NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

12 June 2014

 

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 AND on the Thursday two weeks before the Thursday meeting.  Both meetings commence at 5.30 pm.  Meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre—44 Princess Street, Macksville (unless otherwise advertised).

 

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 - 12 June 2014

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 - 29 May 2014...................................................................................... 5

5        NOTICES OF MOTION

5.1     Notice of Motion - Request For Suggestions to Offset Loss of Financial Assistant Grants Funding (SF851).......................................................................................................................... 12

5.2     Notice Of Motion - Change To XPT Train Timetable (SF92)................................................ 14

5.3     Notice Of Motion - Future Of Macksville Hospital (SF988) - DELEGATION........................ 21  

6        PUBLIC FORUM/DELEGATIONS

5.3     Notice Of Motion - Future Of Macksville Hospital ............................................................ 21

i)        Dr Daniel Ryan – Supporting Notice of Motion

 9.3    Proposed Link Road Extension of Marshall Way - Nambucca Gardens Estate................... 36

i)        Mr Mal Boden – Objector

ii)       Mr Kevin Ballangarry - Objector

iii)      Mr Geoff Smythe (Consulting) – on behalf of applicant

7        ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE   

8        QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9        General Manager Report

9.1     Outstanding Actions and Reports.................................................................................... 23

9.2     Consultation on the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper................................................ 30

9.3     Proposed Link Road Extension of Marshall Way - Nambucca Gardens Estate................... 36

9.4     Donation to St Patrick's Primary School Biennial Fete...................................................... 62

9.5     IPART - Draft Report on Local Government Compliance and Enforcement......................... 65

9.6     Annual Reporting of Contracts for Senior Staff................................................................ 81

9.7     Pelican Park - Review of On Site Sewerage Management System .................................... 84

9.8     Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 21-31 May 2014.................................................................................................... 148

9.9     Council Ranger's Report May 2014................................................................................ 152

9.10   Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) - Draft Report on Reforming Licensing in NSW.................................................................................................................................... 156

9.11   Report to JRPP - Bellwood subdivision - DA 2012/011................................................... 164

9.12   Construction and Complying Development Certificates Approved May 2014.................... 210

9.13   2014 May - Development and Complying Development Applications Received................ 215

10      Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

10.1   Investment Report To 31 May 2014................................................................................ 217

10.2   Schedule of Council Public Meetings............................................................................. 222

11      Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1   Request for Council to upgrade the end of Maras Creek Road to accommodate bus and truck movement.................................................................................................................... 223

11.2   Naming the Old Pacific Highway.................................................................................... 225     

12         GENERAL MANAGER’S SUMMARY OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED MEETING

             12.1      Submissions – DA2013/183 – Proposed Link road Extension of Marshall Way – Nambucca Gardens Estate

             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)(e) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

             12.2      Submission – DA2012/011 – Proposed 346 Lot Residential Subdivision – Alexandra Drive, Bellwood

             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)(e) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the gorunds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

             12.3      Bowraville Off River Water Storage – Claim for Foundation Preparation.

             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)(c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

A          Questions raised by Council in 8 above

             i)          MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

             ii)         PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL TO CLOSE

             iii)        CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESNETATIONS

             iv)        DEAL LWITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

13         MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

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


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Email Address – council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

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

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

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

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON 29 May 2014

The following document is the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 May 2014.  These minutes are subject to confirmation as to their accuracy at the next meeting to be held on 12 June 2014 and therefore subject to change.  Please refer to the minutes of 12 June 2014 for confirmation.

 

PRESENT

 

Cr Rhonda Hoban (Mayor)

Cr John Ainsworth

Cr Martin Ballangarry OAM

Cr Brian Finlayson

Cr Kim MacDonald

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT

 

Michael Coulter (General Manager)

Scott Norman (AGM Corporate Services)

Paul Gallagher (AGM Engineering Services)

Monika Schuhmacher (Minute Secretary)

 

 

The Mayor welcomed a group of young, local Venturers from the Scouting movement who were attending Council meeting as part of their training.

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Cr Bob Morrison, Cr Anne Smyth, Cr Paula Flack and Cr Elaine South

 

 

PRAYER

 

Pastor Darryl Spriggs from the Presbyterian Church offered a prayer on behalf of the Nambucca Minister's Association.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

There were no disclosures of interest.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Special Meeting of Council 22 May 2014

 

267/14 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That the minutes of the Special Meeting of  Council of 22 May 2014  be confirmed.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting 22 May 2014

 

268/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That the minutes of the Land Development Committee Meeting of 22 May 2014 be confirmed.

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Hoban – LATE

 

ITEM 5.1      SF851                290514      Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) - Call to have the Australian Government Restore the Indexation of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs)

269/14 RESOLVED:        (Hoban/MacDonald)

 

That Council make representations to the Member for Cowper, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker MP as well as the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens calling for the Government to restore the indexation of the local government Financial Assistance Grants.

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION - CR Smyth – LATE

 

ITEM 5.2      SF1933              290514      Notice of Motion - Request for Leave - Cr Anne Smyth - 26 April to 30 June 2014 (SF1228)

270/14 RESOLVED:        (Hoban/Ainsworth)

 

That Cr Anne Smyth be granted leave of absence in accordance with Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act for the period 26 April to 30 June 2014 inclusive.

 

 

 

PUBLIC FORUMS

 

RESOLVED           (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That the following speaker be heard:

i)        Ms Moira Ryan -  Community Strategic Plan (Public Forum)

ii)       Mr Michael Blockey -  Community Strategic Plan (Public Forum)

iii)      Mr Paul Foley - Pedestrian danger on Adin Street joining oval and provision of a walkway

iv)      Mr Mark Brazel  -  Caravan Park - entry point - increase in payment - reduction in lease term – Mr Brazel did not attend the meeting

 

 

Ms Moira Ryan addressed Council making the following points:

·    Flurry of activity by Council in Scotts Head this week

·    Ms Ryan is the Secretary of community group and will comment on Community Strategic Plan

·    No 355 committees in Scotts Head so cannot see how Scotts Head residents can contribute

·    Scotts Head Road pretty dreadful and is major topic of interest

·    One cut slash of vegetation on edge of road is of great concern

·    Slasher needs to be washed down regularly as weeds get spread

·    Requested down grade of speed limit – would like 80 km/hr speed all along Scotts Head Road

·    Major intersection camber is an issue

·    Town entry – pretty horrible – cattle yards

·    What happens to Section 94 money for Scotts Head?

·    Footpaths required, more connectivity between shops and club – many elderly residents

·    Commitment from Council that money from lease would be used on Scotts Head

·    West Street is a major access and requires a proper footpath

·    The Reserve not being maintained

·    Needs a town central meeting place other than the Surf Club, not that accessible, or free, nowhere in town where practitioners come to meet with residents, no visiting/meeting rooms

·    Perhaps something could be done in collaboration with Council and Surf Club

·    Street sweeping only done annually, needs to be done regularly, polluting stormwater drains and creek

·    Beach – used to be raked occasionally – nothing with maintenance of beach now…heap of rubbish, prime tourist area

·    No maintenance of shower in West Street

·    Animals on beach is a huge problem particularly off-leash dogs, signs too small in main parking area

·    Residents pick up rubbish on the beach

·    Strategic Plan needs some vamping up

·    Safety, Policing – support Council’s initiative in seeking 24 hour Police presence

·    Late night hooning – cars, fires on beach, burning vegetation, Inspector/Ranger would be good if came out at night

·    Item 11.3 in report – is totally illogical

 

Mr Michael Blockey addressed Council making the following points:

·    Chairman of the Community Group

·    Master Plan – would like further consultation from Council

·    Subdivision of Council land – community not told much about it, rumours abound

·    Council could have been putting information in the local newsletter

·    Asked if General Manager could provide information

·    Walking track/bush tucker – want a dream time walk around Scotts Head – could Council assist with this? Walking track from Headland, behind Little Beach,  Elephant Head, school

 

271/14 Resolved:        (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

That Mr Jason O’Donnell, President of the Macksville-Scotts Head Surf Life Saving Club be granted permission to address Council.

 

Mr Jason O’Donnell addressed Council making the following points:

 

·    Mr O’Donnell advised that the Surf Club has received dollar for dollar funding to put in a toilet for the people with a disability.

 

Mr Paul Foley addressed Council making the following points:

·    Wants walkway built along Adin Street

·    New footpath is on cliff and would be too costly

·    Children do not understand the concept of no-footpath

·    No dogs on leash allowed through caravan park

·    No dogs on beach during day

·    Therefore most people take the drive option to the shops

·    Discussed obesity in relation to drive to the shop option – no safe walkway

·    South side of road is too steep for footpath, road is very narrow,

·    Reducing speed limit is not necessarily the answer – speeding cars are not the problem the walk ways are the problem

·    Walkway on edge of oval

·    Perhaps take strip of oval back at base of cliff to build a walkway

·    How will this be paid for?  From the holiday park people?  Need Council to be strong, make a better deal to extract from these people who are getting the prime real estate to better Scotts Head

·    Council needs to act against State Government that is in the hands of developers

·    Wants Council to make a deal for the Scotts Heads residents

·    Can’t afford any further increases in rates

·    Section 94 funds?

·    Would not want concrete path….gravel/dirt would be more attractive

 

 

 

 

ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

 

There were no Questions with Notice.

 

QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

 

There were no Questions for Closed Meeting where due Notice has been received.

 

 

 

General Manager Report

 

ITEM 9.1      SF959                290514      Outstanding Actions and Reports

272/14 RESOLVED:        (Ballangarry/Ainsworth)

 

That the list of outstanding actions and reports be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.2      SF1948              290514      Proposed Highway Service Centre - Nambucca Heads Interchange

273/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

1        That Council make a written submission to Roads and Maritime Services in support of the revised policy for the location of highway service centres, and particularly the proposed highway service centre at the Nambucca Heads interchange.

 

2        That Council note the RMS is calling for expressions of interest to develop a highway service centre at the Nambucca Heads interchange.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.3      SF254                290514      Proposed Local Government Boundary Adjustment between Nambucca and Bellingen Shire Councils

274/14 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Nambucca Shire Council support a submission to the NSW Minister for Local Government for a boundary adjustment transferring part Lots 11 and 12 DP 851841 to Nambucca Shire Council.

 

2        That Bellingen Shire Council be thanked for initiating the local government boundary adjustment; for dealing with the affected property owners and for preparing a report on the matter.

 

 

 

ITEM 9.4      SF1415              290514      Internal Audit - Engagement of Service Provider

275/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

Subject to clarification on responsibility for employment costs, Nambucca Shire Council engage Coffs Harbour City Council to provide internal audit services for an initial two (2) year term.

 

 

ITEM 9.5      SF988                290514      Provision of a Renal Dialysis Service in the Nambucca Valley

276/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

That Council extend its thanks to the Mid North Coast Local Health District Board and its Chief Executive for awarding a contract to the Nambucca Health Care Centre to partner with the Health District in providing dialysis services in the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9.6      DA2014/056        290514      3 Lot Subdivision - Adin Street, Scotts Head

277/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council as the consent authority, pursuant Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent for Development Application 2014/056 for a three lot subdivision of Lot 104 DP 622709, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in attachment 3 of this report.

 

For the motion – Councillors Hoban, Ballangarry, Finlayson, Ainsworth and MacDonald   (Total 5)

Against the motion - nil

 

 

 

ITEM 9.7      SF1947              290514      Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 8 - 20 May 2014

278/14 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

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

 

 

 

ITEM 9.8      SF1804              290514      Vegetation Mapping and Koala Habitat Study

279/14 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Ballangarry)

 

1        That Council accept the funding offer of $70,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage to commence CLASS 5 vegetation mapping of the areas (gaps) not included in the previous mapping of Endangered Ecological Communities.

 

2        That Council accept the funding offer of $50,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage under the  state government’s Saving Our Species koala ‘iconics’ funding in the next financial year for koala habitat study, mapping and reporting.

 

 

3        That $10,000 and be committed from Councils Environmental Levy to contribute to the project and staff resources be allocated as necessary to assist OEH in the management of project.

 

 

 

General Manager Report – LATE

 

ITEM 9.9      SF688                290514      Environmental Levy Program

280/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)

 

1        That following completion of the exhibition of the draft operational plan/delivery program    that Council consider the 2014/15 Environmental Levy Budget comprising the projects          shown in the table headed “Proposed 2014/15 Environmental Levy Budget”.

 

2        That Council accept the offer of up to $7,500 Heritage Advisor Funding for the 2014/15 Heritage Program, requiring matching funds from Council.

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services Report

 

ITEM 10.1    SF1871              290514      March 2014 Budget Review

281/14 RESOLVED:        (MacDonald/Ainsworth)

 

1        That the budget review for the quarter ended 31 March, 2014 be received.

 

2        That the recommended increases and decreases in votes be included as subsequent votes for the financial year 2013/2014.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 10.2    SF316                290514      Macksville Gift Committee of Management - AGM - 31 March 2014 - Minutes

282/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)

 

That Council endorse the minutes of the Committee of Management for the Macksville Gift, held on 31 March 2014.

 

 

 

ITEM 10.3    SF251                290514      Schedule of Council Public Meetings

283/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

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

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

 

ITEM 11.1    SF844                290514      Nambucca District Water Supply Steering Committee Meeting - 7 May 2014

284/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Ballangarry)

 

That the minutes of the record of discussion held on 7 May 2014 in lieu of the formal Steering Committee Meeting be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

 

ITEM 11.2    SF711                290514      Tender for Supply and Delivery of Bulk Chemicals for Water Treatment

285/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/MacDonald)

 

1     That Council award contracts for the supply and delivery of bulk chemicals in accordance with the recommendations of the Tender Evaluation Committee for Tender T051415 called by Regional Procurement as follows:

 

Omega Chemicals -  Aluminium Sulphate –

Redox Pty Ltd - Hydrated Lime and Sodium Fluoride (Granular)

Price Chemicals – Sodium Hypochlorite

 

2     That Council award the contracts for a period of 2 years commencing 1 July 2014 with the provision of a further 1 year period subject to satisfactory performance.

 

 

 

ITEM 11.3    SF853                290514      Salvinia Molesta Infestation - Swimming Creek, Nambucca Heads

286/14 RESOLVED:        (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council approve the use of registered herbicides on the Salvinia Molesta infestation in Swimming Creek, following appropriate consultation, preparation of a media release and correct pesticide notification procedures as outlined within this report.

 

Note: Cr Ballangarry requested that his vote be recorded against this resolution as the pesticide affects other vegetation considered bush tucker.

 

 

   

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Mayor then closed the meeting the time being 7.10 pm. 

 

Confirmed and signed by the Mayor on 12 June 2014.

 

 

 

 

CR RHONDA HOBAN

MAYOR

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

    


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.1      SF1933            120614         Notice of Motion - Request For Suggestions to Offset Loss of Financial Assistant Grants Funding (SF851)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Rhonda Hoban, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

Councillors will be aware of the recent announcement in the Federal budget that the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) will be paused for the next three years.  This will have a significant impact on council’s budget now and into the future and will erode Council’s Special Rate Variation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That, in order to offset the impacts of the loss of Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) indexation, all Managers be asked to identify and report on opportunities to make savings or increase revenue in their own area of operations which preferably maintain the service levels anticipated in Council’s Community Strategic Plan: or alternatively and less preferred, propose a reduction in service levels on matters considered secondary to our mission statement.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has actively pursued opportunities for efficiencies, savings and productivity gains for some time now; in order to address our infrastructure backlog and show those that we are accountable to that we are making a genuine attempt to become financially sustainable.

 

The recent T-Corp and Local Government Infrastructure Audit reports have both highlighted what Councillors and staff have known for some time – we are not financially sustainable under current practices and funding.

 

It is acknowledged that it is unlikely that efficiencies alone will solve the overall problem, but every small gain is an overall improvement to our financial sustainability and we owe it to our community to ensure we have considered every possibility before we consider reducing service levels or further rate increases.

 

Council has already asked our ratepayers to dig deep with eight special rate variations in the last ten years and a current application with IPART for increases over the next three years.  A great deal of staff effort and time goes into preparing a special rate variation and council should be keen to ensure that the approved increase brings benefits to our ratepayers rather than being swallowed up by the loss of FAG funding.

 

The indexation pause on FAGs will mean a reduction of almost $100,000 in funding anticipated for 2014/15. The cumulative effects of this decision are substantial.  Whilst it may still be possible to adopt a balanced budget, each year the council will be adding to its now regular operating deficit.  This is not sustainable.

 

Historically Council have made the final decisions regarding efficiency and productivity gains and ultimately they will have to do the same again, but there is a danger that council will not make the best decisions as a result of their limited knowledge of the everyday work practices of each of council’s functions.

 

Those best placed to consider this are Council’s Managers.  They are all responsible Managers but operate at a level closer to the day to day workings of Council and know and understand the tasks of individual employees.  They are responsible for ensuring the smooth delivery of the functions and services of their area of management and also have an obligation to the organisation and the elected council to provide advice that will inform the decision making process.

 

It is recommended that each Manager be asked to consider and report to Council on any measure they can identify in their own area of responsibility that will deliver savings or increase revenue.  It is not intended to provide any further parameters or boundaries as each Manager should be allowed to consider any and all possibilities.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.2      SF1933            120614         Notice Of Motion - Change To XPT Train Timetable (SF92)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Rhonda Hoban, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

In response to a Notice of Motion and community representations Council previously resolved to write to Transport NSW and the Hon Andrew Stoner MP requesting the reinstatement of the Nambucca Heads stop of the 2.41pm Sydney to Brisbane XPT train (letter attached). Council received a response (attached) that indicated that for QLD timetabling and technical reasons this was no longer possible. Further investigation of the issue led to a second public meeting being called to discuss the matter (minutes attached).

 

It became clear at the meeting that there had been no public consultation about the timetable changes and that responses received by individuals from various representatives of Transport NSW and Trainlink NSW were based on a lack of understanding that there are indeed two tracks at Nambucca Heads Railway Station and trains have been passing there for many years.  It was also emphasised that these train passes took less than eight minutes, not the twenty minutes suggested by some departmental officers.  As a result of discussion at the public meeting and after these issues were pointed out, Mr Gary Budden, Regional Manager of NSW Trainlink advised that it was indeed possible to include a stop at Nambucca Heads station and meet the QLD timetable requirements,

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That based on the advice given to by the Regional Manager of NSW Trainlink to the public meeting of 26 May 2014, Council again write to Transport NSW and the Hon Andrew Stoner MP requesting the reinstatement of the Nambucca Heads stop of the 2.41 pm Sydney to Brisbane XPT train.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

26163/2013 - Request to reinstate the Nambucca Heads stop-2.41 pm Sydney to Brisbane XPT train

 

2

28695/2013 - Transport for NSW - Response regarding Council's request to reinstate the Nambucca Heads stop for the Sydney to Brisbane XPT

 

3

15684/2014 - Minutes of meeting - Changes in Railway Timetable at Nambucca Heads - Nambucca Heads Community Action Group - 26 May 2014

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Notice Of Motion - Change To XPT Train Timetable (SF92)

 

Enquiries to: Mr Michael Coulter

Phone No            : 6568 0200

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

Mobile    : 0409 153 788

Our Ref  : SF92

 

 

18 October 2013

 

 

The Chief Executive Officer

Transport for NSW

PO Box K659

HAY MARKET   NSW   1240

 

Dear Sir

 

REQUEST TO REINSTATE THE NAMBUCCA HEADS STOP—2.41 PM SYDNEY TO BRISBANE XPT TRAIN

 

Nambucca Shire Council has received representations from Nambucca Heads residents who are concerned about the announcement by Transport NSW that the 2.41 pm XPT train from Sydney to Brisbane will no longer stop at Nambucca Heads.

 

Apparently, under the new arrangements passengers travelling from Nambucca Heads to Brisbane will depart Nambucca Heads by Trainlink road transport and travel to Macksville to connect with the XPT service.  Conversely, those passengers wanting to travel to Nambucca Heads will alight at Macksville and catch the Trainlink road transport to Nambucca Heads. 

 

Nambucca Heads railway station serves more than 10,000 residents as well as tourists.  Many of the Nambucca Heads residents who use the rail service are elderly and choose to travel by train because they find sitting in the confined space of a car or coach for long trips uncomfortable and the train is a very cost effective means of transport.  The rail service is also popular with tourists, particularly backpackers, students and families travelling long distances with children.

 

The reason given for the change is a combination of train passing requirements and restricted platform access.  However, Council has been provided with a copy of a submission by one Nambucca Heads resident who was for many years responsible for train timetables in New South Wales.  In his submission he sets out how the train passing requirements could be met while still allowing for a passenger stop at the Nambucca Heads railway station.

 

It is also difficult to conceive how the provision of a bus service from Nambucca Heads to Macksville and return every day could be justified and Council is concerned that in the future it will be dropped for cost reasons with residents being forced to pay for a taxi service.

 

The rail service has operated successfully for many years with six daily services from Nambucca Heads station. 

 

Residents and Council request that you intervene and reinstate the Nambucca Heads stop.

Yours faithfully

MICHAEL COULTER

GENERAL MANAGER

MAC:ms

cc      The Hon Andrew Stoner MP

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Notice Of Motion - Change To XPT Train Timetable (SF92)

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Notice Of Motion - Change To XPT Train Timetable (SF92)

 

NAMBUCCA HEADS COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP Inc.(NHCAG)

An independent improvement group with no political affiliations.

P.O. Box 540, Nambucca Heads 2448.

 

MINUTES OF COMMUNITY MEETING HELD TO DISCUSS THE CHANGES IN RAILWAY TIMETABLE AT NAMBUCCA HEADS.

HELD AT NUMBUCCA HEADS BOWLING CLUB  26/5/2014 AT 9.30 A.M.

 

Chair:  Graham Harris                             Minute Secretary:  Dorothy Harris.

 

The Meeting opened at 9.32 a.m. There were 47 members of the Community present including 12 members of NHCAG

 

Invited guests were - Mayor Rhonda Hoban, Shadow Minister for Transport Hon Penny Sharpe MLC, Greens Candidate for Oxley, Carol Vernon and Mr Gary Budden Regional S.R.A. Manager.

 

Chair Graham Harris opened the meeting and welcomed our invited guests. 

 

Apologies – Cr Paula Flack, Cr Kim Macdonald, Hon Andrew Stoner, Member for Oxley, Paul and Rhonda Davies and Cr Anne Smyth.

 

Correspondence In;  Hon Andrew Stoner, Hon Penny Sharpe MLC Shadow Minister for Transport, Hon Dr Mahreen Faruqi, Greens MLC and Spokesperson for NSW Transport.

 

Correspondence Out:  Mr Jim Teasel, read out his letter which was sent to the Minister dated 27th March outlining the resolutions made at the meeting of  20th January, 2014, and reasons why the timetable could and should be changed.  As a  former District Crewing Manager, Sth Grafton he was confident that it was doable.  “Passenger trains have historically regularly crossed at Nambucca Heads with all services discharging and picking up passengers when out of course running occurs” he said.

 

Mr Teasal further outlined the case as to why the services should be restored saying that the 5 minute stop at Nambucca Heads could be increased by a further 12 minutes.

 

Chair called for questions from the floor.

 

Cr Bob Morrison asked if the local member for Oxley was actually doing anything for us or just acting as a post office for our letters.  The Member does not appear to be acting in our interest? He further added  “ is he giving his support”?

 

Gary Budden, Regional  Manager NSW Trainlink – Outlined the reasons why the stop has been discontinued and explained how a train was put into the siding. He believes they need 20 – 30 minutes to do this. He stated planning for the timetables started a long time ago and there were clashes with freight trains right along the track as well as passenger trains.  He explained that Qld Rail don’t want the train to clash with the early morning peak.  State Rail have to plan a path and pay for that path. He went on to speak about technical and safety requirements for drivers.

 

Karyn Mitchell – Nambucca resident and frequent train traveller to Brisbane outlined her case.  She said it’s crazy you have to go south to go north!!!  She explained about her correspondence with the Minister and various people in the SRA and how there was a failure of the Politicians’ to reply satisfactorily, if at all.  She said another thing about arriving at a deserted Roma Railway Station, Brisbane at 4 or 5 a.m. in the morning was that the toilets were closed.  You could make your way to the Transit lounge provided you could find it, find the lift, dragging your luggage then head for your connection train and hope you got there in time.  The response to that query from the bureaucrats– “go to the toilet on the train before it gets in”. 

 

Motion:  That this meeting demands that the Premier, the Deputy Premier and local Member and the Minister for Transport restore Nambucca Heads XPT services to the same level as all other North Coast destinations, prior to the introduction of the current unfair and unnecessary timetable in 2013.  This needs to be done as soon as practicable.         Carried Unanimously.

 

Discussion revealed that taxi’s were taking advantage and going the long way around to and from Macksville.  How much does it cost for the Taxi to take people to Macksville from Nambucca Heads? Reply about  $60.

 

Mayor Rhonda Hoban assured the meeting that Council was resolved to support the Community.  It was important that the Minister understood the needs of the community.  Not only were the elderly, unemployed and disadvantaged members of our community being deprived of the service so too were families, and women travelling with young children.  She felt we were being “had”.  There seemed no logic and reason for the change.  The timetable allows for the possibility of making up time.  It is a small stop with very few passengers getting on and off the train, but so too are many other stops along the way.  There was no community consultation.  Council was not notified of the changes, she questioned how did they balance the cost of using alternate transport, why was Nambucca Heads chosen?  People travel on the train for many reasons, Medical appointments, court attendances, family, shopping and social outings.  The Mayor was concerned that it was just another nail in the coffin for this low socio economic and disadvantaged community.  She urged the Community to not give up, it would be a hard slog but we must continue.

 

Carol Vernon Greens Candidate  urged those present to pressure our Member to support us, we are all his constituents no matter how we voted.  Many in the community feel that Mr Stoner has too many port folios, six at the last count and therefore did not have the time to adequately represent the electorate. Many in the electorate feel we are the forgotten people.  Greens MLC the Hon Dr Mehreen Faruqi the NSW spokesperson for transport will listen to the people and press for a case for the Nambucca Valley.  She said that the State Government tend to make decisions for city people and are not listening to the country. The Minister needs to negotiate further with Qld Rail on our behalf and to that end we need to use all our resources to convince her.  We need to continue to appeal to our local member and ask him to find time in his timetable to listen to our concerns, he needs to put forward a case on our behalf.

 

Hon Penny Sharpe MLC – Shadow Minister for Transport NSW.  Stressed the need for this vital service to continue.  There are over 2 million people in this state using the rail system to travel to destinations across the state.  Govt support in NSW generally does not stretch further than Wollongong, Newcastle and Sydney.  There has been no consultation with any communities across the state about changes to timetables.  Transport needs to be revitalised and plans need to be made for the future.  Our XPT’s which do a marvellous job are aging, have been here since Neville Wran’s day and yet the Government have made no plans for replacing them.  It takes 5-7 years to get a new train.  Timetabling is about choices and she believes that the State Government should renegotiate with Qld transport.  Country passengers are at the bottom of the heap and there should be consultation with the people.

 

John McCormack spoke briefly about his need to get to Brisbane for  appointments, he was disabled and in extreme pain and the journey he took to Macksville went through back roads and he arrived 2 mins before the train left. He travelled on that train because it was the only service where you stayed on the train, i.e. you didn’t have to change to a coach at Casino.

 

Ray Taylor former train driver explained about the engines and that he felt it was quite possible to still allow passengers to be set down and picked up at Nambucca Heads.  He expressed concern about the railway services across the state being run down.

 

Mayor Hoban passed a question through the Chair to Mr Budden.  She asked if he could say categorically that it was impossible to change the timetable, or could it be done.  He believed it was possible to readjust the timetable with negotiation.  Mayor Hoban thanked him and apologised for putting him on a spot. 

 

Jim Teasel :  Motion: That this meeting calls on the NSW Ombudsman to investigate the operations of the North Coast XPT in relation to the administrative processes that lead to poor advice in relation to the current timetable and the inability to include Nambucca Heads as a scheduled stop.  Further, that unnecessary extra expenditure on alternatives and the inability of the NSW Government to reach agreement with the Queensland Government to enable reasonable time access to inter capital city rail services also be examined.   Carried.

 

In discussion it was noted that there were other sidings between Nambucca Heads and Coffs Harbour at Raleigh and Toormina where the north and south bound services could pass each other which would only need a minor adjustment to the timetable.

 

Jim also mentioned that Mr Stoner is planning to be available at Nambucca Heads on June 27.

