

25/11/11

1827

25/11/16

2,547.95

6.20%

?$155,169.86

 

 

Rabobank(Aust)-No.4

AA

$1,039,178.08

20/06/13

364

19/06/14

3,544.59

4.15%

?$43,007.74

 

 

Rabobank(Aust)-No.5

AA

$1,000,000.00

18/04/13

230

04/12/13

3,616.44

4.40%

?$27,726.03

 

 

Rabobank(Aust)-No.6

AA

$1,000,000.00

18/04/13

335

19/03/14

3,616.44

4.40%

?$40,383.56

 

 

Rural Bank

A-

$1,033,693.82

23/05/13

98

29/08/13

3,610.85

4.25%

?$11,795.44

 

 

ANZ

AA

$1,000,000.00

27/06/13

203

16/01/14

3,569.43

4.20%

?$23,358.90

 

 

ANZ (Coffs Harbour)

AA

$1,019,491.78

24/04/13

153

24/09/13

3,678.55

4.39%

?$18,760.60

 

 

Westpac(Coffs Harbour)

AA-

$1,007,767.12

26/06/13

307

29/04/14

3,536.85

4.27%

?$36,193.75

 

 

Westpac(Coffs Harbour)

AA-

$1,000,000.00

17/04/13

239

12/12/13

3,468.49

4.22%

?$27,632.33

 

 

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd -No 1

A

$500,000.00

09/01/13

181

09/07/13

1,857.53

4.52%

?$11,207.12

 

 

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd No 2

A

$1,500,000.00

12/12/12

1464

15/12/16

7,779.45

6.31%

?$379,637.26

 

 

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd -No 3

A

$800,000.00

27/03/13

183

26/09/13

2,958.90

4.50%

?$18,049.32

 

 

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd -No.4

A

$1,028,997.26

21/02/13

364

20/02/14

3,619.82

4.28%

?$43,920.42

 

 

Investec Bank Australia

BBB+

$653,961.70

25/06/13

366

26/06/14

2,230.64

4.15%

?$27,213.77

 

 

Investec Bank Australia

BBB-

$1,000,000.00

27/05/13

91

26/08/13

3,953.42

4.81%

?$11,992.05

 

 

ING Bank (Aust) Ltd No 5

A

$514,290.00

26/04/12