 He advised those present that we had a Facebook page where people could leave their comments, or read letters we had sent or received. 

 

Graham Harris thanked the invited guests and those present for attending and asked people to write letters taking note of the addresses provided on the back of the Agenda. 

 

There being no further business the meeting closed at 10.50 a.m.


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

Notice of Motion

ITEM 5.3      SF988              120614         Notice Of Motion - Future Of Macksville Hospital (SF988)

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Rhonda Hoban, Councillor         

 

Summary:

 

Approximately three hundred citizens attended a public meeting on the 25 May 2014 to share their concerns about the future of Macksville Hospital.

 

Although it is understood that there are no immediate plans to close the Hospital, it is feared that without urgent planning and funding, the diminishing condition of the hospital and the subsequent inability to attract professional staff will lead to an inevitable down grading or closure in the future.

 

At the meeting Council was asked to support the community’s concerns and invite the NSW Health Minister to inspect the Hospital.  The attached letter sent to both the Hon Jillian Skinner MP NSW Minister for Health and Mr Stewart Dowrick, Chief Executive of the MNCLHD is self-explanatory and was supported unanimously by the attendees at the public meeting.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council write to the NSW Minister for Health the Hon Jillian Skinner MP and Mr Stewart Dowrick Chief Executive of Mid North Coast Local Health District emphasizing the urgent need for the planning and funding of a replacement of Macksville Hospital; and the urgent need for support for, and the recruitment of, doctors and nurses.

 

2        That in consultation with the CEO of Macksville Hospital Council extends an invitation to the NSW Minister for Health to inspect Macksville Hospital and hear the concerns held for its future.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1

15698/2014 - Future of Macksville Hospital - Copy of letter sent by Dr Daniel Ryan

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Notice Of Motion - Future Of Macksville Hospital (SF988)

 

The Honourable Jillian Skinner, MP,

Minister for Health,

Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower,

1 Farrer Place,

Sydney, 2000.

 

Dear Minister,

 

At a public meeting on 25 May 2014 three hundred citizens of the Nambucca Valley shared their concerns for the future of their hospital, Macksville Hospital.  This letter was read out and received the unanimous support of the meeting.

 

We understand that there are no plans to close the hospital but we fear that in years to come our aging hospital together with its diminishing medical and nursing work forces will lead to the inevitable downgrading or closure of our hospital.

 

We understand that Health Infrastructure NSW confirmed last year that the structure of Macksville Hospital is too old and difficult to renovate.  A complete rebuild of the hospital is necessary.  However there are no plans for a rebuild.  Without a “shovel ready” plan to rebuild we will never attract the funding to proceed.  History shows that every other area in the Mid North Coast Local Health District takes priority over the Nambucca Valley and because the commitment to rebuild is such a major undertaking, we fear it will never happen.  We note that $80 million is committed to Kempsey Hospital and that Bellingen Hospital has just had a $7 million upgrade.

 

We are also aware that the number of doctors who work at the hospital is diminishing with no new Visiting Medical Officers appointed for many years.  We note how hard the nurses work in difficult circumstances. History shows that there has been an inadequate commitment from the Mid North Coast Local Health District to maintain and plan for the future of our hospital at Macksville.  There has also been an inadequate commitment to ensure its medical and nursing workforce into the future.

 

Our community asks that you ensure that the Mid North Coast Local Health District make their highest priorities:

 

1.   The development of a plan to rebuild Macksville Hospital and

 

2.   Increased support for and recruitment of doctors and nurses for our hospital.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Dr Daniel Ryan on behalf of

Concerned citizens of the Nambucca Valley

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager

ITEM 9.1      SF959              120614         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.

 

 

 

 

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.

Part funding for a Flood Risk Management Plan which would consider filling is included in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy program.  A grant has been applied for, if unsuccessful will not proceed until next year.

Grant funding application was successful and Council resolved at the 28 November 2013 meeting to accept the grant.  Project will commence in 2014.

 

Update as at 16 April – the consultant brief for the project is with the OEH for their approval.  The OEH are providing contributory grant funding towards the project.

 


 

JULY 2011

2

SF1031

21/7/11

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 which are presently on exhibition, will report to Committee then Council once adopted then proceed with amending the climate change policy and report to Council.

Funding has now been received for the Flood Risk Management Plans.

 

Work to commence in 2014.

 

Update as at 16 April - the project is awaiting the completion of the floodplain risk management matrix which will formally consider the acceptance or otherwise of a forecast climate change induced sea level rise of 900mm by 2100.

 

OCTOBER 2011

 

3

SF1460

17/11/11

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.

 

AGMCS

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

Shall be reviewed as part of the 2014-15 budget.

To be included in with proposed rates workshop – April 2014.

 

2014/15 rating structures set as per Special Rate Variation include with rating workshop August 2014

 

JULY 2013

 

4

RF275

25/7/13

Council request that RMS consider providing Natural Disaster Funding for the provision of a bicycle/walking/horse riding trail in lieu of reinstating the Bowraville to Bellingen Road.

 

GM

Letter sent 1 August 2013.

Follow up letter sent 8 November 2013

 

Recent (January 2014) advice received from National Parks supporting provision of restricted 4 wheel drive access for National Parks and emergency vehicles.  National Parks also looking for rehabilitation of eroding slopes.  RMS advised that Council supports the submission from National Parks.

 

 

AUGUST 2013

 

5

SF1031

14/08/13

That the tree policy be again presented after Councillors have had sufficient time to comment on the amendments presented by Councillors and in view of the previous motion of Council, namely “Tree Removal” (SF629) containing the 6D principles.

 

 

AGMES

Report in September 2013.

Deferred to October 2013.

At the request of Cr Morrison this item has been deferred to the first meeting in November 2013.

Cr Morrison has provided information to the Manager Civil Works who will draft a report to the December Council meeting.

Staff on leave during December – deferred until February 2014.

Deferred until April – Staff dealing with landslips.

Deferred until May 2014

Deferred until June 2014

 

 


 

NOVEMBER 2013

6

SF1817

13/11/13

RMS be requested to place speed cameras at the northern approach/exit of the Macksville Bridge and a red light camera at Partridge/Cooper Street intersection or Boundary Street/Highway intersection.  Also RMS be requested to make the left lane at the Cooper/Partridge Street lights southbound a left turning lane only.

 

AGMES

Letter sent to RMS 15 November 2013.

 

Acknowledgement letter received from RMS advising the matter has been referred for investigation, (copy of RMS letter provide to Councillors on 17/12/13.)

Raised at the Traffic Committee on 4/2/14.  RMS advised that the matter is being investigated.

 

Letter sent to RMS 6 June seeking update on progress.

7

SF600

13/11/13

That a further report come to Council on the estimated cost of the proposed subdivision of land adjoining the Macksville Sewerage Treatment Plant and the recommended terms of any agreement with Mr Gordon.

 

GM

Awaiting lodgement of EIS.

8

SF 825

13/11/13

There be an annual report on the disposal of Council owned surplus materials and small equipment; the items disposed of; how they were disposed of; and the prices received.

 

AGMES

Report to July 2014 Council meeting.

9

SF642

28/11/13

That Council review both the Pesticides Use Notification Policy and Noxious Weed Policy.

AGMES

Report to April 2014 meeting and will include the State change to Noxious Weeds Act.

 

Deferred until September – pending outcome of the Noxious weeds review following the Minister of Primary Industries request that the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) conduct a review into the effectiveness and efficiency of weed management in New South Wales.

DECEMBER 2013

10

SF1830

11/12/13

Council consider options for upgrading its Pound when it considers its draft budget

 

GM

Report February/March 2014

Deferred to April 2014

Proposed upgrade to be considered in Draft Budget for 2014/15.

.

11

SF1830

11/12/13

That grants be sought to assist with the Pound upgrade costs.

 

GM

Report February/March 2014

DLG have announced a grant scheme arising out of the Companion Animals Taskforce.  Will need to await the formal release of the funding guidelines and criteria.

Grant officer has made enquiries about Grant Scheme.

 

12

SF1915

11/12/13

Council note that before a determination as to whether the pool inspection program be shortened, a compilation of the pools is required through investigation of aerial photographs and the current pool register and that a further report be provided to Council once staff have completed this investigation.

 

GM

MDE

April 2014

 

Deferred until May 2014.

Inspections have been accelerated.

Report deferred to June.

13

SF1842

11/12/13

That if Council and IPART support a rate increase above rate pegging, Council provide a quarterly report either through a media release or its rates newsletter to confirm to ratepayers that the additional funds are being spent on roads and bridges as indicated in our community consultation.

 

GM

The first quarterly report would be the rates newsletter to be distributed with the 2014/2015 rates notice.

14

SF6515

11/12/13

(Macksville Industrial Estate Channel Remediation Works) That Council seek legal advice as to the ownership of the lot containing the drainage channel in the event that Eureka 2 Project 6 Pty Ltd becoming insolvent and the responsibility of liability to rectify the channel.  That following legal advice, Council receive another report to determine whether Council should issue a Notice of Intent to issue an order for the remediation of the drainage channel which shall include the terms of the proposed order to be issued to Eureka 2 Project 6 Pty Ltd a) to provide a firm timeline for the remediation of the blocked & unstable drainage channel b) carry out initial works to improve the integrity & capacity of the existing blocked drain c) carry our works that will provide for a permanent solution to unstable drainage walls and floor to the satisfaction of Council.

 

AGMES

Report in February 2014

 

Has not been actioned as yet - Council advised that the company has already been placed into liquidation. Brief being redrafted for the legal advice and report to April Council meeting.

 

Brief forwarded for legal advice, report deferred until May pending receipt of the legal advice.

 

Solicitor has requested additional information from Council.  Report deferred pending legal advice.

 

JANUARY 2014

15

SF1933

16/01/14

DA 2013/170 (Boundary adjustment, shed, depot at Valla) be called in for determination by Council and there be a site inspection.

 

GM

Additional information in relation to the proposed crushing and processing of material is to be submitted by a planning consultant.  At this stage it is unknown when the application will be referred to Council for determination.

 

Additional information has been submitted and is currently being assessed.

 


 

16

SF1855

16/01/14

Council resolve to progress to detail plans for River Street – Macksville Streetscape Improvement

 

GM

The consultant is to be engaged in February 2014 to prepare the plans.  The matter was presented to the Local Traffic Committee on 5 February 2014.

Strategic Planner and Engineers to meet on site with consultants on 20 May to review engineering details.  The aim is to have the draft detailed concept plans completed by early June 2014.

Concepts reported to LATC meeting held on 3 June 2014

 

17

SF1933

30/01/14

Council receive a report on possible ways to remedy time wasting associated with the approval of minor donations.

 

GM

Advice sought from DLG.

Report March 2014

Advice from DLG obtained.  Report in June 2014.

FEBRUARY 2014

18

SF1933

13/02/14

Council consider a budget allocation of $10,000 for the purpose of recognising and/or supporting existing businesses within the Nambucca Valley ….

 

GM

Report May 2014

 

To be discussed at the Budget Meeting 22 May 2014.

19

SF734

13/02/14

Council defer the request from the Leckie’s to acquire a small section of Gordon Park and request representatives of Crown Lands come to Council to explain the proposal and its implications.

 

GM

Letter to Crown Lands’ representatives requesting their attendance at a Council meeting sent on 11/02/14.  Email acknowledgement received the same day.

Follow-up letter sent week ending 18 April 2014.

 

Second follow up letter sent 4 June 2014.

 

20

SF1755

13/02/14

Council receive a brief report from the AGMCS indicating the progress in his section, strengths and weaknesses and future direction.

 

AGMCS

Report to March 2014.

Deferred to April 2014.

Deferred to May 2014.

Financial Briefing at the Budget Meeting on 22 May 2014.

Asset Management briefing to meeting 12 June

Invitations emailed to all Councillors 27/5 -

papers to be distributed prior to the meeting

 

 

21

SF844

27/02/14

That Council prepare a Dam Filling Options report as required by the Office of Water and undertake consultation with Fisheries, EPA and downstream landholders.

 

AGMES

Report July 2014

MARCH 2014

22

SF125

SF1933

27/3/14

Report on staff training outlining what staff training requirements are, compared to training offered; perceived benefit/value/effectiveness of training

 

GM

MHR

Report in May 2014

Deferred to June 2014

23

SF841

SF1933

27/3/14

Council make further representations re the option of bridging the NV floodplain in preference to a filled embankment and culverts.

Council make representations to the Minister re concerns regarding impact of construction phase – cut and fill and length of construction period and long term maint-enance costs and impact of addition flooding issue.

 

AGMES

Letter sent 24 April 2014 (TRIM 9433/2014)

Letter drafted 3 April 2014

 

24

SF1431

27/3/14

Council require that within 8 weeks Groundwork Plus provide Council and the EPA with a complete and current QEMP

 

GM

Letter sent 8 April 2014

Revised and updated QEMP submitted 22 May 2014

25

SF1541

27/3/14

Commercially zoned land, Macksville – Council receives a further report for endorsement of a planning proposal once the matter has been further investigated.

 

GM

Report June 2014

26

SF732

27/3/14

Council receive a report on what it needs to make an application for funding under the NSW Gov Sust Dredging Strategy to develop a strategy and the costs involved.

 

GM

Report June 2014

APRIL 2014

27

PRF54

10/4/14

Council allow dogs on leads at the Gumma Reserve up until November 2014 and review the situation prior to the peak season.

 

GM

Report December 2014

28

PRF54

10/4/14

Council undertake an inspection of the Gumma Reserve after the grant funds for its upgrade have been expended.

 

GM

To be scheduled – second half of 2014

MAY 2014

29

SF430

15/5/14

Petition to support Flying Fox  dispersing in urban areas

GM

Petition drawn up

Letters sent to Member for Clarence and Mr Hartsuyker MP sent

Advertisement for Guardian news

 

30

SF1496

15/5/14

Commercial Fishing –

Andrew Goulston and Darren Reynolds from Fisheries be invited to address Council on state of recreational fishing

 

GM

Letters sent 6 June 2014.


 

31

SF851

29/5/14

Council make representations to the Member for Cowper, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens calling for the Government to restore FAGs indexation.

 

GM

Letters sent w/e 6/6/2014.

32

SF1948

29/5/214

Council make a submission to the RMS in support of the revised policy for the location of highway service centres, and particularly the proposed service centre at the NH’s interchange.

 

GM

Letter sent w/e 6/6/2014

33

SF688

29/5/14

That following completion of the exhibition of the draft operational plan/delivery program that Council consider the 2014/15 Environmental Levy Budget comprising the projects shown in the table headed “Proposed 2014/15 Environmental Levy Budget”.

 

GM

Report to Council on 26 June 2014.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2      SF669              120614         Consultation on the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The NSW Government has undertaken a management review of Crown Lands which has led to the release of the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper for public comment.

 

The White Paper sets out recommendations to:

 

·              Create simpler legislation to support Crown land management in the 21st century

·              Help grow the NSW economy through the more effective management of Crown land

·              Continue the key objective of managing Crown land for the benefit of the people of NSW

·              Reduce red tape for the community and stakeholders

·              Streamline and speed up administration

·              Cement the role of local communities in the management of Crown land.

 

A snapshot of the proposals in the White Paper is:

 

·              NSW Government is to retain land that is required for the public of NSW

·              Land with predominantly local values to be owned or managed by councils

·              New, consolidated Crown lands legislation

·              Review of TSRs to determine their best future management

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a submission to the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper suggesting an alternative model to that proposed being a collaborative endeavour by stakeholders to identify that land which has economic value and then to realise that value.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose whether or not it wishes to make a submission.  If it makes a submission there is almost an infinite number of policy options ranging from no change to very significant change.  On this spectrum the White Paper is assessed to represent a fairly conservative and incremental change.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The NSW Government has released the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper for public comment following the first major review of Crown lands legislation in more than 25 years.  The opportunity for public comment closes on 20 June 2014.  A copy of the letter from Crown Lands concerning consultation on the White Paper is attached. 

 

The White Paper arose from a Crown Lands Management Review undertaken by prominent businessman, Mr Michael Carapiet in 2012.  Carapiet stated that his review should be a pathway to NSW Crown Land being more effectively managed in the structure of a public trading enterprise.  He believes such an approach to be necessary and that a significant part of the Crown estate can be run more effectively, whilst not compromising the NSW Government’s social, community and environmental objectives.  He stated that the current system has too much duplication in legislation and operations, delays in the timely implementation of good public policy, dated information management systems, unnecessary red tape, and the cooperation between Crown Lands Division and other NSW Government departments could be noticeably improved.  Council will no doubt identify with many of these comments.

 

Mr Carapiet also stated that:

 

“From the Committee’s perspective, it is most important that the NSW Government consolidates legislation and facilitates opportunities for local councils to better and more easily manage lands that are used primarily by local communities.”

 

The NSW Government has now produced a White Paper for public comment which incorporates 35 of the 36 recommendations made by Mr Carapiet’s committee.

 

By way of overview, Crow Land is not freehold title, National Park or State Forests.  It comprises about half of NSW with the majority contained in land leases in the western half of the State.  Crown land is used for most purposes, including 270 caravan parks across the State.  There are 580,000 individual parcels of Crown Land.

 

A snapshot of the proposals in the White Paper is:

 

·              NSW Government is to retain land that is required for the public of NSW

·              Land with predominantly local values to be owned or managed by councils

·              New, consolidated Crown lands legislation

·              Review of TSRs to determine their best future management

 

However the complexity of defining land required for the public of NSW –v- land with predominantly local values has resulted in a proposed pilot phase whereby four (4) local government areas will be used to refine, develop and test “local land” criteria and develop a process for negotiating between state and local governments in relation to land transfers.

 

A Working Group is to develop the criteria however a draft list of criteria presented at a Workshop at Coffs Harbour on 30 May 2014 provided that the following land be classified as “State” land:

 

·              Land subject to leasehold tenure that is not reserved, except where the tenure is held by councils

·           Land required for critical infrastructure (eg harbours, coastal breakwalls, foreshore protection, telecommunication towers and infrastructure expansion)

·           Land that is part of a system or network (eg environmental corridors, beaches, rivers, major walking trails)

·           Iconic land, including major sporting venues (whether identified through the NSW heritage list, the NSW Stadia Strategy, or by some other method)

·              Land within a certain distance of beaches, coasts, estuaries

·           Land within a certain distance of the central business zone of cities or towns with populations of more than (for example) 10,000 residents

·              Land known to have serious contamination or other significant liability

 

A stocktake of State land is to be run in parallel to the Pilot program.  The stocktake is to refine, develop and test “State land” criteria to identify Crown land assets the State should retain ownership of on public policy and/or market failure grounds.

 

No one is likely to disagree with the principle that Crown land be managed by the most appropriate level of government.  However with 580,000 individual parcels of Crown land; with 11 different State Departments and agencies with an interest in Crown Land as well as 152 local government authorities; and not to mention other stake holders such as Local Aboriginal Land Councils; it will be a case of many devils lurking in the detail.

 

The draft criteria which are yet to be tested by the pilot program suggest there will be other considerations such as property value introduced into the mix.  The criterion, “land with a certain distance of the central business zone of cities or towns with populations of more than (for example) 10,000 residents”, would prima facie seem to be a fairly crude attempt to capture land value.

 

The complexity of the task and the number of stakeholders is such that it is queried whether the approach being taken by the White Paper and the proposed pilot program and stocktake is the right one.  If the quoted common vision, “that better management of the Crown estate is imperative for the economic good of NSW”, then a more collaborative approach in relation to land with economic value may produce more public good within a shorter time frame.

 

The reality of the Crown estate is that much of the land is held for purposes which will not provide an economic return or where the return is constrained because of the means and nature of the users eg, clubs, not for profits, farmers in the Western Lands Division etc.  As a general principle it should be expected that land with the potential for an economic return would have largely left the Crown estate to be freehold land.  This means there will always be a cost to managing the Crown estate and lengthy, contested deliberation as to whether this is undertaken by the State or local government, neither of which have sufficient funds to undertake the task, will not increase the economic good for NSW.

 

An alternative model to that proposed would be a collaborative endeavour by stakeholders to identify that land which has economic value and then to realise that value.  As a collaborative endeavour, the model would include an arrangement to share the realised value.  The stocktake and other legislative change could continue but it would be secondary in focus to realising the economic value.  Again a pilot program could be undertaken to develop the collaborative model before rolling it out to all LGA’s across the State.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Manager Business Development.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

At this stage there are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

At this stage there are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

At this stage there are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

At this stage there are no risks.

 

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

 

The General Manager and Manager Business Development attended a seminar in Coffs Harbour on the provisions of the White paper.

 

Attachments:

1

9963/2014 - Crown Lands

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Consultation on the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper

 




Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      DA2013/183      120614         Proposed Link Road Extension of Marshall Way - Nambucca Gardens Estate

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

This report has been prepared for Council by Mr Peter Chapman, a Director of All About Planning, a town planning consultancy based in Port Macquarie.  Council staff have provided assistance with the drafting of the consent conditions and by providing some history.  Council had previously engaged Mr Chapman to assess the development application DA 2012/011, being the related 346 lot subdivision located between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive.  As Mr Chapman has been undertaking the assessment of the subdivision, it was logical that his engagement be continued to this related development application.  Also a third party assessment is preferred given the land is owned by Council and both applications are contentious.

 

This application is for the construction of part of a new link road through Bellwood to facilitate the eventual connection of Marshall Way in the south and Alexandra Drive in the north.  The southern section of the proposed road falls within the confines of an existing Council owned lot (Lot 75 DP 832082) and is the subject of this DA.

 

The General Manager has signed an Owner’s Consent in respect of the DA. 

 

The remaining northern section of the link road extends through privately owned property (Lot 2 in DP 1119830) and is not included in the subject DA.  Rather this northern section is included in current DA No. 2012/011 for a 346 lot subdivision and associated works.  The Joint Regional Planning Panel is the consent authority for this other DA, but Council is the consent authority for the subject DA as it is not called up by Schedule 4A Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (and the State and Regional Development SEPP).

 

The assessment of DA 2012/011 on the adjoining property has found that the proposed 346 lot subdivision lacked planning merit without a road link connecting the new subdivision to the south to Marshall Way.  In addition the NSW Rural Fire Service who is an integrated agency for the DA refused to grant their general terms of approval (which are required for the DA to be supported) without a link road.  In addition BUSWAYS advised that it would not provide public bus services to the proposed subdivision without a link road being provided.

 

As a consequence of the above, the applicants for DA 2012/011 were asked to integrate the provision of the full length of the link road into their subdivision DA to provide adequate certainty of it proceeding but they were not willing to do so.  After a site inspection and briefing with the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) on DA 2012/011, the applicants agreed to lodge a separate DA for the southern Council owned section of the road (the subject DA) which would be assessed and determined by Council.  If the subject part link road DA is approved then a report on the 346 lot subdivision DA (No. 2012/011) will be prepared to the JRPP with a condition applied (if it is recommended for approval) requiring the construction of the northern and southern section of the link road as per (in this scenario) the ‘approved’ subject DA.

 

Of relevance to DA 2012/011 and (more recently) the subject DA, Council has considered reports on matters associated with the developments.  Of particular relevance to the proposed Link Road construction are the following:

 

General Purpose Committee Meeting 15 July 2009

 

At its July 2009 meeting Council considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan.  This included notification of the draft Contributions Plan to residents, an assessment of the submissions received which particularly focussed on the Link Road proposal, a discussion of detailed Council projections for expected traffic growth over 20 years, a consideration of social and economic considerations and impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Diamond Tree site).

 

At Council’s meeting on 16 July 2009 which considered the recommendations of the General Purpose Committee, it was resolved as follows:

 

That the matter of the Section 94 Plan be deferred to allow the review of the draft Contributions Plan works schedule to provide for an option which excludes the link road.

 

That Council write to the Minister for Planning drawing her attention to the strong community and Aboriginal cultural objections to the proposed link road.

 

That Council staff seek advice from its Section 94 Coordinator and if necessary legal advice regarding the possibility of obtaining a contribution from subdivision in the Palmwoods Estate to be applied to the Bellwood Road intersection and other upgrading of Bellwood Road.

 

The matter came back to Council’s meeting on 20 August 2009

 

Council Meeting 20 August 2009

 

It was reported to this meeting that the proposed Link Road is critical to the road network modelling upon which the contribution plan is based.  The view expressed was that assuming development proceeds in accordance with the land zonings, an additional population of about 900 people will require the link road to provide reasonable access to basic neighbourhood facilities.  Otherwise the Palmwoods residents would be forced to drive an additional 4 kilometres.  It was resolved:

 

That Council adopt the draft Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan 2009 and that it be reviewed within 12 months.

 

Council Meeting 19 January 2012

 

It was reported that since the plan was adopted in 2009 there had been no change in circumstances to warrant any review of the plan’s provisions.  It was suggested that the next review of the plan be undertaken following a definite decision on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway between Warrell Creek and Nambucca Heads.  It was noted that this would have a significant impact on traffic volumes at intersections and may warrant a review of the works schedule as over $3m in work relates to intersection improvements and associated work on or adjacent to the Pacific Highway.  Specifically the report nominated the following projects in the Contribution Plan being:

 

1.       Intersection upgrade at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Bellwood Road - $1.24m (2009)

2.       Roundabout at the intersection of Bellwood Road and Mumbler Street - $1.14m (2009)

3.       Intersection upgrade at intersection of Pacific Highway and Riverside Drive - $1.17m (2009)

4.       Construction of the Link Road segment - $774,000 (2009)

5.       Bellwood Road upgrade between Mumbler Street and Marshall Way - $130,700 (2009)

6.       Roundabout at intersection of Bellwood Road and Marshall Way - $407,000 (2009)

7.       Bellwood Road upgrade between Mumbler Street and Pacific Highway - $865,000 (2009)

 

The Council resolved that the information be received.

 

Council Meeting 12 December 2012

 

It was resolved as follows:

 

1        That Council note this report on the assessment progress for DA 2012/011

 

2        That Council consider A Voluntary Planning Agreement being prepared and submitted by Nambucca Gardens Estate for the construction of the link road.

 

3        That in the event that the Voluntary Planning Agreement is agreed to between the parties the construction of the link road proceed pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 which identifies road infrastructure as a development permitted without consent.  Clause 94 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be completed addressing the Threatened Species Conservation Act and the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Act.

 

4        That in the event that DA 2012/011 is approved by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel and the construction of the “link” road is undertaken pursuant to a Voluntary Planning Agreement, Council authorise the proponent and their approved contractors to enter upon the land to construct the road and ancillary works as required and in accordance with the construction certificate issued for the road and the terms of the Voluntary Planning Agreement.

 

5        That in the event that DA 2012/011 progresses to a recommendation for approval by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel, a condition be applied regarding the acceptance of dedication of all reserve areas as follows:

 

Prior to the release of a construction certificate for the first stage of subdivision works, a detailed and site specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is to be endorsed by Council. The EMP is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person/consultant in consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage for the ongoing management, maintenance, weed management, bushfire management and rehabilitation of the entire reserve areas proposed to be dedicated to Council. Further, that the proponent is to implement the EMP from commencement of subdivision works up to the dedication of the reserve areas. Dedication shall occur upon registration of the final subdivision stage of the development. Further, prior to the release of the subdivision certificate for the final stage of development, a monetary contribution to the ongoing management of the reserve areas shall be made to Council based on the costs to undertake the following 5 years management regime (5 years from dedication) outlined in the Environmental Management Plan.

 

6        That all submissions be passed on to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for their consideration.

 

This resolution required that Council be responsible and bear the costs for preparing a Review of Environmental Factors under Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  Subsequently this was not accepted by the General Manager and instead the applicant agreed to accept both the responsibility for and costs of investigation by lodging a development application for the Link Road under Part IV of the Act.  Refer to report to and resolution of Council’s meeting on 13 November 2013.

 

Council Meeting 28 February 2013

 

It was resolved as follows:

 

1        That Council endorse for exhibition, the Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement presented by Nambucca Gardens Estate for the construction of the Link Road between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive at Bellwood associated with DA 2012/011 subject to the typographical corrections suggested inclusion of a clause which establishes the process for the determination of construction costs/value for the Link Road and associated costs, to ensure that the credits for contributions relating to Roadworks are clearly identified up front and in the Agreement.

 

2        That the exhibition of the Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement not be commenced until the remaining additional information has been provided and exhibited at the same time, including the Environmental Impact Assessment as required by SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

Again, the investigation of the Link Road has proceeded via a development application rather than a Review of Environmental Factors under Part V of the Act.

 

Council Meeting 16 October 2013

 

The General Manager reported that a substantial commitment of resources would be required by Council to complete the Review of Environmental Factors for the Part V assessment and that Council would be open to risk with the potential for a legal challenge.  It was queried why Council should accept such risk.

 

It was resolved:

 

That the information concerning the status of DA2012/011 and the briefing of the Joint Regional Planning Panel on Friday 18 October 2013 be received and that a further report come to Council on the outcome of the Panel’s briefing.’

 

and

 

That Council make a submission to the JRPP whereby if the Link Road is required by the development that all costs concerning the Road be paid for by the developer.

 

Council Meeting 13 November 2011

 

The General Manager reported that in relation to the assessment of the Link Road, there are two options being Council prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) under Part V of the Act or the applicant submit a development application with Council’s authority as owner under Part IV of the Act.  To avoid risk and expense to Council the recommended preferred action was for the applicant to prepare a development application under Part IV of the Act.  Accordingly, Council resolved as follows:

 

That Council provide its consent as owner for the lodgement of a development application for the construction of the Link Road on Council’s land and in the event the application is approved, Council authorise the proponent and their contractors to submit for approval detailed design plans and then to enter upon the land to construct the road and ancillary works as required.

 

This brings us to the current point.

 

All matters are considered to have been properly assessed.

 

A copy of the plans for the proposal have been circularised to Councillors.

 

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

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council approve Development Application DA2013/183 subject to the conditions of consent attached to the report.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Approve the application subject to additional or alternative conditions

 

2        Refuse the application

 

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

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Under Section 91, EPA Act 1979 the subject development is classified as ‘Integrated Development’ due to the need to obtain an approval under the Water Management Act 2000 for works on ‘water front land’. An integrated development referral to the NSW Office of Water has been completed and the response received has been discussed under Section (d) Submissions, later in this report.

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010

 

The Council owned road corridor is partly zoned E3 Environmental Management and RE1 Public Recreation. The proposed road is permissible with consent in each Zoning.

 

Clause 5.5   Development within the coastal zone

The subject land is located within the coastal zone and as such the provisions of this clause need to be addressed in the application. The provisions of this clause and those of SEPP 71 and the principles of the NSW Coastal Policy are closely related and as such these matters will be addressed in this section of the report.

 

Principles and objectives of Clause 5.5 specifically relevant to the proposal are listed below:

 

(a) to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations through promoting the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

 

(b) to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy, and in particular to:

(i) protect, enhance, maintain and restore the coastal environment, its associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity and its water quality, and

(ii) protect and preserve the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast, and

(iv) recognise and accommodate coastal processes and climate change, and

(v) protect amenity and scenic quality, and

(ix) ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and

(x) ensure that decisions in relation to new development consider the broader and cumulative impacts on the catchment, and

 

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered:

 

(b) the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account:

(i) the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii) the location, and

(iii) the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building or work involved, and

 

(c) the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal foreshore including:

(i) any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and

(ii) any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore, and

 

 

(d) how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

 

(e) how biodiversity and ecosystems, including:

(i) native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and

(iii) water quality of coastal waterbodies, and

(iv) native fauna and native flora, and their habitats, can be conserved, and

 

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(d) the proposed development will not:

(i) be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or

(ii) have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or

(iii) increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land.

 

Planning Comment:

The above matters have been addressed within the overall assessment of the application as contained in this report.  In particular this assessment has found that the proposal is suitable given its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on natural scenic quality.  The proposal will not have an impact on the amenity of the coastal foreshore through any significant overshadowing or loss of views from a public place.  The development will largely be screened by the existing adjoining vegetation (other than from Farrington Fields), however it is not located in a visually prominent area and will not detrimentally affect the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast. In addition the proposal will not affect the ecological values, biodiversity and ecosystems of the area as assessed in this report and outlined in the submitted ecological report.

 

The principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) are referred to in clause 5.5 of the NLEP 2010 (as well as the Local Government Act). Section 89 of the Local Government Act indicates that Council must take into consideration the principles of ESD. ESD incorporates the precautionary principle which indicates lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. It also includes inter-generational equity—namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

 

This assessment report demonstrates that the proposal will comply with ESD principles.

 

Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Clause 5.9 (Preservation of trees or vegetation) of the Nambucca LEP seeks to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.  Under subclause (3) a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by a development consent or a permit granted by the Council.  The subject DA (if approved) would constitute the required development consent.  However (also relevant to the subject DA) subclause 8(d) states that clause 5.9 does not apply to action required or authorised to be done by or under the Roads Act 1993.

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the Nambucca LEP seeks to conserve the environmental heritage of Nambucca, conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, conserve archaeological sites, and conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

 

Clause 5.10 requires development consent for the demolition or moving of a heritage item, an Aboriginal object or a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area.   Consent is also required for disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed and disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

 

The existing road alignment for the proposed works is not known to include any heritage item, Aboriginal object, archaeological site or relic either listed in the Nambucca LEP or known to the local community.  The proposal within the existing road alignment also will not involve disturbing or excavating any known Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

 

In view of the above. the subject DA has not been accompanied by a separate Heritage Impact Report or Archaeological assessment.  It is relevant to note however that the proposed Link Road extension has been included in Archaeological reports and consultation with Aboriginal community stakeholders on the associated DA No. 2012/011 for a 346 lot subdivision and associated works in Alexandra Drive- Lot 2 DP 1119830, as discussed in the Executive Summary of this report.

 

The consultation with the Local Aboriginal community undertaken for the proposed subdivision of Lot 2 (and the Link Road) was undertaken by the archaeological consultant acting on behalf of the developers in a number of phases since 2002 to accommodate the evolving requirements for such consultation.  This has included a field survey with an Aboriginal Elder and Sites Officer for the Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and the receipt of formal written advice from the LALC in 2002.

 

In 2009 the consultant wrote to Aboriginal Community stakeholders in the area regarding proposals to preserve the scarred tree location.  Later in 2009 further advice from the Nambucca LALC was received and in response to new Government Guidelines at the time, two meetings with the LALC were arranged. 

 

In 2012 and in response to another set of Government consultation guidelines, an updated list of local Aboriginal Community Stakeholders was obtained and newspaper advertisements were placed requesting registrations of interest in the project.  Each of these was written to, provided with a copy of the consultants previous reports on the site to date, with a request for written comments – no responses were received. 

 

In view of the above the developer’s archaeological consultant later in 2012 contacted the Nambucca Heads LALC to ask for a meeting to be arranged with Community Elders.  A meeting was held 13th June 2012 which agreed that a site meeting and walkover was required and this was organised for 20th June 2012.  The consultant’s report advises that the proximity of the Link Road construction and the proposed subdivision to the Diamond Tree site/ reserve were the primary concerns of the Aboriginal Community.

 

Clause 5.10(8) of the Nambucca LEP 2010 includes the following requirements relevant to this discussion:

 

(8) Aboriginal places of heritage significance
The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a)  consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b)  notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

 

Council’s notification of the subject DA in February 2014 included the Nambucca LALC and other registered Aboriginal stakeholders in the area. The submitted consultant archaeological reports and consultation (discussed above), and the assessment of the subject DA in this report, collectively constitute and satisfy the above LEP provisions.

 

In response to Council’s notification of the subject DA the Nambucca LALC made a submission to Council.  No individual submissions were made by community members identifying themselves as part of the local Aboriginal Community.  The following is a summary of the submission made by the Nambucca LALC:

 

1.  The subject site is within an area and landscape of significant cultural value and the Aboriginal Community do not want to see the area developed any further.  The whole landscape of the area is significant due to the ceremonial activities that took place for up to 40,000 years. These values are not bounded by European traditional boundaries eg fences or roads but ‘by creeks, rivers and natural landscapes’.

 

2.  The above cultural values centre around The Diamond Tree being located outside of the subject site for the link road but approximately 120m to the north west.  ‘The Diamond Tree is the focal point of cultural belief on the entire Gumbaynggirr Nation’.     The proposed link road and subdivision of Lot 2 DP 1119830 is too close to the Diamond Tree and will significantly affect these cultural values.

 

3.  The lack of registered sites on the AHIMS Register within the subject road alignment does not reduce this cultural significance of the area.

 

4.  The Local Aboriginal Community have been objecting to the increasing urban development in the area since the original Marshall Way area was first proposed.

 

5.  The proposed landscape screening between the proposed road and the Diamond Tree site does not satisfy the Aboriginal people.

 

6.  The above is not just an issue for the local Aboriginal community ‘but is significant to the whole Nation’.  If the subject link road is approved then the LALC’s from the wider region will be asked to consider joining a court action against the proposal.

 

7.  In a previous submission to Council the Nambucca LALC outline that in 1979 a 0.4ha area for a Diamond Tree buffer or reserve was acquired and dedicated by NPWS with the intention that it would be located within a surrounding and continuing forest context that was not developed.  At that time the Aboriginal Community were apparently calling for a 400m buffer to be provided assuming that the surrounding land to the south west remained forested.  Since then most of this surrounding land has been purchased by developers and the forests cleared leaving the Diamond Tree inadequately protected.

 

Comment: The LALC has advised that the Diamond Tree is a significant Secret Men’s Business ceremonial site and in traditional aboriginal culture, Aboriginal women and children are not permitted to be in the area within the distance that a Bull Roarer can be heard if sounded from the Diamond Tree site. Furthermore it is understood that there is an Aboriginal belief that Aboriginal people who live in proximity to the tree will get sick. It is clear from the advice of the LALC that the local aboriginal elders consider that the Bull Roarer will be heard from the site of the proposed part Link Road and at least part of the proposed new Bellwood subdivision, as is the case currently with the Farringdon Playing Fields.  It is further noted that due to proximity to the Diamond Tree, the local aboriginal community does not currently use the Farringdon Playing Fields as they are an area deemed to be within earshot of a Bull Roarer if sounded from the Diamond Tree.

 

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) maintain a data base ‘Atlas’ of Declared NSW Aboriginal Places and a separate Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) of recorded sites and other Aboriginal reports.  The Diamond Tree is a listed site in the AHIMS database but is not listed as a declared place in the Atlas.

 

In April 2011, OEH produced a document titled: “Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW”.  This guideline states in respect of assessing harm to Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places that it is important to quantify both direct and indirect harm. 

 

In respect of this particular DA, the key Aboriginal heritage issue is therefore the potential impact of the Link road on the significance of the Diamond Tree and this Tree’s intrinsic and central cultural link to the surrounding landscape and the Gumbaynggirr Nation. It is noted that the Aboriginal community’s strong objection to any urban development in the area has remained largely unchanged since those same objections were raised, discussed and assessed in the past regarding the now approved and constructed urban development in Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive.

 

Whilst it will be open to the local Aboriginal community to not use the Link Road if it was constructed, a key question is whether such an outcome would be reasonable and whether approval of the Link Road would result in direct or indirect harm to the cultural value of the Diamond Tree ceremonial site.

 

Consideration of impacts on items of Aboriginal heritage are not dissimilar to assessments of items of European heritage. It is an accepted principle that development in the vicinity of an item of heritage can present a threat to the significance of that item.  In the case of the Diamond Tree, the Aboriginal Community has confirmed that the Diamond Tree is of paramount significance to the Gumbaynggirr Nation Further, the advice of the local Aboriginal elders is that Aboriginal women and children would be able to hear a Bull Roarer from the subject part Link Rd site.

 

Formal advice from NSW OEH is not required in respect of the subject DA however it is noted that the NSW OEH office provided comment in September 2013 on the associated Bellwood subdivision DA 2012/011.  At that time no specific advice in respect of the acceptability or other of impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage was provided, nor was any specific detail provided in respect of direct or indirect impacts. The OEH submission focussed on the inadequacy of the proponent’s then Heritage Assessment and the significance of the Diamond Tree and surrounding area to the Gumbaynggirr Nation.

 

The Aboriginal Heritage Assessment prepared by John Appleton of Archaeological Surveys and Reports (most recently updated June 2012) considering the Bellwood Subdivision states that:

 

“As a consequence of the field investigation in respect of the proposed subdivision of Lot 2 and comprehensive consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and male elders of the Nambucca district Aboriginal community, there are no grounds of an Aboriginal cultural nature that present a constraint to the proposed subdivision in principle. Further it is recommended that the proponent should consider the preferred option of the Aboriginal stakeholders in future plans for the subdivision of Lot 2, being no subdivision around the slopes of the Diamond Tree and no Link Road.”

 

John Appleton further stated that: “The Aboriginal or cultural significance of Aboriginal relics and sites can only be assessed by the Aboriginal community and in particular the elders.”

 

Whilst the proposed part Link Road construction will increase vehicular and pedestrian access in the area, use of the road will be optional for Aboriginal people who are keen to preserve cultural heritage.  As such, the new road will not appreciably worsen the existing impact of urban development in Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive on the cultural heritage value of the Diamond Tree. 

 

Furthermore, whilst the part Link Road will involve some low lying tree clearing in the area, this clearing will not be visible from the Diamond Tree site due to the extent of existing tree cover around the Diamond Tree.

 

Traffic noise will increase if the Link Road is completed and a vehicle and pedestrian connection through Bellwood is established.  This additional noise however is not considered likely to significantly reduce the acoustic amenity of the Diamond Tree site, given the Tree’s existing setback from the proposed Link Road. No acoustic mitigation appears possible or necessary.

 

It is therefore considered that no direct harm to the Diamond Tree will result from the proposed construction and future use of the subject part of the Link Road.  No submission has been received to date that states the Diamond Tree would no longer be able to be used for male initiation ceremonies if the Link Road is proceeded with (if it is still being used to date). Whilst the Aboriginal community clearly considers the surrounding landscape setting of the Diamond Tree would be further diminished by the Link Road, no direct impact on the actual Diamond Tree site will result.  Further, in respect of the Link Road increasing vehicular and pedestrian access in proximity of the significant site, it is noted that it is open to the Aboriginal community to continue their current practice of avoiding the subject area.

 

Lastly, it is relevant to consider what weighting should be placed on one key assessment issue over another and what weighting is relevant in respect of intergenerational equity.  In the case of the subject part Link Road, there is clearly a tension between Aboriginal Heritage values and the need for the proposed new residential community on Lot 2 and the other existing Alexandra Drive residents to have appropriate and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to local shops and services.

 

In light of the above assessment and circumstances, it is considered that the subject proposal’s potential indirect impacts on the Diamond Tree Aboriginal heritage site are acceptable.

 

Whilst the submitted concerns of the Aboriginal Community are acknowledged and accepted, it is also noted that it is outside the legislative mandate of the subject DA to rectify past (actual or perceived) mistakes and decisions regarding the provision and appropriate sizing of a buffer to the Diamond Tree and what is now approved and constructed residential development. 

 

Further, the now private ownership of the land surrounding the existing dedicated Diamond Tree buffer is not something that Council or this DA assessment can change. The diamond tree buffer could now only be expanded if the relevant private landowners voluntarily donated some of their land for purposes of expanding the buffer or if the private land was acquired. No offer of additional land to enhance the existing buffer has been made to date and it is noted that an expansion of the buffer of itself would not change the fact that a Bull Roarer can be heard from the site of the proposed part Link Road. In addition, it is noted that no offer to purchase some or all of the privately owned land has been made by government or the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

 

Lastly, it is relevant to note that the Assessment Report on the proposed DA 2012/011 is yet to be completed and an assessment of the Aboriginal heritage impact of the proposed subdivision area closest to the Diamond Tree is yet to be completed.

 

A condition is included in the recommendation of this report to address the situation where items of Aboriginal heritage are discovered within the work zone during the construction works or process.

 

Clause 7.1   Acid Sulphate Soils

The part link road proposed in the subject DA is within land classified as Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soils – that being land on which works are proposed within 500 metres of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land. It is not envisaged that the proposed works will result in the water table on adjoining land being lowered below 1 metre AHD.

 

Nevertheless to ensure no ASS soils are exposed the recommended conditions at the end of this report include a condition requiring an ASS soil assessment if works below 1m natural ground level are required.

 

Clause 7.3 Flood Planning

Clause 7.3 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 requires the following:

 

(3)  Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a)  is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b)  will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c)  incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

(d)  will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e)  is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

 

The subject site for this DA is low lying flood prone land. In view of this and to address the above LEP requirements the applicants were requested to submit a preliminary advice from a qualified and experienced person to address clause 7.3, and whether the link road can be adequately designed to avoid it detrimentally affecting existing flood patterns, levels and behaviour on existing and proposed residential development in the vicinity of the proposal, through appropriate culvert sizing and road heights.

 

The information submitted by the proponents has adequately addressed clause 7.3.

 

SEPP 71 Coastal Protection

 

The provisions of SEPP 71 Coastal Protection relate closely to the issues identified in clause 5.5 of the Nambucca LEP 2010. Please refer to the earlier discussion of Clause 5.5 of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Development within the coastal zone) for further information.

 

 

SEPP 55 Contaminated Land

 

Clause 7 (1) (A) of this planning instrument requires Council to consider whether land is contaminated in its assessment of a development application.

 

Based on the information available regarding the site’s history of use as a natural forest and road reserve it is concluded that the subject site is unlikely to include any contaminated soil (or other contaminating agents) and that it is suitable for the construction of the proposed Link Road.

 

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

 

A3.0 Notification and Public Participation

The subject DA was notified to 161 properties in the vicinity of the proposal.  This extended to all of Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive.  The Nambucca Heads LALC was specifically notified.  The application was also advertised in the Guardian News. 

 

External referrals on the application were sent to NSW Roads and Maritime Services, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Office of Water (as in Integrated Agency under Section 91 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).  The responses received from these agencies (and the public submissions) are discussed under Section (d) Submissions, later in this report.

 

A5.0 Environmental Context

The sections of this part of the Nambucca DCP 2010 relevant to the subject DA have been considered elsewhere in this report.

 

Part D Sediment and Erosion Control

Conditions to ensure the implementation of adequate sedimentation and erosion measures complying with the DCP requirements have been included in the recommended conditions to this report.

 

 

b        The Likely Impacts Of The Development

 

The body of this report includes consideration of many likely impacts of the proposed development.  Following is a consideration of those matters which are not otherwise considered.

 

Context and Setting

The proposed road extension will be consistent with the immediately adjoining and predominant urban land use in Marshall Way and will not substantially change the character and nature of the area.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

The proposal will connect Marshall Way with Alexandra Drive and will intrinsically permit the flow of traffic over each road for both local residents and others.  This will no doubt result in an increase in traffic on each of these streets compared to the existing levels which are reflective of their existing dead end natures.  To date this has been a temporary situation which the existing residents of each street have understandably become used to, and (in many cases) have come to expect.  However Council’s overall plans for the Marshall Way area has for an extended period of time included the logical construction of a Link Road between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive extending back to at least 1994. To this end Marshall Way was designed and constructed to a Collector Road standard on the basis of this expectation.

 

As mentioned in the summary of this report Council has previously considered the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Link Road when it considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan in July 2009.  This included notification of the draft Contributions Plan to residents, an assessment of the submissions received which particularly focussed on the Link Road proposal, a discussion of detailed Council projections for expected traffic growth over 20 years, a consideration of social and economic considerations and impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Diamond Tree site).  Having weighed these considerations it was resolved “That Council adopt the draft Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan 2009 and that it be reviewed within 12 months.

 

The Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contributions Plan was adopted in August 2009 and continues to be in force.  On the above basis it is considered that Council has already considered and signed off on the issue of Traffic Impacts of the Link Road and the proposal should continue to be supported on traffic grounds.

 

The applicants have indicated that the proposed Link Road will include a 2.5m wide pedestrian/cycleway, which is considered necessary and adequate for the desired purpose.  This pedestrian/cycleway however was not shown on the submitted DA plans but has subsequently been included.

 

Heritage

Please refer to the discussion of clause 5.9 (Heritage Conservation) under the consideration of Section 79c(1) EP&A Act and the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 earlier in this report for a discussion of Heritage impacts of the proposal.

 

Noise and Vibration

Aside from some short term higher noise and vibration levels during construction, the proposal will be in keeping with the established character and nature of the area. Standard conditions to address Noise and Vibration impacts during construction have been included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

When Council considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan in July 2009 (mentioned above under the assessment of Traffic, Transport and Traffic) the report included the following assessment of the social impact of the Link Road which is still relevant to the proposal:

 

The “link” generates both positive and negative impacts.  Local residents are concerned about the impact of higher traffic numbers on their safety and amenity.

 

On a larger scale the access is needed to improve the travel route to the commercial area, to allow through road for school bus and traffic generally to remove one way in access to Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way, to link growing local communities, to upgrade the roads for increases in traffic numbers relating to new housing and other developments (eg Aged Care and Education are possible) and to reduce the need to use the Pacific Highway.

 

The distance from the southern end to the Plaza via the proposed link is 1.3 km compared to 5.5 km via the Pacific Highway

 

It is considered that the Link Road is essential to any further large scale residential development of the Bellwood area and will also be very valuable in improving connectivity between exiting residential areas and the local shopping centre.

 

Crime Risk

The proposal will facilitate additional opportunities for passive surveillance by passers-by and will consequently make the area less attractive for criminal activity.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

When Council considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan in July 2009 (mentioned above under the assessment of Traffic, Transport and Traffic) the report also included the following assessment of relevant to the Economic impact of the Link Road which is still relevant to the proposal:

 

‘Economic

 

The development and re-development of land on the western side of the Pacific Highway is likely to continue due to its close proximity to the urban areas of Nambucca Heads.  A circular through route is essential to that growth in population and housing for access to commercial areas and as a transport route for school buses and waste collection for example.

 

Risk

 

The residents believe that the value of their properties will reduce with greater traffic flows.

 

Not resolving this matter now will result in even greater difficulties in the future as more people will be impacted.  Council will also be faced with meeting the full cost of the Link Road if it is progressed at a future time.

 

Some 15 years ago Council decided not to allow the link to be created.  At that time there was standard urban housing in Marshall Way and Rural Residential in Alexandra Drive.  Now there is urban housing on both roads.

 

Removing the link road will exclude 363 residential blocks from the northern side making the plan not-financially viable.  The income will not be sufficient to undertake the other traffic management projects.’

 

Ecological Impact

An ecological report on the proposed Link Road has been submitted with the subject DA.  This report has found that “the proposed road construction in the existing road corridor between Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way in the Bellwood suburb of Nambucca Heads is unlikely to have any environmental impact associated with the one Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.  Additionally, the likelihood of threatened flora and fauna species occurring in the study area is considered to be moderate to low.

 

The site has been maintained as a future road corridor through periodic slashing of the derived grassland – sedgeland vegetation communities currently found on-site.

 

Through effective design of road, stormwater drainage works, riparian crossings and associated

placement of services including walking paths and cycleway to the western side of the road corridor

minimal impact is proposed to the regrowth Swamp Forest EEC and downstream wetlands adjacent to

the site. A 7-part test of significance was undertaken for the Swamp Forest EEC and concluded that

there is not likely to be a significant effect on this community arising from the proposed activities.

 

A range of safeguards and mitigation measures are proposed to effectively control actions at the site to

minimise any potential environmental impacts. This ecological assessment concluded that the potential direct and indirect impacts that may be associated with the proposal are considered to be minimal.”

 

It is proposed to retain the parts of the identified EEC which now extend into the road corridor by way of a conditions contained within the recommendation of this report.

 

Cumulative Impacts

The primary potential cumulative impact of the proposal will be on future traffic levels in Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive along with associated issues. These issues have been considered under the discussion of Access, Traffic, and Transport earlier in this report and were signed off by Council back in 2009 when it considered and adopted the Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan discussed earlier.

 

 

c        The suitability of the site for the development

 

Having regard to its location and the overall assessment of the proposal as contained in this report, the site will adequately accommodate the proposed works in that:

 

·   The proposed development will not create any unreasonable detrimental impacts on adjoining or nearby properties;

·   The proposal is compatible with surrounding developments and these adjacent developments do not pose any prohibitive constraints on the proposal,

·   The proposed development complies with the relevant State and Council’s local planning controls and objectives, 

·   The subject site is not subject to any natural hazards that would prohibit the construction and operation of the development in the proposed form.

·   The proposal will result in positive social and economic benefits for the area by facilitating the ongoing urban development in the area and the provision of services to the community such as public transport, garbage services and improved access to commercial development.

·   The form of development is appropriate for the site and is in keeping with the existing character and nature of the area (and will continue to do so as it evolves).

 

 

d        Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations

 

14 submissions have been received with respect to the proposal including one from the Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Land Council – a précis of each submission follows.  A full copy of the submissions are included in a closed report for information.

 

1.         

i)   The subject DA and DA2012/11 (346 Lot Subdivision) have not adequately addressed traffic impacts of the proposal

ii)   We do not agree with DA submission that more traffic will travel to the north and use Alexandra Drive rather than Marshall Way

iii)  Temporary changes to access to the Pacific Highway during RMS upgrade works will encourage more traffic to use Link Road if constructed

iv)  Existing traffic danger in Marshall Way which will be accentuated by proposal.

v)  A centre line ripple strips should be installed in vicinity of Marshall Way roundabout at entrance to Farrington Village to stop people cutting corners.  Centre parking in this vicinity should also be reconsidered.

vi)  Proposal will result in large trucks and others using Marshall Way as a short cut impacting on resident amenity

vii) Increased traffic in Marshall Way & Bellwood Road from proposal will add to existing congestion problems at Pacific Highway and Bellwood Road

iix) Increased traffic danger to elderly residents of retirement villages & children

ix)  Existing traffic danger in Marshall Way which will be accentuated by proposal.

x)  Traffic and road improvements identified in s94 contributions plan should not wait until funds are available but should be completed or commenced in conjunction with the Link Road

xi)  When properties were purchased in Marshall Way there was no reference or flagging of a future proposal for the Link Road construction until the 2009 s94 plan.

xi)  Council should hold a community meeting regarding this proposal.

2.         

i)   Proposal will result in large trucks and others using Alexandra Drive as a short cut impacting on resident amenity

ii)   Increased traffic danger to elderly residents      

3.         

i)   Proposal will result in large trucks and others using Alexandra Drive as a short cut impacting on resident amenity

ii)   Increased danger from additional traffic for children

iii)  Alexandra Drive  is currently very poorly maintained & will not cope with additional traffic

iv)  Existing traffic danger in Alexandra Drive including narrow lane widths and poor visibility at Alexandra Drive roundabout which will not be mitigated by proposal.

4.         

i)   Potential conflict of interest with Nambucca Gardens Estate being the applicant for subject DA in addition to the 346 Lot Subdivision DA.

ii)   Potential conflict of interest with Council being the consent authority for DA and it being proposed on Council land.

iii)  Should the JRPP determine subject DA

iv)  Application does not adequately address impacts on Acid Sulphate Soils

v)  Community Welfare, safety and amenity have been disregarded

vi)  Given recent concerns previously expressed  regarding traffic & the intersection at Old Coast Road, NSW Roads and Maritime Services should be consulted.

5.         

i)   Negative effect on EEC

ii)   Impact on Flora & Fauna including endangered species

iii)  Increased danger to elderly gopher drivers

iv)  Increased danger to children attending pre-school & school children

v)  Existing need for speed humps to be installed in Marshall Way

6.         

i)   Negative effect on EEC

ii)   Impact on Flora & Fauna including endangered species

iii)  Existing traffic danger in Marshall Way which will be accentuated by proposal.
iv)  Existing need for traffic calming/ mitigation in Marshall Way

v)  Increased danger to elderly gopher drivers and children

vi)  Proposal will result in increased traffic using Alexandra Drive as a short cut impacting on resident amenity   

7.         

i)   Increased traffic danger to elderly residents of retirement villages & children including crossing Bellwood Road to shops

ii)   Impact on Aboriginal Archaeology

iii)  Loss of amenity to playing fields from increased traffic

iv)  Danger of proposing increased dwellings adjoining mosquito prone areas
v)  Negative impact on EEC
vi)  Existing traffic danger in Marshall Way which will be accentuated by proposal.
vii) Existing need for reduced speed limit to 40km/h in the vicinity of the Plaza and Medical centre

8.         

i)   Existing traffic danger in Marshall Way which will be accentuated by proposal.

ii)   Impact on Koala population

9.         

i)   Increased danger to elderly residents

ii)   Council has deceived residents about Link Road proposal

iii)  Existing traffic danger in Marshall Way which will be accentuated by proposal.

iv)  Existing and quiet and safe nature of area will be lost

v)  Who is going to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the road?

vi)  Detrimental impact on property local values

10.         

i)   Proposal will result in large trucks and others using Marshall Way as a short cut impacting on resident amenity

ii)   Proposed road will add to existing noise and amenity impact of traffic

iii)  Increased danger from additional traffic for children

iv)  Marshall Way has not been constructed to handle additional resulting traffic.

iv) Resultant Loss of property values

v)  Residents should have been advised that from a long time ago that the Link Road would be proposed at some time

vi)  Does Council have the funds to pay for this project?

vii) Is the project only being proposed to allow the developers to make a profit?

iix) Detrimental impact on EEC and water flows into and out of the swamp

11.         

i)   Proposed road will add to existing noise and amenity impact of traffic which is already a problem in peak periods

ii)   Increased danger to elderly residents

iii)  Proposal will result in large trucks and others using Marshall Way as a short cut impacting on resident amenity

iv)  Detrimental impact on land values

v) Residents were lead to believe that Marshall Way would remain as a closed road end.

12.         

i)   Residents were lead to believe that Marshall Way/ Alexandra Drive would remain as a closed road end.

ii)   Increased traffic danger to elderly residents & children

iii)  Existing traffic danger in Alexandra Dve which will be accentuated by proposal.

iv)  Alexandra Drive  is currently very poorly maintained & narrow in parts and will not cope with additional traffic

13.         

i)   Alexandra Drive  is currently very poorly maintained & will not cope with additional traffic

ii)   The proposal will accentuate the existing traffic danger at the  intersection of Old Coast Road & Alexandra Drive

iii)  Increased traffic on Alexandra Dve will affect amenity and safety of residents

iv)  Existing need for: speed humps to be installed in Alexandra Drive, a roundabout at intersection of Alexandra Drive and Old Coast Road and increased road maintenance in Alexandra Drive

 

14.         

Nambucca Heads LALC: (please refer to clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation), Nambucca LEP 2010 earlier in this report for a detailed discussion on the matters raised by the Land Council.

 

Comment:  The matters raised in the above public submissions have on the whole been addressed in the assessment provided in this report and the July 2009 report to Council on the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan (mentioned above under the assessment of Traffic, Transport and Traffic).  The additional matters raised in the above submissions are addressed below:

 

Poor Condition and Maintenance of Alexandra Drive: this is a matter appropriately addressed within the consideration of the current Subdivision DA No. 2012/011 on Lot 2, Alexandra Drive.  It has already been flagged as an issue in the ongoing assessment of this adjoining DA and is likely to be required to be resolved if the other DA is approved.

 

Existing and Future Need for Traffic Calming in Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way: The adopted Bellwood Traffic Management Contributions Plan includes the following measures to improve the safety of traffic on existing local roads: Road widening and shoulder improvements, Intersection improvements, Roundabout construction, Traffic control and safety devices, New road construction and Signage.

 

Agency Submissions: External referrals on the application were sent to NSW Roads and Maritime Services, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Office of Water (as in Integrated Agency under Section 91 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

The NSW Office of Water response (dated 20 March 2014) advised that as the proponent is a public authority, under clause 38 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2011 that it is exempt from Section 91E (1) of the Water Management Act 2000 and no controlled activity approval is required.

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service response advised that “The intent of measures for public roads is to provide safe operational access to structures and water supply for emergency services, while residents are seeking to evacuate from an area.  To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

The public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3(1) of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ and provide a minimum pavement width of 8 metres.”

 

At Council’s request the applicant has supplied amended plans for the link road complying with the above terms of approval.

 

No response was received from NSW Roads and Maritime Services.

 

 

e        The public interest

 

There are no known Federal and/or State Government policy statements and/or strategies other than those discussed in this report that are of relevance to this particular case.  There are no other circumstances that are relevant to the consideration of this development application. 

 

The proposed development is in the public interest.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

For an assessment of Sustainability of the proposal please refer to the discussion earlier in this report under Section 79c EPA Act 1979 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 (particularly Clause 5.5 Development within the coastal zone), the earlier under (b) (The Likely Impacts of the Development) and the July 2009 report to Council on the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan (as also referenced earlier and) as attached to this report.

 

FURTHER CONSULTATION:

 

Recent consultations with the applicant were undertaken in the form of an additional information request.  In summary it was requested that the applicant provide the following information:

 

a)    Additional Plans: additional detailed plans were required which include the 2.5m proposed pedestrian/ cycle path, the wider (8m) pavement width required by the NSW Rural Fire Service (ref below) and allowing for the location of the existing utility services and the EEC vegetation which extend within the  road reserve. Consideration was to be given to alternative designs for the incorporation of the pedestrian/ cycle path to the west of the Link Road. The existing services were to be located and levels confirmed.

b)    Compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service Requirement: amended plans complying with the required 8m width for the Link Road.

c)    Flooding: preliminary advice from a qualified and experienced person was required to address clause 7.3 (Flood Planning) of the Nambucca LEP 2010, and whether the Link road can be adequately designed through appropriate culvert sizing and road heights to avoid it detrimentally affecting existing flood patterns, levels and behaviour on existing and proposed residential development in the vicinity of the proposal. 

 

This information has been submitted by the applicant and is shown as an attachment.

 

Comment from General Manager

 

In relation to the preferred design of the Link Road, it is apparent there are some conflicting objectives.  Whilst it is desirable to avoid the coastal lowland forest (EEC) which is regenerating within the road corridor and minimise the width of the road, the Rural Fire Service have required that the road pavement be increased from 7m to 8m.  There are also other construction requirements for the road which need to be incorporated.  These are the table drain shown on the western side of the road, the required edge beams, and a batter on the sides of the road at the southern end where the design level of the road will be up to 1.3m and on average 1.0m higher than the existing ground.  So as to reduce the extent of clearing, the 2.5 metre wide cycleway/footpath has been located to the west of the road corridor in Farringdon Fields.  Following discussion with Council’s engineering staff I’m not aware of any other practical initiatives which can be taken to reduce the impact of the construction footprint on the regenerating endangered ecological community (EEC).

 

Attachments:

1

12984/2014 - Conditions of Consent

 

2

12624/2014 - Additional Information

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Proposed Link Road Extension of Marshall Way - Nambucca Gardens Estate

 

 

DA2013/183 – NAMBUCCA GARDENS ESTATE – LINK ROAD - CONDITIONS

 

1        Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Link Road Concept Plan

C

RDG

6/5/2014

 

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plan referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

 

The approved plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp and authorised signature must be kept on site at all times while work is being undertaken.

 

 

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

 

2        Removal of Trees to be Minimised

 

The removal of trees that are located within the subject site that are part of the Endangered Ecological Community extending from within the allotment immediately to the east of the site shall be minimised.  Prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the proposal a plan outlining the proposed tree removal shall be submitted to, and approved by Council staff.

 

3        Consent Granted For Works within the Road Reserve

 

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

 

All new services, including cycle and walking paths shall be located to the west of the road corridor or on the playing fields so as to avoid and minimise vegetation disturbance and future maintenance issues.

 

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

 

Work

Standard to be provided

Edge Beam, Road Shoulder Construction

Concrete edge beam 450 x 225, road shoulder and associated drainage construction, footpath formation and turfing including any necessary relocation of services along the alignment of the collector road

Full Width Road Construction

Sealed Carriageway width of 8m (excluding edge beam) together with a smooth transition into adjoining roads

 

Off road cycleway for the full length of the road

2.5m wide at a cross-fall of 1 % or 1:100 (maximum 2.5% or 1 in 40) Connecting Road 1 to Marshall Way

Culverts required across drainage channels or streams

Culvert to be designed to ensure that peak flow rates for the 1 in 100 year storm event are not affected. The applicant is to obtain any necessary approvals from NSW Office of Water

 

4        Geotechnical Report required – Engineering Works

 

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

 

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

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

c        adequate drainage has been provided.

 

5        Sediment and erosion measures required

 

The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications that indicate the measures to be employed to control erosion and loss of sediment from the site. Control over discharge of stormwater and containment of run-off and pollutants leaving the site/premises must be undertaken through the installation of erosion control devices such as catch drains, energy dissipaters, level spreaders and sediment control devices such as hay bale barriers, filter fences, filter dams, and sedimentation basins. The sediment and erosion control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Landcom Manual 2004, “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction”.  4th Edition 2009.

 

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

 

The plans are to demonstrate the following:

 

·           Re-growth trees required for removal should be clearly marked on a map prior to clearing works.  This map should be provided to all contractors prior to commencement of works.

·           Road construction materials and equipment are not to be stored outside the road construction footprint within the road corridor to prevent disturbance to remaining vegetation along the eastern forest edge.

·           Bridge and or culvert designs should minimise disturbance to riparian vegetation and soils, and allow for wildlife movement.

·           All exposed soil as a result of the proposal is to be landscaped or grassed as soon as possible to minimise weed invasion and soil erosion.

 

6        Bond required to guarantee against damage to public land

 

A bond of $20,000 is to be paid to Council as guarantee against damage to surrounding public land and infrastructure during construction of the proposed road. Evidence is to be provided to Council indicating the pre development condition of the surrounding public land and infrastructure. Such evidence must include photographs. The proponent will be held responsible for the repair of any damage to roads, kerb and gutters, footpaths, driveway crossovers, vegetation or other assets caused as a result of construction works under this consent.

 

This bond will be held until Council is satisfied that the infrastructure is maintained/repaired to pre development conditions and that no further work is to be carried out that may result in damage to Council’s roads, footpaths etc.

 

7        Compliance with “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006”

 

The subject public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3(1) of “Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006” and provide a pavement width of 8 metres.  Evidence indicating compliance with these standards shall be submitted with the construction certificate for the proposal.

 

 

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

 

8        Erosion & sediment measures

 

Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

 

Re-growth trees required for removal should be clearly marked in-situ prior to clearing works.

 

Vegetation within the road corridor should be slashed prior to commencement of works, to the extent of the construction footprint only.

 

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

 

9        Acid sulfate soil assessment

 

Works involving excavations beyond 1 metre below natural ground surface must not commence until an acid sulfate soil assessment has been undertaken, the assessment submitted to Council for approval and Council has approved any measures needed for the management of those soils. This assessment must be in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soil Manual (NSW ASSMAC 1998).

 

10      Consent required for works within the road reserve

 

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

 

11      Aboriginal Cultural Materials – Contractors to be Advised of their Obligations

 

All contractors working on the proposed development are to be advised of their legal obligations with regard to Aboriginal cultural materials.  Evidence of this is to be provided to Council.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

12      Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures in accordance with approved plan

 

Sediment and erosion control measures in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be maintained at all times until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation cover or hard surface.

 

13      Inspection of Public Works

 

Development works are not to proceed past the following hold points without inspection and approval by Council. Notice of required inspection must be given 24 hours prior to inspection. You must quote your construction certificate number and property description to book your inspection.

 

a        prior to commencement of site clearing and installation of erosion control facilities;

b        at completion of installation of erosion control measures

c        prior to installing traffic management works

d        at completion of installation of traffic management works

e        at the commencement of earthworks;

f        before commencement of any filling works;

g        when the sub-grade is exposed and prior to placing of pavement materials;

h        when trenches are open, stormwater/water/sewer pipes and conduits jointed and prior to backfilling;

i         at the completion of each pavement (sub base/base) layer;

j         before pouring of concrete for kerb and guttering;

k        prior to the pouring of concrete for sewerage works;

l         on completion of road gravelling or pavement;

m       during construction of sewer infrastructure;

n        during construction of water infrastructure;

o        prior to sealing and laying of pavement surface course.

 

All works at each hold point are to be certified as compliant, in accordance with Council’s current Design and Construction Manuals and Specifications, prior to proceeding to the next hold point. Council will undertake random audit of work sites to verify compliance of public works as required.

 

14      Public safety requirements

 

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

 

15      Preservation of Archaeology

 

If Aboriginal archaeological remains or material are detected during any stage of the construction process, work in the immediate vicinity should cease and the National Parks and Wildlife Service’s local Sites Officer and the Nambucca Heads Local Aboriginal Land Council are to be contacted to obtain appropriate management advice.  Work shall not recommence until clearance is given by these agencies.

 

 

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

 

16      Completion of All Works

 

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

 

17      Certificates for Engineering Works

 

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

 

18      Works-As-Executed Plans

 

Works-as-executed plans, certified by a suitably qualified engineer or a registered surveyor, are to be submitted.  Where the design is carried out utilising computer aided design CAD, all cad computer files are required to be provided on CD (Compact Disc) with the final drawings. The CAD files must include all lot and road boundaries, lot numbers and easements. 

 

19      Maintenance Bond

 

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


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Proposed Link Road Extension of Marshall Way - Nambucca Gardens Estate

 






Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4      SF25                120614         Donation to St Patrick's Primary School Biennial Fete

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a donation of $100 to the St Patrick’s Primary School Biennial Fete.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can choose to make no donation or provide a donation of a different amount to that recommended.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council has been asked to support the St Patrick’s Primary School Biennial Fete.

 

A copy of the letter from the School’s Parents and Friends Association is attached.

 

It has been confirmed that the Fete is to be held on 14 November 2014.

 

It is recommended that Council make a donation of $100.00 to the Fete.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications

 

Risk

 

There are no risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proposed donation will have a minor budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no significant impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

The advice to date is that a Council resolution is required for Council to donate any money not identified in Council’s donations program – whether it be $1 or $100.  The overhead cost of preparing this report has probably exceeded the recommended donation.

 

 

Attachments:

1

13914/2014 - Request for Donation - St Patrick's Primary School Biennial Fete

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Donation to St Patrick's Primary School Biennial Fete

 


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5      SF770              120614         IPART - Draft Report on Local Government Compliance and Enforcement

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) was asked by the NSW Government to investigate Local Government compliance and enforcement activity as part of their drive to reduce “red tape” costs for business and the community.

 

IPART have made 39 recommendations to reduce “red tape” costs to business and the community.  Some of the recommendations have relatively minor potential benefits whilst others are more significant.

 

The IPART report recommends reforms to increase the level of consistency, co-ordination, co-operation and harmonisation amongst councils in undertaking their regulatory roles.  At the same time the report recognises the need to reflect local preferences in council approaches where appropriate.  The report also highlights examples of regulatory best practice provided by stakeholders.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council make a submission to IPART advising that it supports its recommendations to remove “red tape” from Local Government compliance and enforcement but queries whether in relation to the planning system there should be a higher priority directed to moving more domestic scale construction into the categories of exempt and complying development.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council can elect to make a submission in response to IPART’s draft report as it sees fit.  Council also has the option of making no submission.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has been asked by the NSW Government to examine Local Government compliance and enforcement activity and provide recommendations to the NSW Government that would reduce “red tape” costs for business and the community.

 

IPART has now released a draft report which it estimates will:

 

·      Reduce red tape to business and individuals by at least $177.7 million per year

·      Save councils approximately $42.2 million per year

·      Save the NSW Government about $1.3 million per year

·      Provide net benefits to the community of NSW of $220.5 million per year

 

IPART’s investigation revealed that NSW councils play an important role as regulators of local communities across the State.  Councils have 121 regulatory functions, involving 309 separate regulatory roles, emanating from 67 State Acts which are administered by approximately 31 State agencies.

 

There is some interesting discussion in the report about the need to build council capacity and capability which reflect some of the observations of the Independent Local Government Review Panel.

 

“The capacity and capability of councils to efficiently undertaken their regulatory responsibilities can vary across councils.  The regulatory challenges can also vary…

 

Regardless, a consistent concern amongst all stakeholders (council and non-council) was the capacity and capability of councils to undertake their regulatory roles effectively and efficiently.  Lack of resources and expertise can add considerably to costs through delays; poor decision making; inconsistent, incorrect or unclear advice; inaction; and overly prescriptive or conservative approaches to regulation.

 

…Consistency of approach is more challenging with 152 different council regulators, than with a single State agency regulator..” (pages 10 and 11 of the Executive Summary).

 

A summary of IPART’s finding are incorporated in a short fact sheet which is attached to this report.  The full report which runs to 342 pages has not been included as an attachment but can be found on IPART’s website.

 

The draft recommendations that account for the largest reductions in red tape are:

 

·      $59.2m per year saved in improving road access for heavy vehicles.  Potentially the gains are far larger, with heavy vehicle access restrictions estimated to cost $366m per year in NSW.

·      $36m per year saved by preventing councils from imposing conditions of consent above what is required by the Building Code of Australia

·      $19.4m per year saved in implementing a partnership arrangement between the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Local Government, with net benefits of $17.9m per year.  There are substantial additional benefits possible from continued improvements in planning, with the excessive costs associated with planning estimated to be in the order of about $300m per year.

 

The IPART review reinforces the need for more effective partnerships across Councils.

 

“In order for the State and councils to develop stronger, more effective partnerships, there is a need to stronger inter-council structures (or collaborative arrangements), particularly in the compliance and enforcement area.  It is not possible to effectively consult and partner with 152 separate councils.  There is greater potential for consistency of approach and efficient regulation if the State can partner with collaborative entities (often with a regional basis) or Local Government NSW.  (page 13 of executive summary).”

 

The report notes that a lack of council capacity and capability, as well as consistency and cooperation, are cited by stakeholders as major sources of unnecessary regulatory costs and red tape.

 

“Enhanced council collaboration can potentially improve each council’s regulatory capacity and capability, as well as regulatory consistency and cooperation across councils.  Therefore, there are potentially significant benefits from this.

 

Such collaboration can reduce costs to councils and the regulated community through:

 

Allowing councils to realise economies of scale in the provision of regulatory services

Reducing delays

Enhancing consistency (eg, in relation to forms, guidance, decisions)

Councils recognising each other’s approvals (avoiding the need for businesses to submit multiple applications).

 

This is supported by results of council collaborative arrangements, both in the United Kingdom and Australia.” (page 101).

 

The report includes reference to the Quality Regulatory Services Initiative of the State Government which is a best practice template to promote more efficient regulation (page 157).  It provides as follows:

 

Quality Regulatory Services Initiative

 

Enable electronic transactions

The government will ensure all regulators, by the end of 2013, enable electronic transactions with business including allowing business to lodge or renew applications and update their details electronically; accept electronic payments; and access reporting templates and lodge reports electronically.  These actions will result in significant time savings and improved convenience for business.

 

Provide clarity in processing times

The government will also target processing timeframes in 2013, working will all regulators to ensure they set, communicate and report on maximum timeframes for the processing of all licence, authorisation and permit applications.

 

Provide transparent appeal mechanisms

By the end of 2013, all regulators will need to ensure they have transparent appeal mechanisms, and provide information about them when communicating with business about licensing, compliance and enforcement decisions.

 

Promote a risk-based approach to compliance and enforcement

The Government will also promote a risk based approach to compliance and enforcement so that business will no longer be inconvenienced by unnecessary compliance requirements, saving them time and money that can be redirected into growing their business.  The Government will provide guidance to regulators on how to implement risk based compliance and enforcement in order to provide a consistent and transparent approach.  All regulators will, by the end of 2014, publish and commence applying a risk based approach to regulation.

 

Require a greater focus on regulatory outcomes

The Government will also require regulators to focus more strongly on regulatory outcomes by requiring regulators, by the end of 2014 to have clearly defined outcomes, commence reviewing their outcome monitoring mechanisms as part of regular legislative reviews and commence reporting regularly on their outcomes. This will promote compliance activity that achieves outcomes, rather than just enforcement outputs (eg, number of inspections), provide greater flexibility for business in complying with regulation, and help with the evaluation of regulatory effort.  Guidance will be provided to regulators on measuring the outcomes of regulation in order to help them achieve this goal.

 

A summary of the three major recommended reductions in red tape is as follow.

 

The Regulatory Framework for Road Transport

 

Vehicles can be loosely divided into 2 categories being General Access Vehicles (GAVs) which include cars, buses, vans and trucks up to 19 metres in length and 42.5 tonnes in mass.

 

Restricted Access Vehicles (RAVs) are any vehicles outside these dimensions and include vehicles such as B-Doubles and Road Trains.  RAVs face limitations on how they are able to access the road network.

 

Under Section 7 of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW), councils are the road authority for local and regional roads within their Local Government area.  As a result they are responsible for funding and conducting the ongoing maintenance of nearly 90% of NSW’s road network and approving access by heavy vehicles.  In particular this means that they are the approving authority for RAVs that wish to use local or regional roads.  As the approving authority, councils can place conditions on heavy vehicle access, such as hours of operation or weight restrictions.  Most freight movement requires the use of a local road during picking up or dropping off a load, also known as the first and last mile issue.

 

Stakeholder submissions on this matter to IPART focused on the inability of councils to conduct road engineering assessments leading to costly delays; the perceived excessive bias of councils towards safety, noise and congestion concerns compared to the economic benefits of increased heavy vehicle access, when making road access decisions; and the inconsistencies in council decisions.  (page 259)

 

IPART has determined that freight and logistics form a sizeable portion of the national economy and unnecessary regulatory burdens in this area impose significant costs.  IPART’s draft recommendation is that the NSW Government:

 

·      Notes the potential red tape savings and net benefits that could accrue to NSW through the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) providing:

Technical assistance to councils in certifying local roads for access by heavy vehicles, and

Guidelines to councils for assessing applications for heavy vehicle access to local roads in relation to potential amenity and safety impacts; and

 

·      In the event of delay in the NHVR providing these elements of the national reforms, funds an interim unit to provide this assistance to Local Government.

 

Addressing Regulatory Creek in Building and Construction

 

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) outlines the minimum standards that buildings must meet in order to be considered fit for occupation.  However, the Productivity Commission and various stakeholders have noted that councils often impose additional requirements over and above the BCA in their conditions of consent for development approval.  These changes include design matters such as increased ceiling height requirements, reduction in external noise or improved disability access.  According to the Australian Building Codes Board, “such interventions significantly impact on housing affordability”. (page 221)

 

IPART’s draft recommendation is that Councils seeking to impose conditions of consent above that of the Building Code of Australia must conduct a cost benefit analysis justifying the benefits of these additional requirements and seek approval from an independent body, such as IPART, under a “gateway” model.

 

The practice of this Council is not to impose additional requirements over and above the BCA in building related conditions of consent.  Therefore the draft recommendation will not affect the operations of Council.

 

Partnership arrangement between the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Local Government

 

The proposed arrangements are less precise than other recommendations.  IPART believes there is benefit in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure adopting a comprehensive regulatory partnership model, including a dedicated Local Government Unit.  They believe that this will help in:

 

Achieving more consistent regulatory instruments, approaches and decisions

Promoting a risk based approach to regulation, targeting or prioritising efforts

Achieving better compliance and enforcement of planning laws by working more closely with councils

Providing information and ongoing support to councils from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and feedback from councils on the quality and usefulness of this support

Getting “buy in” from councils in adopting DoPI guidance and advice

Monitoring of councils’ regulatory performance, and working with councils to improve performance.

 

IPART cite potential applications of the Partnership Model.  A dedicated Local Government unit within the Department of Planning and Infrastructure could:

 

·      Enhance standardisation and consistency of planning information, including the development of standard forms

·      Promote best practice in how council’s approach and administer planning regulation

·      Regularly consult with LG NSW and other stakeholders

·      Ensure compliance with planning legislation

·      Tailor council reporting requirements

·      Provide feedback and where necessary, assistance to councils based on reported data

·      Provide guidance on setting regulatory fees

·      Promote and encourage sharing of regulatory resources

·      Assist councils who may have insufficient capacity

 

Of course progress in reducing “red tape” costs associated with the planning system largely depends on the on-going reform of the planning system.  The attention over the past 10 years has been in “standardising” the system with the roll out of the standard LEP and definitions.  Despite the huge application of resources, it is queried whether that much has been achieved.  To some extent IPART are proposing more of the same.  It is suggested that more attention needs to be given to getting minor domestic scale construction out of the system by way of exempt and complying development. 

 

Other Recommendations

 

IPART make some observations about companion animal management.

 

According to the Division of Local Government, councils are under no statutory obligation to accept or take care of pets after hours.  However, at least 1 Council informed IPART that animal welfare organisations and police routinely (but wrongly) inform community members that councils are the responsible authority.

 

Newcastle City Council also noted that barking dogs create the highest number of complaints between neighbours every year with over 3,000 complaints generated per year in that LGA alone.

 

IPART also reports on the low registration rate for companion animals with approximately 50% of all pets in NSW unregistered.  Only 62% of dogs and 44% of cats were fully registered.  This in turn leads to a waste of council resources, higher euthanasia rates and a loss of revenue for councils.  Not surprisingly stakeholders took issue with the 2 step registration process, with many owners wrongly believing that a microchipped animal was registered.

 

It was reported that many owners, whilst being aware that registration is a separate step to microchipping, do not fulfil their statutory obligations to do so because it is too difficult to go to their local council during working hours to complete the registration form.  There are currently no on-line options for registration – possibly because councils require evidence of desexing, pensioner concessions and to ensure the animal is not already registered to someone on the State wide companion animals register.  Life time registration for a desexed animal is $49.00 but with a pensioner concession it is $19.00.  With complex regulatory systems, consideration needs to be given as to whether relatively minor concessions are worth not only the additional administrative work but the inconvenience to all residents in having to visit their Council during business hours to achieve registration of their pet.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report by IPART concerns the “trade off” which is made in any regulatory system between the desired policy outcome and the regulatory costs of achieving that.  This applies to all of Council’s quadruple bottom line considerations, ie environment, social, economic and risk.

 

Social

 

Some of the regulatory systems which Council implement are based on strong community feelings.  For example the regulatory framework for pool fences has arisen out of the many toddler drownings in backyard pools.  Similarly the regulations in relation to dangerous dogs have arisen out of many dog attacks, some of which have been fatal to young children.

 

Economic

 

The economic costs of regulation are well documented in the IPART report.

 

Risk

 

The consideration of risk typically involves a matrix which weighs consequence and likelihood.

 

IPART have questioned those areas of regulatory endeavour which seem to be directed to ill-defined amenity issues as opposed to more quantifiable risks to life and property.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

At this stage there are no service level changes or implications.

 

Attachments:

1

14154/2014 - Draft Report Summary - Local government compliance and enforcement

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

IPART - Draft Report on Local Government Compliance and Enforcement

 











Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager

ITEM 9.6      SF839              120614         Annual Reporting of Contracts for Senior Staff

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

Section 339 of the Local Government Act requires that the General Manager must, at least once annually, report to the council on the contractual conditions of senior staff (ie by 30 June).

 

The General Manager, Assistant General Manager Engineering Services and Assistant General Manager Corporate Services are Council’s designated senior staff positions.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the provisions of the employment contracts for the General Manager, Assistant General Manager Engineering Services and Assistant General Manager Corporate Services be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.  The report is for information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Section 339 of the Local Government Act requires that the General Manager must, at least once annually, report to the council on the contractual conditions of senior staff (ie by 30 June).

 

There is no other information as to what actually has to be reported but the Division of Local Government in its Better Practice Review Program indicates that better practice is for the report to contain:

 

·      A list of senior staff

·      The specific term of each contract and when it was entered into

·      The value of the remuneration package and any variations that have been made in the past year or which are proposed for the ensuing year

·      The timing and outcome of any performance assessments that were undertaken

·      A copy of any performance agreement entered into for the current year and/or proposed for the ensuing year, and

·      Details of any other “material” matters.  These could include any requirement for the General Manager or other senior staff member to advise if she/he is seeking an extension of the current contract or reappointment for a further term and similarly, any requirement for the Council to advise the General Manager/senior staff member of any intention not to renew their appointment and/or readvertise the position.

 

The following information is provided in response to these “dot” points.

 

Senior Staff

 

Mr Michael Coulter, General Manager

Mr Paul Gallagher, Assistant General Manager Engineering Services

Mr Scott Norman, Assistant General Manager Corporate Services

 

Contract Term and Date Entered Into

 

General Manager – contract commenced 1 April 2011 for a 5 year term

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services – contract commenced 10 January 2011 for a 5 year term

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services - contract commenced 23 September 2013 for a 5 year term

 

Value of the Remuneration Package and any variations made in the past year

 

General Manager - $214,558.88 (inclusive of superannuation and vehicle)

 

The salary component of the package was increased by the regulated increase for the SES of 2.5% on 1 April 2014.

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services - $176,828.67 (inclusive of superannuation and vehicle)

 

The salary component of the package was increased by the regulated increase for the SES of 2.5% on 10 January 2014.

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate Services - $167,587 (inclusive of superannuation)

 

The Timing and Outcome of any Performance Assessments

 

General Manager – performance assessment undertaken on 13 March 2014 – outcome “satisfactory”.

 

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services  – performance assessment undertaken on 7 February 2014 – outcome “satisfactory”.

 

Copy of Performance Agreements

 

The performance agreements are largely standard templates with a large number of management objectives and performance measures.  Of most significance are the priorities for the ensuing year. 

 

The agreed priorities for the General Manager are:

 

·   More timely staff responses to written correspondence

·   Progression with Council’s Internal Audit processes

·   Development of a rating strategy

·   Further development of Council’s website

 

The agreed priorities for the Assistant General Manager Engineering Services are:

 

·      Maintaining low revotes

·      Further development of an asset management system

·      Maintaining service levels with retiring senior staff and team leaders

·      Assisting with planning for any structural changes; ie Joint Organisations (arising from recommendations of the Independent Local Government Review Panel)

 

The agreed priorities for the Assistant General Manager Corporate Services are:

 

·      Develop strategic corporate and financial planning objectives that reflect the reasonable expectations of the community and support Council’s decision making processes

·      Sustain a high level of customer satisfaction through consistent quality service delivery

·      Implement cost effective information technology

·      Develop business services unit

·      Continuous improvement – undertake reviews of functions and processes in Corporate Services to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

 

Other Material Matters

 

Nil

 

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 no particular risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.  The remuneration packages are listed in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7      SF1232            120614         Pelican Park - Review of On Site Sewerage Management System

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Anthony Brandie, Senior Health and Building Surveyor; Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

This report presents a comprehensive audit of the on-site sewerage management system(s) servicing the premises known as Pelican Park carried out by Whitehead and Associates Environmental Pty Ltd. The audit report lists a suite of recommendations which are supported.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       That the on-site sewerage management system licences for the Park be renewed for 6 months incorporating those recommendations in the Whitehead and Associates report that relate specifically to the management of the system and its components being:

·      A maintenance contract is to be signed by the park owners with a reputable servicing agent.  Quarterly inspections must be undertaken as well as an annual report to Council;

·      6 monthly effluent grab samples are to be collected and analysed for TSS, BOD, FC and residual Cl;

·      The treatment systems and pump-wells are to be repaired by pump out, alarm repair, chlorination repair etc, as noted in the report;

·      To ensure that the risks to offsite receptors are reduced, within a reasonable period ultraviolet lamps are to be installed on both treatment plants to ensure that disinfection is occurring;

·      To ensure effluent from the top LAA is not being pumped to the lower LAA;

·      Placement of a run-on berm between the bottom LAA and the Pacific Highway;

·      Repair of the top OSMS by removing any flood or spray application hoses, or taps, and installing surface mulch covered drip lines on the vegetated northern boundary and embankment area near the top amenities; and

·      Placement of signage at all LAA’s to warn users of the irrigation of effluent.

 

2.       That Council staff investigate and report to Council within 6 months, the viability of a low pressure or vacuum sewer or any other option so as to enable the caravan park to be connected to Council’s sewerage system at Bellwood.  The report is to include options to finance the work and the contributions expected from the caravan park and other property owners who may benefit.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The findings of the report from Whitehead and Associates are such that there is not considered to be a “do nothing” option.  There is the option of a Wisconsin sand mound as an alternative to a connection to the sewerage system.  However further investment in on-site sewage management arrangements does have risk if ultimately, for whatever reason, the system does not provide the required performance.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Pelican Park which is located at 5982 Pacific Highway, Nambucca Heads is licensed to operate as a caravan park and camping ground with 89 sites comprised of 28 long term or permanent sites, 40 short term sites and 21 camping sites.

 

The site is connected to Council’s town water system and relies on on-site effluent treatment and disposal.

 

The Park is subject to a licensing arrangement with Council for both the operation of the caravan park and the operation of its on site sewerage management systems.  These licensing arrangements are set out in the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

The on-site sewerage licences for the Park have expired and require renewal.

 

The Caravan Park and Camping ground licence is set to expire on 31 December 2014.

 

The site is high risk for on-site treatment and disposal of sewerage given, amongst other things, the flood prone nature of the site, the proximity to oyster aquaculture areas on the Nambucca River and the nature of the land use.

 

A proposed upgrade of the system was submitted to Council on 21 August 2009 by Rosewood Environmental Services as a result of concerns from Council. The site is within the referral range for on-site sewerage activities to the Department of Primary Industries who administer State Environmental Planning Policy 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture.

 

Given some of the complexities associated with the site, risk exposure to Council and the desire to arrive at an outcome, Whitehead and Associates Environmental Consultants were engaged to review and report on both the Rosewood report and the existing on site system(s) servicing Pelican Park.  The final report dated 23 May 2014 is attached.

 

The report identifies many areas of non-compliance and failures of the system from both a management and maintenance perspective.

 

The following clarifies some acronyms in the Whitehead and Associates report;

 

SSI - Sub-Surface Irrigation.

LAA – Land Application Area.

LPED – Low Pressure Effluent Distribution.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The Department of Primary Industries have ongoing concerns about the on-site sewerage management system at Pelican Park, particularly risks associated with the adjoining oyster aquaculture area. The preparation of the subject audit report was supported by Primary Industries.

 

The NSW Ministry of Health have expressed similar concerns. They also supported the preparation of the audit report.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The Whitehead and Associates report identifies existing poor practices and limiting site constraints. Incorporation of those recommendations that relate to the management of the system and its components into the licensing arrangement for the on-site sewerage management system(s) on site will see improved environmental outcomes through enforcement. Failure to effectively manage this issue will have short and long term environmental impacts on the local environment.  There are numerous examples of the impact of poorly treated effluent and urban runoff on the estuary environment.  Some of these have affected human health (eg Wallis Lake) whilst others have ended oyster production through the introduction of viral pathogens (eg Hawkesbury River, Georges River, the Kalang River).

 

Social

 

Failure to meet the required environmental outcomes for effluent management may lead to the displacement of some or all of the Park’s permanent residents.

 

Economic

 

The economic impacts relate to the future of the caravan park.

 

Risk

 

As Council is the regulator with this matter, failure to effectively manage the existing risk may expose Council to liability through negligence.  Where human health and the future of the local oyster industry is at stake, the legal consequences of inaction could be very significant.

 

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

 

There will be considerable work required by Council staff to investigate and report on the viability of a low pressure or vacuum sewer or any other option so as to enable the caravan park to be connected to Council’s sewerage system at Bellwood. 

 

 

Attachments:

1

15663/2014 - Pelican Park - Whitehead & Associations Final Report

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Pelican Park - Review of On Site Sewerage Management System

 






























































Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8      SF1947            120614         Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined from 21-31 May 2014

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Lorraine Hemsworth, Executive Assistant         

 

Summary:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

134 public submissions

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

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

Meeting with applicant and planning agreed that Council would assess its section of the link road under Part 5 of the EPAA.  Concept plan for Link Road currently being prepared for assessment.  Will be exhibited with VPA.

Status report to Council meeting 16 October On-site briefing meeting held with JRPP 18 October 2013 – advice to be sought from applicant.

 

Report in Business Paper of 13 Nov 2013.

 

As at 6 May 2014 consultant preparing report for JRPP.

 

Refer to Report this meeting

Tabling of report to JRPP

 

Please note that there is two 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

2013/092

29/08/2013

Health Services Facility & Subdivision

Lot 1 DP 1004209 & Lot 22 DP 1161807, Centenary Parade, Nambucca Heads

4 public submissions

 

·     Zoned community land and should be left that way.

·     Should be located closer to other health facilities or other appropriate zonings

·     Only one entry and exit road (Centenary Parade) therefore increasing traffic to area and can be dangerous with lots of school children. Issues with emergency evacuations

·     Parking an issue during carnivals etc

·     Little consultation into the development of this Health Care Centre - request for dialysis services to be included in the new centre

·     Existing levels and types of crimes already in area maybe exacerbated

·     Re-zoning costs borne by Council not required for alternate sites

·     Request for further consultation with police, schools, school bus providers and other primary health providers for another site

Matters pertaining to comments on the submissions particularly the type of health services provided and need for, car parking and traffic – Referred to Applicants Consultant

 

In principal support provided by Council.  LEP Amendment referred to DOP for consideration.  Conditions forwarded to applicant for consideration by the Crown.

 

Awaiting Planning Proposal and resolution of land sale

2013/170

18/11/2013

Boundary Adjustment, shed, operate depot

Lot 2 DP 881651, 296 Valla Road, Valla

11 public submissions

X2 supporting application

 

·     Land zoned Agricultural/Rural and this is to establish an Industrial enterprise

·     Industrial site planned for the Cow Creek area and this is where should be located

·     More than enough trucks on Valla Road especially with the application for the Valla Quarry being considered with more trucks

·     Applicant owns very large machinery

·     Increase in residential numbers over the past years therefore increase in vehicles and these will have to compete with industrial vehicles

·     Increase in noise and dust

·     If granted, potential to cause a decrease in the value of the land

·     Water issues – drains directly into Deep Creek and floods are observed frequently on this land

·     Air quality reduced by dust and toxics

·     Green fill would be odorous – comparable to a rubbish tip

·     Valla Road is not coping with current usage with pot holes – stone chips are common

·     No compatibility of the proposal to adjoining grazing properties

·     No mention of 2 operations involving use of concrete crusher and greenwaste tub grinder which is exceedingly noisy

·     Disagree with “development compatible with adjoining neighbours”

·     Feeders – running times and how monitored, location

·     No selling of materials – secondary aggregate is valuable commodity

·     Water pollution

·     Most properties in neighbourhood are rated Residential/Village Estate not compatible to industrial

·     Directors do not reside near property so removed from noise pollution

·     Visual amenity

·     Staff amenities not appear convenient for industrial use

·     Unsupported by adequate environmental impact studies

·     Council setting precedent for the use of vital agricultural land

·     Industry to be kept to industrial estates

·     Proposed location on prime agricultural

·     Lose of peace and quiet and atmosphere

 

·     SOEE

·     Small vegetable garden near by

·     No adjoining properties have similar development – how compatible

·     Servicing of site for plant and vehicles – what petroleum being used and storage

·     Drainage bunded to prevent fuels into water table

·     What sort of clean fill

·     Recycled materials being used – what

·     ? weekday will allow for non impact crushing and plant operation

·     Construction of sediment ponds

·     Rubbish – increase in traffic

 

This application has been “called-in” for determination by Council

 

Further submissions received

43 public submissions – points as mentioned above

X4 supporting application

 

Awaiting RFS response

2014/001

02/01/2014

Tourist Accommodation

Lot 3 DP 1035204, Seascape Place, Scotts Head

1 submission received and requested that content remain confidential

 

Information received – waiting Rural Fire Service response

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9      SF1148            120614         Council Ranger's Report May 2014

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Teresa Boorer, Business Services Officer         

 

Summary:

 

The following is the Council Ranger’s Report regarding Council’s Companion Animal Activities and listing of penalty notices issued by both Council’s Rangers for May 2014.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report for May 2014 be received and noted by Council.

 

 

 

Cats

Dogs

COUNCIL’S SEIZURE ACTIVITY

 

 

Seized (doesn’t include those animals dumped or surrendered)

         0

6

Returned to Owner

0

3

Transferred to - Council's Facility from Seizure Activities

0

3

ANIMALS IN AND ARRIVING AT COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Animals In Council's Facility - (Start of Month)

0

2

Abandoned or Stray

0

3

Surrendered

0

3

Animals transferred from Seizure Activities

0

3

Total Incoming Animals

0

11

ANIMALS LEAVING COUNCIL'S FACILITY

 

 

Released to Owners

0

4

Sold

0

3

Released to Organisations for Rehoming

0

0

Died at Council's Facility(other than euthanased)

0

0

Stolen from Council's Facility

0

0

Escaped from Council's Facility

0

0

Other

0

0

EUTHANASED

 

 

Restricted Dogs

 

0

Dangerous Dogs

 

0

Owner’s Request

0

2

Due to Illness, Disease or Injury

0

0

Feral/infant animal

0

0

Unsuitable for rehoming

0

2

Unable to be rehomed

0

0

Total Euthanased

0

4

Total Outgoing Animals

0

11

TOTAL IN COUNCIL'S FACILITY - (END OF MONTH)

0

0

 

 

May-14

 

 Parking

 

 

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

Date Sent

WLS 520

3081195801

#9246 - Not park rear to kerb

101.00

12.05.14

XUC 580

3081195810

#9246 - Not park rear to kerb

101.00

12.05.14

BZA 12Q

3081195820

#9246 - Not park rear to kerb

101.00

12.05.14

AQD 26W

3081195839

#9246 - Not park rear to kerb

101.00

12.05.14

 

 

TOTAL VALUE OF Parking PENALTIES:

404.00

 

 

 

POEO

 

 

 

3081195792

#6753 - Fail comply Clean up Notice

750.00

12.05.14

 

3081195848

#6753 - Fail comply Clean up Notice

750.00

12.05.14

 

3081195857

#12572 - Pollute Land - Individual

750.00

21.05.14

 

3081195866

#12572 - Pollute Land - Individual

750.00

21.05.14

 

3081195875

#12572 - Pollute Land - Individual

750.00

21.05.14

 

 

TOTAL VALUE OF POEO PENALTIES:

3750.00

 

 

May-14

Companion Animals

Microchip

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

Date Sent

 

3081196700

not prevent dog escape

220

13/05/2014

 

3081196719

not prevent dog escape

220

13/05/2014

 

3081196737

not prevent dog escape

220

13/05/2014

 

3081196773

not prevent dog escape

220

19/05/2014

 

 

TOTAL VALUE OF Companion Animals PENALTIES:

880.00

 

 

May-14

Parking

REGO NO.

PN NUMBER

INFRINGEMENT DETAILS

PENALTY $

Date Sent

AM89LY

3081196553

stop in bus zone

236.00

9/05/2014

BL40NI

3081196562

disobey no parking sign

101.00

9/05/2014

AF25VA

3081196571

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

BG37SR

3081196580

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

AZQ53Q

3081196590

stop in loading zone

169.00

9/05/2014

BX86DC

3081196609

disobey no parking sign

101.00

9/05/2014

VQL301

3081196618

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

BV57BD

3081196627

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

CM384

3081196636

stop in bus zone

236.00

9/05/2014

MUN001

3081196645

disobey no parking sign

101.00

9/05/2014

BN38JF

3081196654

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

CPS25H

3081196663

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

ANR22Q

3081196672

disobey no stopping sign-school zone

304.00

9/05/2014

MAT400

3081196681

not park rear to kerb

101.00

9/05/2014

BTJ51C

3081196728

not park rear to kerb

101.00

15/05/2014

BW73AL

3081196746

not park rear to kerb

101.00

15/05/2014

WPH216

3081196755

not park rear to kerb

101.00

15/05/2014

BX79KN

3081196764

disobey no stopping sign-school zone

304.00

15/05/2014

BFC87W

3081196782

not park rear to kerb

101.00

19/05/2014

BMZ35B

3081196791

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

19/05/2014

AL10ZO

3081196800

stop in disabled zone permit not displayed

506.00

19/05/2014

AL24MP

3081196810

not park rear to kerb

101.00

19/05/2014

BK47NF

3081196838

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

20/05/2014

BV95KZ

3081196847

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

20/05/2014

XBF333

3081196856

not park rear to kerb

101.00

20/05/2014

BAJ95J

3081196865

not park rear to kerb

101.00

20/05/2014

ALU05K

3081196874

not park rear to kerb

101.00

20/05/2014

BT20PO

3081196883

not park rear to kerb

101.00

20/05/2014

BIV97P

3081196892

not park rear to kerb

101.00

20/05/2014

YBL181

3081196901

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014


 

May-14

Parking (Continued)

CND36R

3081196910

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

XPG993

3081196920

disobey no stopping sign-school zone

304.00

23/05/2014

ARD67Y

3081196939

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

BP96ZJ

3081196948

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

BR91GH

3081196957

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

AMX43D

3081196966

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

AU26KH

3081196975

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

AXH26G

3081196984

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

CDH85T

3081196993

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

VC3012

3081197002

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

XPE419

3081197011

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

23/05/2014

BY35KJ

3081197020

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

23/05/2014

AQ74LO

3081197030

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

23/05/2014

AW83QU

3081197049

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

WZS870

3081197058

not park rear to kerb

101.00

23/05/2014

BJ46PF

3081197067

disobey no stopping sign

236.00

23/05/2014

YUL651

3081197076

not park rear to kerb

101.00

28/05/2014

BZA82F

3081197085

not park rear to kerb

101.00

28/05/2014

 

 

TOTAL VALUE OF Parking PENALTIES:

7145.00

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10    SF770              120614         Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) - Draft Report on Reforming Licensing in NSW

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

The report is short.  A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) draft report on reforming licensing in NSW be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The report is for information.  Council can, if it wishes, make a submission to IPART on the draft report.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 22 May 2014, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) released a draft report on reforming licensing in NSW.  They note that there are currently about 780 different types of licences in NSW covering every aspect of the economy – including trades and professions, transport and motor vehicles, environmental protection, health, education, liquor, gaming and recreational activities.  IPART has found that all up there are about 22 million licences in force in NSW or about 3 licences per NSW resident.  The NSW Government asked IPART to review these licenses and identify those licences where reform would produce the greatest reduction in costs to business and the community.

 

Of the 780 licences about 269 represent 95% of all licences by volume and 99% of revenue raised.  IPART estimates that improvements to the design and administration of the 269 significant licences could save at least $320 million per year across the NSW economy.

 

Two potential major savings from specific licence reforms are:

 

·      Between $100m and $115m per year from extending the validity period of a light vehicle safety inspection report (previously called the pink slip)

·      About $8m per year by removing the mandatory continuing professional development requirement for the Home Building Licences and certificate holders (and allowing for the development of voluntary programs).

 

A summary of IPART’s draft report is attached.

 

In relation to local government, IPART found that 3 types of licences accounted for 80% of all licences issued by councils.  These are companion animal registration (44.8%); approval to operate a system of sewage management (25.9%); and a final fire safety certificate (9.3%).

 

The draft report did not focus on local government licences because of the concurrent regulation review of local government compliance and enforcement (reported elsewhere).  IPART was also careful to minimise the burden their survey placed on councils, given they are currently subject to several reviews.  However they note the Licensing Framework and Licensing Guide discussed in Chapter 3 should be applied to council licences.  The Guide can be used by councils to ensure licences are well designed, efficiently administered, and only in place when they are necessary and the best option.

 

The licensing framework discussed in Chapter 3 was developed by Price Waterhouse Coopers as a best practice approach to designing and reviewing licensing schemes.  It consists of 4 stages as follows:

 

Stage 1 – Is licensing appropriate?

 

·      Is there an ongoing need for the government to intervene?

·      Does something else address the problem?

·      Is there an ongoing need for specific regulation in this area?

·      Is licensing still required to address the policy objectives?

 

Stage 2 – Is licensing well designed?

 

·      Is the coverage the minimum necessary?

·      Is the duration the maximum possible?

·      Are reporting requirements the minimum necessary?

·      Are fees and charges appropriate?

·      Are conduct rules the minimum necessary?

·      Are mandatory attributes the minimum necessary?

 

Stage 3 – Is licensing administered effectively/efficiently?

 

·      Are registering and licensing activities efficient?

·      Are stakeholders well informed?

·      Is collecting information targeted?

·      Is receiving and responding to complaints optimal?

·      Is monitoring and enforcing compliance best practice?

·      Is the scheme subject to ongoing review?

 

Stage 4 – Is the licensing scheme the best response?

 

·      Does a preliminary assessment suggest licensing will result in a net benefit?

·      Are there other alternative options that could deliver policy objectives?

·      Does a cost benefit analysis show licensing is the optimal solution?

 

The draft report is of general interest and the best practice licensing framework is a good guide for local government in its activities.

 

Because the draft report does not focus on local government licenses it is not proposed to make a submission on the draft report.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing the report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The report essentially concerns a quadruple bottom line approach to the cost/benefit of licensing.

 

Social

 

As discussed the report presents a framework for evaluation the cost/benefit of licensing.

 

Economic

 

The report indicates the significant costs of using licenses as a regulatory instrument.

 

Risk

 

There may be significant risks to human health, property and the environment if some activities are not licensed.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

There are no service level implications.

 

Attachments:

1

15502/2014 - Reforming Licensing - IPART Draft Report

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) - Draft Report on Reforming Licensing in NSW

 






Ordinary Council Meeting                                                                                                    12 June 2014

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.11    DA2012/011      120614         Report to JRPP - Bellwood subdivision - DA 2012/011

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:    Paul Guy, Manager Development and Environment         

 

 

Summary:

 

DA2012/011 for a 346 lot subdivision was submitted to council on the 3rd February 2012

 

Mr Peter Chapman from the firm All About Planning was engaged to assess the application and to draft the attached report.

 

The determining authority for the development application is the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP).

 

The attached report is dependent on the outcome of the report on the Proposed Link Road Extension to Marshall Way to be assessed at this meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the attached report to be submitted to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, subject to approval of the Link Road extension.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

a)   Council additionally may prepare a submission to the JRPP with respect to alternative outcomes to those reported following consideration of the report and any responses heard at the meeting

b)   Should the Link Road extension be refused, the subdivision application must be refused as the provision of the Link Road is required in the general terms of approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The attached report and conditions have been prepared by Council’s consultant, Mr Peter Chapman from All About Planning.  The proposed 346 lot Bellwood subdivision is to be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

The report is as prepared by Mr Chapman with input from Council’s Manager Development and Environment, mainly with regard to agency responses from RMS and OEH and the compilation of conditions.

 

The matter has been reported for information prior to its tabling with the JRPP to allow council the opportunity to make a submission to the JRPP following consideration of the report and any representations which may be made to the meeting by residents.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Further consultation was engaged with the proponent to ensure satisfactory resolution of all matters pertaining to Aboriginal heritage

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This report is for information.

 

Social

 

As above

 

Economic

 

As above

 

Risk

 

As above

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

As above

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

As above

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

As above

 

Attachments:

1

15688/2014 - DA2012/011 Bellwood subdivision report plus conditions as compiled

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Report to JRPP - Bellwood subdivision - DA 2012/011

 

JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

(Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel)

JRPP No

2012NTH009

DA Number

DA2012/011

Local Government Area

Nambucca Shire Council

Proposed Development

Staged 346 Lot Residential Subdivision Plus Residue and Associated Works

Street Address

Lot 2, DP 1119830 Alexandra Drive, Nambucca Heads

Applicant/Owner

Joe Saliba

Nambucca Gardens Estate

c/o Geoff Smyth Consulting

PO Box 1925

COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450

Number of Submissions

29 individual letters

(including LALC submissions but not including advice received in respect of agency referrals)

 

65 Form Letter 1 submissions

52 Form Letter 2 submissions

Regional Development Criteria        (Schedule 4A of the Act)

9   Coastal subdivision:

Development within the coastal zone for the purposes of subdivision of the following kind:

(b)  subdivision of land for residential purposes into more than 100 lots, if the land:

(i)  is not in the metropolitan coastal zone, or

(ii)  is wholly or partly in a sensitive coastal location.

List of All Relevant s79C(1)(a) Matters

 

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

·    Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010

·    SEPP 71 Coastal Protection

·    SEPP 55 Contaminated Land

·    Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

List all documents submitted with this report for the panel’s consideration

·    Statement of Environmental Effects dated January 2012

·    Addendum Statement of Environmental Effects, 1,2 & 3 dated July 2012

·    Other documents TBC, including Social and Economic Impact Assessment, All Plans including Landscape Plans (plus as amended)

Recommendation

That the JRPP approve DA2012/011 subject to the attached conditions of consent

Report by

Peter Chapman – Director, All About Planning Pty Ltd on behalf of Nambucca Shire Council including input from Paul Guy - Manager Development & Environment


Ordinary Council Meeting - 12 June 2014

Report to JRPP - Bellwood subdivision - DA 2012/011

 

Assessment Report and Recommendation Cover Sheet

________________________________________________________________

Summary:

 

The subject application is for a staged 346 lot subdivision in Alexandra Drive, Nambucca Heads. The subject site is an irregular shaped property with a rolling topography, an overall fall down to the south and east and an area of approximately 54.8ha.

 

The site is truncated by the existing end of Alexandra Drive running from the north and which includes around 20 existing residential properties all fronting the road.  The site itself is currently a mixture of open grazing or grass land in its central and northern two thirds and open woodland to forests in its lower and wetter southern and eastern areas.  The later include mapped area of SEPP 14 wetland and Swampy Creek.

 

The land uses surrounding the site include rural residential development off Alexandra Drive to the north, Bellwood Creek and the existing Pacific Highway to the east, existing residential development in Marshall Way to the south and NSW State Forest to the west.

 

The application as originally submitted in February 2012 was fundamentally inadequate and significant information and documentation was missing.

 

The application has been the subject of a number of different issues and requests for additional information which have delayed the processing of the application.

 

The proposal is for a residential subdivision which backs onto a reserve (to the south) across which is an established urban development including a shopping and commercial area.

 

The application (as submitted) relied upon a single access road to the north (Alexandra Dve) which currently only services rural residential development and which has a (comparatively) long travel route to Nambucca Heads & the nearby Bellwood commercial area to the south east.

 

The initial assessment of the subject DA found that the proposed 346 lot subdivision lacked planning merit without a road link connecting the subdivision to the south to Marshall Way.  In addition the NSW Rural Fire Service who is an integrated agency for the DA refused to grant their general terms of approval (which are required for the DA to be supported) without a link road.  In addition BUSWAYS advised that it would not provide public bus services to the proposed subdivision without a link road through to Marshall Way being provided.

 

As a consequence of the above, the applicants were asked to integrate the provision of the full length of the link road into their subdivision DA to provide adequate certainty of it proceeding but they were not willing to do so.  After a site inspection and briefing with the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) on 18 October 2013, the applicants agreed to lodge a separate DA for the southern Council owned section of the road (DA 2013/183).  DA 2013/183 was submitted on the basis that if the subject part link road DA is approved then a separate report on the 346 subdivision DA (No. 2012/011) could be prepared to the JRPP with a condition applied (if it is recommended for approval) requiring the construction of the northern and southern section of the link road as per (in this scenario) the ‘approved’ Council owned Link Road section DA (2013/183). There by achieving the required certainty of the Link Road being provided. 

 

As outlined below DA 2013/183 for the Council owned section of the Link Road was approved by Council on        2014.

 

Over an extended period of time there have been significant community objections to the link road being constructed from existing residents (on traffic and safety grounds) and from the LALCs (and associated local community groups) on local Aboriginal cultural sensitivities due to the impact of the link road and the proposed subdivision on the significant Aboriginal Cultural Heritage of the area and specific Aboriginal sites.  Many of these objections have been reiterated in respect of the subject subdivision application.

 

Of relevance to the subject DA 2012/011 and the approved DA 2013/183, Council has considered reports on matters associated with the developments.  Of particular relevance are the following:

 

Council Meeting 15 July 2009

At its July 2009 meeting Council considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan.  This included notification of the draft Contributions Plan to residents, an assessment of the submissions received which particularly focussed on the Link Road proposal, a discussion of detailed Council projections for expected traffic growth over 20 years, a consideration of social and economic considerations and impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Diamond Tree site).

 

Refer to the discussion of Access, Transport and Traffic in Section (b) and Cultural Heritage in Section (a) of this report for further information. A copy of the 15 July 2009 report to Council is included as an attachment to this report.

 

Council Meeting 16 October 2013

It was resolved :’That the information concerning the status of DA2012/011 and the briefing of the Joint Regional Planning Panel on Friday 18 October 2013 be received and that a further report come to Council on the outcome of the Panel’s briefing.’

 

and

 

It was resolved ‘That Council make a submission to the JRPP whereby if the Link Road is required by the development that all costs concerning the Road be paid for by the developer.

 

Council Meeting ## May/June 2014

It was resolved: ‘******’ Please insert Council meeting date and resolution regarding the determination of DA 2013/183 for the Council owned Link Road section.

 

 

In addition to the above, a site inspection and briefing on the subject DA was held with the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel on Friday 31 October 2013.

 

All matters are considered to have been properly assessed.

 

Recommendation:

 

1.       That the Northern Joint Region Planning Panel approve DA 2012/11 (with the exception of the 15 residential lots and associated roads 15 and 16, within Stage E) subject to the attached conditions of consent. 

 

(Refer Town Planning Specific Conditions in the report but other required and standard conditions are to be inserted by Council)

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.       Approve the entire application (including the 15 lots within Stage E and associated roads)

2.       Approve application  subject to additional or alternative conditions

3.       Refuse the application

 

 

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

 

In its assessment of a development application, the JRPP is required to take into consideration the following Section 79 C matters:

 

a        The provisions of

 

i         Any environmental planning instruments

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 91 Integrated Development

Under Section 91 EPA Act 1979, the subject development is classified as ‘Integrated Development’ due to the need to obtain the approval of the NSW Office of Water and the NSW Rural Fire Service.   Integrated development referrals to both of these agencies have been completed and responses received which have been discussed under Section (d) Submissions, later in this report.

 

Schedule 4A

Under Schedule 4A of the EPA Act 1979 and Part 4, State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011, the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel is the consent authority for the subject application as it is for “(9) Coastal Subdivision - Development within the coastal zone for the purposes of subdivision of the following kind: (b) subdivision of land for residential purposes into more than 100 lots, if the land: (ii) is wholly or partly in a sensitive coastal location.”

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010

Under the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (NLEP 2010) the subject site is partly zoned R1 General Residential, E3 Environmental Management and E2 Environmental Conservation. The proposed subdivision itself is only proposed within the R1 General Residential zoned land.  The northern (privately owned) section of the Link Road, some partial sections of internal access roads and some proposed outdoor recreation reserves are proposed within the E3 Environmental Management zoned land.  The subdivision is a permissible development with consent within the R1 zoning.  The roads and outdoor recreation reserves are all permissible developments with consent within the E3 zoned land.

 

No part of the proposed development extends within the E2 zoned area of the site.

 

Clause 4.1   Minimum subdivision lot size

Clause 4.1 of the NLEP 2010 requires development to comply with the applicable minimum lot size indicated on Council’s LEP minimum lot size maps the subject site being located within a 450m2 minimum lot size area.  The proposed development maintains compliance with the LEP having an approximate average lot size of just over 600m2 and a minimum of 509m2.

 

Clause 5.5   Development within the coastal zone

The subject land is located within the coastal zone and as such the provisions of this clause need to be addressed in the application. The provisions of this clause and those of SEPP 71 and the principles of the NSW Coastal Policy are closely related and as such these matters will be addressed in this section of the report.

 

Principles and objectives of Clause 5.5 specifically relevant to the proposal are listed below:

 

(a) to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations through promoting the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

 

(b) to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy, and in particular to:

(i) protect, enhance, maintain and restore the coastal environment, its associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity and its water quality, and

(ii) protect and preserve the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast, and

(iv) recognise and accommodate coastal processes and climate change, and

(v) protect amenity and scenic quality, and

(ix) ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and

(x) ensure that decisions in relation to new development consider the broader and cumulative impacts on the catchment, and

 

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered:

 

(b) the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account:

(i) the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii) the location, and

(iii) the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building or work involved, and

 

(c) the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal foreshore including:

(i) any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and

(ii) any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore, and

 

(d) how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

 

(e) how biodiversity and ecosystems, including:

(i) native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and

(iii) water quality of coastal waterbodies, and

(iv) native fauna and native flora, and their habitats, can be conserved, and

 

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(d) the proposed development will not:

(i) be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or

(ii) have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or

(iii) increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land.

 

Planning Comment:

The above matters have been addressed within the overall assessment of the application as contained in this report.  In particular this assessment has found that the proposal is suitable given its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on natural scenic quality.  The proposal will not have an impact on the amenity of the coastal foreshore through any significant overshadowing or loss of views from a public place.  The development will largely be screened by the existing adjoining vegetation, it is not located in a visually prominent area and will not detrimentally affect the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast. In addition the proposal will not affect the ecological values, biodiversity and ecosystems of the area as assessed in this report and outlined in the submitted ecological report.

 

The principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) are referred to in clause 5.5 of the NLEP 2010 (as well as the Local Government Act). Section 89 of the Local Government Act indicates that Council must take into consideration the principles of ESD. ESD incorporates the precautionary principle which indicates lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. It also includes inter-generational equity—namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

 

This assessment report demonstrates that the proposal will comply with ESD principles.

 

Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Clause 5.9 (Preservation of trees or vegetation) of the Nambucca LEP seeks to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.  Under subclause (3) a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by a development consent or a permit granted by the Council.  The subject DA (if approved) would constitute the required development consent.

 

An ecological assessment has been submitted with the subject DA; the findings of this are discussed later in section (b) The Likely Impacts of the Development of this report.

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the Nambucca LEP seeks to conserve the environmental heritage of Nambucca, conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, conserve archaeological sites, and conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

 

Clause 5.10 requires development consent for the demolition or moving of a heritage item, an Aboriginal object or a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area.   Consent is also required for disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed and disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

 

The subject site does not include any Nambucca LEP listed heritage item, Aboriginal object, archaeological site or relic.

 

However it is common knowledge in the local community that the site includes the remains of an Aboriginal scar tree in its north western area and on its south western boundary adjoins the ‘Diamond Tree’ gazetted Nambucca Aboriginal Area.  Both the Diamond Tree and Scar Tree are listed on the AHIMS (Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System).

 

The above mentioned scar tree remains are proposed to be retained and preserved on the site in an open reserve area.  The gazetted Nambucca Aboriginal Area for the Diamond Tree is a designated allotment with a buffer in place.

 

In view of the Aboriginal significance of the area and site, the subject DA has been accompanied by a Heritage Archaeological assessment (and addendums) by Archaeological Surveys and Reports Pty Ltd (ASR). 

 

The consultation with the Local Aboriginal community undertaken for the proposed subdivision of Lot 2 (and the Link Road) was undertaken by ASR acting on behalf of the developers in a number of phases since 2002 to accommodate the evolving requirements for such consultation.  This has included a field survey with an Aboriginal Elder and Sites Officer for the Nambucca Heads LALC and the receipt of formal written advice from the LALC in 2002. 

 

In 2009 the consultant wrote to Aboriginal Community stakeholders in the area regarding proposals to preserve the scarred tree location.  Later in 2009 further advice from the Nambucca LALC was received and in response to new Government Guidelines at the time, two meetings with the LALC were arranged. 

 

In 2012 and in response to another set of Government consultation guidelines, an updated list of local Aboriginal Community Stakeholders was obtained and newspaper advertisements were placed requesting registrations of interest in the project.  Each of these was written to, provided with a copy of the consultants previous reports on the site to date, with a request for written comments – no responses were received. 

 

In view of the above, the developer’s archaeological consultant later in 2012 contacted the Nambucca Heads LALC to ask for a meeting to be arranged with Community Elders.  A meeting was held 13th June 2012 which agreed that a site meeting and walkover was required and this was organised for 20th June 2012.  The consultant’s report advises that the proximity of the Link Road construction and the proposed subdivision to the Diamond Tree site/ reserve were the primary concerns of the Aboriginal Community.

 

Clause 5.10(8) of the Nambucca LEP 2010 includes the following requirements relevant to this discussion:

 

(8) Aboriginal places of heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a)      consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b)  notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

 

Council’s notification of the subject DA included the Nambucca LALC and other registered Aboriginal stakeholders in the area. The submitted consultant archaeological reports and consultation (discussed above) and the assessment of the subject DA in this report seek to collectively satisfy the above LEP provisions.

 

In response to Council’s notification of the subject DA the Nambucca LALC made a submission to Council.  The following is a summary of the submission made by the Nambucca LALC:

 

1.       The subject site is within an area and landscape of significant cultural value and the Aboriginal Community do not want to see the area developed any further.  The whole landscape of the area is significant due to the ceremonial activities that took place for up to 40,000 years. These values are not bounded by European traditional boundaries eg fences or roads but ‘by creeks, rivers and natural landscapes’.

 

2.       The above cultural values centre around The Diamond Tree being located outside of the subject site for the Link Road but approximately 120m to the north west.  ‘The Diamond Tree is the focal point of cultural belief on the entire Gumbaynggirr Nation’.   The proposed Link Road and subdivision of Lot 2 in DP 1119830 is too close to the Diamond Tree and will significantly affect these cultural values.

 

3.       The Local Aboriginal Community have been objecting to the increasing urban development in the area since the original Marshall Way area was first proposed.

 

4.       The proposed landscape screening between the proposed road and the Diamond Tree site does not satisfy the Aboriginal people.

 

5.       The above is not just an issue for the local Aboriginal community ‘but is significant to the whole Nation’.

 

6.       In a previous submission to Council the Nambucca LALC outlined that in 1979 a 0.4ha area for a Diamond Tree buffer or reserve was acquired and dedicated by NPWS with the intention that it would be located within a surrounding and continuing forest context that was not developed.  At that time the Aboriginal Community were apparently calling for a 400m buffer to be provided assuming that the surrounding land to the south west remained forested.  Since then most of this surrounding land has been purchased by developers and the forests cleared leaving the Diamond Tree inadequately protected.

 

Comment: The LALC has advised that the Diamond Tree is a significant Secret Men’s Business ceremonial site and in traditional aboriginal culture, Aboriginal women and children are not permitted to be in the area within the distance that a Bull Roarer can be heard if sounded from the Diamond Tree site. Furthermore it is understood that there is an Aboriginal belief that Aboriginal people who live in proximity to the tree will get sick. It is clear from the advice of the LALC that the local Aboriginal elders consider that the Bull Roarer will be heard from the site of the proposed part Link Road relevant to this subject DA and at least part of the proposed new Bellwood subdivision (specifically the 15 lots within Stage E and associated roads), as is the case currently with the Farringdon Playing Fields.  It is further noted that due to proximity to the Diamond Tree, the local Aboriginal community does not currently use the Farringdon Playing Fields as they are an area deemed to be within earshot of a Bull Roarer if sounded from the Diamond Tree.

 

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage maintain a data base ‘Atlas’ of Declared NSW Aboriginal Places and a separate Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) of recorded sites and other Aboriginal reports.  As stated earlier both The Diamond Tree and the Scarred Tree are listed sites in the AHIMS database but are not listed as a declared place in the Atlas.

 

In April 2011, OEH produced a document titled: “Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW”.  This guideline states in respect of assessing harm to Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places that it is important to quantify both direct and indirect harm. 

 

In respect of this particular subdivision DA and which includes a portion of the required Link Road, the key Aboriginal heritage issue is therefore the potential impact of the proposed subdivision and part Link Road adjoining the Diamond Tree and the impact on the significance of the Tree and this Tree’s intrinsic and central cultural link to the surrounding landscape and the Gumbaynggirr Nation.

 

The preservation of the scar tree remains in the north western area of the site has not been raised as an outstanding issue either in the archaeological report (or the consultation undertaken for it) or in the submissions received from the LALC.

 

It is noted that the Aboriginal community’s strong objection to any urban development in the area has remained largely unchanged since those same objections were raised, discussed and assessed in the past regarding what is now approved and constructed urban development in Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive.

 

Whilst it will be open to the local Aboriginal community to not use the Link Road or live in the subdivision area adjoining the Diamond Tree if any of this is constructed, a key question is whether such an outcome would be reasonable and whether approval of the subject subdivision and part Link Road would result in direct or indirect harm to the cultural value of the Diamond Tree ceremonial site.

 

Consideration of impacts on items of Aboriginal heritage is not dissimilar to assessments of items of European heritage. It is an accepted principle that development in the vicinity of an item of heritage can present a threat to the significance of that item.  In the case of the Diamond Tree, the Aboriginal Community has confirmed that the Diamond Tree is of paramount significance to the Gumbaynggirr Nation.  Further, the advice of the local Aboriginal elders is that Aboriginal women and children would be able to hear a Bull Roarer from at least the Stage E portion the subject subdivision and part Link Rd sites.

 

It is noted that the NSW Regional OEH office provided comment in September 2013 on the subject subdivision DA 2012/011.  At that time no specific advice in respect of the acceptability or other of impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage was provided, nor was any specific detail provided quantifying direct or indirect impacts. The OEH submission focussed on the inadequacy of the proponent’s then Heritage Assessment and the significance of the Diamond Tree and surrounding area to the Gumbaynggirr Nation.

 

In addition to the above advice, a submission was also received in September 2012 from the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (NSW OEH) regarding the impact of the subdivision on the Diamond Tree Nambucca Aboriginal Area.  The full summary of the points raised are provided in Section (d) ‘Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the Regulations – Agency Submissions’ later in this report.  The National Parks comments advise that the “Nambucca Aboriginal Area, gazetted in 1979, has outstanding Aboriginal Culture and heritage values” and concludes with the statement that: “On the basis of these recommendations to install a visual buffer of the reserve, improve fire asset protection zones and restrict public access to the reserve, any development within the Southern Precinct is not supported.”

 

In addition to the above Agency submissions on the Aboriginal cultural heritage issues, the Socio-Economic report submitted with the DA, prepared by Keily Hunter, recommends:

 

“On the basis of new information received following recent liaison with the Aboriginal community by Appleton, Stage E of the development (proposed Lots 334 to 352 and Roads 15 and 16) should be amended or deferred from the development until:

                        

1. A compromise design is agreed upon with the Aboriginal community comprising a single row of lots along the southern extent of Alexandra Drive and buffer planting with suitable impervious fencing; and/or

 

2. Arrangements are made to acquire the land surrounding the Diamond Tree for cultural reserve purposes by the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage.”

 

The Aboriginal Heritage Assessment prepared by John Appleton of Archaeological Surveys and Reports (most recently updated June 2012) considering the Bellwood Subdivision states that:

 

“As a consequence of the field investigation in respect of the proposed subdivision of Lot 2 and comprehensive consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and male elders of the Nambucca district Aboriginal community, there are no grounds of an Aboriginal cultural nature that present a constraint to the proposed subdivision in principle. Further it is recommended that the proponent should consider the preferred option of the Aboriginal stakeholders in future plans for the subdivision of Lot 2, being no subdivision around the slopes of the Diamond Tree and no Link Road.”

 

John Appleton further stated that: “The Aboriginal or cultural significance of Aboriginal relics and sites can only be assessed by the Aboriginal community and in particular the elders.”

 

Whilst the now Council approved Link Road construction and associated part Link Road within Lot 2 (the subject application) in the vicinity of the Diamond Tree will increase vehicular and pedestrian access in the area, the use of the road will be optional for Aboriginal people who are keen to preserve cultural heritage.  As such in this sense the new Link Road will not appreciably worsen the existing impact of urban development in Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive on the cultural heritage value of the Diamond Tree. 

 

However it is considered that approval of 15 permanent privately owned residential lots and associated roads in close proximity to and backing onto the Diamond Tree Nambucca Aboriginal Area (the proposed last stage E of the development) is likely to result significant additional cultural heritage impacts on the Diamond Tree as outlined in the various submissions received from the local Aboriginal stakeholder groups to the subject DA.  The Aboriginal community clearly considers that the surrounding landscape setting of the Diamond Tree would be significantly diminished by the proposed Stage E residential subdivision. 

 

In addition (as outlined earlier) the National Parks and Wildlife Service who manages the Diamond Tree Reserve (in conjunction with the Aboriginal community) and the applicant’s Social Planner have both expressed the view that the Stage E residential subdivision surrounding the Reserve should not proceed, should be significantly cut back or should be deferred.

 

Lastly, it is relevant to consider what weighting should be placed on one key assessment issue over another and what weighting is relevant in respect of intergenerational equity and in light of the precautionary principle.  In the case of the proposed subdivision, there is clearly a tension between Aboriginal Heritage values and the applicant’s desire for the proposed new residential community on Lot 2.

 

It is acknowledged that the land surrounding the Diamond Tree Nambucca Aboriginal Area is in private ownership and there is an inherent expectation to be able to develop or improve this land if it remains in private ownership.  However the Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural significance of this area has been well known to all land owners in the community, including before the Diamond Tree Nambucca Aboriginal Area gazettal in 1979.  It is also widely understood that such Aboriginal cultural heritage issues often do not fit neatly within property and legal boundaries.

 

In light of the above assessment or aboriginal heritage impacts, the submissions made and the above circumstances, it is recommended that the Stage E residential lots and associated residential roads 15 and 16 are not approved at this time.  The submitted and consistent advice and concerns of the Aboriginal Community, the associated agencies and the proponent’s social planner for the DA are acknowledged and accepted.

 

The Part of the Link Road the subject of Stage E is however recommended for approval as this section of the Link Road will result in a lesser impact on overall Aboriginal heritage of the area and is considered to be an essential social and traffic planning component of any new residential subdivision on the subject Lot 2.

 

As a consequence of the above findings, a condition is recommended which states “no approval is granted or implied by this consent to the 15 lots and the associated roads 15 and 16 proposed in Stage E of the development.”

 

In regard to the reasonableness of this proposed condition it is noted that the proposed condition to not proceed with the 15 lots does not represent a significant and unreasonable detrimental impost on the proponent of the development.   The subject 15 Stage E residential lots comprise a relatively small proportion of the entire 346 lot proposed development.  The remaining 331 residential lots recommended for approval will still ensure a significant site yield and staged financial benefit for the land owners.

 

It should also be noted that in addition to the above specific condition concerning Stage E, a standard condition is included in the recommendation of this report to address any potential situation where items of Aboriginal heritage are discovered within the work zone during future site construction works or processes.

 

One of the Aboriginal community submissions received suggested that Aboriginal names should be used for the development for the naming of streets.  In view of the demonstrated Aboriginal interest in the area, a condition requiring incorporation of Aboriginal Street names is also recommended.

 

 

Clause 7.1   Acid Sulphate Soils

The proposed development extends within land classified as Class 5, Class 4 and Class 2 on Council’s ASS LEP maps.  Class 5 being land within 500 metres of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land. Class 4 being Works more than 2 metres below the natural ground surface, works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more than 2 metres below the natural ground surface.  Class 2 being Works below the natural ground surface, works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered. 

 

Clause 7.1 of the Nambucca LEP states that Development consent is required for the carrying out of works described in the Table to this subclause on land shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map as being of the class specified for those works.  However (under subclause 4) this consent is not required if a preliminary assessment of the proposed works prepared in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual indicates that an acid sulfate soils management plan need not be carried out for the works.

The applicants have lodged a preliminary assessment of the proposed works prepared in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual.  The findings of this ASS assessment are accepted, being that an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is not required for the proposed works.  Nevertheless, a standard engineering condition is recommended to be applied to any approval issued for the proposal addressing any ASS soils that are encountered.

 

Clause 7.3 Flood Planning

Clause 7.3 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 requires the following:

 

(3)  Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a)  is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b)  will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c)  incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

(d)  will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e)  is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

 

The subject site includes Swampy Creek and the western shoreline of Bellwood Creek.  These areas are flood prone being affected by both the 1 in 100 year flood line and the Probable Maximum Flood Level.  A stormwater management report was submitted with the subject DA which included discussion of the above flood lines, the impact of climate change on these levels, the contribution of the likely stormwater flows from the subject development and likely impacts all this could have on surrounding properties.

 

Various types of Hydraulic Modelling and reference to other previous Hydraulic studies undertaken in the immediate area, was utilised in the report with the following findings resulting:

 

·           The proposed subdivision will not be affected by the 1 in 100 year flood (including a maximum allowance for climate change).

·           The hydraulic modelling undertaken indicates that the development will only result in a 3.9% increase in downstream stormwater flows which is insignificant in changing the overall height of the creek and will not cause flooding to existing dwellings and properties which are currently flood free.

·           The effects of climate change on the site are also negligible with only minor flooding that doesn’t affect dwellings occurring if the maximum theorised sea level rise is achieved.  Increase in rainfall has little effect on the system due to how wide the system is during a flood or ARI event.

 

7.4   Public utility infrastructure

Clause 7.4 of the NLEP 2010 requires Council to be satisfied that all infrastructure required for development is available (or appropriate arrangements made) prior to approvals being issued.  It is considered that all required infrastructure is available to the subject site.

SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands

A discussion and assessment of the proposal under SEPP 14 in relation to wetland no. 362 located within the site is provided later in this report within section (b) The Likely Impacts of The Development – Ecological Impacts.

SEPP 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

A discussion and assessment of the proposal under SEPP 44 in relation to Koala Habitat is provided later in this report within section (b) The Likely Impacts of The Development – Ecological Impacts.

SEPP 71 Coastal Protection

The provisions of SEPP 71 Coastal Protection relate closely to the issues identified in clause 5.5 of the Nambucca LEP 2010. Please refer to the earlier discussion of Clause 5.5 of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Development within the coastal zone) for further information.

 

SEPP 55 Contaminated Land

Clause 7 (1) (A) of this planning instrument requires Council to consider whether land is contaminated in its assessment of a development application.

 

The Engineering Issues Statement submitted with the subject proposal includes a Preliminary Site Investigation prepared in accordance with the SEPP 55 “Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines”. 

 

Based on this assessment and the information available regarding the site’s history of use it is concluded that the subject site is unlikely to include any contaminated soil (or other contaminating agents) and that it is suitable for the construction of the proposed subdivision and associated works.

 

 

ii        Any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are no Draft Environmental Planning Instruments specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

iii       Any development control plan (DCP)

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

A3.0 Notification and Public Participation

The subject DA was notified to all properties in the vicinity of the proposal.  Notification extended to all properties fronting Marshall Way and Bellwood Road to the south, including all the owners of Farringdon Village and all properties fronting Alexandra Drive and connecting streets up to the Old Coast Road.  The application was also advertised in the Guardian News.

 

In addition to the above and in light of the significance of the proposal a community information meeting was held regarding the subject DA during the notification period on 31 August 2012 at the Nambucca Heads Entertainment Centre.  Just over 40 residents attended this meeting.

 

External referrals on the application were sent to a large number of Government Agencies and other Stakeholders in light of the nature of the proposal including NSW Roads and Maritime Services, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Office of Water (both of the latter as Integrated Agencies under Section 91 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). 

 

The agency responses and public submissions received are discussed under Section (d) Submissions, later in this report.

 

A3.5 Notification to Local Aboriginal Community

The Nambucca Heads LALC and other local Aboriginal stakeholder groups were specifically notified in accordance with Council’s DCP requirements. 

 

A5.0 Environmental Context

The sections of this part of the Nambucca DCP 2010 relevant to the subject DA have been considered elsewhere in this report.

 

B2.1 Design Principles

The proposed subdivision layout complies with the design principles of the DCP to maximise the ability to travel directly between any given origin and destination, by providing for a network of inter-connected roads, rather than a network of cul-de-sacs and no through roads.

 

B2.2 Lot Orientation

The proposal complies with the DCP requirement for lots to be orientated to allow for the erection of buildings that present a building front to the street whilst avoiding lots backing onto collector roads and presenting an undesirable streetscape.  As much as possible the residential lots are orientated such that they have one street frontage only, to provide for adequate privacy and a sense of security.

 

In addition to the above (in line with the DCP) the residential lots are orientated and sized to facilitate the siting of dwellings to take advantage of solar access and breezes, taking into account likely dwelling size and the relationship of each lot to the street.

 

B2.3 Road Networks and Design

In accordance with the DCP the proposal has a distinctive road hierarchy, with clear physical differences proposed between each type of road, based on function, capacity, vehicle speeds and public safety.  Acceptable levels of access, safety and convenience for all road users is provided, while ensuring acceptable levels of amenity, and protection from the impact of traffic.

 

The recommended conditions within this report include the implementation of traffic calming at appropriate places to mitigate traffic issues where necessary.

 

B2.4 Pedestrian and Cycle Way Networks

The proposal, with its interconnected street network, will facilitate and encourage pedestrian and cycle access throughout the subdivision.  In addition, the provision of the Link Road between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive is considered essential to ensure a connected and sustainable new residential area is achieved on the subject Lot 2. In line with the requirements of the approved Council owned section of the Link Road a condition of consent is recommended to require provision of a dedicated shared pedestrian/ cycleway as part of the new Link Road, in order to further improve the connection of the proposed residential subdivision with the existing urban area and the Bellwood commercial area in particular. 

 

B2.5 Bus Services

The design of the development has included planning for bus routes circuitous throughout the subdivision as part of the proposed road hierarchy.  Bus stops and laybacks have been identified on the plans and appropriate engineering conditions are proposed to be applied to assist the final design of these facilities.

 

B2.6 Public Open Space for Residential Areas

In regard to public open space the SEE for the subject development notes that 39.3% of the site area will be dedicated reserve land/ public open space.  Whilst this is a significant proportion of the site it is noted that more than half of that 39.3% reserve area is permanently or periodically inaccessible low lying, conservation area, including a SEPP 14 wetland, Swampy Creek and the western shoreline of Bellwood Creek.  In addition, almost all of these reserve areas are located on flood prone land.

 

Aside from the above constrained reserve areas, the proposal includes 5 dedicated public open space areas within or adjoining the subdivision area itself,  with a combined total area of 15,800m2.  The development is also in the near vicinity of the Farringdon playing fields at the existing end of Marshall Way which has around 3.4ha of constructed active open space area.

 

Whilst the DCP contains a notional rate for the provision of public open space of 70m2/ new residential lot (which if applied would require 24,220m2 for the subject development) it also contains flexibility to permit consideration of the proximity of the new residential area to existing parks and the need for additional open space in the area.

 

On the above basis the proposed provision of open space is considered reasonable on the proviso that proposed reserve No. 4 in the north western area of the site (and which includes the scarred tree remains) is increased to a minimum area of 2,000m2 in line with the DCP minimum area requirement.  Aside from maintaining compliance with the DCP this will enhance the preservation of the cultural significance of the scar tree, ensure that the space is useable with a good amenity for residents, can be achieved without unreasonable impact on the overall development and make it more efficient to maintain and service by Council staff.  A condition requiring this amendment is proposed in the recommendations to this report. 

 

Another condition is recommended to ensure that these 5 separate proposed open space areas on the subject site are adequately furnished and landscaped, including with footpaths and play equipment generally as per the landscaping plan.

 

Related to the above discussion (and as an alternative to the above approach), it is noted that consideration was given by Council staff to the alternative option of requiring provision of a consolidated and central single open space /park in the vicinity of proposed roads 3, 4 and 7.  It is agreed that such a proposal would provide a larger and thus more flexible use, accessible, elevated and attractive area of the site and which is not constrained in the same manner as the majority of the proposed (non developable) conservation area along the creeks and wetlands.

 

This alternative, central, single larger park option has some merit and it could be argued to be a reasonable imposition on the proponent in view of the size and significance of the proposed works and which is more in keeping with the objectives, principles and standards for open space provision for large subdivisions of the DCP.  However in the circumstances this assessment is supportive of the proposed multiple parks.

 

B2.7 Water and Sewerage

In compliance with the DCP, the proposal includes the construction of reticulated water and sewerage systems which are to be provided in accordance with Council’s Water and Sewer Design Specification.

 

B2.8 Stormwater Drainage

A stormwater concept plan and design statement has been submitted with the subject DA.  This design has adopted ‘best management practices’ and minimised runoff through accommodating runoff within the site. The proposed design includes techniques such as retention basins, detention ponds and reuse systems. 

 

In particular the applicant’s stormwater design statement provides for a treatment train approach utilising 10,000l water tanks on each allotment with overflows over filter strips on each block of land, then into a combination of bio-retention swales and swales to filter the remaining water and remove pollutants then piped to the receiving waters.  The intention is to prevent the discharge of untreated stormwater in Swampy and Bellwood Creeks and comply with Government water quality standards.  The proponents advise the bio-retention swales will remove pollutants from stormwater and will discharge water of a higher quality than which is currently being discharged pre-development.

 

As stated earlier in this report in the discussion of Clause 7.3 of the Nambucca LEP 2010, the proposed design statement also included discussion of the flood levels affecting the site, the impact of climate change on these levels, the contribution of the likely stormwater flows from the subject development and likely impacts all this could have on surrounding properties.

 

Various types of Hydraulic Modelling and reference to other previous Hydraulic studies undertaken in the immediate area were utilised in the report with the following findings being reported:

 

·           The proposed residential lots will not be affected by the 1 in 100 year flood (including a maximum allowance for climate change).

·           The hydraulic modelling undertaken indicates that the development will only result in a 3.9% increase in downstream stormwater flows which is insignificant in changing the overall height of the creek and will not cause flooding to existing dwellings and properties which are currently flood free.

·           The effects of climate change on the site are also negligible with only minor flooding that doesn’t affect dwellings occurring if the maximum theorised sea level rise is achieved.  Increase in rainfall has little effect on the system due to how wide the system is during a flood or ARI event.

 

Council’s Engineers have advised regarding the proposed street edge bio-swales that the disadvantages of incorporating such a measure outweighs the advantages, as highlighted in the following advice.

 

Pro’s of Bio retention swales

 

·              The proposed treatment train complies with legislative requirements, achieves water quality targets and this type of WSUD design is becoming more common throughout Australia

·              Can look attractive and improve the streetscape, if maintained correctly

·              Is inexpensive to construct compared to traditional kerbs or piping of stormwater

 

Con’s of Bio retention swales

 

·              Drainage swales will be considerably damaged by construction traffic

·              Drainage swales require culverts to be constructed through driveway by owners, invert levels will be critical, previously they have been installed incorrectly

·              Swales take up are large portion of the road verge leaving little room for services, particularly in this proposal where water mains and other services are competing for room in a narrow road reserve and in a number of locations sewer mains are proposed across the frontage of properties . Services need to be kept clear of the swale for maintenance purposes

·              Swales can become a mosquito breeding ground where stormwater pools and stagnates.

·              Slopes of the swale drains will be damaged by vehicles as edge beam sits flush with the road pavement

·              The system requires a high level of maintenance and a commitment by Council to engage additional staff, machinery and a further commitment to a maintenance regime. i.e. weeding, watering, reseeding, reshaping and damage repair

·              Filter material and geo textile fabric contained within the bio-swale needs replacement after 5 years, turf and plants will also need replacement

 

The proposed Bio retention swale concept is preferable if there were no significant ongoing maintenance requirements, however given the substantial additional cost that Council would incur with the swale proposal, it is considered unaffordable and impractical.  If the bio retention swales are retained, the road x-sections will need to be changed to a one way cross fall, falling back to the drain, as per the Stormwater Management Report.  In addition the proposed roads reserves may need to be widened to achieve all of its required functions.    

 

Council’s engineers have recommended that kerb and gutter and associated works be required by condition, in preference to the proposed road side swales. Furthermore, Council’s engineers have advised their preference for piping of stormwater to a wetland or similar water quality treatment device instead of the proposed filter strips and bio-retention swales.

 

It is noted that the hydraulic modeling undertaken to date for the development relied on use of swales.  There has been no engineering requirement however for a new hydraulic model at this stage, given the proposed condition which details that calculations are to be provided confirming that the  stormwater system is adequately sized and designed to suit the entire development and will protect downstream water quality and satisfy Landcom standards.

 

In summary, the Bio retention swales are not recommended, being considered undesirable due to ongoing high maintenance, likely damage and safety concerns and due to insufficient room available in the road reserve. 

 

The recommended conditions of this report include engineering conditions to address the above and to require the design of an amended stormwater system.

 

B2.9 Electricity and B2.10 Telecommunications

All allotments within the proposed subdivision will be connected to the reticulated electricity and telecommunication mains in accordance with the requirements of Essential Energy and telecommunications providers.  A condition is included in the recommendation of this report to ensure that all electricity and telecommunications supplies are provided underground to improve visual amenity and comply with the DCP requirements.

 

B2.14 Wildlife Management and Landscape Ecology

In regard to wildlife management and landscape ecology the DCP seeks to maintain and enhance the ecological function of existing vegetation likely to provide landscape connectivity for locally occurring flora and fauna species.  To this end an ecological assessment and report on the subject site has been submitted with the DA.  In addition to this an addendum was requested and submitted to address the listing of new Endangered Ecological Communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 since the original report was prepared.

 

Please refer to section (b) ‘The Likely Impacts of the Development’, later in this report for a discussion on the ecological impacts of the proposal and the findings of the submitted ecological reports.

 

B3.0 ZONE REQUIREMENTS

B3.1 RESIDENTIAL ZONES

As discussed earlier in this report (Section (a)(i), the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size provisions of the NLEP 2010.  The proposal also (on the whole) complies with the minimum required street frontage of 12.0m for all but 10 of the proposed lots.  Two of these ten lots are battle axe lots which are permitted to have a shared 5.0m access handle.  The other 8 have frontages ranging from 8m to 11m and are located at the two proposed cul-de-sac heads or street bends.  The dimensions of these 8 lots should be amended to comply with the 12m requirement by way of condition.   This should not be an issue for such a large subdivision development especially as the SEE for the proposal advises that all lots comply with these standards.

 

All lots appear to comply with the dwelling envelope and private open space requirements of the DCP.

 

Part D Sediment and Erosion Control

Engineering conditions to ensure the implementation of adequate sedimentation and erosion measures complying with the DCP requirements have been included in the recommended conditions to this report.

 

b        The Likely Impacts Of the Development

 

The body of this report includes consideration of many likely impacts of the proposed development.  Following is a consideration of those matters which are not otherwise considered.

 

Context and Setting

The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the immediately adjoining and predominant urban land use in Marshall Way and will not make a significant change to the character and nature of the area.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

As outlined earlier in the description of the proposed development, part of the proposal is the construction of the northern half of a link road which will run between Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way.  This northern section of the road will be located within the subject site for the subdivision.  The southern half of this road is proposed within a purpose created, Council owned allotment to Marshall Way.  The southern road section was the subject of a separate DA2013/183 which was reported to Nambucca Shire Council and approved on / June 2014.  This report on DA2013/183 addressed the issues of access, transport and traffic relating to the full Link Road proposal (southern and northern section).  Consequently reference should be made to the copy of the report on DA2013/183 attached to this report for the proposed subdivision.

 

As noted in the assessment report on DA2013/183 a 2.5m wide pedestrian/cycleway is proposed in conjunction with the Link Road proposal.  This pedestrian/cycleway is considered necessary and adequate for the desired purpose. 

 

By way of providing background information for the subject assessment, the report to Council on the Council owned Link Road section (DA2013/183) outlined that the subject application (as submitted) relied upon a single access road to the north (Alexandra Drive) which currently only services rural residential development and which has a (comparatively) long travel route to Nambucca Heads & the nearby Bellwood commercial area to the south east.

 

The initial assessment of the subject DA found that the proposed 346 lot subdivision lacked planning merit without a road link connecting the subdivision to the south to Marshall Way.  In addition the NSW Rural Fire Service who is an Integrated Agency for the DA refused to grant their general terms of approval (which are required for the DA to be supported) without the link road.  In addition BUSWAYS advised that it would not provide public bus services to the proposed subdivision without a link road being provided.

 

In addition to the above the NSW Health Mid North Coast Local Health District in its comments on the subject DA (refer to discussion on Agency submissions in section (d) – (Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the Regulations) advised that access for residents and emergency services to and from health care services in Nambucca Heads will be heavily reliant upon good functional road infrastructure within the development.  In addition provision should be made for public transport to service the development area. The provision of the full Link Road is integral to the achievement of each of these specifications.

 

It is only on the basis that both the (currently) privately owned and Council owned sections the Link Road are constructed upfront prior to the release of any subdivision certificates for the proposed development that the subject DA is supported both from a planning merit perspective (as outlined in this report) and a legal/ legislative basis in relation to the requirement for general terms of approval (GTAs) being issued from the NSW Rural Fire Service (under Section 91 EPA Act 1979).

 

As a consequence of the above the recommended conditions attached to this report include a requirement that the prior to the release of any subdivision certificate for the proposed development both the northern section of the proposed Link Road located within the subject site and the southern section (including the shared pedestrian/ cycleway) within the Council owned land approved by the development consent issued for DA2013/183 shall be constructed and completed.

 

It should be noted that the above approach is permissible under section 80A (Imposition of Conditions) (1)(f), Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which states: A condition of development consent may be imposed if:  (f)  it requires the carrying out of works (whether or not being works on land to which the application relates) relating to any matter referred to in section 79C (1) applicable to the development the subject of the consent.”

 

In regard to the public submissions received to the subject DA relating to the traffic impacts from the overall Link Road construction these issues will have already been addressed by Council in its assessment and determination of DA2013/183 this meeting    In summary, the proposal will connect Marshall Way with Alexandra Drive and will permit the flow of traffic over each road for both local residents and other users.  This will no doubt result in an increase in traffic on each of these streets compared to the existing levels which are reflective of their existing dead end natures.  This intended temporary situation is something that the existing residents of each street have understandably become used to and (in many cases) to expect.  However Council’s overall plans for the Marshall Way area have for an extended period of time, extending back to at least 1994, included the construction of a Link Road between Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive. To this end Marshall Way was designed and constructed to a Collector Road standard on the basis that a through connection would be created.

 

As mentioned in the summary of this report Council also previously considered the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Link Road in July 2009 when it considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan.  This draft Contributions Plan was notified to residents and an assessment of the submissions received particularly focussed on the Link Road proposal, a discussion of detailed Council projections for expected traffic growth over 20 years, a consideration of social and economic considerations and impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Diamond Tree site).  Having weighed these considerations it was resolved “That Council retain the inclusion of a link road between Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way, Nambucca Heads in the Bellwood Traffic Contribution Plan on the basis that it is required for future traffic management and planned development of that precinct.

 

The Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contributions Plan was adopted in August 2009 and continues to be in force.  On the above basis it is considered that Council has already considered and signed off on the issue of Traffic Impacts of the Link Road and the proposal should continue to be supported on traffic grounds.

 

Heritage

Please refer to the discussion of Clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation) under the consideration of Section 79C(1) EP&A Act and the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 earlier in this report for a discussion of Heritage impacts of the proposal.

 

Noise and Vibration

Aside from some short term higher noise and vibration levels during construction, the proposal will be in keeping with the established character and nature of the area. Standard conditions to address Noise and Vibration impacts during construction have been included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

The subject application was accompanied by a Socio-Economic Assessment of the proposal which was supplemented by the requested more detailed Addendum, received during the assessment of the DA.  The submitted social assessments made the following comments:

 

Level of social change

As mentioned above, the development of Nambucca Gardens Estate will be gradual and the social structure of the area will is change incrementally. Once the estate is fully developed, around 1,200 additional people will bring positive and negative social change. Currently the Palmwoods and nearby rural residential area are relatively isolated and interaction among neighbours is more difficult under this scenario. A ‘critical mass’ of like-minded households may introduce new opportunities for community building within the area, based around family values and/or environmental awareness as in ‘landcare’ or like groups with a common goal to conserve the Swampy Creek wetland area.

 

It is highly likely that the social mix within the Nambucca Gardens Estate will be similar to this social mix already present in the Palmwoods / Alexandra Drive area. This area has a much higher proportion of families with children than in the Bellwood area and also a higher proportion than the rest of the Nambucca local area. Family households are likely to continue to find this area suitable for lifestyle purposes.

 

Given the nature of the subdivision and the character of the existing surrounding neighbourhood, there is no reason to think that the social structure of the area will significantly change, however the neighbourhood will become busier and noisier.

 

Mitigation of Impacts

As mentioned above, the character and family values of the Palmwoods / Alexandra Driveneighbourhood will be reflected in the future social family mix of the proposed subdivisionas it is designed for low density residential living.

 

In consideration of social issues already identified in the wider Nambucca area, such as lack of housing diversity and the lack of and high cost of rental / affordable housing, the release of this land onto the Nambucca housing market will increase supply and ultimately improve affordability.

 

The increase in local population will change the demand for community and social facilities, however, service providers have indicated that their organisations will expand to accommodate additional patronage.

 

Further to the above in regard to the demand for services the submitted report also states:

 

Given the higher than usual proportion of aged people and the generally low socioeconomic status of the local population, the eventual population of the Nambucca Gardens Estate catering for a high proportion of family households, will not significantly strain social resources; particularly in terms of social and medical support.

 

Increased demand for medical and community services as a result of population increase from the Nambucca Gardens Estate will be negligible in terms of additional burdens to already overloaded system.

 

New housing opportunities as a result of the proposed subdivision will stimulate economic development in the Bellwood area, perhaps leading to increased visitation from specialist service providers and additional private practitioners living and working in the area.

 

In regard to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage issues surrounding the Diamond Tree and the submissions made by the local Aboriginal community the social report submitted with the DA recommends:

 

On the basis of new information received following recent liaison with the Aboriginal community by Appleton, Stage E of the development (proposed Lots 334 to 352 and Roads 15 and 16) should be amended or deferred from the development until:

                        

1. A compromise design is agreed upon with the Aboriginal community comprising a single row of lots along the southern extent of Alexandra Drive and buffer planting with suitable impervious fencing; and/or

 

2. Arrangements are made to acquire the land surrounding the Diamond Tree for cultural reserve purposes by the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage.

 

This approach may alleviate the need to notify future purchasers by way of a notation on planning certificates of the presence of the Diamond Tree and the belief that anyone residing within a ‘bull roarer’ of the tree may experience sickness. Council planning staff have advised that this approach is difficult to implement through their usual processes as the cultural site is not listed on the heritage schedule of the Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010 by request of the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

 

In addition to the above (and as reported in the recent report to Council on DA 2013/183 for the Link Road proposal) when Council considered the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan in July 2009 the report included the following assessment of the social impact of the Link Road which is relevant to the subject subdivision DA:

 

The “link” generates both positive and negative impacts.  Local residents are concerned about the impact of higher traffic numbers on their safety and amenity.

 

On a larger scale the access is needed to improve the travel route to the commercial area, to allow through road for school bus and traffic generally to remove one way in access to Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way, to link growing local communities, to upgrade the roads for increases in traffic numbers relating to new housing and other developments (eg Aged Care and Education are possible) and to reduce the need to use the Pacific Highway.

 

The distance from the southern end to the Plaza via the proposed link is 1.3 km compared to 5.5 km via the Pacific Highway

 

It is considered that the Link Road is essential to any further large scale residential development of the Bellwood area and will also be very valuable in improving connectivity between existing residential areas and the local shopping centre.

 

Crime Risk

The subject DA was referred to the NSW Police Mid North Coast Crime Management Unit in line with Council policy.  The response received was that NSW Police had previously reviewed earlier plans for the proposal in 2009 when the proposal was initially being considered as a Part 3A application by (the then) Planning NSW.  In particular they state: “It is noted that the amended plans as provided by you appear to have addressed the issues identified by us and as such, NSW Police do not have any other issues in relation to this matter”.

 

Aside from the above it is noted that the proposal will facilitate passive surveillance of both public and private spaces through the provision of an interlinked street network with a minimal number of dead end cul-de-sacs to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity throughout the development; thereby making the area less attractive for criminal activity.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

As mentioned above in the discussion of social impacts the subject DA was accompanied by a Socio-Economic Assessment.  Whilst this report did not have any substantial comment or assessment on the economic impact of the proposal it did make the following conclusions:  “It is considered that the proposed Nambucca Gardens Estate will contribute a much needed population base to stimulate the economic development of the Bellwood commercial precinct. This relationship is largely dependent on the construction of the ‘link road’ between Marshalls Way and Alexandra Drive.”

 

and “In consideration of social issues already identified in the wider Nambucca area, such as lack of housing diversity and the lack of and high cost of rental / affordable housing, the release of this land onto the Nambucca housing market will increase supply and ultimately improve affordability.”

 

In light of the overall assessment of this application as outlined in this report and the assessment included in the submitted socio-economic assessment it is concluded that the proposal will not have any appreciable economic impacts.  Instead the development will have a positive impact on the economic conditions of the LGA.

 

Ecological Impact

An ecological report on the proposed Link Road was submitted with the subject DA along with a subsequent addendum to include updated lists of EEC’s.  This report outlines that a Vegetation Management Plan will be prepared for the residue land within the site that is outside of the development footprint including the conservation areas and proposed reserves.

 

The ecological report outlines that “Development of the subject site will cause the loss of vegetation and habitat for the construction of buildings, access roads, driveways and associated infrastructure. The majority of this vegetation consists of scattered trees within the Tall open mixed sclerophyll woodland.

 

The proposed development is likely to impact on native fauna in a number of ways. However, impacts are likely to be minor due to the disturbed nature and relatively low habitat values of the cleared/logged areas of the site.

 

SEPP 14 Wetland No. 362 occurs on the subject site. The proposed residential development is unlikely to have any significant direct impacts on the ecology of the wetland area. However, there is potential for indirect impacts such as changes in water quality, alteration of the local hydrological regime, sedimentation or a combination of these factors. The wetland will be protected from these impacts by the combination of a vegetated buffer ranging in widths from 25m to 100m and strategies

to control water quality outlined in a Stormwater Management Plan (i.e. gross pollutant traps, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, bio-retention swales and household water tanks).

 

Seven part tests were completed for twenty-two (22) threatened species which occur or are considered possible occurrences on the subject site. It was determined that a Species Impact statement is not required.

 

It was also determined that the proposed action is unlikely to result in a significant impact on any matter of National Environmental Significance. Therefore Commonwealth Assessment is not required for the proposed development of the subject site.

 

In regard to Koala habitat the report found that “The proposed development has been designed to utilise the existing cleared and disturbed area. However, this area does contain scattered trees that represent potential Koala food trees (figure 9).

 

Small areas of potential Koala habitat in addition to Koala food trees, within the disturbed Community 6, will be removed for the proposed development. However, over 98% (16.43ha) of suitable Koala habitat on the site will be retained. A fauna specialist should be in attendance when clearing of Koala food trees takes place.

 

The planting of Koala food trees should be included in the VMP and utilised, in any rehabilitation, where ever appropriate.”

 

In regard to the two EEC’s (Endangered Ecological Communities - Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplain of NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions and

Swamp oak floodplain forest of NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions) which it advises are on parts of the site, the report advises that: “The proposed development has been designed to utilise existing cleared areas and avoid areas of intact native vegetation (i.e. EECs). With the exception of some minor incursions into the 7a vegetated land, not considered to be quality native vegetation, the development layout exists within land that has been previously cleared of the majority of timber.

 

A VMP will be completed for the areas of retained vegetation (i.e. Land under Environmental Protection Zoning 7a and SEPP 14 Wetlands). This will enhance the site as a habitat for the Endangered Ecological Communities Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and Swamp Oak Forest.

 

Hazards

Planning for Bushfire Protection – refer to discussion of Section 91 Integrated Development

, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 earlier in this report and section (d)    Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the Regulations –Agency Submissions later in this report.

 

Flooding – ref to discussion of Clause 7.3 Flood Planning, Nambucca LEP 2010 earlier in this report.

 

Cumulative Impacts

The primary potential cumulative impacts of the proposal are threefold – i) additional downstream stormwater flows, flooding, erosion and sedimentation, ii) change in the general character and nature of the area and iii) additional traffic creation in Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way.

 

In regard to downstream water flows, flooding and erosion/ sedimentation the assessment already provided in this report under the discussion of Part B2.8 Stormwater Drainage of the Nambucca DCP has established that the proposal will add minimal additional downstream waters to the local system without changing the behaviour of floods in the area and result if anything in runoff from the site which has less particulates and rubbish compared to existing pre-development flows.

 

In regard to character and nature of the area, the proposal is adjoined to the south and east (over Pacific Highway) by R1 Residentially zoned land and large lot residential zoned land to its immediate north.  In addition the site itself is already primarily zoned R1 residential and will be directly connected to the above adjoining areas and the rest of Nambucca Heads.  As a consequence of the above the proposal will be in keeping with the character and nature of the area and will not contribute to a cumulative negative change to the locality.

 

The cumulative impacts of the proposal in relation to traffic creation have been assessed under the discussion of Access, Transport and Traffic earlier in this section of the report and were also signed off by Council in its previous consideration of DA2013/183 for the Council owned Link Road section which was reported to Nambucca Shire Council and approved on / June 2014.

 

c        The suitability of the site for the development

 

Having regard to its location and the overall assessment of the proposal as contained in this report, the site will adequately accommodate the proposed works in that:

 

·           The proposed development, as amended by the recommended conditions, will not create any unreasonable detrimental impacts on adjoining or nearby properties;

·           The proposal (as amended by the recommended conditions) is compatible with surrounding developments and adjacent developments do not pose any prohibitive constraints on the subdivision proposal,

·           The proposed development complies with the relevant State and Council’s local planning controls and objectives, 

·           The subject site is not subject to any natural hazards that would prohibit the construction and operation of the development in the proposed form.

·           The proposal will result in positive social and economic benefits for the area by facilitating the ongoing urban development in the area and the provision of services to the community such as public transport, garbage services and improved access to commercial development.

·           The form of development is appropriate for the site and is in keeping with the existing character and nature of the area (and will continue to do so as it evolves).

 

d        Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the Regulations

 

Public Submissions

29 individual letters (not including advice received in respect of agency referrals), 65 Form Letter 1 submissions and 52 Form Letter 2 submissions have been received with respect to the proposal including submissions from the Nambucca Heads Local Area Land Council, the Nyuginbiin Wajaarrgundi Sons of Earth Baga Baga Mens Group and the Coffs Harbour & District Local Aboriginal Land Council.  Following is a summary of the issues raised in the submissions received with the full submission documents being circulated separately.(see closed report)

 

It should be noted that the issues relating to the Link Road have already been addressed by Nambucca Shire Council in its consideration and approval of DA2013/183 for the Council owned Link Road section – refer to the report to Council this meeting.

 

ISSUE

COMMENT

Link Road

 

·           Objects to proposed link road as not shown on Council's maps. Purchases were based on these maps & verbal Council assurances.

·           Traffic Report does not consider alternative traffic arrangements which would prevent thoroughfare or traffic control measures.

·           Traffic Report does not address public health and safety of link road despite 3520 vehicles/day. Too high for a quiet residential neighbourhood, especially those who access the road directly.

·           Discrepancy between traffic flow figures in DA and 2009 Contributions Plan.

·           Traffic Report does not take into account movement from the north and west to Bellwood as a through road, increased traffic on Marshall Way, additional traffic from future approved DA for Coles or the use of link road.

·           Traffic counters required to fully assess present traffic volumes or hazards.

·           Road improvements and traffic calming measures need to be completed prior to or with the development. Road referred to as a rural lane in DA, which it is, not a highway as proposed by the link road. Current state, width and surface of Alexandra Drive and Marshall Way have not been considered and whether they are adequate for additional traffic including heavy vehicles.

·           Dual carriageway for the link road would increase movements further and existing road in Palmwood Gardens unsuitable for additional movements.

·           Peace and quiet area will change due to link road, which will primarily be used as a thoroughfare from the north to the shopping plaza to the south with increased traffic on Marshall Way.

·           Dispute Traffic Report as it will be easier to access Nambucca Plaza directly via Marshall Way.

·           Could easily accommodate an entry to the Pacific Highway for the new development.

·           Increased traffic will add to the already congested roundabout at intersection of Marshall Way / entrance to Farringdon Village / Plaza Shopping Centre / Bawrunga Medical Centre. Works required at this roundabout to ensure safety due to increased traffic from the proposal and link road.

·           Additional congestion along Bellwood Road adjacent to McDonalds and the intersection of Pacific Highway / Bellwood Roads due to link road.

·           Trucks accessing loading dock of supermarket likely to use new link road.

·           Planned Highway bypass will impact on the anticipated flow of traffic along Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive.

·           Parking at the Plaza already overflows onto the road and will increase due to the proposal.

·           A walkway bridge rather than link road would protect wetlands. Concern that link road cuts through a distinct nature corridor and no ecological study has been undertaken to ascertain impacts on wildlife

·           Requests all submissions (in their entirety) lodged in 2009 to the Bellwood Local Roads & Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan 2009 be forwarded to JRPP.

·           Footpath / cycleway required along Marshall Way and Alexandra Drive, with a link to the playing fields. Pedestrian safety issues due to no established footpaths.

·           Loss of bus stop from link road construction works.

·           Financial, physical and emotional impacts on residents of Marshall Way as a result of the proposal.

As noted above refer to the report to this meeting regarding the Link Road.

Proposed Subdivision Itself

 

Proposed road 16 is a bottleneck for residents of 9 homes.

No concern is held on traffic grounds

Long straight roads proposed will be used by skateboarders and encourages speeding which is already an issue.

Traffic Calming measures to be conditioned.

Twisting roads in Stages A1 and A2 are like a maze.

No concern is held on traffic grounds.

A roundabout is needed off Alexandra Drive as the road is currently dangerous and in need of repair. Alexandra Drive must be rebuilt.

Plans have been amended to include new roundabout in Alexandra Dve and reconstruction of road will be conditioned as a requirement.

No room for visitor parking outside 22 Alexandra Drive and difficult to reverse out of driveway if proposal proceeds.

Proposed design of Alexandra Drive upgrade only conceptual at this stage.

Impacts from dust, noise, pollution and heavy machinery movements, in particular on children and elderly residents. Includes associated health impacts.

Impacts during construction works will be mitigated by conditions of approval.

Concern regarding stormwater drainage from four homes on western side of Alexandra Drive which drains across 1A Cocos Court.

Stormwater from all roofs and hard stand areas of entire proposed subdivision will be collected and conveyed to the internal drainage system and will not be directed to any adjoining private property.

Additional hard surfaces will cause additional stormwater flowing into Swampy Creek which may rise into the backyards of properties on the lower side of Marshall Way. A 3.9% increase may exacerbate existing problems and soil quality must be considered.

Proposal has been assessed as acceptable in this regard (refer to discussion of Part B2.8 Stormwater Drainage of the Nambucca DCP and clause 7.3 Flooding of the Nambucca LEP earlier in this report.)

Concerns regarding adequate sewerage and rain water issues from the pumping station and potential impacts on surrounding properties including the childcare.

The proposed development will include the augmentation of existing and the installation of new sewerage facilities.

Additional information from applicant has not been considered by authorities (i.e. Police, RTA).

The additional information submitted has been forwarded to the relevant authorities.

Referral required to Local Traffic Committee and Chamber of Commerce.

The proposed DA was referred to NSW Roads and Maritime as required under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure).  There is no provision for referrals of DA’s to the Chamber of Commerce.

Lots too small, inconsistent with the visual appearance of the area which are generally >800m². Developer's argument for urban sprawl not relevant for Nambucca. High density, low cost housing is proposed contrary to existing area.

With an average lot size in excess of 600m2 the proposal complies with Council’s minimum lot size of 450m2 for R1 General Residential zoned land.

Overall planning of block layout is congested and no usable parks, only small parks and unused playing fields. Surrounding "reserve" around the site is not usable for playing or walking the dog.

Refer to above comment.  Proposal has been assessed as acceptable regarding public open space provision.

Accept growth in the area but need to consider the existing residents rather than exploit the nice relaxing lifestyle.

Refer to above comment regarding lot sizes, overall assessment of this report and discussion of cumulative impacts in section (b) The Likely Impacts Of The Development.

Loss of property values as a result of the proposal.

No information is available to substantiate this claim.

Inadequate services such as Doctors, Ambulances and Hospitals to service the new population.

Refer to discussion of Social Impact in the Locality earlier in this report in section (b) The Likely Impacts Of The Development.

Development does not create employment opportunities or bring industry to the area.

There is no requirement for a residential development of this nature to include employment generating landuses notwithstanding the fact that it will support the local construction industry during construction.

DA incorrectly states that the area had been farmed as the area was not cleared to any extent until late 1990's.

Accepted. This assessment has been undertaken on the understanding that the site was not cleared until the 1990’s

Aboriginal Issues

 

Important Aboriginal cultural issues with the development, in particular Stage E and link road, and it should not impinge on custodial land rights. Development should not be near very significant Aboriginal sites.

Refer to the discussion and assessment earlier in this report under Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation of the Nambucca LEP 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aboriginal surveys undertaken in the past were not done by members of the Baga Baga Clan and should not have occurred.

Proposed development is detrimental to the spiritual, cultural and physical wellbeing of the Baga Baga Clan.

Nambucca LALC and its male members have been ignored regarding historical significance of the area and the modified tree. Aboriginal people of the Gumbaynggirr Nation consider the entire area a place of significance for the nation as a whole. Aboriginal markings on trees were acknowledged back in 1917 and 0.4ha around the diamond tree was acquired by NPWS in 1979 and dedicated as an Aboriginal Area under S.62 of the NPWS Act 1979. In 1990, a developer burned off an area where the Aboriginals believed their site to be. In 1992, an 0.8 of an acre around the Diamond Tree was reserved and the adjoining land was purchased by a developer and a path cleared right up to the tree and fence removed. Only a small area of the development of Nambucca Gardens Estate was surveyed by Aboriginals.

The Diamond Tree is the focal point of cultural belief of the entire Gumbaynggirr Nation. Under Aboriginal law, the Diamond Tree may only be viewed by initiated Aboriginal males and must be protected from public view.

Aboriginal community had despair over original building of Marshall Way.

Diamond Tree and Scarred Tree do not act in isolation and are used together and relate to each other.

Other sites and landscapes than those listed on AHIMS may be present as local people have no confidence in the confidentiality of the registers due to potential damage, such as occurred with the burning of the scarred tree and removal of second scar tree in 1999.

Aboriginal report shows no respect for who speaks for country or in fact knows who speaks for country.

Aboriginal report is lacking in detail and areas of significance, in part due to the small area that the sites officer was asked to comment on initially and the type of information he was asked to provide.

The spur section to the end of Marshall Way should not be developed as it is used for ceremony and other places are occupational sites which are significant. Request the entire west section of the development not be included and signage placed at the mouth of the creek on the highway and in Alexandra Drive area.

Aboriginal men did not agree to a compromise to have additional lots on western side of Alexandra Drive, as mentioned in the report.

Recommended by NHLALC and the Gumbaynggirr Nation that the Scarred Tree be dealt with in a ceremony and the remains be taken to a place of keeping and a bolder be put in place with a brass plaque should the development encroach of this area.

Names in the development should be Gumbaynggirr named.

 

 

Agency Submissions:

External referrals on the application were sent to a large number of Government Agencies and other Stakeholders in light of the nature of the proposal.  The following is a summary of the submissions received in reply to these referrals with appropriate comments provided.

 

Agency and Issues Raised

Comments

NSW Rural Fire Service

Integrated Agency
- Bushfire Safety Authority: subdivision of bushfire prone land

- RFS originally refused to issue GTA’s for proposal as it didn’t have a second alternative public means of vehicular access out of area

 

GTA’s issued & included in conditions of consent to this report, noting that GTA’s are conditional upon provision of Link Road prior to subdivision.

NSW Office of Water

Integrated Agency

- works on waterfront land requiring a controlled activity approval

GTA’s issued & included in conditions of consent to this report.

NSW Roads and Maritime

- Referral to the RMS in accordance with Cl 104 SEPP Infrastructure 2007 as the subdivision of more than 200 allotments includes the opening of a public road.

- RMS notes that the traffic study addresses only the immediate impacts upon The Old Coast Road. The application has not considered the potential impacts on connections to the Pacific Hwy .i.e.

  a) the proposed staging of the subdivision will introduce a significant volume of traffic onto the Old Coast Rd during the initial 8 stages (331 lots) directly to its connection with the Pacific Hwy, the traffic assessment not considering the existing traffic conditions or its capacity to safely accommodate the volumes of traffic generated by the proposal  and

  b) similarly the potential for impacts on the Bellwood/Pacific Hwy intersection should the north south connection of Marshall Way be established on completion of stage ‘ E’.

- RMS recommends that council consider the potential for impacts upon the highway intersections and investigate bringing forward the connection of Marshal Way to Alexandra Dr to achieve an improved local road ‘network’ minimising the necessity for local traffic to use the Pacific Hwy. Additionally council may wish to consider deferring the latter stages of the subdivision until completion of the Highway upgrade as the existing Pacific Hwy, Link Rd (off Old Coast Rd) and Bellwood Rd intersections will likely become part of the local road network with consequential changes to through traffic volumes and intersection function

The initial development proposal was for a staged subdivision which resulted in traffic from most of the proposed subdivision being directed to the Old Coast Rd and its connection with the Pacific Hwy. The proponent was not agreeable at the time to carry out a traffic study of the Link Rd (Old Coast Rd) / Pacific Highway intersection relying on an analysis of the incremental increase of traffic from the subdivision as it was developed and the timing of the proposed Highway upgrade

 

The determination that the connection with Marshal Way was an integral part of the subdivision and that the subdivision could not proceed without it realised the recommendations of RMS highlighted by the fact of the imminent completion of the Warrell Creek to Urunga Highway upgrade

 

The impact of the Marshall Way/Bellwood connection to the existing highway had already been dealt with in the formulation of the Bellwood contribution Plan – Link Rd (as is reported to this meeting of council DA 2013/183)

NSW Police

See discussion of Crime Risk under (b) The Likely Impacts Of The Development, earlier in this report.

Busways

- Provision of public transport and poor accessibility and efficiencies without Link Road resulting in Busways not servicing development.

Issues addressed via provision of Link Road through the subject DA and the separate DA 2013/183 for the Council owned section of the Road approved by Council on ## May/ June 2014.

NSW Office Environment & Heritage

- initially advised they were an integrated agency under section 91 EPA Act 1979 but subsequently agreed with legal advice from applicant that they were not in the circumstances

- As the applicant has not elected to lodge the development application under these provisions of the EP&A Act, OEH does not have a role in the development assessment process to issue General Terms of Approval for Aboriginal cultural heritage.

- OEH notes that if a development being assessed in accordance with the requirements of Part 4 of the EP&A Act is not likely to impact or harm Aboriginal objects or declared Aboriginal Places then an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit issued in accordance with Section 90 of the NPW Act is not required.  However, in these current circumstances OEH is aware of at least two additional Aboriginal sites which have been recorded within the project area and registered on AHIMS. OEH further states that the DA has not included these additional sites in its archaeological assessment and has not addressed the previous identified inadequacies with their reports.

- OEH would once again welcome an opportunity to provide further documentation concerning the nature of these two sites in order for the applicant to consider whether the current development proposal is likely to impact or harm these sites.  In the event that impact or harm is likely, the applicant would also be expected to justify any impact in support of the development application.  Further, if impact is likely then the applicant would be required to manage any likely impact in compliance with the requirements of the NPW Act and in consultation with the local Aboriginal community.

- The long term protection of identified Aboriginal sites both within and adjoining the development area have not been adequately addressed.  OEH accordingly recommends that a long term management strategy is developed for each site proposed to be conserved to ensure there are adequate protective measures in place prior to any construction activities occurring (suggested measures included in submission)

- Correspondence has been referred to OEH and has been ongoing with final concerns relating to the protection of sites further mentioned

- .The applicant in legal and archaeological submissions to council has demonstrated that;

a)       Because no aboriginal artefact or place is proposed to be harmed and accordingly an Aboriginal Heritage Permit not being required then the proposal is not ‘integrated’ development. OEH confirms that they do not have a role in the development assessment process to issue GTA’s for Aboriginal cultural heritage.

b)       The developer has carried out extensive consultation with all affected Aboriginal stakeholders

c)       The Aboriginal Heritage assessment by John Appleton of Archaeological Surveys has identified all existing sites and proposes to protect them in reserves, untouched areas and on a site on which no artefact was found, the site will be protected by covenant over a portion of the residential rear yard. This should appear on an 88b instrument attached to the land

d)       The applicant notified OEH with respect to © above on 14th November 2013. To date council is not aware of any further response         

NSW Office Environment & Heritage

NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service Coffs Harbour

- “The Nambucca Aboriginal Area, gazetted in 1979, has outstanding Aboriginal Culture and heritage values”:

- “On the basis of these recommendations to install a visual buffer of the reserve, improve fire asset protection zones and restrict public access to the reserve, any development within the Southern Precinct is not supported.”

-To protect the Aboriginal culture and heritage values of the (Nambucca Aboriginal Area - Diamond Tree) reserve, NPWS recommends that the following objectives are met through the design process:

1.       The visual exposure of the area to people not holding appropriate Cultural knowledge or authority is not increased.

 

2.       Bushfire risks are effectively mitigated within the development therefore eliminating any requirement for mitigation works to be undertaken within the reserve. The asset protection zones  proposed in the Southern Precinct component of the development adjacent to the reserve are inadequate;

 

3.       Efforts to restrict public access to the reserve are not made more difficult by the subdivision design.

 

To assist in meeting these objectives it is recommended that:

 

1.       Consultation be undertaken with the Aboriginal Cultural Knowledge Holders regarding the determination of an appropriate approach to screening the reserve;

 

2.       The design of the subdivision should ensure the general public cannot view the site from any publically accessible infrastructure, such as roads or houses.

 

3.       A visual buffer be required in addition to any fire protection zones.

 

4.       The widths for Asset Protection Zones to be allocated within the development adjacent to the reserve are to comply with the specifications within Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

 

5.       There is limited development or embellishment within Asset Protection Zones and areas within the vicinity of the reserve boundary are not accessible to the public.

 

Agreed – recommendations adopted.

Transgrid

- Site is clear of any existing or proposed Transgrid interests.

Noted

NSW Department of Education & Communities

- Subject site is located within the catchments of Nambucca Heads and Frank Patridge Public Schools and Nambucca Heads High School and student numbers are expected to remain stable in the short term.  These schools will be able to accommodate any additional demand resulting from proposal.

Noted

Forests NSW (now Forestry Corporation NSW)

- all fire protection measures required are to be wholly within the proposed subdivision and not impact the adjoining State forest.

- the subdivision should not affect or impact any forest management or business activities

- any construction within the subdivision should not affect the flow of any drainage lines

Noted – all issues have been addressed in assessment.

Federal Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

- In accordance with Part 20A, Telecommunications Act 1997, the subject development shall include ‘fibre-ready’ pit and pipe utilities; and arrangements shall be made with a telecommunications carrier of the proponents choice to provide telecommunications infrastructure throughout the development.  Discussions should be held with the preferred carrier on their pit and pipe requirements to facilitate deployment.  Details, plans and specifications for the above (along with appropriate certification from the selected carrier) shall be submitted with all relevant construction certificates for the development.

Noted – the stated requirement has been included in the conditions to this report.

NSW Health Mid North Coast Local Health District

1.       Access for residents and emergency services to and from health care services in Nambucca Heads will be heavily reliant upon good functional road infrastructure within the development;

 

2.       Provision should be made for public transport to service the development area. The development should incorporate bus shelters in suitable numbers and locations for residents to utilise. There should also be walking pathways that provide a safe and secure passage for people accessing public transport options;

 

3.       It is strongly encouraged that the residential subdivision has provision for footpaths and cycle lanes inter-linking the various residential and open space areas, to encourage physical activity by the community; ·

 

4.       The plans indicate that there will be several reserves located around the outskirts of the development. These reserves should be formalised to provide residents with suitable open space exercise and recreational opportunities ;

 

5.       If the reuse of waste water is considered as part of this development, it should be done in consideration of the appropriate state and national standards for treated waste water;

 

6.       The potential for the surround water bodies to become mosquito breeding site should be minimised.  It is strongly encouraged that the design of all drains is for enclosed, piped drains rather than open swales or spoon drains (The Department of Medical Entomology, Westmead Hospital has reference material related to water body construction).

 

7.       The provision of housing should be considered in detail.  There is great need for the provision of housing for youth, housing for older persons, and housing for persons with disabilities and for supported accommodation houses.  The design of single storey house with appropriate design features to enable ease of mobility for aged persons should be considered;

8.       It is recommended that sufficient and secure street lighting be provided for the safety and security of residents. To reduce the impact of climate change the suitability of solar powered street lighting should be considered;

 

9.       A sufficient supply of potable water should be provided to all residential premises by Nambucca Shire Council;

 

10. To assist with sustainable development, requirements for the design of residential developments to include energy efficient features should be included;

 

11. On-site sewage disposal in and around the Alexandra Drive development would not be supported by the NSW Ministry of Health.

The proposed development including the Link Road as currently envisaged in the subject application and as required in the proposed conditions will comply with the Department of Health’s requirements for functional road infrastructure and public transport provision.

 

The remaining points have been addressed as relevant in the proposal, in the subject assessment of the proposal or the proposed conditions.

 

 

e        The public interest

 

There are no known Federal and/or State Government policy statements and/or strategies other than those discussed in this report that are of relevance to this particular case.  There are no other circumstances that are relevant to the consideration of this development application. 

 

The proposed development is in the public interest.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

For an assessment of Sustainability of the proposal please refer to the discussion earlier in this report under Section 79C EPA Act 1979 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 (particularly Clause 5.5 Development within the coastal zone), the earlier under (b) (The Likely Impacts of the Development) and the July 2009 report to Council on the 2009 Bellwood Traffic Contributions Plan (as also referenced earlier and) as attached to this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Additional rate base

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

As above.

 

 

Service level changes and resourcing/staff implications

 

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

 

 

 

NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

 

1.       No approval is granted or implied by this consent to the 15 lots and the associated road numbers 15 and 16 that are proposed in Stage E of the development.

 

2.       Prior to the release of the first subdivision certificate for the proposed development both the northern section of the proposed Link Road located within the subject site and the southern section (including the shared pedestrian/ cycleway) within the Council owned land approved by the development consent issued for DA2013/183 shall be constructed and completed.

 

3.       That part of the required Link Road which is located within the subject Lot 2 is to be dedicated to Council upon satisfactory completion of the Link Road.

 

4.       A dedicated shared pedestrian/ cycleway is to be provided as part of the new Link Road, in order to further improve the connection of the proposed residential subdivision with the existing urban area and the Bellwood commercial area in particular. 

 

5.       Aboriginal names should be used for streets within the new subdivision on Lot 2, in view of the demonstrated long term Aboriginal interest in the area.

 

6.       Upgrade of Alexandra Drive Landscaping and Road Pavement

 

7.       Bus stop facility design

 

8.       Reserve No. 4 in the north western area of the site (and which includes the scarred tree remains) is to be increased to a minimum area of 2,000m2 in line with Council’s DCP minimum area requirement.  Aside from maintaining compliance with the DCP this will enhance the preservation of the cultural significance of the scar tree, ensure that the space is useable with a good amenity for residents, can be achieved without unreasonable impact on the overall development and make it more efficient to maintain and service by Council staff. 

 

9.       The proposed open space areas are to be adequately furnished and landscaped, including with footpaths and play equipment, generally as per the amended landscaping plan. OR the plan of subdivision is to be amended to provide for a consolidated and central single open space /park in the vicinity of proposed roads 3, 4 and 7.  The 5 smaller edge parks can be used for purposes of additional housing lots if they are considered viable.

 

10.     Kerb and gutter and associated works is to be utilised over the proposed swale drains.  Furthermore, all stormwater is to be piped to a wetland or similar water quality treatment device instead of utilising the proposed filter strips and bio-retention swales. A revised stormwater treatment and disposal plan is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate reflecting the above requirements.  Calculations are to be provided in the revised plan confirming that the modified stormwater system has been adequately sized and designed to suit the entire development and will protect downstream water quality and satisfy Landcom standards.

 

11.     All lots (except for the battle axe lots) are to achieve compliance with Council’s 12m street frontage.  Compliance with this condition is to be detailed in the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

 

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

NOTE: The required general conditions of consent will be compiled by Council pending review of final application details.

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Integrated Approvals

 

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

 

Water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage work

B1      Carry out water supply work

B4      Carry out sewerage work

B5      Carry out stormwater drainage work

B6      Connect a private drain or sewer with a public drain or sewer under the control of a council or with a drain or sewer which connects with such a public drain or sewer

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Construction dust suppression

 

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

 

These works must include, but not are limited to:

 

a                 restricting topsoil removal;

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

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

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

 

Burning of felled trees prohibited

 

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

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE (SUBDIVISION)

 

Sewerage and Water Mains

 

4        An approval is to be obtained under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to carry out water supply and sewerage works involving connections to Council’s existing water and sewer infrastructure. Sewerage and water mains are to be extended to service all residential allotments in the subdivision.

 

Engineering plans of the proposed water and sewer works shall be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All designs shall be approved by Council’s Manager Water and Sewerage.

 

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

 

5        The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a sediment and erosion control plan to indicate the measures to be employed to control erosion and loss of sediment from the site. The sediment and erosion control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Landcom (March 2004), Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction.

 

The sediment and erosion control plan must be prepared by a suitably experienced person such as a person certified by:

 

·      The Institution of Engineers, Australia, for engineering and hydrology matters.

·      The International Erosion Control Association for soil conservation matters.

·      The Australian Society of Soil Science for collection or analysis of soil data.

 

The plan must incorporate (without being limited to) information on general site management, material handling practices, soil stabilisation, water control, sediment control, wind erosion control and access measures.

 

Street Tree Planting Scheme

 

6        The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a street tree planting scheme which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Street Tree Guidelines. The Plan must be prepared by a qualified landscape architect or professional landscape consultant.

 

The Plan must show all services. Plants to be used in the street tree planting scheme must:

 

a                 be a minimum size of 2 metres in height,

b                 have a 50mm calliper diameter,

c                 be sourced from at least a 25 litre container,

d                 be protected by a suitable tree guard (eg a 750mm square tree guard made from a 3m “Acacia” panel painted “Caulfield Green”),

e                 be suitably supported by two 2100mm black star picket posts,

f                  provided with slow release fertiliser,

g                 include the provision of 125mm flexible agricultural pipe filled with 14mm blue metal for watering of the plant, and

h                 be mulched with 100mm of native tree mulch.

 

Water supply

 

7        Water supply pipelines shall generally be located on the opposite side of the road to sewer mains wherever possible.

 

          Calculations shall be provided confirming that pipes are adequately sized to suit the entire development prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

          Water supply pipelines shall be constructed for the development site in accordance with Council Water Supply construction specification and the requirements of Council’s Manager Water and Sewer.

 

Sewerage infrastructure

 

8        Sewerage infrastructure shall be located within public land wherever possible. Where sewer lines are located in private land a 3m easement shall be provided with the pipe located centrally within the easement.

 

          The number of sewage pump stations serving the total development shall be limited to two as detailed in de Groot Benson plan 91111-106.

 

          Sewerage infrastructure shall be constructed for the development site in accordance with the Council Sewerage Construction Specification and the requirements of Council’s Manager Water and Sewer.

 

Sewage PS upgrade strategy

 

9        The applicant shall provide details of the upgrade strategy for Sewage PS 14 to cater for increased flow from the development.

 

          The first upgrade of Sewage PS 14 shall be required for development following the release of Stage A1 of the subdivision and shall allow for the discontinuation of pumping to the Marshall Way catchment.

 

A new rising main shall be designed and constructed with a route to the north and with a crossing the existing Pacific Highway to discharge into a receiving manhole that shall be constructed with a connection to existing sewers draining to PS4 at Centenary Parade.  All approvals and easements for the rising main shall be acquired by the applicant at his cost

 

          An overflow storage tank shall be constructed adjacent to PS 14 prior to full development of the site. The tank shall have the capacity to hold 8 x ADWF from the fully developed site.

 

10      Engineering Construction Plans

 

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

 

Required work

Specification of work

Kerb & Gutter, Road Shoulder Construction

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

 

Verges shall have a crossfall and width sufficient to accommodate and maintain; footpaths, landscaping, provision for utilities and services and provide compliant access grades to properties

 

Stormwater Drainage systems shall minimise runoff, and where possible accommodate runoff within the site. Flows shall be conveyed through stormwater pipes and treated at the end of line with a suitable device such as a constructed wetland, details Calculations shall be provided confirming that pipes are adequately sized to suit the entire development prior to issue of Construction Certificate. Stormwater quality must be suitable for discharge into the adjacent creeks in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol. 1, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom.

 

Full Width Road Construction

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

 

Local Roads 8m wide, collector roads and bus routes 11m wide within a 20m road reserve (min)

 

Prior to issue of a construction certificate for Stage A1, the following details shall be submitted for Council's approval:

 

·           A qualified practicing Civil Engineer shall carry out a structural analysis of the existing Alexandra Drive road pavement and provide a detailed report recommending a design for reconstruction as required to current standards for use by heavy vehicles and full development of the subject site. The recommended construction works to be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate for Stage A1.

 

Alexandra Drive pavement design shall be based on a minimum 50 year design life and have a minimum 8m carriageway width.

 

·           The intersection of Alexandra Drive and Old Coast Road shall be constructed to reflect drawing Number C101 and in accordance with Austroads Guide o Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 5 Intersections at Grade;

 

·           The proposed roundabout at Roundabout the southern intersection of the development and Alexandra Drive shall be designed to current Austroads standards and constructed in conjunction with Stage A1 roadworks; (applicant needs to demonstrate turning manoeuvres can be achieved at the roundabouts)

 

·           Details shall be submitted for council approval detailing the connection treatment of road pavement s and  seals to existing roads and between stages of construction works

 

·           13m radius temporary turning circle with guideposts required at the end of each stage of road construction

 

Traffic Control Devices

Regulatory and warning signs and posts, pavement markings and other devices where required for proposed new roads in accordance with the requirements of AS 1742.2 -2009 Traffic control devices for general use and Austroads Guide to Traffic Management series.

Traffic Calming

Traffic Calming measures to encourage a low speed environment throughout the subdivision and Alexandra drive, details to be submitted to and approved by council.

Pedestrian Refuge

Pedestrian refugees to be installed at anticipated high use crossings, details to be submitted to and approved by council.

Bus Shelters

Provision of bus shelters as indicated on plans with details of adjacent traffic slowing measures to be submitted and approved by Council.

Footpath Construction

Footpath Construction, landscaping and street lighting of neighbourhood parks and pathway links at locations indicated in the Landscape Masterplan

Footpath Construction

A 1.2 metre wide concrete footpath at least one side of the local roads offset from the kerb line.

Cycleway Construction

A 2.5 metre wide shared concrete footpath/cycleway for all proposed cycleways identified on the approved plan, roads offset from the kerb line. All cycleways shall be clearly marked and sign posted with adequate lighting for security

Gutter Crossings

Gutter crossings to each of the proposed community Parklands or areas that require vehicular access for maintenance purposes, where other than a rollover kerb is used.

Driveways

Providing vehicular access to the pump station site consisting of a sealed access road 3.5 metres wide must be provided prior to release of the subdivision certificate.

 

Service Conduits

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

Street Lighting

Street lighting being provided to the requirements of Essential Energy.

Street Name Signs

Street name signs and posts to all proposed new roads. (Note: street/road names proposed for the subdivision must be submitted for Council approval prior to lodgement of the Construction Certificate application. A suitable name for any new road/s must be in accordance with Council’s adopted policy). The street name shall be selected from Council's adopted street names for the development.

Estate sign and/or structure

Council will not accept ownership or responsibility for the sign or structure. Council will need to be satisfied that a Plan is in place that will provide for ongoing maintenance of the sign and/or structure. Council reserves the right to assess the condition of the sign or structure and also its relevance at intervals of 5 years. The Estate name will not be recognised by Council as part of a property address.

Stripping and Stockpiling

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

Inter-allotment Drainage

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

 

Inter-allotment drainage pits shall be located at all changes of direction, shall be constructed of concrete with 100mm thick walls and a minimum floor dimension of 600 x 600mm, with concrete lids.

Culverts required across drainage channels or streams

Culvert to be designed to ensure that peak flow rates for the 1 in 100 year storm event are not affected. The applicant is to obtain any necessary approvals from the Department of Natural Resources and/or the Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries, and plans.

Stormwater Outlets

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

Stormwater Quality

Stormwater quality must be suitable for discharge in accordance with Department of Land and Water Conservation NSW (1998) The Constructed Wetlands Manual and NSW Department of Housing Manual (1989), Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction Vol. 1, 4th Edition prepared by Landcom.

 

On-site Stormwater Detention

Stormwater must be discharged via an on-site stormwater detention system that is to be designed to ensure that peak flow rates for the 1 in 20 year storm event exiting the subdivision do not exceed that occurring in the pre-development state. The Design must be in accordance with The Institution of Engineers, Australia (1987), Australian Rainfall and Runoff.

Access to Stormwater Structures

An all-weather gravel vehicle access must provided to detention ponds, drainage discharge points, filter controls and wetland areas for access by Council for maintenance purposes.

Filling to above Flood Level

Filling of Lots with clean suitable material to a level above to the 1% flood level.

 

Landscape Plans

 

11      The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a detailed landscape plan indicating the locations, names, mature heights of shrub and tree species to be planted, and the location of grassed and paved areas. The design is to include an effective physical barrier between public spaces, vehicles, accessways, parking areas and the surrounding landscaped area. The Plan must be prepared by a qualified landscape architect or professional landscape consultant.

 

Traffic Control Plan

 

12      The plans and specifications to accompany the Construction Certificate application are to include a traffic control plan to indicate the measures to be employed to control traffic during construction of the subdivision. The traffic control plan is to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority’s Manual (1998), Traffic Control at Work Sites, and Australian Standard 1742.3 - 1985, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 3, ‘Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads’.

 

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

 

Splay corner required

 

          13      Splay corners at intersections are to be dedicated to Council at no cost to Council.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Written Notification

 

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

 

Public Liability Insurance

 

15      The developer and/or contractor must produce evidence to the Principal Certifying Authority of public liability insurance cover for a minimum of $20 million. Council is to be nominated as an interested party on the policy. The public liability insurance cover is to be maintained for the duration of the period of the works and during any maintenance period.

 

Erosion & sediment measures

 

16      Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be in place in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

 

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

 

Construction times

 

17      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.

 

Responsibilities under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

 

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

 

Maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures

 

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

 

Bond required to guarantee against damage to public land

 

20      A bond of 5% of the construction value of each stage of works is to be paid to Council as guarantee against damage to surrounding public land and infrastructure during construction of the proposed development. Evidence is to be provided to Council indicating the pre development condition of the surrounding public land and infrastructure. Such evidence must include photographs. The proponent will be held responsible for the repair of any damage to roads, kerb and gutters, footpaths, driveway crossovers or other assets caused as a result of construction works under this consent.

 

21      Construction noise

 

Construction noise is to be limited as follows:

 

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

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

 

Fencing to protect trees

 

22      Trees to be retained are to be protected by a fence so as to minimise disturbance to existing ground conditions within the drip line of the trees. The fence is to be constructed:

 

c                 with a minimum height of 1.2 metres,

d                 outside the drip line of the tree,

e                 of steel star pickets at a maximum distance of 2 metres between pickets,

f                  using a minimum of 3 strands of steel wire,

g                 to enclose the tree, and

h                 with orange barrier mesh, or similar, attached to the outside of the fence and continuing around its perimeter

 

The fence is to be maintained for the duration of the site clearing, preparation and construction works.

 

Care to be taken when placing services near trees

 

23      All care is to be taken to manually excavate around or under any lateral structural support roots of any tree so as minimise root disturbance where services are to be laid within the dripline of a tree.

 

No filling around trees

 

24      No soil or fill material is to be placed within the drip line of a tree so as to cause changes in surface level by more than 50mm from the existing level and such soil is not to be compacted. Such soil/fill must be finer than that being covered in situ, eg clay must not be placed over loam soil.

 

Inspection of Public Works

 

25      Development works on public property are not to proceed past the following hold points without inspection and approval by Council. Notice of required inspection must be given 24 hours prior to inspection. You must quote your construction certificate number and property description to book your inspection.

 

a                 prior to commencement of site clearing and installation of erosion control facilities;

b                 at completion of installation of erosion control measures;

c                 prior to installing traffic management works;

d                 at completion of installation of traffic management works;

e                 at the commencement of earthworks;

f                  before commencement of any filling works;

g                 when the sub-grade is exposed and prior to placing of pavement materials;

h                 when trenches are open, stormwater/water/sewer pipes and conduits jointed and prior to backfilling;

i                  at the completion of each pavement (sub base/base) layer;

j                  before pouring of concrete for kerb and guttering;

k                 prior to the pouring of concrete for sewerage works;

l                  on completion of road gravelling or pavement;

m                during construction of sewer infrastructure;

n                 during construction of water infrastructure;

o                 prior to sealing and laying of pavement surface course.

 

All works at each hold point are to be certified as compliant, in accordance with Council’s current Design and Construction Manuals and Specifications, prior to proceeding to the next hold point. Council will undertake random audits of work sites to verify compliance of public works as required.

 

Public safety requirements

 

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

 

Council Specification

 

27      All works are to be constructed to at least the minimum requirements of Council’s Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

Approved Plans to remain on site

 

28      A copy of the approved Construction Certificate including plans, details and specifications must remain at the site at all times during the construction of the subdivision.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public service

No of Equivalent Tenements

Contribution Rate (Amount per ET)

Contribution Levied

Date until which Contribution rate is applicable

Water

330

$12,033

3,970,890

01/07/2014

Sewer

330

$9,090

2,999,700

01/07/2014

Drainage

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

6,970,590

01/07/2014

 

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

 

31      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

Community Facilities and Open Space

Lot

346 – (15+1) = 330

$1,904

$628,320

30/06/14

Bellwood Local Roads and Traffic Infrastructure

Lot

330

$3135

$1,034,550 - %23 (equalling Link Rd contribution) = $796,603.50

 

Road Upgrading: Bellwood Road intersection

Lot

330

$877

$289,410

30/06/14

Surf Life Saving Equipment

Lot

330

$107

$35,310

30/06/14

Section 94 Administration Charge